The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-03-30 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: 3/30/2026 Document dates: 3/23/2026 - 3/30/2026 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Elixua Mendoza To:parks@cityofpaloalto.gov Subject:Request for Habitat Restoration and Ecological Diversity at Jerry Bowden Park Date:Monday, March 30, 2026 10:12:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department, I am writing as a long-time resident to express my deep frustration regarding the recent removal of nearly all vegetation at Jerry Bowden Park. This park was once a thriving, unique space, but its sudden clearing has turned a vibrant area into what I can only describe as a "green desert." Visiting this park with my children has always been a highlight of our week. We used to spend hours observing a wide variety of birds nesting and foraging in the dense shrubs. Since the clearing, the silence is striking; the habitat is gone, and the birds have largely disappeared. It is deeply saddening to see a public space stripped of its ecological value, leaving no place for local wildlife to shelter or thrive. Furthermore, I have noticed a distinct lack of pollinators. To restore the park’s health, I strongly urge the city to move beyond purely decorative landscaping and instead implement a plan that supports a diverse range of species. I would like to formally request a replanting strategy that includes: Diverse Avian Habitats: Selecting plants that provide both nesting cover and food sources (seeds and berries) to attract a wider variety of bird species back to the neighborhood. Pollinator Support: Incorporating a variety of flowering plants specifically chosen to attract butterflies and bees, ensuring there is a bloom cycle throughout the year. Hydration Stations: Integrating butterfly puddling stones or small, integrated water features to support pollinators and birds, which are essential for a functional ecosystem. Based on ecological best practices for our region, I suggest prioritizing the following native species: Coffeeberry (Frangula californica): Provides essential berries for a wide range of birds and serves as a host plant for the Pale Swallowtail butterfly. California Wild Rose (Rosa californica): Offers dense thickets for bird nesting and excellent nectar for pollinators. Narrowleaf Milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis): Critical for Monarch butterflies and This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report other beneficial insects. Sage Varieties (Salvia spp.): Specifically chosen to provide high-quality nectar for hummingbirds and bees. I would also encourage the use of natural, untreated wood mulch to support soil health rather than synthetic alternatives. The removal of this vegetation has negatively impacted my family’s use of the park and the local environment. I am requesting transparency on why this was done all at once and a clear timeline for when we can expect a thoughtful, wildlife-focused restoration of this space. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Elixua Mendoza From:Lisa Nissim To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Train Crossing Facts Date:Monday, March 30, 2026 9:26:07 AM Attachments:Fact Sheet-Churchill Train Crossing.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable Council Members, Palo Alto is a town in mourning for the loss of three Paly students and all those lost to suicide. As we process our grief it is important to remember our goal is to emerge a stronger, healthier community. I am writing to urge you to do something difficult for all human beings, move through our grief and not rush to judgement. I urge you not to close the Churchill train crossing. As a 30-year Palo Alto resident with one Paly grad and one son a graduate of a non-public school, I have watched the long deliberation involved in choosing the partial underpass for the Churchill crossing, and I have experienced first-hand PAUSD’s hesitance to provide an appropriate education for students who don’t fit in. Our task as a community at this moment is to not let our grief blind us to a rational path forward and ignore all the work that has gone before in selecting a better, safer way to navigate the Churchill train crossing. As a community we must not rush to change well-thought-out decisions made in more rational times. It is past time for PAUSD to finally realize some students need additional support, beyond hiring additional mental health staff, to live well and fully. Below and attached is a Fact Sheet, including sources, responding to those, who in their grief, look to blame the train crossing for their loss. Let’s talk, I’d like to learn more about your thinking and answer any questions you might have about the Fact Sheet. I will send a separate email to set up a phone or zoom appointment. Thank you for your consideration. This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Sincerely, Lisa Nissim Fact Sheet Churchill Crossing Closure: Claims vs. Fact Purpose: The following represents claims made at the March 12, listening session by the supporters of closing the Churchill Train Crossing and the responding facts. Claim: Immediately closing the Churchill crossing is safe and simple. FACT: The possibility of closing this crossing has been studied in detail by the XCAP. After extensive review, the previous City Council chose a different rail separation approach because, among other reasons, closing the crossing is not simple. Not only is safe closure of this important corridor complex, it cannot be safely accomplished quickly. The XCAP report identified over 30 mitigation measures that should be made to safely close this important east/west corridor including: installing 10 traffic signals, 9 new turn lanes, widening the Alma Street bridge over Embarcadero, establishing a bike/pedestrian crossing at Embarcadero and Alma including building a supporting pump station, and building a bike/pedestrian crossing at Seal. Areas identified as impacted by the crossing closure include: Town and Country entry and egress, El Camino at Oregon and Embarcadero, Alma at Oregon, Lincoln, Embarcadero, Kingsley and North California, Embarcadero at the unofficial student pick-up and drop-off locations along the slip road, Emerson and High Streets. Without addressing the safety issues identified in the XCAP report, closing the Churchill crossing would endanger every individual traveling the roads in the impacted part of town. In addition, using funds to mediate safety issues would take away time and money from implementation of the partial underpass solution adopted by the City Council for the Churchill crossing. This solution was adopted after years of study. The Council rejected the closure of Churchill in favor of a researched, better solution. Anecdotally, anyone using Embarcadero in the morning afternoon any day of the week would cringe at the thought of adding hundreds of cars to the road, not to mention adding the bicyclists who choose riding on Embarcadero as the path of least resistance when they can’t use Churchill. Traffic is already at a standstill on a regular basis. Finally, we have yet to see solid data from the police, ambulance and fire experts about the impact of response times in the impacted neighborhoods due to the change in traffic patterns. Claim: Those opposing closure do so because they do not want to be inconvenienced. FACT: Those who do not want the crossing closed are concerned about safety, not inconvenience. It is insulting any citizen of Palo Alto would make this unfounded accusation against their neighbors. Insulting someone you disagree with is not a valid way to prove a point. Claim: 3,700 Paly students signed a petition urging the closure of the Churchill crossing. FACT: Language in the petition students signed proposed “a reinstatement of in-person guards, trained professionals, who can de-escalate suicide in-person, until a more permanent solution- like grade separation--is put in place”. The City posted the guards requested and this solution is working! https://www.change.org/p/petition-for-active-suicide-prevention-at- pausd Claim: Paly is the only school in the country next to a rail crossing. FACT: There are hundreds of schools in the country as close as or closer than Paly to rail crossings or unprotected rail lines, with few taking steps to protect their students, presumably because they don’t need to. In the Houston Independent School District alone, 118 of the 274 schools in the district are near rail crossings or unprotected rail lines. The entrance to least three of these schools are within 500 feet of an unprotected rail line. None of these schools have experienced student suicide like Paly. Claim: Closing the Churchill crossing is the only way to combat suicide. FACT: There are many more, safer and effective ways to combat suicide, including stationing guards at the train crossings which has proven to deter suicide attempts. Closing the Churchill crossing would funnel large numbers of students, bicyclists and pedestrians onto more dangerous roadways. At the March 12, 2026 City “Listening” session, Paly student Julia Curtis proposed a one-day boycott of Churchill as a means to get to school. To test the closure of the Churchill as a viable option and show their support for this option, PAUSD can immediately reroute students away from the crossing by closing the south Paly entrance for the remainder of the year. Students, buses and parents can show their commitment to closing the crossing by voluntarily using Paly’s Embarcadero, El Camino and bike path entrances. Due to the safety mitigations essential to close the crossing, it is not possible to immediately close this train crossing. However, if PAUSD believes emergency action is necessary and safe, the Paly community can vote with their feet, bikes, cars and buses to demonstrate their commitment to this change. Claim: The Churchill crossing poses the same suicide threat as a loaded gun or the Golden Gate Bridge without nets. FACT: The 2016 CDC report studying suicide in Santa Clara County, developed in response to suicides in Palo Alto did not recommend closing any train crossings in Santa Clara County. This report did recommend developing stronger bonds and programs between students, their families and schools. Closing one train crossing in Palo Alto will not solve the problem. Claim: Closing the Churchill crossing is temporary. FACT: According to the XCAP report, The railroad on the Peninsula has historically closed existing at-grade crossings, not reopened or created new ones. Since today’s CPUC is unlikely to grant a reversal, the decision to close Churchill should only be made after careful review or as many foreseeable issues as possible. Sources CDC 2016 Final Report to Santa Clara County response to a request for Epidemiologic Assistance from the Santa Clara Public Health Department Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) Final Report 2021 Petition for Active Suicide Prevention at PAUSD, Jamie Curtis https://www.change.org/p/petition-for-active-suicide-prevention-at-pausd Houston Press, December 13, 2024 From:John D Melnychuk To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Caltrain continual danger, Close Churchill, other options. Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 11:57:54 PM Attachments:Palo_Alto_Rail_Safety_Appendix_FINAL.pdf Palo_Alto_Rail_OnePage_Final_v10.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice mayor Stone, and City Councillors Burt, Lauing Lu, Lythcott- Haims, and Reckdahl, Just a short note to thank you for your work in this challenging time. This issue about Caltrain operations in Palo Alto is bigger than Churchill Ave. Caltrain sends 104 times a day a 1 million pound machine at up to 79 mph while any car, perhaps 3000 to 5000 pounds must travel at 20 mph in our school zones and obey traffic signals. I respectfully ask that you make the most deliberate and thoughtful decision possible, even in the face of strong public pressure to act quickly. Please, the attachments are the briefest distillation that I offer in hopes it will help in your decision making. Each is a single page, easy to grasp. It is my hope that, in this moment, you are able to find clarity and steadiness as you deliberate —so that the actions you take meaningfully improve safety, rather than serve as a hasty symbolic responses to our community’s grief. We are all struggling to comprehend the loss of another life. The depth of that loss calls not just for action, but for wise and effective action—decisions that genuinely reduce risk and help prevent future tragedies. Please ask Caltrain to explain to us at a future joint public forum what plans it has to improve its operational safety in our City? Will it forever be unaccountable because public transit needs trump safety on our streets and for our students? With respect, John John Melnychuk 3707 Lindero Dr Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 906-5656 jdmelnychuk@icloud.com Appendix: System Risk, CEQA Compliance, and Traffic Redistribution CEQA Compliance Note Under Public Resources Code §21002 and CEQA Guidelines, agencies must evaluate feasible alternatives and disclose indirect and cumulative impacts. A decision that shifts safety risk from one corridor to others—without full system analysis—creates potential vulnerability under CEQA’s prohibition on piecemeal review. Conceptual Corridor Impact Map Churchill Ave ®Alma St ®Embarcadero Rd ®Neighborhood Streets Closure point Diversion corridor Congestion increase Cut-through traffic Estimated Traffic Redistribution Effects (Conservative Ranges) Metric Estimate Implication Vehicles displaced from Churchill 8,000–12,000/day Must be absorbed elsewhere Embarcadero corridor increase +10–25%Higher congestion + delay Neighborhood cut-through increase +5–15%Impacts residential safety Collision exposure proxy +5–20%Risk scales with volume + conflict points Key Takeaway: Closure of a major crossing does not eliminate risk—it redistributes it. Under CEQA, this redistribution must be analyzed as a system-wide impact, not treated as a localized benefit. CEQA Compliance Trigger Proceeding with an action that redistributes traffic and safety impacts to adjacent corridors, without full evaluation of feasible alternatives and cumulative system-wide effects, presents a substantial risk of noncompliance with CEQA, including improper segmentation of environmental review and failure to adequately disclose and mitigate indirect impacts. Accordingly, the City should ensure that its analysis clearly demonstrates how total system risk is reduced—not merely displaced—and that all reasonable alternatives have been meaningfully evaluated. COUNCIL DECISION BRIEF — RAIL SAFETY & CHURCHILL AVENUE CRITICAL: High-speed rail operations through a school-adjacent corridor require the same duty of care we apply to school zones. Safety Reality Comparison Factor Typical Vehicle (School Zone)Caltrain Weight » 5,000 lbs » 1,000,000+ lbs Speed 20 mph Up to 79 mph Environment Controlled roadway Open-access corridor CEQA requires evaluation of alternatives and full disclosure of system-wide impacts—including emergency response delays—before decisions that may shift risk. RECOMMENDED ACTION REGARDING CALTRAIN DANGER Immediate Risk Mitigation and System Safety Alignment Defer permanent closure of Churchill. Require scenario-based analysis (traffic, emergency response, student safety). Immediately implement Quiet Zones with quad gates and safety upgrades as the fastest system-wide risk reduction, while reducing train speeds and aligning frequency with demand. Decision Options (System-Level Risk) Option Rail Safety Street Impact Overall Risk Close Churchill Improves safety at one crossing Shifts congestion and collision risk to nearby roads HIGH Keep Open + Improve Moderate safety gains Maintains current traffic distribution MEDIUM Quiet Zone + Upgrades Strong, immediate system-wide safety improvement Minimal disruption; improves predictability LOW Temp Closure + Quiet Zones + Reduced Speed/Frequency Layered safety; reduces exposure Managed impacts with planning LOWEST Accountability Require Caltrain to publicly present a safety plan and hold a joint session within 60 days with corridor cities. From:ann rothblatt To:Council, City Subject:Oppose San Antonio overdevelopment... 60 ft.Max Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 11:08:29 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. We live in South Palo Alto and strongly oppose over 60 ft. building heights in the San Antonio Rd. Plan. The proposed density will worsen traffic in an already dangerous corridor, overwhelm the existing infrastructure and destroy our neighborhood’s character.We urge the City Council to require minimum parking, cap height at 60 ft. Max and distribute growth equitably/ fairly across our city of Palo Alto. Please enter these comments into the public record. Thank you, Ann Rothblatt Don Rothblatt From:Carol Cleary-Schultz To:Council, City Cc:Cain, Robert; San Antonio Area Plan Subject:San Antonio Over development - Strongly oppose any new residential use at Middlefield and San Antonio Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 9:55:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good evening, I am a south Palo Alto resident and am strongly opposed to any building for residential purposes at the intersection of San Antonio and Middlefield. That intersection is already overextended, with vehicles often having to wait more than one full light cycle and closing one of the through lanes while waiting to turn left northbound on Middlefield onto San Antonio heading towards El Camino. The addition of any addition housing at this site will cause a dramatic increase in the already overwhelmed capacity of this area. If the city does decide to pursue housing at this site or others in south Palo Alto, I urge the Council to cap any new development height at 60 ft (consistent with San Antonio Village) and to ensure adequate on site parking for residents (at least 1 parking spot per unit - for studios and one bedrooms, and two parking spots for two or more bedroom units - of any new development). I respectfully request and urge the City Council to not move forward with any permits for new development until the requisite infrastructure has been approved and in place for use, including streets, parks, schools, and available public transit. All of the proposals for new development appear to be centered in south Palo Alto. This approach is disparate to south Palo Alto residents and impacts to our neighborhoods, further, and ignores equity with Midtown and south Palo Alto. If there is such a critical need for new hosing in Palo Alto, the City needs to be ensuring the absorption of new residents throughout the City, not just in south Palo Alto. In a post-pandemic world, it would make more sense for the City to be looking at building new residential developments close to the train stations in midtown and downtown, to stimulate and stabilize the businesses of California Avenue, University Avenue and downtown Palo Alto. Both Mountain View and Sunnyvale have done a good job at putting new residential complexes very close to the train lines, which makes it pretty ideal for those interested to commute to San Francisco or anywhere along the Caltrain line and to be able to manage with fewer cars on the road. Thank you for your attention to my email. I realize that these are weighty matters but also know a more effective solution can be found that better stabilizes and fortifies the businesses of Palo Alto and is more equitable for current and future Palo Altans. Sincerely, Carol Cleary-Schultz 271 Parkside Drive Palo Alto 95406 From:Eileen Fagan To:Council, City; board@pausd.org Subject:Churchill crossing misinformation and options going forward Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 6:04:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto City Council members and PAUSD board members, The loss of any child, especially from suicide, brings with it the deepest and most profound sadness possible. I have lived in Palo Alto for nearly 30 years now and have had two children go through Palo Alto’s public schools. I have now lived through 3 suicide clusters here and my heart has broken with each student death. My children were in school during the first two clusters – my son was at Paly during the first cluster (2008-10) and my daughter was there during the second cluster in 2014/15. I live near the Churchill tracks so tend to be aware of what happens at that intersection including the most recent suicides. Palo Alto obviously has a tragic history of suicides, so this is indeed an issue for all of us in the community. However, I fear the emotional reaction to close the Churchill crossing is not a solution to this ongoing crisis and is an attempt at a quick fix that distracts from the solutions that must be examined and thoughtfully evaluated. As our elected leaders, I implore you to look at facts, not the emotions that run high at times like this. Here are some facts to consider: - There is no “mandate” from citizens to close the Churchill crossing as mentioned at the “listening session” on March 12th. The petition that was signed by 3700+ people (including me) called for trained in-person guards who can de-escalate suicide to be put in place immediately to reduce access to lethal means at all train crossings in Palo Alto. Here is the most pertinent excerpt from the petition: o I propose a reinstatement of in-person guards, trained professionals, who can de-escalate suicide in-person, until a more permanent solution—like grade separation (separating rail from commuters with underpasses, overpasses, etc.)—is put into place. Having safety precautions will prevent any more tragedies until then. The petition is marked as a “victory” because that was done quickly by your joint efforts. Thank you. - This content of the petition was This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report misrepresented by councilmember Julia Lythcott-Haims in her opening remarks at the listening session – she said it called for the immediate closure of the Churchill crossing. It did not. The video of those comments is here - you can forward to 34:05 to hear this specifically. I hope it was not intentional…else it may show bias within the rail committee. - Although complete data on the guard’s deterrence is unavailable to the public, evidence over the years suggests that the trained professionals stationed at the track crossings create a powerful reduction to lethal means at ALL crossings in Palo Alto. I believe this is the real goal and perhaps they should remain in place permanently or at least until the currently proposed grade separations can be built as planned. - Closing the Churchill crossing leaves the East Meadow crossing a short bike ride away. Over the years, the East Meadow train crossing has at least a 2x higher rate of suicides than Churchill…so closing one access point leaves others available…including the overpass at the other end of the Paly campus. - The rail committee and XCAP spent a significant amount of time studying the closure of the Churchill crossing and the mitigations that would be necessary were significant and costly. This is NOT a quick and easy fix. The XCAP report calls out at least 30 mitigations required to close the Churchill crossing. I will not call them out here but encourage reading the report. The most knowledgeable people on this subject at the time voted for a partial underpass as a better solution. Let’s not dismiss their diligent work in favor of an uninformed emotional “quick fix.” - Palo Alto High School is NOT the only school in California or the USA located in close proximity to train tracks. This was another misrepresentation from the listening session by a parent. An easy AI search can confirm this. Also, the East Meadow crossing is not in close proximity to Gunn High School and has sadly been used more often for suicides. That suggests proximity is not the most important factor. - We should return to safe messaging and reporting about suicides. The front page story about the most recent suicide goes against all suicide prevention recommendations and are noted to be very influential for youth. Having photos and news of suicides in local media, especially highlighting methods used, can create contagion around suicides. The front-page news is dangerous. Again, drawing from the CDC report (page 117): o media reporting has been implicated in the increased use of train as a method of suicide and as a risk factor for rail suicide. As a community, we owe it to our students and families to do what is best for the mental health of our children. Here are the top level recommendations to help prevent suicides of youth (details start at page 103 in the CDC repo ): - Access to Evidence-Based Mental Health Care - Family Relationships and Family-Based Programs - Connection to School and School-Based Programs - Identify and Support People At-Risk - Crisis Intervention - Suicide Postvention - Prevention of Other Forms of Violence (such as bullying) - Reducing Access to Lethal Means for Youth At-Risk A specific note was included about rail crossings – closing train crossings was not recommended by the CDC after their in-depth investigation as it calls out that most youth suicides are in the home. It does suggest the following (see pages 116-117): Finally, more than a quarter of suicide decedents in Santa Clara County that used train as the method of suicide had a current mental health problem, current depressed mood, a history of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and current or past treatment for mental health problems. Therefore, reducing access to lethal means related to trains could be focused on youth with existing mental health problems and/or a history of suicidal behavior. As mentioned above, trained guards achieve the goal of reducing lethal means and that was part of their recommendation. Again, please consider making this a permanent solution that is not subject to budget cuts. There is no easy fix here. Ideally, accelerating the grade separation options that allow traffic to flow as well as enhance safety, should be prioritized. The CDC report is over 200 pages long. It is data driven and makes complex recommendations that require strategic planning. I applaud the efforts of PAUSD to enhance the focus on mental health for students and especially the trained guards at the train crossings. Perhaps we can send a signal that this is permanent and important by transitioning from tents to more permanent structures…but this too, deserves evaluation. Thank you. Eileen Fagan *Note about the CDC report – it reports on youth (ages 10 – 24) suicides across all of Santa Clara County. There is specific data about Palo Alto and PAUSD…which starts on page 82. From:Meri Gruber To:Council, City Subject:Public comment: Flock Safety - audit is not sufficient Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 4:58:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Council Members, Regarding the proposed Flock Safety audit: An audit tells you what happened, not what will happen. Flock's pattern of bad faith behavior across multiple cities cannot be fixed by an audit. The overriding concern: can a vendor-hosted ALPR system be adequately controlled by a city? I encourage you to schedule a public forum on whether this technology should continue to operate in Palo Alto. Thank you for your service to our community. Respectfully, Meri Gruber Palo Alto From:Shantha Mohan To:Cain, Robert; sanantonioareadplan@paloalto.gov; Council, City Subject:Oppose San Antonio Over Development - 60ft Max Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 4:07:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i We are South Palo Alto residents, and we strongly oppose building heights above 60ft in the San Antonio Road Area Plan. The proposed density of up to 7400 units will overwhelm infrastructure, worsen traffic on an already congested corridor, and permanently destroy our neighborhood's character. We urge the Council to cap heights at 60ft, require a minimum amount of parking, and distribute growth across all of Palo Alto. Please enter the comments into public record. Shantha & VJ Mohan 261 Parkside Drive This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC; Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 03-04-26 UAC meeting Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 3:26:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Commissioners and Council Members, Here's a TRANSCRIPT of most of UAC's 03-04-26 meeting, with my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with ### ). I have also labelled the presentation slides (paragraphs in orange beginning with ###. ). 03-04-26: Agenda https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19017 03-04-26: Video https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-march-4th-2026/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5DzUIY2A2Y&t=1114s Attended by: UAC: Croft, Gupta, Mauter, Metz, Scharff, Phillips, Tucher Liaison: Lauing Staff: Artola, Bilir, Ippagunta, Kurotori, Romero Public: Drekmeier, Thesen, Warner ADDITIONAL COMMENTS -- WATER RATES 1. The residential water rate increase is talked about in two different ways: a) the actual residential water rate increase, and b) the estimated effect of the residential water rate increase on the median residential water customer's bill. From 2020 to 2026, actual residual water rate increases are reported in the City's Operating Budget documents (except for 2022). I don't know where to find the corresponding data for the median residential water customer's bill. I think that the median residential water customer's bill might not be representative. For example, does the median residential customer pay any Tier 2 charges? 2. Member of the Public Dave Warner calculated that over the seven years from 2020 to 2026, the "average" (that is, geometric mean) residential customer water rate increase -- apparently measured as the median customer's bill increase -- was 6.9 percent per year. I calculated the "average" residential water rate increase -- using data from the City's Operating Budgets -- and got an "average" (that is, geometric mean) of 4.88 percent per year. (See details at 0:17:55.) Can staff explain the apparent discrepancy? One possibility is that customers have been increasing the quantity of water they use. 3. Staff pointed out (0:55:05) that from 2020 to 2026, the increase in the median residential customer's bill for ALL utilities was 5.6 percent per year. But that's not relevant. We're focusing on water. 4. Actually, the statistic of water rate increase for residential customers is computed from several things that appear on the W-1-1 rate sheet (effective 07-01-25): https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/6/utilities/rates-schedules-for-utilities/residential-utility-rates/w-1-effective-2025-07-01.pdf a) monthly service charge (for the meter), b) the commodity rate, c) the distribution rates (for both Tier 1 and Tier 2), and (potentially) drought surcharges. So, what is the magic formula? Here's a marked-up W-1-1 rate sheet (effective 07-01-25). https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2025/june-16/rates- attachments/attachment-b-exhibit-2-fy26-water-utility-rate-schedules.pdf existing proposed % increase * Monthly service charge -- for meters 5/8-inch to 1 inch $23.62 $27.63 16.977 -- 1.5 inch $76.31 $89.28 16.700 -- 2.0 inch $118.05 $138.11 16.992 -- 3.0 inch $250.22 $292.75 16.997 -- etc, for larger sizes * Commodity rate (per CCF) $5.67 $5.80 2.293 * Distribution rate (per CCF) Tier 1 $2.99 $3.49 16.722 * Distribution rate (per CCF) Tier 2 $6.96 $8.14 16.954 * Drought surcharges (deactivated) 5. I agreed with UAC's approach of using multiple motions to provide advice on the water rates item. 6. (2:29:35) UAC voted 5-2 to recommend that Council allow staff to transfer up to $5.5 million from the Water Operations Reserve Fund to the Water CIP Reserve Fund. I think commissioners thought that this decision was independent of the decision about what the water rate should be. But it's not. If the water rate is low enough, a $5.5 million transfer from the Operations Reserve to the CIP Reserve might result it the Operations Reserve dipping below its target level. I suppose UAC would have recommended not to do that. 7. (2:46:57) UAC voted 5-2 to recommend that Council direct staff to implement an 8 percent water rate increase this year, not the 10 percent water rate increase proposed by staff. I think commissioners thought it wouldn't limit the capital projects that staff could do. But I think it does. 8. (2:26:51) UAC voted 7-0 to recommend that Council NOT accept staff's FY 2027 Water Utility Financial Forecast, because it didn't have all the information UAC thought was essential. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ============================================================================ TRANSCRIPT ROLL CALL ^^ (in progress) 0:18:15: Rachel Romero: -- gress. 0:18:26: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Metz. 0:18:27: Commissioner Metz: Present. 0:18:27: **: (unamplified) ** 0:18:32: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Tucher: 0:18:34: Commissioner Tucher: Here. 0:18:34: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Gupta. 0:18:37: Commissioner Gupta: Here. 0:18:38: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Phillips. 0:18:40: Commissioner Phillips: Here. 0:18:41: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Croft. 0:18:42: Commissioner Croft: Here. 0:18:44: Rachel Romero: Vice Chair Mauter. 0:18:45: Vice Chair Mauter: Present. 0:18:45: Rachel Romero: Chair Scharff. 0:18:46: Chair Scharff: Present. 0:18:47: Rachel Romero: For the record, seven present. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS ^^ 0:18:51: Chair Scharff: All right. Are there any agenda changes, additions -- anything different? 0:18:56: Director Kurotori: No changes. PUBLIC COMMENT ^^ 0:18:58: Chair Scharff: All right. Let's go to public comment for items not on the agenda. Do we have any? 0:19:05: 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. We have one speaker online. 0:19:20: Chair Scharff: OK. 0:19:23: Rachel Romero: Our first speaker is Kanami T. You now have permission to unmute yourself. 0:19:30: Kanami T: (terrible audio connection) Hello everyone. My name is Kanami T., and I am a student at Palo Alto Middle High School. I just came here to say that I am happy with what the stuff that you have been doing so far towards climate change and sustainability. I am very excited to see how the ** program and rebate program will be implemented in the next few years, especially since I know that ** missions ** impact like me and my friends, my family, and future generations And I hope that Palo Alto ** part of that ** becoming a leading example for the rest of California and for the US. Thank you. 0:20:28: Chair Scharff: Thank you. Sven T. Is that -- 0:20:39: Sven Thesen: (terrible audio connection) Hello. My name is Sven Thesen. I'm (connection fixed) a chemical engineer by training. Long-time Palo Alto resident. My father died of lung cancer. I have two -- one friend that just died of lung cancer, and one that's living with cancer right now. I want to talk about natural gas stoves. And I want to thank the Utility for putting in a rebate program -- its soft launch -- and encour[age] also the library lender program for portable hobs, ### "Hob" is a British term for "cooktop." ### Some hobs are gas. https://shop.ttkprestige.com/blog/post/tips-and-tricks/gas-stove-vs-gas- But I assume Sven is talking about electric hobs. and also getting portable hobs into the houses of renters. Because it's really hard to get your landlord to change out your gas stove. 40 percent of your kids' NOx -- that's N-O-x -- emissions, which trigger asthma, long-time breathing difficulties, is caused by natural gas stoves, per Stanford studies. And I would ask you guys to recommend to the Utility -- As Pat Burt said, they take a stronger look at the health effects. And be strong about saying, hey, having a natural gas stove in your home is the equivalent to having a smoker in your house. Would you let that happen, as a parent? And the -- natural gas stoves emit benzene and formaldehyde, two known carcinogens. I'm not trying to scare people. But when I talk to people as a chemical engineer who worked at power plants during my early career, where we had lots of people doing all sorts of things to keep these emission limits -- I don't mean to be silly, but there's no Svens on your stoves trying to keep those emissions down and within permit limits. there are no limits. And so, you really can have a lot of benzene, depending on your particular stove and how it's burning. So, again, I would encourage you guys to be strong, and ask the Utility to focus on the health effects. Now, secondarily, this is important because the natural gas stove is the gatekeeper by the American Gas Association to keep us hooked on natural gas on our water heaters and our furnaces. If you go online on Instagram, you don't see any short-skirted, 20-year-old females talking about their water heaters or their furnaces. It's all about their natural gas stoves. It's a gatekeeper. It's a beginner drug to keep us on that. So -- And they're pouring misinformation about these stoves. So, again, health effects. And realize that we're being used. Just like the tobacco industry used my friends in North Carolina about the dangers -- or questionable dangers -- about cigarette smoke. Thank you guys very much. 0:23:36: Chair Scharff: Thank you. David W. 0:23:43: David Warner: Hi. I'm Dave Warner. Thank you all for your service. You're a talented Commission. I'm here -- I want to talk to you about choosing your Commission Chair next month. Which I think you do next month. So, in addition to your independent experience and expertise that you all bring to the Commission, you also have a lot of institutional knowledge. And I learned that from the SFPUC. And turning over all their commissioners, you suddenly have very little institutional knowledge. So, it's very valuable. So, that institutional knowledge is valuable, and it makes this next upcoming year even more exciting. And so, with such a talented Commission, you want to maximize your effectiveness, and, I assume, improve your effectiveness over time. And so, what I'm suggesting -- and the reason I'm mentioning it tonight is, when you select your next Chair -- be it Chair Scharff or Ms. Mauter or another one of you -- before electing the Chair, but after after the nomination, please ask the candidate what their plan is for improving the effectiveness of the UAC. And I'm not saying it's -- I'm just saying, you're good already. How can you make it even better? And so, I'm making this request tonight so that when this comes up next month, any of you that might be thinking of being the Chair, you might be ready for an answer, in case someone actually does ask this question. Which I hope one of you might. So, that's my comment. Thank you. ### Interesting point. Maybe commissioners should consider who would be willing to insist that staff agendize items as action items, and who would prioritize considering items completely over going home on time. ### At one time, the process worked like this. The Chair would ask for nominations for Chair. A commissioner would nominate another commissioner for Chair. Then another commissioner would second that nomination. (Or, if no second, no nomination.) Then, the nominated commissioner would accept (or not). Repeat until there were no more nominations. Then vote. (I don't remember how to deal with ties.) (I think each commissioner could make at most one nomination or second, so at most three candidates could end up being nominated.) Then use the same process for choosing the Vice Chair. 0:25:06: Chair Scharff: Thank you. 0:25:08: Commissioner Tucher: Question. For clarification, is that true? Is selection or election next month? 0:25:15: Chair Scharff: It's either next month or the month after. 0:25:17: Commissioner Tucher: Thank you. 0:25:19: Director Kurotori: So, we can actually talk about -- and we look at the 12-month look-ahead calendar. So, we'll bring that item up. 0:25:25: Rachel Ramero: Our next speaker is -- oop -- We had one hand raised, and it's no longer raised. There are no more requests to speak -- 0:25:32: Chair Scharff: So, Prisha doesn't want to speak? 0:25:36: Rachel Ramero: Oh -- Yes, she does. One second. Prisha, you're now unmuted. 0:25:41: Prisha: I agree with what everyone has been saying on this call. 0:25:51: Rachel Romero: Thank you. There are no more requests to speak. 0:25:52: Chair Scharff: All right. Thank you, everyone, for speaking. 0:25:55: MINUTES ^^ Let's move to approval of the minutes. Can we take these together? Or does anyone have any concern about not wanting to take them together? Seeing no objections -- Seeing no objections, could I have a motion to approve the minutes? Reapproval of the minutes of the Utility Advisory Commission held on December 3rd. And also approval of the minutes of the Utility Advisory Commission held on February 4th. 0:26:24: MOVE ^^ to approve both. 0:26:26: Chair Scharff: OK. 0:26:28: Commissioner Phillips: I'll SECOND ^^. 0:26:29: Chair Scharff: Do you want to call the roll? 0:26:32: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Metz. 0:26:34: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 0:26:35: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Tucher. 0:26:36: Commissioner Tucher: Yes. 0:26:37: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Gupta. 0:26:38: Commissioner Gupta: Yes. 0:26:40: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Phillips. 0:26:42: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. 0:26:43: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Croft. 0:26:45: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 0:26:46: Rachel Ramero: Vice Chair Mauter. 0:26:48: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 0:26:49: Rachel Ramero: Chair Scharff. 0:26:50: Chair Scharff: Yes. 0:26:51: Rachel Ramero: MOTION ^^ passes 7-0. 0:26:53: UTILITIES DIRECTOR'S REPORT ^^ Chair Scharff: All right. And that brings us to Utility Director's Report Director Kurotori: Thank you, Chair Scharff and commissioners. So, I just wanted to give you an update of items that went to Council recently. On February 2nd, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2026 UAC Workplan. ### It was Item 7 (an action item.) See the Summary Minutes (sorry, no URL) for the 02-02-26 Council meeting (sorry, no URL even for the agenda) It's between 2:03:37 and 3:15:10 on the video. https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-2-02-26/ ### Various staff documents sometimes say "workplan" and sometimes say "work plan." Be consistent! How is Google going to find it? There were several workplans being -- going to it. ### It would have been better to have agendized four separate items for the four commissions' workplans, so that each workplan could have been considered by itself. And I want to thank Chair Scharff for being there as well, and answering the questions from the City Council. 0:27:21: Also, in February, Council approved contracts for procuring equipment and service for upgrades of the Maybell Electric Substation and professional services for a new three-year water leak detection survey for the entire system. ### These were items 4 and 5 on Council's 02-23-26 Consent Calendar. They passed with no discussion. On Monday, the City Council approved the Sustainability and Climate Action [S/CAP] Workplan. ### It was Item 9 on Council's 03-02-26 agenda. And also heard from our Chief Operating Officer Terry Crowley on our Reliability and Resiliency Plan. ### It was Item 10 on Council's 03-02-26 agenda. And received feedback from the City Council. I'd also like to thank and acknowledge Council Member Lauing for suggesting that we would have a UAC commissioner present at the Council meeting. So, at the last minute, I wanted to thank Commissioner Croft for attending. As many of you know, Commissioner Croft is also on the S/CAP Working Team -- Community Membership Team. So, attended that at a very late hour. So, I wanted to acknowledge that as well. 0:28:17: As part of our electrify -- our home program -- So, the City has rolled out a full-service, single-family residential home heat pump water heater program. And it's expanding for a turnkey program. So, on February 26th, the City began offering a fixed-price appliance and expert assistance for electrifying homes, from start to finish, including space heating, water heating, cooking, clothes drying, and energy efficiency improvements. Residents will automatically take advantage of existing rebates, technical assistance. And they can also sign up for the Go Green financing program. As to date, I was checking with staff, we already have 30 that are already interested in moving forward. So, we're following up with those residents as well. So, we're really excited about that program. 0:29:07: As part of the UAC subcommittee that is looking at the electric and water rates -- and we will be talking about water rates tonight -- there is some interest in looking at what we brought to this full commission on data centers. And, as you may recall, in February, we talked about -- There was an estimated 5 percent reduction ### in electric rates because we have data centers within Palo Alto. And, just to clarify, data centers are not necessarily the large boxes or large facilities that you may hear in the news. These are really integrated with businesses on premises in Palo Alto. ### At UAC's 02-04-26 meeting, staff seemed to be open to a broader range of applicant possibilities. They're not large, 100 MW data centers that you might see and read in the news. So, staff will be sharing some of the scenario analysis that was performed by our consultant, GDS. ### Is this GDS Associates (who consulted on the City's gas COSA)? https://www.gdsassociates.com/ Google "site:gdsassociates.com 'data center' " only 1 hit. And we'll bring that to that commission, ### That is, to the UAC 2026 Budget Subcommittee? And looking at affordability. And then, the -- that subcommittee will bring that back for discussion to the full UAC. So, I did want to mention that. 0:30:10: I also wanted to mention that we had -- the City participated -- or, the [Utilities] Department participated in Discover Your Path. ### Discover Your Path -- https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/Community-Services/Discover-Your-Path-Career-Exploration-Event-for-Teens university. So, the Department participated. We have staff from our Operations Group on Electric, Water, Gas, Wastewater. And that happened on Saturday. So, it was well-attended, first event. So, I think our Community Services -- excuse me -- Community -- yeah, Services Department will be looking at doing more outreach to the high schools in Palo Alto for future events. And that completes my report. ### No questions or comments from the commissioners. Interesting. 0:30:54: Item ^^ 3 -- Fiscal Year 2027 Water Utility Financial Forecast .... Chair Scharff: Thank you. All right. That brings us to our New Business, which is Item number 3. Do we have a staff presentation? Or -- 0:31:10: Director Kurotori: Yes, we do. And I'm going to ask Assistant Director Lisa Bilir to make introductions to the team. And Adriana Artola, our Senior Resources Planner, will be doing the bulk of the presentation, and will be here to answer any questions. 0:31:41: Commissioner Tucher: Is this your first presentation to UAC? 0:31:44: SRP Artola: Hello. Yes, it is. I did a brief presentation for the preliminary forecast, but this is my first full presentation to you all. So -- 0:31:51: Commissioner Tucher: Welcome. 0:31:51: SRP Artola: Thank you very much. Just a reminder. Adriana Artola, Senior Resource Planner [SRP]. I work on water. And I started with the City back in July. OK. All right. Well, let's get started. We're also joined -- I wanted to mention that we're also joined by Rehka Ippagunta. She's the Assistant Director of Water, Gas, Wastewater. So, she's also here. I'm accompanied by Lisa, Associate Director of Water -- oh, I'm sorry, -- Resource Management. ### Lisa Bilir, Assistant Director of Resource Management {ADRM] (and also Senior Resource Planner) And, you know, I'll be giving an overview of the fiscal 2027 rate recommendation, as well as the 5-year rate trajectory. Which we can move on to the next slide. 0:32:42: ###. Slide 2 -- Wastewater Rate Projection FY 2027 The fiscal 2027 proposed rate increase is 10 percent. And that's consistent with prior forecasts. There are updates related to the underlying distribution and commodity rate increases. Specifically, the SFPUC wholesale rate assumption has increased, which I'll explain more later. On the distribution side, the final forecast reflects lower capital and operating expenses. That is lower than previously forecasted. And this helps to offset the larger rate -- larger commodity rate increase, and keep the overall rate increase at 10 percent. So, that's for fiscal '27. When looking at the 5- year trajectory, this is an improvement compared to the preliminary forecast when looking at those outer years. As you can see, this 5-year trajectory are for fiscal years 2030 and fiscal 2031. We're looking at a 7 percent rate increase, and then a 6 percent rate increase. That is an improvement compared to the prior forecast. Let's see. This is reflecting, you know, refinements both to the CIP and the operating expense projections. The preliminary 5-year CIP budget contains some conservative assumptions and contingencies which have since been refined, resulting in a $10 million reduction to that 5-year CIP budget. There also have been some shifts with respect to the timing of projects, and that also helps the rate trajectory. On the operating side, the 5-year forecast also reflects line by line refinements to the budget assumptions, as well as the citywide efforts to reduce costs and find efficiencies, which I'll talk more about in the next slide. 0:34:24: ###. Slide 3 -- FY 2027 Proposed Budget Reduction OK. So, leadership has take a close look at where we can find these efficiencies and reduce costs department-wide. These budget changes apply to the other funds as well. But the figures on this slide are water-specific. And so, these include eliminating vacant meter reader positions, outsourcing printing and billing -- or, printing and mailing, implementing a credit card processing fee, which was a recommendation of the UAC, as well as some savings from transfers from the City's pension trust. There are some additional potential budget reductions that have been identified and are not yet included in the long-term forecast, but, you know, this is an ongoing process. I can move to the next slide. 0:35:11: ###. Slide 4 -- Water Bill Comparison You saw this comparison during the preliminary forecast presentation. But as a reminder, as of fiscal 2026 rates, the City is average compared to peers that also receive 100 percent SFPUC water supply. And when considering the 10 percent rate increase for fiscal '27, the City remains a kind of middle of the pack You can go to the next slide. 0:35:38: ###. Slide 5 -- FY 2027 Rate Increase Drivers 0:35:40: This slide highlights the drivers -- kind of provides some of the -- all that detail that the UAC has requested before. You can see the two largest drivers are restoring reserves and water supply. I'll speak more about reserves in the following slides. So, I'll skip that for now. Moving on to the water supply costs, that reflects the SFPUC rate increase. The main reason for -- so, I'll remind you that in the preliminary forecast -- and in the fiscal '26 forecast, we had assumed a 1 percent SFPUC wholesale rate increase. That rate increase is now estimated to be about 7.4 percent -- 7.6 percent. The reason for that increase is primarily -- the biggest driver is weather and purchases. So, last summer was, you know, one of the coolest summers in decades in the Bay Area. That affected purchases systemwide. The SFPUC updates its rates -- its rate estimates -- based on purchases to date. And because of those lower purchases at the beginning of fiscal Year 2026, they had to revise their wholesale rate estimate for fiscal Year 2027 specifically. 0:36:58: Moving on to the next rate driver, a small portion of the rate increase is going towards capital expenses, which I can speak more to later. Operating expenses represent an even smaller share of this year's rate increase. And that reflects the budgetary reductions included in the fiscal 2027 budget, as well as a reduction to debt service costs, with the retirement of the Series 2011 revenue bonds. The last thing I'll say is, based on feedback from the Affordability Subcommittee, we have highlighted that, you know, the revenue impact of the most recent drought and the long-term decline in demand is an underlying driver -- or, I should say, an underlying factor for annual rate increases. We estimated that if you were to compare the most recent sales from the most recent drought -- I'm sorry. Let me start over right there. If sales were flat relative to pre-drought demand, the rate increase would be about 8 percent. So, that's just kind of giving you an estimate of how much long-term -- you know, the long-term decline in water demand affects rate -- annual rate increases. You can go on to the next slide. 0:38:20: ###. Slide 6 -- Water Cost and Revenue Projections 0:38:22: So, you're familiar with this chart. It represents the historical and projected revenue and expenses. Just as a reminder, the City kept rate increases low during the pandemic and the most recent drought, and drew down on reserves, to manage growing costs. And since we -- you know, we have the historical rate increases and projected rate increases on this slide, I just wanted to highlight it here. And it is still, I would say, part of the water fund story. And really speaks to the reserve position of the water fund currently. And, again, I'll speak more to that in later slides. But looking at the bars on this chart, operating expense projections reflect inflationary assumptions. Water supply costs have been updated based on SFPUC's most recent long-term financial plan. And you can see how capital spending ramps up in fiscal 2028, when water line replacement and seismic improvement projects are scheduled to take place. You can go to the next slide. 0:39:28: ###. Slide 7 -- Water Operations Reserve Projections The operations reserves have improved compared to prior forecasts, as well. We're now projecting to be at or near the reserve target throughout the forecast period. This improvement is largely due to the reductions in operating expenses mentioned in the previous slide. And this is where I'll note that one of staff's recommendations, as part of the fiscal 2027 water financial forecast, is to approve a transfer of up to $5.5 million from the operations reserve to the CIP reserve. And so, you can see where there's this uptick in the operations balance in fiscal year 2025, and then it comes back down in 2026. That's reflecting that transfer. ### I was initially confused by this slide. I think it would have been more intuitive and natural to have shown the FY 2026 operations reserve BEFORE any possible transfer, and then perhaps to have shown the range of potential transfers in another color. And this transfer is to help restore the capital -- or the CIP reserve, and fund projects in later years. Next slide. 0:40:22: ###. Slide 8 -- Water CIP Reserve Projections So, the capital reserve projections have also improved, compared to prior forecasts. We now see reserves gradually growing over the 5-year period, which reflects that transfer as well as reductions to the CIP budget, and those timing shifts in the budget that I mentioned earlier. And I'll be speaking more on, you know, overall reserves in the next slide. 0:40:49: ###. Slide 9 -- Water Reserve Projections 0:40:52: So, this slide shows historical and projected total reserve levels, excluding reappropriated and committed balances, as well as the restricted debt service reserve bond. Here you can visualize how much total reserves have declined during the past 5 years, and that we're projecting to restore them over the forecast period, building up the operations and CIP reserve. Next slide. 0:41:16: ###. Slide 10 -- Cash On Hand and Credit Ratings 0:41:18: This is a new slide, and it's to put into perspective the water fund's current reserve position relative to peers, and also to consider what it means for bond ratings on outstanding revenue bonds, but also potential new water revenue bonds. The water fund's reserves are in compliance with the adopted reserve policies -- which are management reserve policies. But the financial plan targets kind of restoring reserves level more in line with previous years. And so, this slide kind of highlights the reason that's important. And to do this, we are looking at unrestricted cash -- total unrestricted cash -- and days cash on hand. And why we're looking at cash instead of reserves, as we normally do, is that these are metrics that are easy to compare to peers. And they're metrics that are used by rating agencies when performing their analysis to assign bond ratings. And just to accrual basis. Whereas, cash is kind of, you know, what's in the bank on any given day. But when comparing total unrestricted cash to our total unrestricted reserves, they're about similar, and they follow a similar trend. 0:42:40: So, the chart on the left compares Palo Alto to some of our peers. Those are the bars. And the orange line is median days cash on hand for all publicly -- all public water and sewer utilities rated by S&P global ratings. So, this gives you an idea of where peers are, in terms of the cash on hand. And, as you can see, Palo Alto's current cash position, as of fiscal 2025 year end, is lower compared to peers. And that's because of the recent draws on cash. As you can see, water utilities typically tend to carry very high cash balances. And that's due, you know, in part because of the elevated risks that California utilities face. Including drought, earthquakes, wildfires. 0:43:32: When we look at the chart on the right, this shows the water fund's historical cash balances and historical days cash on hand. And you see where it drops off during that period leading up to 2024, and how we're projecting to restore that balance over the five-year period. And, again, this is to highlight the importance of kind of restoring those reserves, restoring cash. It's not only to restore budgetary flexibility and mitigate risk, but it's also to maintain high credit ratings. The City may consider issuing new debt, to fund the seismic improvements to tanks, for example. And so, it's important how the water fund is viewed by rating agencies, because that does affect debt service costs. OK. Next slide. 0:44:17: ###. Slide 11 -- Water Conservation Programs & Ways to Save 0:44:19: This is a slide to highlight the tools and resources that the City provides, to help customers save on their water bill by conserving water. So, this gives customers, you know, some control over their monthly water bills. As you can see, this includes the water smart customer web portal, which includes automated peak alerts, ### The slide says the peak alerts are based on hourly AMI data. Years ago, when AMI was being considered, I think the plan was to sample water meters only twice per day, to make their batteries last longer. Has this plan changed? our Waterfluence program, seasonal landscape workshops, as well as efficiency rebates and partnership with Valley Water. Next slide. 0:44:53: ###. Slide 12 -- Communications and Outreach 0:44:54: This slide highlights our communication strategy, with key messages, including rate drivers, what the City's doing to keep costs down. And the City's programs help customers save. And then, you can also see the different touch points that we have with customers to engage in this communication strategy. Next slide. 0:45:18: ###. Slide 13 -- Recommendation This brings us to our final slide. Staff's recommendation that the UAC recommend that City Council adopts a resolution approving up to a $5.5 million transfer from the operations reserve to the CIP reserve in fiscal 2026. Approves the fiscal '27 water utility financial forecast, and amends the rate schedules effective July 1st, 2026. Next slide. 0:45:45:: ###. Slide 14 -- Back-Up ### The presentation slides for this item did not include this slide. Ready for questions. 0:45:48: Chair Scharff: All right. Let's go to the public. 0:45:46: Rachel Romero: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item 3, please raise your hand or press *9 now. 0:46:09: Chair Scharff: Do we have any public speakers? 0:46:12: Rachel Romero: We have two requests to speak. Our first speaker is Peter D., followed by Dave W. 0:46:19: ### Delay in turning on the mike for public speakers. 0:46:39: Peter Drekmeier: OK. Good to see you all. Chair Scharff, and commissioners, and Council Member Lauing. I'm Peter Drekmeier. I am the Policy Director for the Yosemite Rivers Alliance, formerly the Tuolumne River Trust. Had some slides I wanted to share with you. ### Available in the Letters From Citizens document for UAC's 03-04-26 meeting (03-02-26 to 03-04-26). (Sorry, no URL.) But I first wanted to remind you that in 2018, the Palo Alto City Council endorsed the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, because the Bay Delta's on the brink of ecosystem collapse, and we don't want to see that. But also, we felt that the gloom-and-doom scenario presented by the SFPUC and BAWSCA didn't have merit. And the two big issues are that those agencies use inflated demand projections, which, every time I come, we have another example of that. And our planning for the design drought, which is 72 percent more severe than the worst drought on record -- and going back at least 1,100 years of tree ring data. All the other water agencies -- Valley Water, East Bay MUD -- they're planning for the drought of record. So, an interesting fact, that the numbers that will be in the urban water management plan for the SFPUC service area, those are -- they acknowledge that's an outside envelope. But if everything gets built on time, that's what demand's going to be. If you use that number, and you plan for what Valley Water and East Bay MUD are planning for, we can manage the Bay Delta Plan flows with no more than 15 percent rationing in the final 2 years of that drought. So, easy win-win for us. Restore the Bay Delta and not run out of water. 0:48:14: So, I had a few slides I wanted to show. The first one -- um -- as I said before, last year, we were projecting rates next year and the following year to go up. Or, cost of water from the SFPUC, the wholesale rates, to go up 1 percent. They're now projected to go up 7.4 percent. And then, after that, they're supposed -- they're expected to drop a little bit. Um, that's not going to happen. Let's not be surprised when it comes about. Next slide, please. 0:48:43: So, the -- BAWSCA did a -- they updated their man study last year. Finished it in December. Next slide. 0:48:57: And they actually did a sensitivity analysis. Which was a smart thing to do. But, you can see, there's a huge range of -- Demand could be as low as 157 [mgd] or as high as 266 [mgd] by 2050. But the baseline they're using is 222 [mgd]. Next slide. 0:49:17: Just want to point out that they're expecting the water rates to keep up -- keep with the pace of inflation. So, that's not going to happen. So, we're going to see, as price goes up, demand goes down. Next slide. 0:49:33: Good news: per capita is expected to go down quite a bit. Next slide. 0:49:40: But population is expected to increase from 1.8 million in the service -- in the BAWSCA area today to 2.6 million. So, that's, I think, the second flaw. Next slide. 0:49:53 And you see that --- 0:49:53: Rachel Romero: Excuse me. Your time has expired. Thank you. ### In the old days, UAC's speaking times were more flexible. 0:49:55: Peter Drekmeier: OK. Thank you. 0:49:58: Chair Scharff: Thank you. 0:50:01: Rachel Romero: Our next speaker is Dave W. 0:50:06: Dave Warner: Thank you. Dave Warner. So, you probably received my letter. ### See Dave's email message of 03-03-26, "Palo Alto's water rates at risk." It's in the Letters From Citizens document for 03-02-36 to 03-04-26 (pages 2-11). (Sorry, no URL available.) Maybe it's a little bit too long. Two subject areas. The first one -- And I will talk to the slide in just a moment. But the first one is -- Who would have imagined -- or, I certainly didn't imagine -- that Ms. Artola would have to be an expert at finance, in addition to being a water expert. And I thought you did a really nice job in your presentation. 0:50:27: I would take exception with one number, or one comment, and that is, if you do look at this -- my letter, it will talk about the comment that, look, we didn't raise rates during the pandemic, and so our rates haven't been up so much. And I would just take exception to that. I guess we DID not raise rates during the pandemic. But if you look at the change in our rates from 2020 to 2027, they went up -- and this is in the next-to-last column -- they went up an average of 6.9 percent a year. So, even without rate increases during the pandemic, we still, overall -- you know, seven years in a row of an average of 6.9 percent rate increase is substantial. So, I would say, that's sort of curious. And it's curious when you see that our reserves also went down during that time. So, anyway, that's the side comment. 0:51:18: My main point, though, is this chart on the screen. And, you know, to Mr. Drekmeier's comments, BAWSCA hasn't been serving us -- or, neither BAWSCA nor the SFPUC have been serving us well. And when you think of the letter that Council Member Stone sent, and the response that he got back, which, essentially, blew him off and said, "Look, we're not going to respond and we don't even think it's relevant," they're not serving our interests. And so, I think, if I were to pick a water priority, I'd say we need to play a leadership within BAWSCA. I think we need to support Council Member Stone. ### In 2026, he's Vice Mayor Stone. I think Ms. Artola, who I think is out water management rep at BAWSCA, can also play a role. There are a separate set of meetings, that board members don't participate in. 0:52:02: And then, the second thing is, my understanding is, there's not alignment between staff and UAC and perhaps City Council on a number of items. I've -- You know, it would be nice to explore that. But examples include -- sorry -- you know, the BAWSCA and SFPUC effectiveness that we'd like them to have supported Mr. Stone's efforts. Also, on affordability, the environment, the Bay Delta plan, and reliability, where we'd say reliability as the SFPUC sees it is probably, in our circumstances, with declining demand for the last, you know, well, 30 years, we don't have the same pressure on reliability that we had before, at least on having adequate supply. 0:52:49: And then, a third one is -- but I'm running out of time -- part of the reason we had the surprise rate increase is because we over-projected demand. So, having our urban water management plan project a declining balance is very important. 0:53:01: And the last thing, let's follow up on the questions that Council Member Stone asked. Thank you. 0:53:08: Chair Scharff: Thank you. 0:53:09: Commissioner Tucher: Question of clarification, please. 0:53:12: Chair Scharff: No. 0:53:13: Commissioner Tucher: Well, -- 0:53:13: Chair Scharff: Not yet. Not yet. No. You can ask questions after we finish public speakers. 0:53:16: Commissioner Tucher: OK. 0:53:16: Chair Scharff: Are we done with the public speakers? 0:53:19: Rachel Romero: Yes. That concludes public comment. Thank you. 0:53:21: Chair Scharff: OK. Now we'll come back to Council. ### UAC. I'll let you ask your question. Commissioner Tucher: For staff, this number in Mr. Warner's letter of 6.9 percent, is it directionally correct, to your understanding? I mean, what it's saying is that although we do hear the narrative a lot that we held rates steady during the pandemic -- and that ties into reserve management, for example -- this is saying that from fiscal '20 to '27, we had 7 percent growth every year. ### On average (geometric mean). Which is not steady. So, is it -- Do you have any response to that? 0:54:13: SRP Artola: I think part of the story is, you know, although rate increases -- Let's see -- There was a 5 percent rate increase in '23, 5 percent increase in '24, 10 percent increase in fiscal 2025, ### These numbers appear on Slide 6. But where did they come from before that? at the same time that we were implementing these rate increases, there was a drought, so that affects revenues. Even though, you know, rates are going up, revenues were still affected by the decline in demand. So, that was occurring at the same time. That it was a very high inflationary period. CIP inflation was very high. So, growth expense was higher than it typically is. It was a very expense period. And so, you know, I think the combination of these factors together is what led to that -- the decline in reserves and kind of the position that we're in. 0:54:57: Commissioner Tucher: But the 6.9 looks -- right -- more or less correct? 0:54:02: SRP Artola: Yes. If I were to -- Let's see. If I were to take an average -- 0:55:05: ADRM Bilir: I did the calculation, and it's -- I got a different number. I got 5.6 percent. So, a similar number. ### It might be interesting to document what numbers were used as inputs to the calculations, both Warner's and Bilir's. 0:55:11: Commissioner Tucher: Thank you. 0:55:15: Chair Scharff: All right. Any other questions? 0:55:21: **: (unamplified) 0:55:21: Chair Scharff: Yeah. This is our -- We're now having our discussion, and eventually we'll vote. We're done with public speakers. They've done their presentation. 0:55:30: Commissioner Gupta: OK. I'd like to speak. [chuckles] So, I thank staff for the presentation, and for the report. As it stands right now, I'd like to either vote no or move this item -- continue it until May. ### I guess this assumed that what would be MOVED was the staff recommendation, or something like it. And I'd like to explain why. But I want to start by recognizing the work our staff has done here. We asked them to hold the overall rate increase to 10 percent. And they delivered. And that's with headwinds from SFPUC, and with having to restore our reserves. So, I'm very thankful for all the work that staff did to maintain this rate increase at 10 percent. And that's despite the SFPUC wholesale rate -- a surprise increase from 1 percent to 7.4 percent. And I don't think we can keep doing this indefinitely. Every year, we can't constrain rates by deferring capital work and cutting operations. That borrows from our water system's future. You'll note from the staff report that our pipe replacement rate has dropped from 2 miles a year in the 1990s to less than one mile today. The seismic upgrades for our Park and Dahl tanks have been deferred to financial ### fiscal years 2030 and 2031, while we evaluate rehabilitation approaches. So, we really need to understand the full picture of what is driving rate increases from the SFPUC, so we can properly plan for them. It's very disruptive to have surprise rate increases from SFPUC, and then having to defer our system planning work. 0:57:04: So, let's put the cumulative picture in plain terms. Two years ago, the median Palo Alto residential customer paid about $113 a month for water. Today, it's $125. Under this proposal, it goes to $138 next year. And under the proposed trajectory, it reaches roughly $190 by 2031. That is roughly a 67 percent increase in six years. My concern is that the commodity rate trajectory underlying this forecast. Staff has responsibly used SFPUC's 10-year financial plan for these projections. But I believe that that plan itself does not account for the structural changes that are happening across our regional water system, that our public commenters addressed. This forecast projects commodity increases dropping to just 3 percent, 2 demand declining while capital costs continue to rise, a fixed cost system like ours cannot realistically see wholesale rate increases drop to 2 percent without some external change we have not yet been told about. 0:58:26: And there's good reasons to believe that these projections are too low. SFPUC projected a 1 percent wholesale increase for financial year 2027 just last year. The current estimate is now 7.4 percent. As the public has stated, this a pattern of systemic underestimation. And the reason is structural. The Hetch Hetchy system is roughly 80 percent fixed costs. So, when demand falls, the costs get spread over fewer gallons of water, driving the per unit price up. And the demand is falling. BAWSCA's 2025 demand study shows slower growth than previously expected. The SFPUC recently reduced its own sales projections by more than 10 million gallons per day. And so, when prices go up and demand goes down in a fixed cost system, the customers bear a growing share. And then, that cycle -- the death spiral -- feeds upon itself. On top of that, we recently passed an amended water supply agreement, which reduced the minimum purchase commitments for four agencies by up to 6.34 million gallons per day, creating a roughly up to $18 million annual revenue gap for remaining customers, including us, that we must cover. And Palo Alto's share of that is up to $900,000 per year, which was not fully accounted for in BAWSCA's cost estimate to us. 0:59:48: And multiple agencies ARE building alternative water supplies. I've done a review. My own analysis, under a moderate buildout scenario in our region could see Palo Alto bearing three -- up to $3 million more costs under a moderate scenario. 1:00:13: So, none of this, I think, is reflected in the SFPUC's 3 percent and 2 percent commodity projections in the later years of the forecast we have. So, what concerns me a lot is, we've tried to get clarity from this with Council Member Stone's letter, with our own letter to Council. These were straightforward questions we asked about how lower demand projections and alternative water investments are going to affect our wholesale costs in this region. The SFPUC chose not to answer these questions. So, we're being asked to approve a financial forecast that is built on their rate projections, but they have refused to explain what is behind them. 1:00:46: So, here's what I think we should do. Council does not act on rates until June. I think we have time to hold a study session in April or May where SFPUC and BAWSCA come before this body and give us an honest picture of where wholesale rates are heading, especially given what's happening with demand and alternative water projections. That would let us responsibly send Council a recommendation that we stand behind with more confidence. 1:01:17: So, I'd like to either -- I'd like to MOVE to continue this item to May, in order to afford the opportunity for such a study session with SFPUC and BAWSCA. ### Typically, UAC doesn't do study sessions, It does do discussion items, which are similar. But I think Commissioner Gupta wants to have an action item, so that UAC can vote its recommendation to Council before June. ### Or, perhaps Commissioner Gupta was proposing that Council have such a study session. 1:01:28: **: (unamplified) 1:01:31: Chair Scharff: Sure. Go ahead. 1:01:33: ADRM Bilir: Could I make a point of clarification to help inform the discussion? When we present our water rates, we try to show the full impact on the customer's bill. And in this case, that's 10 percent, when you combine the SFPUC increase with the distribution increase. But, truly, what we're asking Council for is the change in the distribution rate. Because we do actually pass through the SFPUC increase. And that is not technically a subject of what we're requesting here before the Council this year. So, just keep that in mind, that the Council has approved that pass-through mechanism for a 5-year period. ### When does that 5-year period end? Is Council still good with that? 1:02:15: Vice Chair Mauter: So, is that equivalent to like the gas commodity charge? Pass-through rates? 1:02:20: ADRM Bilir: It is conceptually equivalent. 1:02:24: Vice Chair Mauter: Conceptually equivalent. 1:02:24: ADRM Bilir: It's a different process that we go though the -- We've already done -- Vice Chair Mauter: Right. But I was trying to like draw parallel -- parallel -- 1:02:32: ADRM Bilir: Yes -- yes -- 1:02:33: Vice Chair Mauter: It's similar to the gas commodity charge that is passed through to consumers. 1:02:38: ADRM Bilir: Correct. 1:02:38: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Thank you. 1:02:39: Chair Scharff: So, I think the motion is premature. I think we should have a discussion first. ### Apparently rescinding his "Go ahead" directive at 1:01:31: Nothing says UAC can't have a discussion within the scope of a motion. But the scope of the motion should focus the discussion. I think staff's point is that -- I was just trying to understand what you're trying to achieve, a little bit. Staff's point was, bringing BAWSCA here, that's really not before us -- on this. Because the commodity price is the commodity price. And that's a pass-through. I think that the question before us is, do we agree with how much CIP they're going to spend in 2027? Do we agree that we should move to a higher reserve amount? And is that the right reserve amount? I mean, I had the question of why is it 15.4 or 15.9 when your reserve target is 14.2? ### Presentation Slide 5 mentions that staff wants to increase the reserve to $15.9 million, and that the reserve target is $14.2 million. I think those are sort of the rest of the structure here. I think [it] deserves a lot of discussion. 1:03:35: Commissioner Gupta: Sure. I know I agree with that. And if I may respond, our planning of that component is based on what's happening with our commodity rates. That a surprising increase in commodity rates, as indicated in the staff report, has affected all of those items. And we've reduced some of those items, and some of our maintenance, in order to keep our rates to 10 percent increase total. So, what is happening at SFPUC and BAWSCA is ultimately affecting what we do here in Palo Alto with our planning. 1:04:05: Chair Scharff: I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I think let's have the discussion, if you're -- And then, we can come back to the discussion of what you want to do when we vote. All right? 1:04:16: Commissioner Gupta: Sure. 1:04:17: Actually, since I did ask the question, can you answer my question of why we're at -- you know, 15.9 ### $15.9 million is what we're moving to, but 14 ### $14.2 million is the reserve amount? ### target 1:04:27: SRP Artola: Yeah. It has to do with -- you know, it's hard to kind of get the reserve amounts right at that reserve target with a -- while maintaining a smooth rate trajectory. So, as you can see, in fiscal '28, the reserve balance does go back down. Because that's a higher CIP spend year. So, it's just a sort of fluctuation in the balance that has to do with, you know, smoothing rate increases, changes in spending year to year. 1:04:57: Chair Scharff: I guess -- I mean -- But that's a pretty big inc- -- pretty big percentage of the rate increase -- is 4.2 percent -- is restoring the operating reserves. Right? I mean, if we wanted to restore less reserves, we could have a lower rate increase than 10 percent. 1:05:13: Commissioner Phillips: Could I ask a clarifying question? This is restoring the operating reserves. But the -- we're looking at a finan- -- transfer of So, could somebody explain what's going here? To me? 1:05:33: SRP Artola: Yeah. It's -- I understand why it's confusing. Part of the story is -- So, for fiscal 2027, we refined our operating expense assumptions. We refined our CIP assumptions. CIP expenses were down -- or, came down. Operating expenses came down. And this kind of allowed for an opportunity to add to reserves. Maintaining a 10 percent rate increase for fiscal '27 allows for a smoother rate trajectory in the future years. If we were to lower the rate increase in fiscal '27 -- say, down to 8 percent -- that could require a higher rate increase in later years, because then we're recovering revenue later for, let's say, those outer years, when we're spending more on CIP. So, we're kind of deferring a rate increase, let's say. And we're then starting off with like a lower base period in the following year. Does that make sense? 1:06:34: Chair Scharff: It does. But how do we know that those CIP that you want to do in the outer years? I mean, I guess that's really my question I wanted to clarify, is, are we approving -- we're approving the '27 -- the '26 -- Right? -- the '27 rate increase -- 1:06:49: SRP Artola: '27. 1:06:50: Chair Scharff: -- the '27 rate increase. And the question really is, if we're approving the '27 rate increase, are we also approving the forecast for the higher rate increases -- for the other rate increases? Or, are we really just focused on the '27 rate increase? 1:07:05: SRP Artola: I would say we're focused on '27 -- You know, you -- I guess the recommendation is to approve the financial plan. But -- right -- every year, we go through the rate setting process, and so, every year, we update the rates. You know. And if the water fund, let's say, outperforms fiscal '27 -- we end up with higher reserves, we could address the rate trajectory some more. Which is what we've done. And that's why we're seeing lower rate increases -- 1:07:29: Chair Scharff: But how do I know, as I sit here, that the CIP you want to do in '28 and '29 and '30 is the right amount? I mean, what information have you provided me on the CIP that I know you need to do that? 1:07:42: SRP Artola: We do have slide that details the projects. Would you like to look at that? It's one of our backup slides. And we can kind of go through what's on -- 1:07:49: Chair Scharff: I WOULD like to see that. Yeah. 1:07:50: SRP Artola: OK. 1:07:50: Chair Scharff: I mean -- And I -- So, I mean, I never really buy this argument that -- Because every rate increase is different. You could have BAWSCA come back and -- you know -- or, not BAWSCA, the SFPUC and decide that it's a 10 percent increase in commodity next year. Right? I mean, we thought it was going to be 1 percent. Right? So, it's really hard to judge those outer years, especially with the -- where we are right now. So, I tend to want to just focus on the '27. But let's see it. 1:08:22: SRP Artola: So, it's slide 25. 1:08:25: Director Kurotori: As this slide is brought up, I just wanted to mention that, you know, there -- what we thought was actually -- ###. Slide 25 -- Water Projected CIP Spending FY 27-31 ($000) ### This slide was not part of the presentation slide deck. Which is unfortunate, because the slide on the video is difficult to read. And Google didn't find it. ### The slide title says "($000)" (meaning the numbers reported are in thousands), but the ensuing discussion assumes otherwise. -- what the SFPUC provided us, in terms of that initial projection of the rates, which is 1 percent, or a little more than that. And then we -- When we look at our capital projects, as Adriana mentioned, we are looking at the seismic retrofits of two of the tanks. And those studies are being actively done now. So, once we have the completion of those studies, we will update those costs for those projects. So -- Just agreeing with the Chair and the Commission. There is some uncertainty in that regard. But we are making our best efforts into what those costs would be, including our capital costs, as we move forward with, you know, building -- building more pipelines. 1:09:10: Chair Scharff: Could you just run through what you're spending 100,000 on -- the 150 and the 683 on? ### That is, $100,000, $150,000, and $683,000, for three projects in FY '27, shown on Slide 26. [pause] And why we need to do that? 1:09:21: SRP Artola: I'm sorry. Those figures -- where were those figures from? 1:09:24: Chair Scharff: Your slide. 1:09:25: SRP Artola: Oh. On the -- OK. So, you said, the 100, the 150, and the 683? 1:09:32: Chair Scharff: Yes. 1:09:33: SRP Artola: I'm sorry. OK. So, the first line, that's the seismic improvements to the reservoirs. And I believe those are design costs. Um. Oh, I think, for fiscal 2027 -- And Rehka's here now and can correct me. I think that's specifically for this assessment that -- 1:09:49: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, that's -- typically, that's -- would be the engineering assessment. The monies that we will -- intend to spend to do that evaluation. And I'll speak to -- the second item there is a Water System Master Plan. The water utility's last master plan is probably more than 20 years old. So, it's due, to do an evaluation of the system, in terms of its hydraulic capacity, and the needs, and helps us better define some of the capital projects as well. So, we're doing that plan over two years. And then, the -- 1:10:22: Chair Scharff: But if we didn't do that plan, what difference -- Or, if we did that plan 5 years from now -- It's 20 years old. What difference would it make? I mean, it's $750,000 for that plan. 1:10:32: Director Kurotori: Yeah. I mean -- 1:10:32: Chair Scharff: That's a lot of money for a plan. 1:10:34: Director Kurotori: Best practice, we should have an updated master plan. It's just not the document --- 1:10:38: Chair Scharff: But is it worth $750 -- ### $750,000 1:10:39: Director Kurotori: It's not just the document itself. It's also updating our hydraulic model. Which is used for storage requirements. It's used for fire flow protection. Used to evaluate, when we have growth in the system, and we have development coming online, it tells us what those capital costs would be. Or, it's another tool that we can use, so the development is paying their fair share for those -- for their connection to the system. So, it is a valuable tool for the utility. Typically, utilities do this under 10 years, in terms of these master plans. So, you know, staff is making that recommendation to do this plan. I can tell you, other agencies have completed those plans. They're very useful in helping to gauge how many miles of pipe do we actually need to replace, based on the age, based on the material type? What is the type of reinvestment, so we can communicate that to our customers, so they can have confidence that we're making those right investments in a timely fashion. 1:11:39: Commissioner Tucher: Do we not have a master plan for water? Is that what you're saying? 1:11:43: Director Kurotori: It was done over 20 years ago. 1:11:44: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. Chair Scharff: So, it's 20 years old, is what it says. 1:11:49: Commissioner Tucher: OK. 1:11:49: Chair Scharff: Just quickly, the Arastradero Creek -- what are we doing there? 'Cuz that's, you know, 631, 800, and a million 4.. ### That is, for the Arastradero Creek project, $631,186; $800,000; and $1,004,000 are budgeted in fiscal years '27, '28, and '29. 1:11:57: Director Kurotori: Yes. So, after -- This is up in the foothills. After the floods and the high -- um -- I say storm events, in the foothills, we had -- some of our pipelines were actually undermined in the foothills. So, we did some emergency repairs. This is the actual mitigation to do full replacement and restoration, so that those facilities are protected. So, there are monies here for the water side. There's also some services that you'll see in the other budgets for the gas services and, I believe, the sanitary sewer services serving the community. So, those are the repair costs that we need to make. And the repairs that we're making -- and we brought this to, I believe, to other commissions -- is what that looks like, in terms of restoring that area once we're completed. So, there's a mitigation effort and an environmental study that we also have to perform. So, these are the costs associated with that, in terms of what the utility would need to bear. We're trying to move some of these facilities outside of that area, so we won't have those issues in the future. So, we're also doing some relocation. 1:13:04: Chair Scharff: OK. All right. 1:13:05: Vice Chair Mauter: And the $3 million -- project 30 -- is what? The one-time project? 1:13:16: Director Kurotori: Those are water main -- Yeah. Those are the -- excuse me -- those are the water main replacement programs. As you can see, that there are some that we do every other year. In terms of, we've gone through a process of trying to bucket those and put together the projects. So, we have a design year, and then we have a construction year, and we try to bundle those together. 1:13:36: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. 1:13:36: Director Kurotori: So, we -- with the intent to get better bids. We also take a look at our capital projects and how they relate to the other utilities, in terms of what that means to -- if -- When the City does its pavement projects, you know, staying ahead, not going too far behind, and trying to get ahead of their schedule as well. And if we can bundle those projects, we look for those opportunities as well. 1:13:59: Vice Chair Mauter: Great. OK. I have several questions that I'd like to kind of go through quickly. The first is just -- I want to commend staff for coming back with -- being asked to come with a 10 percent rate increase and coming back with a 10 percent rate increase. You did your job, relative to what we asked for. And I think we should put that in context today. So, thank you. ### UAC's job should be advising Council to ask (or direct) staff to do things. I also -- I just have a couple of questions about your slides, and then I want to dig into what I see as a much more fundamental problem. The slide number 4 -- Can you just help us understand -- you know, frankly, our rates look pretty on par with most other communities around us. But could you help us understand the origins of some of this variance? 1:15:55: SRP Artola: Yeah. Um -- 1:15:58: Vice Chair Mauter: So, how is Palo Alto structurally different than Foster City and Millbrae? 1:15:03: SRP Artola: It could do a lot with the age of the system. For example, Foster City's a younger system. 1:15:09: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 1:15:09: SRP Artola: So, you know, it depends on the infrastructure needs, what their capital plans look like. So, I think that's a big part of it, is looking at their during the pandemic, that were higher than Palo Alto's, and so they're at a kind of a different point in their trajectory, as they try to, you know, meet their targets. 1:15:36: Vice Chair Mauter: Great. Thank you. We helpfully received kind of a calculation that we've seen -- I don't know if Dave's numbers or Lisa's numbers are correct, but somewhere between 5.6 and 6.7 percent rate increases, if we go back to, say, 2019 or 2020 -- um -- to 2026, year over year. ### Dave Warner's calculation of 6.9 percent was based on the seven water rate increases between 2020 and 2026. A quick -- And who knows whether this is correct either, but, you know, US inflation would have been 4.1 [percent]. So we benchmarked that. But inflation on utility services and other things is higher. Do you have a good benchmark for the inflation in routine services that you've seen that are associated with the water utility, so that we can benchmark efficiency of operations versus the cost of outside contracted services that are required? 1:16:38: **: (unamplfied) So -- 1:16:40: Vice Chair Mauter: Is it higher? I mean, are you -- how is 4.1 percent as like a benchmark? Right? I'm just trying to explain the somewhere between 1.5 and 2 percent -- or 2.5 percent -- difference. 1:16:53: SRP Artola: Let me make sure I can respond to that question. So, you're asking about, you know, how do operating expense -- how the growth in operating expenses -- how does that compare to, you know, inflationary metrics. 1:17:07: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, I'm just trying to point out that like we HAVE seen inflationary growth in our water prices in Palo Alto 1:17:15: SRP Artola: Um hum. 1:17:15: Vice Chair Mauter: There's also background inflation across the US, with higher background inflation in -- specifically in municipal services sectors. 1:17:24: SRP Artola: Um hum. 1:17:24: Vice Chair Mauter: And so, I'm -- I think we have to look at inflation if we think we're going to think about whether you're operating less efficiently than we want you to, or whether these are exogenous factors that, frankly, are like a bit beyond your control. So, could you help us -- 1:17:40: ADRM Bilir: We have prepared a slide. 1:17:43: Vice Chair Mauter: Wonderful. Thank you. 1:17:43: ADRM Bilir: We did a little research on that, and maybe we could look at that -- 1:17:46: Vice Chair Mauter: Perfect. 1:17:46: ADRM Bilir: -- and walk you through a few indices that we looked at. 1:17:48: Vice Chair Mauter: Great. 1:17:48: ADRM Bilir: So, if you don't mind going to Slide 26 -- 1:17:52: Vice Chair Mauter: Sure. 1:17:52: ADRM Bilir: -- of the deck -- 1:17:55: ###. Slide 26 -- Consumer Price Index -- Urban Customers ### Also not available in the presentation slides, and also hard to read from the video. We looked at a few different indices. So, you'll hear cited a lot the CPI for -- the CPI-U. ### The CPI-U is the consumer price index for urban customers We looked at the Bay Area CPI-U that -- over the time period that's available for recorded data from 2020 through 2025. We could, you know, use that data to project forward, but we don't really have that. So, that's the time period that we selected. For CPI-U, it's 3.4 percent for the Bay Area. For energy services specifically in the West, 7.1 percent over that same time period. Department of General Services California Construction Index -- and you can see a little bit of information on the right about the types of projects that that's for.-- 7.6 percent. The ENR ### Engineering News-Record https://www.enr.com/ building construction Bay Area index, 7 percent. And the ENR construction cost Bay Area index, 3.3 percent. So, you can see that kind -- And then you can see number that I cited earlier on the bottom for the Palo Alto median residential utility bill. That may be, as I think about it, where my number may differ from Mr. Warner's number. But that's 5.6 percent. ### Slide 26 says the annual average increase between FY 2020 and FY 2027 (proposed) for the Palo Alto Median Residential Utility Bill is 5.6 percent. This seems to be for the entire utility bill, not just for water. Warner's email says the annual growth of the water bill (only) between FY 2020 and FY 2027 (proposed, I guess) is 6.9 percent. ### I looked up the actual water rate increases: * FY 2020 1.0% Operating Budget * FY 2021 0.0% Operating Budget * FY 2022 0.0% Staff report prediction * FY 2023 8.9% Operating Budget * FY 2024 5.0% Operating Budget * FY 2025 9.5% Operating Budget * FY 2026 10.4% Operating Budget ### The overall rate increase during this time was 39.96 percent. (1.01 * 1.0 * 1.0 * 1.089 * 1.05 * 1.095 * 1.104) = 1.39611677436. The average (geometric mean) rate increase per year was 4.88 percent (1.01 * 1.0 * 1.0 * 1.089 * 1.05 * 1.095 * 1.104) ** (1/7) = 1.04882518286. So, you can see that, you know, there are a lot of different pressures, when you talk about labor and construction types of costs. So, hopefully, that provides some background. 1:19:20: Vice Chair Mauter: Perfect. Thank you, Lisa. I want to transition to a bunch of quick questions about water utility operations specifically. The first is, do we have a handle on what our non-revenue water is at the moment? And the degree to which that is driving cost? 1:19:43: **: (unamplified) So -- 1:19:41: SRP Artola: We do have a slide on real water loss. For non-revenue water, that's a little bit tricky to calculate. I could give you the difference between purchase water versus water sold. And that's -- can be viewed as non-revenue water. 1:20:05: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Do we have that as a percentage? And what the effect of that is on our rates? 1:20:12: SRP Artola: Yeah. Let's -- We'll show you the real loss for now. Let's see. And then I can try to pull that up for you. So, slide 15, please. 1:20:24: ###. Slide 15 -- Water Loss In the past, we have received questions about water loss and how that does affect rates and revenue loss. We have pointed out, like I said, real water loss, which was 1.8 percent for 2024, and that's about $500,000, that were not not passed through to customers. So, 7 percent of revenues. 1:20:49: Vice Chair Mauter: I mean, frankly, that's a pretty impressive rate. We should take credit for that as a utility. 1:20:58: SRP Artola: Yes. 1:21:02: Vice Chair Mauter: In the -- I know that you're planning to do a cost of service study. I didn't see that specifically broken down in your planned costs for the coming year. Maybe that's part of the master plan broadly. But I think we are overdue for a cost of service study. And I would really encourage us to specifically hone in on the cost of service to different pressure zones across the service area. I think that both the capital and infrastructure costs -- I'm sorry --- both the capital and operational costs are likely to be highly varied across our service area. And while there are questions about the legality of different capital costs, certainly ongoing operational costs, in terms of tiered pressure zones are not in our current rates, and I would advocate for encouraging a study that better understood what it would mean to incorporate those in there. I would also like to make sure that Palo Alto is sort of prepared for the set of legal rulings that surround Prop 218's challenge to tiered rates. There's current conflicting legal opinion in San Diego and LA. ### 08-01-25: "The Price of Water Just Got More Complicated: San Diego’s Legal Battle Over Tiered Rates" https://bbklaw.com/resources/la-080125-the-price-of-water-just-got-more-complicated-san-diego-s-legal-battle-over-tiered-rates ### 08-14-25: "Fourth District Court of Appeal Rejects City of San Diego’s Methodology for Tiered Rates" https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-4163 And some sort of analysis of what would happen if tiered rates became illegal, I think, is pretty important in understanding both what's going to happen with demand and what the impact would be on revenue in that year. If they are deemed illegal, would we also be subject to back -- you know, back payment of those tiered rates? Which, San Diego -- in my understanding, and I could be wrong -- is -- and that is a tremendous financial burden to that system. So, just grounding us in that sort of uncert- -- aspect of uncertainty, I think, is -- or, preparing us for that is really important. Okay. 1:23:32: Sorry. I know this is long. I'm going to try to go a little bit more quickly. 1:23:32: Commissioner Croft: Can I ask a question -- a follow-up? 1:23:37: Vice Chair Mauter: Sure. 1:23:38: Commissioner Croft: Wouldn't we want wait -- When is that kind of legis- -- 1:23:43: Vice Chair Mauter: There was conflicting legal opinion in two separate jurisdictions. 1:23:47: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. The reason I ask is, would we want to do a cost of service study after that, instead of before that? 1:23:54: Vice Chair Mauter: I think it should be incorporated in the cost of service study. And I just want to -- I don't know what the status, or what guidance is being given to utilities at this moment around how to think about that disagreement. I'm not a lawyer. He is. ### Indicating, I think, Chair Scharff. But he's not THAT kind of lawyer. But I just want to know whether that poses any risk to our utility. 1:24:14: Commissioner Phillips: When was our last cost of service analysis? 1:24:17: Vice Chair Mauter: It was 6 years ago -- 8 years ago. 1:24:20: ADRM Bilir: It was for fiscal year 2020. In the water utility. 1:24:23: Commissioner Phillips: 7 years ago. Thank you. 1:24:24: Vice Chair Mauter: Yeah. OK. So, I think, generally, like you guys have done your job. Alan, I'm going to take you to task on the fact that I think where we are still really struggling as a utility is in where we think about debt servicing big capital upgrade projects versus having reserves. The degree to which we NEED so much cash on hand across all of these utilities, versus, because we are a joint utility, and have five separate utilities -- like, we can benefit from the bond ratings that -- and a certain amount of cash on hand that is, frankly, maybe redundant. And how we think about -- You know, I can see there -- I can see GOOD justification for transferring from an operational reserve to a capital reserves. IF, for instance, our leaks were at 9.2 percent, and there were big operational savings associated with a capital investment. But, frankly, that kind of transfer is a transfer between people at different times. And I don't think that we have a coherent policy -- or ANY statement -- around when we have a capital project and when -- like, when we should debt-service it, when we should have a reserve, and why we have separate operational reserves and capital reserves. Which -- You SHOULD have separate operational and capital reserves, but we need to be CLEAR about what the operational reserve is intended to do and what the capital reserve is intended to do. We just need -- And I'm not asking for it now, because it will derail the rest of this meeting, but we absolutely need that. Because I can't make any of these decisions without that guidance. 1:26:22: Commissioner Tucher: Why should we have separate operational and capex reserves? What is the role of an operational reserve? And we do have a subcommittee that is discussing exactly this sort of thing. I share the same confusion, which we spoke about a couple of weeks ago. And that is, these two -- actually three -- different reserves with rate stabilization. What is the point? And I think, in your question -- at least I took implicit -- they're very high. I mean, cash on hand is high. And, you know, I know utilities tend to be high. But what is the need for that? I don't understand it. And it's something -- Bob and Rachel, I think it's what we want to look into. ### Phillips, Croft, and Tucher comprise the subcommittee. 1:27:01: Commissioner Phillips: Yeah -- 1:27:01: Commissioner Tucher: I mean, what is an operational reserve, or why do you think they should be separate? 1:27:05: Commissioner Phillips: I'd take up the baton. And I'm quite disappointed in some sense. Again, I'm very pleased that it came in at 10 percent. But I think there's something that -- certainly myself and I think some of the other commissioners have been asking for -- is an understanding of our reserve policy across the utilities. I mean, I see that now we are going to take -- In 2027, the operating reserve is going to be about a million and a half above the target, according to the graph here. And, you know, why is that? And I understand also, you know, the moving between them. But is there a principle behind that? Why do we have -- Does Council need to approve movements among these? is that the case? Or is that something that, you know, you can do without Council approval? If it is, why do we have them, and what are the principles? Where do these numbers come from? It makes me wonder about -- For example, Santa Clara. If you look on slide 10, you know, they're the ones that have -- it looks like less cash than we do. But is that because they're an integrated utility, and they can put their electric -- they have both electric and water, and they can look at those together, in terms of their bond rating? I mean, this is, aside from the increase in commodity prices, the largest increase -- largest portion of the increase we see. And, I mean, I have very little -- I mean, it's not a lack of faith. I just have very little visibility into the principles by which the numbers are chosen. Why it's, you know, 4.1 percent rather than, you know, 0.1 percent or 8 percent. I just don't know. And, you know, the numbers -- there's three lines, three charts. The target, the reserve, the minimum, the maximum. To me, they're magic numbers. And, you know, I'd have the same questions that Vice Chair Mauter had. You know. Why do we blithely -- can we blithely move between them? Why do we have separate ones? Can we not? What are -- If we can't, what are the principles? So, I think we badly need this. And my confusion about it, particularly given its importance in this is almost enough -- and, know, I'm really struggling, you know -- to make me want to say no. Because it's -- And I'm, you know -- And, again, to the -- this. Because, again, I hear, well, partly, the reason we did it this way is, we want to smooth it out. I don't want to smooth it out. ### I think staff would say that customers like it because it makes budgeting for monthly payments more predictable. I'd rather have smaller -- You know, I'd rather have a smaller increase in the coming year if it's a slightly bigger increase, and they're additively the same, ### That's not how the math works. let's postpone it. Why not? ### Because it forces staff to do less than it thinks it really should do. And so, it doesn't fill me with confidence that this is being done. Perhaps it is. But I certainly don't have the confidence it is. 1:29:57: Chair Scharff: So, what I'm hearing is, Utsav is a no. You could be a no. I'm probably a no. ### Chair Scharff seems to be assuming that THE motion would be to adopt the staff recommendation, and there would be no amendments. 1:30:04: Director Kurotori: Could -- 1:30:03: Chair Scharff: ** is probably maybe a yes. But I think -- I think we may need to come back. I think we all have questions. I don't feel like I have enough information. I mean, I may have different concerns than Bob, and -- But I have concerns. I don't have enough information to say yes. But I'd rather focus on the 2027 rates. I don't -- I can't af- -- I think the rest of the projections -- I have no idea why we're going to spend so much money - - And there's big numbers there. Do we really need to know? I want to understand the CIP stuff, and say, is this really necessary to do this? Is it 5 years ago? And maybe we DO need to do all of this. ### See staff report 2506-4867 for Item 8 on Council's 11-03-25 agenda, which passed on consent. It's on pages 177-203 of the 11-03-25 Council packet. 1:30:53: And I'm also really concerned that we're -- You know, as Utsav said -- I think he called it a death spiral. I mean, I think the irony is so funny, is, that here you have -- People can save money by conserving more. Yeah, we can all conserve more, and cut our bills, and then, next year, we can all have bigger rate increases. And how -- What is the right time where we stop telling people to conserve in a non-drought year? I mean, how much water do we say when we say it's OK that we're using X amount of water? I mean, is it always better to use less and less water on a fixed use system? I don't -- I think -- I mean, I think we need to grapple with that. And I don't know what the right answer to that is. I don't know what happens to the water if we don't use it. I don't know what the other benefits are. I don't know why they're not selling it to other people. I -- There's a lot of questions. But if every year we go from 1 percent to 7 percent, and everyone continues to think that the water is going to continue to fall -- usage -- we're going to have problems. It's going to become unsustainable. And, you know, we all talk about affordability in California. This is why California is not affordable. ### The City sends out Home Water Reports to customers every month, telling the customer how much water the customer used (in both CCF per billing cycle and gallons per day), and how the customer ranks compared to both the most efficient households and the average households. Is Chair Scharff having second thoughts about whether UAC should support programs like this? ### I can hardly wait for data centers to start lowering residential water rates. Not. 1:32:07: Director Kurotori: If maybe I could take a first cut at the series of questions. And I appreciate the candor. And I appreciate the extent of the questions. I might not be able to answer all of them. But I did want to mention that we do take a look at: do we do a pay-as-you-go for capital projects? So, the pay-as-you-go would be your water main replacements that you typically do every year. You wouldn't bond for those, because you do them -- And we look at every other year, to try to be more effective and efficient, not only in design but also in construction. The ones that we ARE looking at -- and I think we've mentioned it to the Commission -- is the seismic retrofits of those tanks. You don't retrofit 2 or 3 million gallons of storage, you know, every other year. So, we're -- the staff is looking heavily into that. But we need the completion of that study. We did do a study initially that says, hey, those tanks need to be -- seismically need to be looked at. But we're trying to figure out what -- is there a way to maybe not fill the reservoirs totally full. Is there a way that we can rehab those tanks, that other agencies have have done, to extend the life of those tanks, versus full replacement? And part of that water master plan, as we mentioned before, is looking at our total storage. The last time we looked at storage in our system was, I believe, 2017. 1:33;24: Vice Chair Mauter: Alan, I would just say, I know that you've said this before. But like when we get these kinds of documents, or the documents you gave us here, like, we need you guys to break out, like, this is -- falls under an ongoing charge, and therefore it's in our like capital reserve thing. This kind of project is expected to be bonded. Right? Like, it's going to help get things passed, in a way -- And, frankly, like, save us a ton of time in these meetings. 1:33:59: Director Kurotori: No disagreement. And I did want to mention, we also did have -- the UAC did have a subcommittee to take a look at water and electric rates. And we probably didn't do a very good job of mentioning that as well. ### In general, if a UAC subcommittee meets to deliberate on X, and then staff agendizes X for the whole UAC, it makes sense for the subcommittee to tell the whole UAC what the subcommittee learned. I did want to just reinforce -- The water utility reserve management practices are embedded into the packet, and talks about the reserves, and the policies associated with that. I think we have mentioned that the City is looking at those reserves policies citywide. ### Who, specifically, is looking at this policy? So, we haven't gotten that report yet. So, those are coming. 1:34:31: Vice Chair Mauter: When is that report coming? 1:34:32: Director Kurotori: I believe it is coming this year. I don't know the exact timing of it. I -- it is outside of the round. We have provided comments on the utility side. 1:34:40: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. 1:34:41: Director Kurotori: There's also a conversation -- and it always seems to go back to Santa Clara. And since I was the former Water Director there -- Santa Clara doesn't have any debt. So, they don't have debt. So, in terms -- for their water system. 1:34:55: Vice Chair Mauter: Yeah, but we barely have any either. 1:34:57: Director Kurotori: And we are refunding -- some of our bonds are finishing up, and we reflected that in the rates. And also, it's just more standard practice to actually, when you do bonds, you bond just on the value and benefits, and certainty of the utility that's receiving the bond. So, if it's a water bond, it's a water bond. If it's an electro bond, it's a separate electro bond. And you don't typically do that, in terms of guaranteeing the repayment of the bonds based on another utility's -- ### For most municipal utilities, Prop 218 requires that the utility not spend revenues on things that are not related to that utility. It's typically not the practice that we've seen. So, I just wanted to mention that as well. All the other comments -- just appreciate, you know, the comments as well. Again, in looking at our rates, and what we're -- a lot of pass through cost. There's a lot of hard work. And especially appreciate the conversations with the subcommittee, because we took a very hard look at trying to do that. We take all this comment and feedback to heart, as you may have seen in this report and in our presentations. We've included those reserve policies in there. We've included kind of the bar charts of looking at like what are the rate increases and why. So, we always appreciate that feedback, to create that product that's more useful to you, the Commission, and the community. 1:36:19: Chair Scharff: Any other questions right now? 1:36:24: Commissioner Metz: Chair? 1:36:24: Chair Scharff: Yes. Go ahead. 1:36:25: Commissioner Metz: Oh. Yeah. I'd like to ask questions in a different vein. Slide 6, Water Cost Revenue Projections. After water supply, operations is the next biggest cost. And the Table 1 -- ###. Slide 6 -- Water Cost and Revenue Projections (again) It's not in the presentation, but Table 1 in the packet shows it. ### See packet page 36. (Sorry, no URL.) It's also page 2 of the staff report. (Also, sorry, no URL.) Even once we get past the big shift in reserves from operations to CIP -- double-digit increase in distribution costs. Could you talk about that? I didn't see that in the packet at all. So, could you talk about, you know, the root cause behind those increases, and what we're doing to lower those? 'Cause it seems like that's a big cost. And it's the area what we probably have the most control over. 1:37:26: SRP Artola: Yeah. So, you're speaking to the double digit distribution rate increases that you're seeing in that table? 1:37:31: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 1:37:31: SRP Artola: Yep. So, yes, the distribution rate increases are to fund the City's water utility. You know, there's the commodity rate increase, as you understand, and the distribution rate increase. These rate increases are reflecting, you know, the rate drivers I mentioned before. The capital spending, mostly inflationary increases to operating expenses. And then, restoring reserve levels. And so, you know, if we -- 1:38:03: Commissioner Metz: Well, I'm saying, putting aside -- 1:38:04: Vice Chair Mauter: What's your fraction of energy costs there? 1:38:06: Commissioner Metz: -- of the reserves. 1:38:08: SRP Artola: I can't answer that. Sorry. Go ahead. 1:38:11: Commissioner Metz: I'm just asking, putting aside the one-time transfer between the reserve accounts, the rate trajectory for distribution operations is still double-digit. So, which -- So, it's a big part of the overall increase. And I'm trying to understand what's not in the presentation. What are root causes behind the increase in those costs? And do we have a program? Are we doing something? What are we doing specifically to address those 1:38:40: SRP Artola: The increase in the operating expenses? 1:38:43: Commissioner Metz: Correct. 1:38:43: SRP Artola: Yes. Um. So, we have -- You know, as I mentioned in the earlier slides, we have take a close look at what we can do to reduce those operating expenses. And I included that in the budget. You know. And it is an ongoing process. So, we'll continue to look at how we can reduce operating expenses, to further reduce rates. 1:39:06: ADRM Bilir: Just to add to that, also, additionally, the -- what you're seeing in Table 1, with the distribution rate trajectory, those distribution rates pay for all of the CIP that we've been talking about as well. So, it goes for operating costs, where we've taken a hard look. And Adriana explained all the reductions that we've included in the budget for capital -- We have deferred capital in this utility. And now, there's several different projects that we just took a look -- a deep look at the slide on all those projects, and those are being paid for also through the distribution rate. 1:39:42: Commissioner Metz: OK. Maybe I misunderstood. But the way I understood it was that that's a one-time event that will be moving money from the distribution reserve to the distribution reserve to the CIP reserve. Is that wrong? 1:39:56: ADRM Bilir: So, the transfer that she described, yes, is a one-time transfer that we're proposing. 1:40:01: Commissioner Metz: OK. So, then what I'm asking about is, after that transfer -- This chart, Table 1, in the packet shows double-digit increases in distribution rate trajectory. And I'm trying to understand the underlying cause of that. And if we're doing -- what we're doing to reduce it, or examine it, at least. 1:40:24: ADRM Bilir: Yeah. And I think I'm probably not explaining it clearly, or I'm not following, but the distribution rate that's in Table 1 -- that whole rate is not separated into capital and operating. It is just -- the total -- 1:40:39: Commissioner Metz: We just agreed that the reserve transfer is a one-time event. Right? 1:40:41: ADRM Bilir: Yes. And you could recommend a different transfer, or no transfer. But in any event, in order to pay for the costs, these distribution costs would remain the same. 1:40:55: **: (unamplified) ** 1:40:56: ADRM Bilir: The distribution costs -- The distribution rate pays for both distribution operations costs and distribution capital costs. So, it's the cost of operating, maintaining, replacing the system -- the water distribution system within the City of Palo Alto. 1:41:17: Commissioner Metz: OK. Then I guess what I'm asking for would be, you know, a drill-down into the underlying factors that are driving the distribution cost increase. Because it's not -- at least, I didn't see it in the packet. 1:41:32: ADRM Bilir: I'd like to draw your attention to Slide 2, I believe it is, and Slide 4. Maybe let's start with Slide 4. I think it was -- 1:41:42: ###. Slide 4 -- Water Bill Comparisons (again) -- where we showed the breakdown of the drivers of the increase. 1:41:49: Commissioner Metz: Right. And the green bar on Slide 4 -- No, I guess it's page 6 -- ADRM Bilir: Sorry. Slide 5. My mistake there. 1:42:00: ###. Slide 5 -- FY 2027 Rate Increase Drivers (again) Commissioner Metz: OK. 1:42:02: Chair Scharff: (unamplified) ** 1:42:02: ADRM Bilir: Slide 5, that we talked about, has a bar chart, and we tried to break down the drivers. I'd be very interested in your ideas for how we can enhance this information and make it more accessible and clear. 1:42:17: Commissioner Metz: Right. I think it's not that information that I'm asking about. On Table 1, in the packet, it's after 2027. It shows for 2028 a 12 percent distribution rate increase, for '29 a 14 percent increase, and for '30, a 9 percent increase. ### Yes, this is for Table 1's "Distribution Rate Increase, FY2027 Proposal" line. And I'm trying to understand -- And I'm assuming those are past this reserve transfer. Right? So, I'm just trying to understand the details of the causes of those big increases. 1:42:53: ADRM Bilir: OK. Thank you. 1:42:54: Commissioner Metz: I'd appreciate if we could talk about that. 1:43:01: Commissioner Tucher: So, when I watched a couple of minutes of the BAWSCA meeting from February on TV, and I watched City Councilman Greer Stone ask some very pointed, forceful, good questions, he used the word -- in reference to the SFPUC rate increase -- "surprise" increase. This surprise increase. They zapped us. They surprised us. He asked, how am I supposed to go back to my constituents and explain, you know, yet again? It led me to go back to this same UAC package from a year ago in March, because I had this nagging feeling, isn't this exactly what happened last year? And it's total déjà vu. It's -- Or, better is, Lucy and the football. Because it's -- Last year, in March, in the March packet -- staff report -- we said, we've come back with a 10 percent rate increase, after the 14 percent preliminary increase was frowned upon at UAC and Finance Committee. And we've brought it down to 10 [percent] And even in March, we were assuming from SFPUC a zero increase in wholesale rate, according to the package ### packet? They surprised us last year -- I think it was in May -- 1.something percent. OK. 1 percent is not 10 [percent]. But still, they hit us with another 1 percent after we tightened the belt. By tighten the belt -- again déjà vu -- last year in March, we said, in order to get from 14 percent to 10 percent, we're deferring $7 million of capex. These are water main replacements and two new reservoirs. Sound familiar? We're putting them into the out years, or, in fact, outside of the 5-year forecast window. Tightening our belt last year, in order to bring rates down to 10 percent. Here we are again this year doing the same thing. And, by the way, last year, we moved $3 million from the rate stabilization reserve to ops reserve. So, now, this year, looking at our depleted ops reserve, I'm thinking -- I think that same drivers chart that we just looked at said we put $2.4 million into ops reserve. We're going to do that, which is causing the rates to go up. And I'm thinking -- But we put $3 million in last year. Maybe I'm misunderstanding all the reserves thing. I refer back to what we were saying 10 minutes ago. But I come into this vote thinking no -- voting no -- solely on the basis of the wholesale rate increase. And I heard the point earlier that, you know, the City approves a simple pass-through. I'm not going to vote for ANY rate increase based on simple pass-through, no matter what the precedent is. When, you know, SFPUC -- I'll also point out that this fiscal '27 rate increase, which we're now hearing -- we're saying 7.4 percent. Keep in mind that at BAWSCA, they didn't say 7.4 [percent]. What they said was, it'll be between 5.9 and 9.1 percent. So, hold onto your hats. Because there's no reason, based on guidance from just a month ago, BAWSCA couldn't - - or, SFPUC couldn't come back to us and say it's not 7.4 [percent]. It's an extra 2 percent points. That would still be within what they warned us is possible. And, when you go back to last year and their latest plan of record, they were saying that the rate increase in FY '27 would be 3.4 percent. It's all over the map. So, again, in the past, they said it'd be 3.4 [percent]. Then they apparently whispered to our staff 1 percent. Isn't that what we heard in November? 1 percent? Now, we're hearing somewhere between 7 and 9 percent. You know, when we're dealing with this -- 1:46:50: And now I come to my one question. Alan, this is for you, I suppose. What is our staff's understanding of how SFPUC works? In other words, what is our understanding of how they set wholesale prices? Why do they set whole[sale] prices like this? You know, we have what's called a commodity price. So, every drip of water -- every bucket of water has a price in Palo Alto, 'cause we pay SFPUC. I mean, the way I think about it, they have no commodity price. The water just flows. Of course, they had to build a dam. They have to finance all that. They have to operate the transport system. I get that. But, you know, what transparency does SFPUC give us -- or give BAWSCA -- as to why these wholesale rate increases keep getting dropped on our heads? And so, -- Spordically and unpredictably, as far as I can tell. So, my question, again, is, is anyone in Palo Alto staff able to get insight into their process, their cost? Why rates are what they are? And is BAWSCA doing that for us? 1:47:59: Director Kurotori: So, I'm going to ask Assistant Director Lisa Bilir to go through that -- the BAWSCA process. And when they give us the preliminary back to -- They are pass-through costs. Those are the rates that we're going to receive. And, to your point on your concern about the timeliness of those updates and the increases, point well taken. There's no disagreement there. I did want to mention that we -- you know, our recommendation to the commission, is just looking at this first year. Right? We're trying to look at our reserve policies and the implementation of the rates, to have this for this first year. We do a five-year projection, as we always do, and we bring it to this Commission. But I'll let Lisa kind of go through the process of BAWSCA and how they give us information. 1:48:59: ADRM Bilir: So, every year -- We have a water supply agreement -- We have a contract with SFPUC. And they must provide us with 30 days of notice of their rate increase, which they do. And they typically do the rate increase hearing in May. So, we would get the 30-day notice in April. Around that time. However, usually, in December or January, SFPUC provides a courtesy estimated range for what the rate increase is going to be. So, they did that this year. In January, we got a letter that the range was, I think, between 6 [percent] and 9 percent. And then, in February, they do a wholesale customer meeting, and met with us, and provided an updated estimate. So, that's the process that we go through. I will also add that BAWSCA does a full audit of the revenue requirement costs every year. So, they look at the listing of all the costs that are necessary to pay for -- that we pay for. And they have a Finance Manager, and she goes through and does an audit, and makes recommendations on those costs every year. But in this case, the costs are not really what's changing. The costs are staying relatively the same. SFPUC's costs are not really increasing. I think it's like a 1 percent increase in costs. ### Is it possible that someone heard about the 1 percent increase in SFPUC's costs and thought that it meant a 1 percent increase in SFPUC's wholesale rate? What's changing and driving the rate increase this is a couple of things, but primarily it is the demand, as Adriana outlined. So, it's demand regionally that's changing, due to the weather. And so, that is driving the rate increase change for SFPUC. And that -- Plus, there's a balancing account that tracks, you know, any over- or under-recovery of funds from revenue -- from wholesale customers, including Palo Alto. And that account has been drawn down throughout the drought. And so, now that account has actually money that we owe. So, that adds to the rate increase a little bit. So, those are some of the things that are driving it, and the timelines that we're working with. Hopefully, that answers your question. 1:51:04: Commissioner Tucher: It does. And I thank you. Because you've explained some of these things to me and the subcommittee. And thanks for explaining it to everyone. To my mind, it doesn't change the fact that SFPUC just sits there -- up there -- and drops rate increases on us in a way that is inexplicable. Or at least un-transparent. And so, to earlier comments in this meeting, and to Utsav's reference to I think it was 70 percent water rate increases, going almost to $200 on the median bill -- over I think 4 or 5 years is was -- you know, in that context, we can't -- I can't vote to support a rate increase, even if there is this assumption of the pass-through. 1:51:50: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) ** 1:51:50: In terms of our process, I do wonder why we spent time in November -- UAC -- talking about preliminary rates on the assumption of a zero rate -- wholesale rate increase, when wholesale rate is, after all, almost 50 percent of the overall rate. I mean, at least it's 40 percent of the driver. And yet, we did this year what we did last year, which is to assume, oh, there will be no wholesale rate increase. And there always is. 1:52:16: Commissioner Phillips: So, I mean, I would like to separate -- I mean, not passing these rates is not going to punish SFPUC. It's not going to do anything to them. They don't care. Right? They don't care. And we could have this -- address this strategic issue, which we did through One Water to some extent, you know, about what the options potentially are to make ourselves not susceptible to the rate increases. But, I mean, it is what it is. I mean, -- 1:52:42: Commissioner Tucher: There are things we can do, so that -- 1:52:43: Commissioner Phillips: Excuse me. Excuse me, Commissioner. You know, I suggest that we focus on, you know, the issues about next year, and the way that the costs are being structured -- the distribution costs are being structured -- the things we have control over, and separate out, and -- you know, if there are things that we think we could do to potentially nudge SFPUC in the future, let's separate that out and have a separate discussion. I mean, it's not -- there's nothing we're going to do that's going to get them to make it anything other than the increase that they've had. We're going to write them a stern letter. What are we going to do? 1:53:21: Chair Scharff: Bob's right. I mean, at the end of the day, we're going to have to have a rate increase. We're going to have to do the pass-through. I mean, at minimum. We could say we don't want to do the CIP stuff. We don't want to do any of it. And we don't want to do the increase in the reserves. We could say that. But at the end of the day, we have to at least do the pass-through. 'Cause otherwise the water utility won't function. And remember, our purpose here is to advise City Council. And it's to advise them with a rational plan. And it's not a rational plan to say we're not going to approve the pass-through. I mean, we may all be frustrated by it. I'm very frustrated by it. But we have to live with that, and -- or try to figure out other ways to get it. But as long as they're charging us that, we have to pay it. I don't see any other -- 1:54:09: Commissioner Tucher: To vote yes on the 10 percent sends an advisory message to Council. And to vote no sends a different message. And I totally realize that we are subject to a monopoly situation with SFPUC. We are small. They are big. But it is not as if we have no leverage at all. And, yeah, we can make that a separate discussion. We don't have to discuss that now. Earlier, there were talk -- there have been all sorts of eye can see, you know, deferring off maintenance -- just again, AND tightening the belt like we did last year, and probably -- 1:54:49: Chair Scharff: We don't have to say 10 percent. We could say something else. But I'm just saying, we have to agree to the 4 -- you know, what is it - - 4.7 or whatever -- 1:55:00: Vice Chair Mauter: 4.1. 1:55:00: Chair Scharff: 4.1. We have to agree to that. ### Referring to Slide 5. $2.37 million of the proposed rate increase (which is 4.1 percent of the FY 2026 revenues, which is 41 percent of the proposed 10 percent rate increase). 1;55:03: **: (unamplified) What's the 4.1? 1:55:04: Chair Scharff: That's the -- 1:55:04: Vice Chair Mauter: That's the water supply increase percentage, relative to -- 1:55:09: Commissioner Tucher: Relative to $2.37 million. Yes. 1:55:10: Chair Scharff: I mean, there's that chart where they break it out. 1:55:12: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. The drivers. 1:55:13: Chair Scharff: Yeah. The drivers. Right? I mean, -- ### See presentation Slide 5, the teal-colored area, "water supply." 1:55:14: Commissioner Tucher: $2.37 million. And it's 4.1 -- You know, it's roughly 40 percent the impact. 1:55:20: Chair Scharff: Right. But that I don't think we have a choice on. We have a choice to play with the other ones. And I guess I want to -- But that's not even what you're asking us to do. And I actually wanted to understand. You have a -- In the packet, you have a resolution that we passed that goes through the different rates. And if I look at each one of those, is that a 10 percent increase on each? Is that how that -- So, is that a flat 10 percent increase on all those numbers. Right? On -- So, it's a 10 percent increase on the fire, the water service from fire hydrants, the general residential water -- So, each one of those numbers is 10 percent. 1:55:55: SRP Artola: Yes. 1:55:55: Chair Scharff: OK. 1:55:55: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) Because we haven't done a cost of service study in 6 years. 1:55:58: Chair Scharff: OK. So, I just wanted to make sure I understood that. So, when we say 10 percent, we're talking about all those different services. 1:56:05: ADRM Bilir: Yeah. It's all the services. But it's a 12 percent increase on all the distribution rates, combined with the pass-through change to the 1:56:19: Chair Scharff: So, it's 12 percent, not 10 [percent]? 1:56:21: ADRM Bilir: The distribution rate is 12 [percent], and the commodity rate is 7.4 [percent], and the combined impact on a median residential bill is 10 [percent]. 1:56:31: Chair Scharff: Got it. 1:56:32: Commissioner Phillips: (unamplified) I think it might be different for some of these other combinations -- ### I don't think so. 1:56:37: ADRM Bilir: Depending upon how much water you use, or, you know, different features. It could vary, depending on, you know, how much water you use, basically. 1:56:48: Commissioner Croft: (unamplified) ** 1:56:49: Chair Scharff: Sure. 1:56:51: Commissioner Croft: OK. So, I was on the Finance Subcommittee. And in the meeting, we discussed the CIP budget. The various places that the utilities worked really hard to save money on operations. The surprise in the SFPUC rate. We discussed the fact that debt is going down because we are retiring some debt. So, should we consider issuing some debt for the large reservoir replacements, just to enable us to do the CIPs? So, I think we have to acknowledge that we have delayed capital projects for a long time. And, like Utsav -- Commissioner Gupta -- said, we have reduced the main replacement by a lot. The distribution rate increases are shocking, year after year. But I don't see, without a new assessment of all the CIP costs in those projects -- I don't see a way that we can just say no, we're not doing all these things. So, me, personally, coming out of the UAC Finance Subcommittee, was resigned to the CIP costs that I feel we need to do, at least in 2027. I'm not -- I think if the master plan gives us new costs, or the reservoir studies give us new costs, we update our CIP projections in the future. I think we should do whatever we can to get those costs down, whether it's, you know, volume purchasing from certain contractors, to get our general costs down. I don't know if there are other things we should do, but I do advocate for being creative on that. But as far as this update is concerned, I would say, I have no problem with the very large - - I DO have a problem with the very large distribution cost increase for 2027, but that doesn't mean I would vote no on it. I would vote yes on the distribution rate increase for 2027. I think for the future -- for the out years -- the SFPUC issue is a huge issue, on not having any visibility to what it's going to be, year-over-year. And I'm worried that every year, we're going to have the same thing, where we're going to cut back on our CIP budget in order to keep the cost increase -- the price increase low. So, personally, coming out of this meeting, I am OK with the distribution cost increase for 2027. I don't know if there's some way we can just take one year at a time in this meeting. 1:59:43: Chair Scharff: Well, I think we are just taking one year. So, what they're really asking us to do, if you look -- as a recommendation -- is, 1) is approve the fiscal 2027 water utility financial forecast, and a transfer of up to $5.5 million from the Operations [Reserve to the CIP Reserve]. That's the first thing. And then, the second thing they ask us to do is to increase the utility rates. 2:00:02: Commissioner Croft: But does the forecast include the 5 years? 2:00:07: Chair Scharff: Yes. The forecast includes the 5 years. I mean, we could vote no on number 1), and not agree to that. And we could vote yes on some utility rate increase. Right? Or, we could, you know, obviously, vote yes on both. But I don't think you have to vote yes on the whole thing. You could break it out. Staff could tell me if I'm wrong. 2:00:28: Director Kurotori: Correct. I mean, you could vote and say that you acknowledge the financial forecast, and you would like to see things come back in the next year on that forecast. But, really, it's up to this Commission - um -- in providing that comment. Because as we take this, we bring this to the Finance Committee before the City Council. So, if you have discrete comments, in terms of looking at those future years, in terms of, you know, bringing back, after we do the analysis on the seismic retrofit or replacement of those tanks, looking at bonding those costs, and putting that into -- seeing if we can do some rate relief to the customers, and extending those over -- payment over a longer period of time. Or looking at other ways of how we do our projections, in terms of what our assumptions are for SFPUC rate projections. And then, comments on -- you know, after the master plan is completed, is, refreshing, you know, what is the rate of replacement for water main replacements. You know, those would be helpful comments for us to document and take back. And we've already heard some comments on when we do another cost of service study. And before -- what I'm hearing -- before we do our next cost of service study for the water utility, I think we should bring that back to the Commission and get your feedback. And really get that as an agendized ### Action item, please. So that we put that information forward. But -- We are taking notes on that. But I'd rather bring that forward -- back as an agendized item before we do our next cost of service study, to look at, you know, different rates, tier -- what impacts of tiered options -- um -- Zone charges that other utilities -- I'm very familiar with. We've mentioned Hayward here as one of the cities that we compare to. They do have zone charges. As they go up their Highland chain, up into the East Bay hills. So, I'm very familiar with that, as well. So, these are good pieces of information that we could take back. So, discrete feedback like that, as we bring it to Finance, is helpful. 2:02:27: I also wanted to mention, this information, as -- in the presentation -- We also provide Prop 218 notices to our residents, typically in the April timeframe, because there are some requirements of when we have to provide it to customers, before we enact the rate increase. I just wanted to mention that as well. 2:02:45: Chair Scharff: So, I have a question for all of you. What do you guys think about having them come back and talk about -- in a study session issue ### What's the difference between a "study session issue" and a regular agendized discussion item? Why couldn't it be an agendized action item, so that UAC could advise Council about what Council should direct staff to do about it? -- in here -- the rate drivers, the financial for- -- you know, the forecast for the out years -- for, you know, '28 through '31 -- where we would discuss, you know, what the reserves look like. Does it make sense? There's a lot of reserve questions we could ask. There's a lot of questions we could ask in the CIP about what is -- Why are we doing the CIP? What are the risks? When do they need to be done? You know. All of that, so we understand it. 2:03:21: Vice Chair Mauter: Can we -- Can I make a suggestion, Greg? My sense is that we have this reserve question across ALL of the utilities. Not just in the water utility. And, frankly, like, that issue -- I'd love a study session on that. But it should be utility-wide. And, yes, Alan, you're right, there was a 2.5-line discussion of the fact that, in spring, that we're going to get -- the external auditor is going to tell us -- 2:03:52: Commissioner Phillips: NEXT spring. 2:03:53: Vice Chair Phillips: But -- But -- And so, I apologize for missing that one short paragraph. But I guess the point is, relative to what I see, like, in terms of the costs of doing business on water utilities, and the fact that, frankly, we have foothills, and we have to provide foothills, in addition -- 2:04:18: Chair Scharff: And that's with your comments about charging more for the foothills. 2:04:18: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, I mean, it's a -- that's an operational thing. Right? There's zone pricing. Like, I think that there are things that we can have detailed discussions about, AFTER there's a master plan and a cost of service study. I don't think that we can have a particularly well-informed discussion about detailed operational things until those things are finished. Frankly. Because we have a 20-year-old master plan -- 2:04:49: Chair Scharff: I'm not sure the master plan drives most of the CIP costs. It does not seem to. 2:04:53: Vice Chair Mauter: It should. It should. 2:04:55: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, the -- 2:04:56: Vice Chair Mauter: That's the -- Yeah. 2:04:57: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) ** 2:04:58: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, the -- 2:04:59: 2:04:59: Director Kurotori: Typically, in the master plans, they look at the entire system. The hydraulic model, capacities, age of the system by pipe material, the size and class. They look at the pipeline breaks. And they provide a CIP -- but recommendation over typically a 5- to 10-year timeline, which is typically what you see, in terms of those master plans. 2:05:21: Chair Scharff: So, then, you shouldn't be spending any CIP money until after you finish it. 2:05:26: Director Kurotori: So, we still have a replacement plan, taking a look at the age and size of the system, and then -- and breaks. So, we still do need to do water main replacements. 2:05:36: Chair Scharff: You need to do water main replacements. 2:05:38: Director Kurotori: And so -- 2:05:38: Chair Scharff: But do you -- But the size -- The big numbers in there are not the water main replacements. 2:05:41: Vice Chair Mauter: Ah. There are some water main replacement numbers. 2:05:43: Chair Scharff: I guess there are. 2:05:44: Vice Chair Mauter: 'Cause it's a $3.5 million water main replacement going -- 2:05:46: Chair Scharff: Yeah, but there's an $18 million -- 2:05:49: Vice Chair Mauter: Seismic -- 2:05:49: Chair Scharff: -- seismic upgrade. 2:05:49: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes, but -- 2:05:49: Chair Scharff: Which is huge. 2:05:50: Vice Chair Mauter: Greg, you are going to bond that, and you have to do it. 2:05:54: Chair Scharff: You know. 2:05:54: Vice Chair Mauter: If you don't do it, and you have an earthquake, and you have water in the City -- 2:05:57: Chair Scharff: So, -- 2:05:57: Vice Chair Mauter: -- you're going to have a lot of angry citizens. 2:06:00: Director Kurotori: So, Chair and Vice Chair, what I may suggest is that, you know, as we get the completion of the engineering evaluation and recommendations for the repair/replacement seismic retrofit of those two tanks, that we -- that would help inform those discussions. 2:06:14: Vice Chair Mauter: I think we need to come back and see a finished master plan, and that that's a wonderful opportunity for us to have a cost savings opportunity -- like, discussion, here. In the absence of that -- I don't want to look at a 20-year-old document. It's a complete waste of time. I do, also, with that, want to see a complementary cost of service study, so that we have an understanding of how we can fairly allocate the costs of providing water to the City's residents. Because my guess is, there's actually some opportunities for realigning the actual cost of distribution with the charged cost of distribution. 2:06:51: Commissioner Phillips: I guess, on top of all that, I'm still concerned. So, reading about the reserves here -- And, Alan, you unfortunately made me - - Director Kurotori -- made me more nervous when you said the reason Santa Clara could have such a small reserve is because they have no debt. ### Is Commissioner Phillips citing Director Kurotori at 1:34:41? Maybe Kurotori just meant that Santa Clara's water utility wasn't having to pay interest on top of its O&M spending. ### As far as I know, Palo Alto's water utility's Operating Reserve also contains no borrowed money, so it's comparable to Santa Clara's water utility's Operations & Maintenance Reserve. ### Palo Alto's "idle-cash" investments prioritize safety, liquidity, and return, in that order. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/investment-policies/1-39-asd-investment-policy.pdf So do Santa Clara's. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88960/639064189910030000 That means, to me, it's not a risk mitigation. ### That's a HUGE leap on not much evidence. ### The Operations & Maintenance Reserve of Santa Clara's water utility has a target of 90 days of operations. (See page 445 here.) https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/86913/638925781948230000 The Operations Reserve of Palo Alto's water utility also has a target of 90 days of operations (with a min of 60 days and a max of 120 days). See Attachment A of Item 1. (Sorry, no URL.) And I look at the amount of debt that's being planned. And it's about -- goes from $2.2 million -- $2.2 [million to $2.3 [million]. The covenants we have -- you know, in the 2009-2011 bonds are: net revenues plus available reserves should be 125 percent of that. Available reserves should be 5 times the maximum. Note that available reserves, as defined for both bonds, include the reserves for the gas, electric systems. It's not just water. ### The City's FY 2021 Water Utility Financial Plan (page 33) has this covenant information. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/attachments/attachment-b-palo-alto- water-fin-plan-2021.pdf ### In 2004, Council was seriously thinking of going ahead with citywide FTTP, until staff got cold feet about the financing plan: bonds backed primarily by FTTP revenues but secondarily by electric revenues. The concern was that Prop 218 MIGHT forbid using electric revenues to pay off FTTP bonds if called upon to do so. ### I don't know why the cited covenants in 2009-2011 seemed to assume that it would be OK for other utilities to back the water utility's bonds. I mean, we're so far -- You know, we're so far beyond those covenants. If that's theoretically driving our reserves, it's insane. if it's not, what is? 2:07:49: Director Kurotori: So, we've had some discussions on the terms of those covenants, because it does talk about multiple utilities. And, as I mentioned, that's not typically what is being done. We are actively taking a look at those potentials to save money, by looking at refinancing those bonds. Is there an opportunity to do that? That's something that ASD -- or, excuse me, our Administrative Services Department -- takes a look at, in terms of the debt for the utilities. So, you know, to that extent, we may be bringing something back, to see if we can have some additional cost savings. That's not something that's uncommon. So, I didn't want to -- I did want to just mention, because that other city was brought up, in terms of their debt service. It was not to imply anything else, more or less, but just to put that in context. 2:08:36: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Can I summarize the past 5 minutes? We need a detailed look at operational costs. Going forward. Like over the next 5 years. But we are not prepared to have that conversation today. And the City staff are not prepared to have that conversation today, because we lack information rela- -- around a master plan. And so, I think that we should approve this year's cost increases, in terms of distribution rates, and table the out year projections for when we actually can have a legitimate conversation. And then, we should agendize that for -- on the 12-month calendar. 2:09:15: Chair Scharff: But aren't you saying that you're not going to have the new master plan done for 2 years? 2:09:20: Vice Chair Mauter: You'll have a draft master plan before next year, I presume. Chair Scharff: I mean, aren't they spending like 100 and some -- I can't remember. It's like $100,000. But then, most of the money next year to do the plan. So, I don't think they have the plan for several years. 2:09:37: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, maybe we should move that forward. 2:09:43: Director Kurotori (unamplified) So -- (amplified) So, let me do a couple things here. So, -- 2:09:48: Vice Chair Mauter: I'm trying to get this passed -- [laughs] 2:09:49: Director Kurotori: I am, too. So, the water master plan is probably -- depending on when we go out to -- for the RFP for consultants -- is typically about a year -- to maybe a little bit longer. 2:09:58: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Fine. So, we push it out 18 months. But 18 months from now, we -- And we need to remember that we all had this conversation. ### One way to have provided for that remembrance would have been to have voted on it. But that didn't happen. ### Another way would be to have verbatim minutes. We can't have a real hard look at operations until -- and distribution system costs -- until we have a master plan. So, when -- We should accelerate to the extent possible. And that --- When that comes back, in draft form, we need look at it before it's finalized. OK? Given that we cannot really advise the City safely on changing their distribution system spend, because we aren't -- we don't have a compass or a map to help us do that. I think we have to approve these rates. We want a safe water supply. 2:10:42: Chair Scharff: I don't think we need to approve these rates. 2:10:43: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, I don't think we have to approve all of the -- 2:10:45: Chair Scharff: I think we need to approve the distribution system -- 2:10:47: Vice Chair Mauter: Fine. 2:10:47: Chair Scharff: -- the CIP -- 2:10:49: Vice Chair Mauter: That's correct. 2:10:49: Chair Scharff: And the -- I don't think we need to approve the restoring operating reserves. I'm still confused as to why we're moving $5.5 million out -- 2:10:59: Vice Chair Mauter: Of operating -- 2:10:59: Chair Scharff: -- and they we're -- 2:11:00: Vice Chair Mauter: It should be called -- 2:11:01: Chair Scharff: That's not OK with me. 2:11:02: Vice Chair Mauter: It should be called restore CAPITAL reserves. ### Or maybe boost capital reserves. ("Restore" suggests restoring to an exact prior amount, and the proposed transfer size is only "up-to.") It would have been good to have asked staff whether they concur. 2:11:04: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) ** 2:11:05: Chair Scharff: I said I'm not understanding why we're moving $5,5 million out. And that's why I don't want to vote to move $5.5 million out. And -- If we don't move the $5.5 million out, I don't think we need to do the 4.1. ### Referring again to presentation slide 5. The purple part is $2.37 million for "restoring operating reserves" (which Vice Chair Mauter just said should have said was "restoring" CIP reserves). And that $2.37 million is 41 percent of staff's proposed 10% rate increase, which in turn is 4.1 percent of current revenues. We could have a 4.3, plus a 1.2, plus -- you know, the little red part is really small. And that's the CIP. ### Presentation slide 5 says the little red part is operating expenses. Slide 5 doesn't show the CIP reserve. So, I'm fine with approving the rest of it. I just don't want to approve the top part. ### The purple part. 2:11:27: SRP Artola: Yeah. I can understand how that's confusing. And it does have to do with -- we have these different buckets. It might be more helpful if you look at Slide 9, where we're looking at total reserves together, and you can see how they kind of move together over time. 2:11:47: Chair Scharff: Slide 9. That's the -- 2:11:50: SRP Artola: Water Reserve Projections. 2:11:52: ###. Slide 9 -- Water Reserve Projections (again) So, that's showing total reserves. That's operations reserve, capital reserve reserve, rate stabilization reserve. So, you an see how they're growing over time. ### In Slide 9, the FY 2026 CIP reserve is shown as about $8 million. (Is this showing it AFTER a presumed $5.5 million transfer?) 2:12:09 Vice Chair Mauter: We're moving, in '25, the operations reserve into the capital reserve. ### Up to $5.5 million of it. That's why the purple line is getting -- 2:12:18: Director Kukrotori: Yeah. 2:12:20: Chair Scharff: Right. 2:12:20: Director Kurotori: Because we're moving the funds in '26 over from operating to capital. We're increasing that. And then, you see, in '27, we're trying to increase back in the operations. It's a two-step process. So, I can see how sounds like we're doing it twice. 2:12:33: Vice Chair Mauter: But, Alan, it's ** at these conversations. OK? 2:12:37: Director Kurotori: I recognize that. Vice Chair Mauter: And if you had given me any of these packets ahead of time, I also would have told you this in our pre-meeting. OK? Frankly, like, we need to be able -- Like, this is not helping the process. Sorry. It's not personal. But, like, it's systematic. I want to get these things passed, while we're all assembled, in a single shot. ### In a single agendized item? Or in a single motion? 2:13:01: Director Kurotori: Appreciate the comment. 2:13:07: Commissioner Gupta: I don't want to lose sight, also, of this com- -- We have these distribution rate questions, outstanding, I think. But we also have commodity rate questions as well. Personally, I view them as tied. Because with increasing commodity rates, we are going to see an effect on the capex that we can do, if we want to maintain reasonable rate increases moving into the future. And pushing that into the future doesn't mean we're not paying for it. We're just going to be paying for it in the future. I think we understand that. ### Hope so. So, I view them all as tied. I think, given the conversation on distribution rates, I have a ton more questions now, on: What are our capital projects? You know, how expensive are they? These reserve questions are hugely important. You know, I'm currently a no on the whole thing, 'cause the whole thing is one big picture. I don't think you can kind of just look at one aspect of it and approve it. But I do think we could use more time. And I don't know if there's appetite, with this Commission, to continuing this to a future meeting when we could get more of this information and maybe find more comfort at least on the distribution rate increases. But I do think we also need to push on the commodity rate increases, and make sure we're asking questions, and bringing SFPUC and BAWSCA here to answer our questions that the City of Palo Alto has on how we should be planning in the future. 2;14:36: Vice Chair Mauter: Utsav, we don't have the information necessary to do distribution system planning if we don't have a master plan. And therefore, we really cannot dig in very deeply on changing a lot of these bars. We can definitely have an overarching discussion about reserve policies. But it -- per this 2.5 line statement here -- single sentence -- we're not going to get that until spring '26. ### Spring '27? (Spring '26 -- calendar '26 -- started 03-21-26. Essentially now.) So, that's the broader discussion to have, I think. And, yes, it's a failure in this. But we're not going to be able to course correct in time on that one. On the supply side, this is a political problem right now. It is NOT the purview of -- I don't want to say that we have no voice. Right. But, like, there's already Council Member Stone sitting there, asking pointed questions. How much more are we going to do by not voting it through? [laughs] I don't think that -- like -- 2:15:46: Chair Scharff: if we don't vote it through -- If we don't give an alternative -- 2:15:49: Vice Chair Mauter: Then we are just being difficult. 2:15:49: Chair Scharff: -- we need to give someone -- or the Finance Committee will just be like -- OK -- ignore that. 2:15:53: Vice Chair Mauter: Great. Nice. Frankly, as Lisa's just said, we have ### Council has already approved a pass through charge for 5 years. And so, if we don't approve ### advise that Council approve it, it's irrelevant, because it's already approved. 2:16:07: Commissioner Tucher: Are you suggesting that when we pass through -- when we say we're approving a pass through, that for 5 years, the City's basically saying we'll take whatever SFPUC rate increases they pass? 2:16:16: Vice Chair Mauter: I don't know. 2:16:16: Commissioner Tucher: I happen to believe -- 2:16:18: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, actually, Lisa, could you answer that question? 2:16:20: Chair Scharff: I think we have to. 2:16:20: Vice Chair Mauter: This is something that YOU said. The pre-approval of pass through charges over a 5-year period? 2:16:29: ADRM Bilir: Yes. That was approved by the Council. 2:16:32: Vice Chair Mauter: When? 2:16:33: ADRM Bilir: I believe it was in June of 2024. ### If so, then it was probably 06-17-24. ### 06-17-24 agenda -- Item 29. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14311 Video (7:28:19) -- Item 29 was from 5:47:28 to 6:41:42. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PJqLT1NT4o I searched the YouTube transcript and did not find evidence that Council mentioned the pass-through. 2:16:37: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. So -- 2:16:38: Commissioner Tucher: And what does it say? What does it mean to p- ? It means -- 2:16:41: Vice Chair Mauter: It's a commod- -- It's like a gas charge. 2:16:43: Chair Scharff: It means you pay what they charge us. 2:16:43: Vice Chair Mauter: You pay what they charge us. 2:16:44: Commissioner Tucher: OK. 2:16:45: Vice Chair Mauter: Which is then audited. Right? 2:16:47: Commissioner Tucher: But it kind of goes without saying that we pay what they charge. But that doesn't mean that we agree with their process. 2:16:53: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, -- 2:16:54: Chair Scharff: But it doesn't matter. 2:16:55: Vice Chair Mauter: It doesn't matter. 2:16:56: Commissioner Tucher: It DOES matter. What Palo Alto says about SFPUC's rate setting and BAWSCA's -- uh -- fulfillment of its role and responsibilities DOES matter. Chair Scharff: I guess you're right. It matters, but it's irrelevant to THIS discussion. 2:17:11: Commissioner Tucher: Well, it does not help Palo Alto's representative on the BAWSCA board for our UAC simply to approve whatever comes down the pike with regard to wholesale prices. That does not strengthen anyone's cause if we want to effect change. 2:17:29: Vice Chair Mauter: But I don't know what else to suggest. 2:17:32: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) Say no. 2:17:33: Vice Chair Mauter: To what end? 2:17:37: Commissioner Tucher: If for no other reason than to send a message. A message for -- Yeah. 2:17:40: Vice Chair Mauter: But then like -- 2:17:42: Commissioner Phillips: A message to who? 2:17:42: Vice Chair Mauter: -- what is Council supposed to do? -- 2:17:43: Commissioner Phillips: And what are the rates? 2:17:43: Vice Chair Mauter: -- Not approve it? 2:17:45: Commissioner Tucher: Well, send another letter that the director of SFPUC will write back to blow off -- to disregard -- to say no. And so, something has to change. 2:17:56: Vice Chair Mauter: I hear your frustration. And agree that we've spent a very valuable couple of hours -- 2:18:03: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. We can stop talking and vote. 2:18:03: Vice Chair Mauter: -- having that conversation. And also putting forward some -- what I think were pretty REASONABLE questions. 2:18:12: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. 2:18:12: Vice Chair Mauter: But I will also say that I'm not sure that taking a no vote does anything to move that forward. 2:18:20: Commissioner Tucher: OK. Well, then, let's just vote. 2:18:22: Chair Scharff: No. We're not ready to vote. Um. So, I guess there's two questions here. On the first part of this, I'm going to take a straw vote. ### Given that Item 1 is an ACTION item, and UAC can take actual real votes, I don't see the point of resorting to a straw vote. approving a reserve transfer of up to $5.5 million from the operations reserve? Anyone who would vote for that part, raise your hand. Would you vote for that? [Indicating specifically Vice Chair Mauter] 2:18:56: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) I don't have -- (amplified) I don't have -- I mean, I don't think we've had adequate -- quite adequate discussions about like why on earth we're doing these reserve transfers. Presumably, the staff think that this is in the best interest of the utility, ### And, perhaps, ultimately, its customers. and I'd like to hear from them why that's in the best interest of the utility, and why it would be detrimental to not move this money around. 1:19:16: Chair Scharff: And should we have them come back with that information, and have it -- 2:19:18: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, do you have that information right now? Or do you lack that information? 2:19:22: SRP Artola: I don't think we a lot more details than what we've gone through. But I think it would be perfectly fine either way, whether we do the transfer or not. We can just report next year on what happened. 2:19:33: Commissioner Phillips: Does it require -- Does a transfer Council approval? 2:19:38: ADRM Bilir: Yes. 2:19:39: Commissioner Phillips: Yes, it does. OK. 2:19:39: Vice Chair Mauter: And, I mean, not having -- like, having more money in one reserve versus having more money in another reserve -- It isn't changing the amount of money that we have. ### No, but it's changing how staff can spend it. This is not a substantive modification. ### If the money is in the CIP reserve, then staff can spend it on CIP. If the money is in the operations reserve, then staff can't spend it on CIP, without transferring it to the CIP reserve first. IF the money is in the CIP reserve, then staff can't spend it on operations. **: (unamplified) ** 2:19:51: Vice Chair Mauter: [laughs] I know it. But like, it's moving it from one pot to another pot, but the money is still there. 2:19:59: Commissioner Phillips: (unamplified) ** 2:19:59: Vice Chair Mauter: Right? So, I am -- If YOU think that this is a good idea, I'm HAPPY to vote yes on that. And YOU think it is a good idea because it keeps us within the like recommended envelope. 2:20:10: Director Kurotori: We have -- We have guidance to keep it -- 2:20:14: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:20:14: Director Kurotori: -- under the reserve maximum of 120 days of O&M. So that's my we were initiating that transfer. We stay within the range. ### Eyeballing Slide 7, the maximum for the Operations Reserve is about $18 million, and the Operations Reserve (assuming no transfer yet) is about $18.5 million. So, yeah, it's a teensy bit over the maximum. the availability of funds. 2:20:31: Vice Chair Mauter: Right. 2:20:31: Director Kurotori: So -- 2:20:32: Vice Chair Mauter: Never mind that the policy at the global, across the utilities, remains unset, and that that's a failure. But we are not going to deal with that failure tonight. We need to have that conversation much more broadly. ### Whatever Vice Chair Mauter is talking about, it's not agendized, so she shouldn't be talking about it. 2:20:44: Chair Scharff: So, what I heard staff say is, it doesn't matter then if we vote no on that. 2:20:49: Vice Chair Mauter: Right. But it also doesn't -- like -- 2:20:51: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) So, yes -- 2:20:51: Vice Chair Mauter: -- in that case, we should vote yes. 2:20:53: Commissioner Croft: It is to keep it within our reserve policy. Is that correct? We're doing it to stay compliant with our reserve policy -- 2:21:00: Director Kurotori: Reserve -- in compliance with the reserve policy. And that's why staff is making that recommendation. 2:21:04: Vice Chair Mauter: And I think that we want -- While the reserve policy needs additional meat on its bones, at the moment, our external auditor, Baker Tilly, has failed to provide that. So -- um -- we should follow current policy until that policy changes. 2:21:24: Director Kurotori: So, my understanding, that may be coming as soon as April of this year. 2:21:31: Vice Chair Mauter: Really? 2:21:31: Director Kurotori: So, I wanted to just throw more fuel on that fire. 2:21:31: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. 2:21:34: Chair Scharf: Do you want to then vote on number 1?: 2:212:34: Vice Char Mauter: Yes. I would like to vote yes on number -- 2:21:36: Commissioner Croft: Can we separate the -- 2:21:40: Chair Scharff: Yes. -- separate the forecast from -- 2:21:42: Vice Chair Mauter: No. Separate the forecast from the reserve transfer. 2:21:41: Chair Scharff: I'm happy to do that. So, the first vote then can be approving the fiscal year 2027 utility financial forecast, as shown in the staff report and attachments. Right? Who wants -- So, why don't -- Anyone who want to MOVE that we we approve that? 2:22:02: Commissioner Gupta: Just a question. So, it sounds like we're getting some report out on the reserves, in April? 2:22:09: Director Kurotori: As early -- It goes to Policy & Services. It is not going to be finalized. So, I'm trying to provide as much information as I possibly can. 2:22:19: Chair Gupta: Thank you. 2:22:19: Chair Scharff: We're going to break this up into three votes. OK. I will MOVE^^ then that we do NOT approve the fiscal year 2027 water utility financial forecast shown in the staff report and attachments. Do I have a second? 2:22:33: Commissioner Gupta: SECOND^^. 2:22:34: Chair Scharff: OK. ### Any discussion? Can you call the roll? 2:22:35: Vice Chair Mauter: Wait. So you -- we're voting to NOT approve. 2:22;38: Chair Scharff: That's correct. 2:22:39: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. So, if I want to approve it, I need to vote no. 2:22:43: Chair Scharff: NO. That is correct. 2:22:44: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Thank you. 2:22:45: Commissioner Phillips: Just a double negative ** 2:22:47: **: Yes. 2:22:47: Vice Chair Mauter: Couldn't we just vote to approve the damned thing, and then you can vote no on it? 2:22:54: Chair Scharff: No. 2:22:54: Vice chair Mauter: OK. Fine. 2:22:53: ### The screen displays the staff recommendation on page 1 of the staff report, with a crossed-out point 1 and points 2a thru 2e. 2:22:57: Chair Scharff: Ah. Um. Move -- "Staff recommends the Utilities Advisory Commission recommend the City Council adopt a --" 2:23:04: Commissioner Phillips: No. That's not the motion. 2:23:05: Chair Scharff: No. The MOTION^^ is to NOT approve the fiscal year 2027 water utility financial shown in the staff report and attachments. 2:23:16: Commissioner Phillips: Period. 2:23:17: Chair Scharff: Period. 2:23:21: Commissioner Phillips: So, the rest of it needs to be detached. Approving the revenue transfer needs to be a separate motion. 2:23:38: Chair Scharff: Correct. 2:23:29: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) Why not have it be affirmative, and let people vote this -- 2:23:31: Vice Chair Mauter: Could we please keep it in the affirmative, Greg? 2:23:36: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) Is it different -- 2:23:38: Commissioner Phillips: He could withdraw his motion, and you can make a motion. I don't know. 2:23:41: Chair Scharff: I could, but I think -- Look -- 2:23:44: Commissioner Gupta: This is more useful, I think -- 2:23:47: Chair Scharff: I think this is more useful, because if this loses, then we can vote yes. I just look and think there's more no votes. I count four no votes. So, if I count four no votes, what's the point in doing the other way first? 2:23:58: Vice Chair Mauter: Fine. Fine. 2:23:58: Commissioner Gupta: Also, it sends advice forward. 2:24:00: Vice Chair Mauter: Right. 2:24:01: Chair Scharff: It sends advice. The advice is NOT to do it. Not approve. 2:24:07: Commissioner Metz: So, could I ask for a clarification? 2:24:08: Chair Scharff: Sure. 2:24:09: Commissioner Metz: If we vote yes on this motion, does that -- yes, I know, as Commissioner Tucher said -- Um, does that mean that the rate increase will not be what's planned? 2:24:23: Chair Scharff: It doesn't affect the rate increases at all. All it does is affect the financial -- We're saying we don't believe the financial forecast that staff has given us, basically. That we don't think that's a good financial forecast. That's what we're saying. We're not approving it. 2:24:39: Commissioner Metz: OK. 2:24:39: Commissioner Croft: (unamplified) The rate increase is later. 2:24:40: Chair Scharff: Right. It's the late -- It's the out years. 2:24:44: Commissioner Metz: But isn't the reserve -- Is this reserve transfer that keeps moving part of your -- 2:24:50: Chair Scharff: So, that's going to be -- That's not part of the motion. 2:24:52: Commissioner Metz: OK. Thank you. So, we're not -- 2:24:52: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Croft asked that we split that. 1:24:56: Vice Chair Mauter: I will also vote against your financial forecast. I'll vote with you if you vote with me ** -- 2:25:05: Commissioner Phillips: Horses are being traded. 2:25:07 Vice Chair Mauter: [laughs] 2:25:09: Chair Scharff: All right. Can you call the roll? 2:25:11: **: (unamplified) Wait, wait, wait. 2:25:11: Vice Chair Mauter: Maybe that was illegal. I take that back. It was a joke. ### Not funny. 2:25:14: Chair Scharff: I know. Can you call the roll? 2:25:16: Rachel Ramero: Commissioner Croft. 2:25:18: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Croft. 2:25:20: Commissioner Croft: Sorry. It's been rewritten. We took out the "not" with bold, and I don't -- Can we just go back to what was MOVED? 2:25:29: Rachel Romero: I think yes. Thank you. 2;25:31: Commissioner Gupta: (unamplified) ** needs fixing (amplified) We need to fix the second "not." 2:25:35: Chair Scharff: I think we -- 2:25:35: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) Get rid of the first not.. --- The first. 2:25:39: Commissioner Gupta: Yeah, get rid of the first not, then -- 2:25:42: Vice Chair Mauter: And then you're OK. 2:25:42: Commissioner Phillips: OK. 2;25:43: Director Kurotori: Not not approved. 2:25:45: Chair Scharff: Get rid of the whole resolution thing 2:25:51: ** (unamplified) Yes. 2:25:51: Commissioner Phillips: Yeah. 2;25:51: Vice Chair Mauter: This if fine. It's correct. Let's call the roll. 2:25:58: Chair Scharff: It's not correct. It shouldn't have a resolution. 2;26:02: Commissioner Phillips: Or Attachment A. 2:26:04: Chair Scharff: Yeah. Yeah. There we go. That's -- That looks right. ### The screen now reads: MOTION^^ Commissioner Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Commissioner Gupta, to recommend that the City Council 1. Not Approve the Fiscal Year 2027 Water Utility Financial Forecast shown in the staff report and attachments. 2:26:12: Chair Scharff: OK. 2:26:12: Rachel Romero: Ready? [laughs] 2:26:12: Chair Scharff: Now, Commissioner Croft. 2:26:16: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 2:26:16: Vice Chair Mauter: -- missing a 5 year financial. -- 2:26:18: Commissioner Croft: Yes. Should we say 5 years? Should we put that in here? 2:26:22: Commissioner Phillips: Yes, please. 2:26:22: Commissioner Croft: Five year forecast? 2;26:23: **: Yes. 2:26:25: Commissioner Croft: The water utility 5-year financial forecast. Do we need to move this again, or we can just vote on this? ### The screen now reads: MOTION: Commissioner Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Commissioner Gupta, to recommend that the City Council 1. Not Approve the Fiscal Year 2027 Water Utility 5 year Financial Forecast shown in the staff report and attachments. 2:26:37: Chair Scharff: (unamplified) Just vote on it. 2:26:38: Commissioner Croft: OK. I vote yes. 2:36:39: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Phillips. 2:26:41: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. 2:26:44: Rachel Romero: Chair Scharff. 2:26:44: Chair Scharff: Yes. 2:26:46: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Metz. 2:26:47: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 2:26:49: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Gupta. 2:26:50: Commissioner Gupta: Yes. 2:26:52: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Tucher. 2:26:53: Commissioner Tucher: Yes. 2:26:56: Rachel Romero: Vice Chair Mauter. 2:26:56: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:26:57: Rachel Romero: MOTION^^ carries 7-0. 2:27:00: Chair Scharff: OK. Next, we'll vote on -- do you want to make the motion to approve the reserve transfer of up to $5.5 million from the operations -- 2:27:13: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. I will MOVE^^ to effectuate that reserve transfer. 2:27:18: Commissioner Phillips: I will second. 2:27:24: Chair Scharff: Do you want to call the roll? ### Any discussion? 2:27:25: Commissioner Metz: Could I ask a question of -- Since we're splitting this into pieces? 2:27:28: Chair Scharff: Sure. 2:27:29: Commissioner Metz: So, is this -- does this create part of the 10 percent rate increase for 2027? 2:27:35: **: No 2:27:35: Vice Chair Mauter: No. It does not. 2:27:35: Chair Scharff: No. It has no effect on a rate increase. 2:27:37: Commissioner Metz: So, it's not the purple -- borrow -- ### Holding up a piece of paper -- 2:27:40: Vice Chair Mauter: No. No. 2:27:41: Commissioner Metz: OK. Well, thank you. 2:27:51: Vice Chair Mauter: And it's an up-to number. So -- 2:28:00: Chari Scharff: I do think, Commissioner Metz, your question actually might need to -- staff to respond. If we move the $5.5 million, that means the operations reserve goes lower. Correct? 2;28:11: 2:28:15: ADRM Bilir: We're moving the funds from the operations reserve to the -- 2:28:19 Vice Chair Mauter: The capital reserve 2:28:19 ADRM Bilir: -- capital reserves. So, the operations reserve would go higher. ### No. Lower. 2:28:22: **: (unamplified) No. 2:28:22: **: No, it will go lower. 2:28:24: Chair Scharff: It will go lower. 2:28:26: **: (unamplified) Transfer ** 2:28:27: ADRM Bilir: Oh. If you transfer it, it goes lower. Yes. If we don't transfer it, it stays higher. 2:28:29: Vice Chair Mauter: But we are only moving to transfer up to that amount. And so, you don't have to fully transfer that amount. 2:28:40: ADRM Bilir: That's correct. 2:28:41: Chair Scharff: OK. It just gives staff the authority to do that. Is that correct? ### Yes, if Council acts on UAC's advice. 2:28:45: ADRM Bilir: That's correct.. 2:28:46: Chair Scharff: OK. 2:28:48: Commissioner Croft: Vice Chair Mauter MOVED -- since your cursor is there -- ### The screen now reads: MOTION^^: Vice Chair Mauter moved, seconded by Commissioner Phillips, to recommend that the City Council 1. Approve a reserve transfer of up to $5,500,000 from the Operations Reserve to the CIP Reserve in FY 2026. 2:28:59: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Phillips. 2:29:01: Commissioner Phillips: SECOND^^. ### Any discussion? 2:29:06: Rachel Romero: Vice Chair Mauter. Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:29:10: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Tucher. 2:29:12: Commissioner Tucher: No. 2:29:14: Rachel Romero: Chair Scharff. 2:29:15: Chair Scharff: Yes. 2:29:18: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Phillips. 2:29:20: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. 2:29:21: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Gupta. 2:29:24: Commissioner Gupta: No. 2:29:26: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Metz. 2:29:27: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 2:29:30: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Croft. 2:29:32: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 2:29:35: Rachel Romero: MOTION^^ carries 5-2. ### Commissioners Gupta and Tucher no. ### My summary: Commissioners Gupta and Tucher thought that staff hadn't explained in enough detail why stall wanted to do the transfer. Commissioners Croft, Mauter, Metz, Phillips, and Scharff thought it wouldn't be harmful financially. 2:29:41: Chair Scharff: OK. Now, I guess, the question is, what rate increase would you like to recommend to the City Council? And the floor of that, it's got to be the commodity increase. Right? ### This "floor" would allocate no money for replenishing the CIP reserve, increasing capital expenses, or increasing operating expenses (that is, the purple, green, and red areas of Slide 5). So it's somewhere between 4.1 [percent] and 10 [percent]. ### Why is the max 10 percent? I'm open to getting straw votes about what people think. ### Why not just use the tools available for action items: motions and amendments (and, potentially, substitute motions)? But it can't be less than 4.1 [percent], and it can't be more than 10 [percent]. 2:30: 2:30:07: Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you. 2:30:11: Chair Scharff: Why don't we just quickly do it? What are your thoughts? I'm just going to go and ask everyone along the way. What are your thoughts on it? Commissioner Tucher? Or are you just voting no, period? 2:30:21: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) That's one way to say it (amplified) Yeah. I won't vote for an approval that's based on these wholesale rate increases without making a statement of protest. 2:30:29: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Metz, what are your thoughts on it? 2:30:39: Commissioner Metz: (unamplified) I'd just like to understand where we are -- Oh. (amplified) I'd just like to understand where the reserve is. I think the -- you know, the point that Vice Chair Mauter made earlier, that we don't gain or lose any money by moving it from one bucket to another. ### This sounds like an explanation of his vote on the previous motion. So, it seems like it doesn't matter. And the bond covenants are not affected by the operations reserve. Correct? ### Yeah. But it might conceivably affect what interest rate the City can get if it wants to borrow in the future. I -- That's the one thing I would worry about. 2:31:05: Chair Scharff: We're not bonding this year though. Right? 2:31:08: **: ** 2:31:10: Commissioner Metz: -- all our historical bond covenants are not -- 2:31:12: Chair Scharff: Oh. 2:31:12: Commissioner Metz: -- impacted by the status of the operational reserve. 2:31:16: Chair Scharff: No. 2:31:17: Commissioner Metz: OK. 2:31:18: Chair Scharff: I mean, I think, to focus it, we're talking about, do you want to do the full 4.11 ### 4.1 percent? of the reserve -- Operating Reserve? Do you want to do less than the $2.37 million? ### Presentation Slide 5 -- FY 2027 Rate Increase Drivers -- presents what factors MIGHT contribute to an overall water rate increase of 10 percent. * $2.37 million -- Restoring Operating Reserves -- 4.1% --- (should say Replenishing CIP Reserve) * $2.37 million -- Water Supply -- 4.1% * $0.68 million -- Capital Expenses -- 1.2% * $0.30 million -- Operating Expenses -- 0.5% 2:31:29: Commissioner Metz: Yeah, I think I would be inclined to do -- I mean, as I read this chart -- the operations reserve, ### Is "this chart" presentation Slide 7 -- Water Operations Reserve Projections? It says the Operations Reserve in 2026 is about $13 million (AFTER a hypothetical $5.5 million transfer to the CIP reserve), just under the target of about $13.5 million, and that the minimum is about $9 million this would -- it's still quite at the high end. Right? Am I understanding that? ### No. 2:31:41: Vice Chair Mauter: Potentially not after the transfer. It's probably helpful to look at Slide 9 to understand where we are -- 2:31:52: Commissioner Phillips: In total. 2:31:52: Vice Chair Mauter: In total. ### Fine. Presentation Slide 9 also says the Operations Reserve is about $13 million in 2026, but it doesn't show the reserve's target, min, or max. And I think, just for future years, if you could please put the bounding projections on the total, that would be HELPFUL in this discussion. 2:32:04: Commissioner Metz: Right. But Slide 7 looks like the Operations Reserve is near the high end of the range all the time. Correct? ### No. In 2020-2022 and 2025, yes. But in 2024, it was UNDER the minimum. And in 2026, it's a little under the target (AFTER a hypothetical $5.5 million transfer to the CIP reserve). 2:32:15: Chair Scharff: It is. And so, the question -- 2:32:17: Vice Chair Mauter: And yet, our Capital Reserve is very low. ### Presentation Slide 8 -- Water CIP Reserve Projections -- says that for 2026, the reserve is about $9 million, the minimum is about $3 million, and the maximum is about $15 million. It's on the very low end of the range. Which is why we just approved that up-to $5 million ### $5.5 million transfer -- 2:32:28: Commissioner Metz: Right. 2:32:28: Vice Chair Mauter: -- to get us back in the middle. ### Presentation Slide 8 says the CIP Reserve for 2026 is in the middle (after the hypothetical transfer). 2:32:30: Commissioner Metz: And so, then, I'd go back to the question I keep getting wrong, which is, does this affect the rates for 2027? 2:32:39: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. This one WOULD affect the rates for 2027. 2:32:42: Commissioner Metz: OK. That's -- 2:32:43: Chair Scharff: It's how much money do you want to move into the reserve. Right? It's somewhere between zero and $2.27 million. ### It's $2.37 million. (The purple area. Per Slide 5.) I mean, the easier way to think about it is, that's 4 percent. Do you want to say you could have a 2 percent increase on that part, which would then get you a -- Instead of a 10 [percent increase], it would bet you an 8 percent increase. You could think about it like that. Which is probably simpler. 2:33:05: Vice Chair Mauter: Um -- 2:33:06: Chair Scharff: We can come back to you -- 2:33:07: Vice Chair Mauter: Could I show something to him? 2:33:09: Chair Scharff: Sure. 2:33:10: ### Vice Chair Mauter moves to Commissioner Metz's location and shows him something. (inaudible huddle) 2:33:42: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Croft. 2:33:44: Commissioner Croft: I am -- I would vote yes on a 2027 increase of 10 percent. I do think there's some benefit to trying to smooth out the increases year-to-year. And would rather have that base to put our percentage increase the NEXT year. Even though I don't have confidence in long-range forecasts. So, I support the 10 percent. 2:34:06: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Phillips, what are your thoughts? 2:34:12: Commissioner Phillips: I'm somewhere between zero to the operation reserve and the amount that would keep the total reserve the same in 2027, as it is in 2026, which I can't read from the chart. but it looks like it would take about $1.5 [million] or $2 million off that number. Which would keep the reserve constant in 2026, 2027, and in planning 2028 2:34:42: Chair Scharff: Right. 'Cause it was basically half. Right? 2:34:43: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. 2:34:44: Chair Scharff: So, it'd be an 8 percent increase instead of a 10 percent increase. 2:34:46: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. 2:34:49: Chair Scharff: Um -- 2:34:50: Commissioner Phillips: Since, I guess -- And my feeling is, you know, just overall in the conversation is that we're somehow over-reserving. And, you know, I don't want to be penalizing our ratepayers for that. 2:35:04: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Gupta, where are you? 2:35:06: Commissioner Gupta: I'm -- On commodity rate increases, I think my position is clear. On distribution rates, I'm left with more questions than answers after this conversation. I think it would be useful to have more time before voting to approve this forward. If we want to provide responsible advice for Council, I think we should try to get some of these questions answered before we vote on this year's rate increases. I think they're tied to the forecasts. And I think commodity and distribution are tied together. 2:35:34: Chair Scharff: So, does that mean -- You said a lot of words. But does that mean that you're a no vote? 2:35:40: Commissioner Gupta: Oh, I am a no vote on this motion as structured. ### Technically, there is no motion on the floor, but the intent seems clear enough. If there is appetite -- I'll repeat it one more time. If there is appetite to CONTINUE this discussion to a future meeting, where we can maybe answer more of our questions, and then vote on it, and provide responsible advice to Council, I'm heavily in favor of that. ### At this point, a motion to this effect would not have invalidated UAC's previous two votes. 2:35:59: Chair Scharff: OK. So, of those of us who would vote for a rate increase -- that's -- I wasn't sure where you were, Commissioner Metz, to be honest. But 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I've heard 2 people who were willing to do -- you said 10 percent. Right. So, 2 people at 10 percent, 2 at 8 percent is what I heard. Um. And what are your thoughts? 2:36:28: Commissioner Metz: I would ask if Commissioner Gupta has made a motion to carry this forward. Because, to me, that sounds like a good idea. ### Technically, no. Because after someone makes a motion, nobody can say anything until after it gets a second (or until the Chair deems that nobody intends to provide a second). ### At 1:01:17, Commissioner Gupta started to make a motion like this, but at 1:02:39, Chair Scharff said it was too early. 2:36:35: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, I just want to remind everybody -- I mean, sure, if there's a motion, we can then debate the motion. But, just to short- circuit all of this, we will have no more information at a future meeting than we have today, until Bill Tilly -- or whatever his name is -- ### Baker Tilly is Palo Alto's auditor. It's a company, not a person. https://www.bakertilly.com/about-us comes back with recommendations about our reserve policies. And until we have a water resource -- or, a water master plan. Which we are not -- unfortunately going to get for 18 months. So, I just don't -- I don't understand the point of doing -- 2:37:09: Commissioner Gupta: Sure, I can answer that. I mean, I think -- there is something to understanding what are the current projects, what are the current considerations, and having feedback on those. 2:37:18: Vice Chair Mauter: And was that not part of the discussion of our subcommittee? That we heard a report back out on? 2:37:28: Commissioner Croft: We did the same review of the CIPs as you saw today on this backup slide that was showed to us. 2:37:33: Vice Chair Mauter: Great. 2:37:34: Commissioner Croft: But we did not -- We did probably a little bit more discussion, but not a ton more discussion. 2:27:38: Commissioner Phillips: I mean, -- 2:27:39: Vice Chair Mauter: Do you feel comfortable with the CIP plan as it currently stands, given staff's recommendations? 2:37:46: Commissioner Croft: I FELT comfortable with it. Now that I know that the master plan is outdated enough -- I feel that we need the master plan as well, to feel more confident in it. But I didn't have huge reservations with the CIP plan. 2:38:01: Commissioner Phillips: I felt comfortable with it. And I still feel comfortable with it. You know, yes, it would be great to have another master plan. And then, maybe I'll feel uncomfortable, and it needs to be changed. But, you know, given where we are, and given what we know, there is no additional information that would be useful to me. Unless, you know, there's something hiding somewhere. But I -- Having been in the subcommittee, and in these discussions, I don't see any further discussion based on this would make me feel more comfortable about the CIP. My major concern, particularly since the CIP is a tiny piece of the increase -- Yes, it's a big amount of money. So we need to think about it. But without a new master plan, yeah, we could probably find -- go in and split some hairs. But I'm not in favor of continuing. I mean, it's a lot of fun. But I don't want to, you know, go through it again. Commissioner Gupta: The issue I have is, today are essentially deciding to defer capex. That is what's in the staff report. Because of the commodity rate increases. I just don't understand what that is -- 2:39:03: Chair Scharff: We're not letting them -- We're pro- -- At least the four of us think the capex should go forward for 2027 increase, which is only point - - what is it -- 5 8 -- No, it's 1.2. Right? 2:39:21: **: Correct. 2:39:21: Chair Scharff: It's 1.2 percent of the increase. ### No. Back to Slide 5. Staff proposes that Capital Expenses be increased by $0.68 million, which would be 12 percent of the increase, if the increase were 10 percent of current revenues. 2:39:23: Commissioner Gupta: My point is that it might have been more if we didn't have such a large commodity rate increase. We're reducing -- 2:39:30: Chair Scharff: No question. You're right. But the point is, what staff's come to us -- So, -- 2:39:34: Vice Chair Mauter: So, you'd be in favor of a larger increase, and not only that transfer to the reserve, but also a faster spending of the reserve. 2:39:41: Commissioner Gupta: No. What I want to have information on is, what ARE we spending this money on? What ARE we deferring? What decisions are behind that? I don't think we've had that presented to us. And it IS a chunk of change in this rate increase. 2:39:54: Chair Scharff: OK. So, -- Vice Chair Mauter. 2:39:58: **: (unamplified) Yes. 2:39:58: Chair Mauter: And we have -- If we're going to suggest something to Council, since me and Commissioner Phlllips are at 8 percent, and you guys are at 10 percent -- Are you willing to go 8 percent? 2:40:11: Vice Chair Mauter: Absolutely. That's -- 2:40:12: Chair Scharff: All right. Make the motion, Bob. 2:40:14: Commissioner Phillips: [laughs] I MOVE^^ that we approve a -- make sure I get this right -- recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution increasing ### water utility rates for FY 2027 by amending the rate schedules to reflect the 8 percent increase, effective July 1st, 2026 -- paren[thesis] open -- FY 2027 -- paren[thesis] closed. ### At this point, the screen shows something far more complicated. ### The motion says nothing about how the 8 percent should be achieved (i.e., by transferring less from the Operations Reserve to the CIP Reserve than staff had proposed). ### Ordinarily, the motion would have to be seconded before further discussion of the motion could proceed. 2:40:43: Commissioner Croft: Can we -- Can we further define that the way we're doing that is NOT by reducing capex -- 2:40:52: Chair Scharff: Yes. 2:40:52: Commissioner Croft: It is by reducing the additional reserve amount. ### That is, by reducing staff's proposed transfer from the Operations Reserve to the CIP Reserve. Is that right? That's where we're going to get the -- 2:40:59: Chair Scharff: That's correct. 2:40:59: Commissioner Croft: That's where we're going to get the 2 percent, is, we're not going to ** -- 2:41:02: Commissioner Phillips: That's correct. 2:41:02: Commissioner Croft: -- 2 percent on the reserve. 2:41:03: Commissioner Phillips: So, does that need to be part of the motion? 2:41:05: Chair Scharff: Yes. We should put -- So, I mean, the whole point is so Council knows why we're doing -- 2:41:09: Commissioner Phillips: Right. By reducing the amount -- I guess -- I can't believe some of the numbers here.-- 2:41:17: Chair Scharff: The amount going to the operating reserve -- ### No. The amount going to the CIP Reserve from the Operating Reserve. 2:41:17: Commissioner Phillips: Is reduced by half. 2:41:22: Chair Scharff: 2 percent. 2:41:23: Commissioner Phillips: Yeah. 2:41:22: Chair Scharff: Right? I'd just say by 50 percent. That gets you -- roughly. 2:41:28: [pause, to transcribe the motion to the screen] 2:41:43: Commissioner Croft: It's the 2 -- It's basically like by going from the 10 percent to the 8 percent, that it's -- 2:41:51: Chair Scharff: It's 50 percent. ### A number of the percents discussed here are not agreeing on what a cent is. ### The motion proposes to transfer $1.185 million from the Operations Reserve to the CIP Reserve, which is half of the $2.37 million that staff proposed. 2:41:53: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I would just say the -- um -- the 2 percent difference between -- Well, I'm going to say it first, not that this should be it, but the difference between the 10 percent increase and the 8 percent increase, whatever that number is, should come from a reduction in the transfer to the operating reserve. ### No. From from the Operating Reserve to the CIP Reserve. 2:42:12: Chair Scharff: Yes. 2:42:13: Commissioner Gupta: Could I just ask staff, what would be the kind of longer-term impact of doing this change, in terms of -- I'm just worried about costs later. Costs now versus costs later. 2:42:28: SRP Artola: Yeah. That's a good question. I would have to do a little more analysis to see how much this affects the revenue trajectory now, because with the lower rate increase, we're starting with a lower starting point now. And how that will affect revenue going forward. So, you know, I expect it will result in lower operating reserve balance, -- um -- primarily lower operating reserve balance. I think. 2:42:56: ADRM Bilir: And I would just add to that, that therefore, we would expect the rate increases in future years to be greater. 2:43:03: Chair Scharff: It depends on what you do on your CIP costs. 2:43:06: ADRM Bilir: True. 2:43:08: Chair Scharff: It depends on what the commodity increases are. 2:43:12: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) [laughs] 2:43:13: Commissioner Croft: But do we honestly think it's going to be lower than we currently expect? I mean, I do think it's a great point. I think that we are going to have -- This is why I supported the 10 [percent], is that I think we're going to have a higher increase the next year. ### "You can pay me now, or pay me later," https://www.fram.com/about-us/history It's not going to be 10 [percent] next year. It's going to be 12 [percent] next year, or 13 [percent] next year. I mean, we cant just keep delaying our capital projects. 2:43:36: Commissioner Phillips: I'm not talking about delaying a capital project. I'm talking about putting it in an operating reserve, which I think may well be redundant -- um -- and not needed. ### Whether Commissioner Phillips understands it or not, his MOTION halves the amount of money being transferred from the Operations Reserve to the CIP Reserve. ### I hope UAC will agendize an action item to do a back-to-basics analysis of why (or whether) each utility needs its own Operations Reserve (and other reserves), and then UAC can vote to advise Council about whether that's right.. In fact, I support the capital projects. ### "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/with_friends_like_these,_who_needs_enemies 2:43:51: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. Can we -- it's been -- Can I second this? 2:43:56: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) [laughs] 2:43:57: Chair Scharff: Yes. We already got a second. 2:43:59: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. We already got a second. OK. 2;43:59: Chair Scharff: Oh, no. We didn't. You can second it. You second it. You're right, I don't think anyone seconded it. ### Technically, all the chit-chat between 2:40:43 and here was not permitted, because there was no second. ### DID anyone second the motion, even now? Um. I just ** reserve by 2 percent. 2:44:10: Chair Scharff: It's NOT by 2 percent. 2:44:12: Vice Chair Mauter: Yeah, but this isn't quite right. 2:44:16: Chair Scharff: It's by 50 percent. 2:44:17: Vice Chair Mauter: Correct. But 50 percent. 2:44:20: Chair Scharff: Yeah. 2:44:20: **: (unamplified) ** present the proposed --- 2:44:21: Commissioner Phillips: From the proposed. 2:44:22: Vice Chair Mauter: From the proposed. 2:44:23: Chair Scharff: From the proposed. 2:44:24: Director Kurotori: Sorry. 50 percent from the proposed amount. So -- 2:44: 27: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) You could go with dollars. 2.44:32: Director Kurotori: Yeah. I would be better to put a dollar amount if we could. Sorry. 2:44:35: **: (unamplified) (huddle) 2:44:42: Director Kurotori: If you could, could you reflect $1.2 million -- 2:44:46: Chari Scharff: Is that by -- 2:44:47: Director Kurotori: -- going to the Operations Reserve by $1.2 million? ### No. Reducing the transfer from the Operations Reserve to the CIP Reserve by half, from $2.37 million to $1.185 million. 2:44:52: Chair Scharff: You could do that. It may make more sense. 2:44:55: Director Kurotori: OK. 2:44:55: Chair Scharff: More clarity.. 2:44 58: Commissioner Phillips: (unamplified) Are some of these friendly amendments? ### Good question. If they were, then it would be up to Commissioner Phillips (the maker) and the seconder (whoever that is) to accept them (or not). 2:44:59: **: Yes. 2:45:00: Vice Chair Mauter: Me, too. ### Huh? Is Vice Chair Mauter saying that, as the seconder of the motion, she accepts the friendly amendments? 2:45:01: (huddle) 2:45:13: Commissioner Metz: (unamplified) You just need to turn it -- 2:45:14: Vice Chair Mauter: (unamplified) Yeah. 2:45:16: Commissioner Tucher:: Chair Scharff, just procedurally, can details be filled in subsequently? ### In my opinion: no. For one thing, the commissioners aren't agreed on the details. Like, $1.2 million -- uh -- from the proposed amount of xyz? Or is it just going to sit here? Which means that in the future, we won't really understand what -- we won't have any context for what the $1.2 million was. So -- 2:45:39: Chair Scharff: Why -- was ** the proposed amount. 2:45:41: Director Kurotori: I think if you put the 8 percent -- 2:45:45: Chair Scharff: Yeah. 2:45:45: Director Kurotori: -- and then we -- and we can put in our comments to City Council that it represents a reduction into ### to the Operating Reserve -- ### Leaving it to staff to explain what UAC meant seems like a slippery slope to me. 2:45:53: Chair Scharff: I'm good with the way it is. You can fill it out instead. 2:45:56: Director Kurotori: OK. 2:45:56: Commissioner Tucher: They can fill it out later. Is that -- 2:45:59: Chair Scharff: No. I think this is fine the way it is. But when you draft it up, you can explain it more if this isn't clear. ### When can staff do that? When making the summary minutes? Right? I mean, this seems pretty clear to me. 2:46:06: Commissioner Phillips: I also think this is a situation where having somebody -- one of us -- at the City Council meeting, in case that question should come up, would be useful. ### If the motion doesn't say what UAC meant it to say, then a UAC representative at a Council meeting could attempt to explain that. But it would be better to get the motion right. 2:46:14: Vice Chair Mauter: I nominate you. ### Out of order. I think UAC has adopted the process of choosing the messenger AFTER voting on the advice. 2:46;16: Director Kurotori: It will go to the Finance Committee first. So, that might be the first opportunity for the UAC to **. 2:46:23: Chair Scharff: It's a good idea. All right. ### Any further discussion? Do you want to call the roll? 2:46:27: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Metz. 2:46:29: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 2:46:30: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Tucher. 2:46:33: Commissioner Tucher: While I agree that we're over-reserving -- um -- I vote no. 2:46:39: Rachael Romero: Commissioner Gupta. 2:46:40: Commissioner Gupta: No. 2:46:43: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Phillips. 2:46:45: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. 2:46:47: Rachel Romero: Commissioner Croft. 2:46:48: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 2:46:50: Rachel Romero: Vice Chair Mauter. 2:46:52: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:46:54: Rachel Romero: Chair Scharff. 2:46:55: Chair Scharff: Yes. 2:46:57 Rachel Romero: MOTION^^ passes 5-2. ### Commissioners Gupta and Tucher no. 2:47:02: Chair Scharff: OK. ### At this point, Chair Scharff might have asked whether any commissioner had any other motions to make. 2:47:02: Commissioner Croft: Can we assign somebody to go to the City? I mean, I do think this must -- Just having been there to describe our conversation -- the Reliability and Resiliency Strategic Plan -- I realize -- you know -- 2:47:14: Commissioner Phillips: Ed will be there. 2:47:15: Chair Scharff: When is the -- 2:47:16: [delayed laughter] 2:47:18: Chair Scharff: Yeah. Ed will be there. When is the -- 2:47:19: Liaison Lauing: Yeah, I'll be there. I'll remember all this. No problem. 2:47:20: [laugher] 2:47:21: Chair Scharff: When is the Finance Committee going? ### On 03-17-26, at 4:00 pm, the Finance Committee met. Item 2 was about the water utility. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18550 ### WARNING -- This item also had presentation slides, which are very similar to the presentation slides that supported the 03-04-26 UAC item. But there are differences. And you're on the Finance Committee, Ed. 2:47:25: Liaison Lauing: Yeah. 2:47:26: Chair Scharff: So, we're all good. 2:47:27: 2:47:32: Director Kurotori: I believe it's March 16th, ### March 17th. if staff wants to correct me. Which, I don't need to be corrected. So, March 16th. 2:47:38: Liaison Lauing: It's early in the process, because this is so significant to the whole budget. So, it comes early in the process. The other comment I want to make is -- I mean, you guys are touching on it, but the real strategic issue here is, -- 2:47:50: Director Kurotori: Sorry. 17th. 2:47:50: Liaison Lauing: -- how much do we want in -- to my mind -- I'll state it this way -- How much do we want in total utility reserves? 2:47:57: Commissioner Phillips: (unamplified) That's exactly right. 2:47:58: Liaison Lauing: And I've been pushing that question for two years now. Um. There are some promises that we WILL look at that in the budget cycle, apart from the Baker Tilly report that has to go through P&S. Because it's all utility money, from my perspective. And, to the ext- -- exactly what you did -- is the point. Which is, customers have to pay more if we have a bunch of cash sitting around that we may or may not need. But sometimes we're going to need it and sometimes we aren't. So, we've got to have them. It's just a question of what's our levels. 2:48:31: Chair Scharff: Right. 2:48:31: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:48:31: Chair Scharff: So, Bob, are you going to go? 2;48:34: Commissioner Phillips: Is it the 16th? 2:48:35: Director Kurotori: I believe it's actually the 17th. 2:48:36: Commissioner Phillips: On the 17th I can do it. The 16th, I'm teaching at Berkeley. 2:48:42: Chair Scharff: (unamplified) OK. (amplified) So, if it's the 17th, Bob's going. Otherwise, we'll figure it out who goes. 2:48:48: Director Kurotori: I got pinged. It's actually the 17th. So -- 2:48:51: Commissioner Phillips: What time on the 17th? 2:48:55: Chair Scharff: 4:00? 4:00 on the 17th? 2:48:59: Commissioner Phillips: I think so. I'll let you know if I can't, but I -- 2:48:03: 2:49:07: Vice Chair Mauter: Commissioner Lauing, I just wanted to -- Council Member, I'm sorry --: the one thing I think is really important that we do while having those discussions about reserves is to make sure that the emergency preparedness factor is also well addressed. I know that's an issue that Commissioner Metz has had for a long time. And I think it's -- like absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more that it's all money. And we should also understand that in catastrophic instances, you're going to have a -- 2:49:44: Liaison Lauing: A catastrophe. 2:49:44: Vice Chair Mauter: A catastrophe. That's right. So, I want policy around reserves. And I will -- you know, I think, once we have policy around reserves, we can also talk about the quantity of reserves. 2:50:00: Commissioner Phillips: I also want to talk to the 2 no votes, and make sure that I'm -- you know, adequately -- Because they'll ask why did 2 people vote no. I want to make sure -- you know, it's not because you think we should have had higher reserves. It was for other reasons. So, that I can honestly, you know, represent your opinion. 2:50:20: Chair Scharff: All right. 2:50:21: Commissioner Tucher: Thank you. 2:50:22: Chair Scharff: That concludes that item. Thank you so much. 20:50:26: Commissioner Phillips: (unamplified) I think we'll dig a little deeper. 2:59:29: Vice Chair Mauter: Can we take a break? 2:59:30: Chair Scharff: Sure. Let's take a break. Good. 2:50:32: ---------- BREAK ---------- 3:03:35: Item ^^ 4 -- Fiscal Year 2027 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Forecast ... ### (Returning from break. The video missed the very beginning of this item.) Chair Scharff: Do we have a presentation on the next item? 3:03:38: ADRM Bilir: Yes, we do. We have Eric Wong, Resource Planner. And this is his first rate presentation. And I'd like to turn it over to him. 3:03:47: Chair Scharff: Welcome, Eric. And if we're tough on you, it's nothing personal. 3:03:51: RP Wong: I understand. Thanks. 3:03:54: Vice Chair Mauter: Except the timeliness of the submission of the slides. ### Why is that personal? 3:04:00: Resource Planner Wong: OK. Good evening, commissioners. My name's Eric Wong. I'm a Resource Planner for the Utilities. And I'm here to present the FY 2027 Wastewater Collection Utility financial forecast and proposed rate changes. I'd like to mention that we have Aaron Gilbert and Cal Anderson in the audience, and they're from Public Works And they are here to help answer any questions related to the treatment plant. Next slide. 3:04:23: ###. Slide 2 -- Wastewater Collection Rate Projections So, the proposed rate adjustment for Wastewater Collection Utility is a 16 percent increase in FY 2027, which translates to approximately $10.70 per month for the typical residential customer. This increase is primarily driven by the funding of Palo Alto's share of the rebuild of the aging treatment plant, and for the purpose of complying with increasingly stringent wastewater discharge regulations. We also need to restart the 5-mile sewer replacement project in FY '28. And there are other factors, including higher CIP cost, some one-time CIP projects, and the replenishment of the CIP reserve, which is currently depleted. This table shows our current rate trajectory. As you can see, we have the same rate trajectory in '27 and '28. But we -- Due to updated cost and revenue assumptions, we have -- we are recommending one more percent of rate increase in 2029 to 2030. Some of the key reasons are, we have higher Valley Water grant revenue in FY '26, and we also have higher treatment costs and lower operating CIP expenses throughout the forecasting year. Staff has listed a few uncertainties that could have cost pressures. But some of these items are highly uncertain and are not included in this forecast. Finally, the Wastewater Collection Utility currently has a $3 million loan borrowed from the Fiber Utility, and we plan to repay this loan by the end of 2026. ### By the end of FY 2026? That is, by 06-30-26? Next slide. 3:06:16: ###. Slide 3 -- FY 2027 Proposed Budget Deductions (Wastewater) This slide shows some of the proposed budget reductions -- same as the Water Utility mentioned. And these are the annual reductions that are embedded to the forecast for the Wastewater Utility only. Next slide. 3:06:32: ###. Slide 4 -- Wastewater Bill Comparisons ($/Month) So, staff do have two rate comparisons. So, this is a build comparison from Silicon Valley Clean Water that shows our comparison with some of the north. But I'll skip the -- 3:06:45: **: (unamplified) 3:06:57: RP Wong: Sorry about that. So, we'll -- can skip to the next slide and talk about our usual community averages. 3:07:04: ###. Slide 5 -- Wastewater Bill Comparisons ($/Month) January 2026. So, under our typical comparisons, we are about 12 percent below the city -- averages from the other cities. And we are -- bills are higher for commercial customers. And I would like to point out that Mountain View and Los Altos are our other treatment partners. Next slide. 3:07:29: ###. Slide 6 -- FY 2027 Rate Increase Drivers Under UAC recommendation, we added this slide to show the FY 2027 rate increase drivers. As you can see, a portion of it is due to treatment collection CIP, and the majority of the rate increase is due to replenishment of the CIP Reserve, which is currently depleted. Next slide. 3:07:50: ###. Slide 7 -- Wastewater Cost and Revenue Projections This slide shows -- is wastewater cost and revenue projections. You can see, the stack bars are -- cost items, broken by different expense categories. The green line is the revenue. And the text are the rate projections for the current projection and the preliminary projections. I want to mention that, due to some of the cost items in FY '23 and '24, we had declining commercial revenue in those years. It was a multi-year commercial revenue decline. And in 2024, there was a higher CIP expenditure, due to the acceleration of a sewer replacement project. And it was made to align where Caltran street pavement on El Camino. And, due to these drivers, the operations and CIP Reserve were exhausted. Next slide. 3:08:50: ###. Slide 8 -- Wastewater Operations Reserve Projections And this slide shows the operations reserve projection. As you can see, the reserve is projected to be between the reserve minimum and the reserve replacement project. Next slide. 3:09:17: ###. Slide 9 -- Wastewater CIP Reserve Projections This slide shows the CIP Reserve projections. The Reserve is currently depleted. And we will begin contribution to the CIP Reserves starting in 2027. In '28 and 2030, those are the construction years for the sewer replacement projects, which will draw down the reserve below reserve minimum. But it will recover in non-construction years. Next slide. 3:09:43: ###. Slide 10 - Communications and Outreach Here's some key messages that we plan to undertake to engage our customer regarding these rate changes. And the typical outreach channels. I would like to mention that we provide an annual Proposition 218 notice to our customers, and customer will receive this -- the notice this year by the end of April. Next slide. ###. Slide 11 -- Recommendation Staff recommend the UAC recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the FY 2027 Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Forecast, and amending the rate schedule as listed. This is the end of the presentation. We welcome your feedback and are happy to answer any questions. 3:10:28: Chair Scharff: OK. Do we have any members of the public who want to speak? 3:10:32: Rachel Romero: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item 4, please raise your hand or press *9 now. We have no requests to speak. 3:10:42: Chair Scharff: OK. Then, moving back to us, do we have anyone who wants to talk? Go ahead. 3:10:48: Commissioner Gupta: Thank you for the presentation. I have some questions. It seems like one of the big drivers is the increase in our treatment costs. Seems like -- based on packet page -- top of packet page -- page 92 -- that we're estimating it going from $3.1 million to $6.7 million annually, which is an increase of roughly 30 percent above our previous forecast, and primarily driven by higher labor costs, addition of new staff positions, at lower projected grant funding from Valley Water, higher commodity prices, chemical costs, etc. etc. I was wondering if you had a slide just kind of breaking out the independent contributions of each of those categories to that cost projection. 3:11:42: ADRM Bilir: We don't have a slide that breaks out -- I think what you're asking for is the different components of the treatment cost and what's driving it. We do have a chart that shows -- ---------- ### Sorry. I ran out of time to transcribe the rest of this item. ---------- FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMING MEETINGS^^ 4:02:01: Chair Scharff: All right. So, Future Topics For Upcoming Meetings. ### .And also, apparently, -- COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS^^ ### I don't know why Chair Scharff merged these two items. 4:02:05: Director Kurotori: So, I just wanted to point out to the 12-month rolling calendar, just a couple adjustments with the -- we had in April, which -- 1st, which we put as a placeholder, is the first opportunity that the UAC would have to do the election of the UAC Chair and Vice Chair. With the appointments of the new -- the potential -- and Council make decision in mid-April, we would actually want to push that to May. So, I wanted to make sure that I mentioned that to the Commission. And then also, -- 4:02:41: Commissioner Tucher: Would you repeat the reason? I didn't hear the rationale for that. 4:02:43: Chair Scharff: Council's reappointing the commissioners -- or appointing new commissioners. 4:02:47: Director Kurotori: Correct. And that's not happening until mid-April. 4:02:49: Commissioner Tucher: Oh. Yeah. 4:02:50: Director Kurotori: So, we would like to have that discussion and vote when the membership is finalized. ### When WILL new (or returning) UAC commissioners start serving? 4:02:59: And then, in terms of the urban water management plan -- So, we have that at -- on May -- on the May meeting. We have received feedback from the Vice Chair of actually having an earlier discussion, ###. Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Timeline ### But there's no reference to an online version of the slides. ### Is there a document that provides URLs to documents mentioned in the slide? ### 12-19-25: "Regional Water Demand and Conservation Projects Study" Final Report https://bawsca.org/uploads/userfiles/files/2025%20BAWSCA%20Demand%20Study_Final%20Report%20+%20Appendices_submittal(1).pdf (So is this the right version?) ### 11-03-25: "Public Review Draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Guidebook Public Comment Period https://water.ca.gov/News/Public-Notices/2025/Nov-25/Public-Review-Draft-2025-Urban-Water-Management-Plan-Guidebook-Public-Comment- Period January 2026: "Urban Water Management Plan Guidebook" (257 pages) https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Management- Plans/Final-2025-UWMP-Guidebook/Final-2025-UWMP-Guidebook-Accessible.pdf (There are no occurrences of "data center" in this document.) maybe summarizing the key updates to the Urban Water Management Plan. As we update this every few years. Looking at demand forecasts, reliability information, water storage contingency plans, updates. And then, we can have that discussion so that it will flow into the approval of the Urban Water Management Plan proposed in May. And then, the intent is to bring that to the full Council in their June -- by their June Meeting, as we need to have that adopted, as well. So, I wanted to bring that as a couple of proposed changes to this, for discussion with the Commission. 4:03:56: Chair Scharff: All right. Moving on to Commissioner Comments and Reports -- ### But actually, several comments about future meetings ensued. 4:04:04: Commissioner Phillips: I would say, based on our discussion earlier, I think -- and given that this report is due in April from the auditor -- the person -- not an auditor. It's not an audit, but the study on reserves that we get something on the calendar. Um. Shortly thereafter? 4:04:29: Director Kurotori: Um. Yes. We can put that in as soon as we have some daylight, in terms of what that understanding is. It probably won't be until the May timeframe. So, I think we'll have another meeting in between there to have that discussion. 4:04:39: Commissioner Phllips: Yeah. I mean, I think -- So, the report is due in April. Definitely understand you need time to digest it and prepare, you know, for -- um -- So, May or June. But no later, please. 4:04:54: Director Kurotori: Yes. I mean, looking at the status of the budget -- Yeah, June would probably look cleaner, but we can certainly take a harder look at it. 4:05:02: Commissioner Phillips: Great. Thank you. 4:05:04: Commissioner Gupta: I had a question on the UAC Workplan. I know Council just approved our current UAC Workplan recently. And then, we're turning to it now, in just a few months, in June. Is there an option for us to push that back a little bit more? To let the current workplan work itself out? Or are we going to -- will that begin the new process for the next workplan? 4:05:30: Director Kurotori: It's -- will be the new process for the work -- the your new annual workplan. So -- um -- waiting until the Chair is seated. And then, you know, at the -- at the earliest timeframe is the month after. So, again, if the Commission would want to push that further out, that's possible. We can give you kind of a report out on the results from the last. And I think we can start, you know, giving you an update to what was completed, and what you may want changed. Um. I really leave it up to this Commission. And if you'd like to move that to a further date. But we wanted to put kind of the first option available to you. 4:06:08: Commissioner Gupta: Oh. Great. Yeah. 4:06:10: Commissioner Tucher: On the topic of workplan, can anyone comment on how the Council discussion went on workplan? Or maybe it was just rote and processed quickly. Was there much debate or discussion? ### On 02-02-26, Council considered FOUR workplans (ARB, HRB, PTC, and UAC). It was Item 7 (an action item.) See the Summary Minutes (sorry, no URL) for the 02-02-26 Council meeting (sorry, no URL even for the agenda) It's between 2:03:37 and 3:15:10 on the video. https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-2-02-26/ Commissioners should watch the video. ### On 09-29-25, a clueless staff scheduled this item as a Consent Calendar item, but it was pulled from Consent by Council Members Burt, Reckdahl, and Lu. The whole point of the item was so that Council could make comments and interact with commission representatives. 4:06:25: Chair Scharff: There was some discussion. 4:06:26: Commissioner Tucher: Oh, you were there. Right. Right. Right. 4:06:27: Chair Scharff: I got asked some questions. I can't for the life of me remember a single one of them. ### At (2:57:01), Chair Scharff commented, without being asked, "I also think -- maybe you haven't gotten this much -- I think we're a little skeptical on fiber to the premises and we're hoping the pilot gives us real information before the city spends too much money on that process." In my opinion, it would have been more appropriate not to have commented on what UAC thought about FTTP until UAC had voted on what UAC thought. 4:06:32: Commissioner Tucher: So, it wasn't very contentious, that sounds like. 4:06:35: Chair Scharff: No, it wasn't contentious. 4:06:36: Director Kurotori: No. There were three workplans, ### There were four workplans altogether (ARB, HRB, PTC, and UAC). I believe, from community development, and that had more lengthy discussions. 4:06:43: Chair Scharff: There was something that a couple Council members -- do you remember what Council Member -- At least I remember [Council Member] Burt had some comment that was -- Do you remember what it was? DO you remember? Ed? No. I don't. ### Council Member Burt had several good comments. 4:07:01: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) The thing was -- 4:07:02: Commissioner Metz: -- reliability. 4:07:04: Director Kurotori: It may have been the Reliability and Resiliency Plan that went to Council on Monday. And we talked about -- you know, his -- he has made comments in the past, and Council took some action in actually developing reliability metrics -- um -- and not in terms of just beyond our tracking, in comparison to other agencies -- is some tangible kind of measureable goals, in terms of that reduction. So, that was a part of Council actions. Chair Scharff: Right. Go ahead. 4:07:35: Commissioner Metz: A couple of topics that are not on there. We have Grid Mod project updates scheduled for July. I think it would be important, if we can, to address data centers of that. I know there's been some discussion about -- you know, it seems like this problem is just getting bigger, and it's important that we address it. The other one I see -- 4:07:59: Chair Scharff: Well, wait. I think we HAD a discussion of data centers. I'm not sure what another discussion would do. I think it's too early. 4:08:06: Commissioner Metz: I don't think so. I think -- At least what -- One of the things we talked about was, there was a discussion of a cost savings due to data centers in the past and going forward. I at least would like to see the math behind that. 4:08:23: Director Kurotori: Yes. Correct. We were actually -- As I maybe didn't emphasize it enough in my earlier comments -- we were going to bring that back to the Affordability Subcommittee, looking at the electric rates, and bring some of those information back to that group. And then, we'll report it out at the next meeting. 4:08:42: Chair Scharff: OK. 4:08:44: Commissioner Metz: The other one is gas utility strategic plan. I see we have a -- for May, a status update on the gas transition study. Given the financial importance of the gas utility and the deteriorating condition of the City's finances, I think it's REALLY important to get into a strategic discussion of where that's headed. 4:09:14: Director Kurotori: That may be something that you want to put potentially into your workplan. ### When the times comes? When does that time come? The sustainability and climate action committee are also taking a look at the gas utility, in terms of potential carbon -- carbon -- for lack of the direct terminology -- a carbon tax. Or, you know, looking -- 4:09:37: Commissioner Metz: Right. 4:09:37: Director Kurotori: -- at that potential, and the true cost of carbon. 4:09:40: Commissioner Metz: I mean, what I'm talking about, there was a true strategic plan that involves both, you know, tactical financial -- you know, where is it headed. It's a large -- 4:09:48: Director Kurotori: Thank you. Thank you for that. And part of that gas transition plan was actually updating the modeling associated with that. And that is a work in progress. 4:09:55: Chair Scharff: OK. So, anything S/CAP is doing on our utilities, we should look at as well. 4:09:59: Director Kurotori: Correct. So, there's some evaluations of that right now. It is mentioned as part of the S/CAP plan. So, anything that has a potential to impact rates is something that's obviously under the UAC's purview. 4:10:11: Chair Scharff: Well, if it impacts the utility, I think it's under our purview. 4:10:14: Director Kurotori: Understood. 4:10:15: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. And -- But the -- As far as my knowledge of the S/CAP group, it's not addressing, for example, the financial aspects of the gas utility going forward. 4:10:27: Director Kurotori: So, the gas transition plan was looking at those options -- and -- in keeping rates affordable. And what that would look like -- As you may recall, Jonathan Abendschein gave a presentation in terms of that. In terms of the reduction of the system, and would take a considerable amount of activity, and a round of folks separating from the gas utility to see an actual reduction in the size of it. So, there are some additional modeling that would have to be -- go along with that. And that is the -- that's the mention of the ongoing. 4:11:03: Commissioner Metz: Right. That's what I would like to see. 4:11:06: Director Kurotori: OK. 4:11:08: Commissioner Phillips: On the July ### July 2026 FTTP pilot report out, I just want to emphasize what we've said in the last meeting -- discussed -- is that -- You know, to me, this is one where I'd like to get a good idea of -- if it's a good idea to proceed moving forward. So, I presume that's the plan there. Or is it -- I mean, a checkpoint of, oh, we did it, and 37 homes signed up, and nothing failed. It isn't very useful to me. Um. I'd like to see, you know, when do we get the indication of the financial plan, and whether or not we can make the decision to move forward? Is that July? Or is that -- 4:11:52: Director Kurotori: So, I'll take that back -- is not -- It needs to be more than an update but more like what -- what are we seeing. And that viability, not just a strict update on how many customers we connected. 4:12:05: Commissioner Phillips: Yeah. A check box -- check box. Or the -- oh, yeah, technically we can do it is not very useful, I believe. You can do it -- 4:12:11: Director Kurotori: Relative cost, value, you know, does this give us a -- a temperature check? 4:12:19: Commissioner Gupta: I disagree with that. The pilot was originally a technical pilot. And that is what it is. Whereas Phase1 -- which Council APPROVED -- is kind of the more economic feasibility of the proposal. So, I would push back on that framing. 4:12:35: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, I would reframe it as information on the costs and information on -- on pickup of customers -- you know, the feedback that we're receiving to help understand it more than just a binary information piece. We had 37 customers, in this example. 4:12:52: Commissioner Phillips: But -- but -- That's fair. When is the update after Phase 1? That's not until next year. Which would be potentially the go/no- go? 4:13:02: Director Kurotori: So, let me circle back on that and come back with a more definitive plan. I know there's a high interest in that. And we can bring back more detail on that. I think in that July timeframe. But I do want to circle back to staff, in terms of the progress. We are still building the hut. ### More specifically, the hut has been delivered from South Dakota and it is sitting on its concrete slab. And various conduits to the hut have been installed. A concrete slab for a transformer to power the hut has been poured (02-03-26 or 02--04-26), but the transformer hasn't been installed yet. Perhaps staff could provide information at UAC's 03-31-26 meeting about what remains to be completed before the hut can to be operational, and how long that's likely to take. In terms of doing that work. So, that's on the critical path, in terms of how we roll this out. ### Previously, staff said maybe the hut wouldn't be necessary to start serving the first FTTP customers. I was always skeptical of that approach. But it's on the critical path now. ### What other things are on or close to the critical path? And then, you know, starting talking to customers and seeing the uptake. Though it's not a decision point yet. ### When staff originally proposed doing an evaluation of the pilot in June of 2026, they also assumed that they would be serving the first FTTP customers before the end of calendar year 2025. what's not done with respect to rolling out FTTP. But I think the meeting to evaluate how well the pilot has gone technically shouldn't be agendized until after staff has had, say, at least 6 months experience with serving FTTP customers. 4:13:33: Commissioner Phillips: Thank you. 4:13:33: Commissioner Tucher: Could that clarification then be part of next month's Director's Report? It's just -- Or, how do we close the loop soon on -- what still seems to be a bit confusing. Like, -- 4:13:48: Director Kurotori: Well, my commitment is going back, you know, based on this conversation here, to make sure it's a MEANINGFUL update. And so, let me do my work with the team, in terms of where they're at and what the status is. So, as soon as I can provide that in a cogent manner to this -- the Commission, I'll do so. 4:14:08: Commissioner Tucher: On the topic of future Director's Reports, another -- we've used the word in the past -- like "tracker," as a way to just make sure we loop -- we close the loop on open issues. The wastewater master plan. You said that plan's not finished. And the report's -- you know, the key points of it are not summarized. I imagine we won't talk about wastewater for many months. So, if you could just hit the high points as soon as the plan is finished, and we could learn what was learned from the master plan, that would be good. 4:14:46: Commissioner Croft I had two -- Sorry. Did you want to reply to that? 4:14:49: Director Kurotori: No. I just wanted to respond: I understood the request. 4:14:53: Commissioner Croft: Got it. I had -- I'm participating in a time-of-use pilot. Which is great. I love it. And I just wanted to see -- 4:15:05: Chair Scharff: Did your bill go down? 4:15:06: Commissioner Croft: I haven't gotten a bill yet. I'm just getting data. Which -- I love the data. But I haven't gotten a bill. I don't think it's going to go down, just because the difference between peak and -- or, the difference between non-time-of-use and the regu- -- the off peak is almost nothing. But in summer, it should. So, time-of-use update. At some point, I feel like -- we have a 12-month calendar here -- there ought to be, at some point, a time-of-use update. I'm not sure. I mean, if you could provide in the Director's Report just how things are going. And I feel like there ought to be some kind of a report out to us. 4:14:46: And then, the second thing was, in reviewing the reliability and resiliency strategic plan we had back in December, there was a mention that we're going to see the OEM -- the emergency. Basically, we're like getting into a lot of -- several commissioners had reservations about us not having much of a long-term discussion about the long-term electricity -- In the case of a long-term outage. And it was stated that it was going to be brought back to us in January. Like, that plan. So, I don't see it anywhere here. Did I miss it? Is it coming? Do we have like a discussion of the electric plan in an emergency? Which I thought was going to be on our agenda at some point. 4:16:34: [huddle] 4:16:41: Commissioner Croft: I'm just -- I'll just -- When -- 4:16:44: Commissioner Tucher: (unamplified) You're right -- 4:16:45: Commissioner Croft: When I asked about it -- ah -- Vice Chair Mauter, you had said it was coming back in January. I just watched the video. ### Here's the 12-03-25 video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi9BOGLLTxA&t=1199s ### Here's UAC's 12-03-25 agenda. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18995 My TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS is in the first of three Public Letters documents. At 0:45:37, Commissioner Croft asks if the reliability and resiliency strategic plan will come out in January. (Have I found the right place?) I didn't find where Acting Chair Mauter said yes. So -- I didn't remember that, but that's -- 4:16:56: Director Kurotori: Let me do this. When -- I'll get your first answer. For the time-of-use, yes, I think we actually should bring a report back, especially in terms of how we're going to do the outreach plan. And get the feedback from some of the customers. I think that would be helpful, in terms of our roll-out. Because time-of-use can be confusing to some people, and communication is going to be key for people to voluntarily sign up. So, that will not be just a Director's Report. I'll put it as an action item. 4:17:27: And then, let me circle back to the conversations from the past meetings. To your point and Commissioner Tucher's point is to make sure that we're addressing it. And then, bringing that back correctly to this group. So, I'll just put that as an action for staff. 4:17:43: Commissioner Gupta: One more thought is, when we do discuss gas again, it might be helpful to also have a discussion on what we advertise in Palo Alto in our bill inserts and our gas safety pamphlet with respect to stove tops. I've been hearing a lot of public comments on the dangers of gas stove tops. And it might be useful for us to have a conversation about that and what we can do as a Commission and a utility to inform residents, if there are these health and safety risks. Which it seems the research is showing that there are some serious health and safety risks. 4:18:19: Director Kurotori: Great point. The Council did take an action, in terms of the climate action plan, and they would like to include some of that information, in terms of -- I'm not sure if health impacts would be the right terminology. But the use of natural gas stoves, and what that means, and alternatives. And I think there was a consensus -- a positive impression on what -- how the utility is going to rolling out. Not only working with the library on a loaner program, but also additional rebates going out to the community. Not only for residents, but also the low-income residents as well. Several Council members mentioned the positive attributes of that program. It's something we're going to lean into pretty heavily. 4:19:03: Commissioner Gupta: Awesome. Thank you 4:19:04: Chair Scharff: All right. Anyone else? Or, any commissioner comments? Or can I adjourn the meeting? All right. 4:19:12: Commissioner Metz: I had a -- 4:19:13: Chair Scharff: Go ahead. 4:19:13: Commissioner Metz: Quick comment. First of all, the informational report on residential electric and water customer satisfaction surveys, I appreciated seeing the detailed results. And there's much to be proud of in there. So, thank you for providing that. Also, I saw the informational report on sampling of water microplastics. It looks like there's been no action since 2018. Should we be doing something about that? 4:19:43: Director Kurotori: It is an informational report. But -- So, what I'll probably do is provide that as an update to the workplan. That's probably the more appropriate location for it. Just to close out that item as one of the action items. ### Does this mean that the workplan has action items for staff that are other than agendizing action item for UAC. But in short, as an information report has mentioned, the sampling is really for the water wholesalers on their source water quality. And that has not moved forward. We are tracking it. We are in conversations with SFPUC, to make sure that when those -- the testing and procedures get refined and revised, we'll bring that back. But the information is not available. So, that was part of the discussion, as part of the UAC. But what I'll do is, I'll make sure that we summarize that as part of the kind of report out for your one-year workplan. 4:20:31: Commissioner Metz: Right. It just sounded like it was stuck in a loop. And -- 4:20:35: Director Kurotori: Yeah. That is outside the control. It's testing source waters. The state was looking at several of the water wholesalers and testing their source waters. It was not OUR water, that is the treated water. It's the source waters that goes before the treatment. 4:20:47: Chair Scharff: And with that, we're adjourned 4:20:49: END From:m_frei@sbcglobal.net To:San Antonio Area Plan Cc:Cain, Robert; Council, City Subject:Unable to access survey Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 3:25:01 PM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, I am unable to access the survey using the provided link https://communityfeedback.opengov.com/14871 I tried using several devices on several networks, all with same message that I have been blocked. I tried several times during the day starting this morning, well before the deadline. It could be related to the fact that I am currently in Europe. I have several major concerns about the project which I was hoping to express. Those have to do with 1) the size and scope of the project, which puts the large burden of resolving our housing deficit in one small area of the city 2) the deference to the needs of developers over established norms of building heights, traffic impact, availability of park space, and others 3) the increase in office space, with an unclear justification for why it is needed 4) the lack of retail space in the plan, which would make this a car-dependent rather than a walkable neighborhood. Hopefully, I can make some of those points through the survey. Please let me know if there is another way to access the survey so that I can contribute my opinion. Regards, Michel Frei Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Arlen Young To:Council, City; Council, City; Cain, Robert; San Antonio Area Plan Subject:Oppose San Antonio Over-development - 60 ft. Max Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 10:31:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I have lived in Greenmeadow, south Palo Alto, for 48 years. I strongly oppose building heights above 60 feet in the San Antonio Road Area Plan. The proposed density of up to 7,400 units will overwhelm infrastructure, worsen traffic on an already crowded and dangerous corridor, and permanently destroy our neighborhood's character. I urge the Council to cap heights at 60 feet, require minimum parking, and distribute growth equitably across all of Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Arlen Young 250 Scripps Court This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:nmadison complianceexpress.com To:Council, City Subject:Temporary Closure of Churchill Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 9:49:20 AM Dear City Council Members, A rush to close Churchill temporarily to eliminate the harm of easy access to the railroad bysuicidal Paly students without consideration of the new harms that that action could potentially introduce to the entire community is totally irresponsible. Diverting all Churchill vehiculartraffic to Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway/El Camino, already grid-locked arteries, andall Churchill bicycle/pedestrian traffic to the tunnels at California Avenue and Embarcaderowould create encounters between vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians that would undoubtedlyresult in accidents. Factor in the increasing prevalence of Paly students’ use of motorizedbikes and scooters and their total disregard for their own safety while using them, let alone thesafety of those around them, and the probability of accidents exponentially increases foranyone using those arteries and tunnels. Please stop, take a deep breath, and try to lower the temperature of the current discussionabout the temporary closure of Churchill. As our elected officials, that is the least we expect ofyou. The listening session did just the opposite. Many of us, myself included, went to thelistening session with prepared statements about what needs to be considered before rushing toa decision to close Churchill temporarily. By starting the session with comments from theparents of the two most recent suicide victims, a chill went through the room. No-one wantedto add to the pain that those parents have already suffered. So those of us who came preparedto have a rational rather than emotional discussion either left the session or remained silent.Emotion should not dictate the outcome of this issue. The listening session, in addition, disseminated misinformation, some of it by the councilmember and staff leading the discussion. The petition that was signed by 3700 people was nota petition to close Churchill temporarily. It was a petition to reinstate security guards at therailroad crossings. Most people in Palo Alto would have signed that petition if they had knownabout it. Furthermore that measure has already been implemented. So pat yourselves on theback for implementing it so quickly and stop misrepresenting the petition as evidence thatmost people want Churchill temporarily closed. Additional misinformation was spread at the listening session by members of the public. Oneparticipant claimed that it took 15 minutes for a pedestrian or bicyclist to get a walk signal tocross the Churchill/Alma intersection implying that closing it off to pedestrians and bicyclistswould be no loss. His claim is totally fictitious. Another participant claimed that Paly was theonly school in the country so close to a railroad crossing. Nothing could be further from thetruth. A mere google search can prove that wrong. Why, why, why did the leaders of Palo Altowho were running the meeting not push back on those claims in order to prevent thedissemination of yet more misinformation? I applaud the Council and District for quickly taking some measures to deter any futuresuicides at the Churchill crossing including reinstating the security guards and installing thetrespass mats. I know that other measures, including lidar installations, are soon to beimplemented. I applaud those measures, too. These measures are the ones that will eliminatethe harm caused by the proximity of Paly to the Churchill crossing without introducing anynew harms for the community as a whole. But, that is only one half of the solution toeliminating suicides by Paly students. The other half has to be addressed by the District.Reading Summer’s suicide note is heartbreaking. The issues she raised can only be addressed by the District. Sincerely, Nancy Madison From:Rob Schreiber To:Council, City Subject:SARAP Date:Saturday, March 28, 2026 10:10:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear councillors, I received a somewhat overheated mailer today from a group who are alarmed and energized about SARAP. It makes many points, and you will no doubt hear all of them repeatedly. Many I think are ill considered. Holding to old ideas about height, about parking requirements, about building every needed school or park before approving development, and maintaining the same low income unit requirements -- these are not the essentials when the city is now trying to find a way to do our part to meet the huge housing needs of young people who now work in Silicon Valley and can find no affordable way to live in it. The impact of the housing affordability crisis is that Palo Alto is becoming homogeneous. Midtown is looking more and more like Old Palo Alto, and it can seem like we are all working for Google. I do however think that the opponents of SARAP as it is now conceived make some inescapably important and reasonable points. The SARAP area is small, peripheral, distant from services, shopping, and transit, and noisy (101). It is available because it has been a less than desirable place to build housing in the past. What has changed? And yet the plan's upper limit on units is close to all of what would be needed to hit the growth targets. I know that 7000 units will never be built there. So what is a reasonable number and a reasonable fraction of the total needed? This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report The focus on SARAP in our planning may be an outgrowth of flaws in the Housing Element, which seems to have been constrained so as to avoid rocking any boats in Palo Alto while nominally coming up with planned growth numbers that would meet state mandates. Please tell the planners to go back and come up with sensible numbers of units for SARAP. And otherwise workable plans: require some reasonable parking, make commercial spaces and necessary amenities a part of it. And then get to the hard part. We need to fully use the El Camino corridor (I've written before about the abysmal state of ECR in south Palo Alto), Middlefield, Cal Ave and its environs, and downtown in order to meet the state mandates with workable, desirable new neighborhoods or (better maybe) new housing and density in old neighborhoods that families and developers will accept. The math is pretty easy here. If you don't like height you have to use width to get the needed volume. Embracing needed changes is the way to allow the city to move ahead. Let's get from was to will be. With best wishes, Rob Schreiber From:Evan Petridis To:Council, City; Cain, Robert Subject:Supporting high-density walkable neighbourhoods - including San Antonio Date:Saturday, March 28, 2026 4:27:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, I live in South Palo Alto - Greenmeadow. I am entirely supportive of creating high-density neighborhoods, including allowing 8-10 storey buildings. This applies to the current issue around the San Antonio Road Area Plan. High density is highly desirable, as it provides the market pull to nucleate other services (like retail) within walking distance. The arguments about neighborhood character and traffic are distractions. Housing costs are astronomically high in Palo Alto (including both house prices and rents), and the council should do its part to help the market reduce these cost pressures. Most of our children will not be able to afford to live in this area unless more at-market and low-cost accommodation is built. In addition, I believe that the council should enforce affordable housing mandates on developers, in exchange for eg. the increased density and reduced parking requirements. Regards, Evan D. Petridis evan@quenda.net +16502859904 This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report From:Alec Petridis To:Council, City; Cain, Robert; San Antonio Area Plan Cc:Evan D. Petridis Subject:Support San Antonio development - no limitations Date:Saturday, March 28, 2026 3:02:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I am a south Palo Alto resident and I strongly support building heights above sixty feet in the San Antonio Road Area Plan. The proposed density of up to 7 400 units will be perfectly suitable for the existing infrastructure, given the close proximity of the Caltrain station; traffic will quickly adapt and the influx of capital will provide opportunity to further improve and pedestrianise areas in the vicinity. I urge Council not to cap heights at sixty feet, not to require minimum parking, and to distribute growth in a manner that will create pleasant, dense places to live instead of worsening sprawl. Weaponising CEQA or affordability requirements to deliberately sabotage the project would be a cynical move that proves the stereotype of the Palo Alto Council as beholden to vested interests and a vocal NIMBY minority. I'd like my comments to be entered into the public record, please. Regards, Alec This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Chris Schremp To:McDonough, Melissa; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Robert Marinaro; Christine Schremp Cc:City Mgr; district5@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Saturday, March 28, 2026 1:37:13 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. City Council - following up on my last email, I performed research into viable solutions for these OSVs. It seems there are many options within a 15-75 mile radius of Palo Alto. I. understand this would require a potentially longer commute for these folks - but I know many actual tax paying residents in Palo Alto who commute 30 miles, 50 miles and more to work, so we would not be asking anything out of the ordinary for these OSV occupants. Rather than use our tax dollars to continue to accommodate these OSVs and clean up after them, we should be spending time on helping them secure occupancy in one of the following locations. Our community officers and city council members should reaching out to these parks and working with them to ensure they have space for our OSVs and then work with the OSV occupants to help them transition to one of these locations. Of course the OSV occupants will protest as they are currently avoiding monthly costs and using our tree lined streets as their neighborhood and our tax funded resources for their refuse, waste water, etc. But if told they have no other option, I am sure they will be more willing to consider. Maple Leaf RV Park (Morgan Hill) – Good "All-In" Low Price About 35 miles (mostly against traffic if commuting to Palo Alto in the mornings), this park offers the most predictable pricing. Monthly Cost: $1,500 (Standard Site). This rate includes water, sewer, and the first 400kWh of electricity. Garden City RV Park (San Jose) – Decent All in Price Located about 18 miles south, this park is designed almost exclusively for extended-stay visitors, including traveling nurses and tech contractors. Estimated Cost: Generally aligns with San Jose market rates of $1,400 – $1,600 plus utilities. It is located right off Highway 101, making the commute to Palo Alto very straightforward Sequoia RV Park (Redwood City) – Best Overall Value & Proximity Located only 6 miles from Palo Alto, this is the most affordable option that doesn't require a significant commute. Unlike many parks that have a "7-day out" rule, Sequoia offers dedicated monthly stays. Monthly Cost: $1,365 (30 AMP) or $1,680 (50 AMP). It includes full hookups (electricity, water, sewer), Wi-Fi, and laundry access. The 30 AMP rate is currently one of the lowest "all-in" prices within a 10-mile radius. Possible Constraint: They have a strict "no dangerous dog breeds" policy and require a non-refundable processing fee for the first month. This is one of the most budget-friendly options for long-term residency. They offer dedicated RV pads within a managed community. Monthly Cost: $700 – $900, which typically includes electricity, water, sewer, and trash. Country Western Mobile Home & RV Park (Modesto): A quiet, long-term oriented community that offers monthly stays for those looking for a residential atmosphere. Monthly Cost: Approximately $725 plus sub-metered utilities. Rodeo Mobile Home & RV Park (Rodeo): Located in Contra Costa County, this park is an excellent middle ground for those who want to stay closer to the Bay Area than the Central Valley but still need lower costs Monthly Cost: $900 with a 2-month minimum stay requirement. It is an all-ages community with full 30/50 amp hookups. Midway RV Park (Vacaville): A well-rated park that caters to extended stays and is located right off I-80. Monthly Cost: Rates are generally around $1,400 – $1,600 for long-term residents. On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 9:48 AM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: City Council Team, The situation is expanding and getting worse. Over the last 24 hours, I have called the police twice to report OSVs parking on East Meadow Drive in front of Ramos Park, blocking both the bike lane and sidewalk. Last night a family with a stroller and dog could barely get by on the sidewealk and this morning, the sidewalk and bike lanes are blocked where families walk and ride to the park and walk and ride to school. If one of these OSVs happens to open a door while someone is walking, running or biking they will likely hit them and cause injuries and then the city will have an even bigger issue. And again, I do want to seem insensitive to the situation of these OSVs, but in many cases, they don't simply have an OSV - many of them have additional cars and trucks - in fact I saw one person get out of their OSV and drive away in a BMW. Another in a multi-cab truck that likely cost more than $65k. And lastly, many of these OSVs have actual homes in other parts of the county and state and none of them pay Palo Alto taxes - so labeling them as part of our community is not an accurate framing of the situation. What more do you need from tax paying Palo Alto residents to accelerate the plans to change the parking laws and prevent these OSVs from parking on our streets? Chris Schremp 617-840-7622 3721 Ortega Ct On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 3:43 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Melissa - thanks for your detailed response. A few thoughts on what you shared. Regarding your point ..."As a note, the 18 streets are receiving increased cleaning and sweeping because the streets impacted by ongoing parking of different OSVs over time. This requires more thorough initial cleaning and frequent maintenance to address refuse, biohazards, and debris that have accumulated with these streets very seldom having times where no vehicles were parked there." This is exactly what is so infuriating and what seems like such a backward way of looking at this problem. Rather than dedicating our tax dollars to relocating these OSVs and changing the city parking laws to prevent them from parking on our streets, the city is spending our tax dollars to clean up the increased hazards, garbage and debris they are creating. And regarding your note..."the Mountain View safe parking – it is part of the countywide system and as such accepts participants from throughout the County, including individuals from Palo Alto. However, just like the safe parking sites in Palo Alto, the Mountain View site prioritizes households with ties to their community first and they also are experiencing impacts with this regional and statewide issue." I think you may have missed my point. First, the lot was not full, so rather than spending time and money on cleaning the streets, the City of Palo Alto should be working with Mountain View to get more of our OSVs relocated there AND looking for similar solutions - e.g. expanding the lots near Moffet Field. And as for ties to our community - what does that mean? How do you define ties to a community? On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 5:01 PM McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Schremp, Thank you for your email and for laying out your concerns clearly. I hear the frustration, especially regarding safety and accessibility impacts in residential areas. As we continue this work, the City is aiming for an approach that protects public safety and neighborhood quality of life while operating within the legal framework that governs parking regulation and enforcement. As a note, the 18 streets are receiving increased cleaning and sweeping because the streets impacted by ongoing parking of different OSVs over time. This requires more thorough initial cleaning and frequent maintenance to address refuse, biohazards, and debris that have accumulated with these streets very seldom having times where no vehicles were parked there. You asked for the list of the 18 streets identified through field surveys for permanent sign locations. Those locations are: Embarcadero Way (from Embarcadero Road to end) Embarcadero Road (east of Highway 101) Faber Place (from Embarcadero Road to end) Elwell Court (from East Bayshore Road to end) Corporation Way (from East Bayshore Road to end) East Meadow Circle (from East Meadow Drive around the full circle) Fabian Way (from East Meadow Way to Charleston Road) Park Boulevard (from Page Mill Road to Lambert Avenue) Sheridan Avenue (from Park Boulevard to Page Mill Road) Portage Avenue (from El Camino Real to Ash Street) Ash Street (from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue, and Portage Avenue to Lambert Avenue) Commercial Street (from Transport Street to Charleston Road) Transport Street (from San Antonio Road to end) Industrial Avenue (from Transport Street to Charleston Road) Colorado Avenue (from West Bayshore Road to Simkins Court) San Antonio Road (from Transport Road to the San Antonio/Hwy 101 split) Lambert Avenue (from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard) Sheridan Avenue (from Park Boulevard to Page Mill Road) I appreciate you flagging your wife’s call about OSVs blocking sidewalks and bike lanes and the “72 hour” guidance she was given. A Community Service Officer responded to the parking complaint and noted in the call for service that there was no violation and that the OSV had moved. I apologize for the parking citation for a violation they observe, and there is no delay in citation issuance. Delayed enforcement would apply to an abandoned vehicle violation. Officers must leave a 72-hour violation notice on the parked vehicle. If after 72 hours the vehicle has not moved at least a half mile (the vehicle may repark in the same spot) the vehicle can be towed. Towing is subject to available towing resources. Regarding the Mountain View safe parking – it is part of the countywide system and as such accepts participants from throughout the County, including individuals from Palo Alto. However, just like the safe parking sites in Palo Alto, the Mountain View site prioritizes households with ties to their community first and they also are experiencing impacts with this regional and statewide issue. Thank you for taking the time to write—your input has been noted and shared with the appropriate teams. 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: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:32 PM To: McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Melissa, Thank you for your response. While I appreciate your time, the answers provided are unsatisfactory. They suggest the City Council is misdiagnosing the core issue: Palo Alto residents are subsidizing the externalized costs of Oversized Vehicles (OSVs) that negatively impact our neighborhoods, safety, and property values. My feedback on the Council’s plan is as follows: Misallocation of Tax Funds: Using resident taxes to fund specialized street cleaning for OSVs is a circular, "backward" solution. It effectively incentivizes the behavior by removing any accountability for the waste generated. The "Homelessness" Misnomer: The plan incorrectly frames this as a complex homelessness crisis. I am absolutely sensitive to homelessness in our cities, but I don't think that's the core issue here. In reality, many of these OSV occupants are part-time residents with primary homes elsewhere. Treating this as a housing crisis rather than a code and safety enforcement issue is a policy failure. And if the OSV is the their full time home, and only residence, that still is not a homeless issue, it's location issue where they need to find a place to park, or start paying Palo Alto taxes. Safe Parking Programs: Budgeting to "enable" these programs within residential zones encourages long-term settlement rather than transition. Geographic Displacement: Citing tow statistics from other neighborhoods misses the point. Enforcement in other areas has simply funneled the problem into East Meadow Circle and Fabian Way - and this not equitable to ALL residents of Palo Alto. Additionally: Transparency: Please provide the list of the 18 specific streets identified for permanent signage. Enforcement Gap: You made the point " if you notice a specific, immediate hazard, please report the exact location and time so it can be routed for timely response." However... My wife recently reported OSVs blocking sidewalks and bike lanes at Ramos Park - an immediate ADA and safety hazard - only to be told by PAPD that no action can be taken for 72 hours. Why is a clear, immediate safety hazard (blocking public right-of-way) subject to a 72-hour grace period? And I know the city has been notified multiple times of the hazards caused by the OSVs on Fabian Way blocking the bike lane. Answers: We want a justification for why the City is prioritizing "supporting safe parking" over the safety of residents using bike lanes and sidewalks. Lastly, I have seen other cities find quick and tenable solutions for this - in fact in Mountain View, at the corner of Shoreline Blvd and Critteden Lane there is a large parking lot that is housing 40+ OSVs and there is room for more. Rather than spending tax dollars on street cleaning, why not look to partner with Mountain View to send OSVs there until a longer term solution can be found? I have included photos for your review. We have invested heavily in this community and pay significant taxes to live here. We expect the City to prioritize the safety and accessibility of our streets over the convenience of non-resident OSV owners. Chris On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 2:22 PM McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Schremp, Thank you for your messages. I am responding on behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada and will do my best to address the follow-up questions you posed. 1. What is being done longer-term to prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? City Council approved a phased, citywide plan on October 20, 2025 to address oversized vehicle (OSV) impacts, combining enforcement, cleaning, outreach, and new local regulations. Near-term, staff was directed to move forward ordinances to: (a) prohibit detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets and (b) prohibit “vanlording” (renting public parking spaces). For longer-term change, staff is also developing a citywide approach to “limit OSV parking to certain streets” (with a defined process/criteria), rather than continuing a pattern where enforcement in one location can result in vehicles moving into another. The City Council is also taking this very seriously and have dedicated their time to an ad hoc committee of the Council to work with staff on this issue. the City’s authority to regulate vehicle parking is constrained by state law and constitutional requirements, so changes need to be structured within these constraints to be enforceable. 2. Why does it feel like other neighborhoods prevented this—and ours became the landing zone? What can we adopt? What you’re describing is consistent with what staff has flagged as a key risk: actions like targeted cleaning/enforcement or time-limited restrictions can move OSVs to nearby blocks or other neighborhoods if the approach is not citywide and coordinated. That’s why the Council-directed work is looking at a comprehensive framework (including the “limit OSV parking to certain streets” concept), rather than relying only on one-off actions on individual streets which will certainly continue to just move people around. 3. What "action” is happening now (beyond meetings and email responses)? Since Council’s October 20, 2025 direction, through mid-February: a. Detached trailers and vanlord ordinances drafted, approved, and are being implemented. This prohibits parking of detached vehicles on public streets and prohibits the renting of public parking spaces b. 17 street segments deep cleaned (street cleaning, debris removal, tree pruning, catch basin & storm drainpipe line cleaning) c. Biweekly street sweeping on streets that have been deep cleaned d. 33 OSVs towed after initial outreach and notification did not result in compliance. This represents an increase in towing activity, there were 12 OSVs towed in 2024 and 47 OSVs towed in 2025, and additional OSVs towed following the October 20, 2025 direction. e. Field surveys conducted on 18 affected streets to determine permanent sign locations f. Timely notification, including A-frame signs placed 2 weeks prior to cleaning/sweeping, windshield flyers, mailers, and outreach g. 338 interactions between clients and case managers to build rapport and connect individuals to case management and services (interactions are not limited to OSVs)  Please know that emails and calls to our non-emergency line help us to document observations and ensure proper routing and review by staff. On a related note, if you notice a specific, immediate hazard, please report the exact location and time so it can be routed for timely response. 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: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:24 AM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; adobeinfo@gmail.com Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Eric and City Council Members - following up, a few items - and please as I ask these questions, I am sympathetic to the plight of those living in the OSVs - but as someone who pays more than $50k per year in taxes AND as someone who bought and invested in a home in Palo Alto, I demand that you take more direct and decisive action NOW. Please stop debating and act. 1. I would like an answer to my prior question: What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? 2. It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Why is that. What can we learn/adopt from other neighborhoods and apply in our own? 3. I watched the recent Ad Hoc Committee meeting - https://www.youtube.com/live/wLg5yZTr6vg - and was appalled by the level of inaction, the seeming dismissal of residents concerns and complaints - and specifically dismayed by the comment "keep sending your emails, we read them." We don't want you to read them - we want you to ACT on them. Please follow up with specific answers to my questions and ultimately the requests of the tax paying residents who have had enough of this. Stop saying it's a difficult problem and stop saying it takes time - NO it does not. And you had to know going into running for City Council that you would been asked to solve difficult and complex issues - so please do it. Chris Schremp 617-840-7622 (cell) 3721 Ortega Court Adobe Meadows On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 12:12 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Eric. More broadly what is being done to change the zoning and parking laws to prohibit oversized vehicles from parking on those streets? I drove by this morning and both sides of East Meadow Circle and all of one side of Fabian Way are lined with these vehicles. On Fabian way they are blocking the bike path. And I have seen multiple vehicles with their trash outside or on the back. What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Us tax paying residents are now being forced to deal with higher rates of pestilence, blocked bike lanes, unsightly garbage, and more. On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:01 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hey Chris, Thank you for the follow-up. Street cleaning on East Meadow Circle will continue every two weeks, as indicated by the posted signage. During the designated street-cleaning hours, vehicles, including oversized vehicles, are subject to citation and/or tow if they remain in violation. There is currently no citywide prohibition on oversized vehicles parking in that area outside of the posted street-cleaning times. Once street cleaning is complete, vehicles may return, provided they comply with all posted regulations. Regarding Ramos Park, I am not currently aware of any ongoing issues, and we haven't gotten any more complaints. That said, I will have my team look into the area to assess compliance and determine whether enforcement action is warranted. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Please continue to let us know if you observe violations occurring during posted restriction times. Respectfully, Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 9:33 AM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Eric - thanks for following up. I drove by East Meadow Circle today and noticed that one side of the street had been cleared of the RVs and Trailers and street cleaning was underway. Thanks for that - and please confirm that this means they will continue with this process and after the street cleaning the vehicles will not be allowed to return. Also, as those vehicles have been forced off East Meadow Circle, I did notice they are now parking in front of Ramos Park and blocking local citizens from please confirm that you are aware of this and steps will be taken to prevent them remaining there? Thanks, Chris On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:16 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: The temporary signage has been posted, and the community outreach is ongoing in partnership with homeless outreach teams. We have towed several oversize vehicles from East Meadow Circle; however, we cannot prevent future oversize vehicles to repark in locations where vehicles were towed, including vehicles that were towed, released from tow storage, and reparked in the same location. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 6:08 PM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Thanks for your reply. While we understand this is not an overnight solution, in our neighborhood we have not seen much enforcement or action taken by the city. Also, when you say that..."Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance." Can you tell me if the required signage and outreach period has been completed for East Meadow Circle and the surrounding areas? And if not, when will it be done? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:34 PM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your email and for outlining your concerns. Your email was received in the City Manager’s inbox and bundled with other correspondence related to Line Item 4 for City Council review. We apologize if you did not receive a direct response from City staff previously. That was not their intent, and we appreciate you taking the time to follow up. The Police Department has fully pushed out its limited resources and is prioritizing oversized vehicle enforcement citywide. We are currently addressing impacts across more than 18 streets affected by oversized vehicles. Over the past six months, we have towed exponentially more oversized vehicles than in the previous several years combined. Our team has also collaborated closely with homeless outreach services throughout the affected areas to connect individuals with available resources while addressing public nuisance concerns. Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance. This issue cannot be resolved overnight. With limited staffing and a limited number of towing companies willing to accept oversized vehicles, enforcement is currently operating at its peak within the available resources. That said, we are prioritizing problem areas and have already seen measurable improvements in other parts of the city. If you witness a specific traffic hazard, active sewage dumping, or any immediate public safety concern, please contact the Police Department in real time so officers can respond promptly. We appreciate your time and your continued engagement on this issue. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 10:57 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> Subject: Re: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of theorganization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking To the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my profound disappointment and a formal grievance regarding the City Council’s failure to acknowledge or respond to my previous communication sent in December 2025. As a tax-paying resident of Palo Alto, I find it unacceptable that a detailed report of municipal code violations and public health hazards has been met with no response to my email and minimal action by the City. Since my last email, the situation has not stayed stagnant; it has significantly worsened. New and Escalating Impacts: Vector Control Crisis: For the first time in four years, my property is being targeted by rats and raccoons. These rodents, drawn by the increase in unmanaged rubbish and waste surrounding the RV encampments, are now digging up my yard and creating a biological hazard on my private property. Physical Obstruction: The density of oversized vehicles on our narrow roadways has reached a point where safe transit is compromised, creating a "blind spot" culture that endangers pedestrians and cyclists. Its also unsafe to walk our dogs in these areas as they are attracted to the harmful waste. Sanitation Breakdown: The "rubbish" mentioned in December has now become a permanent fixture on our streets, signaling to residents that the City has effectively abandoned its commitment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Formal Reiteration of Demands: I am again demanding the immediate enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020. The continued refusal to enforce these existing laws is not a neutral act; it is an active decision to prioritize illegal encampments over the health, safety, and property rights of your constituents. I expect the following within 48 hours: 1. An acknowledgment of this second notice and my original December correspondence. 2. A specific update on what the Palo Alto Police Department and Code Enforcement are doing to address the pest and refuse issues stemming from these vehicles. We have reached a breaking point. The lack of response is no longer just a clerical oversight; it is a failure of leadership. I look forward to your immediate reply. Sincerely, Christopher & Christine Schremp 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 7:48 AM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Palo Alto City Council Members: We are writing to express our profound dissatisfaction with the escalating crisis of illegally parked recreational vehicles (RVs), oversized vehicles, and trailers currently plaguing our city streets. This situation is unacceptable and demands immediate, decisive intervention. These illegal encampments are concentrated on, but not limited to, streets such as East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, E. Embarcadero Rd, Commercial St, Portage Ave, and Sheridan Ave. Failure to Enforce Existing Law We formally demand the immediate and rigorous enforcement of all current municipal codes, specifically: 1. Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020: This code explicitly prohibits standing or parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. within any residential or public facility zone. The current lack of enforcement is an abject failure of municipal responsibility, effectively permitting this illegal activity to flourish. 2. All other applicable ordinances governing vehicle size, duration of parking, and use of public rights-of-way as residences. The Current Crisis: Public Health and Safety Risk The City Council must recognize this as a severe public health and safety threat, not a mere parking issue. With well over 200 vehicles now documented, the impacts on tax-paying residents and families are critical: Public Health Hazard: Illegal dumping of sewage and trash directly onto public streets and storm drains poses an undeniable environmental and biological risk. Safety and Egress: Vehicles are frequently parked in a manner that obstructs clear lines of sight, impedes traffic flow, and blocks ingress/egress for both residents' driveways and emergency vehicles. Strain on City Services: These non-resident, non-taxpaying dwellers are illegally utilizing Palo Alto’s public services while the City exhibits a damaging pattern of relaxed enforcement and regulatory inaction. Demand for Immediate Legislative and Enforcement Action The time for deliberation is over. We require two simultaneous actions: 1. Immediate, Zero-Tolerance Enforcement: Activate the Palo Alto Police Department to begin issuing citations and initiating towing procedures for all vehicles in violation of PAMC 10.44.020, effective immediately. 2. Rapid Enactment of New Legislation: Should the existing codes prove insufficient, we demand that the City Council immediately prioritize and enact stringent new ordinances that explicitly and definitively prevent the use of city streets for residency and prohibit the long-term parking of oversized and recreational vehicles. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE the continued erosion of our neighborhood safety, health, and quality of life due to the City's unwillingness to act. We demand a public, concrete plan of action—complete with timelines for enforcement and new legislation—within seven (7) days of the submission of this letter. TAKE ACTION NOW. Sincerely, Christopher & Christine Schremp 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 (cell) From:bob ohlmann To:Council, City; Cain, Robert; San Antonio Area Plan Cc:Christine Rosche; arthursalop@yahoo.com Subject:South Palo Alto Housing plan Date:Saturday, March 28, 2026 12:22:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Responsible Officials: I have been a Palo Alto resident of Greenmeadow since 1967 (almost 60 years) and strongly object to the plan so far advocated for additional housing in south Palo Alto. I am in favor of additional housing in Palo Alto but not for it to be almost 100% concentrated in one area. Not only does the plan increase the Palo Alto population by 26%, but it is almost all in one area close to many single-family one-story home. The plan also has inadequate parking accommodations,and it doesn't provide any financial or legal guarantees for the infrastructure needed to support that population or any legal guarantees for lower-then-market-rate housing. It also allows a 90-foot height limit, which should be no more than 60 feet to fit in with the character of our size city, not being San Francisco or San Jose. Please find ways to meet the state population housing requirement by finding at least half of that required growth further North in Palo Alto so as to be fair for the whole city. Thank you for your consideration. Robert C.Ohlmann, PhD Physics, UC Berkeley This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Danielle Parish To:Council, City Subject:Recommending Ellen Bob for Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Date:Saturday, March 28, 2026 11:00:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To Whom it May Concern: I wanted to enthusiastically recommend Ellen Bob for the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. A long time resident and activist in Palo Alto, Ellen is an asset to every community and group in which she participates. Her calm, thoughtful manner provides for effective problem solving, her friendly demeanor welcomes engagement from others, and she is first to consider what a loving, neighborly response can be in light of any conflict. I have known Ellen since her days as a business owner of Bob and Bob Judaica Bookstore in Palo Alto. As a Christian and pastor in Palo Alto, I was often unsure as to how to best respond to various Jewish issues of concern in our community but she has been welcoming, accepting and kind in multi faith discussions and engagement. As the pastor of Spark Church, which rents space from Congregation Etz Chayim, of which Ellen was the Executive Director for many years, Ellen proved to be a wonderful advocate for our tenancy, a fantastic thought partner when various issues of communal concern arose, and an engaged activist for human flourishing in our two congregations and in our community at large. I cannot more enthusiastically recommend Ellen Bob for the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Pastor Danielle Parish Spark Church Danielle Parish Senior Pastor Spark Church 4161 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA., 94306 This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Come & Learn to Walk Israel Study Tours Rose Guide to Genesis Exodus Bible Study From:Susan Dunn To:Council, City Subject:Please keep Churchill Avenue Crossing open - at least for bikes Date:Friday, March 27, 2026 8:34:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Hello, I live west of the Caltrain tracks. I cross them at Churchill on my bicycle frequently - to attend events at Stanford, to shop at Town and Country, to visit PAMF. Please do not close Churchill to bicycle traffic over the train tracks. The alternatives are not good. Embarcadero is very dangerous for bicycles. There are no bike lanes, and there is a lot of cross traffic in and out of Town and Country and Paly. The next RR crossing is University, which is quite far away and also narrow. Heading south, one has to go to California Avenue - a good half-mile detour in each direction. I am very sorry about the suicide in February. I understand and support the desire to keep children safe. But, I don't think we can sacrifice all practical concerns to the (elusive) goal of suicide prevention. Certainly the City Council should look out for the safety of bicycle riders as well. A lot of Paly students cross the tracks at Churchill every day. Please consider what alternatives they will have if the Churchill crossing is closed. - Susan Dunn This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report From:Robert Marinaro To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; City Mgr Cc: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 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; 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; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Chris Schremp; Christine Schremp; Bill Howell; Sujit Gupta Subject:Mountain View Plans Expansion of Shoreline RV Parking Program Date:Friday, March 27, 2026 8:29:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hopefully this will take some of the pressure off of Palo Alto when Mountain View’s Evelyn Safe Parking Lot closes this summer. As I have mentioned earlier I have seen OSVs in Palo Alto with Mountain View parking permits in their windows. Note the City’s concerns about escalating costs from what initially was a temporary program. Regards, Bob Mountain View plans expansion of Shoreline RV parking program mv-voice.com From:Humphrey, Sonia Cc:LAFCO Subject:LAFCO Agenda Packet Now Available - 4/1/26 Meeting Date:Friday, March 27, 2026 4:06:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The agenda packet for the April 1, 2026 LAFCO Meeting is now available on the LAFCO website: https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2026-04-01-131500. Best regards, Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4709 This message needs your attention You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report From:midtown_gary@me.com To:UAC; Council, City Subject:Concern Regarding Utility Rate Increases and Impact on Seniors Date:Friday, March 27, 2026 3:40:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Members of the City Council, Utility Advisory Commission, I am writing to express my strong concern about the ongoing yearly increases in gas, electricity, wastewater, refuse, and water rates. While I recognize that periodic adjustments may be necessary, the regularity and scale of these increases are creating a growing financial strain for many residents—especially seniors living on fixed incomes. In addition to recent hikes in water, wastewater, and refuse fees, I understand that the City is now considering further increases to gas and electric rates. The combined impact of these rising costs is placing significant pressure on older residents. It is deeply concerning to see essential utility expenses continue to climb without any corresponding increase in fixed incomes. I respectfully urge the City Council and Utility Advisory Committee to carefully consider the disproportionate burden these increases place on seniors with limited financial flexibility. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this matter. I hope you will take meaningful action to address these concerns before approving any additional utility rate increases. Sincerely, Gary H. This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Dear All, we are delighted to announce the new issue of the Herbert Simon Society Newsletter. Please feel free to post and distribute the newsletter to colleagues and any people you think would be interested From:Herbert Simon Society To:Council, City Subject:KATHY WILKES MEMORIAL CONFERENCEN DUBROVNIK - LAW AND POLITICAL ECONOMY PARIS Date:Friday, March 27, 2026 2:16:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. View in the browser Logo Herbert Simon Society Inter-University Centre Dubrovnik (IUC) 24 – 25 April 2026 From then to now: the journey from the early days of the cognitive revolution to today’s AI challenges From around the mid-20th century philosophers, psychologists, linguists, and fledgling neuroscientists joined forces in an eIort to understand the mind and its workings. Almost 75 years on, we are seeing the fruits in the development of large language models and sophisticated robotics. In this workshop we will recall the early beginnings, and reflect on some of the intellectual twists and turns that led to today’s achievements. We also aim to honour one of the pioneer figures in cognitive science and artificial intelligence, who died in the summer of 2025, Professor Margaret Boden, OBE and FBA. Friday, 24 April 14.00 – 14.40 Welcome and Introduction Prof. Ivan Šimonović, IUC Director General, Dr. Anita Avramides, St.Hilda’s College, Oxford, Prof. Riccardo Viale, Herbert Simon Society, Ms. Nada Bruer Ljubišić, IUC Executive Secretary 14.40 – 15.55 Prof. Andy Clark: Generative Models in the Wild: From Cybernetics to LLMs and Back Again 15.55 – 16.25 CoIee Break 16.25 – 17.40 Ass. Prof. Mirela Fus-Holmedal: LLMs and Strong Plausible Deniability 17.40 – 18.55 Prof. Shaun Gallagher: Intelligence: From AI to ZI — Some lessons from myrmecology 20.00 Dinner Saturday, 25 April 9.00 – 10.15 Ass. Prof. Remo Pareschi: Cognitive Sovereignty in the Age of Agentic AI 10.15 – 10.45 Coffee Break 10.45 – 12.00 Dr. Julija Perhat: Beyond AI Content Moderation: A Three-Tier Approach to Online Harmful Speech 12.00 – 13.15 Prof. Barry Smith: Artificial Intelligences and Us 13.30 Lunch Honouring Kathy Wilkes Dr. Kathleen Vaughan Wilkes (1946-2003) was a distinguished philosopher at Oxford University and a courageous defender of academic freedom. Her work spanned ancient philosophy, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science, but she is perhaps best remembered for her heroic eIorts supporting underground education in Communist- controlled Eastern Europe. From 1979, she worked alongside dissidents in Czechoslovakia, helping to bring about the Velvet Revolution. She remained in Dubrovnik during the 1991 siege, continuing to organize academic programs at the IUC even under bombardment. Her dedication earned her the Commemorative Medal from Czech President Václav Havel and honorary citizenship of Dubrovnik. These conferences celebrate her interdisciplinary scholarship and her unwavering belief that education is a fundamental human right worth defending at any cost. Organisers and Speakers: Dr. Anita Avramides, St Hilda’s College, Oxford, UK Nada Bruer Ljubišić, MA – Inter-University Centre Dubrovnik, Croatia Dr. Paul Flather, St Antony's College, Oxford, UK Prof. Andy Clark, University of Sussex, UK Ass. Prof. Mirela Fus-Holmedal, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway Prof. Shaun Gallagher, University of Memphis, USA Ass. Prof. Remo Pareschi, University of Molise, Italy Dr. Julija Perhat, University of Rijeka, Croatia Prof. Snježana Prijić-Samaržija, University of Rijeka, Croatia Prof. Barry Smith, University of London, UK Prof. Ivan Šimonović, Inter-University Centre Dubrovnik, Croatia Prof. Riccardo Viale, University of Milano-Bicocca; Herbert Simon Society, Italy From:Abello, Emmanuel To:CouncilMembers@campbellca.gov; citycouncil@cupertino.gov; AllCouncilMembers@cityofgilroy.org; Citycouncil@morganhill.ca.gov; city.council@mountainview.gov; Council, City; MayorandCouncil@santaclaraca.gov; council@sunnyvale.ca.gov; cityclerk@cityofcampbell.com; cityclerk@cupertino.gov; Kim.Mancera@cityofgilroy.org; mthurman@losaltosca.gov; EXT.Suzanne.guzzetta; Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica; Michelle Bigelow; city.clerk@mountainview.gov; Clerk, City; cityclerk@sanjoseca.gov; clerk@santaclaraca.gov; bavrit@saratoga.ca.us; cityclerk@sunnyvale.ca.gov; amiller@losaltoshills.ca.gov; Clerk; board@valleywater.org; shirleyho@markthomas.com; Tracy Fowler; info@strategylaw.com; dina@lomaprietarcd.org; samv@purissimawater.org; board.secretary@vta.org; ed@sscvMemorialDistrict.org; CGeneralUser@westbaysanitary.org; smoreno@gcrcd.org; saratogacemetery@sbcglobal.net; Pham, Thien Cc:LAFCO Subject:Santa Clara LAFCO Begins Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review Date:Thursday, March 26, 2026 3:31:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Clerks and District Clerks: Please distribute the following email to City Council Members and Special District Board Members on behalf of Santa Clara LAFCO. Santa Clara LAFCO has begun its Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review. To learn more about this important project, please go to our Project Webpage. Throughout the service review process, there will be many opportunities for public participation. Sign up to receive email updates and notices from LAFCO on this service review. LAFCO has retained RSG, Inc. to conduct the SR. As LAFCO’s consultant, RSG will be contacting water or wastewater service providers in late April to collect necessary data. We thank all affected agencies and interested parties for their cooperation and involvement in this project. Regards, Emmanuel Abello Analyst, LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4705 | www.SantaClaraLAFCO.org This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Todd Axtell To:Council, City Subject:Ellen Bob for Human Rights Commission Date:Thursday, March 26, 2026 10:54:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To whom it may concern: We are writing in support of the appointment of Ellen Bob to the Palo Also Human Rights Commission. We have interacted with Ellen for many years and have found her to be invested in making our community better. She has excellent communication skills, is a compassionate listener and has a warm and welcoming personality. Working with her professionally, she demonstrated strong planning and project management skills and keen attention to detail. Moreover, she is well- informed and has a long history of involvement with the Palo Alto community, both in her role as Executive Director of Etz Chayim and previously as a long-time business owner. Her personality and background give her a broad understanding of the spectrum of human needs and experiences and the appropriate responses to them. She would be an invaluable asset on Palo Alto’s Human Rights Commission. Sincerely, Todd and Kimberly Axtell Co-owners Copy Factory Palo Alto Copy Factory 3929 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.856.2020 phone 650.856.2010 fax print@copyfactory.com www.copyfactory.com Hours: Monday - Friday – 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Chris Schremp To:McDonough, Melissa; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Robert Marinaro; Christine Schremp Cc:City Mgr; district5@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Thursday, March 26, 2026 9:49:28 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. City Council Team, The situation is expanding and getting worse. Over the last 24 hours, I have called the police twice to report OSVs parking on East Meadow Drive in front of Ramos Park, blocking both the bike lane and sidewalk. Last night a family with a stroller and dog could barely get by on the sidewealk and this morning, the sidewalk and bike lanes are blocked where families walk and ride to the park and walk and ride to school. If one of these OSVs happens to open a door while someone is walking, running or biking they will likely hit them and cause injuries and then the city will have an even bigger issue. And again, I do want to seem insensitive to the situation of these OSVs, but in many cases, they don't simply have an OSV - many of them have additional cars and trucks - in fact I saw one person get out of their OSV and drive away in a BMW. Another in a multi-cab truck that likely cost more than $65k. And lastly, many of these OSVs have actual homes in other parts of the county and state and none of them pay Palo Alto taxes - so labeling them as part of our community is not an accurate framing of the situation. What more do you need from tax paying Palo Alto residents to accelerate the plans to change the parking laws and prevent these OSVs from parking on our streets? Chris Schremp 617-840-7622 3721 Ortega Ct On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 3:43 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Melissa - thanks for your detailed response. A few thoughts on what you shared. Regarding your point ..."As a note, the 18 streets are receiving increased cleaning and sweeping because the streets impacted by ongoing parking of different OSVs over time. This requires more thorough initial cleaning and frequent maintenance to address refuse, biohazards, and debris that have accumulated with these streets very seldom having times where no vehicles were parked there." This is exactly what is so infuriating and what seems like such a backward way of looking at this problem. the city parking laws to prevent them from parking on our streets, the city is spending our tax dollars to clean up the increased hazards, garbage and debris they are creating. And regarding your note..."the Mountain View safe parking – it is part of the countywide system and as such accepts participants from throughout the County, including individuals from Palo Alto. However, just like the safe parking sites in Palo Alto, the Mountain View site prioritizes households with ties to their community first and they also are experiencing impacts with this regional and statewide issue." I think you may have missed my point. First, the lot was not full, so rather than spending time and money on cleaning the streets, the City of Palo Alto should be working with Mountain View to get more of our OSVs relocated there AND looking for similar solutions - e.g. expanding the lots near Moffet Field. And as for ties to our community - what does that mean? How do you define ties to a community? On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 5:01 PM McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Schremp, Thank you for your email and for laying out your concerns clearly. I hear the frustration, especially regarding safety and accessibility impacts in residential areas. As we continue this work, the City is aiming for an approach that protects public safety and neighborhood quality of life while operating within the legal framework that governs parking regulation and enforcement. As a note, the 18 streets are receiving increased cleaning and sweeping because the streets impacted by ongoing parking of different OSVs over time. This requires more thorough initial cleaning and frequent maintenance to address refuse, biohazards, and debris that have accumulated with these streets very seldom having times where no vehicles were parked there. You asked for the list of the 18 streets identified through field surveys for permanent sign locations. Those locations are: Embarcadero Way (from Embarcadero Road to end) Embarcadero Road (east of Highway 101) Faber Place (from Embarcadero Road to end) Elwell Court (from East Bayshore Road to end) Corporation Way (from East Bayshore Road to end) East Meadow Circle (from East Meadow Drive around the full circle) Fabian Way (from East Meadow Way to Charleston Road) Park Boulevard (from Page Mill Road to Lambert Avenue) Sheridan Avenue (from Park Boulevard to Page Mill Road) Portage Avenue (from El Camino Real to Ash Street) Ash Street (from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue, and Portage Avenue to Lambert Avenue) Commercial Street (from Transport Street to Charleston Road) Transport Street (from San Antonio Road to end) Industrial Avenue (from Transport Street to Charleston Road) Colorado Avenue (from West Bayshore Road to Simkins Court) San Antonio Road (from Transport Road to the San Antonio/Hwy 101 split) Lambert Avenue (from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard) Sheridan Avenue (from Park Boulevard to Page Mill Road) I appreciate you flagging your wife’s call about OSVs blocking sidewalks and bike lanes and the “72 hour” guidance she was given. A Community Service Officer responded to the parking complaint and noted in the call for service that there was no violation and that the OSV had moved. I apologize for the confusion about parking violation enforcement actions. An officer may only issue a parking citation for a violation they observe, and there is no delay in citation issuance. Delayed enforcement would apply to an abandoned vehicle violation. Officers must leave a 72-hour violation notice on the parked vehicle. If after 72 hours the vehicle has not moved at least a half mile (the vehicle may repark in the same spot) the vehicle can be towed. Towing is subject to available towing resources. Regarding the Mountain View safe parking – it is part of the countywide system and as such accepts participants from throughout the County, including individuals from Palo Alto. However, just like the safe parking sites in Palo Alto, the Mountain View site prioritizes households with ties to their community first and they also are experiencing impacts with this regional and statewide issue. Thank you for taking the time to write—your input has been noted and shared with the appropriate teams. 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: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:32 PM To: McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Melissa, Thank you for your response. While I appreciate your time, the answers provided are unsatisfactory. They suggest the City Council is misdiagnosing the core issue: Palo Alto residents are subsidizing the externalized costs of Oversized Vehicles (OSVs) that negatively impact our neighborhoods, safety, and property values. My feedback on the Council’s plan is as follows: Misallocation of Tax Funds: Using resident taxes to fund specialized street cleaning for OSVs is a circular, "backward" solution. It effectively incentivizes the behavior by removing any accountability for the waste generated. The "Homelessness" Misnomer: The plan incorrectly frames this as a complex homelessness crisis. I am absolutely sensitive to homelessness in our cities, but I don't think that's the core issue here. In reality, many of these OSV occupants are part-time residents with primary homes elsewhere. Treating this as a housing crisis rather than a code and safety enforcement issue is a policy failure. And if the OSV is the their full time home, and only residence, that still is not a homeless issue, it's location issue where they need to find a place to park, or start paying Palo Alto taxes. Safe Parking Programs: Budgeting to "enable" these programs within residential zones encourages long-term settlement rather than transition. Geographic Displacement: Citing tow statistics from other neighborhoods misses the point. Enforcement in other areas has simply funneled the problem into East Meadow Circle and Fabian Way - and this not equitable to ALL residents of Palo Alto. Additionally: Transparency: Please provide the list of the 18 specific streets identified for permanent signage. Enforcement Gap: You made the point " if you notice a specific, immediate hazard, please report the exact location and time so it can be routed for timely response." However... My wife recently reported OSVs blocking sidewalks and bike lanes at Ramos Park - an immediate ADA and safety hazard - only to be told by PAPD that no action can be taken for 72 hours. Why is a clear, immediate safety hazard (blocking public right-of-way) subject to a 72-hour grace period? And I know the city has been notified multiple times of the hazards caused by the OSVs on Fabian Way blocking the bike lane. Answers: We want a justification for why the City is prioritizing "supporting safe Lastly, I have seen other cities find quick and tenable solutions for this - in fact in Mountain View, at the corner of Shoreline Blvd and Critteden Lane there is a large parking lot that is housing 40+ OSVs and there is room for more. Rather than spending tax dollars on street cleaning, why not look to partner with Mountain View to send OSVs there until a longer term solution can be found? I have included photos for your review. We have invested heavily in this community and pay significant taxes to live here. We expect the City to prioritize the safety and accessibility of our streets over the convenience of non-resident OSV owners. Chris On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 2:22 PM McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Schremp, Thank you for your messages. I am responding on behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada and will do my best to address the follow-up questions you posed. 1. What is being done longer-term to prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? City Council approved a phased, citywide plan on October 20, 2025 to address oversized vehicle (OSV) impacts, combining enforcement, cleaning, outreach, and new local regulations. Near-term, staff was directed to move forward ordinances to: (a) prohibit detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets and (b) prohibit “vanlording” (renting public parking spaces). For longer-term change, staff is also developing a citywide approach to “limit OSV parking to certain streets” (with a defined process/criteria), rather than continuing a pattern where enforcement in one location can result in vehicles moving into another. The City Council is also taking this very seriously and have dedicated their time to an ad hoc committee of the Council to work with staff on this issue. the City’s authority to regulate vehicle parking is constrained by state law and constitutional requirements, so changes need to be structured within these constraints to be enforceable. 2. Why does it feel like other neighborhoods prevented this—and ours became the landing zone? What can we adopt? What you’re describing is consistent with what staff has flagged as a key risk: actions like targeted cleaning/enforcement or time-limited restrictions can move OSVs to nearby blocks or other neighborhoods if the approach is not citywide and coordinated. That’s why the Council-directed work is looking at a comprehensive framework (including the “limit OSV parking to certain streets” concept), rather than relying only on one-off actions on individual streets which will certainly continue to just move people around. 3. What "action” is happening now (beyond meetings and email responses)? Since Council’s October 20, 2025 direction, through mid-February: a. Detached trailers and vanlord ordinances drafted, approved, and are being implemented. This prohibits parking of detached vehicles on public streets and prohibits the renting of public parking spaces b. 17 street segments deep cleaned (street cleaning, debris removal, tree pruning, catch basin & storm drainpipe line cleaning) c. Biweekly street sweeping on streets that have been deep cleaned d. 33 OSVs towed after initial outreach and notification did not result in compliance. This represents an increase in towing activity, there were 12 OSVs towed in 2024 and 47 OSVs towed in 2025, and additional OSVs towed following the October 20, 2025 direction. e. Field surveys conducted on 18 affected streets to determine permanent sign locations f. Timely notification, including A-frame signs placed 2 weeks prior to cleaning/sweeping, windshield flyers, mailers, and outreach g. 338 interactions between clients and case managers to build rapport and connect individuals to case management and services (interactions are not limited to OSVs)  Please know that emails and calls to our non-emergency line help us to document observations and ensure proper routing and review by staff. On a related note, if you notice a specific, immediate hazard, please report the exact location and time so it can be routed for timely response. 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: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:24 AM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; adobeinfo@gmail.com Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Eric and City Council Members - following up, a few items - and please as I ask these questions, I am sympathetic to the plight of those living in the OSVs - but as someone who pays more than $50k per year in taxes AND as someone who bought and invested in a home in Palo Alto, I demand that you take more direct and decisive action NOW. Please stop debating and act. 1. I would like an answer to my prior question: What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? 2. It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Why is that. What can we learn/adopt from other neighborhoods and apply in our own? 3. I watched the recent Ad Hoc Committee meeting - https://www.youtube.com/live/wLg5yZTr6vg - and was appalled by the level of inaction, the seeming dismissal of residents concerns and complaints - and specifically dismayed by the comment "keep sending your emails, we read them." We don't want you to read them - we want you to ACT on them. Please follow up with specific answers to my questions and ultimately the requests of the tax paying residents who have had enough of this. Stop saying it's a difficult problem and stop saying it takes time - NO it does not. And you had to know going into running for City Council that you would been asked to solve difficult and complex issues - so please do it. Chris Schremp 617-840-7622 (cell) 3721 Ortega Court Adobe Meadows On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 12:12 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Eric. More broadly what is being done to change the zoning and parking laws to prohibit oversized vehicles from parking on those streets? I drove by this morning and both sides of East Meadow Circle and all of one side of Fabian Way are lined with these vehicles. On Fabian way they are blocking the bike path. And I have seen multiple vehicles with their trash outside or on the back. What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Us tax paying residents are now being forced to deal with higher rates of pestilence, blocked bike lanes, unsightly garbage, and more. On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:01 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hey Chris, Thank you for the follow-up. Street cleaning on East Meadow Circle will continue every two weeks, as indicated by the posted signage. During the designated street-cleaning hours, vehicles, including oversized vehicles, are subject to citation and/or tow if they remain in violation. There is currently no citywide prohibition on oversized vehicles parking in that area outside of the posted street-cleaning times. Once street cleaning is complete, vehicles may return, provided they comply with all posted regulations. Regarding Ramos Park, I am not currently aware of any ongoing issues, and we haven't gotten any more complaints. That said, I will have my team look into the area to assess compliance and determine whether enforcement action is warranted. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Please continue to let us know if you observe violations occurring during posted restriction times. Respectfully, Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 9:33 AM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Eric - thanks for following up. I drove by East Meadow Circle today and noticed that one side of the street had been cleared of the RVs and Trailers and street cleaning was underway. Thanks for that - and please confirm that this means they will continue with this process and after the street cleaning the vehicles will not be allowed to return. Also, as those vehicles have been forced off East Meadow Circle, I did notice they are now parking in front of Ramos Park and blocking local citizens from parking there. Are oversized vehicles allowed to park there? - and if not, can you please confirm that you are aware of this and steps will be taken to prevent them remaining there? Thanks, Chris On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:16 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: The temporary signage has been posted, and the community outreach is ongoing in partnership with homeless outreach teams. We have towed several oversize vehicles from East Meadow Circle; however, we cannot prevent future oversize vehicles to repark in locations where vehicles were towed, including vehicles that were towed, released from tow storage, and reparked in the same location. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 6:08 PM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks for your reply. While we understand this is not an overnight solution, in our neighborhood we have not seen much enforcement or action taken by the city. Also, when you say that..."Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance." Can you tell me if the required signage and outreach period has been completed for East Meadow Circle and the surrounding areas? And if not, when will it be done? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:34 PM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your email and for outlining your concerns. Your email was received in the City Manager’s inbox and bundled with other correspondence related to Line Item 4 for City Council review. We apologize if you did not receive a direct response from City staff previously. That was not their intent, and we appreciate you taking the time to follow up. The Police Department has fully pushed out its limited resources and is prioritizing oversized vehicle enforcement citywide. We are currently addressing impacts across more than 18 streets affected by oversized vehicles. Over the past six months, we have towed exponentially more oversized vehicles than in the previous several years combined. Our team has also collaborated closely with homeless outreach services throughout the affected areas to connect individuals with available resources while addressing public nuisance concerns. Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance. This issue cannot be resolved overnight. With limited staffing and a limited number of towing companies willing to accept oversized vehicles, enforcement is currently operating at its peak within the available resources. That said, we are prioritizing problem areas and have already seen measurable improvements in other parts of the city. If you witness a specific traffic hazard, active sewage dumping, or any immediate public safety concern, please contact the Police Department in real time so officers can respond promptly. We appreciate your time and your continued engagement on this issue. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 10:57 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> Subject: Re: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my profound disappointment and a formal grievance regarding the City Council’s failure to acknowledge or respond to my previous communication sent in December 2025. As a tax-paying resident of Palo Alto, I find it unacceptable that a detailed report of municipal code violations and public health hazards has been met with no response to my email and minimal action by the City. Since my last email, the situation has not stayed stagnant; it has significantly worsened. New and Escalating Impacts: Vector Control Crisis: For the first time in four years, my property is being targeted by rats and raccoons. These rodents, drawn by the increase in unmanaged rubbish and waste surrounding the RV encampments, are now digging up my yard and creating a biological hazard on my private property. Physical Obstruction: The density of oversized vehicles on our narrow roadways has reached a point where safe transit is compromised, creating a "blind spot" culture that endangers pedestrians and cyclists. Its also unsafe to walk our dogs in these areas as they are attracted to the harmful waste. Sanitation Breakdown: The "rubbish" mentioned in December has now become a permanent fixture on our streets, signaling to residents that the City has effectively abandoned its commitment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Formal Reiteration of Demands: I am again demanding the immediate enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020. The continued refusal to enforce these existing laws is not a neutral act; it is an active decision to prioritize illegal encampments over the health, safety, and property rights of your constituents. I expect the following within 48 hours: 1. An acknowledgment of this second notice and my original December correspondence. 2. A specific update on what the Palo Alto Police Department and Code Enforcement are doing to address the pest and refuse issues stemming from these vehicles. We have reached a breaking point. The lack of response is no longer just a clerical oversight; it is a failure of leadership. I look forward to your immediate reply. Sincerely, Christopher & Christine Schremp 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 7:48 AM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Palo Alto City Council Members: We are writing to express our profound dissatisfaction with the escalating crisis of illegally parked recreational vehicles (RVs), oversized vehicles, and trailers currently plaguing our city streets. This situation is unacceptable and demands immediate, decisive intervention. These illegal encampments are concentrated on, but not limited to, streets such as East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, E. Embarcadero Rd, Commercial St, Portage Ave, and Sheridan Ave. Failure to Enforce Existing Law We formally demand the immediate and rigorous enforcement of all current municipal codes, specifically: 1. Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020: This code explicitly prohibits standing or parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. within any residential or public facility zone. The current lack of enforcement is an abject failure of municipal responsibility, effectively permitting this illegal activity to flourish. 2. All other applicable ordinances governing vehicle size, duration of parking, and use of public rights-of-way as residences. The Current Crisis: Public Health and Safety Risk The City Council must recognize this as a severe public health and safety threat, not a mere parking issue. With well over 200 vehicles now documented, the impacts on tax-paying residents and families are critical: Public Health Hazard: Illegal dumping of sewage and trash directly onto public streets and storm drains poses an undeniable environmental and biological risk. Safety and Egress: Vehicles are frequently parked in a manner that obstructs clear lines of sight, impedes traffic flow, and blocks ingress/egress for both residents' driveways and emergency vehicles. Strain on City Services: These non-resident, non-taxpaying dwellers are illegally utilizing Palo Alto’s public services while the City exhibits a damaging pattern of relaxed enforcement and regulatory inaction. Demand for Immediate Legislative and Enforcement Action The time for deliberation is over. We require two simultaneous actions: 1. Immediate, Zero-Tolerance Enforcement: Activate the Palo Alto Police Department to begin issuing citations and initiating towing procedures for all vehicles in violation of PAMC 10.44.020, effective immediately. 2. Rapid Enactment of New Legislation: Should the existing codes prove insufficient, we demand that the City Council immediately prioritize and enact stringent new ordinances that explicitly and definitively prevent the use of city streets for residency and prohibit the long-term parking of oversized and recreational vehicles. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE the continued erosion of our neighborhood safety, health, and quality of life due to the City's unwillingness to act. timelines for enforcement and new legislation—within seven (7) days of the submission of this letter. TAKE ACTION NOW. Sincerely, Christopher & Christine Schremp 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 (cell) From:adnoiseam1 To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; parks@cityofpaloalto.gov; pwps@cityofpaloalto.gov; O"Kane, Kristen; Robustelli, Sarah; PlannerOnDuty; Sustainability Email; info@canopy.org; info@cnps-scv.org Subject:Urgent Concern: Loss of Privacy and Habitat at Jerry Bowden Park Date:Thursday, March 26, 2026 7:25:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department, I am writing to you today both as a long-time resident and as someone who deeply valued Jerry Bowden Park as a place for quiet reflection. To be honest, I am completely shocked— and frankly, quite upset—to see that the bushes and vegetation have been entirely removed. I recently went to the park, a place where I used to feel comfortable "treading" and spending time, and the experience now feels very weird and exposed. Those bushes provided a vital sense of privacy. They created a sanctuary where one could sit and feel shielded from the bustle of the street. Now, that feeling of safety and calm is gone, and the space feels hollow. I am struggling to understand why such a drastic decision was made. Why was the only option to clear-cut everything? If there were concerns about overgrowth, why weren't the bushes simply trimmed or shaped to maintain visibility while preserving the greenery? It is disappointing to think that this decision might have been made in a split second just to create a "clearer" view for policing, perhaps due to the occasional presence of unhoused individuals. Even if that were the case, I don't feel we truly know the reality of what was happening in those bushes. Removing an entire ecosystem and a community’s sense of privacy based on a moment’s assumption feels like an overreach. The loss of these bushes doesn't just affect my morning walk; it affects the birds, pollinators, and small wildlife that relied on that habitat. I truly loved those bushes, and I believe the park needs that layer of nature to be a functional public space. I would like to formally ask the following: Reasoning: What was the specific catalyst for removing every single bush rather than opting for maintenance and pruning? Restoration: Is there a plan to replant? I strongly urge the city to bring back the greenery—specifically native California shrubs like Toyon or Coffeeberry—that can provide both beauty and the privacy that residents deserve. Community Voice: Why was the neighborhood not consulted before such a visible This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report and emotional change was made to our local park? Jerry Bowden Park was a special, tucked-away spot, and I am asking the City to take immediate steps to restore the vegetation that made it feel like a park rather than a vacant lot. I look forward to your response and a timeline for when we can expect to see new growth in the area. Sincerely, Chad Wellw View this email in your browser. Reminders & Upcoming Events From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA join us tomorrow for Coffee Time & Saturday for No Kings 3! Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 8:56:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. TOMORROW MORNING: JOIN US FOR"Coffee, Chat and Connect" Date: Thursday, March 26, 9:30-11am Place: 480 Gary Court, Palo Alto Join us for a morning of connectivity, socializing, exchanging ideas, and sharing experiences. Let us hear from you about your concerns as Palo Altans and members of the broader community. Learn about our recent activities and discover ways to get involved while mingling with fellow members. The League is our voice in this political landscape, and we want to make sure that we pursue the issues and priorities that matter most to you. We want to better understand the experiences, needs, and perspectives of our members and how we can expand our impact Help us choose the topic(s) for our next “Coffee, Chat, and Connect” next month. See you and your guests on March 26th! For more information, please call, text, or email Sunny Dykwel, Membership Director, 650.400.6960 sunny.dykwel@gmail.com Join us on Saturday at Cambridge and ECR! NO KINGS 3 - March 28, 2-4pm Music, etc. will be @Embarcadero & El Camino Real but we will meet up at CAMBRIDGE and ECR, as it has good parking. Wear a "suffragette white" top if you have one. We'll bring extra signs just in case you need one! (folding chair, hats, sunscreen and water suggested) Grab lunch beforehand on Cal Ave - some of us will be at Terun at 12:30pm. Coming up! M A R C H 3/26: Coffee, Chat & Connect , 9:30am (incl. Immigration interest convo) 3/27: Grand Jury Applications Due 3/28: No Kings 3, 2-4pm -MEET AT CAMBRIDGE & ECR A P R I L 4/10: Voter Registration & Tabling Training (option 1) - 4pm 4/11: Voter Registration & Tabling Training (option 2) - 10am 4/23: Coffee, Chat & Connect (HS students welcome) - __ pm 4/24: Earth Day Rally (tabling) 4/25: Civic Impact Summit (tabling) M A Y 5/2: May Fete Parade & Fair (tabling) SAVE THE DATE! Sunday, May 31: LWVPA Annual Meeting Community Room, Lucie Stern Center, 1:30-3:30pm J U N E 25-28: LWVUS National Convention - Columbus, Ohio P R I M A R Y E L E C T I O N D A T E S 5/18: last day to register to vote for the June 2 Primary Election 5/4: Ballots mailed 5/5: Ballot drop-off locations open 5/23: Vote centers open for early in-person voting 6/2: ELECTION DAY 6/9: Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day (6/2) and received by June 9, 2026. 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:Jeannine Marston To:Council, City Subject:Please DON"T close Churchill crossing because.... Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 7:32:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members. As a teacher for 42 years in Palo Alto, I share the community's concern for the health and safety of our students. However, closing Churchill to traffic is not the answer. The closure will not solve the problem of teen suicide. More importantly, you will increase the possible risk of serious injury in a place not given enough attention: the tunnel next to the California Avenue station. As a neighbor who frequently uses this tunnel on foot, I am alarmed by the increase in electric bikes and even motorized bikes with large baby carriers. The absolute most dangerous time to walk under this tunnel is when Paly and Greene Middle School students are using the tunnel. If you close Churchill, this situation will get much worse! (And no,--- students do not get off their bikes as the sign orders.) I have witnessed terrified older walkers. The recent suggestion to "close Churchill" and monitor the effects is not the solution. I am completely in favor of 24 hour guards at Churchill, but I implore you, do not close this key intersection! I would rather see Paly hire a counselor trained in suicide prevention available on a walk-in basis in addition to the guards at the crossing. Please, consider other solutions rather than closing Churchill. I know this decision takes courage. Respectfully, Jeannine Marston 1921 Waverley St. 50 year resident/PA This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Gabe Molitor To:Council, City Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email message is because as the great great great grandson of judges William Henry Harrison Curtis and also Benjamin Harrison who also thinks that Cali... Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 7:13:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone From:Alexander Valeri To:Council, City Subject:[SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Differential pay for deployed military members employed by the city of Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 6:43:09 PM This Message contains suspicious characteristics and has originated outside your organization. ! Members of the Palo Alto City Council: I am writing to formally urge the City Council to introduce and pass a measure guaranteeing military differential pay for all city employees who are members of the Reserve or National Guard and are deployed. As our nation calls upon these dedicated public servants to support critical overseas missions, it is our responsibility to ensure that their commitment to service does not result in financial hardship for their families here at home. As you are aware, the commencement of Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026, has significantly increased the demand for our citizen-soldiers. This operation is not a one-time event; given the current geopolitical climate and the established biyearly deployment cycle, many of our city’s employees—including first responders, public works staff, and administrative professionals—face a high probability of being mobilized every 24 months. Currently, the city of Palo Alto provides generous benefits of 30 days of paid military leave per year however when an employee is deployed (usually a period of up to 180 days under Title 10, sections 12302 and 12304), they often face a "pay gap" where their military base pay is substantially lower than their city salary. This creates an undue "patriotism tax," forcing families to struggle with mortgages, childcare, and cost-of-living expenses while their loved ones are in harm's way. Differential pay is not a venture into uncharted territory. Other major jurisdictions have already recognized the necessity of this support including: City of San Francisco: Through the Military Leave Pay Protection Act, San Francisco provides supplemental pay to bridge the gap between military and civilian salaries for up to 30 days annually, with the City Charter allowing for extended supplemental pay for longer activations. New York City: Maintains an Extended Military Benefits Program that ensures employees receive the difference between their city salary and military pay throughout their deployment. State-Level Precedents: States like Texas (Section 661.9041) and Minnesota (M.S. 43A.183) have mandated differential pay to ensure that those serving in national emergencies do not lose This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone in your company. No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report compensation. By passing this measure, City of Palo Alto will not only provide much-needed financial security to our service members but will also strengthen our recruitment and retention of high- caliber employees who value public service in all its forms. As an employee of the City of Palo Alto and a member of the United States Air Force Reserves, I respectfully request that the Council prioritize this ordinance to support those who protect our freedom. I am available to provide further data or discuss how this policy can be integrated into our current benefits structure. Sincerely, Alexander Valeri From:Meri Gruber To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment: San Antonio Road Area Plan (SARAP) – JPA question Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:54:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Has the City Council considered pursuing a formal Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Mountain View specifically for San Antonio Road infrastructure coordination? Palo Alto was a founding member of the San Francisquito Creek JPA, for example. Given the extent of the development foreseen for both Palo Alto and Mountain View along the San Antonio Road corridor, it would be helpful to understand your position on a JPA. Thank you for your service to our community. Best regards, Meri Gruber Greenmeadow, Palo Alto From:Deborah Goldeen To:Coles, Charlie; Arce, Ozzy Cc:Lo, Ria; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Bikes on Car Free Cal Ave. Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 4:49:30 PM Charlie, Ozzy - The admin for the department of transportation has assured me that the two of you will know how to get this message to PABAC. There is no way to email that advisory committee directly and there is no roster of names with emails. Please forward this email to all of the PABAC members. Thanks. To PABAC: Closing Car Free Cal Ave (CFCA) to bikes is as absurd an idea as closing the Churchill crossing to cars. As someone with 250,000 miles of commute/transportation biking in and around Palo Alto over the past half century, based on my extensive experience, the idea that CFCA be closed to bikes is on the same level of absurdity as thinking everyone should ride around town on flat tires. Yeah, that's the way to enable active transportation (Not!). How is banning bikes from CFCA even up for discussion? Worse, how is it the bike lane described in the "Draft Outdoor Activation Illustrative Plan" expected to do anything other than create a bike highway? How to slow bikes down with street design is very well understood. None of that kind of design has been incorporated into this plan. Have you all not read "Happy City" and/or "Curbing Traffic"? If not, how is it you feel you have the authority to participate in PABAC? It is my fond hope the city re-evaluates requirements for being on this advisory committee. In regards to protecting and promoting the interests of cyclist and pedestrians in Palo Alto, the conversation around bikes on CFCA makes me conclude that you all are failing in your mission. Thanks for considering - Deb G. From:Katherine Rue To:Council, City Subject:2024 & 2025 Filing Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 11:07:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello , I hope this message finds you well. It’s been a while since our last communication last year regarding my 2024 paperwork. Due to my ongoing divorce process at the time, I was unable to proceed further. I would like to engage you to handle both my 2024 and 2025 . If your schedule is fully booked, I am also open for an extension . I look forward to your guidance on the next steps. Best regards, Katherine Rue This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Amie Ashton To:Council, City Subject:Support for Bikes on Cal Ave Date:Wednesday, March 25, 2026 8:52:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor Veenker and City Council, We write in support of bike lanes on California Avenue. A slow bike lane marked down the middle of the street as proposed by staff is appropriate. Fears that a bike lane down the middle of Cal Ave would be a “bike freeway” are unfounded in light of data from other cities and current observations. Our reasons for continued support of a bike lane are everything you have heard before and are summarized below. Many of us bike down Cal Ave daily to get to Caltrain, Stanford University and the Research Park, and for shopping. Since Cal Ave connects directly to the train station, Alma bike/ped underpass, and the Park Bike Blvd, it is essential to keep it open for bikes. Further, many students use Cal Ave as a way to get to school - especially to Green Middle School, but also Walter Hays Elementary and Paly. Neighborhoods like Southgate and College Terrace are located rather far from their designated schools and a bikeway along Cal Ave should be part of a safe routes strategy. Let's not forget that students are always potential Cal Ave customers, especially after school gets out. Pedestrians also have the sidewalk, which is immediately adjacent to businesses. This was actually a complaint by businesses when the discussion was about closing the street to vehicles - that pedestrians were not walking by the businesses. With a slow bike lane (as proposed by staff) pedestrians that feel unsafe walking adjacent to bikes or who prefer an alternative can use the sidewalks. Bikes have no sort of “secondary” option. Alternative routes have been considered and generally disregarded due to disconnection, lack of access to destinations and shopping, or dangers. There is no magical or perfect alternative solution. Cambridge Ave has too many driveways and entrances to parking lots, which are typical accident points. Sherman Ave and Grant Ave are not direct connections. Additionally, relegating bikes to another street will decrease foot traffic you may get from people on bikes traveling past the Cal Ave businesses. We know from experience that people will continue to bike on Cal Ave even if it is prohibited since it is the quickest, most direct route to destinations - let’s make it safe for all users. Bikes contribute to vibrancy along Cal Ave, especially during “non-business hours”. For example, Mountain View’s Castro Street pedestrian mall is very quiet outside of lunch and dinner hours. Mountain View doesn't allow bikes, which is a mistake. It sends the wrong message and makes connections to adjacent bikeways and Caltrain dangerous and indirect. Rules prohibiting bikes are frequently violated, leaving discretion for enforcement to police. Allowing bikes with a speed limit or other go-slow inducement says bikes are welcome in Palo Alto. Bikes bring more shoppers. Cal Ave is a greater success than Castro Street, in part, because of its bike access. Studies show that cyclists make more frequent trips to downtown establishments, resulting in higher overall spending over time. So many impromptu meetings and shopping visits happen when people are on bikes. Conversations at the bike rack turn into coffee at Zombie, then accidental wine buying at Vin Vino Wine while passing through, then a purchase of a gift at Gamelandia, then groceries at Mollie Stone’s or Country Sun. Current conditions are not dangerous. Anecdotal observations of incidents or injury involving bikes are not reflected in the data. In the last two years, only one injury has been reported involving a cyclist near Cal Ave (UC Berkeley TIMS data, 2023 through 2025). That accident was at the intersection of El Camino and Cal Ave, where a child died in 2020 in a bicycle accident. This is an existing dangerous condition, but bikes on Cal Ave are not resulting in increased accidents. We ALL have the same goal - a vibrant and successful Cal Ave that is safe for all of us to play, shop, and travel. No substantive decision ends up with everyone being happy, and we know this is an especially tough issue. Please stay the course and ensure bikes are allowed on Cal Ave. So much time, money, and energy have already been invested facilitating a bike connection. Any one of us would gladly meet you on Cal Ave to walk the street and make real-time observations and brainstorm ways to make sure people on bikes remain an important part of Cal Ave and our climate strategy. Thank you for your continued work on this issue, Amie Ashton David Coale Roy Kornbluh Carol Muller Piet Canin Mark Pietrofesa From:Tor Parawell To:Council, City Subject:Termination of Flock Safety Contract | Oversight Failure & Systemic Risk Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:21:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Council Members, I am writing to request the immediate termination of the City’s contract with Flock Safety and the suspension of the recently approved camera expansion. As elected officials, your primary fiduciary duty is to protect the city and its residents from unmitigated risk. Maintaining this contract in its current state is a direct failure of that obligation, for three specific reasons: 1. The Total Absence of Independent Oversight The March 11 recusal of the City Auditor (Baker Tilly) demonstrates that this network cannot be independently verified. Operating a mass surveillance system on "blind trust" with the vendor is unacceptable. If the Council cannot secure an independent audit of the vendor's API and data-sharing protocols, the system must be taken offline immediately. Governance by vendor assurance is not governance. 2. Structural Security Vulnerabilities Palo Alto’s 30-day data retention policy is completely useless when the underlying network is fundamentally insecure. Recent exploits have demonstrated just how easily these cameras can be hacked, effectively allowing bad actors to hijack the feeds and spy on our residents in real time. Compounding this external threat is the platform's own architecture, which facilitates "silent" national lookups that bypass our local oversight entirely. By deploying a system with such glaring, easily exploitable vulnerabilities, the City is not protecting its neighborhoods—it is actively subsidizing a massive, uncontrolled surveillance liability. 3. Projecting Regional Incompetence Surrounding jurisdictions, including Mountain View and Los Altos Hills, have already analyzed these exact structural and privacy failures and terminated their contracts. By stubbornly maintaining a partnership that our neighbors have accurately identified as a systemic risk, Palo Alto is lagging behind, projecting regional incompetence rather than the leadership our city is known for. The Council must execute the following actions immediately: Halt the deployment of the 10 expansion cameras approved last year. Place a binding vote for contract termination on the agenda for the upcoming June This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Policy and Services Committee meeting. Decommission reliance on proprietary networks that inherently evade local, independent oversight. I look forward to reviewing the Council’s public plan to address and rectify these structural vulnerabilities ahead of the June meeting. Regards, Tor Parawell Palo Alto Resident 345 Forest Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tor Parawell Investment Partner, FoundersX Ventures, Silicon Valley | Boston | New York M: +1 (415) 747-5574 image.png From:Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Public Comment: Agenda Item 2, More Housing and Multi-Mobility Options in the San Antonio Road Area Plan Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 6:42:18 PM Attachments:2026.3.24 Public Comment Agenda Item 2 PTC San Antonio Road Area Plan.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good evening Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, Please see the attached public comment on behalf of Palo Alto Forward regarding agenda item 2, the San Antonio Area Plan. I'm happy to discuss further with any member of the PTC--you can set up a call with me at calendly.com/paloaltoforward or let me know times that work better for you. Thank you for your consideration, Jeremy -- Jeremy Levine (he • him) Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward (650) 485-0127 March 24, 2026 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Agenda Item 2, San Antonio Road Area Plan Land Use and Transportation Alternatives To the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, Palo Alto Forward exists to support additional housing and multi-mobility options in our city. To that end, we have supported efforts by the city to plan for additional homes and additional street features in the San Antonio Road Area Plan. The San Antonio Area Plan provides a unique opportunity to realize the goals of Palo Alto’s housing element, which anticipates the majority of future housing development will occur on sites near the corridor. Several projects have already been proposed on sites on which housing is planned for in the city's housing element (all of which have been 6-8 story multi-family housing, not townhomes–suggesting that multi-family housing is substantially more financially feasible than the staff report indicates). In order to promote the most holistically affordable, walkable future neighborhoods, please support the following features in the San Antonio Road Area Plan: ● Allow the maximum amount of residential development in all zones. Flexibility will bring the most new homes to Palo Alto at a range of levels of affordability. Though feasibility analyses by the city suggest 8-story development is most feasible in the current market, proposals currently in the city pipeline like the 17-story Mollie Stone’s project illustrate how height can promote more homes–while also maximizing the number of low-income homes and preserving community-serving uses like grocery stores. Palo Alto Forward supports the option proposed by staff to allow as much as 250 feet in the Area Plan, particularly on large sites like the Maxar site that provide once-in-a-generation opportunities to create walkable communities. To promote human-scale neighborhood transitions, zoning could promote the highest densities on the Southern end of San Antonio and step down to 8 stories as the Area Plan nears existing residential areas. ● Allow office as well as housing–the two often go hand in hand. Walkable communities blend housing, commercial, and office development to create complete neighborhoods. In other cities, such as Redwood City, new office developments have brought investments in affordable housing; in San Mateo, the Hillsdale redevelopment project has combined over 1,800 homes with office and retail to envision a new walkable community. San Antonio has many parcels that could accommodate a mix of uses, reflecting the city’s intent to create holistic neighborhoods. ● Support Alt MSA-3 with Class IV bikeways on either side to promote maximum safety for bikers, pedestrians, and drivers. Since San Antonio is a trucking corridor, it’s particularly important that bikers have curb-protected lanes in order to ensure the thousands of new residents in the area have safe multi-modal transportation options. Combining walkability with completely curb- and landscaping-separated infrastructure will help accommodate future growth and further the city’s climate goals by enabling car-lite lifestyles in the neighborhood. Combined, these approaches will best support the strongest neighborhoods and help meet Palo Alto’s housing goals. Thank you for your consideration, Jeremy Levine Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward From:Joan Greene To:Council, City Subject:San Antonio Development Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:44:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I've lived in Greenmeadow since 1977. San Antonio, Charleston, Alma, and Middlefield are crucial roadways for ingress and egress to my community, retail, parks and library, and the 101 Freeway. Over the years traffic congestion in the area planned for development has severely worsened and impacted quality of life. Bike, pedestrian, and automobile safety have all been compromised. We have had a jobs/housing imbalance for years that is only worsening, and our housing efforts produce too few units, most of which are unaffordable. We are thinking too traditionally in an effort to solve the housing problem. It seems to me if we want to focus on creating an urban community where affordable housing, jobs, schools, parks and retail are in proximity to one another and need for autos is minimized, then our first priority is to create the infrastructure necessary to support the housing. Instead, the development plan encourages bigger buildings with more units of which only a small percentage are affordable while giving short shrift to traffic congestion, retail needs, and community development. Specifically, 1. Land Use (slides 21-22) >> The plan for re-developing more office space makes no sense. Why go through this massively disruptive and expensive effort only to replace office space with more office space. Let’s provide housing for the people that already work here and figure out how to get people to their work without autos. >> Building height. I am very concerned about traffic congestion on San Antonio/Middlefield/Leghorn/Charleston, which is already much worse than just five years ago. It’s wishful thinking that these new units will not bring more auto traffic. Proximity to Cal train will not relieve congestion. Until I see a convincingly good traffic analysis, I opt for the lower population and ergo lower building height. So no to CTI-B2. 2. Outdoor Spaces (slides 23-25) >> One large park is much preferable to more small parks. It is more flexible, more valuable, less substitutable. 3. Mobility Alternatives (slides 27-30) >> I would prioritize removing all parking from San Antonio and replace it with protected This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report bike lanes in that footprint. Doing that would conserve space for tree canopy that is essential for wildlife, and to date a key emphasis for Palo Alto. Thank you, Stuart Greene From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo To:Council, City Subject:Sparking Curiosity For the Littlest Learners: Updates to the JMZ’s Baby Meadow Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 5:00:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Sparking Curiosity for the Littlest Learners March 24, 2026 Dear Friends, Babies are natural scientists, exploring the world with all of their senses. When the JMZ was redesigned in 2021, the Baby Meadow was made possible through the generous support of the John & Marcia Goldman Foundation, creating a safe, thoughtfully designed space where children under 18 months can explore and begin engaging with the natural world. Through a collaborative effort between the JMZ Exhibits and Zoo teams, the Baby Meadow has recently been refreshed to feature wooden, nature-inspired design elements and two custom habitats for Sadiq the veiled chameleon and Sahara the uromastyx, a type of spiny-tailed, desert lizard. These updates create even more opportunities for our youngest visitors to observe, explore, and develop an early connection to nature. Read more about these new enhancements below. I hope you can visit the JMZ soon to see this refreshed space in person. Warmly, Lauren Angelo President, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Updates to the JMZ's Baby Meadow If you’ve ever brought a little one to the JMZ before they could walk and toddle around, you know about a special space called the Baby Meadow where children under 18 months old can hide in cozy nooks, explore a variety of textures, practice climbing on soft spaces and stairs, and even watch a display of cockroaches with wonder! Interactive exhibits in the Baby Meadow, designed to spark curiosity! The original design of the Baby Meadow included a display tank for the JMZ’s rats and veiled chameleon, Sadiq. Over time, zookeepers decided to remove the animals from the exhibit upon discovering that the rats did not enjoy being on display and that Sadiq would benefit from a larger, more enriching habitat. When Exhibits Director Brian Weinstein joined the JMZ last year, he was inspired to create a larger home for Sadiq and a new enclosure for Sahara the uromastyx, and to brighten the Baby Meadow with nature-inspired decorations. Brian and JMZ Zoo Director Sean Ramsdell collaborated to design improved enclosures, opening up walls to give both animals more space and adding hinged doors for easier staff access and updated lighting and drip systems to simulate a natural environment. Sadiq and Sahara moved into their new homes earlier this month and are thriving! Sadiq’s substantially enlarged habitat includes live plants and vines. He is a tree- dwelling chameleon, native to the Arabian Peninsula, and the greenery in his exhibit supports natural behaviors such as climbing, finding hidden perches, and self- regulating comfort throughout the day. Known for the tall casque on his head, independently moving eyes, slow, careful climbing, and lightning-fast feeding strikes, Sadiq is an animal you can observe at length and still notice something new. Sadiq enjoys his enlarged habitat featuring live plants and a humid environment. Sahara, who has never before been on display for the public, now enjoys a hot, arid environment. His refreshed habitat includes live plants and a large climbing rock with multiple levels of basking ledges, giving him more options to warm up, explore, and choose a preferred “lookout” spot. You might also see Sahara using his exercise wheel—a favorite activity that provides enrichment and encourages natural movement. Sahara basks on his rock display while warming up in his arid environment. To incorporate visual learning into Sadiq and Sahara’s displays, JMZ Exhibit Technician Rook Fitts incorporated images from their native habitats – a cloud forest for Sadiq and a north African desert for Sahara. Side by side, these contrasting environments help children understand habitat variation while they enjoy observing the two reptiles. The new displays also feature captions with socratic-style questions to inspire conversations between caregivers and little learners, encouraging curiosity and discovery. Another enhancement to the Baby Meadow is a series of custom wood cuts in grass and insect shapes that have been placed along the outside and throughout the Baby Meadow. These were created by Rook, who was trained in CNC machining through a professional development grant supported by the Friends. Nature-inspired wood cuts make the Baby Meadow even more inviting to little ones. If you’d like to support the creation of more immersive, playful spaces like the Baby Meadow at the JMZ, please consider making a gift to the Friends 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 From:Chris Schremp To:McDonough, Melissa; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric; Robert Marinaro Cc:City Mgr Subject:Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:43:59 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Melissa - thanks for your detailed response. A few thoughts on what you shared. Regarding your point ..."As a note, the 18 streets are receiving increased cleaning and sweeping because the streets impacted by ongoing parking of different OSVs over time. This requires more thorough initial cleaning and frequent maintenance to address refuse, biohazards, and debris that have accumulated with these streets very seldom having times where no vehicles were parked there." This is exactly what is so infuriating and what seems like such a backward way of looking at this problem. Rather than dedicating our tax dollars to relocating these OSVs and changing the city parking laws to prevent them from parking on our streets, the city is spending our tax dollars to clean up the increased hazards, garbage and debris they are creating. And regarding your note..."the Mountain View safe parking – it is part of the countywide system and as such accepts participants from throughout the County, including individuals from Palo Alto. However, just like the safe parking sites in Palo Alto, the Mountain View site prioritizes households with ties to their community first and they also are experiencing impacts with this regional and statewide issue." I think you may have missed my point. First, the lot was not full, so rather than spending time and money on cleaning the streets, the City of Palo Alto should be working with Mountain View to get more of our OSVs relocated there AND looking for similar solutions - e.g. expanding the lots near Moffet Field. And as for ties to our community - what does that mean? How do you define ties to a community? On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 5:01 PM McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Schremp, Thank you for your email and for laying out your concerns clearly. I hear the frustration, especially regarding safety and accessibility impacts in residential areas. As we continue this work, the City is aiming for an approach that protects public safety and neighborhood quality of life while operating within the legal framework that governs parking regulation and enforcement. As a note, the 18 streets are receiving increased cleaning and sweeping because the streets impacted by ongoing parking of different OSVs over time. This requires more thorough initial cleaning and frequent maintenance to address refuse, biohazards, and debris that have accumulated with these streets very seldom having times where no vehicles were parked there. You asked for the list of the 18 streets identified through field surveys for permanent sign locations. Those locations are: Embarcadero Way (from Embarcadero Road to end) Embarcadero Road (east of Highway 101) Faber Place (from Embarcadero Road to end) Elwell Court (from East Bayshore Road to end) Corporation Way (from East Bayshore Road to end) East Meadow Circle (from East Meadow Drive around the full circle) Fabian Way (from East Meadow Way to Charleston Road) Park Boulevard (from Page Mill Road to Lambert Avenue) Sheridan Avenue (from Park Boulevard to Page Mill Road) Portage Avenue (from El Camino Real to Ash Street) Ash Street (from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue, and Portage Avenue to Lambert Avenue) Commercial Street (from Transport Street to Charleston Road) Transport Street (from San Antonio Road to end) Industrial Avenue (from Transport Street to Charleston Road) Colorado Avenue (from West Bayshore Road to Simkins Court) San Antonio Road (from Transport Road to the San Antonio/Hwy 101 split) Sheridan Avenue (from Park Boulevard to Page Mill Road) I appreciate you flagging your wife’s call about OSVs blocking sidewalks and bike lanes and the “72 hour” guidance she was given. A Community Service Officer responded to the parking complaint and noted in the call for service that there was no violation and that the OSV had moved. I apologize for the confusion about parking violation enforcement actions. An officer may only issue a parking citation for a violation they observe, and there is no delay in citation issuance. Delayed enforcement would apply to an abandoned vehicle violation. Officers must leave a 72-hour violation notice on the parked vehicle. If after 72 hours the vehicle has not moved at least a half mile (the vehicle may repark in the same spot) the vehicle can be towed. Towing is subject to available towing resources. Regarding the Mountain View safe parking – it is part of the countywide system and as such accepts participants from throughout the County, including individuals from Palo Alto. However, just like the safe parking sites in Palo Alto, the Mountain View site prioritizes households with ties to their community first and they also are experiencing impacts with this regional and statewide issue. Thank you for taking the time to write—your input has been noted and shared with the appropriate teams. 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: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:32 PM To: McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com>; Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Melissa, Thank you for your response. While I appreciate your time, the answers provided are unsatisfactory. They suggest the City Council is misdiagnosing the core issue: Palo Alto residents are subsidizing the externalized costs of Oversized Vehicles (OSVs) that negatively impact our neighborhoods, safety, and property values. My feedback on the Council’s plan is as follows: Misallocation of Tax Funds: Using resident taxes to fund specialized street cleaning for OSVs is a circular, "backward" solution. It effectively incentivizes the behavior by removing any accountability for the waste generated. The "Homelessness" Misnomer: The plan incorrectly frames this as a complex homelessness crisis. I am absolutely sensitive to homelessness in our cities, but I don't think that's the core issue here. In reality, many of these OSV occupants are part-time residents with primary homes elsewhere. Treating this as a housing crisis rather than a code and safety enforcement issue is a policy failure. And if the OSV is the their full time home, and only residence, that still is not a homeless issue, it's location issue where they need to find a place to park, or start paying Palo Alto taxes. Safe Parking Programs: Budgeting to "enable" these programs within residential zones encourages long-term settlement rather than transition. Geographic Displacement: Citing tow statistics from other neighborhoods misses the point. Enforcement in other areas has simply funneled the problem into East Meadow Circle and Fabian Way - and this not equitable to ALL residents of Palo Alto. Additionally: Transparency: Please provide the list of the 18 specific streets identified for permanent signage. Enforcement Gap: You made the point " if you notice a specific, immediate hazard, please report the exact location and time so it can be routed for timely response." However... My wife recently reported OSVs blocking sidewalks and bike lanes at Ramos Park - an immediate ADA and safety hazard - only to be told by PAPD that no action can be taken for 72 hours. Why is a clear, immediate safety hazard (blocking public right-of-way) subject to a 72-hour grace period? And I know the city has been notified multiple times of the hazards caused by the OSVs on Fabian Way blocking the bike lane. Answers: We want a justification for why the City is prioritizing "supporting safe parking" over the safety of residents using bike lanes and sidewalks. Lastly, I have seen other cities find quick and tenable solutions for this - in fact in Mountain View, at the corner of Shoreline Blvd and Critteden Lane there is a large parking lot that is housing 40+ OSVs and there is room for more. Rather than spending tax dollars on street cleaning, why not look to partner with Mountain View to send OSVs there until a longer term solution can be found? I have included photos for your review. We have invested heavily in this community and pay significant taxes to live here. We expect the City to prioritize the safety and accessibility of our streets over the convenience of non-resident OSV owners. Chris On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 2:22 PM McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Schremp, Thank you for your messages. I am responding on behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada and will do my best to address the follow-up questions you posed. 1. What is being done longer-term to prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? City Council approved a phased, citywide plan on October 20, 2025 to address oversized vehicle (OSV) impacts, combining enforcement, cleaning, outreach, and new local regulations. Near-term, staff was directed to move forward ordinances to: (a) prohibit detached/inoperable vehicles on public streets and (b) prohibit “vanlording” (renting public parking spaces). For longer-term change, staff is also developing a citywide approach to “limit OSV parking to certain streets” (with a defined process/criteria), rather than continuing a pattern where enforcement in one location can result in vehicles moving into another. The City Council is also taking this very seriously and have dedicated their time to an ad hoc committee of the Council to work with staff on this issue. the City’s authority to regulate vehicle parking is constrained by state law and constitutional requirements, so changes need to be structured within these constraints to be enforceable. 2. Why does it feel like other neighborhoods prevented this—and ours became the landing zone? What can we adopt? What you’re describing is consistent with what staff has flagged as a key risk: actions like targeted cleaning/enforcement or time- limited restrictions can move OSVs to nearby blocks or other neighborhoods if the approach is not citywide and coordinated. That’s why the Council-directed work is looking at a comprehensive framework (including the “limit OSV parking to certain streets” concept), rather than relying only on one-off actions on individual streets which will certainly continue to just move people around. 3. What "action” is happening now (beyond meetings and email responses)? Since Council’s October 20, 2025 direction, through mid-February: a. Detached trailers and vanlord ordinances drafted, approved, and are being implemented. This prohibits parking of detached vehicles on public streets and prohibits the renting of public parking spaces b. 17 street segments deep cleaned (street cleaning, debris removal, tree pruning, catch basin & storm drainpipe line cleaning) c. Biweekly street sweeping on streets that have been deep cleaned d. 33 OSVs towed after initial outreach and notification did not result in compliance. This represents an increase in towing activity, there were 12 OSVs towed in 2024 and 47 OSVs towed in 2025, and additional OSVs towed following the October 20, 2025 direction. e. Field surveys conducted on 18 affected streets to determine permanent sign locations f. Timely notification, including A-frame signs placed 2 weeks prior to cleaning/sweeping, windshield flyers, mailers, and outreach g. 338 interactions between clients and case managers to build rapport and connect individuals to case management and services (interactions are not limited to OSVs)  Please know that emails and calls to our non-emergency line help us to document observations and ensure proper routing and review by staff. On a related note, if you notice a specific, immediate hazard, please report the exact location and time so it can be routed for timely response. 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: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:24 AM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com>; adobeinfo@gmail.com Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Eric and City Council Members - following up, a few items - and please as I ask these questions, I am sympathetic to the plight of those living in the OSVs - but as someone who pays more than $50k per year in taxes AND as someone who bought and invested in a home in Palo Alto, I demand that you take more direct and decisive action NOW. Please stop debating and act. 1. I would like an answer to my prior question: What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? 2. It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Why is that. What can we learn/adopt from other neighborhoods and apply in our own? 3. I watched the recent Ad Hoc Committee meeting - https://www.youtube.com/live/wLg5yZTr6vg - and was appalled by the level of inaction, the seeming dismissal of residents concerns and complaints - and specifically dismayed by the comment "keep sending your emails, we read them." We don't want you to read them - we want you to ACT on them. Please follow up with specific answers to my questions and ultimately the requests of the tax paying residents who have had enough of this. Stop saying it's a difficult problem and stop saying it takes time - NO it does not. And you had to know going into running for City Council that you would been asked to solve difficult and complex issues - so please do it. Chris Schremp 617-840-7622 (cell) 3721 Ortega Court Adobe Meadows On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 12:12 PM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Eric. More broadly what is being done to change the zoning and parking laws to prohibit oversized vehicles from parking on those streets? I drove by this morning and both sides of East Meadow Circle and all of one side of Fabian Way are lined with these vehicles. On Fabian way they are blocking the bike path. And I have seen multiple vehicles with their trash outside or on the back. What steps are being taken to address this longer term and prohibit these vehicles from parking on our streets? It feels like other parts of the city have been able to prevent this - and now our neighborhood has become the landing zone for 100s of these oversize vehicles. Us tax paying residents are now being forced to deal with higher rates of pestilence, blocked bike lanes, unsightly garbage, and more. On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:01 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hey Chris, Thank you for the follow-up. Street cleaning on East Meadow Circle will continue every two weeks, as indicated by the posted signage. During the designated street-cleaning hours, vehicles, including oversized vehicles, are subject to citation and/or tow if they remain in violation. There is currently no citywide prohibition on oversized vehicles parking in that area outside of the posted street-cleaning times. Once street cleaning is complete, vehicles may return, provided they comply with all posted regulations. Regarding Ramos Park, I am not currently aware of any ongoing issues, and we haven't gotten any more complaints. That said, I will have my team look into the area to assess compliance and determine whether enforcement action is warranted. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Please continue to let us know if you observe violations occurring during posted restriction times. Respectfully, Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 9:33 AM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Eric - thanks for following up. I drove by East Meadow Circle today and noticed that one side of the street had been cleared of the RVs and Trailers and street cleaning was underway. Thanks for that - and please confirm that this means they will continue with this process and after the street cleaning the vehicles will not be allowed to return. Also, as those vehicles have been forced off East Meadow Circle, I did notice they there. Are oversized vehicles allowed to park there? - and if not, can you please confirm that you are aware of this and steps will be taken to prevent them remaining there? Thanks, Chris On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 9:16 AM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: The temporary signage has been posted, and the community outreach is ongoing in partnership with homeless outreach teams. We have towed several oversize vehicles from East Meadow Circle; however, we cannot prevent future oversize vehicles to repark in locations where vehicles were towed, including vehicles that were towed, released from tow storage, and reparked in the same location. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 6:08 PM To: Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> Cc: cweske15@gmail.com <cweske15@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Fw: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks for your reply. While we understand this is not an overnight solution, in our neighborhood we have not seen much enforcement or action taken by the city. Also, when you say that..."Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance." Can you tell me if the required signage and outreach period has been completed for East Meadow Circle and the surrounding areas? And if not, when will it be done? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 12:34 PM Bulatao, Eric <Eric.Bulatao@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thank you for your email and for outlining your concerns. Your email was received in the City Manager’s inbox and bundled with other correspondence related to Line Item 4 for City Council review. We apologize if you did not receive a direct response from City staff previously. That was not their intent, and we appreciate you taking the time to follow up. The Police Department has fully pushed out its limited resources and is prioritizing oversized vehicle enforcement citywide. We are currently addressing impacts across more than 18 streets affected by oversized vehicles. Over the past six months, we have towed exponentially more oversized vehicles than in the previous several years combined. Our team has also collaborated closely with homeless outreach services throughout the affected areas to connect individuals with available resources while addressing public nuisance concerns. Enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020 is limited to locations where the required signage has been installed and an initial informational outreach period has been completed. Additionally, the ordinance specifically applies to detached trailers. In recent weeks, we have conducted multiple tows of detached trailers in various parts of Palo Alto in accordance with the ordinance. This issue cannot be resolved overnight. With limited staffing and a limited number of towing companies willing to accept oversized vehicles, enforcement is currently operating at its peak within the available resources. That said, we are prioritizing problem areas and have already seen measurable improvements in other parts of the city. If you witness a specific traffic hazard, active sewage dumping, or any immediate public safety concern, please contact the Police Department in real time so officers can respond promptly. We appreciate your time and your continued engagement on this issue. Sergeant Eric Bulatao Palo Alto Police Department Special Problems Detail 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: (650) 838-2866 From: Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 10:57 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Christine Schremp <cweske15@gmail.com> Subject: Re: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: URGENT DEMAND TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL RV PARKING AND ENCAMPMENTS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to express my profound disappointment and a formal grievance regarding the City Council’s failure to acknowledge or respond to my previous communication sent in December 2025. As a tax-paying resident of Palo Alto, I find it unacceptable that a detailed report of municipal code violations and public health hazards has been met with no response to my email and minimal action by the City. Since my last email, the situation has not stayed stagnant; it has significantly worsened. New and Escalating Impacts: Vector Control Crisis: For the first time in four years, my property is being targeted by rats and raccoons. These rodents, drawn by the increase in unmanaged rubbish and waste surrounding the RV encampments, are now digging up my yard and creating a biological hazard on my private property. Physical Obstruction: The density of oversized vehicles on our narrow roadways has reached a point where safe transit is compromised, creating a "blind spot" culture that endangers pedestrians and cyclists. Its also unsafe to walk our dogs in these areas as they are attracted to the harmful waste. Sanitation Breakdown: The "rubbish" mentioned in December has now become a permanent fixture on our streets, signaling to residents that the City has effectively abandoned its commitment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Formal Reiteration of Demands: I am again demanding the immediate enforcement of Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020. The continued refusal to enforce these existing laws is not a neutral act; it is an active decision to prioritize illegal encampments over the health, safety, and property rights of your constituents. I expect the following within 48 hours: 1. An acknowledgment of this second notice and my original December correspondence. 2. A specific update on what the Palo Alto Police Department and Code Enforcement are doing to address the pest and refuse issues stemming from these vehicles. We have reached a breaking point. The lack of response is no longer just a clerical oversight; it is a failure of leadership. I look forward to your immediate reply. Sincerely, Christopher & Christine Schremp 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 7:48 AM Chris Schremp <chrisschremp88@gmail.com> wrote: Palo Alto City Council Members: We are writing to express our profound dissatisfaction with the escalating crisis of illegally parked recreational vehicles (RVs), oversized vehicles, and trailers currently plaguing our city streets. This situation is unacceptable and demands immediate, decisive intervention. These illegal encampments are concentrated on, but not limited to, streets such as East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, E. Embarcadero Rd, Commercial St, Portage Ave, and Sheridan Ave. Failure to Enforce Existing Law We formally demand the immediate and rigorous enforcement of all current municipal codes, specifically: 1. Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.44.020: This code explicitly prohibits standing or parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. within any residential or public facility zone. The current lack of enforcement is an abject failure of municipal responsibility, effectively permitting this illegal activity to flourish. 2. All other applicable ordinances governing vehicle size, duration of parking, and use of public rights-of-way as residences. The Current Crisis: Public Health and Safety Risk The City Council must recognize this as a severe public health and safety threat, not a mere parking issue. With well over 200 vehicles now documented, the impacts on tax-paying residents and families are critical: Public Health Hazard: Illegal dumping of sewage and trash directly onto public streets and storm drains poses an undeniable environmental and biological risk. Safety and Egress: Vehicles are frequently parked in a manner that obstructs clear lines of sight, impedes traffic flow, and blocks ingress/egress for both residents' driveways and emergency vehicles. Strain on City Services: These non-resident, non-taxpaying dwellers are illegally utilizing Palo Alto’s public services while the City exhibits a damaging pattern of relaxed enforcement and regulatory inaction. Demand for Immediate Legislative and Enforcement Action The time for deliberation is over. We require two simultaneous actions: 1. Immediate, Zero-Tolerance Enforcement: Activate the Palo Alto Police Department to begin issuing citations and initiating towing procedures for all vehicles in violation of PAMC 10.44.020, effective immediately. 2. Rapid Enactment of New Legislation: Should the existing codes prove insufficient, we demand that the City Council immediately prioritize and enact stringent new ordinances that explicitly and definitively prevent the use of city streets for residency and prohibit the long-term parking of oversized and recreational vehicles. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE the continued erosion of our neighborhood safety, health, and quality of life due to the City's unwillingness to act. We demand a public, concrete plan of action—complete with timelines for enforcement and new legislation—within seven (7) days of the submission of this letter. TAKE ACTION NOW. Sincerely, Christopher & Christine Schremp 3721 Ortega Ct 617-840-7622 (cell) From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:San Antonio Area Plan discussion Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:34:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners, I do regular weight training and we have a saying that I see as relevant to to the SAAP discussion. When we pick up a weight, we commit to give it our best effort. The saying is "you pick it, you play it" Palo Alto has "picked" the San Antonio Area corridor as an area for substantial new dense housing. By that I do NOT mean the several thousand units alluded to in the staff report. I will be happy to see the 2,000 or so units identified already in the pipeline, many of which are moving thru the approval process with positive comments from PTC and ARB. These units were selected with an understanding of challenges to be overcome but with a commitment to address the challenges, not use them as an excuse to delay or deny the planned housing. So please add your suggestions for meeting these challenges and continue to process the pipeline applications. I believe in some instance, a modest amount of office or R&D space may be needed to complement the housing and provide even more customers for any hoped for retail. New office or R&D development as is being promoted in Mt View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara woud replace some of the jobs lost high rents, vacancies and work from home. I support the positive commitment to project feasibility that the Commission and Council have pursued along with the flexibility that implies following on previous successful efforts in the ECR focus areas and the San Antonio area flexibility on height and density. I look forward to watching the discussion tomorrow. Stephen Levy From:Pria Graves To:board.secretary@vta.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Bus problems Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 1:52:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear VTA Secretary - Please pass the following along to the board. Thanks, Pria Graves 650-493-2153 Dear Board Members: I live near the California Avenue/El Camino stop and regularly use the 22 and 522 busses. On Friday, March 20th, the weather was extremely hot, about 90 by 11:00 a.m. I arrived at the stop (60512) about 11:10, expecting to catch a bus, either of the two, within a short time. Unfortunately the next three scheduled busses failed to arrive! There should have been a 22 at 11:16 and another at 11:32. Neither arrived. And there should also have been a 522 at 11:21. It also failed to arrive. As a result, I had to wait until 11:36 AM when the next 522 finally showed up! There were a total of 6 passengers including myself stuck there in the heat waiting for nearly half an hour! The driver of the 522 explained that there were lots of call outs that day which was why there were no busses for about half an hour. He also concurred with me that this has been happening frequently. I’ve had to wait extended periods for busses that failed to arrive fairly frequently recently. This needs to get fixed! We want people out of their cars but if one cannot rely on the busses, we’ll all have to return to driving. Regards, Pria Graves 650-493-2153 p.s. I’m also copying the Palo Alto City Council. I’m sure they won’t be happy about this either! From:Nitzeli Sanchez To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; parks@cityofpaloalto.gov; pwps@cityofpaloalto.gov; O"Kane, Kristen; Robustelli, Sarah; info@canopy.org; info@cnps-scv.org Subject:Urgent Concern and Request for Action: Removal of Vegetation at Jerry Bowden Park Date:Tuesday, March 24, 2026 11:51:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To whom it may concern, I am writing as a long-time resident of Palo Alto (over 12 years) to express my deep concern and frustration regarding the complete removal of the bushes and vegetation at Jerry Bowden Park. This park used to be a unique and valuable space within our community. The presence of dense shrubs created natural privacy, allowing residents to sit, read, reflect, and enjoy the outdoors in a way that felt calm and protected. For many of us—especially those who do not have access to private outdoor space—this was incredibly important. The recent decision to remove all of the vegetation has completely changed the character of the park. It is now exposed, empty, and no longer provides the same sense of comfort or usability. Personally, I no longer feel the same desire to visit, and that is very upsetting. I was informed that one of the reasons for this action may have been to increase visibility due to occasional presence of unhoused individuals. I would like to respectfully question this reasoning. If that is the case, are we also going to remove shaded areas, benches, or other public infrastructure throughout the city where people may gather? Removing vegetation does not address the root issue and instead negatively impacts the entire community. Additionally, I am very concerned about the environmental impact of removing all shrubs at once. These bushes were not just decorative—they provided habitat for birds, squirrels, insects, and other wildlife. Their sudden removal has disrupted a small but important ecosystem. I would like to formally request the following: Transparency: Who made the decision to remove all vegetation at Jerry Bowden Park, and what specific reasons and studies supported this action? Future Planning: What is the plan for this space moving forward? Why was all vegetation removed at once instead of using alternative approaches such as trimming, partial removal, or phased redesign? This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Community Involvement: How can residents be informed or involved before major changes like this are made in the future? Replanting Plan: I strongly urge the City to replant vegetation in this park, prioritizing native, wildlife-supporting species rather than purely decorative, non-native landscaping. As a suggestion, I would encourage the use of native California plants such as: Toyon (California Holly) Deer Grass California Fuchsia These plants can maintain a clean and maintained appearance while also supporting birds, pollinators, and overall biodiversity. I would also encourage the use of natural, untreated wood mulch and more wildlife-friendly landscaping practices that support soil health and reduce ecological harm. I care deeply about this city and the quality of its public spaces. I am requesting that this issue be reviewed seriously and that steps be taken to restore both the environmental and community value of Jerry Bowden Park. I would appreciate a response addressing these concerns, including any timelines for future improvements or replanting. Sincerely, Nitzeli Sanchez 650-669-1931 From:Skylar Kim To:Council, City Cc:info@canopy.org; Public Works Public Services Subject:URGENT: Request for Review – Proposed Removal of Redwoods at St. Thomas Aquinas Date:Monday, March 23, 2026 1:54:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing to you as a resident living directly across from St. Thomas Aquinas Church to formally request an immediate review and stay of the scheduled removal of the redwood trees on the property. As a neighbor who looks out at these trees every single day, their presence is deeply meaningful to me. Every morning, I sit by my window to eat breakfast and watch the redwoods. In a world of constant digital distraction, these trees help me stay grounded and stay off my phone, providing a much-needed sense of peace and connection to nature. Beyond my own experience, I have personally observed the vibrant ecosystem these trees support, including beautiful local birds and squirrels that rely on this canopy. Their removal would not only be a loss for the city’s climate goals but a direct blow to the mental well-being and character of our immediate neighborhood. I understand these trees are reportedly scheduled for removal this Wednesday. I urge the City Council and the Public Works Department to: Pause the removal to allow for a transparent public review. Verify if all alternatives to cutting them down (such as professional pruning or structural support) have been exhausted. Ensure compliance with Palo Alto’s urban canopy protections. Please help us save these landmarks that define our street and our community. Sincerely, Sooyeon "Skylar" Kim 743 Waverley St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast