HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-01 City Council EmailsDOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 6/1/2026
Document dates: 5/26/26 – 6/1/26
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
From:Vanessa Hernandez
To:Council, City
Subject:On Behalf of Don Peterson - Item No. 4 on the June 1, 2026 Council Meeting Agenda
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 11:28:58 AM
Attachments:Letter June 1 Counsil Hearing 6.01.26.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Good Morning,
On behalf of Don Petterson, Senior Vice President of Development at Prometheus Real Estate Group,
please find the attached letter for City Council review.
Thank you,
Vanessa Hernandez | Sr. Administrative Assistant-Legal & Finance
PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. | Est. 1965 | Certified B Corporation™
p: 650.931.3447 | Prometheusapartments.com | vhernandez@prometheusreg.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, including attachments, is confidential and/or privileged and is intended only for
the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy,
disclose, or distribute the message or the information contained in it. If you have received the
message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Fritz Koehler
To:Council, City
Subject:PA Study Session on Flock ALPR Technology (6/1/26)-- Public Comment
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 11:14:59 AM
Attachments:PA Council Mtg (6-1-2026)-FK Letter.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please see attached.
Regards, Fritz
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
June 1, 2026
Re: Flock Contract and Data Partnership- Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware)
Dear Mayor, City Council members, City Manager, City Attorney and Chief of Police,
For over 30 years, my wife and I have enjoyed living in Palo Alto and also spending time
in other communities surrounding Palo Alto. I’m a local attorney with many years of experience
negotiating SaaS contracts similar to the one that the City has in place with Flock, and as a
concerned Palo Alto resident, I feel compelled to make you aware of some serious risks and
issues with continuing the City’s existing contractual relationship with Flock Group. Before I do
that, however, please be advised that I do not legally represent the City, nor am I providing legal
advice to the City. I would strongly encourage the City to seek separate legal advice with
respect to the issues raised in this letter.
Good Contract and Policy Not a Cure-All. In order to much better protect the City, its
residents and other constituents, there are a number of provisions in the Flock contract that
could be improved, including by better classifying and clarifying the different types of data
involved with the Flock platform and services (for instance, data types such as aggregated data,
derived data, inference data, metadata and training data) and each party’s associated rights and
obligations with respect to each such data type, in order to better address data privacy and
protection, security and liability issues. In addition, while the police department's internal
compliance with the City’s “Surveillance Use Policy for Fixed Automated License Plate
Recognition (ALPR) Technology” is important, Flock is not subject to that policy and there do not
appear to be any policy flowdown provisions in the City’s Flock contract. The “Network Lookup”
incident is a good example of how a policy that is only inward looking does not really provide the
City with much protection for something like the Flock system, including protections such as a
contractual right to request meaningful audits or written compliance certifications. In fact, Flock
now has its own Customer Data Policy which likely conflicts or is inconsistent with the City’s
Flock contract and its ALPR policy.
Regardless of the actual terms of the contract, the City’s policy or Flock’s new Customer
Data Policy, my biggest concern is with Flock itself and the high risk and potential liability that
continuing to engage with Flock poses to the City due to Flock’s widespread poor data handling
and protection practices, lack of customer transparency and overall untrustworthiness and
arguable bad faith, which have all been widely reported by reputable sources and which the City
itself has experienced. That risk and potential liability is likely to continue to increase over time
given the real world business motivations and incentives that will drive Flock’s rapid growth
goals and will likely result in questionable decision making and deficient business practices and
internal controls.
Flock Patent is Revealing. It’s hard to understand and evaluate that overall risk and
Flock’s motivations without a good understanding of the Flock system itself. In order to do so, I
would strongly encourage you to read Flock’s patent titled “Flock Patent: System and Method for
Object Based Query of Video Content Captured by a Dynamic Surveillance Network“ (found at
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/9a/03/7b3b26499077d4/US11416545.pdf),
which provides a good overview of how its system functions at the data type, footage and
component level to surveil object types (including humans) and then store data and related
footage. You will see that, from the start, the Flock system was intended to cover and surveil
much more than just ALPRs. Flock has continued to add new services, features and compatible
hardware devices (including drones and facial recognition) to its overall suite of offerings, in
order to rapidly grow its business, meet its investors’ lofty expectations and build out its vision of
being a leader of the mass surveillance market. It is not clear how Falcon cameras could be
used to support those additional services or features, or even used by a Flock system
administrator in noncompliant ways by turning on additional services or features at the system
level without the knowledge of the City, but it would be worth determining if the Falcon cameras
could support more than Falcon-based services.
Inherent Compliance and Mismanagement Risk. A major risk area to consider is whether
Flock can ensure that its features and functionality are compliant and will remain compliant on
an ongoing basis with all applicable laws and with the contractual and policy requirements for its
more than 6,000 customers. Flock has clearly failed to put in place a sufficient compliance
program in the past and it is unlikely to do much better in the future despite what Flock may say
or promise. Regardless of what Flock may do, it will not be sufficient to protect the City, its
residents and other constituents due to the massive scale of the Flock system. If you have yet to
do so, I would strongly encourage you to read the detailed memo from the Attorney’s Office for
the City of Berkeley dated April 2026 which, among other things, warns that Flock’s services
and technology may be incapable of complying with contractual obligations and city, state and
federal data sharing restrictions, and that a city as large as Berkeley has limited recourse
against Flock if Flock were to continue to have compliance lapses and other serious data
handling issues (see
https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-mill
ion-dollar-lawsuits-if-council-renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html
). As shown in Flock’s patent and as is customary for SaaS offerings, Flock’s system is
collecting, parsing, storing and querying data on a massive scale and storing that unencrypted
data in a large one-size fits all data lake which likely only uses role-based logic to segregate and
partition the City’s data from other data. As designed, there are no reliable ways for the City to
monitor, audit, prevent or otherwise protect itself from Flock’s system administrators or anyone
else at Flock accessing and sharing any of the City’s data or footage with any third party,
including a federal agency, without leaving an audit trail behind. In fact, a 2021 U.S.
Department of Homeland Security policy mandates that ALPR operators leave no trace of ICE
in audit logs except for logs available only to ICE. In addition, the owner or subject of data
generally does not have a right to be notified when a so-called FISA warrant under the U.S.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is issued by a court for that data.
It has also been widely reported that Flock is vying for contracts with multiple federal
agencies (including US Border Patrol and the FBI), and federal agencies with direct access to
Flock’s system raise a host of potential compliance risks. It is naive to think that certain
government agencies will not test the limits of Flock’s system controls that help protect the City’s
data, or that those agencies (and other agencies such as the DOJ with which they work closely
with) will now be more keen to pursue access to the data of City residents or the data of other
California residents despite the limited protections provided by California SB 34 and SB 54.
Incentive to Scale and Monetize Customer Data. Flock is incentivized to rapidly grow,
expand its business offerings and create additional revenue streams. An obvious way that it can
do that is to leverage its massive data lake, and comingle that data with other first party and
third party data sets to provide a more comprehensive dossier of the individual being targeted.
Despite what Flock and local law enforcement agencies may say, Falcon is focused on
surveilling people at scale and it’s not just about license plates. One clear example is that Flock
is rolling out a new service called "Flock Nova" which combines Flock data with public database
information (such as court filings, business registrations and property records) to allow for easier
searches to get more background information about a particular individual. In order to boost its
business, Flock is clearly trying to become a data aggregator and one-stop shop for discovering
potential culprits/targets and then doing a broad background search.
Based on its most recent private funding round, it has been reported that Flock has a
current valuation of over $8 billion. With that lofty valuation which is many multiples above
current revenue, the expectation of its investors is that Flock will continue to rapidly grow its
revenue. It can probably only do that by rapidly growing the massive amounts of its monetizable
data, increasing data access across its customer base to justify higher fees, and increasing the
size and composition of its customer base, including tapping into the federal government which
is the most obvious customer large enough to meet Flock's revenue goals. However, Flock’s
high valuation by its investors only makes sense by placing more value on the growing massive
data lake that Flock is creating as opposed to the uncertain revenue stream that it will generate
in the future. In other words, at its core, Flock’s business model and incentive structure are all
about its data lake and how it can be monetized. When the primary driver of a multi-billion dollar
technology company is data monetization, we have seen time and time again that compliance
can become an afterthought, that compliance has not been prioritized due to other business
needs, and that compliance lapses or neglect are just a cost of doing business.
Thank you for your service to the Palo Alto community which I deeply appreciate. You
have a tough decision in front of you, but I would encourage all of you to not continue to trust
Flock as a business partner and to terminate the City’s relationship with Flock. Flock’s
incentives point in the wrong direction, and that does not bode well for a steward of the City’s
data despite the contractual and policy provisions which may provide a false sense of protection
from an untrustworthy business partner.
Sincerely, Fritz Koehler
From:Maico Campilongo
To:Council, City; City Mgr; Franco Campilongo; ITalico
Subject:YES to California Avenue proposal listed as Item 16 on the agenda.
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:58:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Thanks staff for your work,
Outdoor Activation Standards: Appreciation for the pre-approved parklet guidelines.
Thank you for listening to our needs for year round outdoor dining.
The current plan addresses our needs.
California Ave can become a great place for year round dining for guests, retailers and
residents
We appreciate the pre planned guidelines for us to follow.
Maico Campilongo
Founder Owner
Terún Pizzeria Ristorante
448 California Ave
Palo Alto CA 94306
Tel. 650 6008310
info@terunpizza.com
www.terunpizza.com
iTalico Ristorante Pizzeria
341 California Ave
Palo Alto CA 94306
Tel. 650 4739616
info@italicorestaurant.com
www.italicorestaurant.com
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sahlik Khan
To:Clerk, City; Council, City; Charlie Weidanz
Cc:maico.campilongo@gmail.com
Subject:City Council Decision 6/1 Outdoor
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:57:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members and Staff,
I would like to express my support for maintaining California Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented
street and for continuing to move forward with the proposed outdoor guidelines.
California Avenue has become one of the most vibrant and welcoming public spaces in Palo
Alto. The closure has transformed what was once primarily a roadway into a true community
gathering place where residents can walk, dine, shop, meet friends, attend events, and enjoy
the neighborhood in a way that simply was not possible before.
Most residents anyone speaks to genuinely love the current atmosphere and would be
disappointed to see a return to through traffic. The street feels safer, more family-friendly, and
more inviting for people of all ages. On weekends and evenings especially, the area is full of
activity, demonstrating the strong demand for high-quality pedestrian spaces.
Foot traffic has increased tremendously since the closure. More people are spending time on
California Avenue, lingering longer, and enjoying the district as a destination rather than
simply passing through. While every business has unique circumstances, increased pedestrian
activity creates opportunities for restaurants, retailers, and service businesses that benefit from
a lively and attractive streetscape.
I also support the City’s efforts to create a long-term vision for California Avenue. The
proposed outdoor improvements and public space enhancements appear thoughtful and
represent an investment in the future of the district. Great commercial districts are increasingly
defined by their public spaces, outdoor dining, walkability, and overall experience—not by
vehicle access.
Reopening the street to regular traffic would be difficult to reverse and would sacrifice many
of the qualities that have made California Avenue unique over the past several years. Rather
than returning to the status quo, I encourage the City to continue refining and improving the
current model while addressing concerns related to accessibility, deliveries, parking, and
business support.
All of our 3 sit down restaurants are on a closed street and we continue to look for those
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
opportunities as many others would. We would’ve never taken over Starbucks and would
honestly will consider different locations if the street is open to cars again. California Ave
needs to fill these vacancies and it would be a step back to open the street in that regard as
well.
I encourage the Council to continue building upon that success and vote in favor of keeping
the street pedestrian-focused while advancing a permanent vision for the outdoor guidelines
for its future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Saalic Khan
Co Owner - Zareen’s Group of Restaurants
From:Ali Sapirman
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Re: Oppose Ordinances Delaying SB 79
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:53:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Reupping this letter for tonight's council meeting.
On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 12:58 PM Ali Sapirman <ali@housingactioncoalition.org> wrote:
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please see the attached letter on behalf of The Housing Action Coalition on the Council's
decision on how to implement SB 79.
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org
To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".
--
Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them
Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111
Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org
To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Knight, Julia
Subject:Daily Post headline on SB79 agenda item
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:42:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
The headline says "Scramble to block tall buildings"
I hope the "block tall buildings" is not correct, more about that below.
But it does look like a "scramble" to me undercutting the claim to have an open and
transparent process inviting public discussion.
This could have been heard and discussed over the past two months if council and staff had
considered it "urgent" enough to schedule the item when it would be heard and at a time
when most people could participate.
This did not happen not once or twice but not three times so I do not accept that council
finds this "urgent"
With regard to "block tall buildings" I hope the council does not completely undercut the fine
work done to get a pro-housing designation approved.
While I favor option 4, if the council approves option 3, please change the language to "at
least 50%" and direct staff to come back with a large set of adjacent sites for which full SB
79 density isapproved.
Stephen Levy
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Support SB 79
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:42 AM
From: Nicholas Feinberg <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:11 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Support SB 79
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm a lifelong South Bay resident who commuted to work in Palo Alto for many years. I'm
asking that you support the housing requirements for SB 79, rather than attempting to
implement an emergency stop.
This entire region has been in a massive housing crisis for over a decade now.
Homelessness is rife, and many people are being driven out. We need more housing so that
people can continue to live in this wonderful area, and we should not be overly precious
about the status quo. Today's eyesore is tomorrow's heritage, etc.
For the sake of my children, please support high density housing. Allow SB 79 to proceed as
enacted.
Thanks!
Nicholas Feinberg
nick.feinberg@gmail.com
Mountain View, California 94041
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:27 AM
From: Mary Stimmler <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:23 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm writing to urge the Council not to proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB
79 (Wiener), and to raise two concerns about the process recommended in Staff Report
#2603-6132.
Palo Alto has both the opportunity and the obligation to add housing near transit. As a major
employment center well-served by Caltrain and key bus corridors, SB 79 offers a framework
for doing so with objective standards that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delaying that
framework undermines the region's housing and climate goals.
If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:
First, the public deserves more information before the Council acts. Staff Report #2603-6132
does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed ordinances. The public
should have access to the actual number of locally designated historic resources within SB
79's TOD Eligibility Areas, and current allowable densities and heights across SB 79-eligible
sites — without which no one can assess what it means to cap development at 50% of SB
79's minimum densities.
Second, an emergency ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle. Under California
Government Code Section 65858(a), emergency land use ordinances exist to protect public
safety, health, and welfare. New housing near transit does not meet that bar. Any ordinance
delaying SB 79 should go through the normal legislative process, with adequate time for
public input.
California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as
intended.
Mary Stimmler
mary.kate.stimmler@gmail.com
Palo Alto, California 94301
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:02:12 AM
From: Rachel Gilbert <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:40 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm writing to urge the Council not to proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB
79 (Wiener), and to raise two concerns about the process recommended in Staff Report
#2603-6132.
Palo Alto has both the opportunity and the obligation to add housing near transit. As a major
employment center well-served by Caltrain and key bus corridors, SB 79 offers a framework
for doing so with objective standards that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delaying that
framework undermines the region's housing and climate goals.
If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:
First, the public deserves more information before the Council acts. Staff Report #2603-6132
does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed ordinances. The public
should have access to the actual number of locally designated historic resources within SB
79's TOD Eligibility Areas, and current allowable densities and heights across SB 79-eligible
sites — without which no one can assess what it means to cap development at 50% of SB
79's minimum densities.
Second, an emergency ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle. Under California
Government Code Section 65858(a), emergency land use ordinances exist to protect public
safety, health, and welfare. New housing near transit does not meet that bar. Any ordinance
delaying SB 79 should go through the normal legislative process, with adequate time for
public input.
California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as
intended. Thank you.
Rachel Gilbert
rgilbert66@hotmail.com
Mountain View, California 94043
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:01:28 AM
From: Naphtali Knox <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 6:36 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
Dear Councilmembers,
Please do NOT proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB 79 (Wiener).
We have both the need and the opportunity to add housing near transit. I have lived in Palo
Alto 54 years. Our city is a major employment center well-served by Caltrain and key
buseays. SB 79 offers a way for us to add housing strategically using objective standards
that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delay in implementing SB79 we’ll only undermine our
housing goals and aspirations.
Naphtali Knox
knoxnaph@gmail.com
Palo Alto, California 94301
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:01:17 AM
From: Blair MacDonald <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 8:47 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Don't delay SB 79!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk,
I'm writing to urge the Council not to proceed with ordinances delaying implementation of SB
79 (Wiener), and to raise two concerns about the process recommended in Staff Report
#2603-6132.
Palo Alto has both the opportunity and the obligation to add housing near transit. As a major
employment center well-served by Caltrain and key bus corridors, SB 79 offers a framework
for doing so with objective standards that reduce delays and uncertainty. Delaying that
framework undermines the region's housing and climate goals.
If the Council is nonetheless inclined to proceed, I raise two concerns:
First, the public deserves more information before the Council acts. Staff Report #2603-6132
does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposed ordinances. The public
should have access to the actual number of locally designated historic resources within SB
79's TOD Eligibility Areas, and current allowable densities and heights across SB 79-eligible
sites — without which no one can assess what it means to cap development at 50% of SB
79's minimum densities.
Second, an emergency ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle. Under California
Government Code Section 65858(a), emergency land use ordinances exist to protect public
safety, health, and welfare. New housing near transit does not meet that bar. Any ordinance
delaying SB 79 should go through the normal legislative process, with adequate time for
public input.
California's housing challenges require urgency. I urge you to allow SB 79 to take effect as
intended.
Blair MacDonald
blair.michael.macdonald@gmail.com
, 94043
From:Rob Nielsen
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17)
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 12:29:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Rob Nielsen. I live in Midtown and support efforts to promote more
homes.
On the issue of SB 79 implementation, I request that you modify the emergency
ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where the city already plans for
new homes. These would include the Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino
Real and California Ave, the Transit Center, and the San Antonio area as well as
Housing Element sites.
Much work has been put into identifying these areas and in garnering public support
for these choices. There is no need to delay action for a few years if a good SB79-
aligned proposal comes in for such a site.
If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law
in the places near transit where we want more homes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Rob Nielsen
From:Monica Teicher
To:Council, City
Subject:Flock surveillance is a dangerous weapon being weilded against our community
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 12:29:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Monica Teicher, and my family owns property in Palo Alto. Given our investment
in the City, I think it's very important that I state my opinion on the Flock camera system that
the City is currently using. It has been demonstrated that any type of surveillance that is used
for "law enforcement" can be misused in the wrong hands. We have precedent in the City of
Mountain View, where data captured in the system's database was accessed by organizations
outside of MVPD, which was prohibited in their contract. There were several instances of
data access that the MVPD was unaware of for several months.
https://www.mountainview.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1203/284
Flock is not a trustworthy company, and their contract should be terminated as soon as
possible. We know that they are making their information available to ICE for their
enforcement, regardless of the contracts signed. The ACLU noted that they are on their way to
creating a massive surveillance that will include video feed from their cameras that can be
used to track people's movements in the future.
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup
Information from the system can be used to squash dissent and hinder our First Amendment
right to free speech. Palantir is also aggregating and analyzing data obtained from different
sources to create a comprehensive surveillance picture that makes us unsafe in all sorts of
ways. I don't want to add to the mix the capability of following our movements
indiscriminately, given the abuses committed by this administration.
I urge you to do the responsible thing and protect the right to privacy of your citizens and the
community at large by terminating Flock System's contract and covering the cameras while
they are being taken down.
Thank you,
Mónica
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Rob Nielsen
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 12:25:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Venker and other Council members.
My name is Rob Nielsen and I live in Midtown. I am writing you on Tenant Protections
and the rental registry (Item 3 on the June 1 agenda).
My reason for writing is to request that you plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make
up a growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help
the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Sincerely yours,
Rob Nielsen
From:Hansel Aguilar
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Public Comment for the Record: Evidence-Based Considerations Regarding ALPR and the Expansion of
Surveillance Technologies
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 12:02:30 AM
Attachments:2026-05-31-Aguilar_Letter_Palo_Alto_Council_ALPR.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Please accept the attached letter as public comment for the record in advance of any
forthcoming agenda item concerning the City's ALPR program or the expansion of
surveillance technologies. I have copied the City Clerk to ensure inclusion in the official
public correspondence file.
I am a Santa Clara County resident writing in my personal capacity. The letter offers evidence-
based considerations drawn from the independent research literature, the recent experience of
neighboring Bay Area jurisdictions, and my own background in civilian oversight of law
enforcement. The full text and supporting citations are in the attachment, with the body of the
letter also pasted below for ease of review.
I am grateful for the Council's service and for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion.
Respectfully,
--
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, PhD
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift"
---Steve Prefontaine
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.
Santa Clara County, California
Page 1 of 7
May 31, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Evidence-Based Considerations Regarding ALPR and the Expansion of Surveillance Technologies
Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers:
I write as a Santa Clara County resident with nearly fifteen years of experience in civilian oversight of law
enforcement across multiple jurisdictions. I also write as a former law enforcement officer. I most recently
served as the Director of Police Accountability for the City of Berkeley, and I hold a Ph.D. in sociology, with
academic and practical focus on transnationalism, human rights, civil rights, and public accountability. I
am writing in my personal capacity as a concerned member of the regional community; my professional
affiliations are provided solely for identification.
I offer this letter respectfully and not as a critique of the Palo Alto Police Department or its dedicated
personnel. The issues raised here are common across jurisdictions and reflect a regional conversation
that, over the past several months, has led Santa Cruz, Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, El Cerrito, and the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to reassess, suspend, terminate, or restrict their ALPR programs,1
and led the City of Berkeley and the City of Richmond to reassess and modify theirs.2 Palo Alto's own
recent disclosure that hundreds of out-of-state agencies searched data from its cameras between July
2023 and October 2024, contrary to earlier public statements by city leaders3, places this Council squarely
within that regional conversation. My purpose is to encourage the Council to ground its forthcoming
decisions about ALPR, and about the broader expansion of surveillance technologies, in the best available
empirical evidence and in durable civilian oversight infrastructure.
The Independent Research Does Not Support the Vendor Narrative
1See, e.g., Mass surveillance fears push Silicon Valley city to scrap automated license plate readers, Press Democrat (Feb. 25, 2026); Los Altos Hills
to remove ALPR cameras, Los Altos Town Crier (Jan. 28, 2026); California City Shuts Down Surveillance Cameras After Feds Accessed Data (Feb. 4,
2026) (discussing Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Santa Cruz). The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 24, 2026 to prohibit the
County Sheriff’s Office from contracting with Flock Safety for ALPR cameras in contract cities includin g Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills.
See Palo Alto looks to audit Flock license plate cameras after breaches in other cities, Palo Alto Online (Mar. 6, 2026). Berkeley and Richmond
ultimately opted for modified continuations of their ALPR programs rather than outright termination; both outcomes are discussed in the next
footnote.
2Berkeley and Richmond reassessed but did not terminate. In Berkeley, the City Council voted 8–1 on May 7, 2026 to reject a proposed $2 million
expansion that would have added drones, additional cameras, and investigative software, while narrowly approving a one-year extension of the
existing 52-camera ALPR contract at a cost of up to $200,000. The vote followed the leak, publicly reported days before the meeting, of an April
24, 2026 confidential City Attorney memorandum warning that contracting with Flock carries legal risks the city’s own contrac tual protections
cannot entirely fix. See Flock plate readers to stay; Berkeley nixes surveillance expansion, Berkeleyside (May 8, 2026),
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2026/05/08/flock-safety-berkeley-surveillance-cameras-drones-nova-community-video-streams. In Richmond,
Police Chief Timothy Simmons deactivated the ALPR system in late 2025 after discovering that Flock’s “national lookup” feature had rendered
Richmond’s data accessible to outside agencies in violation of city policy and California law. See Richmond police chief shuts down license plate
readers after discovering data was searchable, Richmondside (December 09, 2025), https://richmondside.org/2025/12/09/richmond-license-
plate-reader-data-breach/; after several months of public debate, the City Council voted 4–3 on March 17, 2026 to reinstate the cameras through
December 31, 2026 and directed the City Attorney to negotiate stronger data-sharing protections. See Richmond’s Flock license plate readers will
be turned back on through 2026, Richmondside (Mar. 18, 2026), https://richmondside.org/2026/03/18/richmond-flock-cameras-license-plate-
readers-on/; Richmond City Council extends Flock license plate reader contract amid privacy concerns, Local News Matters (Mar. 18, 2026).
3 Palo Alto license plate data searched by hundreds of out-of-state agencies, San José Spotlight / Palo Alto Weekly (April 27, 2026),
https://sanjosespotlight.com/palo-alto-license-plate-data-searched-by-hundreds-of-out-of-state-agencies/
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.
Santa Clara County, California
Page 2 of 7
ALPR vendors routinely describe their systems as engines of crime prevention and reduction. The
independent research literature is markedly more cautious. The most current and comprehensive review,
published last year in the Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing by Cynthia Lum, Christopher
Koper, Hyunji Lee, Daniel Nagin, and Lawrence Sherman (several of the leading scholars in policing
research), concludes that, after more than four decades of research on police technologies, “it is not clear
that technologies in policing have made police more effective or have helped community members realize
their expectations of the police.”4 As to ALPRs specifically, the authors find that the methodologically
rigorous evaluations are “either equivocal or show limited effects of ALPRs on crime outcomes, even when
conducted in very realistic contexts,” and that “the jury is still out on whether ALPRs are more effective
in achieving public safety goals.”5
A central insight of this body of work is that ALPRs are not interventions in themselves. They are tools
whose effect depends on the organizational strategy in which they are embedded. As the authors put it,
“ALPR is just the scalpel, not the surgeon.”6 A national survey of agencies deploying ALPRs found that 59%
provided officers complete discretion over how ALPR units were used, with no strategic guidance, and
only 5% reported “almost always” providing such guidance.7 Absent targeted deployment, tracking, and
assessment grounded in problem analysis, expensive new technology tends to reinforce existing practice
rather than improve outcomes.
A Careful Look at the Local Evidentiary Basis
The Palo Alto Police Department's public materials8 describe ALPR as a tool that has produced
"investigative success stories" and increases in recovered stolen vehicles. I do not question the sincerity
of those attributions. I would, however, respectfully encourage the Council to scrutinize the analytic basis
before authorizing further contract action or expansion. Two considerations:
• Property crime trends across the Bay Area have moved in similar directions across jurisdictions
with and without ALPR over this period. Drawing causal conclusions from pre/post comparisons
in a single jurisdiction, without a comparison group or counterfactual analysis, is precisely the
methodological problem flagged by the Lum et al. review and by the underlying randomized and
quasi-experimental studies it summarizes.9
• The most relevant local counterfactual is instructive. Los Altos Hills, which deployed
approximately 31 Flock cameras beginning in 2021 at a per-capita density far greater than that of
Palo Alto, publicly concluded in January 2026 that despite a similar burglary decline, the ALPR
system was not what produced it. Council members there explicitly identified other factors as
more likely explanations and voted to terminate the contract.10
4Cynthia Lum, Christopher S. Koper, Hyunji Lee, Daniel S. Nagin & Lawrence Sherman, Measuring the Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in
Policing: The Case of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR), 9 Cambridge J. Evidence-Based Policing, art. 4 (2025), at 2,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-025-00099-y.
5Id. at 6.
6Id. at 11.
7Cynthia Lum, Christopher S. Koper, James J. Willis, Stephen Happeny, Heather Vovak & Julie Nichols, The Rapid Diffusion of License Plate
Readers in U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies, 42 Policing: An Int’l J. 376 (2019), discussed in Lum et al. (2025), at 13.
8 City of Palo Alto, Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR), https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Police/Public-Information-
Portal/Automated-License-Plate-Recognition-ALPR.
9Lum et al. (2025), at 6–8, reviewing Lum et al. (2011); Koper, Taylor & Woods (2013); Koper et al. (2022); Ozer (2016); Wheeler & Phillips
(2018), among others.
10Los Altos Hills to remove ALPR cameras, Los Altos Town Crier (Jan. 28, 2026), https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/los-altos-hills-to-remove-
alpr-cameras/article_59f90aa8-14c1-4309-9f7f-12d16c649d9e.html (noting Los Altos Hills had 31 deployed cameras and that the burglary
decline was attributed by council members to factors other than ALPR).
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.
Santa Clara County, California
Page 3 of 7
ALPR may well have genuine investigative utility. The narrower point is that the strength of the causal
public-safety claim being made for ALPR in Palo Alto warrants more rigorous analytic support than
anecdotal success stories alone provide.
A Distinct Concern: Federal Access to Locally Collected Data
The empirical questions above would warrant caution on their own. A second dimension of this discussion
has grown sharper over recent months, and I want to raise it plainly. The practical risk is that ALPR data
collected in Palo Alto becomes available to federal agencies through technical and procedural pathways
that California law prohibits but that the technology has repeatedly demonstrated vulnerabilities that
local contractual safeguards have not fully prevented.
I write this in part as someone whose own life informs the way I think about this risk. I came to this country
from Honduras, and I have spent the bulk of my professional career on the civilian-oversight side of law
enforcement. I raise that biographical detail not to elicit sympathy but because the people most directly
exposed to the downstream consequences of a leaky surveillance network rarely sit on city councils, and
discussions like this one are better when at least one such voice is in the record.
The pattern is no longer speculative. Within the past several months alone:
• Palo Alto itself was affected. Public records obtained by the Palo Alto Weekly and published April
27, 202611 confirmed that Palo Alto's ALPR cameras were part of Flock's nationwide searchable
dataset between July 2023 and October 2024 without the city's knowledge, during which agencies
from nearly every state, including federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms and the National Park Service, performed searches within that nationwide network. The
Police Chief's position is that the searches were system-wide rather than targeted at Palo Alto's
data specifically, and that Flock confirmed no Palo Alto camera data was actually returned to
those agencies. I do not contest that account. The structural point is narrower: city leaders had
publicly stated in prior meetings that out-of-state agencies could not access Palo Alto's data, the
city was unaware the nationwide lookup feature had been enabled on its system, and the
discovery came only through investigative journalism and a Public Records Act request, not
through customer-side audits.
• A public letter from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden dated October 16, 2025 confirmed, based on direct
disclosures by Flock to his oversight staff, that U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Homeland
Security Investigations (a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the U.S. Secret
Service, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service had all been given pilot access to Flock’s
nationwide network, and that CBP and HSI conducted approximately 200 and 175 searches
respectively. Flock also acknowledged to Senator Wyden’s office that it had previously told state
and local law enforcement customers, inaccurately, that it had no relationship with the
Department of Homeland Security.12
• Richmond deactivated its ALPR system in late 2025 after the police chief discovered the same
“national lookup” feature had been silently enabled, in violation of Richmond policy and California
law. The cameras were reinstated in March 2026 only after months of public debate and on the
condition that the city negotiate stronger contractual protections.
11 Palo Alto license plate data searched by hundreds of out-of-state agencies, San José Spotlight / Palo Alto Weekly (April 27, 2026),
https://sanjosespotlight.com/palo-alto-license-plate-data-searched-by-hundreds-of-out-of-state-agencies/
12Letter from Sen. Ron Wyden to Garrett Langley, CEO, Flock Group, Inc. (Oct. 16, 2025),
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_letter_to_flock.pdf; see also Joseph Cox, ICE, Secret Service, Navy All Had Access to
Flock’s Nationwide Network of Cameras, 404 Media (Oct. 17, 2025), https://www.404media.co/ice-secret-service-navy-all-had-access-to-flocks-
nationwide-network-of-cameras/. The Wyden letter states that Flock confirmed to his office in September 2025 the pilot access to CBP, HSI, the
Secret Service, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and that the company had acknowledged “internal miscommunication” resulted in
customers being “inaccurately informed that Flock did not have any relationship with DHS.”
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.
Santa Clara County, California
Page 4 of 7
• Mountain View disabled its entire ALPR fleet after discovering that Flock had configured one of
its cameras to a “nationwide” setting without authorization, and that multiple federal agencies
(including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the GSA Office of Inspector
General, and personnel at multiple military installations) had accessed city data for approximately
seventeen months.13
• In Berkeley, a confidential City Attorney memorandum that leaked on the eve of the May 7, 2026
City Council vote warned that contracting with Flock may carry legal exposure that contractual
safeguards alone cannot fully resolve, including potential Fourth Amendment, California
sanctuary-law, and SB 34 liability, even where no data is in fact shared.14
• On May 18, 2026, 404 Media reported on Federal Bureau of Investigation procurement records
seeking up to $36 million for nationwide access to license plate reader data, with Flock Safety and
Motorola Solutions identified as the primary vendors positioned to provide the requested scope.
The FBI Statement of Work, in its own words, seeks a “diverse and reliable range of collections
across the United States.”15
I appreciate that the Palo Alto Police Department has affirmed in writing that it does not share data with
federal or out-of-state agencies and that its policy prohibits immigration-enforcement use. I have no
reason to doubt the sincerity of that commitment. The issue raised by the pattern above is not
commitment. It is capability. Mountain View had the same commitment. Richmond had the same
commitment. Berkeley’s own attorneys concluded, after careful review, that contractual commitments
alone may not be sufficient to guarantee the result.
The human stakes of these infrastructure decisions are not abstract. On May 27, 2026, an Associated Press
investigation reported16 that at least ten people in ICE detention have died by suicide since January 2025,
with seven of those deaths occurring since October. The pace is the highest in the agency's history, and
public health experts characterized the increase as evidence that the 50% expansion in the detained
population has overwhelmed the system's mental health care and oversight capacity. I raise this not to
assert a direct causal chain between any particular ALPR query and any particular detention or death,
which the public record does not establish, but to name what the system that local ALPR data flows into
is now producing. A city that contracts with a vendor whose product is woven into that enforcement
infrastructure, even with strong local policy guardrails, is making a choice about whether to participate in
a supply chain whose downstream consequences are now publicly documented.
For residents whose families came to this country from places where state surveillance has been used as
a tool of political control and family separation, this is not an abstract concern. It is the concern.
Better-Evidenced Alternatives Exist
13California City Shuts Down Surveillance Cameras After Feds Accessed Data (Feb. 4, 2026), https://www.gblock.app/articles/california-flock-
cameras-ice-data (Mountain View audit revealed federal access to city data from August to November 2024 via a Flock configuration the city
had not authorized).
14Leaked city attorney memo shows Berkeley risks potential million-dollar lawsuits if council renews Flock contract, The Daily Californian (May 5,
2026), https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-million-dollar-lawsuits-if-council-
renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html (reporting that the April 24, 2026 City Attorney memorandum identified
Fourth Amendment, California sanctuary-law, and SB 34 exposure).
15Joseph Cox, The FBI Wants to Buy Nationwide Access to License Plate Readers, 404 Media (May 18, 2026), https://www.404media.co/the-fbi-
wants-to-buy-nationwide-access-to-license-plate-readers/ (reporting up to $36 million in proposed FBI procurement and identifying Flock and
Motorola as the only realistic vendors capable of providing the requested scope; quotation in body is from the FBI Statement of Work as reported).
16 AP, ICE detainees dying by suicide at 'alarming' rate, AP investigation finds, PBS NewsHour (May 27, 2026),
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ice-detainees-dying-by-suicide-at-alarming-rate-ap-investigation-finds.
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.
Santa Clara County, California
Page 5 of 7
The George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy maintains an Evidence-Based
Policing Matrix that catalogs interventions with rigorous empirical support across crime types.17 For the
property-crime concerns most often cited to justify ALPR expansion, the interventions with the strongest
evidence base are problem-oriented policing tailored to specific theft patterns, hot-spots policing, Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), and target hardening. None of these requires
suspicionless mass data collection on uninvolved residents.
Problem-oriented policing, commonly structured through the SARA framework (Scan, Analyze, Respond,
Assess), begins with specific analytic questions. What is actually being stolen: catalytic converters,
packages, bicycles, items from vehicles? When and where do incidents cluster? Who is offending: local
repeat offenders, organized crews, transient suspects? What environmental conditions enable the
offenses, such as lighting, sight lines, access routes, and unsecured property? What is the victim profile?
Once these questions are answered, the response usually suggests itself, and it is rarely “buy more
surveillance.” For package theft it may be locker installations and porch-pirate awareness; for car
burglaries, targeted patrols at hot times and places combined with “lock-it, hide-it, keep-it” campaigns;
for catalytic-converter theft, etching programs and scrap-yard regulations.
I would also respectfully suggest that the framing under which surveillance debates often unfold, the
assumption that “public safety must inevitably trade against privacy,” concedes too much. That premise
is one the surveillance-technology industry relies on; the better-evidenced alternatives above do not
require that trade-off.
Three Recommendations
In that spirit, I respectfully offer three recommendations for the Council’s consideration:
1. Require Analytic Justification Before Any Expansion. Before the Council takes up any expansion of
ALPR or the adoption of additional surveillance technologies (integrated data-analytics platforms, drones,
fixed cameras, or otherwise), I would urge that the Police Department first be asked to articulate, in
analytic detail:
• the specific crime trends and patterns of concern, disaggregated well beyond high-level Part I
categories (type, time, place, victim profile, suspected offender characteristics, and modus
operandi);
• the interventions, technological and otherwise, that have already been attempted to address
those problems, and what was learned from them; and
• the case for why a proposed new technology, evaluated against alternatives with stronger
evidence bases, is the most appropriate response.
The burden of justification should rest on the proposed solution, whether that solution is ALPR renewal,
an analytic platform, or anything else. Communities are too often asked to evaluate specific solutions
without ever being shown the underlying analysis. I do not assume that is what is occurring here. The
structural way to prevent it, though, is to insist on the analytic work up front.
The next two recommendations are structural complements designed to ensure that the analytic
discipline above becomes a durable feature of City practice rather than an episodic ask.
17George Mason University, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, Evidence-Based Policing Matrix, https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-
policing/the-matrix/.
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.
Santa Clara County, California
Page 6 of 7
2. Use Your Existing Surveillance Technology Ordinance Meaningfully. Palo Alto already has a
Surveillance Technology Ordinance, codified at Palo Alto Municipal Code §§ 2.30.620 to 2.30.690, the
Surveillance and Privacy Protection Ordinance adopted in 2018. The ordinance requires Council approval
for the acquisition, expansion, or material repurposing of any surveillance technology, an impact
assessment, and an Annual Surveillance Report. The infrastructure for thoughtful, transparent
surveillance governance already exists in this city's code. The question is whether it is being used. The
most recent publicly accessible Surveillance Technology Report I have been able to locate is the
September 21, 2020 staff report covering Fiscal Years 2019 and 202018, which predates Palo Alto's
adoption of fixed ALPR in April 2023. I have not been able to locate any subsequent Annual Surveillance
Report covering the period during which the ALPR program has been operational, including the period
during which the nationwide lookup feature was active on the city's cameras. The OIR audit being
commissioned should determine, as a threshold question, whether the Annual Surveillance Reports
required under the ordinance have been produced for ALPR each fiscal year since adoption and where the
public can access them. If they have not, the Council should treat that as a compliance question, not only
a process gap.
3. Codify and Expand Civilian Oversight Capacity Beyond the Current Contracted Auditor. Palo Alto has
maintained an independent police auditing function through contract with OIR Group since 200619, and
the Council is now expanding OIR Group's scope to include an operational assessment of Flock's policies
and procedures around security, transparency, sharing compliance, and reporting of system features and
changes. This is a meaningful step. I would respectfully encourage two further moves. First, the audit's
scope should be expanded beyond operational assessment to address what customer-side audits
structurally cannot detect: vendor-level federal access, including through pilot programs of the kind
Senator Wyden documented, and the categories of access that operate above the customer dashboard.
The audit should also confirm whether the Annual Surveillance Reports required under PAMC § 2.30.6 70
have been produced and made publicly accessible. Second, the City's civilian oversight architecture should
not depend on contractual renewal. While Palo Alto has been well-served by OIR Group for nearly two
decades, the permanency and strength of a true civilian oversight system requires codification in the
municipal code, not a contractual relationship that any future Council could decline to renew. A standing
civilian oversight body, structured consistent with NACOLE principles, 20 would provide the institutional
continuity and proactive engagement capacity that contract auditors performing periodic reviews cannot
fully replicate. These are precisely the kinds of structural surveillance questions a robust and well-
supported oversight system could engage with proactively, rather than addressing in piecemeal fashion
as issues surface. Bay Area examples include the City of San Jose Office of the Independent Police Auditor,
the City of Berkeley Police Accountability Board and Office of the Director of Police Accountability, and
the City of Richmond Community Police Review Commission.21
Closing
18 City of Palo Alto, Surveillance Technology Reports for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, City Manager Report ID #11268 (Sept. 21, 2020),
cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-
11268.pdf?t=64156.82](https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-
cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11268.pdf?t=64156.82)
19 City of Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor, https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Police/Accountability/Independent-Police-Auditor
20National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, Thirteen Principles for Effective Oversight, https://www.nacole.org/principles.
21For Bay Area models, see City of San Jose, Office of the Independent Police Auditor, established by San Jose City Charter § 809 (adopted 1996),
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/appointees/independent-police-auditor; City of Berkeley, Police Accountability Board and Office
of the Director of Police Accountability, established by Measure II (Nov. 2020); City of Richmond, Community Police Review Commission, governed
by Richmond Ordinances Nos. 15-84 N.S., 11-85 N.S., 3-16 N.S., 5-16 N.S., 02-19 N.S., 05-19 N.S., and 29-20 N.S.,
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/81/Community-Police-Review-Commission..
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D.
Santa Clara County, California
Page 7 of 7
None of the above is offered as a critique of the dedication of Palo Alto police personnel or of the Council's
commitment to community safety. I have raised similar concerns with neighboring jurisdictions in recent
months, including the City of Los Altos, and I share them with this Council in the same spirit of constructive
engagement. The hope here is that the most durable public-safety decisions are those grounded in the
best available evidence and supported by structures that allow the community to participate meaningfully
in the trade-offs involved. The current regional moment, with neighboring jurisdictions actively
reassessing the same technology, offers Palo Alto a useful opportunity to set a thoughtful, evidence-based
example.
I am happy to make myself available as a resource to the Council, City staff, or the Police Department if
that would be useful. Thank you for your service and for your consideration.
In Community,
Hansel Alejandro Aguilar, Ph.D. | Practitioner of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement & Researcher
Vice Chair, Membership and Support Committee | NACOLE*
* The views expressed are my own. Affiliations are provided for identification purposes only.
From:Michael Ekwall
To:Council, City
Subject:Monday, June 1, 2026 Agenda Item 16
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 11:44:41 PM
Attachments:image.png
ACFrOgAk8x4-fR4MIpoj0uqDs81pICtQhwes85goYcdbOvozTgE84Q6qoJNT-
TyKyZxPTkb0voZpHWxGQHbo7OFC7OS7NDa879pjNRnTC8vTA2BIpFke2OuvwfUPoRRZqZgTcTGxtaJjbxYJ9MPeEeODLQe6Nx5unBIJHnfkqQ==.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
!
Hello Mayor and City Council Members.
I would appreciate you reading the attached letter before tonight's meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michael Ekwall
La Bodeguita del Medio
463 S California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
T 650.326.7762 x 11
F 650.323.2822
www.labodeguita.com
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
California Avenue Street Configuration Review and
Proposal
Public Safety, Accessibility, and Economic Sustainability
_____________________________________________________
____
Introduction
After six years of street closure, the City must re-evaluate the California Avenue experiment based on
measurable outcomes rather than original intentions.
The original vision for California Avenue was compelling: a vibrant pedestrian-oriented district that
balanced outdoor dining, accessibility, walkability, neighborhood commerce, and community
gathering space. Many residents, merchants, and property owners supported that vision in good faith.
However, after six years, the current configuration has failed to deliver a balanced, functional, and
economically sustainable district for the broader community. Significant concerns remain regarding
public safety access, business visibility, accessibility, circulation, fiscal responsibility, and long-term
viability.
It is not too late to change course.
We respectfully urge the City Council to reopen California Avenue to limited one-way vehicle access
between El Camino Real and Birch Street while preserving successful pedestrian-oriented
improvements, outdoor dining, and parklets. The existing two-way configuration between Birch Street
and the Caltrain station could remain unchanged.
Reopening California Avenue should not be viewed as a failure. Responsible governance
requires the willingness to reassess policies when results do not align with expectations.
After six years, the City owes residents, businesses, and taxpayers a transparent evaluation
grounded in practical realities and measurable performance.
Summary
As it stands, there does not appear to be a comprehensive plan beyond the proposed parklet designs
and a busy, colorfully striped diversionary bike lane. After the considerable time, public attention,
taxpayer dollars, and labor resources expended over the last four years, it is fair to question whether
color-striping California Avenue and disrupting local businesses will ultimately have been worth the
effort.
My proposal highlights significant unresolved issues that should have been addressed and
resolved prior to any decision to permanently close the street.
This proposal recommends reopening California Avenue to limited vehicle access between El Camino
Real and Birch Street while preserving the strongest pedestrian-oriented improvements and outdoor
dining elements.
The proposal seeks to:
• improve emergency and public safety access,
• restore accessibility and convenience for customers and residents,
• improve business visibility and economic sustainability,
• preserve outdoor dining and pedestrian activity,
• reduce circulation conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters, and deliveries,
• improve district circulation and functionality, and
• establish clearer fiscal accountability and measurable performance standards for the district’s long-
term future.
The existing two-way configuration between Birch Street and the Caltrain station could remain
unchanged.
Good intentions alone cannot justify maintaining a configuration that no longer aligns with
measurable public safety, accessibility, economic, and fiscal outcomes.
Public Safety and Emergency Access
Public safety must remain the City’s highest priority.
The current closure has fundamentally altered emergency access patterns for fire, police, and
medical personnel serving the district. Even modest delays in emergency response times can
carry life-threatening consequences during fires, medical emergencies, or other critical
incidents.
To date, the City has not publicly provided clear and measurable data addressing several
fundamental questions:
• What measurable impacts on emergency response times have occurred since the closure?
• Have average fire, police, or EMS response times within the district changed since implementation?
• Were formal emergency access studies conducted before or after implementation?
• How have response routes from Hanover Fire Station 2 changed?
• How has emergency access to the Caltrain station and surrounding facilities been affected?
• What operational challenges remain associated with removable bollards and restricted vehicle
access?
If emergency response metrics have remained unchanged, the City should publicly provide that data.
If measurable delays or operational complications have occurred, those impacts deserve transparent
public evaluation before permanent infrastructure decisions are finalized.
These are not political questions. They are basic public safety questions that deserve transparent,
data-driven answers.
During peak hours, the district now experiences:
• increasing bicycle, e-bike and e-scooter traffic,
• delivery vehicle conflicts,
• limited maneuvering space for emergency personnel.
Together, these conditions create a more complicated and less predictable operating environment for
first responders.
Accessibility concerns have also become increasingly significant for:
• elderly visitors,
• individuals with mobility limitations,
• customers arriving by vehicle, and
• service providers requiring direct business access.
California Avenue is objectively less accessible and less convenient today than it was prior to
the permanent street closure.
Departure From the Original Vision
The district that exists today differs from the vision originally proposed and presented to the
community.
What began as a pedestrian-oriented streetscape improvement has increasingly evolved into a high-
volume, dangerous, bicycle, e-bike and e-scooter through-corridor. The growing mix of bicycles, e-
bikes, scooters, pedestrians, delivery traffic, and outdoor dining activity has, at times, created
congested, confusing, and unsafe conditions that undermine the relaxed pedestrian environment
originally envisioned.
Recent discussions surrounding expanded bicycle circulation infrastructure further reinforce this
concern.
At the same time, the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan already identifies
Cambridge Avenue as a significant bicycle corridor. Given this, it is reasonable to question why
California Avenue should simultaneously function as both a pedestrian-oriented commercial district
and a regional bicycle through-route.
Higher-volume regional bicycle circulation may be more safely accommodated on corridors
specifically designed for continuous through-travel, while California Avenue can prioritize a slower-
paced commercial pedestrian environment, outdoor dining and reduced speed, vehicular circulation.
Cyclists visiting California Avenue businesses should continue to have safe and convenient access.
However, the current configuration unnecessarily concentrates competing modes of transport within a
compact commercial district that was never designed to function as a primary regional transportation
corridor.
After six years, it is increasingly clear that the present configuration no longer reflects the
balanced and pedestrian-focused district originally promised to the community.
Transparency, Fiscal Responsibility, and Long-Term Planning
After six years of studies, temporary installations, and consultant activity, the City still has not
provided the public with a clear and fully realized vision for California Avenue’s permanent future.
Critical questions remain unanswered:
• What is the final, long-term vision for California Avenue?
• Is there a finalized conceptual plan or visual rendering of the completed district?
• If construction began tomorrow, what would the total project cost be?
• What specific infrastructure improvements have received final approval and funding?
• How much public funding has been spent on consultants versus direct district improvements?
• Which improvements are realistically expected to be completed by the end of 2026?
• What measurable performance benchmarks is the City using to evaluate success or failure?
• Has the City established objective targets related to sales tax performance, vacancy reduction,
public safety metrics, or business retention?
Businesses, residents, and taxpayers deserve far greater transparency regarding project scope, cost,
priorities, measurable outcomes, and long-term accountability.
This issue is particularly important given the City’s ongoing fiscal constraints and competing
infrastructure obligations. At a time when the City faces difficult budget decisions, long-term
expenditures on an unresolved and continuously evolving streetscape experiment deserve serious
scrutiny.
Businesses have also consistently requested a comprehensive and professionally designed
wayfinding program. Entrances from El Camino Real continue to lack clear directional signage
and visibility improvements that support customer access and district connectivity.
At the same time, California Avenue is entering a period of significant growth and increased density
with nearby redevelopment projects, including 490 California Avenue, 414 California Avenue, and the
Mollie Stone’s redevelopment site. These projects will reshape traffic patterns, parking demand,
pedestrian activity, and customer circulation throughout the district.
Given these upcoming changes, permanently locking the district into its current configuration
before broader redevelopment impacts are fully understood would be premature and
imprudent.
Parklets and Infrastructure Concerns
Outdoor dining has long been an important and successful component of California Avenue.
Importantly, outdoor dining existed successfully prior to the full street closure and can continue to
exist alongside limited vehicle circulation.
However, significant operational and infrastructure questions regarding permanent parklets remain
unresolved, including:
• How many businesses will actually commit to the proposed parklet program?
• How will the existing gas main along the south side of California Avenue affect parklet placement?
• Is there a finalized construction cost estimate for approved parklet designs?
• Will utility connections be permitted within parklets?
• What ADA compliance requirements will apply?
• What long-term maintenance obligations will businesses assume?
Some businesses may simply lack the financial capacity to construct and maintain permanent
parklets at the level necessary to preserve a cohesive and attractive district appearance.
Restaurant operators continue to express concerns regarding permit costs, annual fees, construction
expenses, utility requirements, and long-term maintenance liabilities.
Additional district-wide infrastructure concerns — including alley lighting, cleanliness,
pedestrian access, landscaping and public safety conditions — also remain insufficiently
addressed.
Economic Sustainability and Business Impacts
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, California Avenue functioned as a universally accessible and
economically active neighborhood business district.
Businesses chose California Avenue because of its visibility, accessibility, parking convenience, and
consistent customer activity. Today, merchants report ongoing concerns related to:
• declining visibility,
• reduced customer accessibility,
• operational challenges,
• declining convenience for customers, and
• increasing financial pressure.
The City should also provide transparent economic performance data evaluating the long-term
impacts of the current configuration, including:
• district sales tax trends before and after the closure,
• commercial vacancy rates,
• business turnover rates,
• pedestrian activity trends,
• retail occupancy patterns, and
• comparative economic performance relative to other Palo Alto business districts.
If the current configuration has produced measurable economic benefits, the City should
publicly demonstrate those outcomes using objective performance metrics. If economic
performance has stagnated or declined relative to comparable districts, those realities should
also be acknowledged as part of an honest public evaluation.
Some of the businesses on California Avenue now effectively operate at the end of a disconnected
corridor with reduced exposure to surrounding traffic flow.
At the same time, businesses continue to face rising operating costs, labor pressures, and long-term
lease obligations. The City should not underestimate the cumulative burden these conditions place on
small businesses already operating within an increasingly unfavorable economic environment.
California Avenue businesses remain an important source of local employment, neighborhood
services, economic activity, and sales tax revenue. Supporting a healthier and more
accessible commercial environment is therefore not simply a business concern — it is a
broader economic sustainability issue for the City itself.
A More Balanced Approach
A growing number of merchants support reopening California Avenue to limited vehicle access while
preserving the strongest aspects of the pedestrian improvements and outdoor dining program.
The goal should be balance:
• maintaining vibrancy,
• supporting pedestrian activity,
• improving public safety,
• preserving outdoor dining,
• restoring accessibility and visibility,
• improving circulation, and
• reducing conflicts between pedestrians and regional bicycle through-traffic.
The district must function successfully for the entire community — not only for a narrow
subset of users or business types.
The current configuration increasingly asks businesses, residents, and visitors to absorb
significant operational and accessibility burdens without clear evidence that the broader
public benefits justify those costs.
Alternative Circulation Proposal
A practical and lower-cost alternative to permanent full closure would be restoring California Avenue
to limited one-way, single-lane vehicle access between El Camino Real and Birch Street while
preserving outdoor dining and pedestrian-oriented improvements.
The existing two-way configuration between Birch Street and the Caltrain station could remain
unchanged.
Vehicle circulation could operate as a low-speed shared street environment with clearly designated
pedestrian priority areas, ADA parking, loading zones, and restricted delivery access where
appropriate.
An alternative option would be restoring the pre-2020 two-way circulation pattern while continuing to
allow outdoor dining parklets consistent with other commercial districts throughout Palo Alto.
A revised circulation plan could include:
• California Avenue operating as a limited one-way corridor between El Camino Real and Birch
Street;
• Sherman Avenue functioning as a one-way entrance toward Park Boulevard;
• Cambridge Avenue functioning as a one-way exit toward El Camino Real; and
• higher-volume regional bicycle through-traffic redirected toward the Cambridge Avenue bicycle
corridor.
This approach would:
• improve emergency access,
• restore business accessibility,
• improve circulation,
• reduce pedestrian conflicts,
• maintain bicycle connectivity,
• preserve outdoor dining, and
• create a safer, more balanced, and more functional district for all users.
Conclusion
California Avenue remains one of Palo Alto’s most important neighborhood commercial districts and
continues to hold substantial long-term potential.
However, after six years, the City must acknowledge that the current closure model has not
delivered the balanced, accessible, and economically sustainable district that was originally
envisioned and promised.
This proposal does not seek to eliminate outdoor dining or pedestrian-friendly improvements.
It seeks a more practical and accountable approach grounded in public safety, accessibility,
fiscal responsibility, and long-term economic sustainability.
At some point, good intentions must be measured against actual
results.
After six years, it is both reasonable and responsible to reevaluate the current configuration based on
measurable public safety, accessibility, economic, and fiscal realities.
Reopening California Avenue to limited vehicle access while preserving the most successful
pedestrian-oriented elements represents a practical, balanced, and achievable path forward for the
district and the broader Palo Alto community.
We appreciate you keeping and open mind.
Michael & Lara Ekwall
From:Lisa B
To:Council, City
Subject:Study Session on Flock Automated License Plate Recognition Technology (June 1, 2026)
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 10:58:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the City Council,
I am a Palo Alto resident asking the city to stop using hardware and software from Flock
Safety.
I have read and appreciate the Staff Report (Report #:2605-6381).
I respect the Palo Alto Police Department’s work protecting the property and safety of those
who live, work, shop, and visit here. But their responsibility is broader: they must operate
lawfully and legitimately, protecting not only property but our privacy and constitutional
rights. Flock systems—especially the tracking database that can be accessed or hacked—
not only put our rights and more at risk but erode trust in the PAPD; that erosion may even
limit their ability to combat crime. I don’t feel safer with this technology; I feel less safe.
I found no mention in the Staff Report of rigorous evidence on the cost-effectiveness of
linked ALPRs. Randomized studies have been conducted and did not demonstrate clear,
generalizable benefits. The report provides anecdotes of Flock assisting PAPD
investigations; while those successes are welcome, PAPD had successes before Flock. A
technology that helps in isolated incidents does not justify broad, ongoing collection of
movement data that threatens civil liberties.
The report also shows concrete risks. Flock data from Palo Alto was “unknowingly included”
in a “Nationwide Lookup” searchable dataset for a period of time, and worse misuse has
occurred in nearby communities—evidence that this technology endangers our rights.
While I recognize tradeoffs, my choice is clear. We were well protected by PAPD before
this technology. The risk of further problems with Flock is high, and the potential
consequences are enormous. When our privacy and constitutional rights are not protected,
we are less safe. Please cancel this contract.
Sincerely,
Lisa Bernstein
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
3405 Kenneth Drive
From:Jeff Levinsky
To:Council, City
Subject:Possible Flaws in Proposed Ordinance for SB 79 (Item #17 on June 1, 2026 Agenda)
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 9:42:45 PM
Dear City Council Members:
Here are some concerns about the proposed ordinance in Attachment C on Monday’s agenda
regarding SB 79 (Item #17):
1) Upzones Non SB-79 Projects: The proposed ordinance will add a new section 18.14.070
into our Municipal Code to offer 50% of the upzoning SB 79 allows, enabling us to forestall the
full SB 79 upzoning until 2032. However, the text of the proposed ordinance appears to offer
this upzoning to projects ineligible for SB 79.
It’s important to remember that SB 79 only upzones projects that contain at least five
residential units at a minimum density of at least 30 units per acre (California Government
Code section 65912.157(a)(1)), are no larger than 1,750 square feet on average (California
Government Code section 65912.157(a)(2)) are not hotels and the like (California Government
Code section 65912.156(g)), and meet other requirements as well.
Without these restrictions being clearly echoed or referenced in the proposed ordinance, it
appears we will upzone for all projects within the ½ mile radius. For example, the ordinance
appears to allow an R-1 parcel within ¼ mile of a train station to build a single residence at
1.75 FAR (that’s 8,750 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot), even though SB 79 itself would
not allow this and it is many times larger than we permit today.
Perhaps the proposed ordinance language should clearly state it only applies to housing
development projects as defined by SB 79.1
2) Unnecessary Daylight Plane Changes: The same proposed ordinance text alters our
daylight plane rules and eliminates them entirely in some cases. Yet SB 79 does not require
this. Rather, it only states that a “local government shall not enforce any other local
development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude achieving a
residential floor area ratio” allowed by the law.(California Government Code section
65912.157(a)(3)(C) et. al.).
In practice, this could mean that if applicants claim they cannot fit a building with the allowed
floor area into the daylight plane and the City verifies this is true, the City could have a waiver
process to accommodate relaxed daylight planes. This verification and waiver allowance could
be inserted into the proposed ordinance.
3) Unnecessary Setback Changes: By the same argument, there is no need to change the
minimum setbacks in the ordinance. The same verification and waiver process could be used
for projects unable to accommodate our current setback laws.
4) Unnecessary Maximum Density Elimination: The proposed ordinance eliminates our
maximum density standards, but SB 79 itself does not. Rather it establishes maximum
densities, as noted in the table on page 3 of the staff report. Why not just have our proposed
ordinance set the maximums to half of the densities allowed under SB 79?
---
Apart from the above comments on the proposed ordinance, please note that the discussion
in the staff report about AB 2097 says we cannot enforce minimum parking requirements
within ½ mile of our train stations. As I think the Council knows, AB 2097 does allow us to
enforce (and we do!) minimum requirements for both accessible parking and electric vehicle
charging stations. Our rules for this are at §18.52.040(a)(1)B.
Thank you,
Jeff Levinsky
1Technical Note: The proposed ordinance relies on California Government Code section
65912.161(b)(1)(A), which allows for the temporary exemption from SB 79 for “A site that has
been identified by the local jurisdiction which permits density and residential floor area ratio
at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Section
65912.157.” That referenced subdivision contains the requirements noted above that the
project have at least five units averaging no more than 1,750 square feet each, etc. It provides
no standards for projects that do not comply with those requirements. So unless there is
reason to think otherwise, our local ordinance can parallel the state law, namely allow SB 79-
eligible projects to have density and residential floor area of 50% of what SB 79 otherwise
allows and not upzone projects ineligible for SB 79.
From:Trina Lundstrom
To:Council, City
Subject:Flock Has Not Earned Our Trust
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 7:50:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I am a local neighbor who drives through Palo Alto frequently, and a former long-time
resident. I write to express my grave concern over the deployment of Flock
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in Palo Alto. We cannot trust this
company.
Flock has repeatedly failed to establish data security, has lied regarding third party
access, and has not taken responsibility for the abuse of Flock data by its own
employees.
A Flock ALPR contract means that Palo Alto turns over ownership and control of its
data to a private company which has demonstrated shocking arrogance and
negligence with regard to sensitive information. That is why, in 2026 alone, 37
different localities have canceled their Flock contracts, including our neighbors in
Mountain View and Los Altos Hills. I attended the Mountain View City Council
meeting where the Police Chief reported the many instances where Flock did not
meet its promises.
Please make Palo Alto number 38.
Respectfully,
Trina W. Lundstrom
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:J L
To:Council, City
Subject:June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 7:25:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Jing Liu
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sue Dinwiddie
To:Council, City
Subject:FLOCK
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 6:30:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members,
We have been Palo Alto residents since 1963. We are writing because we are most concerned about the use of
FLOCK surveillance systems.
There are a number or reasons for our concern:
1. An audit of FLOCK systems in Illinois last August revealed that FLOCK had initiated an unauthorized “pilot
program” that gave the U.S. Customs and Border Protection direct access to local license plate readers on Illinois
roads allowing for surveillance of drivers. We want to end lock-ups of innocent people (including some citizens)
not help implement more.
2. FLOCK has failed over and over to establish data security, has lied regarding third party access, and has not taken
any responsibility for the abuse of FLOCK data by its employees.
3. Use of FLOCK in our town makes people less likely to participate in Protests - a first amendment right in our
constitution. And an action we believe is more important now than ever before.
We could list many more reasons, and although a few buglers have been apprehended thanks to FLOCK, we believe
the negative aspects far out weigh the positive. Therefore, we strongly urge you to cover the cameras and cancel the
contract.
Respectfully,
Ken and Sue Dinwiddie
543 Jackson Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
From:Toni Moos
To:Council, City
Cc:Toni Moos
Subject:Flock Has Lost Our Trust
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 5:16:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am a Santa Clara resident who frequently spends time in Palo Alto — for work and
play. I am writing to voice my serious concerns about the use of Flock surveillance
systems.
The issue is whether Flock Safety has demonstrated that it is a trustworthy steward of sensitive
surveillance data belonging to Palo Alto residents and those who visit and drive past Palo Alto.
Nearby cities, including Mountain View and others, have already suspended or terminated their
Flock programs after discovering unauthorized data-sharing practices involving outside agencies.
Mountain View’s Police Chief publicly stated that he lost confidence in the vendor after learning
that local data had been made searchable by outside agencies in ways the city had not
authorized. (mountainview.gov)
If any other city vendor — financial, technology, healthcare, or otherwise — had been found
enabling unauthorized access to sensitive resident data, the City would not simply renew the
contract anyway.
Why does Flock get a pass?
Palo Alto residents are being asked to trust this company with extraordinarily sensitive information
about where we live, where we worship, where our children go to school, and how we move
through daily life.
That trust has not been earned.
Recent reporting revealed that Flock employees accessed live and recorded surveillance feeds
from locations including children’s swimming pools, gyms, playgrounds, schools, and a Jewish
community center as part of "product demonstrations for prospective customers".
Think about that carefully.
A private surveillance company used footage involving children at recreational facilities and
footage connected to a religious institution as sales material.
Even if technically permissible under their internal policies, it reflects profoundly poor judgment
and a disturbing corporate culture surrounding privacy and surveillance.
Most parents would be horrified to learn that footage connected to children’s activities could be
accessed and showcased by employees of a private vendor in this way.
This is exactly why trust matters.
At the same time, reports indicate the FBI is seeking nationwide, near real-time access to
commercial ALPR databases capable of tracking vehicles across the country. Flock is one of
those vendors. (Slashdot News)
Residents were told these systems would be limited local crime-fighting tools. Instead, they are
becoming part of broader surveillance networks accessible far beyond local police departments.
ALPR systems create searchable records of people’s movements, associations, and routines.
Residents should not have to wonder:
who can access their data,
whether outside agencies are searching it, which we know they are...
whether private employees are viewing sensitive footage,
or whether these systems will continue expanding beyond what the public originally
understood.
Public safety matters deeply. But so do civil liberties, transparency, and accountability.
Palo Alto should hold Flock to the same standards of honesty, compliance, and ethical conduct
that it would demand from any other contractor doing business with the City.
Sincerely,
Toni Moos
On behalf of Los Altos for Representation and Equity (LARE)
From:Brian Jones
To:Council, City
Subject:Comment for ALPR Study Session, 6/1/26: We are the Product
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 5:11:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Esteemed Council,
An analysis of publicly available data on the Flock Safety corporation makes it clear that their
business model has much in common with many recent tech firms: We are the product.
Flock has raised around $858M over 9 investment rounds since 2017. The final round, not
included in the previous link, was rumored to be $200M in April of 2026.
The inexorable math of venture funding puts a lot of pressure on Flock. The most recent round
values the company at around $8.2B. When investors put in so much money at such a high
valuation, they expect a significant return.
Can Flock's current business model support that valuation? Flock is believed to have more
than 80,000 cameras nationwide; some sources say closer to 90,000. If we assume 80,000, and
assume an annual revenue per camera of around $2500 each, that makes $200M in revenue.
That implies a price-to-sales ratio of 41x -- much higher than the typical software ratio of 5x
to 15x, and massively higher than the 0.5x to 2.5x expected for traditional companies,
Such a high ratio can only mean that the investors expect sales to increase by 3- to 8-fold. And
because they are a mature startup, already 9 years old, investors are going to expect that
increase quickly.
Another way to look at it is to consider their burn rate. The previous round, in March 2025,
was for $275M. The last round, 13 months later, was $200M. That implies that they burned
close to $275M in a year; let's be conservative and call it $250M. As we saw above, their
revenue appears to be around $200M. That means that their sales are only covering about half
their annual costs. They need to roughly double their revenue just to get to break-even, where
their costs equal their revenues.
All of this means that Flock needs to boost their revenues quickly. Reports suggest they
already have around a quarter of US police departments; this is probably overweighted with
large departments. So the potential revenue they can get by selling more ALPRs is limited to a
best case of around 2x.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
they need to find an additional $350M-$1.4B of revenue, probably in the next 18 months or
so.
How could they do that? The federal government is the most obvious customer large enough
to put a substantial dent in that amount. Flock's new Condor cameras are designed to track
people and are capable of performing facial recognition. While current contracts appear to
prevent sale of data, Flock will clearly be under intense pressure to find revenue somewhere.
In any case, it is clear that Flock's investors think it is a business like Facebook: it's not so
much the customer revenue that makes it valuable, as it is the value of the data collected. It's
the only way their investment makes sense.
Thank you for your consideration,
-Brian Jones
From:Austin Marshall
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Public Comment for June 1, 2026 City Council Meeting -- Item 2, Flock Study Session
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 4:13:54 PM
Attachments:Public Comment - Austin M - Palo Alto City Council - Item 2 Flock Study Session - 2026-05-31.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Clerk,
Please find attached my written public comment for the Palo Alto City Council’s regular
meeting on June 1, 2026.
This comment concerns Item 2, “Study Session on Flock Automated License Plate
Recognition Technology; CEQA status – categorically exempt.” regarding the City's ongoing
relationship with Flock Group Inc. DBA Flock Safety.
Please include the attached letter in the public record for the meeting and distribute it to the
Mayor and City Council for their consideration in connection with Item 2.
Thank you,
Austin M.
Safety Over Surveillance Palo Alto Coalition
Indivisible Palo Alto Plus
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Austin M.
May 31, 2026
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Public Comment on Regular City Council Meeting, June 1 , 2026 — Item 2 , “Study
Session on Flock Automated License Plate Recognition Technology; CEQA status –
categorically exempt.”
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I am writing to provide public comment on Item 2 on the June 1 , 2026 regular City Council
agenda, titled “Study Session on Flock Automated License Plate Recognition Technology;
CEQA status – categorically exempt.” The item relates to a staff report on the City’s
relationship with Flock Group Inc. DBA Flock Safety.
Respectfully, the City of Palo Alto will be on the wrong side of history if it continues to
maintain a relationship in any form with Flock Group Inc., and indeed the credibility and
integrity of the City is at stake. Flock Group Inc. exposed sensitive data on Palo Alto
residents and community members in the broader region to out -of-state and Federal
agencies in violation of California SB 34 and SB 54 1. Of particular salience is the recent
news reported by 404media 2 that the FBI is seeking a single vendor for a nationwide
network of license plate readers of its own. The path to such contract is paved by Palo Alto
tax dollars and the sensitive personal data of Palo Alto residents and passers by. A s every
contract and continued use of the company’s product is an endorsement. Every data point
collected by the company contributes to a proprietary nationwide dataset the company
1 Palo Alto license plate data searched by hundreds of out -of-state agencies
2 https://www.404media.co/the -fbi -wants-to-buy -nationwide-access-to-license-plate-readers/
uses to train machine learning models that serve as a competitive moat, and every dollar
spent with the company extends the runway of a wildly unprofitable venture-backed
startup desperate to provide a return for investors like Peter Thiel, who bolsters his wealth
built on mass surveillance by cozying up to the MAGA administration 3. Palo Alto’s
admirable policies and safeguards meant to protect its citizens and vulnerable
populations will be undermined if Flock wins the contract as a Federally controlled and
operated ALPR network will not be subject to the City’s ALPR policy or professional norm s.
With the recent news of incoming ICE facilities in Gilroy 4 and Dublin5, devastating ICE and
CBP mass enforcement activity in the region like we have seen in Minneapolis and other
cities will have been enabled by Flock.
For these reasons and more, I respectfully urge the City Council to uphold its values, reject
AI mass surveillance, and move to cancel the contract with Flock Group Inc.
Thank you for considering my public comment. I ask that this letter be included in the
public record for the June 1 , 2026 regular City Council meeting and associated with Item 2.
Sincerely,
Austin M .
Safety Over Surveillance Palo Alto Coalition
Indivisible Palo Alto Plus
3 https://www.theguardian.com/us -news/2018/oct/23/silicon -valley-tech-firms -making -money -trump-anti -
immigrant-agenda-report
4 https://sanjosespotlight.com/federal-detention-center -planned -in -south-county/
5 https://www.kqed.org/news/12082440/advocates-urge-demolition -of -fci-dublin-raising-worries-it-could -
become-ice-jail
From:Elliot Margolies
To:Council, City
Cc:Elliot Margolies
Subject:No to Flock Camera Surveillance
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 4:01:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I am a Palo Alto resident and I am sharing my concerns about Flock (license plate
reader) technology and surveillance usage in the hope that you will terminate any
contracts with that company and disallow current usage. This surveillance makes me
and many in our community feel less safe, and suppresses our rights of free speech.
The data Flock collects has been used by Homeland Security in their ongoing efforts
to deport immigrants. An investigation into unauthorized “side-door” access to Flock
data uncovered more than 4,000 lookups conducted through local law enforcement
portals at the behest of federal immigration officials.
We know that Flock ALPRs have been used multiple times in other places to monitor
dissent, including law enforcement agencies searching for key words: “no kings,”
“Hands Off,” and, simply, “protest.”
So far in 2026 alone, 37 different localities have canceled their Flock contracts,
including our neighbors in Mountain View and Los Altos Hills.
Respectfully,
Elliot Margolies
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:John VanHorne
To:Council, City
Subject:No Flock
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 4:01:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I am a Palo Alto resident, and I write to express my grave concern over the
deployment of Flock Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in Palo Alto. We
cannot trust this company.
I have read in more than one news article that Flock has repeatedly failed to establish
data security, has lied regarding third party access, and has not taken responsibility
for the abuse of Flock data by its own employees.
A Flock ALPR contract means that Palo Alto turns over ownership and control of its
data to a private company which has demonstrated shocking arrogance and
negligence with regard to sensitive information. That is why in 2026 alone, 37
different localities have canceled their Flock contracts, including our neighbors in
Mountain View and Los Altos Hills.
Please make Palo Alto number 38.
Respectfully,
John Van Horne
200 Fulton St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Meina Young
To:Council, City; Meina Young
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 3:01:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of the Business and Housing Network (BAHN) and the thousands of small property
owners we represent, I respectfully urge you to follow the staff recommendation to
indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further analysis or
preparation of a local rent stabilization policy. This position is also supported by the city’s
Policy and Services Committee.
As highlighted in the staff report, implementing these policies will require significant staffing
and millions of dollars, which will worsen the city’s budget deficit and housing costs in Palo
Alto.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to follow the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Meina Young
President, Business and Housing Network
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:David Waksberg
To:Council, City
Subject:Cancel Palo Alto"s Contract With Flock
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 2:49:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
May 29, 2026
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice-Mayor Stone, and Council Members Burt,
Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, and Reckdahl
Thank you for your leadership and service to Palo Alto.
I write to express my grave concern over the deployment of Flock
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in Palo Alto. After a
thorough review of the information available to us, I have concluded that
these surveillance cameras threaten, and indeed, cause, more harm to
Palo Altans and our neighbors than they help.
I wish to briefly review the harms and risks we have uncovered, as well
as the “false advertising” that exaggerates claims of benefit to Palo Alto.
Flock ALPRs are a part of a network; indeed, Flock promotes the
“network effect” as a selling point. But efforts by local jurisdictions to
limit the use of data from their communities have proven ineffective.
Thus, an assessment of Flock deployment in Palo Alto must include the
potential that our data will be used or misused by others. This also
means that as we review harms and potential harms, we are not
accusing or even suggesting malfeasance on the part of Palo Alto
personnel, but rather that we can become implicated in downstream
harms from Palo Alto data.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Discriminatory Profiling
Flock claims that ALPRs don’t discriminate. However, they have
emerged as a useful instrument for racial profiling. Last year, law
enforcement agencies performed hundreds of data searches across
thousands of Flock deployments using “Roma” and “Gypsy” as key
words.
In 2023, in Oak Park, IL, 84% of drivers pulled over in Flock-generated
traffic stops were Black. Black people comprise 19% of the population.
That represents an INCREASE from the 53% the year before Flock
ALPRs were deployed.
In 2025, Marimar Martinez, a Montessori school teaching assistant and
U.S. citizen, was shot five times by Border Patrol agents in Chicago.
DHS (mis)used Flock data to support their claim that Martinez was a
“domestic terrorist.” When analyzed, the data showed Martinez driving
to Target for school supplies.
In August 2020, Brittney Gilliam, an African-American woman, was
taking her 6-year-old daughter, her 12-year-old sister, and her 14- and
17-year-old nieces to get their nails done in Aurora, CO. Gilliam’s car
was swarmed by Aurora police officers with their guns drawn. Flock
ALPRs had confused Gilliam’s license plate with that of a stolen
motorcycle from another state. In addition to traumatizing Gilliam and
the four children in her car, the incident resulted in a $1.9 million lawsuit
settlement by the City of Aurora.
Suppression of Dissent and Politicized Abuse of Data
Historically, when surveillance methods have been deployed, they have
almost always ended up being used to monitor and suppress dissent.
Flock ALPRs have been used multiple times to monitor dissent,
including law enforcement agencies searching for key words: “no kings,”
“Hands Off,” and, simply, “protest.”
Other searches of Flock data corresponded with May Day rallies,
protests against Trump Administration DOGE cuts, and protests against
immigration policies.
In May, 2025, the Johnson County, Texas Sheriff’s office conducted a
nationwide search of 83,000 Flock ALPR’s using the key words: “had
an abortion, search for female.”
Flock ALPRs Used to Hunt Immigrants
An audit of Flock systems in Illinois last August revealed that Flock had
quietly initiated an unauthorized "pilot program" that gave the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) direct access to local license
plate readers on Illinois roads, allowing federal agents to surveil drivers.
An investigation into unauthorized “side-door” access to Flock data
uncovered more than 4,000 lookups conducted through local law
enforcement portals at the behest of federal immigration officials.
Because these were performed by other agencies on behalf of ICE,
local authorities were not aware their data was being used to search for
immigrants.
Leaky Data: No Security, No Privacy
Flock systems have been shown to be remarkably unsecure. After a
Dunwoody, GA resident filed records requests for ALPR data, he was
shocked to discover that Flock personnel were routinely logging in to
spy Dunwoody residents. Flock employees watched live feeds from the
local Jewish Community Center, including:
A children's swimming pool
A local playground and school property
Private interior fitness studios
In January of this year, more than 60 Flock cameras were discovered
broadcasting their feeds to the open, unencrypted Internet. Anyone with
a web browser could access these images.
Last year, a Congressional investigation discovered that the login
credentials for at least 35 distinct Flock law enforcement customer
accounts had been stolen by hackers using "infostealer" malware.
Active law enforcement credentials were found listed for sale on
Russian-language cybercrime forums. Any criminal or foreign spy who
purchased those credentials could use Flock's "National Lookup"
feature to track the real-time movements of vehicles across all 49 states
where Flock operates.
Do ALPRs Reduce Crime?
Flock bases its crime-reduction claim on anecdotes and cherry-picked
statistics. It may be too early in the life-cycle of this technology to really
know; thus far, the evidence is not encouraging:
Flock’s claims of crime reduction do not hold up under scrutiny. These
data come from localized, short-term case studies. When data
(including those from Palo Alto) are compared with similar areas that did
not deploy ALPRs, no significant change is observed. For example,
crime (both violent and property) sharply declined nationally from 2021-
2025. Neither Flock nor its customers have produced data that show
any effectiveness beyond the national trends. Instead, Flock takes credit
for macro trends on which ALPRs have no impact.
relationships and trust among law enforcement and residents. Surely,
wise use of technology plays a role. However, we question the
allocation of precious resources toward ALPR subscriptions rather than
investing in human resources in our community.
Flock Has Not Earned Our Trust
Flock has repeatedly failed to establish data security, has dissembled
regarding third party access, and has not taken any responsibility for the
abuse of Flock data by its own employees.
A Flock ALPR contract means that Palo Alto turns over ownership and
control of its data to a private company which has demonstrated
shocking arrogance and negligence with regard to sensitive
information.
That is why, in 2026 alone, 37 different localities have canceled their
Flock contracts, including our neighbors in Mountain View.
I urge you to make Palo Alto number 38.
Respectfully,
David Waksberg, Palo Alto resident
From:Amy Krystosik
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 17/sb79
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 2:36:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please cooperate with sb79
I am a mother with a young family.
Amy krystosik
309 Grant Ave
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Linda Frommer
To:Council, City
Subject:Flock Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in Palo Alto
Date:Sunday, May 31, 2026 1:19:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
As a long-time Palo Alto resident I am writing today to oppose the use of ALPR and
Flock surveillance in our city.
While I firmly support our police department and believe they have protected our
community well over the many years we have lived and raised our children here and
while public safety must remain a high priority, I don't believe using ALPRs/Flock is
the way to achieve it.
I have deep concerns about how these systems can be abused and breached in
unintended ways. Once the data is collected, it exists. Surveillance data in a national
database held by a private company under pressure to show results to venture
investors, poses a threat to our community's safety that far outweighs any benefit for
local law enforcement.
Flock ALPR cameras cross the line. I believe in our police department and their ability
to keep us safe without this problematic and unsafe database. Please do the right
thing. Cover the cameras; cancel the contract.
Respectfully,
Linda Frommer
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Melissa Dinwiddie
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Value Safety Over Surveillance and Cancel Flock
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 9:40:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable Council Members,
I’m the founder of Indivisible Palo Alto Plus, representing close to a thousand members. I
write to strongly oppose the use of ALPR and Flock surveillance in Palo Alto.
Because of the organizing work I do — peacefully promoting First Amendment and other
Constitutional rights — the current federal administration would like to label me a “domestic
terrorist.” Every week I drive to a meeting with our core leadership team, and the only route
there takes me past multiple Flock surveillance cameras.
These cameras do not make me feel safe. Quite the opposite.
I’ve heard people say, “Don’t worry — it only tracks your car, not you.” That is a legal
fiction. Courts have said so, and it doesn’t take much digging to see why.
First: Your license plate is registered to you, at your home address. The moment a camera
reads that plate, one DMV lookup later, that’s your name, your address, your movements.
Virginia’s Supreme Court rejected this exact “it’s not personal data” argument from a police
department and saw through it immediately.
Consider this analogy: would you accept a camera on every street recording everyone who
enters and exits every home — if the city said, “Don’t worry, we’re only tracking addresses,
not people”? A plate number tied to a registered owner is your address. The surveillance is
of you.
The “but it might be a different driver” defense doesn’t hold either. When this system logs
your car leaving your driveway at 7AM, at a medical office at 9AM, and at a political
meeting at 7PM — that's not a vehicle's pattern. That’s your life, permanently recorded and
searchable without a warrant.
This is unacceptable, especially in a time of federal overreach.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Second: despite the name, these cameras capture far more than license plates. Flock’s
own website leads with “Get real-time alerts and rich vehicle details.” Further down: “No
Plate? No Problem — turn images into actionable evidence, no plate required.” And while
Flock may claim its cameras don’t capture personal or biometric data, the existence of
search filters for race and gender tells a different story.
I have full confidence in our Palo Alto officers. But we have seen Flock cameras used to
track women seeking abortions, to assist ICE in tracking immigrants, and search terms like
“No Kings” and “protesters” appearing in query logs. The problem isn't just the people using
the cameras today — it’s the infrastructure we’re leaving in place for whoever comes next.
We need safety. We do not need more surveillance. Please do the right thing and cover the
cameras and cancel the Flock contract immediately.
Respectfully,
Melissa Dinwiddie
Founder & Chief Catalyst
Indivisible Palo Alto Plus (IPA+)
From:Kat Snyder
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment: Flock study session
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 8:46:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council,
The police report for this study session does not assuage any of my former concerns. The
success stories provided by police are “anecdata” and Flock often trains police to use these
as effective talking points when selling the technology and the company. In point of fact, we
don’t have useful data on how effective the ALPRs are for us. Crime (both violent and
property) sharply declined nationally from 2021-2025. Neither Flock nor its customers have
produced data that they are more effective than the national trends.
Additionally, this study session does not address the PA Weekly’s investigation into Flock,
which showed that “Between July 2023 and October 2024, tens of thousands of searches
were performed by outside agencies and California law enforcement” on our data. It does
not explain why local officials falsely swore up and down that no one could search our data.
This report frustratingly moves the goalposts from the original “no outside searches
happened” to “no results were returned from the outside searches.”
The redacted audit logs that have just been posted to the Flock portal do not include the
reasons for the search, so the public has no way to assess whether people are making
inappropriate searches. Disturbingly, a 2021 Biden era DHS policy mandates that ALPR
operators leave no trace of ICE in audit logs except for the logs available only to ICE. In
other words, Flock can allow DHS to search through Palo Alto’s data without any evidence
of that being left in our logs.
The fact still remains that, once our data is moved off-premises (into the cloud), we can
make no privacy guarantees. Our Surveillance Use Policy is both unenforced on our part,
and unenforceable even though we know Flock is a bad faith actor. It is sheer luck that we
did not share specific data with out-of-state agencies.
Flock has got high market share because it’s good at getting police officers to do its
marketing for it, not because it is a good product. The company has sloppy security that
has been hacked multiple times. It also is dishonest about how it uses the data it collects.
Mountain View’s Chief Canfield reported that Flock employees assured him there was no
way for any department not on the transparency list to access their data, and during training
never showed them the nationwide or statewide access switches. He considered that
breach alone sufficient to recommend cancellation of Flock.
We should follow his example and cancel our Flock contract, or at least cover up the
cameras in the meantime.
Take care,
~Kat Snyder
Palo Alto Resident
From:Justin G
To:Council, City
Subject:Flock Has Not Earned Our Trust
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 6:40:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I frequently drive through Palo Alto, so I would like to express my concern over the
deployment of Flock Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in Palo Alto. We
cannot trust this company.
Flock has repeatedly failed to establish data security, has lied regarding third party
access, and has not taken responsibility for the abuse of Flock data by its own
employees.
A Flock ALPR contract means that Palo Alto turns over ownership and control of its
data to a private company which has demonstrated shocking arrogance and
negligence with regard to sensitive information. That is why, in 2026 alone, 37
different localities have canceled their Flock contracts, including our neighbors in
Mountain View and Los Altos Hills.
Please make Palo Alto number 38.
Best,
Justin
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Henry
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 5:29:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you
to support the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer both the
expansion of the rental registry and any further analysis or
preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing
these policies. The city would need to hire additional staff, spend
millions of dollars to administer new programs, and increase the cost
of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs
are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have
on housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar
budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act,
is working as intended and that further local intervention is not
necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also supported the
staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the
staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Henry Liang
From:Nancy Devine
To:Council, City
Subject:Flock Surveillance Cameras Have Broken Our Trust
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 4:46:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I am a Palo Alto native who attended all Palo Alto Public schools and currently shop,
take yoga classes, and use the library in Palo Alto. I write to express my serious
objection over the deployment of Flock Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in
Palo Alto. We cannot trust this company.
My parents moved here from Chicago to start a family in a safe, family community.
My father was a lawyer, a city council member, a vice mayor, and also a Judge of the
Superior Court who served the people of California for more than 20 years. My father
told me that while on the city council he had to work hard and stay late on the
planning commission meetings to keep Palo Alto the safe environment for families he
and others worked to create. I covered city council meetings as an intern at the
former Palo Alto Times.
I now live in Mountain View, and in Mountain View, Flock illegally allowed access to
surveillance data to ICE for over one year, failing the data security, and BREAKING
the contract. The City of Mountain View could not agree to renew Flock’s license
because of these lies and contract breaches. This is a company that cannot be
trusted. In Mountain View, or Palo Alto, or any city.
Flock has repeatedly failed to establish data security, has lied regarding third party
access, and has not taken responsibility for the abuse of Flock data by its own
employees.
Surveillance of the city is not a good way to promote community safety, and is one
more tactic of an authoritarian system that cannot be trusted to resist using the
surveillance against residents and visitors. We want safety yes, but there are other
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
ways, other technologies even, to ensure safety. And I feel certain that residents who
feel VERY strongly about this will consider it a reason to vote for or against city
council members in upcoming elections.
A Flock ALPR contract would mean that Palo Alto turns over ownership and control of
its data to a private company which has demonstrated shocking arrogance and
negligence with regard to sensitive information. That is why, in 2026 alone, 37
different localities have canceled their Flock contracts, including my city of Mountain
View and Los Altos Hills.
Please make Palo Alto number 38.
Respectfully,
Nancy Devine
Mountain View
From:lindabaker
To:Council, City
Subject:Flock camera systems are not safe or secure
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 4:19:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Honorable City Council members,
I live near Palo Alto. I drive through town regularly and do much of my regular
shopping in Palo Alto. I have serious concerns about Flock's AI-enabled Automated
License Plate Readers in Palo Alto.
The recent example in Dunwoody, GA is appalling and should be disqualifying by
itself. A local resident filed records requests for ALPR data and discovered that Flock
employees watched live feeds from the local Jewish Community Center, including a
children's swimming pool, a children's gymnastics room where young athletes
practice, a local playground and school property, and a private interior fitness studio.
Flock also used live children's gymnastics feeds for sales demonstrations! This is not
a breach - this is the system being used on purpose by a company with no ethics.
In December 2025, more than 60 Flock cameras were discovered broadcasting their
feeds to the open, unencrypted Internet. Anyone with a web browser could access
these images.
Last year, a Congressional investigation discovered that the login credentials for at
least 35 distinct Flock law enforcement customer accounts had been stolen by
hackers using "infostealer" malware. Active law enforcement credentials were found
listed for sale on Russian-language cybercrime forums. Any criminal or foreign spy
who purchased those credentials could use Flock's "National Lookup" feature to track
the real-time movements of vehicles across all 49 states where Flock operates.
I can opt out of social media, change my privacy settings on my phone, opt-out of
cookies by California law, or ask a website to delete my data. None of this is true with
Flock. This is warrantless mass surveillance without accountability or the ability to
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
truly audit, no true oversight or guardrails, and no way to assess or repair the damage
when something goes wrong.
For our safety, please cover the cameras and cancel the contract.
Respectfully,
Linda Baker
From:Nicole Poon
To:Council, City
Subject:Concerns over surveillance cameras
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 3:14:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I am a Los Altos resident who go to Palo Alto from time to time. I write to oppose the use of
ALPR and Flock surveillance in Palo Alto.
When I own a cell phone, I can decide to leave it at home, or I can turn it off. I can decide
which operating system to run, which apps to install, and I have fine-grained control over
privacy settings. I can clear my data. When I visit a website, I am presented with a choice to
accept cookies, and as a California resident, I have a right to know what data a company has
on me and request that it be deleted. I can decide which social media companies to participate
with and which not to.
If police want my location data from my cell phone carrier, they need a signed warrant from a
judge. I have no such protections with Flock. I can’t stay home. And I can’t revoke consent
that I have never granted.
Surveillance is not safety. Please cover the cameras and cancel the contract.
Respectfully,
Nicole P.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Emily Berman
To:Council, City
Subject:Please no flock
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:57:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi! I’m a resident of Palo Alto, and given Flock’s history of (at times, illegally relative to their
contract terms!) sharing Bay Area info with ICE and others I am SO uncomfortable with the
presence of their cameras here. Please let’s not give them our data willingly.
Thanks,
Emily Berman
673 Georgia Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Millie Chethik
To:Council, City
Cc:mchethik@gmail.com
Subject:No Flock in Palo Alto
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:56:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
> Dear City Council members,
>
> I am a Palo Alto resident and I write to express my grave concern over the deployment of Flock Automated
License Plate Readers in Palo Alto. We cannot trust this company.
>
> Flock has repeatedly failed to establish data security, and has lied regarding third party access, and has not taken
responsibility for the abuse of Flock data by its own employees.
>
> A Flock ALPR contract means that Palo Alto turns over ownership and control of its data to a private company
which has demonstrated shocking arrogance and negligence with regard to sensitive information. That is why, in
2026 alone, 37 different localities have canceled their Flock contracts, including our neighbors in Mountain View
and Los Altos hills.
>
> Please make Palo Alto number 38.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Millie Chethik
From:jk
To:Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Subject:Flock ALPR cameras violate my privacy
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:41:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am a Palo Alto resident of 40+ years writing to oppose the use of ALPR and Flock
surveillance in Palo Alto.
Unlike my owning a cell phone where I have a individual control of my information, I
have no control over the information Flock collects. With a phone I can decide to
leave it at home, turn it off, decide which operating system to run, which apps to
install, and I have fine-grained control over privacy settings. I can clear my data,
choose to accept or deny cookies, and as a California resident, I have a right to know
what data a company has on me and request that it be deleted. Flock surveillance is
imposed upon me without my consent and with zero control.
If police want my location data from my cell phone carrier, they need a signed warrant
from a judge. I have no such protections with Flock. I can’t stay home. And I can’t
revoke consent that I have never granted. This is an unlawful invasion of privacy.
Surveillance is not safety. Please consider your constituents' safety above all and
cover the cameras and cancel the contract.
Respectfully,
Jim Kozelka
jk
Treasurer, Peace Ambassador, “utility fielder”
Indivisible Palo Alto Plus (IPA+)
"Be truthful, gentle, and fearless"
- Gandhi
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Elizabeth Greenfield
To:Council, City
Subject:Item #17 at 6/1 City Council Mtg: SB 79 implementation comment
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:35:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the Palo Alto City Council:
I support permitting 5-7 story buildings within 0.5 miles of both of the Caltrain stations. Those
are the places where we should densify in the City. Many people of my demographic (I'm 29)
would love to be in an apartment next to Caltrain, and would be less likely to need to own a
car. This is great for the city, the world (greenhouse gas emissions), and the people who get to
live there.
5-7 stories are not like the 12 and 14 story towers that have recently been approved on the
Mollie Stones site. 5-7 stories is low enough that it feels like a community, but significantly
more dense than most of the buildings now. Think of downtown Sunnyvale.
I live at 3476 Waverley St, where I have lived the majority of my life. I have a masters in
urban planning.
Best,
Elizabeth Greenfield
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Ben Junsy
To:Council, City
Subject:Flock Cameras
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:27:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I write to oppose the use of ALPR and Flock surveillance in Palo Alto. I initially
thought that it might be used conservatively, and called into action if needed to follow
up on a crime. Clearly this is not the case. I am increasingly concerned that
information from flock cameras may be used for inappropriate or malevolent
purposes, and with little or no respect for an individual’s right to privacy.
Please cover the cameras and cancel the contract. I am a Palo Alto resident.
Thank you,
Annie Hempstead
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Judy Levy
To:Council, City
Subject:ELIMINATE Flock cameras in Palo Alto
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:05:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I am in Palo Alto multiple times per week as I attend exercise classes and shop in
Palo Alto. I'm writing because I have serious concerns about Flock Automated
License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in Palo Alto. I've outlined my concerns below.
***Please join other local communities (eg Mountain View) and eliminate this
incredibly unsecure, invasive government overreach into our privacy. ***I don't want
to feel that I'm being spied upon/my constitutional rights infringed each time I visit
your city***.
Thank you. Judy Levy, Mountain View
Flock systems have been shown to be remarkably unsecure. After a Dunwoody,
GA resident filed records requests for ALPR data, he was shocked to discover that
Flock personnel were routinely logging in to spy Dunwoody residents. Flock
employees watched live feeds from the local Jewish Community Center, including a
children's swimming pool, a children's gymnastics room where young athletes
practice, a local playground and school property, and a private interior fitness studio.
In December 2025, more than 60 Flock cameras were discovered broadcasting their
feeds to the open, unencrypted Internet. Anyone with a web browser could access
these images.
Last year, a Congressional investigation discovered that the login credentials for at
least 35 distinct Flock law enforcement customer accounts had been stolen by
hackers using "infostealer" malware. Active law enforcement credentials were found
listed for sale on Russian-language cybercrime forums. Any criminal or foreign spy
who purchased those credentials could use Flock's "National Lookup" feature to track
the real-time movements of vehicles across all 49 states where Flock operates.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Please cover the cameras and cancel the contract.
Respectfully,
Judy Levy.
From:Phyllis Klein
To:Council, City
Subject:I am opposed to FLOCK in Palo Alto
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:02:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members,
I am a Palo Alto resident I write to oppose the use of ALPR and Flock surveillance in
Palo Alto.
When I own a cell phone, I can decide to leave it at home, or I can turn it off. I can
decide which operating system to run, which apps to install, and I have fine-grained
control over privacy settings. I can clear my data. When I visit a website, I am
presented with a choice to accept cookies, and as a California resident, I have a right
to know what data a company has on me and request that it be deleted.
If police want my location data from my cell phone carrier, they need a signed warrant
from a judge. I have no such protections with Flock. I can’t stay home. And I can’t
revoke consent that I have never granted.
In addition, I believe that our great police department can solve crimes without putting
all residents and people who drive in Palo Alto into a national surveillance system that
can be easily used to profile everyone from Black and Brown people to protesters that
the government wants to silence. Although the company says it guarantees safety
within the database, there have been breeches in security as with a quiet pilot
program in Illinois that allowed ICE to access license plate information last August.
After a Georgia resident filed records requests for ALPR data, he was shocked to
discover that Flock personnel were routinely logging in to spy Dunwoody Georgia
residents. Flock employees watched live feeds from the local Jewish Community
Center, including a children's swimming pool, a children's gymnastics room where
young athletes practice, a local playground and school property, and a private interior
fitness studio. In December 2025, more than 60 Flock cameras were discovered
broadcasting their feeds to the open, unencrypted Internet. Anyone with a web
browser could access these images. Please also consider that the financial backers
of FLOCK aretwo extremely wealthy men who have publicly endorsed
authoritarianism on a national scale.
Surveillance is not safety. For all the reasons I have listed above:
Please cover the cameras and cancel the contract.
Respectfully,
Phyllis Klein
From:Business TAB + CCS
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgent matter for Monday June 1st meeting. Item #17
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 12:24:01 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,
I urge the Council to adopt a more nuanced approach regarding SB79, rather than applying
broad-stroke legislation across Palo Alto. It is essential to examine how this bill impacts
specific areas differently, particularly by distinguishing between residential neighborhoods
adjacent to single-family homes and the urban core.
I believe that redevelopment in the core of Palo Alto, specifically in areas like California
Avenue, is vital for its recovery and long-term success. Further development will bring new
life to the area, supporting all local businesses and providing Palo Alto with a prestigious,
positive destination. Encouraging growth in this urban center will foster community
participation and create a necessary foundation for the rest of the city to thrive.This growth is
critical for existing businesses and essential for bringing new business to the area.
While I recognize that less urban areas should maintain lower density, allowing for strategic
growth in our more urbanized zones will serve as a strong foundation for the future of
California Avenue and the entire Palo Alto community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Dritan Azemi of Casual Chic Salon
Sent from Dritan (Dri) Azemi’s iPhone
For further inquiry call or text:
Business Line # (1) 650.272.6833 (Text/Call)
Business Line # (2) 650.382.2263 (Text/Call)
Non Business Personal Line 650.656.5223 (Text/Call)
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Gina Dalma
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Saturday, May 30, 2026 11:15:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Gina Dalma and I live in Midtown. I support efforts to promote more homes and
protect tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into
effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan
area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. I
want to live in a diverse and inclusive community. We need to embrace state law in the places
near transit where we want more homes.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a
growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make
more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Please support more homes for all in our community,
Gina
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Julia M. Adams; barr@stanford.edu; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Riley Cooke; Council,
City; Deborah S Rose M.D.; Lauing, Ed; fairhousing@civilrights.usdoj.gov; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki;
nathanial.r.hill@hud.gov; osh@hhs.sccgov.org; Hartley, Craig; Hoyt, George; info@scchousingauthority.org;
julie.lythcott@paloalto.gov; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Christiansen, Leif; City Mgr; Pigman, Sophie;
r9intakeinbox11; Viji Sundaram; vwan@abodeservices.org; Vivian Wan; Zachary.0821@CalCivilRights
Subject:Request for Immediate Hold on Eviction, Grievance Denial, ADA/VAWA Issues, Transfer Failure, and Preservation
of Evidence
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 7:20:11 PM
Attachments:IMG_0268.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Ms. Adams,
I am requesting an immediate hold on any eviction, lockout, relocation enforcement, alteration
of Unit 205, demolition, wall opening, remediation activity, contractor activity, or other
actions that could affect my housing or alter evidence related to the conditions I have reported.
This request is based on multiple unresolved issues that remain pending and that should be
addressed before any further action is taken.
1. ADA ACCOMMODATION FAILURES
I have repeatedly requested disability accommodations and submitted extensive supporting
medical documentation.
My requests included accommodations related to mold exposure, chemical sensitivities,
written communication, written explanations for decisions, advance notice of inspections and
entries, relocation concerns, and the ability to respond in writing due to disability-related
limitations.
To date, these accommodation requests have not been fully resolved through a completed
interactive process.
I have repeatedly requested written determinations and clarification regarding my
accommodation requests and have not received a complete resolution.
Proceeding with eviction while disability accommodation issues remain unresolved raises
significant concerns.
2. GRIEVANCE PROCESS FAILURES
I am also requesting a hold because the grievance process has not been completed in a fair or
meaningful manner.
Over many months, I submitted grievances concerning mold, water intrusion, habitability
concerns, disability accommodations, retaliation, unequal treatment, relocation issues,
environmental concerns, resident safety, and management practices.
Those grievances were never answered.
Not answered late.
Not answered incompletely.
Not answered at all.
Today I was informed that my request for a grievance hearing was denied.
I do not understand how a grievance hearing can be denied when the underlying grievances
themselves were never investigated, answered, or resolved.
To my knowledge, I have never received a written grievance determination addressing the
substance of the issues I raised.
The grievance process exists to provide residents an opportunity to be heard before adverse
action is taken.
Instead, I am facing eviction after months of unanswered grievances, unanswered requests for
records, unanswered accommodation requests, and repeated reports to management and City
officials.
The fact that Abode denied my grievance hearing request while grievances remain unanswered
is itself a compelling reason that a hold should be granted.
3. VAWA, APPROVED TRANSFER, AND TRANSFER FAILURE
I also have an approved VAWA transfer request.
Despite that approval, I was repeatedly told there were no available properties to transfer me
to.
That explanation raises serious concerns.
My lease is with Housing for Independent People. Through records requests, I have learned
that Opportunity Center Associates, L.P. owns the building. My research further indicates
overlapping involvement among Opportunity Center Associates, Abode, Community Working
If these entities are connected through ownership, management, operations, or control, then it
is reasonable to ask what housing options were actually reviewed before I was told there was
nowhere to transfer.
I was not requesting a preference transfer.
I was requesting a safety-based VAWA transfer and disability-related accommodation.
Before any eviction proceeds, I am requesting written disclosure identifying:
• What properties were reviewed;
• What portfolio was searched;
• Whether Housing for Independent People units were reviewed;
• Whether Abode-affiliated properties were reviewed;
• Whether Opportunity Center Associates-affiliated properties were reviewed;
• Whether Community Working Group-related properties were reviewed;
• Whether family-side units were reviewed;
• Why Unit 322 was not offered to me;
• Why other residents were offered alternative units while I was not;
• Who made those decisions;
• All communications relating to my approved VAWA transfer.
Proceeding with eviction after approving a VAWA transfer but failing to implement it raises
serious concerns regarding whether the transfer process was ever meaningfully completed.
4. RETALIATION CONCERNS
For months I have reported mold concerns, water intrusion, habitability issues, environmental
concerns, health impacts, disability-related concerns, and management practices to Abode,
City officials, Code Enforcement, and outside agencies.
I repeatedly warned management and City officials about conditions that I believed were
unsafe.
I repeatedly requested intervention.
I repeatedly requested records.
I repeatedly requested accommodations.
I repeatedly filed grievances.
I repeatedly documented health impacts.
I repeatedly asked for assistance.
I am concerned that adverse housing action is now being taken against the resident who
repeatedly reported conditions rather than addressing the underlying issues that were reported.
5. PENDING CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES
I currently have a pending civil rights matter involving disability and housing-related
concerns.
Proceeding with eviction while those issues remain unresolved raises serious concerns.
6. CITY NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND CITY OVERSIGHT
The City ultimately issued a Notice of Violation identifying mold, water intrusion, habitability
issues, and unpermitted work affecting occupied residential units.
For months before that Notice of Violation was issued, I repeatedly informed both Abode and
City officials regarding concerns involving mold, water intrusion, environmental conditions,
disability accommodations, resident safety, and health impacts.
Many of those concerns remain unresolved today.
The City was also responsible for oversight of this publicly approved and publicly supported
project.
The City’s approvals required ongoing accountability, reporting, complaint tracking,
operational monitoring, and resident protections.
I repeatedly requested records regarding environmental monitoring, air quality, water safety,
mold, remediation activities, permits, inspections, and oversight responsibilities.
Those questions remain largely unanswered.
7. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
My most urgent concern is that I will be evicted before the full scope of conditions inside Unit
205 can be independently documented and preserved.
If I am removed first and contractors later open walls, perform remediation, alter building
materials, investigate moisture pathways, or otherwise change conditions inside the unit,
Abode will control the evidence.
That is unacceptable.
I have no reason to trust that evidence will be adequately preserved if I am removed first and
the unit is then placed entirely under Abode’s control.
This concern is not theoretical.
I previously raised concerns regarding remediation activity occurring in Room 215 and
specifically notified you when I observed what appeared to be remediation equipment present
in the room.
I copied City officials on those concerns.
I was informed that remediation was not occurring.
I then provided photographic evidence showing remediation equipment visible in the window.
After providing that evidence, I did not receive clarification regarding:
• What work was occurring;
• Who authorized the work;
• Whether permits existed;
• Whether testing occurred;
• Whether the City inspected the work;
• Whether residents were protected;
• Whether documentation was created.
That experience has significantly undermined my confidence that evidence relating to Unit
205 will be properly preserved if I am removed before independent documentation occurs.
REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE HOLD
Accordingly, I request that Abode immediately suspend:
• Any eviction proceedings;
• Any lockout activity;
• Any forced relocation activity;
• Any alteration of Unit 205;
• Any demolition or wall opening;
• Any remediation activity that could alter evidence;
• Any contractor activity affecting the condition of Unit 205;
• Any action that would interfere with preservation of evidence or documentation of existing
conditions.
I further request written confirmation that:
• Evidence relating to Unit 205 will be preserved;
• No destructive investigation will occur without notice;
• No remediation or alteration will occur without notice;
• No evidence will be discarded, altered, concealed, or destroyed;
• Abode will identify all contractors, permits, testing records, inspection records, and scope of
work before any activity occurs.
Given the unresolved ADA issues, unanswered grievances, approved but unimplemented
VAWA transfer, pending civil rights concerns, City Notice of Violation, City oversight issues,
and significant evidence preservation concerns, I believe a hold is both reasonable and
necessary.
Please provide a written response confirming whether Abode will agree to this request.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Wolf
CC:
Mayor Vicki Veenker
Vice Mayor Greer Stone
Palo Alto City Council
City Manager
City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement
California Civil Rights Department
And others
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Subject:LAFCO Agenda Packet Now Available - 6/3/26 Meeting
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 6:06:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The agenda packet for the June 3, 2026 LAFCO Meeting is now available on the LAFCO website:
https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2026-06-03-131500.
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
Some Recipients have never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Ackerman, Jennifer
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City
Subject:Council Consent Agenda Questions for June 1, 2026
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 5:46:52 PM
Attachments:Council Consent Questions item 4.docx
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the staff
responses to questions from Council for tonight’s Council Meeting:
Jennifer Ackerman
Executive Assistant to The City Manager
(650) 329-2105 | jennifer.ackerman@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to questions from Vice
Mayor Greer Stone regarding the Monday, June 1st Council Meeting consent agenda item.
Item 4:
Title: Recommendation from Policy and Services Committee to City Council to Indefinitely Defer Both
Expansion of the Rental Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer Units and Further
Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance. CEQA: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3).
Council Question 1
I have a question regarding item #2 on the 6/15 CC agenda regarding the P&S recommendation to
indefinitely defer rent stabilization. In reflection on the P&S discussion, I realized that we never
discussed whether there should be a threshold of the average percentage increase in rent that might
trigger a reexamination of the decision to continue pursuing a potential rent stabilization ordinance. For
example, if in the future the rent registry shows an average increase of 8%, would we reexamine the
need to pass a rent stabilization ordinance then? Is this an issue that P&S could address later this year or
would this issue be precluded if the Council approves this item on consent? If the latter, can a consent
item be pulled and sent back to committee or does a pulled item need to first be heard by the full
Council?
Staff response:
No, this action does not preclude the City Council from initiating reconsideration in the future. Staff will
annually prepare an Information Report for the City Council and public to review self-reported rent
increase data. Councilmembers could make this a referral to Policy & Services during the annual work
plan process, submit a colleague's memo, or raise through any other future opportunity.
From:cindyn11
To:Council, City
Subject:No Flock surveillance in our community
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 5:44:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I've lived in Palo Alto for forty years, raising kids, supporting schools and businesses,
and voting in local elections.
Hearing about Flock cameras and what Flock has allowed in terms of mis-using data
across the country has given me great pause, and I wonder what the Palo Alto police
and city council are THINKING.
This dangerous contract sets up government, rogue law enforcement, and corrupt
corporations to track every day civilians, and when needed, suppress our free
expression and participate as designed by the US Constitution.
This and any other tracking system that violates our fourth amendment rights needs
to be stopped, now. No occasional benefit of solving the occasional crime is worth
giving up our freedoms, no matter how good that feels in the short term.
Cynthia Nelson
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Garrett Clark
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 5:13:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Garrett Clark and I live in Downtown North. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect
tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where
the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the
Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should
embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as
opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having
more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Garrett Clark
From:Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward
To:Council, City
Cc:Scottoneil; Chao Lam
Subject:Public Comment Agenda Item 17: Implementing SB 79 Effectively and Legally
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 5:07:37 PM
Attachments:2026.5.29 Public Comment on SB-79 Implementation.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon Mayor Veenker and the Palo Alto City Council,
Please see the attached comment with Palo Alto Forward's perspective regarding the
implementation of SB 79. The letter includes legal language to amend Attachment C in the
staff report such that it would better promote housing in the places where the City has already
planned for it.
We hope the city will leverage the law strategically to address our housing needs, promote
homes near transit, and build a more inclusive community.
Thank you for your consideration. I'd love to see you all at our Cal Ave Housing Walking
Tour this Sunday,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
(650) 485-0127
May 29, 2026
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Agenda Item 17, Implementation of SB 79
To the Palo Alto City Council,
Palo Alto Forward works to expand housing and transportation choices in our community. In
furthering our mission, we want the city to implement SB 79 in a way that maximizes housing
options near transportation in our community, promoting housing affordability, walkability, and
transit access.
Though Palo Alto Forward would support the city implementing SB 79 as written, we do not
object to the City Council moving forward with legislation that “right-sizes” application of SB 79
in Palo Alto, focusing housing opportunity in the places we want it to go and limiting the impact
on historic sites.
To promote housing in the places that make the most sense, the City should allow SB 79
to go into effect in select areas where plans for denser homes are already under way.
Long run, these are the places where Palo Alto will likely plan for denser housing in its local
alternative plans. Short run, SB 79 provides a tool to further transit-oriented homes in places
that Palo Alto has already approved or been planning for higher-density zoning such as the
Downtown Housing Plan, the University Station Transit Center, El Camino Real, the San
Antonio Road Area Plan, and the Cal Ave corridor.
In the appendix below, we suggest specific language modifying Attachment C, an urgency
ordinance that would zone all sites within the half mile of Palo Alto’s Caltrain stations to 50% of
the SB 79 standards. Our suggested language would allow SB 79 to go into full effect in specific
areas that align with the City’s preexisting housing plans and housing element site inventory.
Allowing SB 79 to take full effect in the listed areas will further the city’s preexisting housing
goals and its application for the Pro-Housing Designation, reflecting the improving reputation of
Palo Alto as a community that embraces new homes.
Furthermore, by allowing SB 79 to go into effect in areas near transit where the city already
planned for new homes, Palo Alto would strengthen the findings of its urgency
ordinance—which are otherwise unconvincing pretenses. Both state and local law only allow
urgency ordinances upon findings that the ordinance is necessary to “preserve the public health,
safety, or welfare.” Housing near transit—especially when required by the state’s own
legislature, much of it in locations for which the City already planned for additional homes—is
not a threat to public health, safety, or welfare; rather, such homes bring broad community
benefits, including customers to local stores, riders to public transit, employees near jobs.
Overall, we do not understand the logic behind a legally dubious urgency ordinance for a 50%
reduction in SB 79 densities as opposed to allowing the law to go into effect and then pursuing a
full local alternative plan. Other cities nearby, including Menlo Park and Mountain View, have
opted to exempt historic sites but otherwise allow SB 79 to go into effect. If Menlo Park can
embrace SB 79, then so can our community.
However, Palo Alto Forward sees our proposed language as a compromise solution. Not only
will it show the State that the City is serious about facilitating new housing development in areas
of the City already identified for higher density housing, but it will also bolster urgency findings
for limiting SB 79, such as "unanticipated strain” on public infrastructure, when that suspension
is being applied only in areas of Palo Alto that weren’t already viewed as suitable for
higher-density housing by the city’s own planning efforts.
We hope the City will begin working on a local alternative plan that maximizes the benefits of SB
79 as soon as possible. In the interim, we urge the City to support SB 79 in the locations where
it already anticipates growth, balancing housing needs with other city priorities.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
[SUGGESTED EDITS TO DRAFT ORDINANCE IN RED TEXT BELOW]
Ordinance No. _____
Interim, Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Excluding from
the Effect of Government Code Section 65912.157 Those Properties Designated
as Local Historic Resources Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49
and Amending the Zoning Map (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.08.040)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 10, 2025, the Governor of the State of California signed Senate Bill 79 (SB 79),
which adopted California Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162 and
requires local agencies, effective July 1, 2026, to permit high density residential development in
designated transit-oriented development (TOD) zones within one-half mile of certain TOD stops.
B. There are three TOD zones in Palo Alto, centered on the Palo Alto, California Avenue, and
San Antonio Road Caltrain stations.
C. California Government Code section 65912.157 sets forth residential development standards
that apply to housing development projects within TOD zones, such as a height of 75 feet,
density of 120 dwelling units per acre, and floor area ratio of 3.5 for projects within one-quarter
mile of a Caltrain station.
D. Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (b), permits local agencies to exclude
certain properties from compliance with Government Code section 65912.157 by adopting an
ordinance implementing SB 79, including:
a. A site that permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of
the standards specified under Government Code section 65912.157.
b. Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register.
E. The City Council desire to adopt an ordinance pursuant to Government Code section
65912.161, excluding sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic
Resources Inventory pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49.
F. SB 79 charges the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
with promulgating regulations relating to the bill by July 1, 2026. SB 79 further chargers
metropolitan planning organizations with creating maps of TOD stops and zones in accordance
with HCD guidance.
G. HCD issued a set of “advisory clarifications on definitions for Metropolitan Planning
Organizations” on March 23, 2026. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the
metropolitan planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, released preliminary draft
maps on April 8, 2026.
H. Due to the short time between the issuance of guidance from HCD and MTC and the July 1,
2026 effective date of Government Code section 65912.157, there is insufficient time for the
amendments to the zoning map proposed in this ordinance to be presented for review by the
Planning and Transportation Commission. Accordingly, pursuant to PAMC section 18.80.090,
the City Council adopts this ordinance as a temporary measure to preserve the public health,
safety, or welfare.
I. The City Council finds and declares that the implementation of Government Code section
65912.157 on July 1, 2026 will create significant incentive for redevelopment of properties in the
TOD zones that the City has not already identified as being suitable locations for
higher-density development, allow at densities that would create unanticipated strain on
public infrastructure and cause additional points of conflict between vehicles and bicycles or
pedestrians in the effected areas. The rezoning and exclusion actions set forth in this ordinance
would reduce these impacts for a temporary period, during which the City may plan for
increased demands on infrastructure and transportation resources. Accordingly, this ordinance
is necessary as an emergency measure pursuant to PAMC section 2.04.270 to preserve the
public peace, health, or safety.
J. Additionally, the City Council finds and declares that the impacts described above present a
current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that would be realized by
approval of projects under the standards set forth in Government Code section 65912.157.
There are no pending project applications that would be impacted by this ordinance and this
ordinance would not have the effect of denying any approvals needed for the development of
projects containing multifamily housing. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, this
ordinance is necessary as an interim, urgency measure pursuant to Government Code section
65858 to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
SECTION 2. Section 18.14.070 (Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining District) of
Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby added to read:
18.14.070 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Combining District
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the TOD Combining District is to implement Senate Bill 79 (2025),
California Government Code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162. For purposes of this
section, definitions in California Government Code section 65912.156 shall apply.
(b) Applicability. The TOD Combining District shall apply to all sites within a TOD zone, except:
(i) sites designated as local historic resources on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory as
of January 1, 2025; (ii) sites located in the Downtown Housing Plan Assessment Area; (iii)
sites with frontages on California Avenue between El Camino Real and the Caltrain
right-of-way; (iv) the Palo Alto Transit Center (95 University Avenue); (v) sites with
frontages on El Camino Real; and (vi) sites with frontages on Alma Street; (vii) sites with
frontages on Cambridge Avenue, New Mayfield Avenue, Jacaranda Lane, and Sherman
Avenue; and (viii) sites with frontages on San Antonio Road.
[NO COMMENTS ON REMAINDER OF DRAFT ORDINANCE]
From:CaraSilver@proton.me
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment re June 1 City Council Study Session on Flock
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:33:38 PM
Attachments:2026-05-29 Silver Letter to Palo Alto Council re Flock.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Please see attached comment letter.
Thanks much,
Cara Silver
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
1
May 24, 2026
Re: Public Comment - Agenda Item No. 5, May 26, 2026 Flock License Plate
Reader Contract Renewal
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I am the co-lead of the Immigrant Rights Action Team of Indivisible Palo Alto Plus and a
member of the newly formed coalition Safety Over Surveillance (SOS) Palo Alto. I am also a
municipal attorney, and in this capacity have reviewed thousands of Service Agreements.
For the past year, I have been monitoring actions taken by Santa Clara County cities with
respect to Flock contracts. The collection of detailed data, held by a private company with
documented privacy abuses and close ties to the federal government, creates a mass
surveillance state in a time of egregious federal overreach. As residents and local
governments learn more about this technology, alarm bells are going off across the
country. This is profoundly unsafe. And it is about much more than license plates.
As discussed in more detail below, I have grave concerns about the existing terms and
conditions contained in Flock standard contracts as well as the new terms and conditions
that Flock is rolling out.
The Legal Framework
There are several constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding automated license
plate readers (ALPR’s). Both the federal and state constitutions provide a right to privacy
from government surveillance. The application of this principle to Flock technology is the
subject of many recently filed lawsuits. For example, a recent class action was filed against
the City of San Jose under a privacy theory. The suit argues that Flock’s ALPR network
violates privacy protections: “No officer ever has to establish probable cause, swear to the
facts in a warrant application, or await the approval of a judge. . . .Officers can run searches
based on a hunch, idle curiosity, or even personal animus. Around the country, officers
have been caught using [automated license-plating reader] databases to stalk their ex-
partners, monitor protestors and even track down a woman who reportedly had an
abortion.”1 A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Flock in San Francisco Superior
1 https://www.kqed.org/news/12080233/san-jose-residents-sue-city-saying-flock-safety-cameras-allow-
mass-surveillance.
2
Court.2 And a class action lawsuit was filed against Home Depot alleging that it had turned
over surveillance data to law enforcement agencies without a warrant.3
California also has two statutory schemes preventing the sharing of ALPR-collected data.
First, SB 54, known as California’s sanctuary state law, prohibits all cities from sharing data
with ICE and Border Patrol. Second, SB 34, the ALPR privacy law, prohibits sharing data
with federal and out of state agencies. Importantly, SB 34 contains a $2,500 penalty for
data sharing violations as well as a private cause of action.
A recently leaked legal memorandum from the City of Berkeley’s Attorney’s Office about
Flock Safety warned that Flock technology might be incapable of complying with city, state
and federal unauthorized data sharing restrictions even with the addition of strenuous
contractual safeguards.4
Flock’s Collection of Data Via a Nationwide Database is Inherently Risky
ALPR technology is a powerful surveillance system that can be used to invade the privacy
of individuals and violate the rights of entire communities, particularly vulnerable
residents. ALPR systems collect and store location information about drivers that can be
built into a database that, in turn, reveals sensitive details about where individuals work,
live, associate, worship, seek medical care, and travel.5 As with other surveillance
technologies, police often disproportionately deploy license plate readers in communities
experiencing poverty and historically overpoliced communities of color, regardless of crime
rates.6 ALPR information has also been shared with immigration authorities such as
2 https://www.classlawgroup.com/flock-license-plate-cameras-face-class-action-lawsuit-by-gibbs-mura-a-
law-group.
3 https://www.dailyjournal.com/article/390841-home-depot-sued-over-license-plate-reader-use-in-parking-
lots
4 https://www.dailycal.org/news/city/leaked-city-attorney-memo-shows-berkeley-risks-potential-million-
dollar-lawsuits-if-council-renews-flock/article_2a5efc3e-4d33-4b2f-8683-0e1395642fe8.html.
5See, e.g., Automatic License Plate Readers, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION(Mar.29,
2023)https://www.eff.org/sls/tech/automated-license-plate-readers; You Are Being Tracked: How License
Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans’ Movements, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (July
2013) https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/you-are-being-tracked.
6 Dave Maass and Jeremy Gillula, What You Can Learn from Oakland’s Raw ALPR Data, ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION(Jan. 21, 2015)https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/what-we-learned-oakland-
raw-alpr-data; Barton Gellman and Sam Adler-Bell, The Disparate Impact of Surveillance, THE CENTURY
FOUNDATION (Dec. 21, 2017)https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2017/12/03151009/the-
disparate-impact-of-surveillance.pdf; see also, e.g., Kaveh Waddell, How License-Plate Readers Have
Helped Police and Lenders Target the Poor, THE ATLANTIC(Apr. 22, 2016)
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/how-license-plate-readers-have-helped-police-
3
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection
(“CBP”) to identify, detain, and deport immigrant community members.7
The possibility of human workarounds at every level undermines any technical safeguards
Flock may claim. Search term blocking relies on officers accurately labeling search
intent—a system easily defeated by entering vague reasons like "investigation" or incorrect
justifications, made either intentionally or not. And, of course, words like "investigation" or
"missing person" can mean virtually anything, offering no value to meaningful oversight of
how and for what the system is being used. The recently employed drop down menu
options make it even easier for users to select a search term that would “pass” a network
audit. The same can be said for case number requirements, which depend on manual
entry. This can easily be circumvented by reusing legitimate case numbers for unauthorized
searches. Audit logs only track inputs, not contextual legitimacy. Flock's proposed AI-
driven audit alerts, something that may be able to flag suspicious activity after searches
(and harm) have already occurred, relies on local agencies to self-monitor misuse—
despite their demonstrated inability to do so.8
Even the most restrictive department policy may not be enough. Austin,
Texas, had implemented one of the most restrictive ALPR programs in the country, and the
program still failed: the city's own audit revealed systematic compliance failures that
rendered its guardrails meaningless.9
Palo Alto’s Data Was Accessed by Federal and State Agencies
Like other police departments in the bay area, the Palo Alto Police Department has
repeatedly stated that none of the City’s data has been accessed by federal agencies. The
Council has also represented that its internal policies guard against such unauthorized
access. Unfortunately, both representations have been proven wrong as recently reported
and-lenders-target-the-poor/479436/ (summarizing data indicating that Oakland Police Department
deployed ALPRs “disproportionately often in low-income areas and in neighborhoods with high
concentrations of African-American and Latino residents”).
7 Saira Hussain and Adam Schwartz, EFF Files New Lawsuit Against California Sheriff for Sharing ALPR Data
with ICE and CBP, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Oct. 19, 2021)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/10/eff-files-new-lawsuit-against-california-sheriff-sharing-alpr-data-ice-
and-cbp
8 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-
plate-readers-safe.
9 Id.
4
by Palo Alto Online.10 From late 2023 to October 2024, Flock secretly enabled the
“nationwide search” feature for all local police departments. While the City claims there
was no data released to out-of-state agencies, there are several problems with this
assertion:
• First, the fact that a particular license plate was not found in Palo Alto, is in fact an
important data point in an investigation. It shows that the particular car was not in
Palo Alto and thus the outside agency may focus elsewhere on its search.
• The staff report states it must consult with Flock to determine whether data was
disclosed to outside agencies. Indeed, it is Flock that prepares the monthly network
audits showing which agencies searched the City’s system and for what purpose.
However, the Department of Homeland Security’s privacy policy prohibits ALPR
vendors from releasing ICE queries to its customers: “The LPR vendor is not
permitted to share ICE query information with third parties without ICE’s express
permission, including other customers, business parties, or any other individual or
entity.”11 Thus, Flock is not legally permitted to disclose whether ICE searched Palo
Alto’s records during this time period.
• The City also claims that no immigration-related searches were performed.
However, the network audits released pursuant to the PRA request do not show the
reason for the search. Audits from other agencies who have responded to similar
PRA requests clearly show that some of the searches performed during this period
included “ICE” and “immigration”. Either Palo Alto mysteriously was not included in
the “nationwide lookup” searches that other local agencies received or an adequate
verification was not performed to determine the reasons for the search.
The Flock Contract Has Troubling Terms and Conditions
Flock encourages all of its city customers to sign a template contract that on its face
appears to protect city data, but in reality contains large loopholes. Further, Flock is rolling
out new terms and conditions that continue to cut inroads into data privacy. As Flock’s
success depends on a connected network of data, this is not surprising.
For example, Paragraph 4.1 of the Flock contract permits Flock to release City data in
response to a judicial subpoena:
10 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/police/2026/04/22/palo-alto-license-plate-data-searched-by-hundreds-
of-out-of-state-agencies/
11 https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia30b-ice-
acquisitionanduseoflprdatafromacommercialservice-june2021_0.pdf
5
For clarity, Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law
enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties, if legally
required to do so or if Flock has a good faith belief that such access, use,
preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with a legal
process or request; (b) enforce this Agreement, including investigation of any
potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or
technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Flock, its users, a
third party, or the public as required or permitted by law, including respond to an
emergency situation. Flock may store deleted Footage in order to comply with
certain legal obligations, but such retained Footage will not be retrievable without a
valid court order.
Since the contract permits Flock to make the decision on whether the data release is
“legally required” without requiring the City’s permission to disclose such data, we must
rely on Flock’s “good will’ in interpreting and applying this contract provision. However,
Flock’s reputation for illegal releases belies this ability.12
And Flock continues to update its standard contract terms to carve out more rights to Flock
and less rights over data to municipalities.13
Flock Has Every Incentive to Expand Its System and Use Palo Alto’ Data to Assist in
Federal Searches and Incursions into Our Privacy.
Flock’s business model depends on ultimately creating an integrated database which can
then be marketed to the federal government. On May 14, 2026, the FBI released an RFP for
a nationwide RFP that can provide ALPRs for tracking subjects on roads and highways over
the US and its territories. The requirements include:
• The bidder must provide law enforcement and/or commercial license plate reader
data provided through the Contractor’s existing platform. The system must cover 75
percent of locations.
• The system must offer the ability to search for license plate information and other
descriptive data such as vehicle description information, time/date criteria, and
geo-location criteria.
• The system must provide search result notifications. The Contractor system must
have the ability to access and/or query cameras across the United States and its
12 https://www.aclu-co.org/press-releases/coalition-of-civil-rights-and-advocacy-organizations-deeply-
concerned-about-use-of-flock-cameras-for-ice-surveillance/.
13 https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flocks-terms-and-conditions
6
territories. The Contractor system must be capable of providing this data in near
real time.
• Contractors have to be able to share/create maps depicting camera coverage (i.e.
heat mapping), and provide the FBI the source of information (i.e. red-light cameras,
repossession vendors, speed cameras, etc.).
• The FBI must be able to search the database for partial or full plate numbers, plate
states, addresses, locations where a plate was scanned, and vehicle makes and
models.14
It is widely reported that Flock will be bidding on this contract. This bid’s success will rely
on the most robust and comprehensive network Flock can demonstrate.
For all these reasons, I urge the Council to take the following actions:
1. Cancel the existing contract with Flock and not exercise any of the renewal
provisions;
2. If the Council is not inclined to immediately cancel the Flock contract,
a. Direct the Police Auditor to meet with representatives from Safety over
Surveillance Palo Alto to ensure their concerns are addressed in the audit
and
b. Direct the City Attorney to review the Berkeley City Attorney legal
memorandum and opine whether the concerns addressed in the Berkeley
memorandum apply to the Palo Alto contract.
Sincerely,
Cara Silver
Safety over Surveillance Palo Alto
Indivisible of Palo Alto
14 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/fbi-seeks-us-wide-access-to-license-plate-cameras-wants-
data-in-near-real-time/
From:Rachel Miller
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:24:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Rachel Miller and I live in Downtown North. I support efforts to promote more homes.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where
the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the
Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should
embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Rachel Miller
Sent from my iPhone
From:govbria@icloud.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Safety over surveillance!
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:18:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear PA City Council,
The success stories provided by police are “anecdata” and Flock often trains police to use
these as effective talking points when selling the technology and the company. In point of
fact, we don’t have useful data on how effective the ALPRs are for us. Crime (both violent
and property) sharply declined nationally from 2021-2025. Neither Flock nor its customers
have produced data that they are more effective than the national trends.
Additionally, this study session does not address the PA Weekly’s investigation into Flock,
which showed that “Between July 2023 and October 2024, tens of thousands of searches
were performed by outside agencies and California law enforcement” on our data. It does
not explain why local officials falsely swore up and down that no one could search our data.
This report frustratingly moves the goalposts from the original “no outside searches
happened” to “no results were returned from the outside searches.”
The redacted audit logs that have just been posted to the Flock portal do not include the
reasons for the search, so the public has no way to assess whether people are making
inappropriate searches. Disturbingly, a 2021 Biden era DHS policy mandates that ALPR
operators leave no trace of ICE in audit logs except for the logs available only to ICE. In
other words, Flock can allow DHS to search through Palo Alto’s data without any evidence
of that being left in our logs.
The fact still remains that, once our data is moved off-premises (into the cloud), we can
make no privacy guarantees. Our Surveillance Use Policy is both unenforced on our part,
and unenforceable even though we know Flock is a bad faith actor. It is sheer luck that we
did not share specific data with out-of-state agencies.
Flock has got high market share because it’s good at getting police officers to do its
marketing for it, not because it is a good product. The company has sloppy security that
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Mountain View’s Chief Canfield reported that Flock employees assured him there was no
way for any department not on the transparency list to access their data, and during training
never showed them the nationwide or statewide access switches. He considered that
breach alone sufficient to recommend cancellation of Flock.
We should follow his example and cancel our Flock contract, or at least cover up the
cameras in the meantime.
ALPRs threaten our safety AND our democracy. Please vote to do the right thing. Cancel
our Flock contract.
Thank you.
Best,
Brinda Govindan
From:Jean Pressey
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:12:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is Jean Pressey and I live in downtown. I very strongly support efforts to promote
more homes.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into
effect in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan
area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas.
Palo Alto should embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
Near transit is the logical place. We should be spending city dollars on more effective ways to
implement this law, rather than fighting it.
We often hear arguments that new housing creates more traffic, but that is not true. The
number of cars that drive into Palo Alto every day for jobs exceeds the available housing by a
vast number. If we have more housing, it will mean fewer cars and parking issues,
especially if it is near transit.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, as opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a
growing share of the rental market, and having more data about them can help the city make
more informed decisions about tenant protections. In fact, what we need is an effort to make
more homes available for rent by legislating against "ghost" homes that have been
purchased purely for investment without any intent to live in them. I'm sure we all can name a
few; I personally could point out three. This is an outrage and harmful for neighborhoods.
Thank you for supporting homes for all in our community,
Jean Pressey
850 Webster
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Scott.Gesundheit@hklaw.com
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Ryan.Leaderman@hklaw.com; Ah Yun, Mahealani; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Lauing,
Ed; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; HAUPortal@hcd.ca.gov; housing@doj.ca.gov;
Chris.Jensen@cityofpaloalto.org; Arellano, Caio; megan.kirkeby@hcd.ca.gov
Subject:Item 17 — Opposition to Draft Ordinance Establishing 50 Percent SB 79 Development Standards (Attachment C);
June 1, 2026 City Council Hearing
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 2:27:43 PM
Attachments:05.29.26 Letter to Palo Alto City Council on 414 California Avenue.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Please find the attached letter on Item 17, in advance of Monday’s City Council hearing.
Thanks for your attention.
Best,
Scott
Scott Gesundheit | Holland & Knight
Associate
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105
Phone +1.415.743.6917 | Fax +1.415.743.6910
scott.gesundheit@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("Holland & Knight"), and is intended solely for the use of
the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of Holland & Knight, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a
specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Holland & Knight in reply that you expect it to hold in
confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of Holland & Knight, you
should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be
available to protect confidentiality.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 | T +1.415.743.6900 | F +1.415.743.6910
Algiers | Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Bogotá | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga
Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale | Houston | Jacksonville | London | Los Angeles | Mexico City
Miami | Monterrey | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland | Richmond
May 29, 2026
via email (city.council@paloalto.gov)
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
Re: Item 17 — Opposition to Draft Ordinance Establishing 50 Percent SB 79
Development Standards (Attachment C); June 1, 2026 City Council Hearing
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents 414 California Ave., LLC (the "Applicant"), the owner of real property
located at 414 California Avenue, Palo Alto, California (APN 124-32-040) (the "Project
Site"). The Project Site, which currently contains a shuttered bank building and a surface parking
lot, is presently planned for a mixed-use, transit-oriented housing project, consisting of multi-
family residential units, subterranean parking and ground-floor retail/restaurant uses (the
“Project”). The Project Site is located less than one-quarter mile from the pedestrian entrance to
the California Avenue Caltrain station. As such, the Project Site qualifies as a Tier 1 transit-
oriented development ("TOD") site under Senate Bill 79 ("SB 79"), codified at Government
Code Sections 65912.155 through 65912.162, which takes effect on July 1, 2026.
The Applicant urges the City Council not to adopt the draft ordinance presented as
Attachment C to the June 1, 2026 Staff Report (the "Draft Ordinance"). The Draft Ordinance
does not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for a local exclusion under Government Code Section
65912.161(b)(1) because it fails to provide at least 50 percent of the density capacity mandated
by SB 79. If the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD")
determines that the Draft Ordinance is not in substantial compliance with state law, the local
exclusion will fall away and the full, unmodified SB 79 development standards will apply to all
eligible parcels in Palo Alto. This creates precisely the regulatory gap that the City's own staff
has warned against, and it is an outcome that does not serve the City or its residents.
May 29, 2026
Page 2
#539284517_v1
1. Statutory Framework
Government Code Section 65912.161(b) provides a narrow mechanism by which a local
government may temporarily exclude TOD-eligible parcels from the default SB 79 standards.
The statute permits exclusion only where local zoning allows "density and residential floor area
ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under Government Code section
65912.157."
As a reminder, local governments must submit draft ordinances to HCD at least 14 days before
adoption and again within 60 days after enactment, and HCD has 90 days (extendable to 120) to
review for substantial compliance. If HCD finds an ordinance non-compliant and the local
government fails to cure, HCD may notify the Attorney General, and the local exclusion ceases
to operate.
There is no evidence in the record that the City complied with the legal requirement to submit
the Draft Ordinance to HCD at least 14 days prior to the adoption. Government Code Section
65912.160(d)(1)(A). In approving a defective ordinance, the City may reasonably find itself in a
similar position to 2023-2024, when the City’s local zoning was superseded by state law via the
Builder’s Remedy. The Draft Ordinance, as proposed, plainly falls to allow at least “50 percent
of the standards specified” in SB 79, and it therefore exposes the City to exactly that risk.
2. The Draft Ordinance Runs Counter to the City’s Goals
Beyond its legal deficiencies, the Draft Ordinance fails on its own terms. The City has articulated
core objectives for its SB 79 implementation: “coordinated design and placemaking,” and the
protection of single-family neighborhoods from “contextually inconsistent” redevelopment. The
Draft Ordinance undermines each of them.
Coordinated design and placemaking. Staff has expressly warned that under a poorly
calibrated SB 79 implementation, "new development may also lack coordinated design or
placemaking, with larger parcels likely proving more attractive for redevelopment than smaller
ones." That warning unfortunately describes the Draft Ordinance itself.
By imposing a uniform placeholder density across the entire zone, regardless of whether a parcel
is more appropriate for redevelopment or less so, the ordinance applies a one-size-fits-all
envelope that ignores the very contextual differences staff has flagged as critical. That outcome
is doubly damaging on California Avenue, where placemaking depends on a specific economic
chain reaction. Real placemaking on the commercial corridor requires three elements working
together: active ground-floor uses, residential density above to support those uses and animate
the street, and pedestrian-oriented design. Without any one of these three legs, the corridor fails.
The Project's proposed ground-floor program, two fine-dining restaurants, a bakery, and
additional neighborhood-serving retail totaling approximately 10,000 square feet, is precisely the
type of placemaking use local zoning was designed to encourage. Ground-floor retail of this
May 29, 2026
Page 3
#539284517_v1
quality, however, is a loss leader for developers. Construction costs for restaurant-grade ground
floors — grease interceptors, hood ventilation, tenant improvement allowances, higher floor-to-
floor heights — substantially exceed those for residential floors, and retail rents in the California
Avenue district do not generate returns sufficient to justify such costs standing alone. The only
way to deliver and sustain high-quality ground-floor retail on California Avenue is to cross-
subsidize it with a sufficient mass of residential square footage above.
The residential program must be large enough to generate returns that offset the below-market
economics of the ground floor. This is the fundamental economics of urban mixed-use
development, and the City's own staff has acknowledged the challenge. The Draft Ordinance
strips that residential density out, leaving the City with two-thirds of a placemaking framework
and no economic engine to drive it. Put differently, when FAR is constrained, every square foot
must work as hard as possible economically. Developers will inevitably devote the limited
envelope to residential uses that generate market returns and will cut the ground-floor retail and
restaurant components, which do not. The Draft Ordinance therefore guarantees, as a matter of
basic development economics, the very loss of ground-floor activation the City is trying to
prevent. The result will be a residential-only project with no ground floor retail at all, which,
while providing necessary housing during a crisis, will deprive California Avenue of the
pedestrian vibrancy and engaging street life that all Palo Alto residents, and visitors from
elsewhere, appreciate so much about the corridor.
Protection of single-family neighborhoods from contextually inconsistent
redevelopment. Staff has also recognized that the California Avenue SB 79 area "contains a
substantial proportion of single-family zoned property, including larger 10,000 square foot lots in
the Old Palo Alto neighborhood that would not require land consolidation to support apartment
development," and that "new construction built to SB 79 standards may appear contextually
inconsistent with the historic development pattern northeast of the Caltrain station." If the City's
genuine concern is the contextual fit of new development in those single-family neighborhoods,
the policy response should be to concentrate density on the commercial spine, where it belongs,
where it advances placemaking, and where it does not disturb single-family blocks, and not to
suppress density uniformly across the entire TOD zone.
It bears emphasis that concentrating density on the California Avenue commercial corridor
carries none of the displacement or neighborhood-character concerns that often accompany infill
development elsewhere. The Project Site itself contains no housing, only a shuttered bank
building and a surface parking lot, so redevelopment will displace no existing residents. The
same is true of most of the California Avenue commercial spine, which is dominated by retail,
office, and surface parking uses rather than residential ones. Directing SB 79 density to this
corridor therefore adds housing without subtracting any, and does so on parcels where
redevelopment is most economically and physically appropriate. By contrast, the surrounding
single-family neighborhoods remain undisturbed when density is channeled to the commercial
corridor where it belongs. Concentrating capacity on California Avenue is thus the policy choice
May 29, 2026
Page 4
#539284517_v1
that simultaneously protects single-family neighborhoods and delivers the housing SB 79
requires.
Meanwhile, the Draft Ordinance does the opposite. A well-designed implementing ordinance
would instead concentrate the highest density on the commercial corridors closest to transit,
where SB 79's full standards are most appropriate and most easily absorbed, allowing the City to
use the 50-percent-capacity tools surgically to protect genuinely sensitive single-family contexts.
3. Consequences of Adopting the Draft Ordinance
If HCD determines that the Draft Ordinance is not in substantial compliance with Government
Code Section 65912.161(b)(1), because it does not genuinely deliver 50 percent of SB 79
density, the local exclusion falls away. The City would then face a period during which the full,
unmodified SB 79 development standards apply to every eligible parcel in the City. This is
precisely the "regulatory gap" the City's own staff warned against.
Once those full SB 79 standards take effect, qualifying projects would be protected by the
Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"). A project that complies with SB 79 and applicable
objective standards may only be denied upon a finding of a "specific adverse impact" on public
health or safety that cannot be mitigated in any other way — an extraordinarily high bar. AB 130
further streamlines review by creating a CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing and
imposing a 30-day approval deadline after completion of objective standards review. The
combined effect of SB 79 and AB 130 is that, if the Draft Ordinance is invalidated by HCD,
developers on TOD sites could submit and vest their projects under the full SB 79 standards
before the City has any opportunity to adopt a replacement ordinance.
Ironically, the City will yield a better project at 414 California Avenue without the Draft
Ordinance. Under the Draft Ordinance, the Applicant is forced to choose residential viability
over ground-floor activation, and the corridor loses the very retail and placemaking that the City
says it wants to preserve. Under the full SB 79 standards, the Applicant can deliver what
California Avenue actually needs: meaningful housing in a transit-rich location, paired with the
active, pedestrian-oriented ground-floor uses that have always defined the corridor's character. A
workable residential envelope is the precondition for everything else the City says it values here,
and the Draft Ordinance takes that precondition away.
The Applicant respectfully urges the Council to reject the Draft Ordinance in its current form, to
confirm that SB 79 development standards remain available as the base density for State Density
Bonus Law incentives, concessions, and waivers on all sites, and to direct staff to return with an
implementation framework that genuinely delivers the 50 percent of SB 79 density and floor area
capacity that Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1) requires.
The Applicant reserves all rights, including the right to submit additional objections in advance
of any urgency ordinance hearing, to seek administrative review by HCD's Housing
Accountability Unit, and to pursue any and all remedies available under the HAA, SB 79, the
May 29, 2026
Page 5
#539284517_v1
State Density Bonus Law, and applicable provisions of the Government Code if the Draft
Ordinance is adopted as presented.
The Applicant is committed to delivering high-quality, transit-oriented, mixed-use housing on
California Avenue, housing that includes meaningful ground-floor retail, complies with
affordability requirements, and advances the City's own planning objectives. The Council is
urged to ensure that its SB 79 implementing ordinance does not inadvertently prevent that
outcome.
Sincerely yours,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Scott L. Gesundheit
cc: California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing
Accountability Unit; Office of the Attorney General of California; City Attorney, City of
Palo Alto
From:Bill Fitch
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 1:51:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Bill Fitch and I live in Evergreen Park. I support efforts to promote more homes and protect tenants.
re SB 79 implementation, please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect in places where
the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the
Transit Center, San Antonio, and other areas. If Palo Alto wants to be considered a pro-housing city, we should
embrace state law in the places near transit where we want more homes.
I spoke at city council some years back, in favor of then SB50. We should build housing near existing transit,
especially Caltrain.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental registry next year, as
opposed to deferring it indefinitely. Single family homes make up a growing share of the rental market, and having
more data about them can help the city make more informed decisions about tenant protections.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Bill Fitch
From:CaraSilver@proton.me
To:Council, City
Cc:David Waksberg
Subject:Comment Letter for June 1 Flock Study Session
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 1:44:10 PM
Attachments:Letter to PACC re June 1 meeting re Flock.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Please see attached comment letter for the June 1 study session on Flock cameras.
Thank you,
Cara Silver
Safety over Surveillance Palo Alto
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
1
May 29, 2026
Re: June 1 City Council Agenda Item No. 2
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice-Mayor Stone, and Council Members Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-
Haims, and Reckdahl:
Thank you for your leadership and service to Palo Alto.
We write to express our grave concern over the deployment of Flock Automated License
Plate Readers (ALPRs) in Palo Alto. After a thorough review of the information available to
us, we have concluded that these surveillance cameras threaten, and indeed, cause, more
harm to Palo Altans and our neighbors than they help.
We wish to briefly review the harms and risks we have uncovered, as well as the “false
advertising” that exaggerates claims of benefit to Palo Alto.
Flock ALPRs are a part of a network; indeed, Flock promotes the “network effect” as a
selling point. But, as we will point out, efforts by local jurisdictions to limit the use of data
from their communities have proven ineffective. Thus, an assessment of Flock deployment
in Palo Alto must include the potential that our data will be used or misused by others. This
also means that as we review harms and potential harms, we are not accusing or even
suggesting malfeasance on the part of Palo Alto personnel, but rather tthat we can become
implicated in downstream harms from Palo Alto data.
Discriminatory Profiling
Flock claims that ALPRs don’t discriminate. However, they have emerged as a useful
instrument for racial profiling. Last year, law enforcement agencies performed hundreds of
data searches across thousands of Flock deployments using “Roma” and “Gypsy” as key
words.
2
In 2023, in Oak Park, IL, 84% of drivers pulled over in Flock-generated traffic stops were
Black. Black people comprise 19% of the population. That represents an INCREASE from
the 53% the year before Flock ALPRs were deployed.
In 2025, Marimar Martinez, a Montessori school teaching assistant and U.S. citizen, was
shot five times by Border Patrol agents in Chicago. DHS (mis)used Flock data to support
their claim that Martinez was a “domestic terrorist.” When analyzed, the data showed
Martinez driving to Target for school supplies.
In August 2020, Brittney Gilliam, an African-American woman, was taking her 6-year-old
daughter, her 12-year-old sister, and her 14- and 17-year-old nieces to get their nails done
in Aurora, CO. Gilliam’s car was swarmed by Aurora police officers with their guns drawn.
Flock ALPRs had confused Gilliam’s license plate with that of a stolen motorcycle from
another state. In addition to traumatizing Gilliam and the four children in her car, the
incident resulted in a $1.9 million lawsuit settlement by the City of Aurora.
Suppression of Dissent and Politicized Abuse of Data
Historically, when surveillance methods have been deployed, they have almost always
ended up being used to monitor and suppress dissent. Therefore, we were anxious to
review the record: have law enforcement agencies used Flock ALPRs to monitor
constitutionally protected non-violent protest?
Flock ALPRs have been used multiple times to monitor dissent, including law enforcement
agencies searching for key words: “no kings,” “Hands Off,” and, simply, “protest.”
Other searches of Flock data corresponded with May Day rallies, protests against Trump
Administration DOGE cuts, and protests against immigration policies.
In May, 2025, the Johnson County, Texas Sheriff’s office conducted a nationwide search of
83,000 Flock ALPR’s using the key words: “had an abortion, search for female.”
Flock ALPRs Used to Hunt Immigrants
An audit of Flock systems in Illinois last August revealed that Flock had quietly initiated an
unauthorized "pilot program" that gave the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
direct access to local license plate readers on Illinois roads, allowing federal agents to
surveil drivers.
An investigation into unauthorized “side-door” access to Flock data uncovered more than
4,000 lookups conducted through local law enforcement portals at the behest of federal
immigration officials. Because these were performed by other agencies on behalf of ICE,
local authorities were not aware their data was being used to search for immigrants.
3
Leaky Data: No Security, No Privacy
Flock systems have been shown to be remarkably unsecure. After a Dunwoody, GA resident
filed records requests for ALPR data, he was shocked to discover that Flock personnel were
routinely logging in to spy Dunwoody residents. Flock employees watched live feeds from
the local Jewish Community Center, including:
• A children's swimming pool
• A children's gymnastics room where young athletes practice
• A local playground and school property
• Private interior fitness studios
In January of this year, more than 60 Flock cameras were discovered broadcasting their
feeds to the open, unencrypted Internet. Anyone with a web browser could access these
images.
Last year, a Congressional investigation discovered that the login credentials for at least 35
distinct Flock law enforcement customer accounts had been stolen by hackers using
"infostealer" malware. Active law enforcement credentials were found listed for sale on
Russian-language cybercrime forums. Any criminal or foreign spy who purchased those
credentials could use Flock's "National Lookup" feature to track the real-time movements
of vehicles across all 49 states where Flock operates.
Do ALPRs Reduce Crime?
Flock bases its crime-reduction claim on anecdotes and cherry-picked statistics. It may be
too early in the life-cycle of this technology to really know; thus far, the evidence is not
encouraging:
Flock’s claims of crime reduction do not hold up under scrutiny. These data come from
localized, short-term case studies. When data (including those from Palo Alto) are
compared with similar areas that did not deploy ALPRs, no significant change is observed.
For example, crime (both violent and property) sharply declined nationally from 2021-2025.
Neither Flock nor its customers have produced data that show any effectiveness beyond
the national trends. Instead, Flock takes credit for macro trends on which ALPRs have no
impact.
Experts maintain that best practice in crime reduction involves building relationships and
trust among law enforcement and residents. Surely, wise use of technology plays a role.
However, we question the allocation of precious resources toward ALPR subscriptions
rather than investing in human resources in our community.
4
Flock Has Not Earned Our Trust
Flock has repeatedly failed to establish data security, has dissembled regarding third party
access, and has not taken any responsibility for the abuse of Flock data by its own
employees.
A Flock ALPR contract means that Palo Alto turns over ownership and control of its data to
a private company which has demonstrated shocking arrogance and negligence with
regard to sensitive information.
That is why, in 2026 alone, 37 different localities have canceled their Flock contracts,
including our neighbors in Mountain View.
We urge you to make Palo Alto number 38.
Respectfully,
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
Blue Turn Indivisible
Envision Transform Build East Palo Alto (ETB)
Indivisible Mid-Peninsula
Indivisible Palo Alto Plus
Los Altos for Representation and Equity (LARE)
Multi-Faith Voices for Peace and Justice
Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network (SIREN)
Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America
Together We Will — Palo Alto/Mountain View
Youth United for Community Action (YUCA)
Cc: David Waksberg, Palo Alto resident
From:Cybele LoVuolo-Bhushan
To:Council, City
Subject:Flock Study
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 1:23:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Palo Alto City Council members,
Referencing the Study Session on the ALPR FLOCK Cameras.
As a U. S. born citizen of Italian and East European extraction, I have a duty to write in
opposition to the use of Flock cameras in Palo Alto.
The unfortunate reality is that our current government is building detention centers to hold
recent immigrants, no matter their age, or health condition. This appears to be a case of history
repeating itself like the Japanese internment camps: we are not even at war with the countries
that our immigration system is targeting.
Much has changed from the previous administration where the rule of law (courts, etc.) was
followed (with at least one notible exception during the Obama administration).
The Flock cameras are enabling the current administration to track each and every person in
our town. This is no way to encourage respect for our government. In fact, it does just the
opposite: it creates undue suspicion and cuts off innovative ideas due to preoccupation with
the technology of surveillance, again, creating a kind of us against them attitude.
Please do not renew the contract with the Flock company. Stop their use in Palo Alto so our
community can renew it's unity where trust is the first approach.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cybele (nee Judith) LoVuolo-Bhushan
3838 Mumford Place
Palo Alto 94306
From:David Coale
To:Council, City; UAC; Eggleston, Brad; Luong, Christine; Abendschein, Jonathan; Bret Andersen; Debbie Mytels;
Hodge, Bruce; Lait, Jonathan; Kurotori, Alan; Sven Thesen; Shikada, Ed; wintergery@earthlink.net; Hilary Glann
Subject:Subject: Urgent Reconsideration of the Buena Vista Utility Upgrade Project
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 12:39:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Mayor, Council members, UAC members, Staff and others
The Buena Vista Utility upgrade project is misguided and needs to be redesigned to better
protect residents' health and safety while reducing ongoing and future costs, and reducing
GHG emissions. The project should be fully electric, as originally planned. While the current
dual-fuel approach may seem practical on the surface, it will ultimately increase long-term
costs for both residents and the City. Furthermore, it places an undue financial burden on the
community members who can least afford it, perpetuating historical inequities faced by lower-
income residents.
A utility upgrade at the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park is sorely needed; the existing
electrical and gas infrastructure is haphazard, with exposed gas lines throughout the facility.
However, reverting to the original plan for an all-electric facility is the correct path forward
for several critical reasons:
1. Lower Initial Capital Costs: It is more cost-effective to upgrade only the
electrical system and completely remove the gas infrastructure, rather than installing
dual systems.
2. Avoiding Future Retrofit Costs: The City will eventually phase out gas service
entirely. Installing gas lines now guarantees that residents will later face the disruptive
and costly burden of switching remaining appliances to electric—costs that will
inevitably be borne by the residents and City ratepayers.
3. Preventing Stranded Assets and Decommissioning Fees: Ratepayers at large
will have to foot the bill to decommission this brand-new gas infrastructure once gas
service is discontinued. As we near the end of natural gas utility lifespans, gas rates
will inevitably spike to cover these decommissioning costs, disproportionately
impacting Buena Vista residents.
4. Funding Appliance Transitions: With the capital saved by omitting gas
infrastructure, the City could easily subsidize high-efficiency electric appliances to
replace old gas ones. This upfront investment shields residents from future appliance
replacement costs and rising gas rates.
5. A Model for Sustainability: This represents an ideal pilot project for the City to
prepare for the broader transition away from gas, directly supporting Palo Alto’s "80
by 30" greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals.
6. Enhanced Health and Safety: All-electric homes are inherently safer. Eliminating
gas removes the risks of gas leaks, carbon monoxide poisoning, and gas explosions.
7. Protecting Children's Health: Studies show that homes with gas stoves have a
20% higher rate of childhood asthma, which carries significant emotional and financial
medical burdens for families.
8. Superior Appliance Technology: Induction cooking is faster, cleaner, and safer
than gas, and it reduces ambient kitchen heat by eliminating open flames.
While transitioning residents to all-electric appliances may require dedicated outreach and
education, the long-term benefits vastly outweigh the challenges. Going all-electric future-
proofs these living spaces, protects public health, and prevents low-income residents from
being locked into an expensive, expiring fossil fuel infrastructure and rising gas rates.
Sincerely,
David Coale
From:Mert Dikmen
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) Public Comment
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 12:33:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Mert Dikmen and I live in Crescent Park. I support efforts to promote more homes
and protect tenants.
Please modify the emergency ordinances to allow SB 79 to go into effect without any
restrictions or hurdles in places where the city already plans for new homes: The Downtown
Housing Plan area, along El Camino Real and Cal Ave, the Transit Center, San Antonio, and
strongly consider expanding it to the entirety of the city limits. If Palo Alto wants to be
considered a pro-housing city, we should embrace state law in the places near transit where we
want more homes.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Mert Dikmen
From:Lawrence Markosian
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 10:49:23 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I am writing as a potential Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the
staff recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
--Lawrence Markosian
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Peter Giovannotto
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter of Support for Continued Police use of Flock Technology
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 10:47:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Palo Alto Police Department’s continued
utilization of Flock Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology.
As a long-time resident, local business owner, and someone deeply invested in our city, I view
Flock cameras as essential infrastructure for public safety. Effective policing requires efficient
technology. This is especially critical now, as budget constraints and officer retention issues
have reduced our active headcount, limiting the manual tools and coverage officers can
provide on the ground.
Data from the initial deployment demonstrates that the system works exactly as intended. It
provides the department with objective, actionable leads that cut down investigation times and
clear cases efficiently. This capability is uniquely valuable for cross-jurisdictional crimes—
where an incident occurs in one Flock-partner city, but the vehicle moves into another.
Without this network, tracking these vehicles quickly would be nearly impossible. With it,
locating and apprehending suspects becomes highly efficient.
In an environment where law enforcement resources must be allocated precisely, a passive,
tech-driven deterrent and investigative tool is a practical necessity. It serves as a force
multiplier, allowing our remaining officers to focus their field efforts where they are most
effective.
Furthermore, the PAPD has established clear, transparent protocols to ensure the technology is
used strictly for its intended public safety purposes with appropriate oversight. The evidence
shows these guardrails are working.
I ask that the City Council to maintain its commitment to public safety by continuing to
authorize and fund the Flock ALPR system. Providing our officers with reliable, up-to-date
tools is a practical necessity for keeping Palo Alto safe, secure, and at the forefront of modern
policing.
Sincerely,
Peter Giovannotto
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
--
Peter Giovannotto
459 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 105, Palo Alto, CA 94301O: (650) 328-7480 | C: (650) 464-1403 | W: www.vrent.com
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Council, City; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject:THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PROMISED OVERSIGHT. WHERE IS IT?
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:25:43 AM
Attachments:4BEC2618-5C47-4DBF-9498-D66366069B96.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PROMISED OVERSIGHT. WHERE IS IT?
I spent time reviewing City of Palo Alto records regarding the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) program and the creation of housing and services for vulnerable
residents.
The City's own reports describe responsibilities that include:
• Protecting low-income and vulnerable residents
• Addressing homelessness
• Responding to grievances and public concerns
• Ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities
• Monitoring outcomes and program performance
• Minimizing displacement of residents
• Providing meaningful public participation and accountability
The Opportunity Center itself was celebrated as a major accomplishment and described as a
safe place providing supportive services, housing referrals, counseling, and assistance to
homeless and extremely low-income residents.
Today, residents are asking a simple question:
Where is that oversight?
The City issued a Notice of Violation identifying serious concerns, including years of
unpermitted work, water intrusion, and mold-related issues. After issuing the notice, residents
were left to navigate the fallout largely on their own.
People are confused.
People are frightened.
People are being displaced.
People are being served eviction notices.
People with disabilities are struggling to obtain help.
If the City can spend years promoting a project as a model of community support, does it not
also have a responsibility when that project is found to have serious deficiencies?
Oversight is not cutting a ribbon.
Oversight is not writing a report.
The residents of the Opportunity Center deserve answers, transparency, accountability, and
protection.
The question is no longer whether problems exist.
The question is who is going to take responsibility.
Accountability.
Transparency.
#PaloAlto #Abode #TheOpportunityCenter #WeMatter #SheldonMJackson #DebbieOrtiz
#CynthiaCarney #JonKincaid #lonigulette #jeremycutler #eugeashaw
#whereisarnold411
#RenéeJones #SilenceIsNotSurvivable
#CityOfPaloAlto #TheHousingAuthority
#AffordableHousing
#HousingJustice
#DisabilityRights
#HousingAccountability
#SupportiveHousing
#Homelessness
#CivilRights
#PublicAccountability
#EnvironmentalJustice
#SilenceIsNotSurvivable
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Council, City; Stone, Greer
Subject:The Opportunity Center: What Palo Alto Promised vs. What Residents Received
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 4:14:56 AM
Attachments:4A90FC67-577F-4DE0-8CD7-8B10876BF903.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
In 2003, the City of Palo Alto made an extraordinary promise.
The City approved a special zoning district for what would become the Opportunity Center
because it believed the project would serve some of the community's most vulnerable
residents. The project was intended to provide affordable housing, services for people
experiencing homelessness, and support for those at risk of becoming homeless.
The City did not describe the project as simply another building.
It described it as a public benefit.
According to Ordinance 4782, the Opportunity Center was intended to provide housing for
low- and very-low-income residents, along with services including counseling, education, job
training, medical care, showers, laundry facilities, childcare, and other support programs. The
City specifically found that these resources were "much needed" and would help meet Palo
Alto's housing obligations. The ordinance further recognized that the project served an
important public purpose that could not otherwise be achieved through ordinary zoning.
The promises did not stop there.
The ordinance required:
• Twenty-four-hour staffing.
• Security planning.
• Ongoing community engagement.
• Regular reporting regarding complaints and concerns.
• Accountability to City officials.
• Continued compliance with the approved development plan.
The message was clear:
This project would not simply provide housing.
It would provide support, oversight, safety, and dignity.
Twenty-three years later, residents are asking a simple question:
What happened?
In April 2026, the City issued a Notice of Violation citing serious concerns that reportedly
included unpermitted work, water intrusion, water damage, and mold-related issues. Residents
who were supposed to benefit from this project are now struggling to understand how
conditions could deteriorate to this point.
Many residents are elderly, disabled, medically vulnerable, or living on extremely limited
incomes. These are the very populations the Opportunity Center was created to serve.
The question is no longer whether the original vision was noble.
The question is whether the institutions responsible for carrying out that vision fulfilled their
obligations.
When government creates a project for vulnerable people, it assumes a responsibility that goes
beyond ribbon cuttings and press releases.
Public benefit projects require public accountability.
Residents deserve answers.
Residents deserve transparency.
Residents deserve to know how a project specifically designed to protect vulnerable people
became the subject of a Notice of Violation more than two decades later.
The Opportunity Center was built on a promise.
The people who live there deserve to know whether that promise was kept.
#Transparency #Accountability #CityOfPaloAlto #WeMatter #SheldonMJackson
#DebbieOrtiz #CynthiaCarney #JonKincaid #lonigulette #jeremycutler #eugeashaw
#whereisarnold411 #RenéeJones #SilenceIsNotSurvivable
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Council, City
Subject:Accountability Cannot End When the Ribbon Is Cut
Date:Friday, May 29, 2026 3:47:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Accountability Cannot End When the Ribbon Is Cut
For more than 20 years, the public has been told that the Opportunity Center was created to
help vulnerable residents find stability, safety, and housing.
But after reviewing portions of the City Manager's 2003 report regarding the site, I am left
with a troubling question:
If the City knew environmental risks existed from the beginning, why were residents left to
discover the consequences years later?
The report identified concerns including contaminated soil and groundwater, lead, asbestos,
solvents, moisture management requirements, ventilation requirements, and the need for
ongoing monitoring and protective measures.
Fast forward to today.
Residents have reported water intrusion, mold concerns, ventilation problems, sewage-related
issues, health complaints, and habitability concerns. The City has now issued a Notice of
Violation after years of operation.
What happened between the warnings and the violations?
If strict environmental safeguards, inspections, monitoring, drainage protections, and indoor
air quality protections were required, residents deserve answers:
• Were those safeguards implemented and maintained?
• Were required inspections conducted?
• Were environmental conditions monitored over time?
• When problems were reported, why were they not addressed sooner?
• Why are residents now facing displacement and uncertainty instead of receiving immediate
assistance?
The people living in supportive housing are not disposable.
When government agencies approve projects intended to serve vulnerable populations,
accountability cannot end when the ribbon is cut. Oversight matters. Maintenance matters.
Transparency matters.
Most importantly, the health and safety of residents matter.
The question is not who gets blamed.
The question is: Who is going to help the residents now?
#CityOfPaloAlto #Accountability
#AbodeServices #Transparency
#HousingAuthority #WeMatter
#AffordableHousing
#HousingJustice
#EnvironmentalJustice
#PublicAccountability
#TenantRights
#SupportiveHousing
#CommunityHealth
#MoldAwareness
#SilenceIsNotSurvivable
From:Grace L
To:Council, City
Cc:Gracegg2000@gmail.com
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:24:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Grace Lee
927 Colorado Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Council, City; Julia M. Adams; Reasaccom Abode; OSHcrisisresponse; nathanial.r.hill@hud.gov; Mino Ngo;
barr@stanford.edu; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Deborah S Rose M.D.; ean@lifemoves.org;
osh@hhs.sccgov.org; housinginfo@sacredheartcs.org; info@scchousingauthority.org; Jaslynn Wygal; Kaminski,
KJ; Christiansen, Leif; Pigman, Sophie
Cc:Riley Cooke
Subject:URGENT DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE, FOOD STABILIZATION, HABITABILITY RESPONSE, AND
REIMBURSEMENT
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 5:28:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
URGENT DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE, FOOD STABILIZATION,
HABITABILITY RESPONSE, AND REIMBURSEMENT
Rebecca Wolf
Opportunity Center – Unit 205
33 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
To Whom It May Concern:
I am formally demanding immediate intervention and assistance regarding the ongoing
conditions at the Opportunity Center and the complete failure of responsible entities to provide
meaningful support despite repeated requests, grievances, complaints, and documented health
and safety concerns.
Since moving into the Opportunity Center, I have repeatedly sought help regarding safety,
theft, habitability concerns, disability-related issues, retaliation, environmental exposure, and
basic stabilization needs. My grievances have gone unanswered. Requests to review security
footage after theft and safety incidents were ignored. I have consistently been asked to
continue complying, documenting, attending meetings, filing complaints, and advocating,
while receiving little to no meaningful assistance in return.
I am now in an emergency situation.
My refrigerator has failed and all of my food has spoiled. I currently do not have adequate
food stability. At the same time, medication valued at approximately $11,000 has effectively
been rendered unusable because I cannot safely begin treatment while remaining in what I
believe to be a toxic and environmentally unsafe living environment.
I am hungry! My dog ran out of food… What do I do?
In addition, the building and/or responsible entities owe me thousands of dollars in expenses
that I personally incurred while attempting to survive ongoing failures involving habitability,
environmental conditions, property loss, and basic living conditions. To date, I estimate these
unpaid expenses exceed $5,000.
I am a disabled resident who has repeatedly reported:
- environmental exposure concerns,
- mold and water intrusion concerns,
- pest-related issues,
- safety concerns,
- retaliation concerns,
- accommodation needs,
- and severe impacts to my physical and mental health.
Despite this, I continue to be bounced between organizations and departments while no entity
takes meaningful responsibility for stabilizing my situation.
The Opportunity Center has been publicly described as an integrated supportive housing and
service model involving multiple coordinated nonprofit and public entities, including:
- Abode Services,
- Opportunity Center Associates LP,
- Community Working Group,
- LifeMoves,
- and the Santa Clara County Housing Authority.
Residents are directed to these organizations for support, yet when urgent assistance is needed,
responsibility is fragmented and denied.
I am demanding the following immediately:
1. Emergency food assistance and stabilization support.
2. Immediate written response regarding replacement or repair of my refrigerator.
3. Immediate reimbursement review for documented out-of-pocket expenses.
4. Identification of the entity responsible for resident emergency assistance and stabilization.
5. Immediate review and written response to my unanswered grievances and safety
complaints.
6. Written clarification regarding available relocation, accommodation, and environmental
safety options.
7. Preservation of all records, complaints, maintenance requests, inspection records,
communications, and video footage related to my tenancy and complaints.
Please understand that this situation has escalated beyond ordinary frustration. I have spent
extensive time attempting to resolve these issues through proper channels. I have documented
conditions, communicated repeatedly, filed complaints with multiple agencies, and continued
advocating despite worsening conditions and severe personal hardship.
I am requesting immediate intervention and written response.
Rebecca Wolf
I need someone to explain why the City and associated agencies issued a Notice of Violation
identifying serious conditions at the Opportunity Center and then effectively stepped away
while residents were left to absorb the consequences without meaningful protection,
stabilization, relocation assistance, or accountability.
From the resident perspective, this feels like a bomb was dropped on the building and then
everyone walked away while residents were left trapped in the fallout.
The City identified serious enough concerns to issue a Notice of Violation involving
conditions including water intrusion, mold concerns, unpermitted work, and habitability-
related issues. Yet after issuing the NOV, residents were left in chaos while Abode and
associated entities continued operating without meaningful oversight, transparency, or resident
protections.
Why are residents being forced to fight individually for basic safety, answers, food stability,
reimbursement, accommodations, and relocation information after the City itself identified
significant problems?
Residents should not be abandoned after the government itself identified serious violations at
the property.
Rebecca Wolf
Opportunity Center Resident and survivor
From:Evan Reade
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Lu,
George
Cc:Reifschneider, James; Shikada, Ed
Subject:PAPD use of Flock Cameras, Agenda Item #2, June 1, 2026
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 5:08:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Madam Mayor Veenker, Dear Members of the City Council:
I am writing to urge you to continue to support the use of Flock Automated License
Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology by the Palo Alto Police Department.
As a lifelong Palo Alto resident and as a former Palo Alto police officer it is my view
that the first duty of our local government is so provide for the safety and security of
those who live, work, or visit in our city. I know that many of you feel the same way.
To fulfill this duty our police department must be provided with the most up-to-date
and effective tools and technology to do so. The Flock ALPR technology is one such
tool. As the report in your packet notes:
"The deployment of Flock ALPR cameras in Palo Alto began in July 2023 . The
Department has used these cameras to great effect. Real-time alerts generated
by the ALPR cameras have resulted in the recovery of dozens of stolen vehicles
and stolen license plates, and the apprehension of numerous wanted persons.
In addition, ALPR has been used to safely locate multiple missing persons.
Data captured by the ALPR cameras has also assisted investigators in the
after-the-fact identification and arrest of numerous felony suspects."
The report goes on to list just a few of the many incidents in which this technology
has been successfully utilized, and I am certain that Chief Reifschneider can cite to
you many more. It is a fact that with the use of Flock technology the PAPD has:
saved lives,
recovered stolen property,
arrested dangerous criminals.
In addition, the presence of Flock cameras in our city no doubt acts as a deterrent to
would-be criminals who might choose to go to other cities or towns not covered by
Flock to commit crime.
In short, the presence and use of Flock technology has made our city a safer
place for all.
Like all tools and technologies, ALPR technology must be utilized as designed, and
misuse must be avoided. It is clear from the staff report that prudent and thoughtful
policies have been implemented by the PAPD to prevent misuse, and reviews
conducted to date have found no evidence of misuse. Moreover, I have faith that
Chief Reifschneider and his command staff, along with our City Attorney and you, the
members of our City Council, are all firmly committed to protecting all members of our
community from the misuse of this technology, and to maintaining transparency in
respect to all steps in the process of its implementation. I am also confident that if
any misuse does come to light, the Chief and you will immediately investigate the
circumstances and take appropriate action.
I applaud you for examining this important issue and for your commitment to public
safety. I urge you to agree that our police department needs to continue to be
equipped with and to have access to this vital technology that helps solve and
prevent crimes and save lives, thereby safeguarding the welfare and property
of all who are present in our community.
Sincerely,
Evan G. Reade
Sharon Ct.
Palo Alto
From:Bryan Martin
To:Council, City
Subject:Habitability concerns - the opportunity center
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 4:59:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I live in a building that has had an ongoing German cockroach infestation and mold since I moved in. Recently they
have gotten much worse. It is not uncommon to see them walking down the hall in broad daylight and at night they
seem to be everywhere. I have been finding them on my bed and even in my hair. The worst part is that my fiance
who lives with me is 8months pregnant and there is no way I feel safe bringing a newborn into this kind of
environment. I was approved for a reasonable accommodation three years ago to be moved from a studio to a 2
bedroom but apparently I have been at the “top of the list” every time I have asked. I don’t know what to do at this
point or where to go for help so I am going to bring up this issue to every department and resource that I can. I
apologize if your department does not assist or have any recommendations for my situation I don’t mean to waste
anyone’s time. Also the building received a notice of violation a month ago and the paperwork states that the
property owner is responsible for paying relocation benefits to the tenants of the affected units. Management denies
this entitlement and claims to be working on the issues. My family is running out of time and our health is at risk. A
lot of People are dying and not from drugs and fentanyl and the causes should be investigated thoroughly. Mold and
roaches lack of city oversight and regulations are contributing factors to probably all of these incidents. They may
be working to remediate these issues but to be honest after five years, enough is enough. I am grateful to have a roof
over my head but a home requires more than a roof to be considered habitable. I would appreciate any assistance,
advice, legal representation, prayers. I understand this is more of a personal problem and this might not be the
correct forum but I am just hoping to be heard. Thank you
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Nancy Ellickson
Cc:Bill McLane; Marguerite Poyatos; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg;
Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero;
Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott
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 Lafargue 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; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson;
Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang;
Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net;
Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro
Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26)
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 4:34:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
All
I cycled through the safe parking lot at 2000 Geng Rd. yesterday and counted 16 OSVs which means that there are 6 open slots of the 22 total.
Marguerite, Bill, and Nancy - - We residents and businesses feel your pain!
Bob Marinaro
Palo Alto Safe Parking Lot @ 2000 Geng Rd. (5/27/26)
On May 28, 2026, at 4:00 PM, Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote:
All
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile)
from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—
some longer. PAPD does very little to enforce.
Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking
area on Geng Rd.
I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss next steps since the city is moving so slowly.
Best,
Nancy Ellickson
E: nellickson@gmail.com
M: 650-245-1012
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote:
Adding to this.
I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all.
Bill McLane
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com
Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote:
Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area.
The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for
street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as
well as the sign they keep in their window.
While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is
every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in the future and implement the same approach.
Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's
inability to act.
On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached
my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of
March and now the numbers are gradually increasing.
The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with
concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any
substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation.
The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like
faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no
interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility payments, and no consequences.
As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand!
And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston
Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of
us!
So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and we
need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it!
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle
Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside!
Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio Rd.)
Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association
Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners Association
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.)
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment
Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the chagrin of area businesses
Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices
Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road
If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say!
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs?
Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks!
Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood!
Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal!
--
Marguerite Poyatos
Operations Manager
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com
From:Nancy Ellickson
To:Bill McLane
Cc:Marguerite Poyatos; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing,
Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; Bulatao, Eric; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown;
Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina
Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman;
Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon
Moreno; L Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan
McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris;
Elidia Tafoya; Scott 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 Lafargue 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; Cassandra Paige; Brad
Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny
Brennan; Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage;
Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil
Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana
Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net;
Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro
Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26)
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 4:03:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
All
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the city has selectively been enforcing the parking laws. Per
the city’s own ordinance, after 72 hours, vehicles must move at least 2,640 feet (half mile)
from where they were parked. Our cul-de-sac is 850 feet long which means they must move to
another street. Several of the OSVs have been parked on our street for at least one year—some
longer. PAPD does very little to enforce.
Regarding the person with the “health emergency” sign in their OSV window, the Community
Officer should make sure this person is on the priority list to move into the safe parking area
on Geng Rd.
I have been a bit out of the loop on this issue but perhaps we should meet as a group to discuss
next steps since the city is moving so slowly.
Best,
Nancy Ellickson
E: nellickson@gmail.com
M: 650-245-1012
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
Powered by Mimecast
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 3:22 PM Bill McLane <bill@paloaltoglass.com> wrote:
Adding to this.
I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street
cleaning ( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all.
Bill McLane
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com
Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
wrote:
Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area.
The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in
our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for
street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the
vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license
plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window.
While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on
moving their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping
is every other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good
workaround in the future and implement the same approach.
Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly
outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's
inability to act.
On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto
that do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find
attached my latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As
I mentioned in my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at
the end of March and now the numbers are gradually increasing.
The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but
has not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk
with concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of
them to send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing
any substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation.
The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be
filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like
faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim
housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have
no interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent,
no utility payments, and no consequences.
As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen
and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand!
And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And
what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston
Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the
streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of
all of us!
So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s
calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership
and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it!
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle
Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside!
Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San
Antonio Rd.)
Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home
Owners Association
Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home
Owners Association
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.)
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street
segment
Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the
chagrin of area businesses
Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices
Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road
If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say!
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers
working on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs?
Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood!
Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks!
Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood!
Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal!
--
Marguerite Poyatos
Operations Manager
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport Street
650-494-7000 ext.110
www.paloaltoglass.com
From:Kerei Yuen
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:55:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to ask you to support the staff recommendation
to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further work on a local
rent stabilization policy.
Providing rental housing in Palo Alto has become increasingly expensive. Property taxes,
insurance premiums, maintenance costs, utilities, and other operating expenses have all risen
significantly in recent years. For many small “mom and pop” housing providers, these
increases are becoming difficult to absorb.
The staff report makes clear that moving forward with these policies would add even more
costs and administrative burdens. The city would need to hire additional staff, spend millions
of dollars to create and manage new programs, and increase fees on housing providers to pay
for them — all while the city is already facing a multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
More regulation and higher costs will not create more housing. In many cases, they will have
the opposite effect. Continued financial pressure on small property owners will only
encourage more housing providers to sell properties, remove units from the rental market, or
avoid renting units altogether. That reduces rental housing supply, lowers vacancy rates, and
makes it even harder and more expensive for residents to find housing.
The staff report also found that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is already working as
intended and that additional local regulations are unnecessary. The Policy and Services
Committee also supported the recommendation to indefinitely defer these proposals.
We respectfully ask the Council to follow the staff recommendation and avoid creating costly
new programs that could further reduce rental housing availability in Palo Alto.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Al and Kerei Yuen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Bill McLane
To:Marguerite Poyatos
Cc:Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith;
Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr; 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; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; L
Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley;
John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya;
Scott 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 Lafargue 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; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa
Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn
Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon;
Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann
Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart
Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net;
Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro
Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26)
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:22:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Adding to this.
I demand that the city reimburse all of my employees who had their cars towed due to this street cleaning
( three to date). You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law; it applies to us all.
Bill McLane
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 www.paloaltoglass.com
Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer.
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:09 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com>
wrote:
Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area.
The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in
our neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for
street sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the
vehicle hasn't moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license
plate,as well as the sign they keep in their window.
While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving
their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every
other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in
the future and implement the same approach.
Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly
outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's
inability to act.
On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that
do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my
latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in
my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of
March and now the numbers are gradually increasing.
The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has
not taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with
concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to
send their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any
substantive short-term actions to remedy the situation.
The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be
filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like
faulty logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim
housing before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no
interest in interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no
utility payments, and no consequences.
As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen
and it needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand!
And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And
what about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston
Village, Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the
streets, running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all
of us!
So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s
calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership
and we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it!
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle
Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside!
Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio
Rd.)
Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home
Owners Association
Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home
Owners Association
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.)
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street
segment
Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the
chagrin of area businesses
Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices
Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road
If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say!
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working
on their rigs! And what about those slide-outs?
Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood!
Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks!
Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood!
Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal!
--
Marguerite Poyatos
Operations Manager
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com
From:Jeff Hoel
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- UAC mtg 05-06-26 -- various items
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:12:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Commissioners,
Here's a TRANSCRIPT of various items from UAC's 05-06-26 meeting, including
* Utilities Director's Report,
* Selection of Chair and Vice Chair,
* Commissioner Comments
I have provided my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with "### ")
Sorry I didn't have time to include everything.
High-level comment:
* Commissioner Gupta would have been my first choice for Chair (or, failing that, Vice Chair).
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
------------------
05-06-26 UAC meeting
agenda:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19031
video (4:24:30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4feIANRH_Ns&t=275s
Attended by:
UAC: Croft, Gupta, Mauter, Metz, Phillips, Scharff (Zoom), Tucher
Liaison:
Staff: Aratola, Bilir, Farias, Kurotori
Other: Tom Francis (BAWSCA)
Public: Drekmeier, Hitchings
TRANSCRIPT
ROLL CALL
0:04:34:
Vice Chair Mauter: Good evening everyone. I am stepping up for Chair Scharff, who is currently joining remotely. If we
could start by calling the roll.
0:04:50:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz.
0:04:52:
Commissioner Metz: Here.
0:04:53:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher.
0:04:54:
Commssioner Tucher: Here.
0:04:54:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta.
0:04:56:
Commissioner Gupta: Here.
0:04:57:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Phillips.
0:04:59:
Commissioner Phillips: Here.
0:04:59:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft.
0:05:00:
Commissioner Croft: Here.
0:05:02:
Belle Farias: Vice Chair Mauter.
0:05:03:
Vice Chair Mauter: Here.
0:05:04:
Belle Farias: Chair Scharff.
0:05:05:
Chair Scharff: I'm present. And I have a little statement that I have to make for legal reasons. So, I have to say I have just
cause to attend this meeting remotely under the Brown Act. I have not attended a UAC remotely this calendar year. I must
attend this meeting remotely because I am traveling on official business for the San Francisco Bay Conservation
Commission. And in this room, I am by myself. Thanks.
0:05:32:
Belle Farias: Thank you. For the record, seven present.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, & DELETIONS
0:05:36:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you. Do we have any agenda changes, additions, or deletions this evening?
0:05:41:
Director Kurotori: No changes.
PUBLIC COMMENT
0:05:42:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you. Now we will open the floor to public comment. We will only be taking in-person public
comment at this time. And we will take online public comment at the -- toward the end of this meeting.
0:06:02:
Commissioner Phillips: (unamplified) For items not on the agenda.
0:06:02:
Vice Chair Mauter: For items not on the agenda. Thank you.
0:06:05:
Belle Fairias: We have no in-person general public comment at this time.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
0:06:09:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you. Next we'll move on to approval of the minutes. Do we have any comments on the
minutes? Or would anyone like to move their approval?
0:06:21:
Commissioner Metz: Move to approve.
0:06:23:
Vice Chair Mauter: Do we have a second?
0:06:24:
Commissioner Phillips: Second.
0:06:26:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great.
### Any further discussion?
Could you please call the role?
0:06:28:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz.
0:06:30:
Commissioner Metz: Yes.
0:06:31:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher.
0:06:31:
Commissioner Tucher: Yes.
0:06:32:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta.
0:06:33:
Commissioner Gupta: Yes.
0:06:34:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Phillips.
0:06:36:
Commissioner Phillips: Yes.
0:06:37:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft.
0:06:38:
Commissioner Croft: Yes.
0:06:40:
Belle Farias: Vice Chair Mauter.
0:06:40:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes.
0:06:42:
Belle Farias: Chair Scharff.
0:06:42:
Chair Scharff: Yes.
0:06:44:
Belle Farias: Motion passes 7-0.
UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT
06-49-26:
Vice Chair Mauter: Great. I will now turn to the Utilities Director Report. Alan?
0:06:54:
Director Kurotori: Good evening, Utilities Advisory Commission. I just wanted to give a summary of the recent Council
actions. There was a reappointment of Commissioners Mauter, Metz, and Scharff by City Council. There was an approval
of the City Council values.
0:07:09:
Commissioner Phillips: I think that would be Mauter, Scharff, and Phillips, actually.
0:07:12:
Director Kurotori: Mauter, Scharff, and Phillips. You are correct. I apologize for that.
0:07:19:
**: (inaudible)
0:07:20:
Director Kurotori: Correct. The approval of the City Council values, as recommend by the Policies & Services Committee in
the 2026 objectives. We also had a few contracts of note that went to the City Council. There was an amendment with the
Laratt Brothers Plumbing. That is for the residential emergency water heater replacement program. So, if there's residents
that have a failure of their gas water heater, there's a program where they can get a temporary one installed if they want to
move to a heat pump water heater. And then there was Duke's Root Control. And this is a tree-foaming service, a
treatment services. Basically for sanitary sewer system, where they would foam the mains and laterals so that we wouldn't
have blockages and sanitary sewer overflows. The last couple days, there were budget hearings by the Finance
Committee. Today and yesterday, the Finance Committee reviewed and unanimously approved the Utilities Fiscal Year
2027 Operating Budget and Capital Budgets. That will go to the full City Council. We wanted to -- appreciate the UAC's
input as part of that process. And I also wanted to thank a -- numbers of staff that were there to support the last 2 days. It
was a very intensive process with the City Council Finance Committee in vetting our capital projects. So I appreciate that
was well.
0:08:41:
Commissioner Tucher: I'm sorry to interrupt. What has been the UAC contribution to the budget process? It went to
Finance today. UAC has not even discussed it. That's on tonight's agenda.
0:08:53:
Director Kurotori: We talked about the Operating Budget in terms of the rates that went to the City Council. And there's
been ongoing input from the UAC, as it relates to our Grid Modernization, which is also highlighted as part of that. So, did
want to acknowledge that this is a process. It's not the only one time when we come to the UAC for your input. So,
appreciate that.
0:09:14:
So, the -- I just wanted to mention the upcoming new electric supply contracts [in] a little more detail. We did receive, as
I've mentioned before, 60 responses to an RFP for new electric generation projects. Those -- The structure of that -- that
will be a power purchase agreement. We're still working through that. So, that recommendation could come to the UAC in
either one or two new electric generation contracts, as early as July. So, I wanted to give you an update of that status. Due
to the competitive nature of these PPA solicitations, as mentioned to the Finance Committee yesterday, we'll be working in
parallel with the developers, as we move through the City's process. We're also working with the members of NCPA,
because there are -- these are larger power purchase agreements, where the City of Palo Alto would be just part of the total
number of agencies that would be participating.
0:10:11:
I wanted to also give you an update -- just a brief update to the fiber to the premises. In early May, the fiber hut at our
Colorado receiving station was put into full operation, supporting the phase 1 pilot area for residential fiber internet services.
Staff also completed installation of the first early adopter customer last week, and is working through initial internet
performance. We have received positive feedback as part of that process. And we'll be scheduling additional early adopter
installations from the week of May 11th.
### It's a start. I don't know how much actual FTTP experience data there will be by UAC's 07-01-26 meeting, when UAC
is scheduled to do a review of the FTTP Pilot.
0:10:49:
I wanted to also mention the residential energy assistance program. CPAU is expanding the residential energy assistance
program to electrify my home. We have Jonathan Abendschein, with our S/CAP program, if you have any specific
questions on that. But CPAU will now cover the costs of installing heat pump systems, electric induction code, and electric
induction cooktops, or ranges, clothes dryers, heat pump water heaters, and energy assistant upgrades for households that
qualify for the low income rate assistance program. I also wanted to mention that this has gone to the UAC, and was
mentioned to the Finance Committee yesterday, in fact, was that the -- CPAU is increasing -- is going to recommend the
increase of the income residential rate assistance program. The discount will go from 25 percent to 35 percent. We are
also expanding the number of qualifying residents to 50 -- from 50 percent of Santa Clara County median income to 80
percent of median income. So, what does that mean? We anticipate there are 800 hundred customers that would qualify
for the old program. And that could ramp up to as much as 1,100. So, we're very pleased with that. That will also flow into
our other customer programs. So, when you see the low rate assistance program, and there's additional rebates, they
would also qualify for that as well. So, we're really looking to lean in and make this affordable, especially for those in
financial need.
0:12:24:
I wanted to mention also the Palo Alto Medical Foundation [PAMF] rebate check. They did a series of LED energy
efficiency improvements. It was a rebate check of approximately $98,000, which will be presented to the Palo Alto Medial
Foundation at our facility managers' meeting that we have with our staff and facility managers. They retrofitted lighting with
high-efficiency LEDs, resulting in an annual energy savings of 1.2 gigawatt hours,
### per year
equivalent to powering approximately 145 homes per year. And, with this upgrade, PAMF will save approximately $200,000
a year in annual energy costs.
0:13:10:
Another item I did want to mention, On April 22nd, staff presented an overview of our Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
[S/CAP] It was a study that -- where we received funding from the American Public Power Association. It was a DEED
webinar.
### DEED = Demonstration of Energy & Efficiency Developments
https://grantedai.com/grants/demonstration-of-energy-efficiency-developments-deed-program-grants-american-public-
power-association-appa-02a94f95
### Palo Alto is a DEED member.
https://www.publicpower.org/deed-members
So, we were -- our staff for, you know, to all agencies, in terms of the process -- the progress we're making on meeting our
S/CAP goals. So, it was well received. It's also been recorded. So, for APA other members, they can review it at a future
time. And we received $75,000 to perform that webinar. So, there -- it's just a slight rebate -- or, excuse me, a slight
amount of funding. But it also pays for that as well, So, that completes my update.
### No comments from commissioners.
NEW BUSINESS
0:14:00:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you. We will now turn to new business.
1. APPROVAL OF CHAIR & VICE CHAIR
And the first item of business is approval the chair and vice chair to serve a one-year term beginning May 6th, 2026. This is
my first time running the process of approving a chair and vice chair. And so, I was kindly provided a script,
### Who wrote the script? Did the current chair and vice chair participate? The staff report didn't include the script. Why
not? Ideally, the script might be included in UAC-specific Policies & Procedures document. The 2025 document, "City
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook" doesn't cover it.
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/5/city-clerk/bcc-handbook.pdf
and I'm going to read from that. So, we'll proceed as follows, acknowledging that this is adjusted slightly from past practice.
First, I will collect nominations from the commissioners for the position of chair. Commissioners may nominate themselves
or another commissioner. And no second is required. After collecting the nominations, I will invite people to speak in the
following order. Commissioners who have made a nomination may speak to the nomination. Commissioners who are
nominated may speak. Any other commissioner may comment. And members of the public will be heard. Then we will
conduct a roll call vote by stating the name of the commissioner that you would like to elect. So, if there are multiple
commissioners that are running for chair, you can at that time state the person that you wish to elect. Finally, the new chair
will then conduct the election of the vice chair in the same way. So, that chair becomes chair immediately upon election. Is
that understood?
0:15:35:
Commissioner Metz: So, let me -- maybe not --
0:15:37:
Vice Chair Mauter: Please.
0:15:37:
Commissioner Metz: -- [let me] test. Right now, we're going to be taking nominations only for the chair. Is that correct?
0:15:43:
Vice Chair Mauter: Correct.
0:15:44:
Commissioner Metz: Thank you.
0:15:44:
Vice Chair Mauter: The new chair will then receive the script and hopefully read from it. [laughs] OK.
0:15:56:
Commissioner Phillips: Does the public get to comment at any point?
0:15:58:
Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. They are eligible to speak fourth. So, first, the commissioner who made the nomination. Then,
the commissioner that was nominated. Third, any other commissioner. And fourth, the public. Understood? Excellent.
0:16:18:
**: [inaudible]
0:16:19:
Vice Chair Mauter: No. I don't think so. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to follow the rules.
0:16:25:
Commissioner Tucher: Vice Chair, quick. On nominations, it sounds like you want no commentary, just the nomination
name.
0:16:31:
Vice Chair Mauter: The -- Correct. So, the floor is now open for nominations for chair. Commissioners may nominate
themselves or any other commissioner. And no second is required. Chair Scharff.
0:16:46:
Chair Scharff: I'll nominate Meagan Mauter.
0:16:51:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you for the nomination. Are there any other nominations for chair?
0:16:55:
Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I would like to nominate Commissioner Gupta.
0:17:00:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK.
### Apparently Vice Chair Mauter thought that no other commissioners wanted to nominate anyone.
And, at this point, we will then move on to speaking. Those commissioners who have moved the nomination have an
opportunity to speak to that nomination. Chair Scharff, would you like to speak to the nomination of Vice Chair Mauter for
chair?
0:17:24:
Chair Scharff: Yes, I would definitely like to speak to it. I want to say, I think that Vice Chair Mauter has done an excellent
job as vice chair. And she's been great as my vice chair, frankly. She has a really great grasp of the utilities, especially the
water stuff. It's quite amazing. But what's really important as chair is the ability to run a meeting. And I think she's
demonstrated that amply the several times I've been unable to do it. Like right now, for instance. So, I would -- you know,
hopefully we'll all vote for Meagan.
0:17:59:
Vice Chair Mauter: Would Commissioner Metz like to speak to his nomination of Commissioner Gupta as the chair?
0:18:08:
Commissioner Metz: Sure. I'd be happy to. And certainly I recognize the importance of being able to run our meetings
effectively. No question that's important. But I would like to emphasize the need for process improvement to change how
UAC operates, so that it can better advise City Council. Specifically, I think we need to move past, you know, what I view as
some rubber stamp role. I do think we've made significant progress in the last 2 or 3 years in going in that direction. But I
think we still have quite a ways to go. I think the CPAU staff are very competent, very hardworking. And we have made
progress, as I said. But I feel that we often receive recommendations for action -- you know, like items 3 and 4 on the
agenda today, that require much more than one week of review and analysis to make informed decisions and take effective
actions. So, specifically, I'd like suggest more use of ad hoc committees.
### I'm not enthusiastic about this idea. It just means the public can't participate.
I think that's preferred by City Council for discussion pre-assessment of items like that several months before action is
requested, with a report out to the full UAC a month or two before action is due. And I think -- as I said, I think there are a
few items on the agenda today that would warrant that. This definitely would require more work from us -- from the
commissioners. But I think the UAC output would be better supported and much more well thought out. Additionally, along
the same lines, I'd like to see our calendar filled out to include both required that are routine, like budgets and so on, but
also UAC workplan priorities. The calendar in the packet for tonight -- I think there was eight months with no activities
listed. So, I think that's really important to improve. And then, having filled out the calendar, start on those items that have
a long lead time. There are quire a few of them. And do what I just described, using ad hoc committees and possibly
subcommittees
### What's the difference? If a subcommittee is not ad hoc, must its meetings be open to the public?
to get ahead of those items, long before they come up for a vote and ultimately to City Council. So, with that in mind, I think
Commissioner Gupta would be a very effective person to help UAC move in that direction. Thank you.
0:20:42:
Vice Chair Mauter: Thank you, Commissioner Metz. Would the commissioners like -- OK, I'm supposed to now insert my
own name. I apologize. Would Commissioner Mauter like to speak to their nomination? Yes, I would like to speak. And I
will be brief. I'd like to start by thanking Greg chairing this commission through multiple rate cycles, the launch of Grid Mod,
the ongoing FTTP discussions, and more than a few controversial nights. It's a genuine service to the City. So, thank you
very much, Greg. We are all grateful for it. I'm interested in serving as chair because I do believe that the next 12 months
will be especially consequential for the City. We do have FTTP go/no-go decisions that will certainly define whether Palo
Alto becomes a broadband provider at scale.
### It's interesting that Vice Chair Mauter apparently thinks that UAC should make it's decision recommending go or no-go
in the next 12 months. Will enough data be available in that timeframe to make a good decision?
We have a Grid Mod bond that will need to be rightsized and explained to ratepayers, who are being asked to carry that
debt going forward. And we have substantial rate increases across every utility.
### Not the (dark) fiber utility. The fiber utility's EDF-3 rate was raised only once since 2006. The utility's EDF-1 rate is
raised each year by just the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with the intent of catching up to the EDF-1 rate eventually.
Some of those rate increases are driven by forces that are under our control, and others are driven by forces that are far
outside of our control. The commission's job is to make sure that we distinguish between those forces, weigh them
carefully, and explain our recommendations to City Council and to the public. As chair, my role in supporting those
decisions would be one of structure, not of substance. The chair is just one equal voice on this commission.
### "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/all_animals_are_equal,_but_some_animals_are_more_equal_than_others
But to tackle the challenges ahead, this commission will need to offer guidance efficiently, communicate that guidance to
Council effectively, and support staff in executing decisions by providing feedback and accountability. As chair, I will ensure
that there is clarity about what kind of discussion on a nightly basis, whether we're engaging in an informational,
deliberative, or decisional discussion. I will actively work with staff to sequence items so that complex decision are
preceded by dedicated informational briefings rather than combined with them. The urban water management plan
discussion tonight is an example of that. We had a briefing last month, and we are now pivoting to an action item tonight.
My hope is that some of these process improvements will facilitate additional input from the public and additional --
obviously Brown Act compliant -- discussion by subcommittees and commissioners. Subcommittees remain an important
but certainly not exclusive mode of enhancing deep discussion and deliberation among commissioners. I will keep -- Or, I
said -- excuse me -- I will open each action item with a clear statement of exactly what the commission is being asked to
decide that evening and what is out of scope.
### This sounds excessively authoritarian. It should be clear from the wording of the staff report what the scope is. (Or, in
any case, it should be equally clear to all commissioners.)
When I hear a commissioner raise a concern that is legitimate but belongs in a formal UAC recommendation letter to
Council rather than in our motion, or should be addressed through some other mechanism, I will name that distinction and
offer a path to address it.
### Under what circumstances does UAC write formal letters of recommendation? Up to now, most of UAC's formal
recommendations occur in the motions accompanying action items.
And at the close of each meeting, I do want to see brief standing recap of what our recommendations actually were, so that
we leave with shared clarity rather than assumptions.
### Why is this better than achieving clarity on an item by item basis (where, I'd argue, the Brown Act expects it to be)?
None of this is dramatic, but I think it will be critical to our effectiveness as we advise Council on addressing the challenges
we expect in the year ahead. I would be honored to serve as you chair. Thank you.
0:24:21:
Vice Chair Mauter: Would Commissioner Gupta like to speak to their nomination?
0:24:21:
Commissioner Gupta: Yes, I would. Thank you. First, I'd like to thank Commissioner Metz for the nomination. Thank you.
Thank you for your voice and support. I think each of you has seen how I approach the issues that come before us. I dive
in. I spend the time. I work hard to understand the substance. This work doesn't stop just here at UAC meetings. I go out
into the community. I talk with residents and listen to their concerns. I follow through on all these issues that we speak
about here to the Finance Committee and to City Council, and engage with Council members regularly on these issues. I
try to develop a fuller picture holistically of everything that's going on in the City, and how what we're doing at UAC relates to
that. And I think that really gets to the heart of what Commissioner Metz is talking about. We need a better process here at
UAC. And that's something I'd like to drive forward as chair. And that means doing things like getting important agenda
items to us earlier, so we have more time to review them. Have multiple meetings to review them. For example, asking
questions about our budget, asking questions about our rates, over more than one meeting, so that we can really grok and
understand these really important issues. I agree with Vice Chair Mauter. We have a lot of important issues coming down
the pike. We have Grid Mod. We have electrification and decarbonization goals. We want to decommission our gas
system. Our climate goals are coming up. And we have really tremendous rate hikes that are planned and forecasted. And
I'll give you an example of this. We voted to approve rates over our March and April meetings. The day AFTER our April
meeting, a report comes out from -- that includes a reserve study. And at the end of that reserve study, it indicates that the
impact -- if we follow the recommendations of that study, could mean a 9 to 30 percent rate increase on our residents.
That's something that I wonder why wasn't that incorporated in our earlier discussions in March and April? And that's
something that I want -- I would work to improve. You know, when I talk to residents, many of these folks aren't wealthy.
Sure, they have really expensive homes, but they bought them a long time ago, when they were a couple hundred thousand
dollars. They tell me they're on a fixed budget. So every dollar coming out of their monthly budget is a real impact to them.
And we're talking about hundreds of dollars a month coming out of our residents' budgets every month, in just 5 years. So, I
will really try to open the hood, understand these issues, weigh the evidence, and make sure that we all have the ability to
really understand these issues, and provide really substantive and good and great advice to City Council, which I don't think
the current process is set up to serve. So, that -- if that's the kind of leadership you'd like to see in chair, I would be grateful
for your support. Thank you.
0:27:15:
Vice Chair Mauter: Would any other commissioners like to speak on the election of chair?
0:27:30:
OK. Now is the time for -- Oh.
0:27:35:
Commissioner Tucher: I would. I didn't want to jump to it. But -- So, it won't surprise any of you to hear, I have some
pretty strong feelings how I'd like -- or views on how I wish UAC were to work better. And a lot of them have been referred
to earlier by Phil and Utsav. Management of the calendar with timeliness. You've heard me say all these things. The "A" in
Advisory, in my view, has simply not been clear at all, the time I've been here. It takes -- All you have to do is watch a
Finance Committee meeting like the one I did that Bob kindly and very well represented the views of the discussion to see.
The City Council people are asking more in-depth questions, better-informed questions, having deeper conversations,
frankly, in my opinion, than I see us having. And they're not doing because they're armed with great insights from our
advisory.
### OK. Where are Council members getting their information and insights?
That loop has been broken. You've heard me say that many times. So I'll try not to repeat myself. But I'll give a couple of
examples. Utsav -- And I am speaking because I will vote for Utsav. I should stop and say there's not a single person on
this commission that I don't think could do a good job as chair. And I think, you know, it's very important the we keep the
respect and collegiality that I think we have on the commission. So, I say that, you know, before, you know, proceeding.
But just a couple of examples from today. This is Urban Water Plan. Meagan, you referenced it. It's about 100 pages.
And, yeah, we talked about it just weeks ago at the last meeting. The quality of our staff reports and presentations is
something I've spoken about as needing improvement. I can't see in this document where any of the discussion that took
place last month really plays in. Yes, there is a page -- almost like minutes -- that says one commissioner said this and
another commissioner was worried about that. But if I am the client -- if I am the Council -- I wouldn't really know what to
take from all of this. And as a commissioner now getting ready to talk about it again, I'm thinking, OK, 100 pages, what's
new? And it's not clear. It might be in the executive summary. But it's not. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. A few
minutes ago, I asked about this week's -- I think it's a 2-day City Council set of meetings on budget. Everything that is in our
document here is, I believe, word for word in the slides and presentations that Council has al- -- Sorry. Finance has already
discussed. Yes, we looked at rate reviews. Four of them.
### Not dark fiber.
That is not a budget. That is not an operating budget. It's not a capex budget. It's not sufficient, in my view, to say UAC
has advised -- weighed in on -- offered an opinion on -- our budgets. And so, I guess, you know, what I really want to
emphasize is, you know, why I think, with the importance of change, I think Utsav is someone who can do it. And I say that
because what I've observed in the way he's worked on specific cases. The gas COSA. The Council remanded it back to us
is I think largely due to his energy and efforts. The One Water -- half a million dollar project that got shelved, in large part
due to analysis and work that he did. The water letter that's in our packet today about the Urban Water Management Plan,
to me, is a great example of the kind of energy -- I think you said dive in and do the work that -- It's as good a
communication -- a written communication -- as I've seen in the City, let alone in the UAC. So, you know, a good
communication, a very collaborative style, an ability to voice a lot of the things that I talk about, but with a lot more
diplomacy. You know. And so, that's why I'll support Utsav's nomination. And yet -- I'll say it again -- I'm well aware of the
tradition that, you know, in Palo Alto, generally, that, you know, we step up, we take our turns. It's musical chairs. But, to
me, while that is important and collegiality on this dais is very important, it's not as important -- If we're going to bother to
take our time an do this thing called UAC, that we be more effective than we are right now. So I'll vote for that kind of
change.
0:32:16:
Vice Chair Mauter: Are there any other comments by commissioners? Please.
0:32:22:
Commissioner Croft: So, I -- When I think of the role of the chair -- and I also just, you know, understand the role of the
chair from the instructions we get from the City.
### What instructions? Written by whom? Can the public see them?
The chair needs to run an orderly meeting. Needs to work with staff ahead of time. Needs to work with us, to understand
what we want to -- what we WANT to be on the calendar. And then, also, just what needs to be on the calendar. So there's
a recognition, I think, of the annual cadence of what the City does, that I think the chair needs to a) understand and b)
respect. And follow. And if we want to have orderliness, timeliness -- I agree, we want to see things as early as we
possibly can. But I think the chair needs to kind of understand what all of us want to see, to be more effective, organize it,
speak with staff, and execute it so it comes to the meeting. That it comes to the meeting with good materials. And that
there's follow-up. I do think there needs to be better follow-up with City Council. So, just having seen what we've been
doing recently with reporting out to City Council, especially when we have split votes on things,
### I suppose this means when UAC has non-unanimous votes, not when UAC has multiple votes on a given item.
And then -- They just have so much on their plate. Right? We are getting into a lot of these topics much more in depth.
And I think everyone on this -- EVERYONE on this commission cares so much. You see it because we debate endlessly.
And we get into a lot of details. I think it's incredible. So, I do think we all have so much to give. And the chair's role isn't to
necessarily give it. The chair's role is to assimilate it all. Right? So that it comes in, gets organized, and gets presented to
the Council as they need, gets coordinated with staff. So, I actually feel like Meagan has done an excellent job of leading us
in this process. And I have seen your organizational skills in kind of marshalling us through it. I'm going to support you.
Like Chris said, I think anyone here CAN do it. But I've just seen you also step up in the vice chair role. So, I know you're
already, you know, doing a lot of the actions of chair already. So, thanks.
0:34:49:
Commissioner Phillips: I will also be supporting Vice Chair Mauter, for many of the same reasons. I've seen her run the
meetings. And, you know, with all due respect to Commissioner Gupta, I think you said it well. It's not bringing -- who
brings the greatest understanding. And I think we all dive deep. We all work hard. Many of us worked on the One Water.
Many of us worked on the gas COSA. Very hard. It's who can organize the meeting and make sure that work with staff and
work with colleagues. And I've seen that from Vice Chair Mauter. I also share the concerns that, you know, we need to get
better -- and whoever becomes chair -- at closing these loops. So, for example, as Commissioner Tucher was saying, you
know, there was a Finance Committee meeting, and they dove pretty deep, and, as a representative, they took neither of
our recommendations on rates. They took the staff recommendation -- as -- on gas. And they came up with a different
recommendation on electric power. And I haven't seen that transmitted back to us. I mean, you -- it may be the first time
some of you are hearing this. But that, to me, is also like a broken process that, you know, I'd urge whoever is chair, you
know, to help fix. Because, to me, it's very critical. And I think that we do this work. We work -- all of us -- I think very, very
hard. On both when we're on the dais, but also off the dais, that we understand what is happening with this work we're
doing. Is it really influencing decisions? If it's not, you know -- or the Council comes up with something different, that's fine,
too. But understanding why, and, you know, what we could be more effective in the future is also important. So, again, I'll
be supporting Vice Chair Mauter. All due respect to Commissioner Gupta. And, you know, I look forward.
0:36:59:
Vice Chair Mauter: Seeing no further comments by commissioners, we will now open the floor to any member of the public
who would like to speak to the election of the chair. Do we have any public speakers?
0:37:12:
Belle Farias: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item 2,
### Just the first part of Item 2.
please raise your hand or press *9 now. We do have 2 in-person public comment. Our first speaker is Peter D, followed by
Hamilton H.
0:37:34:
Peter Drekmeier: Good evening. Peter Drekmeier, Policy Director for Yosemite Rivers Alliance. I want to thank you all for
serving. We have such a talented commission. And we can't go wrong with chair or vice chair. You tackle a lot big issues
that people in Palo Alto tend to take for granted. Until there's a rate hike. And also, you know, some issues that we don't
really think about that much. At a recent Finance Committee meeting, there was a comment that your recommendation to
incorporate the service charge for using credit cards into the bill -- put that on the customer, if they want to do that -- would
save $200,000 a year. And one of the Council members pointed out that you earned your salaries with that one
recommendation alone.
0:38:23:
So, I've been coming pretty regularly to these meetings regularly for about a year and a half, in part because they're
interesting, and I like seeing all of you. And I've seen a lot of progress. My sense is, prior to that, there was more rubber
stamping. And I think you've asserted yourselves. You really are engaging. We have new staff leadership. So, the future's
bright. And Chair Scharff mentioned the importance of running a meeting. It's also really important preparing for the
meeting. Putting in the effort. Thinking ahead. Planning for the next few months, if not year. And trying to work through
potential pitfalls in advance. So, anything that doesn't have to be hashed through and take a lot of time at the meeting, that
can be done in advance, is really helpful. So, thank you all so much for serving. I know it's a lot of work, and you've got to
put up with a lot of people like me all the time. But I do appreciate you. And I I look forward to whoever is the new leader.
Thank you.
0:39:30:
Belle Farias: Our next speaker is Hamilton H.
0:39:33:
Hamilton Hitchings: Thank you. First of all, I'm glad that Ms. Mauter was nominated to chair. And certainly she's capable of
doing the role. Normally, vice chair runs for chair after one term.
### Is this referring to one three-year term as a commissioner? Or perhaps one year as vice chair?
Two terms, for a Palo Alto City commission is unusual. And three terms would have been problematic.
### I don't understand the point.
0:39:52:
I'm endorsing Utsav, because I think -- because he thinks critically. He does his homework. And he ensures the
commission does do the deep dives. You know, since Ms. Mauter has the votes,
### Is Hitchings saying, in effect, that public comment was scheduled too late within this item to be impactful?
I'm going to also make a couple of statements which she could take as input. It's important not to rubber stamp the Utility
Commission. And it's important to read the packet and do the homework before you come to the meeting. I think, you
know, what we want is commissioners who are going to advocate for us when we -- be responsive when we come to them,
and advocate for us.
### Provided, I assume, that "we" convince the commissioners that what "we" want is also in the best interest of the
community.
### City Council provides information about how the public can contact individual Council members.
https://www.paloalto.gov/City-Hall/City-Council
Is Hitchings suggesting that UAC do the same?
And so, all these things I listed are rooms for -- areas of growth. So, I hope, in your role, you take these things into
account. You're open and responsive to meeting with members of the community. You're thinking about -- and really
advocating for the ratepayers, across all the different class of ratepayers. And you're doing the work, so the City Council
doesn't have to do it. Whenever an item is remanded back, you know, that's a red flag that you guys didn't do your job.
### That's not obvious to me.
So, there's a lot of areas of improvement for the UAC. And I hope you guys do that. And I'm glad to see there's a lot of
energy towards making those improvements. So, thank you.
0:41:28:
Vice Chair Mauter: OK. We are conclude -- our public comments have concluded. Would the clerk please call the vote?
0:41:36:
Belle Farias: I will begin roll call. Please state the name of the commissioner that you vote to elect as chair. Commissioner
Tucher.
0:41:45:
Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Gupta.
0:41:46:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Phllips.
0:41:49:
Commissioner Phillips: Mauter.
0:41:51:
Belle Farias: Chair Scharff.
0:41:52:
Chair Scharff: Mauter.
0:41:54:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz.
0:41:56:
Commissioner Metz: Gupta.
0:41:59:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta.
0:42:00:
Commissioner Gupta: Gupta.
0:42:03:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft.
0:42:05:
Commissioner Croft: Mauter.
0:42:07:
Belle Farias: Vice Chair Mauter.
0:42:09:
Vice Chair Mauter: Mauter.
0:42:13:
Belle Farias: The UAC elected Meagan Mauter as chair for 2026 Congratulations.
### Vice Chair Mauter got 4 votes. Commissioner Gupta got 3 votes.
0:42:22:
Chair Mauter: [wielding gavel] Every time I used this, I used it incorrectly. So I'm going to put it back right here and let it sit
up there. Thank you again, Former Chair Scharff. for your leadership. We are grateful.
0:42:34:
Commissioner Scharff: And thank you for your support as my vice chair. It was -- You were wonderful. And
congratulations.
0:42:40:
Chair Mauter: Thank you. It is now time to elect the vice chair. The floor is now open for nominations for vice chair.
Commissioners may nominate themselves or another commissioner. And no second is required. I would like to move to
nominate Commissioner Phillips for vice chair. Do we have any other nominations for vice chair?
0:43:11:
Commissioner Tucher: If I wanted him for chair, I guess I want him for vice chair. I nominate Utsav Gupta.
0:43:02:
Chair Mauter: Are there any other nominations for vice chair?
0:43:24:
Commissioner Croft: I'm just going to put out there that I personally am interested in vice chair. So, I nominate myself.
0:43:32:
Chair Mauter: Are there any other nominations for vice chair? OK. Hearing none, would the commissioner like to speak --
I'm sorry. This is very awkward. Would Chair Mauter like to speak on her nomination of Commissioner Phillips for vice
chair? Yes, I would like to speak on my nomination. I just want to start off by reiterating my deep thanks to this commission
for my election to chair. I think that having a vice chair that I can work effectively with is going to be very important to
executing a number of the recommendations that both I've brought forward, as well as the rest of the commission has
brought forward in continuing to improve the processes and advisory functions of this commission. I've had the pleasure of
working very closely with many of you offline, and I want to especially thank those of you who I've had a chance to dive
deeply into kind of packet items in an offline manner. Of course, we are limited by the Brown Act as to the number of such
interactions. But in every instance in which I've interacted with members of the commission, I've really benefitted from that
process. I do want to especially thank Commissioner Phillips, who has been a real thought partner on some of those
issues, as well as an effective leader of some of our subcommittees. That role of subcommittee chair and subcommittee
member has been really pivotal to helping us process some of these kind of rate increases and other agenda items offline.
And I've seen Commissioner Phillips really effectively take that on and then communicate and transmit back to the
commission. So, for that reason, I really want to Commissioner Phillips' nomination. And yet, I am happy to work with any
of you in a role of vice chair. I look forward to working with all of you. And while the role of vice chair is one of close
collaboration with the chair, it is certainly not, you know, in terms of access, there's not any difference. OK. With that,
would anyone else like to speak to the nomination of vice chair?
### According to the script, the next person to speak should be Commissioner Tucher, because he nominated the next
candidate for vice chair.
0:46:28:
**: Could I -- Could I --
0:46:29:
Commissioner Metz: (unamplified) Wouldn't it -- **
0:46:32:
Chair Mauter: I think it would be you next, Commissioner Tucher next, if possible.
0:46:35:
Commissioner Tucher: Sure. Just let me open up my laptop. I want to reread the very same -- I'm supposed to wave a
100-page water management plan. No. I've made the case already. The one thing I want to amplify is the notion of all that
I think can -- all that does and should get done between meetings. A lot of what we talk about when we talk about process -
- closing the loop, the advisory function, managing the calendar -- does require work between meetings. And that -- But
before I even say that, I should say that nothing has been more fun for me personally of being part of UAC than get --
becoming friends with -- if I can use the word -- Bob and Rachel. So, you know, like I said in my last three minutes of fame,
anyone on this dais would do a great job. I just really want to advocate for the change. And I think the change IS going to
require a lot of effort in between meetings, and working with staff, and using subcommittees and texts [?] intelligently. And
hence my nomination.
0:47:47:
Chair Mauter: Thank you. Yes. So, I think you should -- nom -- you should speak as a nominator AND as a candidate. Is
that right? I apologize for that awkward transition, but I think that that's the appropriate thing to do. OK?
0:48:02:
Commissioner Croft: That's OK, because instead of doing that, I'm just going to withdraw my nomination.
0:48:11:
Chair Mauter: Commissioner Scharff.
0:48:16:
Commissioner Scharff: Yeah. There's a number of things I wanted to discuss.
0:48:18:
Chair Mauter: Oh, I'm sorry. You did not nominate somebody. So, I apologize. I'm going to cut you off.
0:48:22:
Commissioner Scharff: You're right. I'll wait. You know, --
0:48:24:
Chair Mauter: Having heard from the two nominators, could we please -- I need to follow the script. I apologize. Would
Commissioner Gupta and -- well, I'm going to start with Commissioner Gupta -- Would Commissioner Gupta like to speak to
their nomination?
0:48:44:
Commissioner Gupta: Sure. First off, thank you, Commissioner Tucher, for the nomination. Very grateful for it. I won't
repeat all the points I made before. The headline is, I do think we need process change at the UAC. It doesn't mean I'll
have a bent to it. What that means is that I'll understand the issues holistically and present them to us in a way where we
ALL have time to ask questions, understand it, and come to our OWN conclusions about it. Which I don't think we have
enough time currently to do with the current process. And that does require digging deep, working with staff, you know,
multiple times a month. And I think I've evidenced that through my work on the subcommittees. You know, it takes a lot of
time. But this is a role that I think is very important, for the City and for our residents here. It affects every resident, and it
affects every business. And I am very willing to put in the time, to make sure we work with staff, to find a better way to
present these issues. And, you know, I have experience in government and running meetings before. I clerked for the US
Senate Judiciary Committee with Senator Leahy, and I timed US senators. I've run our student government as its head.
So, I have significant experience with running meetings. So, I definitely would love to bring that experience to bear here.
Thank you.
0:50:08:
Chair Mauter: Commissioner Phillips, would you like to speak to your nomination?
0:50:13:
Commissioner Phillips: Sure. First of all, congratulations to -- Chair Mauter, I guess, to call you. And thank you to Greg --
Former Chair Scharff -- Commissioner Scharff -- for your service. And thank you for the nomination. I'd be very happy and
honored to share. I've enjoyed working with the members of the commission. I believe I have worked independently with
almost all of you, in some sense. And I've worked on the subcommittees, particularly the ad hoc committees on the gas
COSA, where I think we pushed through a great result there for the citizens.
### Not to mention other residents. And businesses.
And I've worked as liaison to the Finance Subcommittees,
### The Finance Committee (which itself has no subcommittees).
presenting the commission's position to the Finance Subcommittee. I've actually chaired this committee once. So, I think --
And, like you,
### Gesturing to Commissioner Gupta
have served on many boards and chairs in my life. I do have experience doing that. You know what some of my issues
are, that I'm interested [in]. I pushed very hard for them. Data centers, to get it onto the -- to get it onto our calendars to
have those discussions. I think it's critically important. I think I was one of the motives behind that. Certainly our reserve
policies are something that I've been pushing for us to look at. It's -- We've been tweaking them here and there, but we
need to take a comprehensive look. And I think somebody mentioned the Baker Tilly report. I want to get -- Every
commissioner should read that. And we need to agendize that, relatively soon, I think. And, you know, I've also been
working fairly significantly offline. So, I've been working with the Sierra Club on a drought demand model, which is better, I
think, than the BAWSCA model, and is being used by a number of -- by the Sierra Club, as well as a number of water
districts through here, in order to help improve their water forecasting. That's the same model -- if you read, in our rather
voluminous packet, the Sierra Club letter to BAWSCA that is talked about there. And, again, what I'd really look for, and
what I would really be pushing for, is, how do we have more impact? How do we get better feedback? Particularly from our
client. And our primary client is, of course, City Council, often through the Finance Subcommittee. So, once again, I'd be
honored to serve. I'd enjoy serving with Chair Mauter.
0:52:50:
Chair Mauter: Would any other commissioner like to speak on the election of vice chair? Commissioner Scharff.
0:52:59:
Commissioner Scharff: Thank you. Yeah. I just briefly wanted to support and speak in support of Bob. You know, several
things come to mind when I think of Bob. And I think the first thing is measured. Bob always has a measured response to
everything. He's very thoughtful about everything. And, you know, he has a strong gravitas. And I see that especially with
staff. I think he's one of the most effective members on our group -- in our group -- on our commission. And I hope we'll all
-- I hope we'll support Bob. I also just briefly wanted to say that I think very, very highly of Rachel. And I do think Rachel
also would have mad a great vice chair. And I think she's fantastic.
0:53:52:
Chair Mauter: I believe that we are missing a line in the script. So --
0:53:55:
Commissioner Metz: Chair, I would like to --
0:53:57:
Chair Mauter: Oh. I'm sorry.
0:53:59:
Commissioner Metz: I'd like to make just a brief comment --
0:54:00:
Chair Mauter: Please. Please.
0:54:01:
Commissioner Metz: -- which is -- Well, I guess, mainly this -- it's very awkward [laughs] because I think, as Commissioner
Tucher has said, you know, I think everyone here can be very competent. And specifically I've worked with Commissioner
Phillips on Grid Mod, on data centers, as he mentioned. And, you know, he's just super good both at content and how we
do things in those areas. But, for me, the number on issue for someone setting our agendas is this meta issue of process
improvement. For -- To change how we operate. And I think Commissioner Gupta has demonstrated a willingness and
interest and skill in doing that. So, I would support his nomination for that reason.
0:54:59:
Chair Mauter: Thank you. Are there any other commissioners that would like to speak on the election of vice chair? OK.
Well, Commissioner Croft did not speak. But --
### Commissioner Croft withdrew her self-nomination. That's a kind of speaking.
0:55:18:
Belle Farias: Chair Mauter, you are correct. the script is missing the next step.
0:55:21:
Chair Mauter: Now, it is time for any member of the public that would like to speak on the election of vice chair. Do we
have any public speakers?
0:55:31:
Belle Farias: We've already taken public comment for Item 2. But if you'd like to open up public comment again, specifically
for vice chair, we're able to do that.
### The (amended) script requires that the public be given a time to speak.
But currently we have no requests to speak.
0:55:44:
Chair Mauter: OK. In that case, would the clerk please call the vote?
0:55:52:
Belle Farias: I will begin roll call. Please state the name of the commissioner that you vote to elect as vice chair.
Commissioner Metz.
0:55:59:
Commissioner Metz: Gupta.
0:55:01:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher.
0:56:03:
Commissioner Tucher: We have two excellent choices. Almost -- We would have had three. I vote for Gupta.
0:56:10:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta.
0:56:12:
Commissioner Gupta: Gupta.
0:56:14:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Phillips.
0:56:17:
Commissioner Phillips: Phillips.
0:56:18:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft.
0:56:21:
Commissioner Croft: Phillips.
0:56:22:
Belle Farias: Chair Mauter.
0:56:24:
Chair Mauter: Phillips.
0:56:26:
Belle Farias: Commissioner Scharff.
0:56:28:
Commissioner Scharff: Phillips.
0:56:29:
Belle Farias: The UAC has selected Commissioner Phillips as vice chair for 2026. Congratulations
### Commissioner Phillips got 4 votes. Commissioner Gupta got 3 votes.
0:56:36:
Chair Mauter: Congratulations.
### Hypothetically, had Commissioner Croft remained in nomination and voted for herself, how would the tie vote have
been resolved?
3. UTILITIES OPERATIONING & CAPITAL BUDGETS -- FY2027
0:56:47:
Chair Mauter: OK. We will now move on to Item 3 on the agenda, which is the recommendation to City Council to adopt the
proposed Operating [&] Capital Budgets for the Utilities Department for Fiscal Year 2027.
----------
Belle Farias: Motion passes 5-1, with one abstain.
### Commissioner Tucher voted no. Commissioner Gupta abstained.
4. 2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, ETC.
2:05:04:
Chair Mauter: OK. We will now move on to the -- packet Item #4, which is the recommendation to City Council to adopt a
resolution adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, a resolution adopting the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency
Plan, and an ordinance to amend the City's Water Use Ordinance.
2:05:30:
Commissioner Scharff: Chair Mauter, I just wanted to let you know that I need to leave, unfortunately.
2:05:35:
Chair Mauter: OK. Thank you.
2:05:40:
Director Kurotori: Thank you. I'm going to have Assistant Director of Resources Lisa Bilir and Senior Resource Planner
Audrianna Artola give the presentation on the Urban Water Management Plan.
2:05:59:
Assistant Director of Resources Bilir: Thank you, Alan. And, as Alan mentioned, Audriana is going to give the presentation.
2:06:45:
Senior Resource Planner Artola: All right. Good evening, everyone. My name is Audrianna Artola. I'm a Senior Resource
Planner for the utilities department. And I'll be presenting key updates to the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, the
Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which is a component of the Urban Water Management Plan, and proposed updated to
the permanent Water Use Ordinance.
----------
5 2026 ANNUAL WATER SHORTAGE ASSESSMENT REPORT
3:54:33:
Chair Mauter: Thank you. OK. We have one final item tonight. Item number 5, which is the 2026 Annual Water Shortage
Assessment Report. And I encourage us to work expeditiously on this one. I am going to cut off discussion after 20
minutes, which is what this is agendized for. If it goes a minute longer, it will end. [laughs]
3:55:00:
Director Kurotori: We will have a very truncated presentation.
3:55:03:
Chair Mauter: Thank you.
3:55:05:
Assistant Director of Resources Bilir: Yes. Audrianna is going to present on this very briefly. We don't have any slides.
3:55:10:
Chair Mauter: Excellent.
3:55:11:
Senior Resource Planner Artola: No presentation. I've already explained this a little bit during the prior agenda item as
well. So, as I mentioned, this is an annual -- sorry, I always blank on this full -- sorry -- Here we go. The Annual Water
Shorage Assessment Report. And the point of this report is to communicate to the UAC whether or not there is anticipated
water shortage for the coming fiscal year. And, based on the water assessment for this year, which is -- it takes information
provided by the SFPUC, specifically the SFPUC's annual water supply availability update, which was provided in April.
Based on that report, there -- like I said, there's no water shortage anticipated for fiscal 2027. I can leave it there unless
there are any questions.
----------
4:04:22: Belle Farias: Motion passes 6-0.
### Scharff absent.
FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMING MEETINGS
4:04:28
Chair Mauter: OK. That takes us to Future Topics for Upcoming Meetings.
----------
4:13:21:
Commissoner Tucher: Yeah. Exactly. Then I will take -- If this is Commissioner Comment[s]. Is this -- This is the end of
the meeting. Right?
4:13:29:
Chair Mauter: No, we are not there yet.
4:13:31:
Commissioner Tucher: Oh, excuse me
4:13:32:
Chair Mauter: Are we done with any Future Topics for Upcoming Meetings?
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
4:13:38:
Chair Mauter: OK. NOW we can move on to Commissioner Comments and Reports From Meetings and Events.
Commissioner Tucher.
4:13:46:
Commissioner Tucher: I'll just -- where I was about to go a moment ago. I was critical of the budgets before. But there are
community member or a new commissioner, want to know how -- what's going on at the CPAU, then this document -- The
good aspect is that it talks about achievements in a pretty thorough way. They were good achievements. Each utility. It
talks about initiatives, which presumably means these are our biggest items right now this year. And it has a goal -- one
goal -- too. So, all of that I applaud.
4:14:37:
The problem, of course, in my view is that there's just no loop. We talked about it at the beginning of tonight's meeting.
There's no monitoring. There's no dashboard. Bob, at the start of the meeting, used KPI. The document does talk about
key performance measures. But, you know, I'll be damned if we ever, you know, on a monthly or quarterly basis, sit down
and talk about, like, OK, how was our SAID rating,
### SAIDI? (SAIDI -- system average interruption duration index -- not a "rating," per se, just a statistic -- a measure of
electric power outage.)
or how many miles of this or that have we laid out? I mean, really, a dashboard that, systematically, every month or every
quarter, looks at the things that we want to be looking at. But I'd contend that those are all very nicely captured in this Ops
Budget. But when we -- Look, when we approach the rolling calendar -- like, when could be next talk about R&R
### (electric) reliability & resiliency
Or when could we next get an update about time-of-use pricing, or AMI rollout, or whatever it is, they just -- these things pop
up every 3 or 13 months. And we get an update. We need a dashboard.
4:15:45:
Chair Mauter: Commissioner Metz.
4:15:47:
Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I attended one meeting, which is the Stanford Sustainability Data Center Symposium last
Friday. Overall -- Just to summarize very briefly, you know, as I described before, a lot of rainbows and unicorns. I thought
very upbeat view of where data centers are going nationally. Very little -- First, a meeting starting with the word
"sustainable," very little discussion of environmental sustainability. Steven Chu, the physicist, led off talking about global
warming, though just saying that it's blasting through 2 degrees C. Much more to come, because slow ocean mixing has
slowed down warming. So, there's actually kind of a lot of heat being stored up that hasn't -- in the deep ocean, that, you
know, hasn't gotten back to us yet. There was a good California panel on AI infrastructure, including Patti (do you say)
Poppe, the CEO of PG&E. Josh Becker, State Senator, who I think the same day, which is sort of interesting. Wasn't he
the one who was arrested in a demonstration? Yeah. Anyway, they viewed data centers as a beneficial load.
### I assume "beneficial load" means constant load, which benefits sources like coal, gas, and nuclear, which would like to
provide a constant output.
Reducing cost. She said that 1 gigawatt additional load lowers rates 1 percent, and adds about $300 million of sales tax
revenue.
### Poppe is speaking about just PG&E sales tax revenue (annual, I assume). Note that PG&E's electric rates far exceed
CPAU's.
And the belief, I think, broadly throughout the conference, was that data centers will prepay for infrastructure. Which, of
course, would be a good thing for us. They viewed California as having big advantages in technology and talent and so on.
But we will not be getting the big training data centers, as we've talked about here. But the growth is spectacular. People
are talking about 9-17 percent electricity growth due to AI. And the hope is it will help maximize use of existing
infrastructure. But I think we all know there have been discussions about transmission shortages throughout the country.
So, there's sort of conflicting data.
### Or at least conflicting perceptions.
One of the most interesting presentations was [by] Nico Procos, who's head of -- not head -- who's headed at Silicon Valley
Power
### Procos is Director of Silicon Valley Power (Santa Clara' municipal electric utility)
https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/Home/Components/News/News/45376/6271
which has a lot of -- I think he said 58 data centers -- 55 percent of their usage. And he also mentioned they have their own
147 MW generating plant.
### SVP's Donald Von Raesfeld Power Plant, powered by natural gas, came online in 2005.
https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/home/showdocument?id=10977
### Palo Alto looked into building its own local 25-50 MW generator, powered by natural gas, but wisely decided against it.
This 03-07-11 staff report describes the concept.
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19031
So, for a small muni like us, I think the experience from Silicon Valley Power obviously seems really valuable. There was
some good discussion -- Actually a friend of mine, Graham Richard, used to be the mayor of Fort Wayne, IN,
### From 2000 to 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Richard
talked about a Google data center called -- code named Zodiac. And I think it illustrated some of the issues we will face,
namely, that -- what he said -- an important was, the city council went out and did its own research into other cities'
experiences with data centers.
### Fort Wayne has municipal water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities, but not municipal electric or gas utilities. I don't
think they have anything like a utilities advisory commission.
So, you really have to get out there to what's going on. The tricky bit is, the data centers want secrecy, and they don't want
to talk about their plans. They don't want their competitors to learn about their plans. So it's hard for cities to make
informed decisions. And the real information shows up, you know, very last minute.
### So, was Graham Richard saying Zodiac was good for Fort Wayne? Or not?
One last thing that I thought was really interesting. Libby Schaaf, former Oakland mayor is not the head of Bay Area
Council,
### 04:13:26: "Bay Area Council Announces Libby Schaaf as New President and CEO"
https://www.bayareacouncil.org/news/bay-area-council-announces-libby-schaaf-as-new-president-and-ceo/
which is a very important industry group. She emphasized what she termed "altitude," which was the need for making land
use decisions above the local level. And she said that -- I counted 6 times. So, this, I think, is the kind of direction that she
and others are thinking. And I think it's something that may not be a totally happy message for Palo Alto. So, need to think
about that one. Anyway, I'd be happy to talk with anybody. I have more detailed notes at home. I'd be happy to share with
them.
4:20:08:
Chair Mauter: OK. Are there any other reports from meetings and events?
4:20:12:
Commissioner Croft: I can just give a quick update on time-of-use pilot, which I'm participating in.
### Not exactly a meeting or an event, but hey.
### When, at 4:15:31, Commissioner Tucher called for an update about time-of-use pricing, I assume he meant agendizing
an item and getting a staff report, and perhaps even voting advice to Council.
So, it's been a couple months now. We began with literally hand-done reports. Which, thank you, Dave, for having the
team do that. Where I'm like charting out what I'm doing with -- you know, came in 15-minute increments, 1-hour
increments, and then daily increments. And so, trying to figure out when I'm using -- how to change -- you know, I'm a very
motivated person, because this is like one of the reasons I wanted to be on UAC in the first place, is how to change the
behavior our consumers to use cleaner energy in the middle of the day. And since starting, you guys have now put it into
the portal. So now, if you go into your utilities portal and you look at your usage, it's color-coded by day -- by month, by day,
by hour. And so, that's been really great. It's -- You guys have made a lot of progress. And I've seen it as you're working
out the kinks when things get, you know, working better. I'll just also say, even as an extremely motivated person who's
working at home during the day, it's very hard to move my load. I've been trying. And I expected myself to be able to do
better. So, I think there's a lot of analysis that I can do on what those remaining loads are that I haven't moved yet. But I
also would really love to get in touch with other people in the time-of-use pilot and kind of exchange ideas. But I do think
this is going to be a great way to -- I think in addition to rolling it out, collecting data, it would be very helpful to find out how
motivated those people are, and correlate those with their outcomes. Because if you're not motivated, it's not moving. I
don't think. I mean, I -- And I think my -- Costs is another area. I'm not really sure if I'm saving money. I think I might be
saving a little, but I'm not sure, because there's no ability to compare, which would be helpful. But it is really great. And
they're making a lot of progress on the portal, and how to see the data, etc. So, thank you so much for letting me
participate.
4:22:29:
Chair Mauter: OK.
4:22:31:
Commissioner Gupta: I had a quick -- sorry -- quick --
4:22:34:
Chair Mauter: Sure.
4:22:34:
Commissioner Gupta: -- update. So, I had an opportunity to go with Explore Energy to visit the Tesla Gigafactory,
Panasonic, and Redwood Materials. If you have any questions about that, feel free to talk to me afterwards. I've also been
seeking lessons from other places in the world on decarbonization and gas decommissionings. I had dinner with New
Zealand energy executives when they were visiting Palo Alto. And they have had some experience in decommissioning,
you know, cold fuel lines. And then, through Stanford founders also hosted Norwegian energy executives, including
Statkraft, who's the largest renewable energy provider in Europe.
### Statkraft
https://www.statkraft.com/about-statkraft/
So, I'm hoping we can learn something from collaborations all over the world. But there are a lot of places that are moving
towards decarbonization. So, I think it's a really great thing.
4:23:21:
Chair Mauter: Great. Closer to home, the wastewater treatment plant welcomes any commissioners for tours, if they are
interested. With that, we adjourn. And we will --
4:23:34:
Belle Farias: Chair --
4:23:05:
Chair Mauter: Oh, I'm sorry. we do NOT adjourn. Now -- we add that to our future agendas, please -- we'll take public
comment from the -- Zoom.
4:23:48:
Belle Farias: Thank you, Chair. If any member of the public would like to speak remotely on an item not on the agenda,
please raise you hand or press *9 now. We have no requests to speak.
4:24:05:
Chair Mauter: With that, we adjourn. [gavel] I'm not even moving to adjourn.
4:24:10:
END
From:Minya Dai
To:Council, City
Subject:Support P&S recommendation (Item# 4 of 06/01 council meeting)
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:11:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear city council Members,
As a Palo Alto resident, I respectfully urge you to support the P&S recommendation to
indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry program and any further analysis or
preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The P&S staff investigation shows that these policies, even though well-intended, bring poor
additional benefits and high additional cost to both the city and landlords. And this is
consistent with what I've observed, as a PA owner resident for nearly a decade.
All the neighboring landlords/tenants I know throughout the years seem happy with their
landlord-tenant relationship. Most tenancy lasted for years and these tenants have maintained
good relationships with us neighbors and their landlords. I do not see the need for the RRP,
given how responsible the Palo Alto landlords are and especially how well the existing tenant
protection policies work. It'd unnecessarily add burden to the landlords, which would
eventually boost the housing price, reduce availability, and negatively impact the tenants.
If anything needs revision, the council may want to investigate ABOLISHING the RRP
rather than expanding it.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the P&S staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Minya
Resident in the Greer Park neighborhood
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:hermesmh1@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:09:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto resident to respectfully urge you to support the staff recommendation to indefinitely
defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization
policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city would need to hire
additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs. These costs are especially concerning given
the impact these policies would have add on more costs to the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Mona He resident on Wilkie Way
Sent from my iPhone
From:jianminlicausa@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:08:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff recommendation to
indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further analysis or preparation of a local rent
stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city would need to hire
additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by
raising fees on property owners. These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have
on housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and that further local
intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to
indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
James Li
Sent from my iPhone
From:Mr. Shore
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Council, City; Jeremias, Michel; Arce, Ozzy; Armer, Jennifer; Cha, Kelly; Margaret Bruce
Subject:SF Creek - Maintenance Corridor - Status Report on Previously Raised Concern
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:32:18 PM
Attachments:Email-Sent_by_MBruce_ExecDirector_SFCJPA--09Sep2025.pdf
PA-StudySession-Remarks-08Sep2025.pdf
Agenda_Item_2-SFCJPAStudySession-08Sep2025.COMPRESSED.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Chair Chang and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission,
During the May 27 PTC meeting, in response to the report by Ozzy Arce (Sr. Transportation
Planner) on the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project, Commissioner James reiterated the
Commission’s concern with Valley Water’s maintenance corridor at the top of bank due to its
"vexing" propensity to attract encampments.
Inasmuch as the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project is one element of the overall SF
Creek Reach 2 flood reduction effort, Commissioner James expressed his hope that the
maintenance corridor would be flagged by Palo Alto in connection with the overall effort so
that it can be addressed and a solution identified. In response, Mr. Arce pledged to convey
this to Public Works staff for consideration.
Regarding the maintenance corridor and encampment concerns raised by
Commissioner James, this is a matter I raised directly with Council in September 2025. In
response to the attached scripted remarks and slides that I delivered at a Council Study Session
featuring a SF Creek JPA update on the Reach 2 Flood Control Project, I received assurances
from the JPA’s Executive Director in the attached email that project design efforts will “keep
in mind” the “ways project features may attract – or might deter – homeless encampments.”
Best,
Jeffrey Shoe
Draft dated 08 Sep 2025
Good evening, Mayor Lauing, Councilmembers.
,
do
Draft dated 08 Sep 2025
the Report regarding how to deter encampments in the gap between the proposed floodwalls and
the private security fences (indicated with a red horizontal line).
San Francisquito Creek
Urban Reach 2 Project
Agenda Item 2
Palo Alto City Council
September 8, 2025
Encampments In San Francisquito Creek
2
Encampments In San Francisquito Creek
3
3’-5’ Maintenance
Corridor
Figure 27: Alternative 2 and 4 Typical Section
San Francisquito Creek Urban Reach 2 Project
Alternatives Evaluation Technical Report | May 2025 70 4
3’-5’ Maintenance Corridor
Top-of-Bank
Floodwall Security Fence
SF Creek
Palo Alto
Residence
5
3’-5’ Maintenance Corridor
Top-of-Bank
Floodwall Security Fence
SF Creek
Palo Alto
Residence
6
3’-5’ Maintenance Corridor
Top-of-Bank
Floodwall Security Fence
SF Creek
Palo Alto
Residence
7
Figure 27: Alternative 2 and 4 Typical Section
San Francisquito Creek Urban Reach 2 Project
Alternatives Evaluation Technical Report | May 2025 70 8
San Francisquito Creek Urban Reach 2 Project
Alternatives Evaluation Technical Report | May 2025 110
Alternative 2 Conceptual Rendering of Channel
Widening and Walking Trail between University Avenue
and Newell Road, near Woodland and Cooley
9
Subject: Thank you
From: Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org>
Date: 9/9/25, 10:09 AM
To: Jeffrey Shore <jeff.shore@comcast.net>
Hello Jeff,
It was nice to see you at yesterday's Palo Alto City Council meeting. I appreciate your support for the
SFCJPA and the Reach 2 project.
Thank you for raising awareness about the ways project features may attract - or might deter - homeless
encampments. We will be sure to keep this in mind as our design details progress.
Best regards,
Margaret Bruce
Executive Director
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
750 Menlo Ave. Suite 250
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(Direct) 650-643-1451
(Cell) 650-384-7850
Thank you
1 of 1 5/27/26, 8:59 PM
From:Jeanne Cox LeVett
To:Council, City
Subject:My Request to Defer Indefinitely Extending Rental Registry Program to Properties with Two or Fewer Units AND
Pursuing a Local Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:18:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
As a housing provider in Palo Alto, I would like to urge you to act on the recommendation of your
staff and your Policy and Services Committee to indefinitely defer the two issues referenced in the
“Subject” line of the email above.
The process of managing the Rental Registry Program is not only onerous and costly to both the
city and landlords, but has been found to be an unnecessary burden for us all.
Continuing and expanding the program is not recommended by your own staff, having found that
landlords are not taking advantage of the market, a result that I am personally proud to see.
Thank you,
Jeanne LeVett
President
LeVett Properties Palo Alto & Carmel, CA
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Minwen Ji
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:04:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Minwen Ji
858 Ames Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94303
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Phoebe Kuong
To:Council, City
Subject:city.council@paloalto.gov
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 12:17:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Subject: Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely my name is Phoebe,Thanks
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Marguerite Poyatos
To:Robert Marinaro
Cc:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu,
George; City Mgr; 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; 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;
Scott 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 Lafargue 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; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa
Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan; Taryn
Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon;
Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann
Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily; Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart
Kreitman; Charleston Village HOA; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; geoff.wong@usa.net;
Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro
Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Situation - - Bob"s OSV Count (5/22/26)
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 12:10:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Following up regarding the Transport Street/Industrial Avenue area.
The weekly street sweeping has been somewhat effective regarding the OSV/RV issue in our
neighborhood. However, one RV seems to have found a loophole to avoid moving for street
sweeping. To my knowledge, today is the second or third week in a row that the vehicle hasn't
moved, been towed, or been cited? Attached are pictures of the license plate,as well as the sign
they keep in their window.
While I empathize with someone not feeling well, I don't see how they get a pass on moving
their vehicle when they have two weeks to prepare (being that the street sweeping is every
other week). I also imagine that owners of other OSV will see this as a good workaround in
the future and implement the same approach.
Can enforcement consistently address people ignoring the laws and signs posted directly
outside their vehicles? It is clear that repeat offenders are taking advantage of the city's
inability to act.
On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 8:43 PM Robert Marinaro <rmarinaro@mac.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
Hope you all are enjoying your Memorial Day Holiday especially those in northern Palo Alto that
do not have to deal with the 138 OSVs that currently adorn our streets. Please find attached my
latest OSV count along with an updated list of OSV impacts to the community. As I mentioned in
my earlier e-mail from several weeks ago the numbers of OSVs bottomed out at the end of March
and now the numbers are gradually increasing.
The City has made incremental changes such as banning Vanlords and detached traitors, but has not
taken the needed bold actions to remove these vehicles from our streets. In my quest to talk with
concerned residents and businesses I hear the stories and encourage each and every one of them to send
their comments to the City Council. We all provide our input but we are not hearing any substantive
short-term actions to remedy the situation.
The HomeKey facility will soon be open with its 88 units, but it sounds like many of those units will be
filled by families and individuals that are temporarily housed at a motel in Sunnyvale. It seems like faulty
logic that the individuals in these OSVs will need to housed by government-funded interim housing
before they can be removed from our streets. And what about the many of them who have no interest in
interim housing and just like the independence of their home on wheels with no rent, no utility
payments, and no consequences.
As time marches on I have seen many of these OSV dwellers become more emboldened and brazen and it
needs to be stopped before this situation really gets out of hand!
And what about these OSVs that are starting to infiltrate our south Palo Alto neighborhoods? And what
about these OSVs that park in front of south Palo Alto condominium developments (Charleston Village,
Acacia Condominiums, and Echelon Townhomes) taking up parking, leaving garbage in the streets,
running their noisy generators until all hours, and generally infringing on the sensibilities of all of us!
So what are the next steps? What happened to the “Next Steps” that used to be on the Council’s
calendar? We are tired of this politically-correct soft-heartded approach. We need bold leadership and
we need it now not in 2027, 2028, 2029! Kicking the can down the road is not going to cut it!
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Guy living in his box truck on E. Meadow Circle
Welcome to E. Meadow Circle - - Where 40 OSVs reside!
Fabian Way - - Where 15 OSVs currently reside (both segments from E. Meadow Drive to San Antonio
Rd.)
Fabian Way in front of the Charleston Village Condos much to the dismay of residents and Home Owners
Association
Association
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.)
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Detached trailers no longer allowed
Lower San Antonio Rd. (between Charleston & Transport St.) - - Currently 7 OSVs on this street segment
Transport St. - - Bad Actor #3 (how can this be street legal) still allowed on our streets much to the
chagrin of area businesses
Elwell Court - - OSVs adorning City offices
Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero Rd.) - - Currently 18 OSVs on the short road
If only it was enforced!!! Do as I do (or not do) - not what I say!
Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park - - Come watch a soccer game and watch RV dwellers working on
their rigs! And what about those slide-outs?
Ames Ave (at the corner of Ross Rd) - - This is the newest addition to our neighborhood!
Mitchell Park - - Please, please get these vehicles out of our parks!
Orinda St. - - A new fixture in the heart of the Ventura Neighborhood!
Matadero Ave. - - Another OSV that has neighbors clamoring for removal!
--
Marguerite Poyatos
Operations Manager
PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.
4085 Transport Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-494-7000 ext.110
www.paloaltoglass.com
Privilege Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer.
From:Mihai Fechete
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Letter to city council
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:17:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: 414 California LLC <ask@414.info>
Date: Wed, May 27, 2026 at 3:08 PM
Subject: Letter to city council
To: nobhillhardware@gmail.com <nobhillhardware@gmail.co
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Members of the City Council,
We are writing as the owners of Nob Hill Hardware, located at 251 California Avenue and
as long-standing members of the local business community.
We understand that the Council is considering an emergency ordinance related to
California SB79 at the meeting on Monday, June 1. We respectfully urge the Council to
reconsider their approach and rather than applying broad restrictions uniformly across Palo
Alto, consider applying a more nuanced approach.
California Avenue is one of Palo Alto’s important commercial and mixed-use districts, and
its future depends on renewed investment, increased activity, and a stronger daytime
customer base.
Service businesses like ours rely on nearby residents, office workers, visitors, restaurants,
and other local businesses to keep the district vibrant. Strategic redevelopment in areas like
California Avenue can bring more people, more energy, and more consistent support for
the small businesses that serve this community every day.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Additional housing, thoughtful density, and new investment would not only help existing
businesses survive and grow, but also help attract new businesses that can strengthen
California Avenue as a lively and successful destination for Palo Alto.
We recognize that less urban residential neighborhoods may warrant a different approach.
However, California Avenue should be evaluated on its own terms, as an urban commercial
corridor where carefully planned growth can support both the business community and the
broader city. A one-size-fits-all policy risks limiting the very kind of investment needed to
help this district thrive.
We respectfully ask the Council to distinguish between Palo Alto’s residential
neighborhoods and its urban commercial centers, and to preserve the opportunity for
thoughtful redevelopment in areas like California Avenue.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the city.
Sincerely,
From:shirley
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:09:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new
programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners.
These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on
housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as
intended and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and
Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer
these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Shirley Feng
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Ron Granville
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:39:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new
programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners.
These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on
housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as
intended and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and
Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer
these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff
recommendation
Ron Granville, CPM®
CEO
Woodmont Real Estate Services
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
1050 Ralston Avenue | Belmont | CA | 94002
(p) 650.802.1653 | (f) 650.591.4577
rgranville@wres.com www.wres.com
BRE License No. 00688241
From:mingxia zhang
To:Council, City
Subject:Subject: Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:38:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Mingxia Zhang
Corina Way Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:Ellen Zhu
To:Council, City
Cc:Ellen Zhu
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:36:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any further
analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs, and
increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs are
especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in Palo
Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended and
that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services Committee also
supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Ellen
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Steve Stern
To:Council, City
Subject:June 1 council meeting
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:01:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Subject: Item No. 4 on the June 1council meeting agenda
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the
staff recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry
and any further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The
city would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new
programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property
owners. These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would
have on housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as
intended and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and
Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer
these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Steve Stern
580 Ruthven Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Wonewok@gmail.com
From:Sanjeet Thadani
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:42:02 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new programs,
and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners. These costs
are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on housing costs in
Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as intended
and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and Services
Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Sanjeet Thadani
Sent from my mobile device
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:ywei@missionpathway.org
To:Council, City
Subject:Item No. 4 on the June 1 council meeting agenda
Date:Thursday, May 28, 2026 9:33:38 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto housing provider to respectfully urge you to support the staff
recommendation to indefinitely defer both the expansion of the rental registry and any
further analysis or preparation of a local rent stabilization policy.
The staff report identifies several serious concerns with pursuing these policies. The city
would need to hire additional staff, spend millions of dollars to administer new
programs, and increase the cost of providing housing by raising fees on property owners.
These costs are especially concerning given the impact these policies would have on
housing costs in Palo Alto and the city’s multimillion-dollar budget deficit.
The staff report also finds that AB 1482, the Tenant Protection Act, is working as
intended and that further local intervention is not necessary. The city’s Policy and
Services Committee also supported the staff recommendation to indefinitely defer
these items.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to support the staff
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Yi-Hen Wei & Mary Neou
Owner of 380 W Meadow Dr. Palo Also
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Lori wainen linberg
To:Council, City
Subject:Residential Parking
Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2026 5:33:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello,
I received an email from Mark Hu, stating that you will be trying to fine-tune this program to meet the needs of
everyone and be more inclusive. While I have a minute, I would like to share that as Seniors or disabled or
homebound for whatever reason wouldn’t it be nice if we could have more than one person from our family come to
a birthday party in a car and wouldn’t it be helpful if possibly Seniors could get a discount?
I hope when I open this up later to pay for my new Parking placard for the visiting nurses if I ever get out of this
hospital, that I will see that you actually made an effort. But to be quite blunt I have been expressing this since the
program began charging for residents and I’ve only seen it become harder and harder for those who need special
help and deserve it.
Yours,
Lori W Linberg
Sent from my iPhone
From:Walter Murray
To:Council, City
Subject:Tennis
Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2026 3:14:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council:
Some more comments on the tennis courts at Mitchell Park. A brief survey of the waiting
time at the tennis and pickle ball was published. This is my observation. The busy times
at tennis are 4:00 to 7:00. Even 3:00 is tough. On Thurs I biked by at 5 to check usage. All
courts were busy. There were 6 children playing one the court and two children on an
adjacent court. The other two courts had adults. Nobody was playing on the adjacent
pickleball courts and there were two vacant courts on the main pickleball area. On
Friday when I played at 3. I got the last court. The adjacent there were 4 children playing
double accompanied by 4 parents. There were children playing on one of the other
courts and adults on the 4th. Again there were vacancies on the adjacent pickleball
court.
Use of courts. Typically you can only hope or plan to play tennis for an hour maybe a
couple of days a week. One of my friends who plays pickleball goes for 5 hours. The
person reported in the post went for 3 hours. They also go as much as every day and it is
overwhelmingly adults. If you plan to play 3 hours and played yesterday and the day
before you are much more willing to wait than a tennis player who will play for only an
hour. Moreover, it is a queue at pickleball for any of a large number of courts that may
become available.
To point out there are tennis courts elsewhere in the City is not of much use. The time to
drive or bike to places with two courts is too high and there is no assurance a court is
available. I do go and check the courts at Cubberley, but they are typically full. Block
booked by USTA and rogue instructors teaching kids.
The fact pickleball players stay so long playing also impact the parking at the library as
well as annoying library users with noise. From the very start they have been aggressive.
It started with a couple of courts then shared use of one. They never moved their stuff. I
think there are now 15 courts and the noise is horrendous. Why this was ever
contemplated show someone at City Hall was asleep.
Walter Murray
From:Vishal
To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City
Subject:Please stop taking over our Tennis courts give priority to residents!!
Date:Wednesday, May 27, 2026 11:18:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Park and Recreation Commission and City Council,
I am writing as a Palo Alto resident, taxpayer, and avid tennis player to express my strong
opposition to any further expansion or conversion of tennis courts for pickleball at Mitchell
Park or for that matter any other tennis courts in the city of Palo Alto.
As a local tennis player, I am already facing a significant shortage of available courts. It is
increasingly frustrating to be pushed out by coaches and USTA leagues who reserve courts
during peak desirable hours, such as evenings and weekends. This leaves local taxpayers with
almost no non-office time to enjoy the facilities we fund.
While I support diverse recreational activities, Mitchell Park has reached its absolute carrying
capacity. Unchecked pickleball expansion is actively dismantling the core functions of this
essential civic space and taking away the priviledges that should be reserved for the tax paying
city residents.
Specifically, I would like to highlight three critical issues:
- Parking Deprivation: The parking lots at Mitchell Park are chronically gridlocked. Families
and seniors are routinely forced to turn away because spaces are overwhelmed by high-
turnover pickleball traffic.
- Regional Subsidy Disparity: Much of the current pickleball influx consists of non-residents
from surrounding cities. Palo Alto taxpayers should not have to sacrifice their local peace and
tax dollars to absorb the regional demand of other municipalities.
I respectfully demand that the City:
1. Enact an immediate, permanent moratorium on any new pickleball court construction or
tennis court conversion in Palo Alto.
2. Mandate a "Palo Alto Resident Priority" system using a home address verified reservation
portal, allocating at least 80% of peak-hour slots exclusively to local residents for BOTH
PICKLEBALL and TENNIS courts. You can easily partner with NEXTDOOR for this as they
already do a verification of residents based on this.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Our public parks must serve the broad public good of Palo Alto's families and residents first. I
urge you to stand with your local constituents and protect the integrity of Mitchell Park.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter that impacts our quality of life!
Best,
Vishal
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter to be included with the letters to the city council for the city council meeting
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:55:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I am asking publicly why the health, safety, and legal rights of the tenants at the Opportunity
Center appear to have fallen to the bottom of the City’s priority list. The City’s own Notice of
Violation states that unpermitted work occurred at the Opportunity Center for approximately
ten years. If the City did not know permits were not being pulled for a decade, then the
oversight mechanisms that were required as part of this project’s approval clearly failed. This
building was not supposed to operate without monitoring, environmental safeguards, and
public accountability. Yet residents are now living in a building with documented mold, water
intrusion, unpermitted work, and serious habitability concerns while agencies point fingers at
one another and residents are ignored.
The ownership and governance structure surrounding the Opportunity Center also raises
serious questions. Public records show that the Opportunity Center was historically tied to
Community Working Group, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, and related
entities through financing, governance, ownership interests, regulatory agreements, and board
appointment authority. Later, Abode became deeply intertwined with Community Working
Group through shared governance and operational control. If Abode and CWG are effectively
operating as one aligned structure, then I do not understand how I can be told there are “no
other properties” available to move me into when Abode has a broader housing portfolio. If
these entities are connected through ownership, governance, management, and operational
control, then reasonable accommodation options should not be artificially limited to one
unsafe building.
I requested accommodation because the City was notified as early as October that I was
suffering from the mold and environmental conditions in my unit. I am the person who got
Senior Code Enforcement Officer Elisa Vargas to come to the property in October. She told
me she needed to review the plans and would be in touch within approximately three weeks.
Weeks and then months passed, and when I repeatedly wrote for updates, I received nothing. It
was only after I said I would come to her office that she finally engaged with me. Even then,
what she told me did not match what other people in her office had said. Twice, she instructed
me to make extensive copies that she represented as important, causing me to absorb the costs,
time, and physical energy. Then, when I appeared at her office for a scheduled meeting, she
was out sick and no one notified me.
I submitted an ADA accommodation request directly to the City of Palo Alto supported by
documentation from Dr. Deborah Rose, a Stanford-affiliated psychiatrist who documented the
impact these environmental conditions were having on my PTSD and overall health. Yet many
of the actions now occurring against me appear directly contrary to the accommodations and
protections I requested.
Meanwhile, I have never once had a grievance responded to by Abode. Not one. Several other
residents have received pay-or-quit notices while living in a building the City itself has cited
for serious violations. Tenants are supposed to be protected, but no one here feels safe.
Vulnerable residents — elderly, disabled, formerly unhoused, and medically fragile people —
are living under fear, confusion, retaliation, and displacement instead of protection.
The City also failed to intervene when Cynthia Gonzalez, a 69-year-old disabled woman, was
effectively pushed out after being led to believe that a three-day notice meant she had to leave
immediately if she could not pay within three days. She gave away her belongings, and I later
found her sleeping in a nearby parking lot. I warned the City before this happened and again
afterward. Nothing meaningful was done.
The Notice of Violation is not publicly displayed in any meaningful way for residents and
visitors to see despite the seriousness of the findings. Residents are instead being directed back
to management — the same management whose failures are now at issue. Tragically, another
resident, Sheldon Jackson, recently died, and his room is reportedly the second room in
approximately five months to be blocked off by the Coroner. Residents are frightened, sick,
and exhausted.
I also want to know whether the City fulfilled the environmental oversight obligations
connected to the development of this property. Was the water monitored? Was the air
monitored? Was the soil monitored? Were the long-term oversight and environmental
conditions required for approval of this project actually enforced? Because the City’s own
Notice of Violation now makes clear that major failures went undetected for years.
And while all of this is happening, it was deeply painful to watch City officials and the Mayor
celebrate a $37.2 million supportive housing ribbon-cutting for another project while the
residents already living in supportive housing at the Opportunity Center continue to suffer in
unsafe conditions with little transparency, guidance, or accountability. The contrast is
staggering. Supportive housing cannot simply be celebrated when it opens; it must be
responsibly monitored, maintained, and made safe for the human beings living inside it.
Nobody has been transparent. Nobody has provided meaningful guidance. Nobody has
explained how this building was allowed to operate for years without the oversight that was
supposed to protect residents. I am asking the City Council to stop treating this as a paperwork
issue and start treating it as a human safety crisis. I intend to continue pursuing transparency
and accountability from every responsible entity involved.
Becky Wolf
Advocate
Opportunity center tenant and survivor
650.384.3855
From:Brooke Kember
To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City
Subject:Please Preserve the Remaining Tennis Courts at Mitchell Park
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 8:09:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Department and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to respectfully ask that the City deny the Palo Alto Pickleball Club’s request to convert
the remaining tennis courts at Mitchell Park into pickleball courts.
My family lives on Middlefield Road directly across from the Mitchell Park baseball field, and these
tennis courts have been part of our family’s life for generations. My husband grew up playing tennis
on those courts with his brother, and now that we are raising our own children here in Palo Alto, we
have continued that tradition by playing tennis there together as a family since our children were
little.
I walk by the courts almost every day while walking our dogs, and I consistently see the tennis courts
being heavily used, whether during the middle of the day or in the evenings. Most of the time, all
four courts are occupied. These courts clearly continue to serve a strong and active tennis
community.
We are not opposed to the current pickleball courts. However, it has become clear that the
pickleball facilities are drawing many non-resident players from outside Palo Alto. We know this
firsthand because my husband’s cousin regularly comes with a group from Saratoga to play pickleball
at Mitchell Park.
At the same time, our own family has struggled to access the courts casually. On one occasion, we
attempted to play together as a family of four — simply learning, rallying, and having fun — and we
were told that we either had to play a formal game or leave because the club had reserved the
courts for a round robin event. This experience made the courts feel less welcoming and less
accessible to ordinary Palo Alto families.
Mitchell Park should continue to provide balanced recreational opportunities for all residents. Tennis
remains heavily used and deeply valued by local families, including ours. Converting the remaining
tennis courts would permanently reduce access to a sport that has long been part of the community
fabric of this neighborhood.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Please preserve the remaining tennis courts at Mitchell Park for current and future Palo Alto
families.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brooke Kember
Palo Alto Resident
206-300-5462 cell
From:Takehiro Okabe
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Preserve Tennis Courts at Mitchell Park
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:20:09 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,
I am writing to request that the city preserve all four remaining tennis courts at Mitchell Park.
These courts are a vital resource for families, students, seniors, and local community
programs. Notably, they are the only public tennis courts in our vicinity that offer lighting for
evening use.
In my experience playing there, the chance of securing a court within 30 minutes of arrival is
already only about 50%. Converting two more courts would significantly diminish
availability, particularly as two courts are frequently reserved for scheduled classes and
programs.
While I support the expansion of pickleball facilities, I urge you to consider alternative
locations that do not require the sacrifice of existing tennis courts. Reducing these amenities
would negatively impact the many residents who rely on them.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Takehiro Okabe
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Lori wainen linberg
To:Council, City
Subject:Residential Parking Discrimination
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:25:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hello,
I have copies of all the emails I have sent and received and all the difficulties I have had since you started this
program, and despite being alerted to a discriminatory policy and its problems, you continue to NOT have
reasonable accommodations for a non driving, disabled person getting a voucher on time. Twice in the past, your
system glitched and I came home from the hospital and was unable to have my visiting nurses stay with me because
I could not get a place card.
Nicole went out of her way to help me today, but I had to call many many times and feel like a bother to get the
help. I was again going in the hospital with a terminal disease and a hand disability that makes it hard for me to do
things online. I was trying to make sure that when I come home, which may well be after they expire, that I can have
the place card in place for the Nurse I will need. I wrote several times about the need to take in consideration
Seniors, non-drivers and disabled persons; but despite how much I’ve asked you to think about it every year you
forget us and I have to call and figure out how to do this for someone like me. It’s upsetting, invalidating and
hurtful.
I was a teacher in these communities for 31 years and I was the emergency staff live in person at Lytton Gardens; I
have been an advocate for Seniors and those of us who are different all of my life. It seems to me that this entire
system has not taken in consideration that there are an awful lot of seniors living in Lytton Gardens and the
surrounding areas that have to pay to have one person visit them more than two hours. In case you don’t know this,
when you become old and infirm, you’re often left alone a lot, making it more difficult for us to have company. To
make it expensive and difficult is rather cruel, discriminatory and hurtful. I don’t think Palo Alto would like to be
known for this. I’d also like to point out that I know other seniors who became so overwhelmed by this process, they
told their nurse that they couldn’t come anymore because they couldn’t deal with it. I’m sure there’s a lot of people
that couldn’t have a party when they wanted to because they didn’t have enough placards or could not afford them.
The area in which the majority of Seniors live happens to be this area that’s very hard to find a parking space
anyway, so it’s not like visitors could park somewhere else and walk. It would be too far.
I’m ashamed to say that Palo Alto has not made an effort to be inclusive. I hope I will not have any more trouble
with this and that next year again you will think about us because we are human beings who still matter, we’re not
dead yet. If I continue to have difficulties, I have spoken with a Bay Area Discrimination Attorney and will bring it
to her next time and not upset myself anymore requesting Reasonable Accommodations. Please note, I would prefer
to not need help, not have a terminal disease, hand disability or be going to the hospital at this inconvenient time for
you.
A big Thank You to Nichol, who heard me and I hope helped today by extending my card to July 30, if needed.
Thank You, Nichole!
Yours,
Lori Wainen-Linberg
(650)283-5053
Sent from my iPad
From:Ifan Chou
To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City
Cc:olenka@magicalbridge.org; Harriet Stern
Subject:Please Retain Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 3 and 4
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:21:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners,
Magical Tennis for Neurodiverse Participants at Mitchell Park is an essential program. My child has benefited
immensely from the exercise and fresh air, and especially from being part of such a welcoming community.
At Magical Tennis, coaches and participants focus on tennis skills, confidence, and friendship. We utilize Mitchell
Park tennis courts 3 and 4, which are ideally located near the Magical Bridge Playground, the library, and Ada’s
Cafe. This central location makes the program uniquely accessible and inclusive for our families.
Losing this program would be a significant loss for the disability community. Converting these into pickleball courts
would not only significantly increase noise levels but would also remove a vital community space where our
children play and socialize. Furthermore, the increased traffic from pickleball would exacerbate existing parking
issues in the area.
Please retain Mitchell Park tennis courts 3 and 4 to support this important program.
Sincerely,
Ifan Chou
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:Dave McQuarrie
To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City
Subject:Tennis courts at Mitchell Park
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:11:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners,
Magical Tennis for Neurodiverse Participants at Mitchell Park is a wonderful and
important program. My daughter, Maia, has benefited enormously from this program,
from the time in the fresh air, the exercise of moving around a full size tennis court,
and the social time with a welcoming community of peers exercising together. This is
the only sport to which my daughter has access.
At Magical Tennis, coaches and participants work together on tennis skills, fun,
confidence, and friendship. We meet on Mitchell Park tennis courts 3 and 4, which
are ideally located near the Magical Bridge Playground, the library, and Ada’s Cafe —
making the experience even more accessible and inclusive for families.
Losing this unique program would be a significant loss for the disabled community
and the families who rely on it.
Please retain Mitchell Park tennis courts 3 and 4.
Sincerely,
Dave McQuarrie
650-518-9322
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Stone, Greer; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Pigman, Sophie; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki;
Council, City
Subject:Re: The Opportunity Center
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:28:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Rebecca Wolf
Unit 205
33 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
May 26, 2026
Councilmember Greer Stone, Elisa Vargas, Lief Christensen, Sophie Pigman, and City
Manager:
I am following up regarding my May 22, 2026 correspondence because I have still received no
substantive response from the City regarding these urgent matters.
The conditions identified in the April 28, 2026 Notice of Violation involve documented mold
conditions, water intrusion, moisture damage, ventilation concerns, and unpermitted work
affecting vulnerable residents at the Opportunity Center. Despite this, residents are receiving
conflicting information while the City has provided little clarity regarding enforcement,
inspections, timelines, environmental findings, or resident protections.
What is most concerning is that these conditions have already been identified by the City, yet
the overall response continues to feel dismissive and alarmingly slow considering the
seriousness of the health and safety issues involved.
Management has distributed communications to residents suggesting that inspections are still
ongoing and that the Notice of Violation may later be revised, while simultaneously
remediation and repair activity appears to be occurring throughout the building. Residents still
do not know:
- whether violations remain active;
- whether additional inspections will occur;
- whether units will receive individual findings or reports;
- whether remediation may proceed before City review is complete;
- what resident protections currently apply; or
- what timeline exists for enforcement and resolution.
Residents should not have to repeatedly seek basic information regarding serious health and
safety concerns affecting their homes.
The City has been aware of concerns involving Unit 205 and surrounding units for many
months. Yet residents continue receiving little transparency regarding inspection findings,
environmental conditions, enforcement actions, or the appeal process.
May 22 correspondence, including clarification regarding:
- the status of any appeal;
- whether the violations identified in the Notice of Violation remain active;
- whether additional units will be inspected;
- whether environmental or mold-related findings exist for affected units;
- whether remediation may legally proceed prior to completion of City inspections; and
- what rights and protections currently apply to residents during this process.
I also renew my request for copies of public records relating to:
- the Notice of Violation;
- any appeal documents;
- inspection reports;
- environmental, mold, moisture, ventilation, or air quality findings;
- communications between the City and Abode; and
- any revised or draft violation notices.
At this point, the lack of communication itself is becoming part of the problem. Residents
deserve transparency, accountability, and timely responses regarding serious conditions
affecting their health and safety.
I would appreciate a prompt written response.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Wolf
Unit 205
beckywolfloretz@gmail.com
On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 1:07 PM Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> wrote:
I am including a letter about gave to tenants yesterday. These notices are confusing and
misleading.
On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 1:05 PM Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rebecca Wolf
Unit 205
33 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to request clarification regarding the April 28, 2026 Notice of Violation
issued concerning the Opportunity Center at 33 Encina Avenue, as well as the current
enforcement, inspection, and appeal process.
A City representative came to Unit 205 in approximately October 2025 and personally
observed conditions within my unit. Since that time, I have continued reporting concerns
involving moisture intrusion, leaks, ventilation concerns, pests, possible mold conditions,
and related habitability issues.
Management recently distributed a letter to residents stating that the City will conduct a
“more complete inspection process,” that the original Notice of Violation may be revised,
and that no administrative citations are currently being issued. Because residents are
receiving conflicting information, I am requesting clarification directly from the City.
Specifically, I respectfully request answers to the following:
1. Has Abode formally appealed the Notice of Violation?
2. If so, when was the appeal submitted?
3. What is the formal appeal process timeline?
4. What occurs during the appeal process and while inspections remain ongoing?
5. Are the violations identified in the April 28, 2026 Notice of Violation still considered
active by the City?
6. Is the Notice of Violation required to remain publicly posted at the property?
7. Will the City be inspecting additional units beyond those already identified?
8. Will individual units receive separate inspections and documentation?
9. Does the City intend to inspect Unit 205 again or conduct additional environmental
review/testing?
10. Has mold, moisture, ventilation, or air quality testing been conducted relating to Unit
205 or surrounding units?
11. Can remediation or repair work proceed before City inspections are completed?
12. What rights and protections currently apply to residents during this process?
13. Under what circumstances would relocation benefits apply?
14. Is there a projected timeline for completion of inspections and enforcement review?
15. Did the City provide written confirmation supporting the statements made in the May
21, 2026 resident letter distributed by Abode?
16. May residents obtain copies of public records relating to the Notice of Violation,
inspection reports, environmental findings, communications, or related documents?
In addition, I respectfully request copies of the following if they are public records:
- Any appeal documents submitted regarding the Notice of Violation;
- Any revised or draft Notice of Violation documents;
- Inspection reports relating to Unit 205;
- Environmental, mold, moisture, ventilation, or air quality testing reports relating to the
property;
- Communications between the City and Abode regarding the Notice of Violation and
inspection process.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Residents deserve clear and transparent
information regarding the status of enforcement, inspections, health and safety concerns,
and their rights during this process.
I would appreciate a written response.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Wolf
Unit 205
From:Hamilton Hitchings
To:Council, City
Cc:Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary
Subject:ALPR Options for City Council
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:53:48 PM
Attachments:ALPR Options for Palo Alto City Council v4 2026-5-26.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Attached are options for City Council to consider in-between keep the status quo and
ban ALPRs.
Hamilton Hitchings
ALPR Analysis for Palo Alto City Council
I support using ALPR technology for legitimate public safety purposes, especially real-time alerts for stolen
cars, AMBER Alerts, Silver Alerts, and vehicles tied to serious crimes.
The biggest privacy risk is not the real-time hot-list alerts. It is the historical database of where
ordinary residents drive, and who can search it.
Flock has shown that it is not a trustworthy custodian of this data. In Palo Alto, unapproved “Nationwide
Lookup” and “Statewide Lookup” features were enabled for roughly two years without informing us. Flock has
since turned these off. But in August 2025, an Illinois state audit found that Flock gave the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection access to Illinois ALPR data, violating state law and prompting Evanston to shut down its
cameras and terminate its contract.
In addition, rogue officials and bay area police departments have shared data with Federal agencies including
SFPD, Marin PD, Contra Costa departments, Gilroy PD and possibly Oakland PD in violation of California state
law.
Currently the level of regional Palo Alto license plate data sharing is enormous. In March 2026, there were
about 200,000 searches of Palo Alto license plate data by regional law enforcement agencies, including 46K
by CHP and 29K San Francisco Police, compared with about 1,000 by Palo Alto Police. The results of these
searches are saved for years. That is not targeted local policing; that is a regional surveillance dragnet.
Lastly there is the risk of Federal agencies subpoenaing our license plate data via national security letters
without our local police department being informed.
Here are some policy options:
1.Disable sharing of Palo Alto Flock data with outside agencies, except through a written request
reviewed by a PAPD captain and run by a trained Palo Alto officer. This would likely reduce searches of
Palo Alto data by roughly 100 times, while still allowing legitimate assistance in serious cases.
Unfortunately, this will reduce PAPDs collaboration with other departments who use Flock for their joint
crime solving.
2.Disable storing Flock historical data by purging the data within minutes of uploading it, as New
Hampshire requires by law. I do not recommend this since it removes a powerful investigative tool for
PAPD.
3.Evaluate Flock replacements to find a preferred reputable vendor in collaboration with Mountain View
and Santa Clara County and other local agencies displeased with Flock. Switch to a secure
architecture: either a private cloud controlled by the city, or a local enterprise system hosted on
city-owned infrastructure. Reputable vendors worth evaluating include Genetec AutoVu, LensLock /
PlateSmart, Rekor, Leonardo ELSAG, and Axon.
The goal should be to keep the useful public safety tools like real-time alerts, sharply limit mass historical
searches, and over the long-term switch to a trustworthy vendor on a secure architecture.
From:Rishu Mohanka
To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; papc.secretary@gmail.com
Subject:Save Our Tennis Courts - Palo Alto Resident
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:53:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I'm a Palo Alto Resident and am an avid user of the tennis courts -- tennis has been around for
centuries and has proven to improve the health, longevity of its players much moreso than
pickleball -- and tennis is a much longer duration game meaning it will be more difficult to
play on less courts.
Please consider adding in mobile nets for pickleball users to use on tennis courts instead of flat
out converting the tennis courts into pickleball courts permanently
Please save our tennis courts
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report