HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-08 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: 6/8/2026
Document dates: 6/1/26 – 6/8/26
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
From:Allan F
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Public Letter
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 11:53:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
My name is Allan Feldman and I'm a local resident. I just graduated from Brandeis
University this fall and back in town. In lieu of not being able to attend the June 8
meeting today, I wanted to submit a letter to express my concerns about the city's
approach to SB 79.
Firstly, I am writing to respectfully ask that item 23 from the consent calendar for the
June 15 meeting (SB-79) be heard as an action item and not as a consent item. I do
not believe discussion and deliberation on this item has been adequate. Some of the
councilmembers who opposed a partial SB-79 phase-in argued that such a
compromise proposal had not been adequately reviewed. A second round of
discussion would allow staff and these councilmembers to come prepared with a
more developed idea of which streets in Palo Alto might properly be exempted from
the ordinance.
Next, the Council had only limited discussion about the legality of the “urgency”
ordinance that was not voted on at the June 1 meeting (instead, the Council only
voted to direct staff to bring forward the urgency ordinance at the June 15 meeting).
Members of the public deserve the opportunity to specifically address their concerns
about the legality of the urgency ordinance, which is based on the threadbare
justification that the new housing allowed by SB 79 would “strain” the City’s public
infrastructure, despite (1) there being ample discussion in the City's Housing Element
that Palo Alto’s infrastructure is well built and will require only minor upgrades as new
housing is built, and (2) the City of Palo Alto imposing high impact and capacity fees
and otherwise having a robust regulatory scheme that requires new residential
projects means new development pays for the minor upgrades to be completed.
I hope this letter further brings to light residents' concerns about the City's approach
and evokes change in the upcoming meetings.
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
Best,
Allan Feldman
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 11:19:13 AM
From: Garrett Clark <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 6:07 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.
Garrett Clark
clark98garrett@gmail.com
726 Harding Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 11:19:02 AM
From: Owen Byrd <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 9:25 AM
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.
Owen Byrd
owenbyrd@gmail.com
360 FOREST AVE APT 405
Palo Alto, California 94301
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 11:18:52 AM
From: Andrea Allais <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 5:42 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.
Andrea Allais
allais.andrea@gmail.com
925 Waverley st
Palo Alto, California 94301
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 11:18:15 AM
From: Carol Lamont <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 8:31 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.
Carol Lamont
c.lamont2@outlook.com
Palo Alto, California 94301-3226
From:Manuel Salazar
To:Council, City; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick;
Veenker, Vicki
Cc:Regina Celestin Williams; Alison Cingolani
Subject:Agenda Item 15 – San Antonio Road Area Plan Core Scenario and Transportation Analysis Work Plan
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 10:55:17 AM
Attachments:image003.png
SVH Letter RE - Agenda Item 15 – San Antonio Road Area Plan Core Scenario and Transportation Analysis Work
Plan.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
On behalf of Silicon Valley at Home (SV@Home), thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
San Antonio Road Area Plan Core Scenario and Transportation Analysis Work Plan. As a countywide
housing advocacy organization, we appreciate the City's ongoing efforts to plan for future housing
growth while advancing broader goals related to mobility, sustainability, and quality of life.
We appreciate the significant work City staff has invested in developing a coordinated framework for
housing, transportation, economic vitality, and public space improvements along the San Antonio
corridor. The proposed core scenario reflects a thoughtful approach to accommodating future
growth while recognizing the importance of creating complete, connected neighborhoods.
In particular, we support the City's effort to evaluate additional housing capacity in one of Palo Alto's
most transit accessible corridors. The San Antonio Road area represents a meaningful opportunity to
add homes near jobs, transit, services, and regional transportation infrastructure while improving
connections for people walking, biking, and using transit. The integrated land use and mobility
framework proposed by staff recognizes that housing and transportation outcomes are inherently
linked, and that planning for both together will produce stronger long-term results for the corridor
and the broader community.
We would also like to commend staff for pairing housing growth with investments in neighborhood
serving retail, public open space, and multimodal transportation improvements. The emphasis on
creating walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods connected to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and
surrounding destinations reflects the type of integrated planning needed to meet the region's
housing and climate goals.
As this work moves into the next phase of analysis, we encourage the City to remain ambitious. The
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
San Antonio Road Area Plan represents one of Palo Alto's most significant opportunities to advance
housing production in a transit accessible location while supporting broader community goals
related to mobility, sustainability, and economic vitality. The corridor also plays an important role in
the City's broader strategy for meeting its RHNA obligations across all income levels and directly
advances Housing Element Program 6.6(C), which calls for the preparation of an area plan that
integrates housing with safe multimodal transportation, access to amenities and open space, and
placemaking improvements. As Palo Alto continues pursuing a Prohousing designation, we
encourage Council to view this effort as an opportunity to demonstrate the type of proactive,
housing forward planning that designation is intended to recognize.
Thank you for your leadership on this important effort. We look forward to continued engagement
as the Area Plan advances.
Sincerely,
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
Manuel Salazar (he/him)
Planning and Production Associate| SV@Home
(925) 584-9558 | manuel@siliconvalleyathome.org
Silicon Valley Is Home. Join our Houser Movement. Become a member!
110 N. Third Street, San Jose, CA 95112
Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
June 8th, 2026
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Agenda Item 15 – San Antonio Road Area Plan Core Scenario and Transportation
Analysis Work Plan
Dear Mayor Veenker and Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
On behalf of Silicon Valley at Home (SV@Home), thank you for the opportunity to comment
on the San Antonio Road Area Plan Core Scenario and Transportation Analysis Work Plan. As
a countywide housing advocacy organization, we appreciate the City's ongoing efforts to
plan for future housing growth while advancing broader goals related to mobility,
sustainability, and quality of life.
We appreciate the significant work City staff has invested in developing a coordinated
framework for housing, transportation, economic vitality, and public space improvements
along the San Antonio corridor. The proposed core scenario reflects a thoughtful approach
to accommodating future growth while recognizing the importance of creating complete,
connected neighborhoods.
In particular, we support the City's effort to evaluate additional housing capacity in one of
Palo Alto's most transit accessible corridors. The San Antonio Road area represents a
meaningful opportunity to add homes near jobs, transit, services, and regional
transportation infrastructure while improving connections for people walking, biking, and
using transit. The integrated land use and mobility framework proposed by staff recognizes
that housing and transportation outcomes are inherently linked, and that planning for both
together will produce stronger long-term results for the corridor and the broader
community.
We would also like to commend staff for pairing housing growth with investments in
neighborhood serving retail, public open space, and multimodal transportation
improvements. The emphasis on creating walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods connected to
the San Antonio Caltrain Station and surrounding destinations reflects the type of
integrated planning needed to meet the region's housing and climate goals.
As this work moves into the next phase of analysis, we encourage the City to remain
ambitious. The San Antonio Road Area Plan represents one of Palo Alto's most significant
opportunities to advance housing production in a transit accessible location while
supporting broader community goals related to mobility, sustainability, and economic
vitality. The corridor also plays an important role in the City's broader strategy for meeting
its RHNA obligations across all income levels and directly advances Housing Element
Program 6.6(C), which calls for the preparation of an area plan that integrates housing with
safe multimodal transportation, access to amenities and open space, and placemaking
improvements. As Palo Alto continues pursuing a Prohousing designation, we encourage
Board of Directors
Nevada Merriman, Chair
MidPen Housing Corporation
Randy Tsuda, Treasurer
Alta Housing
Pilar Lorenzana, Secretary
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation
Steven Yang
Northern CA LIIF
Candice Gonzalez
Sand Hill Property Company
Chad Bojorquez
Destination: Home
Maria Noel Fernandez
Working Partnerships USA
Alison Brunner
Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley
Victor Vasquez
SOMOS Mayfair
Julie Mahowald
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Wendi Baker
Harmonie Park Development
Staff Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
June 8th, 2026
Re: Agenda Item 15 – San Antonio Road Area Plan Core Scenario and Transportation Analysis Work Plan
Page 2 of 2
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
Council to view this effort as an opportunity to demonstrate the type of proactive, housing forward planning that
designation is intended to recognize.
Thank you for your leadership on this important effort. We look forward to continued engagement as the Area Plan
advances.
Sincerely,
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
Silicon Valley @ Home is a nonprofit advocacy organization that supports housing and affordable housing development throughout
Santa Clara County. SV@Home works with a broad coalition of strategic partners to address the urgent housing needs of the
diverse residents across all our communities. We advocate for solutions including increasing production of homes at all income
levels, especially affordable housing; preserving existing affordable housing; and protecting our community’s most vulnerable
residents from displacement.
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Julia M. Adams; Sunne Roller; Reasaccom Abode; Marisela Baca
Cc:Council, City; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Christiansen, Leif; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; barr@stanford.edu;
Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Hoyt, George; julie.lythcott@paloalto.gov;
Reckdahl, Keith; Apple, Kara; City Mgr; Pigman, Sophie
Subject:FORMAL DISPUTE OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER, DENIAL OF GRIEVANCE RIGHTS, HABITABILITY CONDITIONS,
ADA/VAWA CONCERNS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, AND REQUEST FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 10:31:01 AM
Attachments:Grievance Response 5.29.2026 Signed SR.pdf
04.28.26 NOTICE OF VIOLATION (OWNER) 26PCE-000218.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
FORMAL DISPUTE OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER, DENIAL OF GRIEVANCE RIGHTS,
HABITABILITY CONDITIONS, ADA/VAWA CONCERNS, ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS,
AND REQUEST FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
To:
Abode Property Management
Abode Services
Community Working Group
Housing for Independent People
Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
CC:
Mayor of Palo Alto
Vice Mayor of Palo Alto
Palo Alto City Council
City Manager
Palo Alto Code Enforcement
Planning and Development Services
Any Agency Reviewing ADA, Fair Housing, VAWA, Habitability, Environmental, or
Public Funding Compliance
From:
Rebecca Wolf
RE: Formal Dispute of Allegations that I Caused or Permitted Substantial Damage,
Improper Denial of Grievance Rights, Ongoing Habitability Violations, Environmental
Hazards, ADA/VAWA Concerns, and Request for Preservation of Evidence
INTRODUCTION
I formally dispute the allegations contained in the Unlawful Detainer and the decision to
deny my grievance hearing based upon the assertion that I caused or permitted
substantial damage to my unit.
The documentary record demonstrates the opposite.
For months, I repeatedly reported water intrusion, standing water, sewage-related
concerns, mold concerns, environmental hazards, pest issues, air-quality concerns, ADA-
related health impacts, and unsafe living conditions.
I documented conditions.
I filed grievances.
I submitted incident reports.
I requested inspections.
I requested testing.
I requested accommodations.
I requested transfers.
I requested records.
I requested preservation of evidence.
Rather than causing these conditions, I repeatedly attempted to prevent them from
worsening.
DENIAL OF GRIEVANCE RIGHTS
Management denied my grievance hearing by relying upon an allegation that I caused or
permitted substantial damage.
That allegation is itself disputed.
The purpose of a grievance hearing is to determine disputed facts.
Management cannot accuse a resident of causing damage and then use that same
unproven accusation to eliminate the resident's right to challenge it.
The allegation is the subject of the grievance.
Using the allegation to deny the grievance process defeats the purpose of the grievance
process entirely.
DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF REPORTING CONDITIONS
Long before any unlawful detainer was filed, I repeatedly reported:
• Water intrusion
• Standing water
• Sewage-related concerns
• Mold concerns
• Moisture accumulation
• Air-conditioning leaks
• Window-area moisture
• Pest infestations
• Air-quality concerns
• Habitability concerns
• Environmental hazards
• ADA-related health impacts
The attached timeline documents these reports in detail.
The record establishes that I was reporting environmental conditions months before
management later attempted to attribute those same conditions to me.
UNIT 205 – PRIOR SEWAGE BACKUP
Management later acknowledged that Unit 205 experienced a sewage backup in June
2024.
On November 26, 2025, Kathleen Cheatham wrote:
"Unit 205 was treated for a sewage back-up in June 2024."
She further stated:
"Foster's was brought in June 2024 to ensure the sewage back-up was properly addressed
which included a 4-day monitoring to ensure the unit was dry and that there was no
moisture, mildew, or mold."
Despite repeated requests, the underlying Foster's reports, moisture readings, monitoring
records, remediation records, and clearance documentation were never produced.
If Foster's performed monitoring and environmental evaluation, records should exist.
UNIT 205 – CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS REGARDING MOLD AND
WATER INTRUSION
On October 17, 2025, Sunne Roller wrote:
"There are no mold issues in your unit to our knowledge."
She also wrote:
"There have been no water intrusions into the unit since you moved in."
Yet in the same communication she acknowledged:
"A prior water intrusion occurred more than 15 months ago. That incident was addressed
with a professional remediation company and was cleared of any mold concerns."
These statements created obvious questions regarding the existence of remediation
records, environmental reports, moisture readings, vendor documentation, and inspection
records.
Those records were repeatedly requested but never produced.
UNIT 506 – PROPOSED TRANSFER AND MISSING RECORDS
Management repeatedly encouraged me to transfer to Unit 506.
I repeatedly requested:
• Mold reports
• Moisture reports
• Water-intrusion history
• Remediation records
• Vendor reports
• Inspection records
• Clearance documentation
Those records were not produced.
On November 21, 2025, Marisela Baca wrote:
"Abode Property Management has no record of any mold test conducted in Unit 506."
Five days later, on November 26, 2025, Kathleen Cheatham wrote:
"Our vendor has confirmed no presence of moisture, mildew or mold in the unit."
Later, attorney Julia Adams stated:
"It has been inspected for moisture, mold, and pests and cleared of any such issues."
She also stated:
"There has never been a history of water intrusion in the unit and so there has been no
remediation work in the unit of any kind."
The underlying reports supporting these conclusions were never provided despite
repeated requests.
ADA AND RETALIATION CONCERNS
On October 31, 2025, I attended an ADA-related meeting concerning mold exposure,
disability accommodations, and medical documentation.
Immediately afterward, an incident occurred involving Acting Leasing Manager Zakiya
Jamison.
An incident report was completed documenting concerns regarding intimidation and
retaliation.
This is significant because management was unquestionably aware of:
• My disability
• My accommodation requests
• My mold concerns
• My medical documentation
• My health impacts
as of October 31, 2025.
The attached timeline documents this incident and related reports.
THE SINK-SEALING ISSUE
I specifically discussed moisture concerns with Inspire inspector Tina.
I expressed concerns regarding sealing the kitchen and bathroom sinks to the wall
because I believed doing so could trap moisture and worsen mold conditions.
The sinks were later sealed.
When I later questioned Tina about the repairs, she informed me that she did not order
them.
This raises an obvious question:
If Tina did not authorize the repairs, who did?
I warned management before the work occurred.
My concerns were disregarded.
CITY FINDINGS
The City of Palo Alto ultimately issued a Notice of Violation regarding conditions at the
property.
The City's involvement confirms that concerns regarding water intrusion, moisture,
mold, habitability conditions, and unpermitted work were not imaginary.
The conditions became serious enough to require governmental intervention.
HEALTH IMPACT
The environmental conditions and the constant stream of contradictory information have
significantly impacted my health.
What has been particularly damaging is not simply the environmental conditions
themselves but the inability to obtain consistent answers or supporting records.
One person states there is no mold.
Another acknowledges prior water intrusion.
One person states remediation occurred.
Another cannot provide the records.
One person states a unit has never experienced water intrusion.
Another acknowledges prior environmental work.
When explanations repeatedly change, trust disappears.
No reasonable person would blindly accept unsupported assurances regarding
environmental safety under those circumstances.
REQUEST FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
I demand immediate preservation of all potentially relevant evidence, including but not
limited to:
• Work orders
• Vendor reports
• Foster's reports
• Mold testing records
• Moisture readings
• Clearance reports
• Inspection records
• Maintenance records
• Access logs
• Surveillance footage
• Internal communications
• Emails
• Text messages
• Photographs
• Video recordings
• Pest-control records
• Remediation records
• Transfer-unit records
• Unit 205 records
• Unit 506 records
CONCLUSION
The documentary record establishes a consistent pattern.
I reported conditions.
I requested inspections.
I requested testing.
I requested records.
I requested accommodations.
I requested safe relocation.
I filed grievances.
I documented standing water.
I documented water intrusion.
I documented mold concerns.
I documented environmental hazards.
I requested preservation of evidence.
I warned management before conditions worsened.
The allegation that I caused the conditions I spent months documenting is unsupported
by the record.
I therefore formally dispute the allegations contained in the Unlawful Detainer, dispute
the denial of my grievance rights, request immediate preservation and production of
relevant records, and request reinstatement of the grievance process so these disputed
facts may be fairly heard.
Attached as Exhibit A is the accompanying Unit 205 / Unit 506 Environmental
Conditions Timeline documenting the chronology of events, reports, requests,
contradictions, and supporting evidence.
Respectfully,
Rebecca Wolf
The Opportunity Center
Palo Alto, California
#SilenceIsNotSurvivable
MASTER TIMELINE
WATER INTRUSION, MOLD CONCERNS, UNIT 205, UNIT 506, SEWAGE
BACKUP, ADA/VAWA REQUESTS, GRIEVANCES, UNAUTHORIZED WORK,
AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Rebecca Wolf
The Opportunity Center
Palo Alto, California
JUNE 2024 – PRIOR SEWAGE BACKUP IN UNIT 205
According to Abode’s later statements, Unit 205 experienced a sewage backup in June
2024.
On November 26, 2025, Kathleen Cheatham wrote:
"Unit 205 was treated for a sewage back-up in June 2024."
She further stated:
"Foster's was brought in June 2024 to ensure the sewage back-up was properly addressed
which included a 4-day monitoring to ensure the unit was dry and that there was no
moisture, mildew, or mold."
This is significant because it establishes that Unit 205 had a documented environmental
event before my tenancy.
I repeatedly requested the Foster's reports, moisture readings, monitoring records,
remediation records, clearance reports, and environmental documentation.
Those records were not produced.
AUGUST 18, 2025 – FIRST WRITTEN WATER-INTRUSION REPORT
I submitted an incident report documenting concern about a water leak outside my
window.
I asked for help.
This was my first written report regarding water intrusion and moisture concerns.
This report shows that I was reporting water-related conditions months before Abode
accused me of causing or permitting mold damage.
AUGUST 2025 – AIR CONDITIONING LEAK REPORTED
I identified the upstairs air-conditioning unit as a suspected source of water leaking into
the area outside my window.
I contacted the upstairs resident and copied management.
I requested that the condensation hose be redirected because water was collecting outside
my window and creating moisture and mold concerns.
SEPTEMBER 2025 – REPEATED REPORTS OF WATER, PESTS, AND
HABITABILITY ISSUES
I submitted work orders and complaints documenting leaking sink concerns, water
accumulation, pest issues, habitability concerns, and environmental concerns.
I repeatedly asked management to address these issues.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 – FORMAL GRIEVANCE
I submitted a formal grievance identifying:
- Bathroom sink dripping since move-in;
- Upstairs AC dripping water;
- Water collecting outside my window;
- Mold concerns;
- Door gap allowing pests into my unit;
- Chemical exposure concerns involving my mattress.
This grievance demonstrates that I was reporting mold, moisture, pest, and chemical
concerns months before the unlawful detainer.
OCTOBER 17, 2025 – SUNNE ROLLER EMAIL
On October 17, 2025, Sunne Roller wrote:
"There are no mold issues in your unit to our knowledge."
She also wrote:
"There have been no water intrusions into the unit since you moved in."
However, in the same communication, Ms. Roller acknowledged:
"A prior water intrusion occurred more than 15 months ago. That incident was addressed
with a professional remediation company and was cleared of any mold concerns."
This immediately raised important questions.
If a professional remediation company had been brought in, then records should exist,
including moisture readings, inspection reports, remediation records, clearance reports,
vendor documentation, and photographs.
I repeatedly requested those records.
They were never produced.
Ms. Roller also wrote:
"Without evidence that your bed was sprayed with pesticide and the mattress was
impacted in some way, we are unable to replace your current mattress."
Weeks later, management removed and destroyed the mattress.
This contradiction became part of a larger pattern in which management denied events
before later taking actions consistent with those events having occurred.
OCTOBER 31, 2025 – ADA MEETING AND RETALIATION COMPLAINT
I attended an ADA-related meeting regarding mold concerns, disability
accommodations, and medical documentation.
I presented:
- Mold-related evidence;
- Medical documentation;
- Disability accommodation requests;
- Air-quality concerns.
Gary from Unit 517 witnessed the meeting.
Immediately following the meeting, Acting Leasing Manager Zakiya Jamison allegedly
confronted me in an intimidating manner.
An incident report was completed the same day documenting retaliation concerns.
This is significant because management was unquestionably aware of my mold concerns,
disability concerns, accommodation requests, and health impacts as of October 31, 2025.
NOVEMBER 2025 – GARBAGE ROOM CONDITIONS
Photographs documented garbage accumulation, pest activity, door sweep failures, and
conditions contributing to insect intrusion.
Management later stated that a door sweep had been ordered.
These conditions were relevant because management simultaneously blamed residents
for pest problems while documented building conditions existed that could contribute to
infestations.
NOVEMBER 4, 2025 – WINDOW TRACK MOLD / WATER DAMAGE WORK
ORDER
I submitted a work order identifying:
"Window track mold/water damage."
This is a direct written report of mold and water damage concerns.
NOVEMBER 7, 2025 – MATTRESS REMOVAL
After management repeatedly denied there was evidence that my mattress had been
sprayed with pesticide, maintenance arrived and removed the mattress.
When I asked whether the mattress would be given to another resident, I was told no.
I was informed the mattress would be destroyed.
This raised another contradiction:
If there was no issue with the mattress, why was it removed and destroyed?
NOVEMBER 10, 2025 – CONTINUED AIR-CONDITIONER INVESTIGATION
Abode stated it had not observed an active leak but continued investigating the air-
conditioning unit above my apartment.
This demonstrates that my reports were serious enough to warrant continued
investigation.
NOVEMBER 21, 2025 – UNIT 205 MOLD RECORD STATEMENT
Marisela Baca wrote:
"Abode Property Management has no record of any mold test conducted in Unit 205."
She also wrote:
"We offered a mold test on November 5, 2025, and November 12, 2025."
This statement is important because management later relied on Foster's findings
concerning moisture, mildew, and mold.
NOVEMBER 21, 2025 – UNIT 506 MOLD RECORD STATEMENT
Marisela Baca wrote:
"Abode Property Management has no record of any mold test conducted in Unit 506."
She further wrote:
"We offered a mold test on November 5, 2025, and November 12, 2025."
This became significant because management later represented that Unit 506 had been
inspected and cleared.
NOVEMBER 21, 2025 – REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTATION BEFORE VENDOR
ACCESS
I requested:
- Contractor names;
- Remediation reports;
- Moisture readings;
- Clearance testing;
- Photographs;
- Internal records regarding leaks, water intrusion, and mold.
I explained that I could not authorize Abode-selected vendors until contradictory
statements regarding mold and remediation history were clarified.
This shows that I was not refusing testing in bad faith.
I was requesting the records necessary to protect the integrity of the inspection.
NOVEMBER 26, 2025 – UNIT 506 OFFERED AS ACCOMMODATION
Kathleen Cheatham offered Unit 506 as a disability accommodation and wrote:
"We have identified one unit in the building, #506."
She stated that the transfer was approved as a disability accommodation and that Unit
506 was not temporary.
She further wrote:
"Our vendor has confirmed no presence of moisture, mildew or mold in the unit."
She also stated:
"The unit turnover included installation of vinyl plank floors instead of carpeting as well
as a brand new bed."
This raised an obvious question:
If no mold testing records existed for Unit 506 on November 21, 2025, what records
supported the statement five days later that no moisture, mildew, or mold was present?
The underlying vendor report, moisture readings, mold report, pest report, inspection
records, remediation records, photographs, and clearance documentation were not
produced.
NOVEMBER 26, 2025 – UNIT 205 SEWAGE BACKUP AND FOSTER'S RECORDS
In the same email, Kathleen Cheatham wrote:
"Unit 205 has not had mold remediation."
She also wrote:
"Unit 205 was treated for a sewage back-up in June 2024."
And:
"Foster's was brought in June 2024 to ensure the sewage back-up was properly addressed
which included a 4-day monitoring to ensure the unit was dry and that there was no
moisture, mildew, or mold."
This created a significant records issue because:
- Management previously stated no mold test records existed;
- Management later relied upon Foster's moisture/mildew/mold findings;
- The underlying reports were never produced.
This document is important because Abode was asking me to trust its representations
regarding Unit 506 while simultaneously acknowledging a sewage history in Unit 205
and refusing to provide the underlying Foster's records.
DECEMBER 1, 2025 – FORMAL LETTER DOCUMENTING CONTRADICTIONS
I documented mold concerns, water intrusion concerns, contradictory statements,
missing records, requests for documentation, and requests for accountability.
I identified contradictions between statements regarding Unit 205 and Unit 506.
I requested full disclosure of all prior mold and water-intrusion testing and remediation
reports for Units 205, 206, 305, 306, 405, 406, 505, and 506, including dates, vendors,
and lab results.
DECEMBER 3, 2025 – ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD REPORT TO CITY
I submitted an Urgent Environmental and Structural Hazard Report to the City of Palo
Alto.
The report documented:
- Visible mold concerns;
- Moisture concerns;
- Exterior mold patterns;
- Water intrusion concerns;
- Concerns affecting Units 205, 206, 305, 306, 405, 406, 505, and 506;
- Concerns regarding residents being moved between affected units.
This report was submitted before December 10, 2025.
This directly contradicts any claim that mold or water concerns began because of my
conduct after December 10.
DECEMBER 3, 2025 – RESIDENT DEATH IN UNIT 215
A resident known as Miss China died in Unit 215.
I am not claiming mold caused her death.
However, I had observed significant black staining and apparent mold growth outside
her window area.
This event occurred before December 10 and before management later claimed I was
causing or permitting substantial damage.
DECEMBER 8, 2025 – MAINTENANCE CONVERSATION REGARDING
MOISTURE
Maintenance worker Khan discussed moisture concerns.
According to the documented summary:
- A moisture reading of 47% was reported;
- Khan indicated there was already a hole being used to inspect inside walls;
- Khan stated he had not yet inspected my area;
- Moisture concerns remained unresolved.
This conversation occurred while management continued to deny significant moisture
concerns.
DECEMBER 10, 2025 – CITY COUNCIL NOTIFIED
A formal oversight request was sent to the Palo Alto Mayor and City Council.
The letter identified concerns involving:
205, 206, 305, 306, 405, 406, 505, and 506.
The letter described:
- Water intrusion;
- Air-quality concerns;
- Mold concerns;
- Ventilation failures;
- Contradictory statements;
- Serious health impacts.
This shows that my concerns were not limited to one room and that I was requesting
public oversight before the later unlawful detainer allegations.
DECEMBER 10–11, 2025 – ADA/504 EMERGENCY NOTICE AND RESPONSE
I submitted an emergency notice regarding mold concerns, water intrusion, ADA
concerns, retaliation concerns, and relocation.
I requested inspection reports, testing reports, remediation reports, records for Unit 205,
and records for Unit 506.
Abode again responded that Unit 506 had no moisture, mildew, mold, or pests.
The supporting records were not produced.
JANUARY 9, 2026 – JULIA ADAMS STATEMENT REGARDING UNIT 506
Attorney Julia Adams wrote regarding Unit 506:
"It has been inspected for moisture, mold, and pests and cleared of any such issues."
She also wrote:
"There has never been a history of water intrusion in the unit and so there has been no
remediation work in the unit of any kind."
This was a stronger statement than earlier emails.
It increased the need for the underlying reports because Abode was again asking me to
rely on conclusions without providing the supporting documentation.
JANUARY 12, 2026 – I DECLINE UNIT 506 AS AN ACCOMMODATION
I wrote:
"I am declining Unit 506 as an accommodation because it is not medically safe for me
due to my mold-related disability."
I stated that I was not refusing cooperation and was asking for the accommodation
process required by law to be completed.
JANUARY 12, 2026 – JULIA ADAMS RESPONSE REGARDING UNIT 506
Julia Adams responded:
"Please advise what information you have showing that #506 has ever had mold or mold
remediation."
She also wrote:
"I have been informed that there has never been any water intrusion or mold reported in
the unit throughout the prior tenancy."
This shifted the burden to me even though Abode was the party offering Unit 506 as a
disability-related transfer and had access to the underlying inspection records, vendor
records, moisture readings, pest records, and turnover documentation.
JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2026 – INSPIRE INSPECTION
I met with Tina, the Inspire inspector.
We specifically discussed my concerns regarding moisture.
I objected to sealing the kitchen sink and bathroom sink to the wall.
I explained why I believed sealing those areas could trap moisture and worsen mold
conditions.
AFTER THE INSPIRE INSPECTION – SINKS SEALED ANYWAY
The sinks were later sealed despite my objections.
I personally saw the work orders.
I personally wrote comments on those work orders.
When I later questioned Tina about the repairs, she informed me that she had not ordered
them.
This raises an obvious question:
If Tina did not authorize the sink-sealing work, who did?
I warned management beforehand.
My concerns were ignored.
Management later accused me of causing mold.
FEBRUARY 22, 2026 – HIGH MOISTURE READINGS REPORTED
I reported moisture meter readings reaching alarm levels in the bathroom and shower
enclosure areas.
I explained that the readings suggested active moisture behind walls or building
materials.
I requested inspection, moisture mapping, source determination, and proper opening and
investigation.
FEBRUARY 27, 2026 – JULIA ADAMS REGARDING UNIT 506 AND
TEMPORARY RELOCATION
Julia Adams wrote:
"The offer to move to Unit 506 was originally offered in November 2025 as a permanent
transfer BEFORE the leak occurred in your unit to address your other concerns with the
unit."
She further stated:
"You were informed that the unit had completely been turned with new flooring,
cabinets and had been tested for mold and pests and cleared of both."
She also wrote:
"You rejected that offer alleging that the unit had mold, without ever viewing the unit
and without providing any basis for your belief."
This is significant because it confirms that Unit 506 was originally offered as a
permanent transfer, not simply a temporary repair relocation.
It also repeats the claim that Unit 506 was tested and cleared, while the supporting
reports were still not provided.
FEBRUARY 27, 2026 – MY RESPONSE REGARDING TEMPORARY
RELOCATION TERMS
I explained that I was not refusing repairs.
I was refusing an unsafe process.
I requested:
- Scope of work;
- Contractor information;
- Chemical information;
- SDS sheets;
- Property protection procedures;
- Independent testing;
- Clear access terms.
I also explained that Unit 506 was in the same stack as Unit 205 and that relocation into
the same stack would not necessarily eliminate exposure if building-related moisture
conditions existed.
MARCH 2026 – UNKNOWN CONDITIONS BEHIND WALLS
Management acknowledged that it could not determine whether mold remediation would
be necessary until walls were opened.
This is significant because management itself did not know what conditions existed
behind the walls.
APRIL 2026 – TINA INSPECTION ISSUE
Inspector Tina later stated she did not order work directing that:
- The kitchen sink be sealed to the wall;
- The bathroom sink be sealed to the wall.
This raised a separate question:
If Tina did not order those repairs, who generated the work orders?
This became important because the work involved sealing areas associated with ongoing
moisture, mold, and water intrusion complaints.
APRIL 23, 2026 – FORMAL GRIEVANCE REGARDING STANDING WATER AND
EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
I filed a formal grievance after discovering changes outside my window.
Documented concerns included:
- Standing water previously present;
- Conditions appearing altered;
- Residue/staining appearing after the water disappeared;
- No prior notice of work;
- Open window;
- Concern that evidence was being altered or removed.
The grievance specifically demanded preservation of:
- Work orders;
- Communications;
- Surveillance footage;
- Vendor records;
- Inspection records;
- Access logs;
- Safety Data Sheets;
- Product information.
This grievance demonstrates that I was still reporting and preserving evidence, not
causing damage.
APRIL 28, 2026 – CITY NOTICE OF VIOLATION
The City of Palo Alto issued a Notice of Violation regarding mold, water intrusion,
dampness, unpermitted work, and habitability issues at the Opportunity Center.
This confirmed that the issue was not limited to a single resident or single unit.
MAY 2026 – UNLAWFUL DETAINER AND GRIEVANCE DENIAL
Abode proceeded with an unlawful detainer.
Abode denied my grievance hearing by relying on the policy exception for a tenant who
allegedly caused or permitted substantial damage.
This is improper because the allegation that I caused damage is the very issue I dispute.
Abode cannot fairly use an unproven accusation as the basis for denying the hearing
where I would challenge that accusation.
ONGOING ISSUE – RECORDS, CONSISTENCY, AND TRUST
Throughout this period, management repeatedly made statements that:
- There was no mold;
- There were no mold records;
- There were no water intrusions;
- Units were cleared;
- Units had never experienced water intrusion;
- Units had been inspected and cleared.
At the same time:
- Sewage backup remediation was acknowledged;
- Moisture monitoring was acknowledged;
- Unit transfers were offered;
- Water intrusion discussions continued;
- Work orders appeared without clear origins;
- Moisture readings were documented;
- Multiple explanations were given regarding Units 205 and 506.
The central issue is not one isolated statement.
The central issue is the repeated inconsistency regarding records, inspections, water
intrusion history, mold-related documentation, and the basis upon which residents were
expected to trust the safety determinations being made.
SUMMARY
This timeline shows that:
I reported water intrusion.
I reported mold concerns.
I reported standing water.
I reported sewage-related concerns.
I requested records.
I requested testing.
I requested inspections.
I requested accommodations.
I requested safe relocation.
I warned management about the sink-sealing repairs.
I questioned unsupported representations about Unit 506.
I requested Foster's records regarding the prior sewage backup.
I documented standing water, water intrusion, mold concerns, pest issues, pesticide
concerns, and health impacts months before Abode accused me of causing substantial
damage.
The record does not support the allegation that I caused or permitted damage.
The record supports that I repeatedly tried to get management and public officials to
address hazardous conditions before they worsened.
Unlawful Detainer 04-28-26.pdf
Wolf UD Response 52126.pdf
May 29, 2026
Rebecca Wolf-Loretz
33 Encina Ave. #205
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Opportunity Center - Formal Grievance and Request for Informal Hearing
Dear Ms. Wolf-Loretz
This letter acknowledges receipt of your request for an informal hearing regarding the grievance
submitted on May 21, 2026.
An investigation and review of the matter, including the information provided with your request,
has been completed. Based on that review, your request for a hearing is denied because it was
not submitted within the required timeframe and because you have caused or permitted
substantial damage to your unit.
Under the applicable grievance procedures, a request for a hearing must be received within ten
(10) business days after the reason for the grievance or dispute arose. In this case, your request
was not presented within ten (10) business days of the service of the Notice to Perform Covenants
of the Lease or Quit on April 13, 2026, or after the notice expired (April 16, 2026), nor was it
received within ten (10) business days of the Notice of Violation dated April 28, 2026, which you
reference in your written request.
Additionally, the grievance and appeal procedure does not apply if you are causing or permitting
substantial damage to your unit or have created or maintained an imminent threat to your health
or safety or that of others. By refusing to relocate even temp orarily to allow a leak to be fixed in
your unit since December 10, 2025, you are causing substantial damage to your unit and to the
building and creating and maintaining an imminent threat to the health of yourself and others.
Because your request was not submitted in accordance with the grievance procedure , a hearing
will not be scheduled, and the matter is considered closed.
Sincerely,
Sunne M Roller
Property and Asset Supervisor
Abode Property Management
CC: Tenant file
From:Scott O"Neil
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan
Subject:SB-79 item on 6/15
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 9:54:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I am writing to respectfully ask that item 23 from the consent calendar for the June 15
meeting (SB-79) be heard as an action item and not as a consent item. I do not believe
discussion and deliberation on this item has been adequate because:
1) Due to the late hour of the previous meeting, some people could not stay up late enough
and give comment. I personally know two such people. Everyone should have a chance to
speak.
2) Some of the councilmembers who opposed a partial SB-79 phase-in argued that such a
compromise proposal had not been adequately reviewed. A second round of discussion
would allow staff and these councilmembers to come prepared with a more developed idea of
which streets in Palo Alto might properly be exempted from the ordinance, allowing full SB-79
phase-in.
-Scott
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Kathryn Hug
To:Council, City
Subject:UWMP
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 9:24:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Please make the Urban Water Management Plan as strong as possible by considering and
including Commissioner Gupta's suggestions. This is a critical time for forwarding a plan that
secures one of our most vital resources. I know that the Council has many important decisions
to deal with in today's session. I wish you the courage, energy, and knowledge to come to Item
13 on the agenda and approve the best UWMP possible.
Thank you.
Kathryn H. Hug
391 Oxford Avenue
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:Wolfgang Dueregger
To:Lait, Jonathan
Cc:city.manager@cityofpaloalto.com; Council, City; Burt, Patrick
Subject:Re: RPP: 400 block Stanford Ave: vehicle parked for days
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 9:05:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Jonathan and City of Palo Alto,
-1: In case you are not the correct person to contact reg/ this issue of the person living in his
car next to the Valero gas station on the 400 block of Stanford Ave, let me know whom to
contact. This vehicle has been parked there now for over a week and no citation has been
issued.
-2: also, please have somebody look into the issue that the valero gas station has become a
repair shop where the sidewalk gets blocked (see picture).
-3: Is the city manager's email out of date? It seems that
emails to city.manager@cityofpaloalto.com no longer get delivered.
I look forward to hearing from you.
thank you
Wolfgang
On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 10:52 AM Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:
Hi Jonathan and City of Palo Alto,
somebody is still living in this camper as of this morning. Can you send somebody by and
get this resolved?
thanks for your help.
Wolfgang
On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 5:02 PM Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:
Hi Jonathan.
may I ask you for your help:
there is a vehicle parked on the 400 block of Stanford Ave (next to the Valero gas station)
for many days. There are no citations being issued even though we have an RPP.
also, the license plate, one is missing and the other one looks strange (maybe out of state)
and not sure if it is uptodate.
Can the city or the Police Dept come out and check it out?
I also want to mention that this same vehicle has been parking there many times in the past
as well.
many thanks
Wolfgang
Evergreen Park
From:City Mgr
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:Council Bundle - June 8, 2026
Date:Monday, June 8, 2026 8:10:44 AM
Attachments:RE Public Comment to City Council May 18 meeting Agenda Item 13 Cubberley Project.msg
RE Keep Pavilion as a gym!.msg
RE Cubberley Pavilion should remain as is..msg
RE A TheatreWorks Supporters Perspective On The Pavilion Conversion To A Theatre (518 Meeting Agenda Item
13).msg
RE Cubberley dance pavilion.msg
image001.png
image002.png
RE Another death at the opportunity center..msg
RE We could really use some help.msg
RE FW Residential Parking Discrimination.msg
Fw RV on the Corner of Ross Ames.msg
Importance:High
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in
the Council inbox through June 8, 2026.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille Rice
Administrative Assistant
City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation
(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From:Andie Reed
To:Council, City
Subject:Urban Water Management Plan, Item 13
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 6:55:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council members,
Please accept and incorporate into Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management the amendments written
by UAC Commissioner Gupta and forwarded to Council by the UAC.
The basis for the San Francisco PUC demand projections today, which are historically
inflated, do not accurately reflect our current and future needs and instill fear in order to
encourage rate hikes.
Valley Water, East Bay MUD, and the Sierra Club have all provided modeling that indicates
there is sufficient supply for people and for the environment; the Bay Delta Plan should be
heeded.
In the future, and long before these issues come to Council for a vote, please include the
SFPUC in a study session to come to a transparent agreement.
Thank you for your hard work on this issue.
Andie Reed
--
Andie Reed
Palo Alto, CA 94301
530-401-3809
From:Phyllis Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:May 8 City Council meeting, item 14
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 6:16:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
I look forward to hearing your thoughtful discussion of the Ordinance and two Resolutions
related to placing a 1/2 cent Transactions and Use Tax Measure on the November 3 election
ballot.
I am surprised that the ballot measure language does not include reference to the purchase of
the seven acres of property currently owned by the PAUSD--that it only refers to repairs. Is
the assumption that the property much be purchased in order for those repairs to happen? Is
there good reason not to include reference to the purchase in the ballot language?
I also recommend two minor edits of Section 2 in the Spending Guidelines Resolution
(Attachment C).
Why not delete "part of" in the sentence
The Council plans to allocate the proceeds from the transactions and use tax to purchase
the seven acres and implement part of Phase 1 of the Cubberley Conceptual Master
Plan to modernize the aging buildings, grow the amount of green space for outdoor
enjoyment, invest in local public spaces that provide recreation and culture, and prevent
Cubberley from becoming even further obsolete.
Since it is a conceptual master plan, we know there will be changes as implementation occurs,
so why not just say to implement phase 1?
The last sentence of that same paragraph lists community spaces at Mitchell Park, the Lucie
Stern Center, and the new Bryant Street Community Center (which I believe was built without
reliance on a ballot measure, perhaps because it is in the northern part of Palo Alto).
Cubberley will be a much needed addition. Perhaps add the Palo Alto Arts Center to the
existing valuable community spaces. The renovation of Cubberley will perhaps be essential
to residents of the northern parts of our city, given the probalby increase in demand on those
centers as the population of Palo Alto grows with the implementation of the Housing Element,
especially the San Antonio Road Area Plan.
Getting into the weeds a bit: is there a danger that the City might not receive authorization
from the State for a change in the state cap, as is described in the first paragraph of the
Analysis in the Staff Report? Was this possible impediment not recognized until after the May
18 City Council meeting?
I will be at the meeting, holding up my Palo Alto Needs Cubberley sign.
Phyllis Brown
From:Phyllis Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:June 8 City Council meeting Item 13
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 5:50:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
I find the information in the Staff Report for item 13, the 2025 Urban Water Management
Plan, rather confusing, especially the fact that the Utility Advisory Commission submitted
their recommendation but also allowed the submission of a memo from Commisioner Gupta
with proposed edits to the Palo Alto UWMP. I have heard Commissioner Gupta explain the
problems he sees with with SFPUC's water-supply reliability numbers, and I found his
argument convincing. Therefore, I urge you to attend carefully to his arguments as you discuss
the recommendation from the Utility Advisory Commission. Is it possible that the disaster
drought modeling, which will result in rate hikes, is not in the best interests of our city? Would
acceptance of the Water Management Plan as recommended by the Utility Advisory
Commission undermine implementation of the Bay Delta Plan that the City of Palo Alto has
voted to support?
I look forward to your thoughtful discussion of this issue at the meeting tomorrow evening,
June 8, 2026.
Phyllis Brown
From:TC Rindfleisch
To:Council, City
Cc:Peter Drekmeier; Gupta, Ustav; Rebecca Sanders
Subject:Re: JUNE 8 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #13: Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:52:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
On 6/7/2026 4:49 PM, TC Rindfleisch wrote:
> Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers...
Sorry, make that "June 8"... Tom R.
From:TC Rindfleisch
To:Council, City
Cc:Peter Drekmeier; Gupta, Ustav; Rebecca Sanders
Subject:JULY 8 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #13: Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:49:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing to ask that you
incorporate in an appropriate way the concerns Utilities Advisory
Commissioner Gupta has expressed in the form of proposed amendments to
the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. Basically the issue is that
there is strong evidence that the modeling of drought and water supply
futures provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC) is excessively conservative, resulting in unnecessarily
burdensome future rate hikes that will impact not only Palo Alto
residents and businesses, but all of SFPUC’s customers. Adequate water
supply management is clearly absolutely essential for the welfare of our
communities in the face of the threat of serious droughts exacerbated by
climate change. However, it is a matter of prudent public
policy consensus to estimate the likelihood of future drought severity
and duration as realistically as possible to drive the corresponding
actions needed to ensure adequate supply, distribution, and conservation
management. It appears that the SFPUC modeling and policy decisions on
which the current UWMP is based are an excessively conservative upper
bound on the threat/response strategy, and that there may be a conflict
of interest in the underlying process that benefits SFPUC financially
and that could result in higher water rates for the 26 member
communities plus the City of San Francisco than are warranted.
I understand that the City is obligated to adopt the UWMP by July 1,
2026, and that time pressure does not allow for full consideration of
the updated assessments of future criteria suggested by the UAC. In
preparation for this submission however, to ensure that Palo Alto's
concerns are on record, I strongly recommend that the current draft UWMP
be updated with the edits UAC Commissioner Gupta has submitted. This
will make clear that more realistic future projections of water
supply/drought threats and attendant policy decisions can and should
take place before the next UWMP is due.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas Rindfleisch
Crescent Park
From:Virginia Tincher
To:Council, City
Subject:June 8 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2025 Urban
Water Management Plan
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:35:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Regarding - Agenda Item 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2025 Urban Water
Management Plan
I am a life long resident of Palo Alto and the Bay Area. I care deeply about the health of our rivers, delta, the San
Francisco Estuary and agricultural lands. Ensuring sufficient water flow throughout our waterways is critical for the
health of the system and those of who depend upon it - the people, plants and animals.
Please incorporate the language provided by UAC Commissioner Gupta into Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management
Plan. His additions support moving forward towards a reasonable solution similar to EBMUD and Valley Water.
It’s also very important that the City of Palo Alto holds a study session on water rates and insists that the SFPUC
participate to start the conversation.
Thank you,
Virginia Tincher Van Kuran
879 Garland Drive
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
From:Kent Smith
To:Council, City
Cc:Reifschneider, James
Subject:Re: Traffic Lights Out At Page Mill & El Camino Friday June 5, 2026
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 4:23:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
After talking to my neighbors, I now realize that the work at El Camino & Page Mill is being
undertaken by the County of Santa Clara & not CalTrans as the person who answered the
phone at Palo Police said.
I still believe that flashing red lights at an intersection as busy & complex as Page Mill and El
Camino are insufficient for a safe journey in either direction. There are 8 possible movements
there which are extremely difficult to navigate with just flashing red lights.
I still believe that the Palo Alto police could have provided a much safer situation had they
been on hand to direct traffic.
On Sunday the lights were working & thus there were no problems there.
I hope that in the future our City public employees will provide assistance in these
unusual circumstances.
Thank you again for your help in this matter.
Kent
On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 4:02 PM Kent Smith <kentsmithsf@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members.
Driving on Page Mill this afternoon I encountered the traffic lights blinking red at the
intersection of Page Mill & El Camino.
This is one of the busiest intersections in Palo Alto.
My passenger contacted the palo Alto police through the non-emergency phone number.
She enquired about getting a police officer to direct traffic there & was told that this was a
CalTrans responsibility.
That is an accurate response but it would have been civilly responsible; to get an officer
there until CalTrans arrived at the scene.
I am a retired Palo Alto resident with experience in the public & non-profit sectors.
Too often public employees fail to realize that they are the first responders to problems in
their communities. The proper response would be to send officers to the scene to direct
traffic until CalTrans staff could take over.
Citizens are less interested in bureaucratic jurisdictions than addressing problems quickly &
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
efficiently. Clearly the Palo Alto Police are in the best position to do this within our City’s
boundaries.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kent Smith
--
Kent Smith
(213) 422-7628
From:Shantha Mohan
To:Council, City
Subject:6/8/26 Council Meeting Item 14: Sales Tax Measure for November 3, 2026 Election
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 1:38:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Council Members, and City Manager:
The Friends of Palo Alto Library (FOPAL), founded in 1938 and housed at the
Cubberley Community Center since 2002, strongly desires to remain at this Center
throughout the planned redevelopment process. FOPAL's current presence at
Cubberley is sustained by hundreds of community volunteers like me who gather
throughout the year to help run the organization and its monthly sales. Thousands of
local residents of all ages attend these sales, in addition to a global following of our
online marketplace.
Since 2004, FOPAL has awarded over $3.6 million in grants to the City of Palo Alto
Library and, in fiscal year 2026, awarded $150,000. To effectively assist our book-
sales patrons and support dedicated volunteers like me, FOPAL's long-term vision is
to consolidate its footprint in the new Community Center, increase revenue, and
provide larger grants to the Palo Alto City Library for vital funding. I recognize the
immense value this redevelopment will bring to Palo Alto residents, and I am eager to
continue my volunteer work for FOPAL operations as a fixture of the revitalized site.
I urge the City Council to adopt an ordinance and a resolution calling for an election to
place a half-cent Transactions and Use Tax Measure on the November 3, 2026, ballot
to support improvements to the Cubberley Community Center.
Sincerely,
Shantha Mohan
Friends of the Palo Alto Library Volunteer
261 Parkside Drive
Palo Alto.
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments on June 8 Cubberley Item 14 vote on the Ballot Measure and Advisory Resolution
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 12:54:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
As you know, I am enthusiastically in favor of moving badly needed Cubberley plans forward
expeditiously. Toward that end, I have a few comments and questions on Item 14 for Monday’s
City Council meeting agenda:
1). I see what seems to be an error in the Resolution language of Attachment B, Section 2.
The language of the ballot measure question makes no mention of the $65.5M Cubberley land
purchase from PAUSD. This seems to be a significant omission. Shouldn’t this be included?
(This omission appears in all packet documents in which the ballot measure question
appears.)
2. A tax rate of 0.5% is specifically mentioned in all of these documents, but the Staff
Report (Analysis section, page 2) says, “Within the state cap, the City has capacity for a ¼
cent (0.25%) voter approved local sales tax; staff is working on legislation that would increase
the local sales tax cap by a ½ cent.” Questions:
In case the effort to obtain state authorization to implement a ½-cent tax legislation
fails, is there a contingency plan in place to put forward a ¼-cent tax? Is that what
Section 7, Attachment A is about?
What is the contingency plan?
When does staff expect to receive a decision re: authorization to implement a ½-
cent tax?
3). In the Late Packet Attachment, Section 2 (page 2), the city lists a few community
spaces in the city but excludes Palo Alto Art Center, and the Junior Museum and Zoo.
Please add these two facilities and add language that acknowledges a need to provide
additional capacity to meet increased demand for community services.
Thank you for considering my comments. Please move Cubberley forward. The need is clear
and urgent.
Penny Ellson
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Susan Kemp
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item #13 on June 8, 2026 City Council Meeting Agenda
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 12:50:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
With regard to Agenda Item #13 on the June 8th schedule, Urban Water Management, I urge
you to accept and incorporate into Palo Alto's Urban Water Management the amendments
written by Utilities Advisory Commissioner Utsav Gupta. I am concerned about (1)
environmental issues, especially the dismal Tuolumne River salmon counts over the past
twenty years and (2) City of Palo Alto Utilities water rate increases escalating in the future
based on SFPUC's poor management of the water and their overly cautious and unrealistic
water use demand projections. Instead of being rewarded for reducing our collective water
needs vs the past, we are being penalized with the prospect of increasingly higher rates. We
have saved water by installing low flow toilets and showers, have replaced our lawns with less
thirsty plantings, and other measures resulting in overall demand dropping 15% despite an
86% population increase. Please don't allow the SFPUC's Design Drought flawed modeling to
persist and unnecessarily impact both our city water rates and the other twenty-five wholesale
customers of the Hetch Hetchy water system. In the future, please hold a study session on
water rates and insist that the SFPUC participate.
With regard to Consent Calendar Items relating to water management it is my understanding
that the Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission has had no input to the issue of the City of
Palo Alto's Permanent Water Use Ordinance. If this is true, I urge you to postpone approval of
this item until the UAC can review and weigh in on this important issue.
Thanks,
Susan Kemp
Ventura Neighborhood resident
From:Utsav Gupta
To:Council, City
Cc:Tucher, Chris; Clerk, City
Subject:Remove the Utility Reserves Advisory Report (Baker Tilly) from the June 8 Consent Calendar (Item 5)
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 11:26:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
In short: we ask you to pull Item 5 from the June 8 Consent Calendar and refer it to the
Utilities Advisory Commission for review first. Accepting the report now commits the City to
reserve policies that staff acknowledge will raise utility rates.
We respectfully ask that the Baker Tilly utility reserve management report [Item 5 on the June 8
agenda] be removed from the Consent Calendar and referred to the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) for review and a recommendation before Council takes action. Because
accepting this report sets a reserve policy with substantial downstream effects on utility rates, it
should not be adopted without the independent, public vetting the UAC exists to provide.
Below we explain why this item should be pulled from the Consent Calendar and reviewed by the
UAC first.
1. Staff’s own analysis says this will raise rates, and it isn’t in the packet.
The June 8 action is to accept the results of the Utility Reserves Advisory Report, which staff
describe as the start of a year-long process to revise reserve policies ahead of FY 2028 rate setting.
Staff are explicit that this will affect rates. Their report to the Policy & Services Committee states that
“implementation to change reserve levels would have rate impacts,”1 and their management response
puts a number on it:
“After a general review of the recommendations to assess order of magnitude of financial
impacts, staff estimate individual utility rate increases could range from increases of
approximately 2% to 8% at the low range and between 20–26% at the high range of the
recommendations (this assumes implementation over a five-year period). These increases
would be significantly impactful to Palo Alto’s residents and businesses.”2
Staff’s own plan, moreover, would have that year-long review done “with the assistance of the Utility
Advisory Commission and the Finance Committee,” but only “remaining within the range of
recommendations from Baker Tilly.”2That puts the steps in the wrong order. The rate impact
flows from the reserve policies themselves, so the UAC should review those policies before Council
accepts the report, not afterward, inside a process already boxed into Baker Tilly’s range. Council is
not voting on the increases here, but it would be endorsing the policy that will necessarily produce
2. The rate impact is large, and it stacks on an already steep trajectory.
Reserve policy is one of the most powerful levers the City has over what customers pay. The roughly
5× spread between Baker Tilly’s low and high scenarios (an added $5 to $115 per month per
household, or $60 to $1,380 per year) is itself a sign that more analysis is needed before these targets
become a rate path. That impact also lands on top of an already steep five-year forecast that does not
yet include it. The combined median residential utility bill is projected to rise from $442.60/month in
FY 2026 to ~$638/month by FY 2031, about +44% (~$195/month, ~$2,340/year):
CPAU Forecasted Rate Increases
Utility FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 5yr Cumulative
Electric 6%6%6%7%7%5%~34%
Gas 5%9%7%6%6%6%~38%
Water (system avg)10%10%10%10%7%6%~52%
Wastewater Collection 20%16%14%6%6%6%~57%
Refuse / Stormwater /
Fiber 0–3%0–3%2–3%2–3%2–3%2–3%~10–13%
Combined median bill
(+$/mo)+$33 +$40 +$43 +$37 +$39 +$36 ~+44%
Combined median bill
($/mo level)~$443 ~$483 ~$526 ~$563 ~$602 ~$638 $443 → ~$638 (+44%)
Combined bill + Baker
Tilly, low (5% midpt)~$443 ~$488 ~$537 ~$580 ~$626 ~$670 $443 → ~$670 (+51%)
Combined bill + Baker
Tilly, high (23% midpt)~$443 ~$505 ~$574 ~$641 ~$713 ~$785 $443 → ~$785 (+77%)
Sources: FY 2027 Operating Budget Book p. 22; March 4, 2026 rate reports (Water, Wastewater); March 31, 2026 Gas packet;
November 5, 2025 combined-bill report. The Baker Tilly rows phase the 5% (low) and 23% (high) midpoint reserve adders in over five
years, reaching full effect in FY31; the cumulative column compares today’s combined bill (~$443) to the fully loaded FY31 figure.
That ~$638 figure is itself before the Baker Tilly reserve changes (up to ~$115/month once phased
in). It also excludes two further likely and material pressures, the cost of a gas decommissioning
program and an unplanned SFPUC water pass-through. Layering a possible 20–26% reserve-driven
increase on top of the planned ~44% is exactly the kind of cumulative, household-level
consequence that warrants deliberate UAC and public review before adoption.
3. This belongs before the UAC first.
The UAC has raised concerns about CPAU’s reserves for months, most recently while reviewing this
year’s rate increases, when commissioners proposed modifications to reserve policies to smooth
increases and understood that the forthcoming Baker Tilly report would be the commission’s
opportunity to examine CPAU’s many, often overlapping reserve funds. That report is now final, and
reserve policy sits squarely within the commission’s charge. The UAC has not yet taken it up, and
the right course is for the commission to review it before Council accepts it rather than to learn its
conclusions afterward. In fact, the commission adopted review of CPAU’s reserve policies as a
priority in its FY 2026–27 work plan, approved 5–0 on June 3. At that meeting, the Vice Chair also
noted that the UAC had agreed to take up reserve policy in July, though that review is not yet on the
calendar. Accepting the report on the June 8 consent calendar would settle the policy direction before
any such review can happen.
4. The report puts no numbers behind its recommendations, and the UAC has caught flawed
consultant reports before.
We cannot say whether the report’s methods and findings are sound, because the commission has not
reviewed it. The UAC has identified issues in earlier consultant work, including the One Water Plan
and the original gas cost-of-service study (COSA). Several features make a UAC review especially
warranted:
• It does not quantify its own cost. The report never states Palo Alto’s current reserve balances,
and it never computes how many dollars its recommendations would add to those reserves. It
then never estimates the effect on rates at all. The recommendation that drives nearly all of the
projected increase, resetting rate-stabilization targets to a percentage of revenues or expenses,
does not even specify the percentage; it cites a benchmark range of 10% to 65% and leaves the
choice to staff.3 Staff were left to fill that gap, and the only rate figure anywhere, the 2–26%
range, appears in their one-paragraph Management Response with no supporting math.2
• The recommendations skew toward higher reserves on thin support. The high end of the rate
impact tracks the very top of that 10–65% range, a single peer’s target, rather than any analysis of
Palo Alto’s needs. The report also proposes returning only funds “in excess of the target” to
ratepayers, replacing today’s rule that all such funds be drawn down to soften rate increases, a
direct path to higher net rates. Yet the report itself calls one large existing requirement, the
roughly $20 million bond-covenant reserve, “overly burdensome” and removable once the 2011
bonds mature in June 2026, which points toward lower reserves even as the package nets higher.3
• A Palo Alto–specific gap. The report says CIP-reserve targets should exclude bond-funded
projects but never quantifies Palo Alto’s cash-versus-bond split, even though the City is about to
bond-fund the $375–$450 million grid modernization, by far its largest capital program. The
utility with the biggest capital plan gets the least clarity on how the new target would apply.3
Multiple commissioners have said they want to review this report before the policies take effect, so
that the UAC can review the findings and recommend any changes to Council.
5. A UAC review would sharpen this, not just slow it down.
That staff project a rate impact anywhere from 2% to 26% shows how imprecise the current basis
is; a range that wide reflects how much analysis is still missing. A thoughtful review would prioritize
which reserve accounts, for which utilities, most need adjusting and how soon, and conversely which
of Baker Tilly’s recommendations are excessive. It would also ask which overlapping reserves should
be merged rather than grown. The report itself notes, for example, that the Electric utility’s Special
Projects Reserve, which funds capital projects, serves much the same purpose as its CIP Reserve and
could be combined, yet it recommends only “clarifying” the distinction.3 The same question applies
to a single utility holding both an operations reserve and a separate rate-stabilization reserve.
Working through these questions is exactly what a UAC review would do, returning to Council a
recommendation with a far more precise estimate of the rate impact, so Council acts on a defined
policy rather than a wide range.
Our request
Remove the item from the Consent Calendar and direct staff to bring the Baker Tilly reserve
management report to the UAC as a discussion item, consistent with the previously agreed July
review, returning to Council with the UAC’s recommendation thereafter. If any piece is time-
sensitive, staff can identify that narrow element for separate handling while the policy questions
receive proper review. At the very least, a policy decision of this magnitude should not be adopted on
consent.
Thank you for your service to Palo Alto and for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully,
Utsav Gupta
Chris Tucher
Commissioners, Utilities Advisory Commission, in their personal capacities
NOTES
1 City of Palo Alto, Policy & Services Committee Staff Report, “Office of the City Auditor Presentation of the City of Palo
Alto Utility Reserves Advisory Report,” April 14, 2026 (Report 2509-5177; Lead Department: City Auditor, Kate
Murdock), Fiscal/Resource Impact section.
2 City of Palo Alto, “Management Response to the Utilities Reserves Advisory Report” (Attachment B to the April 14, 2026
Policy & Services Committee item), April 2, 2026. This management response is not included in the June 8 City Council
packet.
3 City of Palo Alto / Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP (Office of the City Auditor), “City of Palo Alto Utility Reserves
Advisory Report” (Attachment A to the April 14, 2026 Policy & Services Committee item), March 27, 2026. See pp. 5–
6 (rate-stabilization targets and 10–65% benchmark range; drawdown-language change), pp. 2 and 18 (Available
Reserves bond covenant), and pp. 3 and 5 (CIP-reserve treatment of bond-funded projects).
From:John Guislin
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Item 13 - June 8, 2026 - Palo Alto UWMP
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 9:26:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
Our UAC Commissioner Gupta has done the hard work of analyzing the
data provided by the SFPUC and finds the information deeply flawed.
Planning for a 1 in 8,000 year drought is beyond the reasonable capabilities
of our government and will result in a series of unsustainable and
unnecessary water rate increases. In my household of two, with reduced
landscaping, the water bill is currently almost half of our total utility bill.
Please invest the time to carefully consider and adopt the amendments
proposed by Commissioner Gupta. Failure to do so will put us on a path to
ever-increasing water rates that will negatively impact Palo Altans and all
the communities that make up the Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency (BAWSCA).
John Guislin
Crescent Park
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Annette Glanckopf
To:Council, City; City Clerk
Subject:June 8 agenda item 13 - Urban Water Management Plan
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 9:04:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
As written the proposed Urban Water Management Plan on June 8th - Monday night’s
agenda #13 will be a huge, and uncalled for, jump in the price Palo Altans and other
communities pay for water. Many of us in Palo Alto can’t afford to pay more than a
reasonable annual increase for our utilities, especially if such rates are not necessary
in the first place.
Given the significant impact on rate hikes, I support the amendments written by UAC
Commissioner Gupta and forwarded to Council by the UAC. Please accept and
incorporate these amendments and refer it back to the Utilities Commission for a
substantive discussion.
Having reviewed this material, I am convinced the information from SFPUC is wrong
and will trigger unnecessary and huge rate hikes to all customers of SFPUC. Finally I
support the Bay Delta Plan that you, the Palo Alto City Council, already voted to
support.
Thank you.
Annette Glanckopf
Midtown
From:Rity Upadhyaya
To:Council, City
Subject:Looking to connect with you about a harassing con artist working at Equinox Palo Alto
Date:Sunday, June 7, 2026 8:38:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi City Council members,
I wanted to bring to your attention about Equinox Palo Alto staff. I saw something disturbing
about an Equinox instructor. I have complained about this person who is called a relationship
con artist and predator by his victims and yet seems to be employed at Equinox. This man
seems to be a criminal scamming people and yet is employed and threatened and attacked me
after class. His social media (Instagram id: blakespotting). I have complained with the general
manager at Palo Alto and yet nothing has happened. How can Equinox charge $300 a month
from members and have such a person work at this gym? Is Palo Alto city aware of how shady
the staff are there? Members are allowed to ask questions on a trainer’s background especially
if his victims have called him a relationship con artist and predator. New people will look up
instructor credentials. Yet he threatened and stalked us even when we changed our gym
location for asking a question on why he works at EQX and tried to intimidate us. This
information is in the public domain. Has no respect for members nor has manners: he sent me
sexual messages on instagram to mock me is highly unprofessional (I have a screenshot). He
manipulates and turns other trainers against you if you don’t feel the need to engage with him
beyond a basic thank you after class. Basically I had to change the location to another one and
even then this man did not stop mocking us and stalking us. He was also insistent on
Instagram to build some connection with him. Why would I do that? Most importantly I am at
a loss about why such people are in businesses in City of Palo Alto?
Would you be able to give me some guidance on what could be done? Equinox clearly does
not care about who it employs but wants us to pay a premium price to engage with shady staff
with criminal background?
Thanks
Rity
--
Rity Upadhyaya | Cell: (510) 876-2754
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Shannon Rose
To:Council, City
Cc:Shannon Rose
Subject:Bicycle Access to Cal Ave
Date:Saturday, June 6, 2026 9:56:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
You closed Cal Ave during COVID and that wasn't a problem as there was so little traffic while everyone
was in lockdown. Naturally residents were happy to dine outside where they could breathe air and relax a
little bit in those difficult times. However, we are long back to normal and residents, students and
workers need to move to and from the Cal Ave train station as smoothly as possible. We also want to
reduce traffic, parking and emissions in Palo Alto. It is very important that we protect bicycle access to
and from the Cal Ave train station as well as movement through the Cal Ave pedestrian tunnel.
You'll recall that almost all of the stores on Cal Ave were against making the closure permanent and
making customer parking more difficult. In yesterday's Palo Alto Weekly the owners of La Bodeguita del
Medio "suggested that the street has actually become more dangerous in the years since car traffic was
removed." I agree.
Now you are suggesting that we close Cal Ave to all bikes, not just motorized bikes and scooters, thereby
pushing riders like me over to Cambridge or Sherman. Those streets are narrow and cars move
constantly in and out of parking lots. They are NOT safe streets for bike riders. Because the Cal Ave
train station has very difficult egress and ingress, it was a mistake to keep Cal Ave closed to traffic after
COVID. Council, you aren't thinking about the new traffic coming soon that will congest this boxed up
area even further. Not only will we have the new Public Safety Building's staff and visitors creating more
traffic, WE WILL SOON have three new residential towers on the Mollie Stone's store location. All those
tower residents will be coming and going adding yet more impossible traffic bottlenecks and danger for
bike riders, students and pedestrians.
Council member Lauing voted against a bike lane on Cal Ave saying it would be dangerous for
pedestrians. We need a bike lane and it must be marked in order to be a visual reminder to pedestrians
that they need to be aware of bikes. Amsterdam is a good example of a city where the residents are
aware and careful -- both riders and pedestrians. Bike riders in Palo Alto aren't going away. We can
safely accommodate bikes on important throughways and we can learn to be aware and careful -- both
riders and pedestrians. Do not close off Cal Ave to regular bikes. When we ride on Cal Ave we
are paying close attention to pedestrians in the street. We are careful because we too are at risk should
there be an accident.
Sincerely,
Shannon Rose McEntee
Bike rider for 40+ years
Longtime Palo Alto resident of Mayfield
From:Sonya Bradski
To:Council, City
Subject:Subject Line - Item 13 - Palo Alto UWMP
Date:Saturday, June 6, 2026 7:53:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
Please accept and incorporate into Palo Alto’s Urban Water Management
the amendments written by UAC Commissioner Gupta and forwarded to
Council by the UAC. Having reviewed this material, we are convinced
the information from SFPUC is wrong and will trigger unnecessary and
huge rate hikes to all customers of SFPUC.
Thank you.
Sonya Bradski
Greenmeadow Resident
From:Paul Machado
To:Council, City
Subject:Water rates
Date:Saturday, June 6, 2026 7:45:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
The cost of living in this City and area is one of thy highest in the nation. It is time to stop rubber stamping
increases in the cost of living.
Sincerely
Paul Machado
Sent from my iPhone
From:Rebecca Sanders
To:Council, City
Subject:Council Meeting Monday June 8 - Item 13 - Palo Alto UWMP
Date:Saturday, June 6, 2026 6:23:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members:
Please incorporate UAC Commissioner Gupta’s suggested amendments to the City’s Urban Water Management
Plan. After reading materials and listening to some presentations, I am convinced that the information we are
basing the plan on, data provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, is misleading, alarmist, is not
aligned with Palo Alto’s values and is not in the best interest of residents and businesses. Accepting SFPUC
disaster drought modeling will lead to unnecessary rate hikes that will be a burden not to just Palo Alto but to all of
SFPUC’s customers.
I also personally support the Bay Delta Plan that Palo Alto City Council voted to support. SFPUC's numbers clearly
undermine and would scuttle that important environmental measure.
Thank you for considering Commissioner Gupta’s verbiage and please incorporate it into the plan so that Palo
Altans are not saddled with egregious and very REAL rate hikes based on SFPUC’s IMAGINARY, manufactured
disaster scenario.
Thank you Councilmember Greer Stone for making Palo Alto’s voice heard at BAWSCA and beyond in this matter.
You have been a real champion for the City.
Sincerely,
Becky Sanders
Ventura Neighborhood
From:Magic
To:Council, City
Subject:Urban Water Management Plan
Date:Saturday, June 6, 2026 5:58:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Councilmembers,
What a pleasure to write you about the Urban Water Management Plan! You've a remarkable
opportunity to make evidence-based policy for common good.
Two years ago you, councilmembers Burt, Lauing, and Stone, and your former colleague
councilmember Kou voted to appoint Utsav Gupta to the Utilities Advisory Commission. The
wisdom of that vote is evident in Gupta's recent memo to you suggesting language to
incorporate into the plan.
I respectfully request that you read the memo carefully and heed Gupta's recommendations. I
congratulate you who appointed Gupta and I urge all of you to recognize in some public way
his service in analyzing the issues and providing you precisely the kind of science-based
policy guidance that is so valuable to decision makers.
The UWMP is a five-year commitment. We've already squandered more than half a million
dollars on alarmist and baseless SFPUC claims. This time, let's follow the science rather than
the dogma. Thank you for considering my views.
With appreciation,
David Schrom
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
From:Claire Andrews
To:Council, City; Claire Andrews
Subject:Liberty Tree Dedication Ceremony in Palo Alto
Date:Saturday, June 6, 2026 2:53:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing:
My name is Claire Andrews and I am Regent of the El Palo Alto Chapter of the
Daughters of the American Revolution. The chapter was chartered in November of
1912. Our original members either lived on the Stanford Campus or in Palo Alto.
In 1974 our chapter worked with George Hood and Clement Chen (developer for the
Holiday Inn 635 El Camino) to plant a small grove of El Palo Alto seedlings in a
protected area of the parking lot of the new hotel. These were gifted to the City of
Palo Alto for their centennial and to the nation for its bicentennial.
In honor of America 250, we are planning to place an additional marker at this site
designating the trees as a Liberty Tree Grove. The ceremony is Saturday September
12th at 2:00 PM. It is free and open to the public. We are planning to have a
Revolutionary War Color Guard, along with Congressman Sam Liccardo as one of
our speakers. We were hoping you would be interested in speaking at the event. If
possible, we would like you to give the opening welcome to the event.
The El Palo Alto chapter actually has a long history of volunteering in the Palo Alto
area. Between 1919 and 1940 (or so) we volunteered at Palo Alto's community center
- the Hostess House. We award a high school scholarship each year to a
student from either Palo Alto High or Gunn. We also engage with a couple of Palo
Alto middle schools for our American History Essay contest each year.
Please let me know if you would consider speaking at our event. We will be inviting
the entire City Council to the event when we finish the schedule and program.
Claire Andrews
Regent, El Palo Alto NSDAR
(650) 576-3326
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:CaraSilver@proton.me
To:Council, City; Reifschneider, James
Cc:David Waksberg
Subject:Flock ALPR Audit: Recommendations for Audit Scope
Date:Saturday, June 6, 2026 10:30:26 AM
Attachments:Letter to PACC re Audit.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Please see attached letter from SOS Palo Alto (Safety Over Surveillance Palo Alto.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
1
June 5, 2026
Re: Proposed Audit Scope for Flock ALPR Program
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Safety Over Surveillance (SOS) was formed to respond to the proliferation of ALPRs in our
region. We are a growing coalition of grassroot groups concerned about mass surveillance,
privacy, and ways to make our local communities safe. We believe in building
neighborhood networks powered by people, not artificial intelligence.
Thank you for conducting a study session on Flock’s ALPR cameras and for your continued
attention to this issue. City Councils across the country are wrestling with this issue. It is
complex and touches on the core functions of local government: public safety. As more
information comes to light, it also requires us to consider the negative impacts this
technology brings, especially in the current authoritarian regime. As more cities probe
more deeply, they are pausing or canceling their contracts.
We appreciate Palo Alto’s decision to perform an audit of the Flock ALPR system. We
welcome an independent perspective and respect the work OIR has done on behalf of the
City. Our only reservation is that OIR may not have the technology expertise needed to
answer some of the critical questions like: what security measures are placed on the City’s
data, what happens to the City’s data after it is collected, how does Flock use the City’s
data in its overall network and to train its other products. Accordingly, we have prepared a
list of audit questions for OIR to consider (attached). We also welcome the opportunity to
meet with the auditor to share some of the information we have collected from numerous
case studies throughout the country.
Respectfully,
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
2
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
Enclosure (proposed Flock ALPR audit scope)
3
Audit Scope of Work for Flock ALPR program*
1. Assess how long / how Flock keeps copies of the City's data and what access exists
for this data:
A. What data does Flock keep related to this program / contract?
B. Review of Flock's data retention policy and agreement in the contract:
a. Are there reports available around this data that can be tested against
the policy and compliance requirements? Ex: they say they don't keep
data over 30 days – is there a report that shows data age that would
list information held longer?
b. Are there legitimate exceptions built into the data retention policy, like
holding data longer for active investigations, and how are those
exceptions used and tracked? Select a sample to test that they are
using these exceptions legitimately – provide required
documentation, confirm case, test data is timely removed after.
C. Review of Flock's SOC2 report. What vulnerabilities are identified? Did they
get a clean (unqualified) opinion on the report? Is Palo Alto aware of
requirements to uphold their end of system security? Will Palo Alto be
requesting this report every year they use the Flock system to ensure they
stay up to date on any security vulnerabilities or issues the system may have?
D. Who has access to the Palo Alto data outside of Palo Alto police? What
access audit trails are available to confirm who has been accessing Palo Alto
data? Are there any user accounts that are not identifiable/anonymous
(generic accounts, accounts that can log in as other users, accounts that
have activity that is not logged or deletable, etc.)? Specifically, what access
do these groups have?
a. Flock support staff
b. Flock Third Party Vendors and Contractors with Access to Customer
Data- full list and specific access rights and roles, and country where
they reside
c. Outside agencies – who has Memorandums of Understanding for
sharing data? Who else has access?
4
2. How are Palo Alto users claiming to be using the Flock data? Compared to what data
is available in the system, are they using all of what is in there, or is there data being
tracked above and beyond what is being used?
3. Information, including crime statistics and closure rates, that helps the community
assess whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its
identified purposes. Comparisons of cases closed before and after implementation
and specific amounts/types of cases closed attributed to Flock.
4. How does Flock anonymize the City's data it retains for AI modeling? What reports
can the auditor run to confirm that the data has been anonymized?
A. What are Flock's anonymization algorithms and its tuning parameters and
thresholds. For example, for anonymized data, what level of K-anonymity do
they guarantee?
B. What does Flock consider personally identifying information (PII). Use all of
the examples from their patents: are license plates PII? Is location data PII?
Are faces PII? Ask for examples of before and after anonymization.
5. Palo Alto user access and training in the Flock system:
A. Who in Palo Alto has access to the Flock system? Are the user access levels
appropriate for their position under principle of least privilege (bare minimum
level of access provided to do their job)?
B. How is access provisioned and deprovisioned (turned on and off) as users
come on-board, leave or change positions/needs?
C. What training have those users received in using the Flock system? What
other relevant trainings have they received, such as data privacy and HIPAA
training (as appropriate depending on what data is in the system)? Are these
trainings annual, or one time? How are the trainings tracked? Is access
turned off for users who are out of compliance?
D. What audit trails exist for searches performed in the system? Is data tracked
and are reports available for high or inappropriate usage and who performs
those reviews? Have any issues like this been identified, and if so, what was
done about it?
6. Get reports and perform sample and data completeness testing for case numbers /
associated data to confirm legitimacy of searches. Flag and question any searches
that are against policy (ex: if they claim they have to be tied to a case number and
5
the field is blank or not a legitimate case number). Include searches for any non-
legitimate uses in the search reason field.
7. How can data move in and out of the Flock system, specifically for Palo Alto's
instance/data? What information can be imported or exported, and who has access
to move that data? What other systems does Flock integrate or share information
with, and what information is shared? Do Palo Alto users share any of the Flock data
or media (pictures or videos) with other internal or external systems?
8. Recommendations for best practices for use of ALPR -- ie storage time,
considerations for selecting vendor, bringing in house, what is appropriate
geographic scope of agencies to share with, etc.
A. Consider where there is value in benchmarking Palo Alto policies around
ALPR to other local jurisdictions
9. Aggregated Data
A. What specific data types and specific subject characteristics (license plate
number, car model and color, etc.) are included and not included in
aggregated data?
B. How does Flock use aggregated data?
11. Footage
A. Is raw footage the same media as is linked to an ALPR record in the system?
B. Or does raw footage capture a larger area visually, and then a second image
is created which captures only the area around the license plate at issue and
that second image is linked to the ALPR record? If there are two or more such
images created for a frame, are all the images stored as footage and subject
to the applicable retention period?
12. Flock system administrative safeguards and internal controls, including those
showing compliance with Civil Code Sections 1798.90.51 - 1798.90.53; Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 2.30.620 et seq and the Police Department's Surveillance
Use Policy §462.
13. All Flock company data sharing policies including logs of amendments to the
policies over time (during the scope period ie Palo Alto's contract timeframe).
6
13. Warrants and Subpoenas involving Palo Alto Customer Data- what are Flock's
procedures for addressing them? When is Flock allowed to share data for legal
purposes and with whom? How is Palo Alto notified when this sharing happens?
*Many of these audit questions relate to the City's current ALPR vendor Flock Safety. Based
on the Police Chief's conversation with Flock, we understand that Flock is willing to
cooperate with the City on this audit, especially as it relates to the Palo Alto contract and
Flock's use of Palo Alto data.
Helpful resources:
• June 1, 2026 Palo Alto Study Session hearing on Flock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UphXi6UNIfE
• Public Comment letters related to June 1, 2026 Palo Alto Study Session:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=887017&dbid=0&rep
o=PaloAlto
• Flock security issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo
• Oakland Municipal Code regarding Surveillance Use Policy:
https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9
PUPEMOWE_CH9.64REACUSSUTE
• EFF's Investigations Expose Flock Safety's Surveillance Abuses: 2025 in Review:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/effs-investigations-expose-flock-safetys-
surveillance-abuses-2025-review
From:Kent Smith
To:Council, City
Cc:Reifschneider, James
Subject:Traffic Lights Out At Page Mill & El Camino Friday June 5, 2026
Date:Friday, June 5, 2026 4:02:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council Members.
Driving on Page Mill this afternoon I encountered the traffic lights blinking red at the intersection of Page Mill & El
Camino.
This is one of the busiest intersections in Palo Alto.
My passenger contacted the palo Alto police through the non-emergency phone number.
She enquired about getting a police officer to direct traffic there & was told that this was a CalTrans responsibility.
That is an accurate response but it would have been civilly responsible; to get an officer there until CalTrans arrived
at the scene.
I am a retired Palo Alto resident with experience in the public & non-profit sectors.
Too often public employees fail to realize that they are the first responders to problems in their communities. The
proper response would be to send officers to the scene to direct traffic until CalTrans staff could take over.
Citizens are less interested in bureaucratic jurisdictions than addressing problems quickly & efficiently. Clearly the
Palo Alto Police are in the best position to do this within our City’s boundaries.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Kent Smith
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Update on local and regional, state and national economic trends
Date:Friday, June 5, 2026 2:57:12 PM
Attachments:A Summary of Recent Job Trends in the City of Palo Alto..docx
Economic Update May 28 2026.xlsx
commercial-space-2026-Q1-jvsv.pdf
Recent Population and Housing Trends in Palo Alto.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Hi,
I am forwarding an email and set of files I have shared with staff for your information.
Steve
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:Update on local and regional, state and national economic trends
Date:2026-06-01 15:20
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@paloalto.gov>, Kiely Nose
<kiely.nose@paloalto.gov>, Lauren Lai
<lauren.lai@paloalto.gov>, Jonathan Lait
<jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov>, Julia Knight
<julia.knight@paloalto.gov>, alex.andrade@paloalto.gov
Hi all,
I am attaching four files.
I know this is a lot to digest and you are all busy with council and budget.
Whenever convenient, I would like to meet and discuss, no hurry.
Please send any comments as I plan to send to council, PTC and ARB at some point.
One is the memo I prepared for Alex Andrade on local job and economic trends that is on
the June 3 Economic Development Committee agenda. It is the one reported today in the
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
The second is an updated jobs file for the county, region, state and nation.
The third is from JVSV with Q1 2026 commercial space and vacancy data for the county.
The fourth is a memo in progress on recent population and housing trends in Palo Alto and
other areas.
There is a lot to go over and I will share with council, PTC and ARB after you have a chance
to review.
The first file has two key findings--1) Palo Alto added jobs between Q2 2024 and 2025 and
2) Palo Alto still is more than
10,000 jobs below the pre-pandemic Q1 2020 level
Other findings include a) the largest sectors in Q2 2025 are health care, professional,
scientific and technical services, information services followed by manufacturing, work from
home for people whose job site is in PA has declined from 16,000 at the pandemic high to
just under 8,000 in 2024 and c) average HH size has declined since the 2020 Census and is
explored more in the last memo.
The job trends are based on complete count data from EDD based on employer tax returns
and are complete thru Q2 2025. Estimates after that date are preliminary. Q3 2025 data is
available now.
The second file looks at recent job trends in the county, region, state and nation.
You may have seen the headline that CA accounted for a very large share of U.S. recent job
gains. This is true but may not be an indicator of future trends.
The main reason for this result and also for the relatively strong Bay Area trends are that
U.S. jobs in 2025 were revised down by nearly 900,000 while jobs in CA and the Bay Area
were revised up modestly. The job gains in SC County are mainly from health care and a
little bump in construction. This is similar to national trends.
The file shows that the Bay Area share of U.S. jobs has fallen in recent years from the pre-
pandemic high and the SC County share of Bay Area jobs has risen a bit as the county
posted its all time high job level in April 2026.
The third file shows Q1 2026 commercial space activity for the county. Alex shares the
recent co-star date in his memo for the June 3 EDC meeting.
The county trends continue the high vacancy rates of recent years, show declining rents for
most sub categories and small negative net absorption. I cannot judge what this implies for
PA.
The final file contains data on population and housing trends in Palo Alto, neighboring cities
and the county.
Household size is declining and as explained in the memo will continue to fall.
One reason is changes in the age distribution with the number of residents under 18 falling
and over 65 increasing at the state level. I expect the trends will be repeated in PA but do
not have local data for the future.
To me the interesting tables are those that show neighboring cities adding more residents
and completed units compared to PA.
I think it is worth discussing that these cities such as Sunnyvale are adding office space and
jobs while creating vital downtowns with residents, shopping and services.
Steve
650-814-8553
1
CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 365 FOREST AVENUE 5A • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301
TELEPHONE: (650) 814-8553
www.ccsce.com
Alex Andrade
Assistant to the City Manager
Economic Development Manager
City of Palo Alto
Dear Alex,
This memo summarizes trends in jobs in Palo Alto using data acquired by the
City from the California Employment Development Department (EDD) and
includes other data requested by staff. The memo was prepared by Stephen
Levy at the request of and in consultation with Alex Andrade, Palo Alto’s
economic development director. The Center did this work on a volunteer basis
with no compensation.
Principal Results
Total Jobs
Palo Alto added jobs between the 2nd quarters of 2024 and 2025. This is in line
with recently released data for the Bay Area and Santa Clara County. The city
added nearly 3,000 jobs and had just over 100,000 jobs in the 2nd quarter of 2025
including self-employment trends.
Total Jobs
Q2 2024 Q2 2025 Change
Payroll Jobs 95,394 98,302 2,908
Self Employed 2,144 2,144 0
Total Jobs 97,538 100,446 2,908
Source: EDD and ACS
EDD reported government jobs for only 2023, 2024 and 2025 so the analysis
below analyzed trends for all payroll jobs except government jobs as self-
employment was virtually the same during this period. After rising between Q2
2019 and Q1 2020 (pre-pandemic), Palo Alto jobs declined by roughly 15,000
through Q2 2024 before rising in Q2 2025. In comparison, the Bay Area lost
87,000 jobs during this period while Santa Clara County added 4,000 jobs.
2
Work From Home
The ACS collects data on workers with jobs in Palo Alto that work from home.
These jobs are also included in the payroll data reported above. The number of
Palo Alto jobs that were worked from home has steadily declined though it
remains far above the pre-pandemic level. Work from home is self-reported as
the primary method of getting to work. The decline in work from home means
employees spend more days in Palo Alto where they can spend money on retail
and dining.
Largest Industry Sectors in 2025
The largest sector in Palo Alto was Health Care and Social Assistance, which
includes non-government hospitals, medical services, nursing homes and social
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2019 2021 2022 2023 2024
Worked From Home
3
assistance. Next was professional, scientific and technical services that included
tech-related services and legal, accounting and architectural services.
Information consists primarily of web hosting and data services. Government
includes federal, state, county and local government jobs including school
districts. Accommodation and Food Services includes hotels, restaurants, cafes
and bars.
EDD cannot provide data on industries within these categories or data by zip
code within Palo Alto without violating confidentiality rules.
A guide to sub-industry categories is included in the notes.
Jobs in Q2 2025
Health Care and Social Assistance 25,144
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 21,258
Information 13,846
Manufacturing 7,029
Government 6,620
Accommodation and Food Services 5,277
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 4,840
Retail Trade 3,709
Unemployment Rate
The data below shows the Palo Alto unemployment rate for February starting
with the last pre-pandemic month in 2020 through February 2026. The data are
estimates based on historical relationships to the county data. The Palo Alto rate
is lower than the national, state and Bay Area rates but higher than the city rate
between February 2015 and 2019
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
February Unemployment Rate
4
Companies by Number of Employees
The EDD data includes information on the number of firms by number of
employees though industry detail is severely limited by confidentiality rules. Other
information collected by the city may help in identifying the names of firms with a
large number of employees. The EDD data is complete for all industries
combined.
Companies by Number of Employees
250-499 500-999 1000+
Q1 2020 27 8 13
Q2 2023 24 6 10
Q2 2024 24 6 9
Q2 2025 29 9 9
Job, Population and Housing Comparison
Given the recent interest in the relationship between jobs and housing, the data
below is shown to provide context for continuing discussion. The population and
housing data is from the California Department of Finance (DOF) from the 2020
Census and annual estimates as of January 1. The jobs data above was used for
the calculations of jobs relative to population and housing. The trends all point to
a high but declining ratio of jobs relative to population in the city.
Population, Housing and Jobs Data
2020 2023 2024 2025 2026
Households 26,677 27,030 27,121 27,363 27,576
Housing Units 28,904 29,285 29,383 29,645 29,876
Population in HH 67,683 67,499 67,700 68,328 68414
Person per HH 2.54 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.48
Jobs 114,096 103,370 97,538 100,446
2020 2023 2024 2025
Jobs/Population 1.69 1.53 1.44 1.47
Jobs/Households 4.28 3.82 3.60 3.67
Jobs/Housing Units 3.95 3.53 3.32 3.39
5
For comparison, the Bay Area 2025 ratios were .58 for jobs in relation to
population and 1.52 for jobs in relation to households.
Notes
Data for the number of payroll jobs were provided to the city by the California
Employment Development Department (EDD).
Jobs on the number of self-employed residents comes from the American
Community Survey (ACS) published by the Census Bureau and the same source
provides data on Palo Alto jobs held by people who primarily work from home.
The ACS data is self-reported by a sample of residents. The ACS data was not
available for 2025 so the self-employment 2025 estimate on page 2 assumes the
same level as in 2024.
Data on city population, households and housing units is published by the
California Department of Finance (DOF).
The payroll jobs data comes from form DE9 used by employers to report
employment and payroll on a quarterly basis. It is considered a complete count
and is the same data used to report national, state and county job trends. Final
data are published with a 3-quarter lag and the latest data available when these
analyses were done is for Q2 2025.
The total job estimate for 2020 was developed by adding the 2025 estimate for
government jobs to the EDD estimate of payroll jobs and ACS estimate of self-
employment.
The file EDD provided to the city for Q2 2025 contains data on companies by
number of employees and payroll data in addition to the jobs data.
EDD required data to be reported as confidential if disclosing it could identify the
name of a firm. This occurred in many cases for data on the size of firms.
In the files sent by EDD government jobs are called public administration.
A detailed list of the sub industries within the major industry categories shown in
this memo can be found at naics.com.
1
CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 365 FOREST AVENUE 5A • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301
TELEPHONE: (650) 814-8553
www.ccsce.com
Recent Population and Housing Trends in Palo Alto
The average size of households in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County and the state
have declined steadily since 2020. This affects the number of people associated
with both new housing and existing housing and the services they require.
Unless otherwise noted, all data is from the California Department of Finance.
Person per Household
2020 Jan 1
Census 2026 Change
California 2.86 2.75 -0.12
Santa Clara County 2.89 2.76 -0.13
Suunnyvale 2.64 2.57 -0.07
There are four reasons for these trends and also why they will continue:
1) Some new households will contain existing residents, for example, some
ADUs and BMR units. These units will include no new residents.
2) Birthrates are declining. This will reduce the size of some new households
AND reduce the size of existing housing units as families with 2 or 3
children are replaced by families with 1 or 2 children. In Palo Alto and
many communities, for many years housing has increased while school
enrollment has declined and that is expected to continue.
3) Many, if not most, new housing units will be relatively small. We know that
from recent project approvals and the proposals in the pipeline.
4) The older (65+) population will continue to grow and household size for
older households is normally 1 or 2 residents as their children have moved
out.
Trends 1 and 3 affect new housing while trends 2 and 4 affect new units AND
transitions taking place in the much larger stock of existing units.
2
In doing any long-term analysis, it is critical to factor in changes in existing units
as well as who will live in the new units.
DOF projects a decline in the under 18 popuation and an increase in the 65+
population.
While I do not know how this wil track in Palo Alto, there is historical data for Palo
Alto from the American Community Survey conducted by the Census Bureau for
Palo Alto and it shows a decline in the under 18 population and increase in the
65+ population over the past 15 years.
Another way to see that the number of households and dwelling units has grown
faster than population is to look at the changes since the 2020 Census.
Change
4/1/20--1/1/26
Dwelling
population % change households % change Units
Palo Alto 751 1.1% 899 3.4% 974
Mountain View 6,658 8.1% 4,059 11.8% 4,366
Suunnyvale 6,549 4.2% 4,186 7.2% 4,380
Santa Clara 10,137 7.9% 6,225 13.2% 6,652
San Jose -32,018 -3.2% 8,205 2.5% 8,898
Santa Clara County -3,791 -0.2% 28,608 4.4% 30,645
California 54,755 0.1% 604,117 4.5% 671,610
Source: DOF
-16.5%
24.8%
-30.0%
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
0-17 65+
Projected Change in State Population
2024-2035
3
There are two major takeaways from this data. One is, as stated abovr, that
jurisfictions are adding a) households much faster than population and b) some
jusridictions are adding housing even as population falls. This is consistent with
the RHNA allocatons where the state is trying to help existing residents find
independent housing.
It is also true that Palo Alto has added residents since the 2020 Census including
85 in calendar 2025.
The second takeaway is that our three immediate southern neighbors—Mointain
View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara have added substantially more housing than
Palo Alto despite being slightly larger. Palo Alto does have a large pipeline of
approved and pending housing projects.
The dwelling units added in Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara are
much larger than the permits issued in recent years but there is an explanation
for that apparent anomaly.
The following data is from the HCD dashboard but does not included 2025 data.
2020-2024
City/County Submitted Entitled Permitted Completed
Palo Alto 3277 919 864 439
Mt View 9611 3859 3304 3503
Sunnyvale 2870 2396 3741 3181
Santa Clara 6037 8079 4925 3932
San Jose 31479 23874 10032 6965
Source: HCD dashboard
When we add in anticipated 2025 data (should be out in June or July), these
completiuon numbers look close to the growth in DUs reported by DOF. As we
know in Palo Alto, it can often take a long time between when a permit is issued
and when housing units are completed. So most of the conpletions (increase in
DUs) are the result of permits issued many years earlier.
Most households in Palo Alto and around the state and country are relatively
small and I expect the share of smaller households will grow based on
demographics and the type of new housing being built.
4
Palo Alto U.S. California
1 person 25.4% 28.7% 24.6%
2 persons 34.3% 33.8% 30.9%
3 persons 16.8% 15.3% 16.7%
4+ persons 23.5% 22.1% 28.7%
Source: American Community Survey 2020-24 five-year
average
In Palo Alto nearly 60% of all households are 1 or 2 person households and
fewer than 25% have 4 or more residents. The Palo Alto profile is similar to the
data for the state and nation.
From:Mitchell Park Community Center
To:Tania Goldszmidt; Huynh, Heidi; teenartscouncil@gmail.com; Parks; Council, City; Childrens Theatre
Cc:Mitchell Park Community Center; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-
Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith
Subject:RE: Formal Complaint Regarding Harassment and Disruptive Conduct at Mitchell Park on June 5, 2026
Date:Friday, June 5, 2026 2:27:48 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Tania,
We are very sorry to hear about the incident that took place with the Zumba group and
Children’s theatre staff today in the bowl space of the park. We want to thank you for bringing
this to our attention and let you know we have forwarded your email onto management to
review and address. We also spoke with Ula the Zumba course instructor this morning
following the incident, as she came by our office to let us know what had taken place.
With regards to the permitting of spaces, we only issue one permit for use of a space to one
user at a time to avoid any shared use conflicts. And upon reviewing permits for today’s bowl
space use, we show that the Children’s theatre had the bowl space permitted for their
exclusive use from 9am – 6pm under permit #21231 (issued on 8/7/25).
Unfortunately, the Zumba Class did not have a permit/authorization to use the space today
6/5/26 from 10am - 11am as they normally do. This was one of only a few days that was not
on Ula’s permit #22907 (issued on 1/13/26).
This however does not justify, nor does it excuse their actions and interactions with the
Zumba group that took place, and we are truly sorry about what took place. We always want
our parks to feel warm and welcoming for all users.
Should you wish to follow up or speak directly with the Children’s theater management staff
regarding the issue they can be reached at Judge.Luckey@paloalto.gov or (650) 463-4932.
Thank you again for alerting and informing us of the incident that took place today in the bowl
space,
Andrew
Mitchell Park Community Center
3700 Middlefield Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303
Community Services Department
(650) 329-2400 | MPCC@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Tania Goldszmidt <tgoldszmidt@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 12:41 PM
To: Huynh, Heidi <Heidi.Huynh@paloalto.gov>; teenartscouncil@gmail.com; Parks
<Parks@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Mitchell Park Community Center <mpcc@PaloAlto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki
<Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; Burt, Patrick
<Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Lu, George
<George.Lu@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl,
Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Harassment and Disruptive Conduct at Mitchell Park on June 5,
2026
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Staff, City Council and Teen Arts Council Leadership,I am writing to formally express my concern regarding an incident that occurred at Mitchell Park on the morning of June 5, 2026, involving a group of teenagers associated with preparations for Wavefest.For several
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
Dear Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Staff, City Council and Teen Arts Council Leadership,
I am writing to formally express my concern regarding an incident that occurred at Mitchell
Park on the morning of June 5, 2026, involving a group of teenagers associated with
preparations for Wavefest.
For several years, a group of approximately 50 Palo Alto residents has gathered at Mitchell
Park every Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. for a Zumba class.
The class operates with the City's authorization and has long shared the park respectfully with
other community groups, summer camps, and recreational programs without conflict.
At approximately 10:15 a.m. today, a group of teenagers arrived to begin preparations for
Wavefest, an event scheduled to start at 12:00 p.m. Upon seeing the Zumba class utilizing the
area they wished to occupy, the teens interrupted the class and demanded that the participants
stop and leave the space.
The Zumba instructor calmly explained that the group had permission from the City to use the
area during its regularly scheduled time and that the class had been operating in this manner
for many years. She further attempted to accommodate the teens by informing them that they
were welcome to begin setting up around the perimeter of the activity area while the class
concluded.
Unfortunately, rather than working cooperatively, the teenagers responded in a manner that
was disruptive, intimidating, and disrespectful. They began loudly dropping tables and
Powered by Mimecast
equipment near the exercising participants and encroaching upon the active class area in an
unsafe manner. Their actions created unnecessary safety concerns for participants who were
actively engaged in physical exercise.
The situation escalated further around 11:00 a.m., when members of the teen group began
aggressively yelling at the Zumba class participants and repeatedly harassing them to stop.
Their behavior created a hostile and threatening atmosphere that significantly disrupted what
should have been a welcoming and inclusive community activity.
Particularly concerning was the apparent absence of adult supervision during this interaction.
At no point did there appear to be an adult present to guide the teenagers, de-escalate the
conflict, or ensure that community members were treated respectfully. The conduct displayed
suggested a sense of entitlement to commandeer a public space despite the Zumba group's
authorized use of that space during the scheduled time.
Community events such as Wavefest are intended to foster creativity, leadership, civic
engagement, and positive relationships among residents. Unfortunately, the behavior exhibited
today reflected none of those values. Respect for others, conflict resolution, cooperation, and
responsible sharing of public spaces are essential leadership skills that should be emphasized
in youth leadership and community arts programs.
I respectfully request that the City of Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Department and the Palo
Alto Teen Arts Council review this incident and consider:
1. Investigating the circumstances surrounding the interaction.
2. Clarifying event setup schedules and expectations regarding shared use of public park
facilities.
3. Ensuring adequate adult supervision during future event preparations.
4. Providing training and guidance to youth participants regarding respectful
communication, conflict resolution, and appropriate conduct in shared public spaces.
5. Taking steps to ensure that no community group with authorized use of a facility is
subjected to harassment or intimidation in the future.
Palo Alto prides itself on being an inclusive and respectful community. The conduct displayed
today fell short of those standards and negatively affected dozens of residents who were
simply participating in a permitted recreational activity.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to learning what steps will be taken
to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Sincerely,
Tania Goldszmidt
tgoldszmidt@gmail.com
Current Palo Alto Resident
From:Tania Goldszmidt
To:Huynh, Heidi; teenartscouncil@gmail.com; Parks; Council, City
Cc:Mitchell Park Community Center; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-
Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith
Subject:Formal Complaint Regarding Harassment and Disruptive Conduct at Mitchell Park on June 5, 2026
Date:Friday, June 5, 2026 12:42:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Staff, City Council and Teen Arts Council Leadership,
I am writing to formally express my concern regarding an incident that occurred at Mitchell
Park on the morning of June 5, 2026, involving a group of teenagers associated with
preparations for Wavefest.
For several years, a group of approximately 50 Palo Alto residents has gathered at Mitchell
Park every Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. for a Zumba class.
The class operates with the City's authorization and has long shared the park respectfully with
other community groups, summer camps, and recreational programs without conflict.
At approximately 10:15 a.m. today, a group of teenagers arrived to begin preparations for
Wavefest, an event scheduled to start at 12:00 p.m. Upon seeing the Zumba class utilizing the
area they wished to occupy, the teens interrupted the class and demanded that the participants
stop and leave the space.
The Zumba instructor calmly explained that the group had permission from the City to use the
area during its regularly scheduled time and that the class had been operating in this manner
for many years. She further attempted to accommodate the teens by informing them that they
were welcome to begin setting up around the perimeter of the activity area while the class
concluded.
Unfortunately, rather than working cooperatively, the teenagers responded in a manner that
was disruptive, intimidating, and disrespectful. They began loudly dropping tables and
equipment near the exercising participants and encroaching upon the active class area in an
unsafe manner. Their actions created unnecessary safety concerns for participants who were
actively engaged in physical exercise.
The situation escalated further around 11:00 a.m., when members of the teen group began
aggressively yelling at the Zumba class participants and repeatedly harassing them to stop.
Their behavior created a hostile and threatening atmosphere that significantly disrupted what
should have been a welcoming and inclusive community activity.
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
Particularly concerning was the apparent absence of adult supervision during this interaction.
At no point did there appear to be an adult present to guide the teenagers, de-escalate the
conflict, or ensure that community members were treated respectfully. The conduct displayed
suggested a sense of entitlement to commandeer a public space despite the Zumba group's
authorized use of that space during the scheduled time.
Community events such as Wavefest are intended to foster creativity, leadership, civic
engagement, and positive relationships among residents. Unfortunately, the behavior exhibited
today reflected none of those values. Respect for others, conflict resolution, cooperation, and
responsible sharing of public spaces are essential leadership skills that should be emphasized
in youth leadership and community arts programs.
I respectfully request that the City of Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Department and the Palo
Alto Teen Arts Council review this incident and consider:
1. Investigating the circumstances surrounding the interaction.
2. Clarifying event setup schedules and expectations regarding shared use of public park
facilities.
3. Ensuring adequate adult supervision during future event preparations.
4. Providing training and guidance to youth participants regarding respectful
communication, conflict resolution, and appropriate conduct in shared public spaces.
5. Taking steps to ensure that no community group with authorized use of a facility is
subjected to harassment or intimidation in the future.
Palo Alto prides itself on being an inclusive and respectful community. The conduct displayed
today fell short of those standards and negatively affected dozens of residents who were
simply participating in a permitted recreational activity.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to learning what steps will be taken
to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Sincerely,
Tania Goldszmidt
tgoldszmidt@gmail.com
Current Palo Alto Resident
From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo
To:Council, City
Subject:The Tides Are Changing
Date:Friday, June 5, 2026 10:20:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City,
If you haven’t heard from me in a while, I
promise—it’s not personal. Federal rules bar
Members of Congress from emailing anyone but
subscribers during the 60 days before an
election, so the law “blacked out” many
constituents from information for the last two
months. In September, we’ll enter another
blackout period before the general election. So,
if you want uninterrupted updates from our
team, please make sure you subscribe below:
Subscribe!
Changing Tides
This week, Congress succumbed to a rare
assault of common sense. On Wednesday, the
House passed a War Powers Resolution with
support from four House Republicans. Now, the
Senate must vote on this War Powers
Resolution quickly before Washington loses its
Video
Also this week, Senate Republicans rejected the
president’s proposed $1.8 billion slush fund for
insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on
January 6, and they pushed back on taxpayer
funding for the White House ballroom.
Meanwhile, more than a dozen House
Republicans joined Democrats to force a
bipartisan vote on aid for Ukraine – and to
approve funding. President Trump had a tough
week.
The votes exposed the widening cracks within
the Republican caucus in Congress. A divide
has emerged between those who still prostrate
themselves upon a Trumpian altar and those
who increasingly decline to march off every
cliff.
You made this happen.
Thank you for raising your voices–together.
You are proving that even in the least
responsive of administrations, public pressure
can still stiffen spines.
Video
Town Hall — June 15
On June 15, we’re hosting a town hall meeting
in Half Moon Bay. Join us at 6 PM in the Grand
Oak Room at the Ted Adcock Community
Center. Doors open at 5:30 PM, and seating will
be first come, first served.
Please join our conversation, and bring your
opinions, your questions, and your ideas. You
can RSVP here.
Our next generation has ample evidence to feel
frustrated and pessimistic about our world, yet I
continue to hear about their commitment to
make it better–through service, with sacrifice,
and yes, by learning from our mistakes.
Photo Finish
I’d like to close by thanking the students who
Committee. These young leaders tackled major
challenges facing our community, from Medi-Cal
access to AI and wildfire resilience. I feel both
eager and hopeful to see where their ideas,
leadership, and public service take them–and
us–next.
Make sure you follow us on Facebook,
Instagram, X, Bluesky, TikTok, and YouTube for
the latest.
Onward!
Sam
U.S. Representative for California's 16th
Congressional District
Get Future Updates from Washington
Unsubscribe from future messages.
From:Dean McCully
To:dmccully@ix.netcom.com; dmccully@gmail.com
Subject:Invitation for Constituents: Free Tickets to "GoochAPalooza" Film Showcase & US Launch (June 9)
Date:Thursday, June 4, 2026 7:25:22 PM
Greetings
I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out toshare an incredible, free cultural and educationalopportunity for your constituents, local theater and filmstudents, faculty, and arts enthusiasts.
Next Tuesday, June 9, BAFTA-winning and Emmy-nominated British director Martin Gooch—who hasrecently relocated to our region—is hosting"GoochAPalooza" at the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema inMountain View. This exclusive evening marks his officialUS debut and the launch of Gothic Manor America.
Because your office is dedicated to supporting vibrantlocal arts initiatives, Martin wanted to extend a specialinvitation to your district to attend completely free ofcharge.
Through your office's community channels, students andresidents can claim FREE VIP tickets on Eventbrite byentering the promotional code "VIP" at checkout.
Event Details & Schedule:
•Event: "GoochAPalooza" Film Showcase, US Launch &
Networking After-Party
•Date: Next Tuesday, June 9, 2026
•Location: Alamo Drafthouse Cinema Mountain View
(2575 California St, Suite 99, Mountain View, CA 94040)
•Timeline:
•6:00 PM: Doors Open & Red Carpet Arrivals
•7:00 PM: Film Screening & Showcases
•10:00 PM: After-Party & Creative Industry Networking
•Registration Link
:https://www.eventbrite.com/e/goochapalooza-movie-extravaganza-mountain-view-tickets-1989050011127?aff=odcleoeventsincollection
•Community Access Code:VIP (Redeems 100%
complimentary admission)
Program Highlights:
•Exclusive Curation: A career-spanning curation of short-
form works and major world premieres, featuring an on-screen ensemble including Emmy-winner HannahWaddingham (Ted Lasso), Sylvester McCoy (The Hobbit,Doctor Who), and Paul Ready (Motherland).
•World Premieres: First-look screenings of the dystopian
comedy Kafka’s Appraisal and the highly anticipatedDoctor Who fan film Children of Time.
•Music & Culture: A screening of the visual trilogies
directed by Gooch for punk rock legends The Damned.
If you are able to highlight this complimentary culturalresource in your upcoming constituent newsletter, share itwith local educational campus landmarks, or post it onyour community channels, we would be incrediblygrateful. It provides a unique space for aspiring studentcreators and local film lovers to connect directly with aninternationally recognized filmmaker right here in SiliconValley.
Thank you for your time, leadership, and continuedadvocacy for the local arts community.
Best regards,
Dean McCully
Publicity Coordinator / Event Liaison
Email: dmccully@ix.netcom.com
Editor's Note / Press Inquiries: For media credentials, redcarpet b-roll access, or to arrange an advance interviewwith Director Martin Gooch, please contact Dean McCullyor Martin Gooch (martin@martingooch.com) directly.
From:Charles Piercey
To:Council, City
Cc:Lawrence Castaneda; Rachel Lam; Lynne McCord; Lourdes Arenas Meza
Subject:Thank you to Palo Alto Lawn Bowls Club
Date:Thursday, June 4, 2026 11:51:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To: Mayor Vicki Veenker & the Palo Alto City Council
Fr: Lourdes Arenas & Charles Piercey, Vote Center Leads for SCC ROV Vote Center
120F @ PALBC
Hi Vicki,
We wanted to send a note of appreciation for the Palo Alto Lawn Bowling Club to the
Palo Alto City Council. The vote center 120F team just completed conducting the 2026
June 2nd primary at this location and we had a very positive experience. The site is a
great location, easily accessible by all members of the community, and it’s surrounded by
a lovely natural environment.
During this election, we had the privilege to meet many of the local citizens and they
shared this sentiment. Voters expressed their satisfaction at how easy it was to park and
get into the vote center, and many asked about how they could join the lawn bowling
club! The Club offers free bowling lessons to all so we tried this out for ourselves; I attach
pictures of our Monday early morning staff lawn bowling lesson below.
Lourdes and I appreciated the opportunity this site afforded us to encourage voting
participation among members of the community.
Thank you,
Chuck & Lourdes
Vote Center Leads for SCC ROV Vote Center 120F
Lourdes Arenas
Cell: +1-408-770-0013
Charles Piercey
Cell: +1-650-224-3429
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sonya Bradski
To:assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; senator.becker@senate.ca.gov
Subject:Greenmeadow is on the National Register of Historic Places
Date:Thursday, June 4, 2026 11:50:39 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Marc Berman & Josh Becker:
Please note that Greenmeadow Neighborhood in Palo Alto, CA is on the Registry of
Historic Places for the Federal & State Registry. Therefore, SB79
would not be enacted in Greenmeadow.
https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/9045e8b8-559b-43ce-8546-12bb24f49aab
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sonya Bradski
Greenmeadow Neighbor
650-575-2395
From:Peter Drekmeier
To:Council, City
Subject:YRA Comments - Item 13, Urban Water Management Plan
Date:Thursday, June 4, 2026 9:54:03 AM
Attachments:PA Urban Water Management Plan - Item 13.pdf
PastedGraphic-1.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members:
Please see my attached letter regarding Item 13 on the June 8 Council meeting agenda —
Urban Water Management Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
-Peter
Please note my new email address.
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
(Formerly Tuolumne River Trust)
peter.drekmeier@yosemiterivers.org
1
June 4, 2026
Mayor Vicki Veenker and Council Members
Palo Alto City Council
City.Council@PaloAlto.gov
Dear Mayor Veenker and Council Members:
On July 1, the cost of water from the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC) will increase 7.4% – just six months
ago, the expectation was an increase of only 1%.
Skyrocketing water rates will be the norm for many years to
come. Here’s why.
For decades, the SFPUC deferred maintenance on the Hetch
Hetchy Water System, and it caught up with us. In 2008, the
SFPUC embarked on the Water System Improvement Program
(WSIP) – a series of 80+ capital improvement projects costing
$4.8 billion plus debt service. As a result, the cost of water has
more than quadrupled (see Attachment A for background
slides).
The SFPUC has now identified another $10 billion in new capital
projects over the next 30 years, but has produced very little
analysis on how these new expenses will impact future rates.
The escalating cost of water has sent a price signal to
consumers, triggering a decline in water demand and sales. The
unit price has had to increase to cover fixed costs. This is known
as a death spiral – as prices increases, sales decline and prices
must increase even further.
The update of our Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is
an opportunity to challenge SFPUC policies that harm both
ratepayers and the environment.
2
What Can We Do to Address the Problem?
The first rule for getting out of a hole is to stop digging. The SFPUC is doing the exact opposite.
Their Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Plan1 suggests they might need to develop between 92
and 122 million gallons per day (mgd) of recycled water and other new supplies. The cost would
be $17-$25 billion.
The AWS Plan is not based on reality. It’s a political document used to justify the SFPUC’s
opposition to releasing much-needed water down the Tuolumne River (the source of Hetch
Hetchy water) for environmental purposes . In 2018, the State Water Board adopted higher
flows to support fish and wildlife and water quality, but the SFPUC sued, stalling
implementation of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. You might recall that Palo Alto
Council voted unanimously to support the Bay Delta Plan.
There are two major problems with the SFPUC’s policies and practices:
1) They’re planning for what they call the Design Drought. This manufactured drought
combines the two worst droughts from the 20th Century to create an artificial
megadrought that might be expected once-in-8,000 years. The Design Drought is 19
times less likely to occur than the six-year drought of record (1987-92), which is what
Valley Water and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) plan for. For more
background on the Design Drought, see Attachment B.
2) SFPUC water demand projections have always been inflated. Demand today is half what
was projected in the 1980s. Over-projecting demand can lead to unnecessary
investments in expensive alternative water supplies (AWS). Palo Alto learned this lesson
the hard way, investing $559,000 in a One Water Plan that was rejected by our Utilities
Advisory Commission because it was erroneously based on 50% rationing .
If the SFPUC used the same drought scenario as Valley Water and EBMUD, they could manage
the Bay Delta Plan flow requirement without developing any new AWS or imposing water
rationing any greater than what we’ve experienced in the past.
What Is the Design Drought?
The Design Drought was created by the SFPUC as a planning tool following the 1987-92
drought. It arbitrarily combines the 1987-92 drought with the 1976-77 drought. While adding
1 SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan, February 2024 – https://hetchhetchy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2025/12/SFPUC-recent-demand.pdf
3
two years might not seem like a big deal, 1976-77 was the driest two-year period on record.
The impact of the 1976-77 drought on reservoir storage was 72% as severe as during the 1987 -
92 drought. Drought return periods (likelihood of occurrence) are logarithmic (droughts
become much less likely as they become more severe). The Design Drought is 19 times less
likely to occur than the drought of record.
The SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment2 (LTVA) used 100 years of observed data,
1,100 years of tree ring data and produced 25,000 years of model data, but did not produce a
single drought as severe as the Design Drought.
All SFPUC water supply planning is run through the Design Drought model. In November 2021,
when the SFPUC declared a Water Shortage Emergency and asked everyone to conserve, they
had 4.5 year’s-worth of water in storage. They never had less than 4 year’s-worth of water in
storage during the entire 2020-22 drought. As a result of unnecessary rationing, the SFPUC
experienced a $30 million revenue shortfall in FY 2023-24 (see Attachment C).
Inflated Water Demand and Sales Projections
You’ll see from the graph below that water demand projections included in the SFPUC and
BAWSCA member agency Urban Water Management Plans have always been highly inflated.
Source: Sierra Club Drought-Demand Model (data from the SFPUC).
2 Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment, 2021 – https://www.sfpuc.gov/about-us/reports/long-term-
vulnerability-assessment
4
Over-projecting water demand and sales has serious budget implications. You’ll see from the
following slide from the SFPUC’s FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Report3 that water revenues
were $22 million below projections.
Source: SFPUC FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Status Report, March 10, 2026
This is a major reason why wholesale water rates are increasing so much more than expected.
When the SFPUC sells less water, the price per CCF must increase.
SFPUC water sales projections used for budgetary purposes are produced by their Finance
Bureau, whereas the demand projections included in the UWMP s are produced by their Water
Enterprise and BAWSCA. The UWMP numbers are always considerably higher , but both
departments have always over-projected.
An SFPUC report comparing Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau demand/sales projections 4
described the differing figures as follows:
Water Enterprise
"…the projections represent an outside bound of whatever demand will occur in the
next 25 years...These demands will likely always be greater than actual demands
because not all developments materialize, or they materialize slower than projected.”
3 SFPUC FY 2025-26 2nd Quarter Budget Status Report, March 10, 2026 –
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/seb03a545f6ef4b8b8355977efeca86e2
4 SFPUC Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau Water Demand Projections, July 5, 2022 –
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/sa628ebe9c31e4326b84ffa2976f9f9a3
5
Finance Bureau
"By contrast, for the purpose of financial planning and for short term water system
management, we estimate the demand that we are likely to experience. For budgeting
and rate setting we use demand projections that are as close to actual as we can make
them.”
The following table shows the UWMP demand projections.
Source: SFPUC
Attachment D shows the SFPUC’s Financial Plan sales projections. The following table shows the
difference in Regional Water System (RWS) demand/sales between the two sets of projections.
The 2050 demand projection in the UWMPs is 11% greater than the SFPUC’s own Finance
Bureau sales projection. The UWMP projections have been described as an “outside” envelope,
yet they’re used for planning purposes.
6
Shockingly, the SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan is based on the inflated Water Enterprise
(UWMP) demand projections.
The UWMPs Unnecessarily Include Alarming Rationing Figures
As a water supplier, the SFPUC provides “common language” for inclusion in the Urban Water
Management Plans. The following SFPUC table suggests supply could be reduced by 43% by
2050.
Source: SFPUC
The water supply and rationing figures provided by the SFPUC are based on the Design Drought
and inflated demand projections.
Table 4g above is based on the SFPUC’s response to the Drought Risk Assessment (DRA)
required for UWMPs. The Department of Water Resources’ UWMP Guidebook requires: “A
detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year,
and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought,
as described in the drought risk assessment.”
The SFPUC explains their methodology for addressing the Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment as
follows:
“In each demand scenario for 2030 through 2050, the SFPUC estimated RWS deliveries
using the standard SFPUC procedure, which includes adding increased levels of rationing
as needed in dry years to balance the demands on the RWS with available water supply.
7
The five consecutive dry-year sequence shown in the tables below represent years 2
through 6 of the design drought.”
The rationing numbers provided by the SFPUC are extremely misleading because they don’t
provide sufficient context for water managers to determine whether extreme rationing is
justified. To be able to make an informed decision, one would need to know how much water
remains in storage at the end of each year.
Table YRA-1 below puts things in greater perspective. It features the full eight years of the
Design Drought and includes storage at the end of each year based on the rationing levels
presented by the SFPUC.
To put the storage figures in perspective, water demand in the SFPUC service area has been
under 200 (mgd) for the past 11 years. 200 mgd equals 224 thousand acre -feet (TAF). Using the
SFPUC’s UWMP drought scenario, at the end of the driest consecutive five-year sequence the
SFPUC would still have more than 600 TAF in storage – enough water to last 2.5 years, not
including water entitlements that would accrue during those years.
Table YRA-1. 8-year Design Drought, with the Bay Delta Plan in effect, using SFPUC 2050
demand projections, and including storage.
Design Drought Fiscal Years
Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).
• “RWS” is “Regional Water System” (includes all SFPUC customers in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara
and Alameda Counties).
• Table starts with SFPUC 2050 UWMP baseline demand of 215.1 mgd in 1986 -87, and assumes 32%
rationing in Year 2, and 43% rationing in Years 3-8 (per SFPUC figures). Mgd is converted to thousand
acre-feet (TAF) per year in the second row.
• Storage at the beginning of the Design Drought is 1,517 TAF (per the SFPUC). This storage level is higher
than the maximum appearing in other documents because the SFPUC’s water bank at Don Pedro
Reservoir is allowed to encroach into “flood storage” during the summer, but must be evacuated by
October 1. This explains the high level of “Annual impact on storage” for 1986-87.
8
• “Annual impact on storage” is a calculation of SFPUC water entitlements, minus demand, minus other
system losses (everything is accounted for).
• Fiscal Year 92-76 is where the two droughts that make up the Design Drought on blended. It includes the
second half of 1992 and the first half of 1976.
Table YRA-2 below shows what the five consecutive dry year sequence would look like if the
SFPUC followed the letter of the UWMP Guidebook and just looked at their driest consecutive
five-year sequence. You’ll see that without any rationing, the SFPUC could manage the drought
with the Bay Delta Plan in effect, and still have water remaining in storage. In fact, almost
enough water in storage to last a sixth dry year.
Table YRA-2 – Regional Water System supply availability based on the six-year drought of
record using the SFPUC’s 2050 baseline demand projection of 215.1 mgd. Table assumes the
Bay Delta Plan is in effect. Table does not incorporate any rationing.
Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).
After the driest five-year sequence on record, the SFPUC would still have 217 TAF of water in
storage. Instead of showing 32% rationing in Year 1 and 43% rationing in Years 2 through 5,
Palo Alto’s UWMP could show that 100% of demand could be met in all five years, and this is
without any rationing.
Table YRA-3 is similar to Table YRA-2, except it assumes 10% rationing in Years 3 and 4, and 20%
rationing in Years 5 and 6. Note that in this scenario the SFPUC can manage the driest
consecutive six-year sequence (the drought of record), exceeding the UWMP requirement.
9
Table YRA-3 – SFPUC water supply based on the drought of record, using SFPUC 2050 UWMP
demand projections, with the Bay Delta Plan in effect. 10% rationing in Years 3 and 4, and 20%
rationing in Years 5 and 6.
Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).
Thank you for the opportunity to share some background on our water situation. I hope it will
help as you finalize our UWMP. I’d be happy to chat with anyone who’s interested.
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
peter.drekmeier@yosemiterivers.org
10
Attachment A
Slides Addressing Water Demand and Cost
Source: Mid-Peninsula Water District
The wholesale water rate in FY 2007-08 was $1.30 per CCF. The SFPUC just adopted a wholesale rate of
$6.23 per CCF for FY 2026-27. Rates will have increased 479% in just 19 years.
Source: SFPUC
The increasing cost of water has played a major role in driving down demand and sales.
11
Source: SFPUC budget meeting, January 12, 2026
The SFPUC is carrying a huge debt load. As a result, the cost of water will continue to increase
substantially for decades to come.
Source: SFPUC Wholesale Rate Presentation, April 28, 2026
The cost of water will increase much more in FY 2026-27 than previously projected. Due to the death
spiral, this will likely become the norm.
12
Attachment B
Is the Design Drought Prudent?
While Valley Water, the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) and other large water
agencies use the 1987-92 drought for planning purposes, the SFPUC has manufactured a Design
Drought that is 72% more severe. The Design Drought arbitrarily combines the two worst
droughts from the 20th Century – 1987-92 and 1976-77 -- to create an artificial megadrought.
The SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA), along with related materials
uncovered through a Public Records Act request, provide strong indications that the Design
Drought is beyond conservative. You’ll see from Table 3-95 that the 1987-92 drought produces a
deficit of 707 thousand acre-feet (TAF) while the 1976-77 drought produces a deficit of 510
TAF. Deficit is the difference between water entitlements and demand. It can be thought of as
water that must come out of reservoir storage. To put this in perspective, total SFPUC storage is
1,471 TAF6, with 1,375 TAF being easily accessible.
5 LTVA, p. 70.
6 See SFPUC 2025 UWMP, Table 3-1.
13
Table 5-1 shows return periods (how often we might expect a drought) for the three main
observed droughts. The LTVA found “no clear direction of change in mean annual precipitation
over the planning horizon,” which is why the first set of numbers is highli ghted (red box added).
Note that these return periods are based on Regional Water System (RWS) demand of 269
thousand acre-feet (as is Table 3-9), which is 240 million gallons per day (mgd). Demand last
year was 191 mgd.
Source: LTVA, p. 157
We’ve asked many times why the LTVA did not include a return period for the Design Drought,
and have been told by SFPUC staff that such a calculation would be difficult to produce.
Through a Public Records Act request, we received the following table from a presentation
given by the LTVA authors to SFPUC staff in December 2020 (one year prior to the release of
the final LTVA). Note that the deficit for the Design Drought is 1,309 thousand acre feet (TAF),
compared to significantly shorter return periods for the known droughts. Like the tables above,
the figures are based on RWS demand of 240 mgd.
This table shows a return period for the Design Drought of 25,000 years.
14
SFPUC staff were quick to point out that the return periods in the draft table were adjusted
downward significantly for the final LTVA (Table 5-1). Therefore, we adjusted the 25,293 figure
proportionally. The following table shows the result.
Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance
The “2020 Report” column lists the numbers from the draft table, and “LTVA” lists the final
numbers. “LTVA/2020” is the percentage of the original numbers that ended up in the final
report. The combined Design Drought (1987-92 plus 1976-77) was reduced to 31% of the draft
numbers. 31% of 25,293 years is 7,841 years, which is where the once -in-8,000 years return
period for the Design Drought originates.
However, once-in-8,000 years is the very low end for the Design Drought return period. You’ll
see from LTVA Figure 5-11 below that the relationship between Cumulative Deficit and Return
Periods is logarithmic. As droughts get more severe, the return period becomes much greater.
The deficits for the known droughts were included on this graph. Superimposed on the graph is
a line for the cumulative deficit for the Design Drought (1,309 TAF), which suggests a return
period of once-in-70,000 years. As a side note, the red and blue lines reflecting higher
temperatures expected from climate change are above the black line, meaning return periods
get longer as temperatures increase.
15
Figure 5-11. Effect of Temperature Change on the Drought Severity Frequency
Source: LTVA, p. 157
Following is one more example of how the Design Drought is way too extreme and why it
should be revised. The graph is based on 100 years of observed data, 1,100 years of tree ring
data, and 25,000 years of simulated model data. The horizontal axis depicts drought deficits –
the further to the right, the more severe the droughts. The vertical axis depicts the number of
droughts. The red line was inserted to show the deficit for the Design Drought (1,309 TAF).
You’ll see that the LTVA did not identify or produce a single drought even close to the severity
of the Design Drought.
16
Source: LTVA, p. 73
It’s obvious the SFPUC doesn’t want to address the return period for the Design Drought.
Reducing its severity even modestly would significantly undermine their extreme rationing
scenario, which is their primary argument for opposing the Bay Delta Plan.
By using a drought model without an associated risk assessment, the SFPUC is failing its
customers, particularly when well researched academic data is available. The SFPUC is
misleading the public, claiming there’s a chance of 30%, 40% or greater rationing in the future.
The layperson will not know how artificial such rationing projections are, but will pay the price.
17
Attachment C
Irrational Fear of Water Shortages
Leads to Budget Deficits and Rate Increases
Example: SFPUC Water Shortage Emergency Declaration (2021)
November 2021: Following two dry years, the SFPUC declared a Water Shortage Emergency and called
for systemwide water use reductions. At the time of the declaration, the SFPUC had more than a million
acre-feet of water in storage (see below) – enough to last 4.5 years.
April 2022: The SFPUC imposed a 5% drought surcharge on San Francisco retail customers to make up
for lost sales. Wholesale customers enacted their own measures.
Early December 2022: SFPUC storage was at a drought low-point of 932 thousand acre-feet – still
enough water to last 4 years.
January 2023: After extremely heavy precipitation in December and January, it was clear the SFPUC
would achieve full storage. On January 17, storage was at 1.35 million acre -feet.
May 2023: The SFPUC finally lifted the drought surcharge, but not before it was built into their FY 2023-
24 budget. That budget experienced a $25 million shortfall in retail (San Francisco) water sales and a $5
million shortfall in wholesale (BAWSCA) sales.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, December 6, 2021.
18
SFPUC storage hit its lowest point of the drought in early December, 2022, but there was still enough
water to last four years.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, December 5, 2022.
By mid-January 2023, SFPUC storage had already reached 92% of capacity and snowpack accumulation
was on a record-setting pace. The drought was clearly over.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, January 17, 2023.
19
Snowpack can be considered “water in the bank,” and it was clear there would be a tremendous amount
of runoff in the spring to top off all the reservoirs with lots of water to spill.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, January 17, 2023
The SFPUC Water Enterprise was headed toward a large budget deficit in FY 2023-24 – it ended up being
$25 million in lost retail (San Francisco) revenues and $5 million in lost wholesale (BAWSCA) revenues.
Here’s how it was explained:
“Water and Wastewater: revenues are projected to be below budget. The budget was adopted
assuming the drought surcharge would remain. It was removed May of 2023. Additionally, the
wholesale water volumes are lower than expected.”7
Why did the SFPUC wait until May to lift the drought surcharge, and why did they assume it would
remain in place for another year despite the extremely wet beginning to 2023?
How did the Water Supply Emergency and call for water conservation impact Palo Alto Utility finances
and water rates?
Was it prudent for the SFPUC to declare a Water Supply Emergency when they had 4.5 year’s -worth of
water in storage? The Design Drought suggests it was.
7 SFPUC FY 2023-24 1st Quarter Budget Report, December 12, 2023 –
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/se1f88d7d5b3a41829939713649bc1802
20
Source: SFPUC FY 2023-24 4th Quarter Budget Report, September 24, 2024 –
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/s297e2428d54946e5a39c984791d83b82
Based on the following graph, was it reasonable for the SFPUC to wait until May to lift their drought
surcharge?
Source: SFPUC Water Supply Conditions Update, October 2, 2023 –
The SFPUC ended the water year entitled to enough water (2.77 million acre-feet) to refill all of their
reservoirs almost twice.
21
Attachment D
SFPUC Financial Plan
From:Henry Yu
To:Council, City
Subject:6/8/26 Council Meeting Item 14: Sales Tax Measure for November 3, 2026 Election
Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2026 9:41:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, Council Members, and City Manager:
Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAL), founded in 1938 and residing at the Cubberley
Community Center since 2002, has a strong desire to remain housed within this Center
throughout its upcoming redevelopment process. FOPAL's current presence at Cubberley is
sustained by hundreds of volunteers from the community who gather throughout the year
to help run the organization and its monthly sales.Thousands of local residents of all ages
attend these sales, in addition to a global following of our online marketplace.
Since 2004, FOPAL has made grants over $3.6 million to the City of Palo Alto Library, and in
fiscal year 2026 provided a grant of $150,000. To effectively assist our book sales patrons,
and support our dedicated volunteers, FOPAL's long-term vision is to consolidate its
footprint within the new Community Center, increasing revenue and providing larger grants
to the Palo Alto City Library for vital funding. We recognize the immense value this
redevelopment will bring to our residents, and we are eager to continue our operations as a
fixture of the revitalized site.
We urge the City Council to adopt an ordinance and resolution calling for an election
placing a half-cent Transactions and Use Tax Measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot to
support improving the Cubberley Community Center.
Sincerely,
Henry Yu
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
FOPAL President, and Chair of the FOPAL at Cubberley Committee
Friends of the Palo Alto Library
hyu@fopal.org
https://fopal.org
From:Sonya Bradski
To:Council, City
Subject:Greenmeadow is on the National Register of Historic Places
Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2026 7:01:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council:
Please note that Greenmeadow Neighborhood is on the Registry of
Historic Places for the Federal & State Registry. Therefore, SB79
would not be enacted in Greenmeadow.
https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/9045e8b8-559b-43ce-8546-12bb24f49aab
Why were the neighbors near San Antonio Train Station not informed of
the change of zoning? How did that happen?
Sonya Bradski
Greenmeadow Neighbor
650-575-2395
From:Randy Futty
To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City
Subject:MItchell Park Pickleball Noise Solutions
Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2026 12:35:51 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
2026 Catalog - Final -Rev 0226 - Low Res.pdf
NoiseGard MLV Cut Sheet - USAP Quiet.pdf
NoiseGard QPS Cut Sheet - USAP Quiet.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Amanda, and the other council members,
I was reading about the pickleball noise issues in the city and wanted to offer our products and
services in an effort to help.
Putterman Athletics is the manufacturer of two NoiseGard™ Sound Abatement systems (see
attached cut sheets).
NoiseGard is a USAP Quiet Category Approved product and has been used in countless situations like
yours.
I’ve attached cut sheets for the two systems I’d recommend and would love to quote the systems for
your location.
If interested, please give me a call or email.
Warmest regards,
Randy Futty
Executive VP, Business Development
Putterman Athletics LLC
Mobile: 434-249-0124
Toll-free: 800-621-0146 | Fax: 386-738-2295
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Email: rfutty@mputterman.com
880 N. Spring Garden Ave., DeLand, FL 32720
Manufacturing Locations in DeLand, FL and Chicago, IL
www.puttermanathletics.com
Click Here to Flip Through Our Product Catalog
From:Derek Gurney
To:Council, City
Subject:Your vote jeopardizes my child"s safety
Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2026 12:18:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
City Council,
I am writing to strongly disagree with your vote against a staff recommendation to allow
bicycles to continue to traverse California Avenue.
If you affirm this decision, you will be jeopardizing my child's safety and the safety of other
children who use Calfornia Avenue to bicycle from College Terrace and other neighborhoods
to middle school.
Cambridge Avenue and Sherman Avenue are not safe alternatives for middle-school cyclists,
unless you take out the parking and create bike lanes.
Yours truly,
Derek Gurney
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Cc:LAFCO
Subject:Supplemental Information No. 3 - LAFCO Meeting on June 3, 2026
Date:Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:22:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The following supplemental information has been added to the June 3rd LAFCO Meeting Agenda:
Supplemental Information No. 3: Public Comments Received on Agenda Item # 5 -
Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence Amendment /
Annexation 2026
The agenda and related materials, including the above supplemental information, can be viewed
online at: 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
You've never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jensen, Crystal
To:Darya Taheri; UTL-Customer Service; UTL-Customer Service; Guerra, Emily; Council, City; City Attorney; City Mgr
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Park, Richard
Subject:RE: URGENT: 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional Debit/Extra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8
Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2026 4:42:25 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
Hi Darya,
Our Credit and Collections Department added a dunning lock on your account until 6/30/26 to resolve this matter.
I’m following up to the voicemail that I left you yesterday. Can you please call me back at your earliest convenience so that we can
discuss your account. I can be reached at 650-329-2547.
Thank you,
Crystal Jensen
Manager, Utilities Customer Service
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
O: 650.329.2547 M: 650.885.8350
E-mail: Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 8:14 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; Guerra, Emily
<Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@paloalto.gov>
Cc: Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>
Subject: URGENT: 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional Debit/Extra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks.
This dispute is still not resolved.Today I received a 48-hour disconnection notice at my door demanding payment of $675.25 by 4:30 PM on 06/03/2026n (see attached screenshots). This directly conflicts with your written statement that my account has been placed on hold, that no additional late fees w
i
This message needs your attention
Some Recipients have never replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
This dispute is still not resolved.
Today I received a 48-hour disconnection notice at my door demanding payment of $675.25 by 4:30 PM on 06/03/2026n (see
attached screenshots). This directly conflicts with your written statement that my account has been placed on hold, that no
additional late fees will be assessed, and that service will not be subject to disconnection for non-payment of the back charges while
this matter remains under review.
We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill. The disputed back-billing amount remains under review. Please confirm in writing
today that:
Powered by Mimecast
1. the 48-hour disconnection notice is rescinded and void,
2. the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this dispute remains unresolved,
3. no disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity will occur based on the disputed back charges, and
4. the $675.25 amount on the notice is itemized, including what portion is current undisputed charges and what portion relates to
the disputed back-billing amount.
CPAU Rule 9 states that utility service will not be disconnected for non-payment of a disputed bill during investigation or review by
CPAU, and that the non-disputed portion remains due and payable. That is exactly what we are doing. CPAU also previously stated in
writing that this account was on hold during the escalation process.
If this 48-hour notice was generated in error, please say so clearly in writing today and confirm that the account has been coded to
prevent disconnection while the dispute remains under review.
For the record, this dispute is not resolved, and we expect immediate written confirmation.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Sunday, May 31, 2026 at 09:18:30 AM PDT, Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thank you for your email and partially answered questions. It still does not resolve this dispute.
You missed to respond to a couple of our questions, so we will ask again.
1. You mentioned the backcharging defined in rules and regulation but you failed to answer why the amount you are back charging us
exceeds the 500$ limit stated in the rules and regulations? Rules and regulation 11.1 “…Where a Customer has been undercharged or
overcharged for metered Service, the date and cause of which can be reliably established by CPAU, the retroactive billing adjustment
(back bill or refund shall not exceed three years. The maximum bill adjustment for undercharges shall be $500 per Account, per
incident”
2. Why does your bill not comply with California law, PCU 394.4.(e)? On a side note, our legal counsel advised us that as long as your
bill does not comply with California law, it is not enforceable and will not hold up in court.
3. Why were we never informed about the broken meter? We only found out when you put a “Misc debit $509.80” charge on the April
2026 bill and we had to contact support to find out what that means. On a side note, that is a very unfriendly practice towards your
customers. Your rules and regulations also defines in 11.1 that the customer shall be notified of the reason of the over or undercharge
with the date and cause!
4. Why did you give us contradicting information about the timeline when the meter was broken? We have one email that states it was
broken before we moved in and another that says you only encountered the broken meter in February. Please confirm that to your best
knowledge the meter was in working condition for the last tenant until they moved out and as unbelievable at it sounds must have
broken just when we moved in!
5. Why did you charge us 18$ something a month for admin for nine months, when you clearly did not admin or maintain the meter or
checking on the bill?
If any of our questions are not clear or you do not understand them please let us know. Just ignoring to answer is not acceptable.
For the record, we do not consider this dispute resolved, and we expect a complete written response.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 04:58:00 PM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Darya,
We apologize for the delay in responding to the questions outlined in your email. Below is a detailed response addressing each item.
1. Due to the adjustment period spanning approximately eight months and limitations within our billing system, we are unable to
generate one corrected billing statement that reflects actual monthly meter reads. Any revised statement produced by the
system would display estimated monthly reads and the associated therm usage only. In addition, our standard monthly
statements do not include the rate change information requested. As a result, a corrected statement would not provide the
level of detail you requested.
2. In place of a revised detailed billing statement, we prepared a spreadsheet outlining the monthly quantities and applicable
rates used in our calculations. Our billing structure includes two usage tiers that apply across both winter and summer rate
periods, and the spreadsheet identifies the allowance applicable to each tier. This document is attached for your review.
3. A service notification was created by me on February 18, 2026 (Service Notification #30446449). During the subsequent field
investigation, our technician, Johnny Mulato, determined that the meter was not registering properly and was stuck. Based on
this finding, the affected billing period was identified as May 2025 through February 2026.
4. As part of my role as a Billing Specialist, I review meter reads flagged by our billing system as exceptions. An exception occurs
when a meter read falls outside the expected usage parameters established from the historical usage profile associated with the
meter. Identical or unusually low reads over multiple billing periods may result from several factors, including periods of non-usage,
seasonal consumption patterns, weather-related changes, or meter malfunction.
In February 2026, the meter was replaced as part of the City’s transition to AMI meters, which allow for remote reading capability.
During the replacement process, the technician conducted a meter test to confirm proper operation and determined that the existing
meter was stuck. The Billing Office was then notified so that an estimate of unrecorded historical usage could be completed.
With respect to your account specifically, because you are a newer tenant, we did not have sufficient usage history tied to your
occupancy period to perform a customer-specific historical comparison. Consistent with our established procedures and governing
regulations, the estimate was therefore calculated using available historical consumption data from 2024. While we recognize that
gas usage can vary significantly depending on household occupancy, appliance configuration, and individual usage habits, the
estimate was calculated in accordance with the guidelines currently in place.
That said, we are willing to review your most recent 12-month usage history to determine whether any additional adjustment to the
current charges may be appropriate.
5. Utility Rules and Regulations – Rule 11 provides the following: CPAU may bill the Customer for the undercharge based on an
average bill. The bill will be computed based on an estimate of the Customer’s consumption during a prior month in the same
season or on the consumption in the same period of the prior three years.”
Please also refer to Attachment A: Rule and Regulation 11 (Billing, Adjustments and Payment of Bills) Attachment A: Rule and
Regulation 11 (Billing, Adjustments and Payment of Bills) UPDATED and CLEAN
Additionally, your account has been placed on hold during this escalation process. No additional late fees will be assessed, and
service will not be subject to disconnection for non-payment of the back charges while this matter remains under review.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Emily Guerra
Customer Service Specialist
Utilities Customer Service
650-329-2161 Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:32 AM
To: Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer
Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov>; Guerra, Emily <Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed
<Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you for your email. It still does not resolve this dispute.
Your responses to date have not been helpful because they continue to leave key questions unanswered. Referring us repeatedly to management by phone instead of providing
written answers and documentation is not an adequate response.
At this point, our concern is not simply about clarification. We are questioning the validity and enforceability of this charge. CPAU has still not provided a valid corrected bill
showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to our account, the rates applied, and how the total amount was calculated. “Misc debit $509.80” is not a sufficient
corrected bill for purposes of resolving this dispute.
Your latest email also introduces yet another explanation of the defect period. Earlier communications stated that 2024 historical usage was used and that the meter was
considered stuck over a broader period, while your latest email now states that the meter was determined to have been stuck specifically from our move-in date of May 30,
2025 through February 19, 2026. CPAU still has not explained how that defect period was determined, why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation,
or why we were never informed of the meter problem at the time. These shifting explanations do not resolve the dispute. And it would be an almost unbelievable coincident
that the meter just broke when we moved in.
CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules
state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. We paid those monthly service charges throughout our tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect meter-
related service charges each month, fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to us through retroactive estimated
billing.
CPAU has also failed to answer our written questions regarding the legal basis for this charge, including how the amount exceeds the $500 maximum undercharge adjustment
stated in Rule 11. Stating that management has decided the back bill will stand is not a substitute for providing the bill, records, and legal basis we have repeatedly requested.
We do wonder why the bill you sent us does not comply with PCU 394.4.(e) standards for consumer issued bills and why you do not follow your own “Rules and
Regulations”, so please refer to the exact laws that make a charge “Misc debit $509.80”, without any possibility for us to recalculate the amount, a valid charge.
We do not consider this dispute resolved. We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill only. Any attempt to enforce collection of the disputed amount without first
providing a valid corrected bill and the requested written documentation will be treated as an improper collection effort.
Please provide, in writing:
1. A valid corrected bill showing the gas quantity attributed to each billing period and the rates applied
2. The worksheet or spreadsheet supporting that calculation
3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced
4. A written explanation of how CPAU determined the defect period and why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation
5. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on for this charge
Please also confirm in writing that the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this dispute remains unresolved and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees,
penalties, or collection activity.
If CPAU continues to pursue collection without providing the requested written response and supporting documentation, we escalate this matter to the appropriate City
officials and we will preserve all available legal remedies.
For the record, we do not consider this dispute resolved, and we expect a complete written response.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 11:03:04 AM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Hello Darya,
I called and left a message and am following up with an email.
During the process of upgrading our meters with AMI technology, we identified that some meters in the field were not recording
usage properly. As part of this initiative, we worked with our gas shop to locate and physically inspect meters that showed signs of
abnormal or no usage to determine whether they were stuck or malfunctioning. Through this review, we confirmed several meters
were indeed stuck, which required us to address the associated back-billing accordingly.
I do understand your concern regarding usage from 2024, which would not apply to your account, as you moved in on May 30, 2025. I
reviewed this situation with my manager, Crystal Jensen, who advised that the current back bill would stand. However, after a full
year of actual meter usage has been collected, we will be able to reassess the account and make any necessary adjustments at that
time.
For your specific account, the meter was determined to have been stuck from your move-in date May 30, 2025 through the date of
inspection and meter exchange on February 19, 2026.
I have also copied my manager and Specialist Emily, who processed the calculation, should you require any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Lorraina Alvarez
Customer Service Specialist Lead
Utilities Customer Service
(650) 329-2161 | lorraina.alvarez@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 8:47 AM
To: Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer
Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for your response. It still does not resolve my dispute.
Your latest message states that when the meter replacement was reported in February 2026, CPAU then reviewed the prior readings and found that the meter had been
showing the same reading around the time my tenancy at this address began. However, CPAU still has not answered my key questions or provided a valid corrected bill.
I am requesting a written response, not just a referral to management by phone. Please provide:
1. A legit corrected bill showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to my account, the rates applied, and how the total amount of $509.80 was calculated
2. The worksheet or spreadsheet supporting that calculation
3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced
4. A written explanation of how CPAU determined the defect period and why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation
5. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on for this charge
CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules
state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. I was paying those monthly service charges throughout my tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect
meter-related service charges each month, fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to me through retroactive
estimated billing.
At this time, “Misc debit $509.80” is not a valid corrected bill for purposes of resolving this dispute.
This charge remains disputed. We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill. Please confirm in writing that the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this
dispute remains unresolved and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity while I await and review the requested documents.
If CPAU cannot provide a valid corrected bill and the supporting records and legal basis for this charge, then the disputed back-billing amount should be withdrawn from the
account.
Regards,
Darya taheri
On Monday, May 4, 2026 at 11:18:33 AM PDT, Park, Richard <richard.park@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Hi Darya,
Thanks for your patience in this matter. When our meter reader reported that the gas meter needed to be replaced back in February
2026, that’s when it triggered us to review your past meter readings. We found that it was reporting the same meter reading
(Read:130) around the time that your started utility services.
Regarding your other inquiries and requests, you will need to speak with management for further assistance. Please give us a call at
650-326-2161 and ask for Crystal. An extension has been placed on your current invoice with a new due date of 5/31/26.
Thank you,
RICHARD PARK
Customer Service Representative
Customer Services Utilities
(650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Darya T <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:44 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for your response. It does not resolve my dispute. At this stage, I am requesting the records, calculations, and legal
authority necessary to evaluate CPAU’s position, because your explanations to date remain incomplete and not fully reconciled.
Your prior adjustment document states that the meter was stuck from March 2025 through February 2026, that back-billing was
made effective starting June 2025, and that 2024 historical usage was used to calculate the charge. Your latest response states that
the issue was identified only in early 2026 and that the meter was replaced on February 25, 2026. Please explain how CPAU
determined that the meter had been stuck since March 2025 if the issue was not identified until early 2026, and why repeated
unchanged readings over many months did not trigger earlier investigation.
Please also provide a legit corrected bill showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to my account, the rates applied,
and how the total amount was calculated.
CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter
reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. I was paying those monthly
service charges throughout my tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect meter-related service charges each month,
fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to me through retroactive
estimated billing.
In addition, please explain why prior historical usage from the service address was considered a reasonable estimate for my
tenancy, given that I was a new tenant and may have had different occupancy and usage patterns than any prior occupant.
Please also explain how the total charge of $509.80 complies with Rule 11’s maximum undercharge adjustment of $500 per account
per incident, including whether CPAU contends that the Utility Users Tax is outside that cap and the legal basis for that position.
Please provide, in writing:
1. The legit corrected bill showing the gas quantity attributed to each billing period and the rates applied
2. The full worksheet or spreadsheet used to calculate the charge
3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced
4. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on
5. A detailed explanation of why prior historical usage from the service address was considered a reasonable estimate for my
tenancy
This charge remains disputed. Pending receipt and review of the requested materials, please confirm that the disputed amount will
remain on hold and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity.
Best regards,
Darya
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 28, 2026, at 14:26, UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Ms. Taheri,
Thank you for your letter regarding the gas back-billing charge on your account. We appreciate you bringing your
concerns to our attention and the opportunity to respond.
Below are responses to the items you requested:
1. Records regarding identification and repair of the meter
Our records indicate that the gas meter serving your residence was identified as not registering usage accurately during a
routine review in early 2026. A field investigation was subsequently conducted, and the meter was repaired/replaced
shortly thereafter. Please see service record below:
2. Notification and timing of billing correction
We understand your concern regarding the timing of notification. In this case, the issue was not confirmed as a stuck or
non-registering meter until the field investigation was completed. As a result, corrected billing was not issued until after
the condition was verified and sufficient data was available to calculate usage. We acknowledge that earlier
communication would have been preferable and are reviewing this matter internally.
3. Use of historical usage for billing calculation
Because the meter was not accurately recording consumption during the affected period, it was necessary to estimate
usage. This estimate was based on available historical consumption data for the service address, which may include
prior periods, to approximate typical usage patterns in accordance with standard utility billing practices. 2024 historical
consumption was used for the calculation as it was the lesser consumption of the prior three years.
4. Legal and regulatory basis for back-billing
Utility billing adjustments of this nature are governed by applicable municipal code and utility regulations, which allow
for the correction of under-billed accounts when metering inaccuracies are discovered. These provisions permit utilities
to recover charges for unbilled service within a defined timeframe, even if the issue is identified after the fact. We can
provide the specific code references upon request.
Thank you,
RICHARD PARK
Customer Service Representative
Customer Services Utilities
(650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 9:35 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Dehlinger, Michael <Michael.Dehlinger@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Richard,
I am formally disputing the gas back-billing charge of $509.80 on my account 30131069.
Your adjustment document states that the gas meter was stuck from March 2025 through February 2026, and that back-billing was made effective starting June
2025. We moved in on May 31, 2025.
If City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) knew, or had reason to know, that the meter was stuck in June 2025, then I should have been notified promptly, the meter
should have been repaired promptly, and billing should have been corrected at that time. Instead, no clear notice or explanation was provided, and the charge
was not imposed until April 2026.
The right to back-bill does not justify delayed maintenance, delayed repair of a known stuck meter, or failure to communicate with the customer. CPAU owns
and maintains the gas meter, and any failure to timely repair, notify, or bill correctly should not be shifted to me retroactively.
I also dispute the use of 2024 historical usage as the basis for calculating my bill. My account should not be charged based on estimated usage from a prior
period or prior occupant pattern rather than my actual metered consumption.
Please provide in writing:
1. Records showing when CPAU first identified the stuck meter and when it was repaired or replaced
2. An explanation of why I was not notified promptly and billed correctly once the issue was known
3. An explanation of why 2024 historical usage was used to calculate charges for my account
4. The legal and regulatory basis for applying this back-billing despite delayed notice and delayed correction
Until this dispute is resolved, please place the charge on hold and apply no late fees, penalties, or collection activity.
Given the delayed notice, the apparent failure to timely address the stuck meter, and the use of prior historical usage rather than actual consumption, I request
that this back-billing charge be removed from my account.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Monday, April 13, 2026 at 03:15:30 PM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Hi Darya,
Thank you for your message. We’ve attached the details of the back billing adjustment made on your gas meter due to the
register being stuck. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
RICHARD PARK
Customer Service Representative
Customer Services Utilities
(650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Darya T <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 9:35 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Utilities,
I am disputing the additional debit/extra charges under misc charge
(Debit) recently added to my utility bill for Account Number: 30131069
Due Date: April 8.
I was told these charges relate to a broken gas meter, but I have not been
given any clear written explanation or documentation showing how you
calculated an amount of over $500. My interaction with customer support
was also not helpful, and no proper information was provided.
Please provide in writing:
1-A full breakdown of the amount charged
2-The exact billing period covered
3-The method used to calculate this amount
4-Evidence that the meter was faulty, including any inspection, repair, or
replacement records
5-Copies of any prior notices or communications sent to me about this
issue
6-The legal or contractual basis for charging this amount retrospectively.
Until this is properly explained, I request that the disputed amount be
placed on hold and that no late fees or collection action be taken.
I am keeping a written record of this dispute and all related
communications.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
Email: darya.taheri@gmail.com
Phone: 650-799-9657
Sent from my iPhone
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Cc:LAFCO
Subject:Supplemental Information No. 2 - LAFCO Meeting on June 3, 2026
Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2026 4:38:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The following supplemental information has been added to the June 3rd LAFCO Meeting Agenda:
Supplemental Information No. 2: Agenda Item # 5 - Public Comments Received on Santa
Clara County Central Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence Amendment /
Annexation 2026
The agenda and related materials, including the above supplemental information, can be viewed
online at: 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
You've never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
From:Ariel Strauss
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Kandikuppa, Nishita; Jeanne Fleming
Subject:Follow up analysis to ARB re 1661 Page Mill Rd. Tier 2 WCF
Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2026 4:15:28 PM
Attachments:2026-06-01- Letter to ARB re 1661 Page Mill.pdf
2026-01-30-Issued 1661 Page Mill Encroachment Permit.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon Architectural Review Board Chair, Vice Chair and Members:
On behalf of United Neighbors, attached, please find a letter providing an update on
information we have received regarding AT&T's 1661 Page Mill Road Tier 2 wireless
communication facility project. We hope that this information is useful to you. A copy of the
issued (but expired) encroachment permit is also attached.
Sincerely,
Ariel Strauss
____________________________________________________________
510-900-9502 x 702
Greenfire Law, P.C.
P.O. Box 8055
Berkeley, CA 94707
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and
any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2, and destroy the original transmission and itsattachments without reading or saving in any manner.
June 2, 2026
Analysis Regarding Compliance with ARB Directions
AT&T Tier 2 WCF 1661 Page Mill Rd. (24PLN-00278)
Dear Architectural Review Board Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, Member Hirsch, Member
Jojarth and Member Rosenberg:
I am writing on behalf of United Neighbors to inform you of concerns about 1) AT&T’s
response to the Board’s conditions of approval for the company’s application for a wireless
facility at 1661 Page Mill Road, and 2) the City’s overall approval process. These concerns
arose out of my observation of the Board hearings, and review of the Board agenda materials and
the documents the City provided to me in response to my public records request for copies of
communications between AT&T and City staff regarding the FCC “shot clock” and for the final,
approved plans attached to the encroachment permit the City issued to AT&T for the cell tower.
The permit and plans are provided for your information.
To remind you, the Board held hearings on September 18th and October 16th, 2025, to
review AT&T’s proposed design for a Tier 2 wireless communications facility at 1661 Page Mill
Road. This was the first review of a Tier 2 application since City Council reinstated Board
review for cell tower applications in June 2025.
AT&T sought approval to replace an existing, mid-line, top-mounted canister antenna
supported by hidden in-cabinet radios on a light post with a dual rabbit ears-type, top-mounted
panel antennas and three mid-pole radio shrouds, meter and shut-off, all without removing the
existing cabinet. This equipment significantly increased the overall size and conspicuousness of
the facility.
At the first hearing, the Board directed AT&T to return with an improved design that a)
minimized the conspicuousness of the multiple new mid-pole boxes and ‘rabbit ears’ antennas,
ARIEL STRAUSS, Of-Counsel
2748 Adeline Street, Suite A
Berkeley, CA 94703
Phone: (510) 900-9502, x 702
Email: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com
www.greenfirelaw.com
2
b) eliminated a large, seemingly-unnecessary utility cabinet and hide from view some equipment
by undergrounding it, and c) address the fact that the total volume of the facility AT&T
requested was greater than the total volume allowed for qualifying as a “small wireless facility”
(Municipal Code § 18.42.110(b)(12)(c)). With respect to the final point, the fact that the total
volume was too large meant that the application was subject, not to the 60-day processing shot
clock claimed, but to a 90- day shot clock (47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(c)(ii)). AT&T, in submitting its
application, had failed to include a calculation of the total volume required by the application
checklist; Planning staff had not independently calculated or requested this figure; and the truth
about how big the proposed cell tower actually was only came to light at the hearing, when I
presented the total volume.
AT&T returned to the second Board hearing having made only minimal changes to the
design and without proposing the underground option the Board had requested. Staff informed
the dismayed Board that, although AT&T had orally agreed, including to the Board that day, to
extend the shot clock deadline by 45 days (in other words, AT&T had agreed to an extension that
would allow enough time for AT&T to return to the Board with a better design), the applicant
had not yet actually signed a shot clock tolling agreement. On that basis, staff urged the Board to
approve AT&T’s application. Facing the looming deadline, the Board recommended approval of
the application with the following conditions:
a) The disconnect switch shall be fully concealed in an underground vault with cover no
higher than adjacent grade.
b) The radios shall be installed no lower than 12 feet from grade to the bottom of the shroud.
c) All three radios shall be mounted at the same elevation as high as feasible using the existing
pole. If this is not technically feasible, then all radios shall be mounted parallel to and
facing away from the street.
Four days later, on October 20, 2025, the Director of Planning and Development Services
approved the application with the Board’s conditions.
Now, I turn to what I learned from the documents I received in response to my public
records request.
1. The e-mail communications disclose that staff prepared a 45-day tolling agreement, but a)
only sent it to AT&T on the afternoon of the day before the second hearing, and b) did not
3
ask AT&T to sign it by the start of the hearing. AT&T instead signed the day after the
hearing. Copies of the communications are included in Attachment 1.
To be clear, staff had nearly one month between the first and second meetings to prepare
the shot clock extension agreement, which is practically a template. Yet they not only did
not deliver it until the day before the hearing, no one in the e-mail chain asked AT&T to sign
the document before the Board considered AT&T’s application the day of the hearing.
We strongly recommend, going forward, that staff act more promptly to avoid
hamstringing the Board’s ability to thoroughly review applications and demand needed
revisions.
Remarkably, at the hearing on October 16th, AT&T’s representative repeatedly claimed
credit with the Board for agreeing to a shot clock extension, right up to the moment when the
Board was considering asking AT&T to return with an improved design. Then, staff stepped
in to warn the Board that the oral agreement could not be relied on until the document was
signed, therefore the Board should approve the application. AT&T’s representative stayed
silent. Given that staff presumably knew that FCC regulations (47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(d))
require a written agreement, staff should have either a) insisted that AT&T sign the extension
agreement before, or at, the hearing, or b) objected to AT&T claiming credit for agreeing to
the extension when it had not signed the document.
2. Turning to what AT&T did in response to the Board direction, with respect to condition (a)—
“The disconnect switch shall be fully concealed in an underground vault with cover no higher
than adjacent grade”—AT&T’s final plans do show that the power disconnect has indeed
been removed from the pole and relocated to an underground vault identified as N1 on Sheet
A1. AT&T also removes the now-unnecessary ground cabinet. However, Sheet A-2 and A-
3 still include the disconnect in the revised total volume calculation.1 And the plans were not
updated to show the contents or dimensions of the underground vault. This is in contrast with
the updated plans (Sheet E-3, item 7) that detail the interior of the to-be-removed cabinet.
1 These new calculations now show the volume of the cabinet, which in the original application was not
proposed to be removed, validating my calculation and confirming that AT&T’s proposal did not qualify
as a small wireless facility.
4
Tier 2 Checklist page 5 expressly requires that plans depict underground vaults and
structures, which is important particularly for encroachment and trenching purposes.
Moreover, Sheet D-1 depicts the disconnect signage high up on the pole in roughly the
same position as in the original design and with no change to the instructions text (see
Attachment 2). Hence the sign would no longer effectively instructs any personnel—fire
fighters, for example—how to shut off the antennas since the sign is not adjacent to the
disconnect, and there is no mention of how to find a hidden switch in an underground vault.
Presently, there is a sign on the cabinet. Because there are several ground vaults at the site,
clear instructions are essential.
Finally, references to the PG&E smart meter (previously shown on the elevation drawing
on Sheet A-2 and the grounding diagram on Sheet E-2) have been removed without
explanation. It is not clear whether AT&T’s equipment is separately metered to ensure that
the City does not pay for that electricity (see Attachment 3). Essentially, it looks like AT&T
just deleted the meter and disconnect from the schematics but did not plan for those changes
in the new design.
3. With respect to Board condition (b)—“The radios shall be installed no lower than 12 feet
from grade to the bottom of the shroud.”—AT&T’s plans show that the radios have been
moved upward on the pole so that the bottom of the lowest shroud is exactly 12’ above
grade.
4. With respect to Board condition (c) –“All three radios shall be mounted at the same elevation
as high as feasible using the existing pole. If this is not technically feasible, then all radios
shall be mounted parallel to and facing away from the street”—AT&T complied with the
alternative option by re-orienting the radios so they are not facing the street. But, as shown
on Sheet A-3, AT&T did not mount all the antennas in a single shroud or as high as feasible
(there is approximately 7’ of space between the top of the radio shroud and the luminaire
arm). In the communications between AT&T and staff that I reviewed, I did not see any
request from staff to justify the position, nor did I see AT&T offer any explanation why the
preferred arrangement of installing all antennas in one shroud at the same height is
technically infeasible.
5
5. Finally, the encroachment permit the Planning Department issued and Crown Castle accepted
is dated January 30, 2026. It states: “This permit/lease* shall expire if work on the
encroachment described within does not commenc:[sic]e within sixty (60) days of the date of
approval, or by the anticipated start date as indicated above, whichever is later.” The stated
commencement date is April 1st, 2026. However, AT&T did not commence work by April
1st, nor, based on a visit to the site, did it even begun work by the required June 1st
completion date, much less finished it. As a result, the permit has expired. AT&T is now
required to pay for a new permit, and as far as I know, they have not done so (staff has not
yet answered United Neighbors’ queries about this).
The Board should take note that, despite AT&T’s professed urgency and pressure on Palo
Alto to process applications promptly, it has not taken any visible taken action in the many
months since obtaining all City approvals. AT&T allowing the Board 45 more days to
discuss improved designs presumably would not have delayed the construction schedule. In
my experience, this is a common occurrence and reflects that applicants frequently are not
prepared to complete (or even start) work by the deadlines they set for cities. With this track
record, AT&T has even less ground to stand on when it comes to resisting requests from Palo
Alto to enter into tolling agreements that would allow the Board to complete more fulsome
review.
We greatly appreciate the Architectural Review Board’s involvement in reviewing cell
tower application and hope this post-approval analysis aids the Board in gaining greater insight
into the overall process and considering future applications.
Sincerely,
__________________
Ariel Strauss, Of-Counsel
Greenfire Law, PC
Cc: Jonathan Lait, Planning Director (Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov)
Nishita Kandikuppa, Project Planner (Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov)
City Council (City.Council@PaloAlto.gov)
Jeanne Fleming, PhD, United Neighbors
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Inappropriate Shut Down Signage on Approved Plans (Sheet D-1)
ATTACHMENT 3
Missing PG&E Smartmeter on Electrical and Grounding Diagram
Originally-Submitted Plans (Sheet E-2) Approved Plans (Sheet E-2)
From:Jeff Hoel
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City
Subject:COMMENTS -- 05-28-26 UAC meeting -- Commissioner Suggestions for Workplan Objectives
Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2026 2:26:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Commissioners,
I'd like to COMMENT on Appendix B of Item 2 of your 06-03-26 meeting.
06-03-26 UAC meeting agenda:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19038
I do not have a URL for Attachment B.
I have provided the text below, to which I have added my comments (paragraphs in red beginning with
"### ").
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
ATTACHMENT B
Utility Advisory Commissioner Suggestions for Workplan Objectives
Suggestions received as of May 28, 2026
Review the attached report which includes a list of suggestions from the UAC Commissioners regarding
the Commission Annual Workplan. The previously published staff report noted that Commissioner input
would be published as a late packet report for the June 3 Utility Advisory Commission meeting. The
suggested changes for the workplan are typically discussed at the Commission in relationship to changes
to the annual workplan that ultimately is sent to the full City Council for approval.
Staff received responses from 5
### 6
Commissioners
### All but Scharff.
regarding the Annual Workplan for the UAC. The responses are listed below in alphabetical order.
Croft:
1. Time of Use Rates:
### I appreciate Commissioner Croft's enthusiasm for this item, but I don't understand it. How important
will TOU be really? To the electric utility? To customers? We've known for a long time that Palo Alto will
benefit less than cities with more extreme climates.
Roll out and promote TOU rates to the full Palo Alto community, conduct new COSA if needed to fine tune
rates. Design and extend offering for NEM
### Net Energy Metering
customers. Measures/metrics of Success:
• # of households signed up
• % of households signed up (5% goal in within the year)
• Average, high and low $ savings / excess spend on electricity / month by participating households
• Quantify shifts in usage
• Implement and report on initiatives to help customers shift load (eg. Point customers to efficient
timer-equipped appliances, develop case studies, educate re: residential battery storage)
2. Electric Affordability / Advantageous Regional Pricing: Pursue ways to limit electricity price increases
and maintain substantially cheaper prices than surrounding cities, while remaining carbon neutral. Keeping
rates low will help affordability, encourage electrification and be attractive to commercial tenants,
supporting PA’s employment, daytime population and tax base. Measures/metrics of Success:
• Price discount relative to surrounding PG&E communities (maintain or improve)
• Long term price trajectory stays under inflation
• Electricity portfolio review: Add PPAs to fill out power needs, % exposure to market purchases and
impact on rates
• Explore investing in positive NPV battery projects
### I think the City should continue to reassess from time to time the value of City-provided citywide local
battery storage versus customer-provided battery storage at individual residences.
• Add efficient (not wasteful) electric load provided it doesn’t increase prices:
### I'm not sure how the City should go about evaluating how "efficient (not wasteful)" an electric
load is.
Recruit small-medium datacenters
### The jury is out on whether the City should recruit ANY data centers.
Enabling more EV charging in PA (residential and employee charging, charging stations)
Transition gas use to electric (residential, commercial, government)
----------
ATTACHMENT B:
Utility Advisory Commission Suggestions for Workplan Objectives
3. Utility Modernization and Communication: Develop means of communicating regularly by email or text
with all customers to build awareness of utility initiatives, incentives, the AMI portal, SCAP goals, and
notification in emergencies. For customers refusing to giving contact info, develop annual mailer.
Implement water and gas leak notifications for all customers (opt-out). Measures/metrics of Success:
• % of customers with email/cell # on file (goal: 100%)
• % of customers visiting MYCPAU (goal: at least 50% within the next year)
• % of customers registered to receive leak notifications (goal 100% - opt out)
• Report to UAC on communications completed and result/response
• Provide households/businesses with an annual report on usage, opportunities to decarbonize,
efficiency opportunities, other important utility initiatives
Gupta:
1. Rate Affordability & Transparency: Combined median bill on track from $442.60 → ~$638/mo by FY
2031 (+~44%), before Baker Tilly (additional +2–8% to +20–26%), gas decommissioning recovery, or
further SFPUC pass-through. No standing combined-bill view exists.
### I apologize for not being able to present Commissioner Gupta's ideas in table form as he did.
# Action Cadence Owner Target
1.1 Direct staff to include a combined-bill scorecard in every rate report brought to UAC Recurring Staff
Every rate report
1.2 Receive a phased Baker Tilly implementation plan with explicit dollar ceilings and forward UAC's
recommendation One-time Staff → UAC Before FY 2028 rate adoption
1.3 Direct staff to publish a bill-burden analysis by income segment (10th/25th/50th/75th percentile + State
Low-Income threshold) Annual Staff Timed for Rate Assistance Program scoping
1.4 Adopt an annual UAC CIP prioritization review through an affordability lens Annual UAC + Staff Each
budget cycle
1.5 Direct staff to present a resident communication plan ahead of every major rate decision Recurring
Staff Ahead of each major rate decision
2. SFPUC & BAWSCA: Water rates ~52% cumulative FY27–FY31, with SFPUC 6–7× forecast misses, an
8.5-year Design Drought lacking 1,100-year tree-ring analog, and a 2025 WSA
Page 2 of 6
----------
ATTACHMENT B:
Utility Advisory Commission Suggestions for Workplan Objectives
Amendment whose cost to Palo Alto was presented ~5× lower than the audited-data calculation. Palo Alto
does no independent vetting.
# Action Cadence Owner Target
2.1 Direct staff to apply more defensible reliability assumptions in UWMP and water planning (document
SFPUC inputs; sensitivity-test against observed-data and Bay-Delta Plan scenarios) One-time Staff
Starting with current UWMP cycle
2.2 Adopt a recurring UAC docket to review BAWSCA/SFPUC rate filings, CIP, drought modeling, MPQ
changes Recurring UAC + Staff Every UAC meeting where action arises
2.3 Recommend that Council revisit the 2025 WSA Amendment and adopt a cost-causer-pays principle for
future BAWSCA cost-shifts One-time Council Before BAWSCA Dec 2026 deadline
2.4 Convene a UAC-hosted public water forum including Drekmeier alongside BAWSCA / SFPUC staff
One-time UAC During FY 2026–27
2.5 Lead UAC outreach to fellow BAWSCA member agencies on shared regional review Ongoing UAC
Starting Q1 FY 2027
3. Energy Transition Coherence: Gas and electric being planned under different implicit electrification
assumptions, with no published reconciliation. $71M over 5 years in gas CIP alongside $375–$450M Grid
Mod; decommissioning costs removed from rate forecast; no stranded-asset range.
# Action Cadence Owner Target
3.1 Direct staff to produce a single integrated 20-year energy-transition plan reconciling Grid Mod sizing
with gas decommissioning timeline One-time Staff By end of FY 2027
3.2 Direct staff to publish a stranded-asset range (2040 / 2045 / 2050) before further discretionary gas CIP
One-time Staff Before next gas CIP approval
3.3 Direct staff to design a small-scale gas decommissioning pilot (defined assets reach end of life without
replacement; customers transitioned to electric) One-time Staff Design in FY 2026–27; pilot launch FY
2028
3.4 Direct that Grid Mod CIP include adoption-triggered investment gates One-time Staff Before FY 2028
CIP adoption
3.5 Adopt a UAC practice of classifying every gas CIP item discretionary vs. mandatory Annual UAC +
Staff Each CIP review.
4. Wastewater: Steepest cumulative rate trajectory of any utility (~57% FY27–FY31); Headworks
Replacement doubled to ~$103M, slipped to 2031; $153.8M SRF debt. UAC's
Page 3 of 6
----------
ATTACHMENT B:
Utility Advisory Commission Suggestions for Workplan Objectives
charter covers collection only; treatment sits at the regional RWQCP without dedicated commission
oversight. Emerging PFAS and microplastics regulation is on a clear federal + California trajectory; current
CIP is being designed without baseline data.
# Action Cadence Owner Target
4.1 Recommend that Council convene a formal wastewater governance review (UAC, Public Works, or
dedicated commission) One-time Council During 2026
4.2 Adopt a standing Headworks oversight cadence at UAC Quarterly UAC + Staff Through 2031
completion
4.3 Direct staff to establish a budgeted microplastics + PFAS influent/effluent monitoring program at
RWQCP Annual Staff Annual public reporting
5. Fiber to the Premises: Council approved the program in 2022 and appropriated reserves; the pilot has
slipped from 2024 → 2025 → service launch in/around March 2026 (now). The work for FY 2026–27 is
ensuring staff has the resources and visibility to succeed on both build/operate and marketing, so the pilot
generates the data Phase 1 needs and the program reaches citywide.
# Action Cadence Owner Target
5.1 Adopt a standing FTTP execution scorecard at every UAC meeting with KPIs and thresholds defined in
advance Monthly UAC + Staff Every UAC meeting
5.2 Adopt a standing FTTP marketing scorecard at every UAC meeting with its own KPIs defined in
advance Monthly UAC + Staff Every UAC meeting
### I agree that every UAC meeting should have an agendized action item to keep track of how FTTP is
doing. (Precedent: during the last drought, for more than a year, at every UAC meeting, there was an
agendized item to keep track how the City was doing with water, and what could be done. Karla Dailey did
the presentations.)
Mauter:
Review the performance of the recycled water utility and advise on any modifications to City strategy
around recycled water.
Review the capital improvement plans and operating expenses for the wastewater utility in support of
preparing for future rate increases and identifying potential cost saving measures.
Metz:
1. Gas Utility Long-term business strategy: Develop a comprehensive 10–20-year business plan for the
gas utility that addresses strategic, financial, operational, organizational and resource concerns, and
incorporates external forces including electrification, sustainability, future costs and the revenue stream to
the City of Palo Alto. FY 2027 Success Metrics:
• Completion of a draft strategic plan and submission to City Council
2. Electric Utility business strategy and strategic planning process: Develop a flexible scenario-based
business strategy that incorporates impacts on CPAU of increased and
Page 4 of 6
----------
ATTACHMENT B:
Utility Advisory Commission Suggestions for Workplan Objectives
highly uncertain demand from data centers and other loads, both within CPAU territory and throughout
CAISO: How should CPAU respond? How will it manage and shape future demand to minimize surprises
for the benefit of ratepayers? How will it manage generation and delivery of electricity, and maintain
required reserves? FY 2027 Success Metrics:
• Completion of a draft strategic plan and submission to City Council
• Establishment of process for rapid assessment of future demand impacts, and revision of strategy
and generation / delivery options.
3. Improve UAC operational effectiveness: Improve how UAC operates so that UAC can better advise City
Council. UAC often receives recommendations for action only a few days before meetings on topics that
require much more than 1 week of review and analysis for informed decision-making and effective action.
UAC needs an operational process that anticipates recurring deliverables and provides adequate review
structure and lead time for proper review, assessment, and decision-making. FY 2027 Success Metrics:
• Completion of a plan for improving UAC operation.
• Implementation of the improved process and structure for selected issues, e.g., use of ad hoc
committees for pre-assessment before UAC action.
• Process review and refinement.
4. Emergency preparedness: As agreed in 2025, advance emergency preparedness as part of the
Reliability, Resiliency, and Adaption standing topic. FY 2027 Success Metrics:
• Completion of actions agreed in 2025: o Determination of the “design emergencies” to be used as
the basis for CPAU emergency preparedness.
Establishment of CPAU’s risk assessment framework in coordination with OES.
Determination of CPAU’s roles and specific actions in each such emergency.
Completion of action planning and implementation in coordination with OES.
5. Increase FTTP cash flow: Accelerate cash flow for CPAU’s FTTP program. Under the current pilot
approach, with large expenses and no revenue, FTTP is a cash sink. It would be valuable to find ways to
generate revenue now. Approaches might include increased sales focus to rapidly sign-up customers, or
faster-to-provision “last foot” technology, such as radio, that could be installed and provisioned immediately
to “light up” our network of dark fiber throughout the City.
### I think switching "last foot" technologies at this point would be a very bad idea. There's no plan for
how to do it. Performance would be terrible compared to FTTP. If FTTP remains the final goal, a wireless
interim would be just an additional expense.
### Up to now, staff have insisted that the City's dark fiber networks (both the old existing and new
planned) were off limits for municipal FTTP purposes. Why should they be available for a "last foot"
alternative?
FY 2027 Success Metrics:
• Revenue
• Cash flow improvement.
• Number of new customers signed up.
Page 5 of 6
----------
ATTACHMENT B:
Utility Advisory Commission Suggestions for Workplan Objectives
Phillips:
1. Approve a comprehensive long-term strategy for PA Natural Gas consistent with the Palo Alto SCAP.
2. Achieve a clear go/no go decision on Fiber to the Premises
3. Have a clear strategy for addressing potential demand for data centers within Palo Alto including
guidelines for when attracting data centers should be encouraged.
### If ever.
4. Review Reserve Management Polices and potentially change as needed.
5. Clearly communicate PA concerns regarding SFPUC Water Policies to BAWSCA and the SFPUC.
Tucher:
1. GridMod — In my view, our $450M GridMod project — and the Electric strategy behind it — should be
Goal #1 of UAC. It’s the City’s biggest capex project (with RWQCP), yet the need is not well enough
understood, nor are the benefits. There’s a familiar claim that half the project needs doing regardless, but
that delineation is unclear. Nor is it clear which parts of the grid are most in need of investment. I think
UAC has seen no heatmap showing hotspots and bottlenecks at the substation and feeder level. Time has
passed (2-3yrs) since the GridMod plan was devised, and in that time the cost and availability of grid
components have changed significantly — tariffs, shortages, upward price pressure, etc. Meanwhile, the
cost and viability of distributed resources (DER) like BESS and grid storage (batteries) have changed.
IMO, there’s need for more scrutiny of GridMod and our electric strategy in light of all this — including on
Commercial customers, who represent the bulk of CPAU load, which is something UAC has long asked
for.)
2. Water — Water cost trends, environmental policy (e.g., BayDelta Plan) and Palo Alto's stance toward
SFPUC and regional water planning — these comprise the #2 priority. UAC should make specific
recommendations to Council on topics like:
• What Palo Alto objectives should be vis-a-vis SFPUC and BAWSCA, and how to advance them?
• How to foster region-wide discussion on drought planning and AltWater investment?
3. Gas Abandonment Plan — We should accelerate plans for shutting down gas. If it's a City objective to
transition off gas, then by when? And under what conditions would we proceed? With what carrot/stick
measures? What amount of Gas reserves will we need to subsidize the switchover, and how will that
impact rate increases? Discussions on this topic to date have seemed vague.
4. Fiber — We should be in position to recommend a clear “Go, No go” decision on FFTP by end FY’27.
IMO this will require discussion more candid — about pricing, marketing, take rates, etc. — than Staff has
been willing/able to conduct in public meetings
5. UAC Internal Improvements — I put this at #5 … but IMO it hovers over all UAC priorities. Items to
discuss:
• more use of TACs
• improving staff reports & presentations
Page 6 of 6
----------
ATTACHMENT B:
Utility Advisory Commission Suggestions for Workplan Objectives
• bringing more structure and monthly tracking to Director’s Report
• clarifying the Advisory function to Council
• improving UAC Minutes — more concise, more automated, better highlighting of follow-up items
Page 7 of 6
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Don"t delay SB 79!
Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2026 12:20:52 PM
From: James Suh <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:51 AM
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.
James Suh
jamesysuh@gmail.com
Palo Alto, California 94306
From:Trevino, Olivia
To:teachout@sonic.net
Cc:Council, City; Grand, Linda
Subject:RE: Include Water Consumption comparisons in utility bills
Date:Tuesday, June 2, 2026 7:48:58 AM
Attachments:image009.png
image010.png
Hello,
Thank you for your comments and for sharing your suggestion regarding water-use
comparisons. We appreciate your commitment to water conservation and the efforts
your household makes to use water efficiently.
The City currently provides personalized water-use comparison information through our
WaterSmart Home Water Reports program. WaterSmart is designed to help customers
better understand their water use and how it compares with that of similar households
in the community.
For single-family residential customers, WaterSmart Home Water Reports are sent
monthly via email and include a "WaterScore" that compares a customer's water use to
that of households with similar characteristics, including occupancy and yard size.
Customers can see how their water use compares with both the average household and
the most efficient household in their comparison group. An example of this comparison
is shown below.
In addition to household comparisons, WaterSmart provides historical water-use
trends, leak notifications, and personalized recommendations to help customers
identify opportunities to save water and improve efficiency.
While the monthly emailed reports are currently available only to single-family
residential customers, all water customers can access their water-use information
through the WaterSmart online portal. Customers with a MyCPAU account can access
WaterSmart with their existing MyCPAU login credentials via a single sign-on, making it
easy to view water-use data and other conservation tools in one place.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and your ongoing commitment to water
conservation.
Sincerely,
Olivia Trevino (she/her)
Assoc. Sustainability Programs Administrator
City of Palo Alto - Utilities Program Services
(650) 329-2658 Olivia.trevino@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Star Teachout <teachout@sonic.net>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 2:54 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Grand, Linda <Linda.Grand@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Include Water Consumption comparisons in utility bills
Hello council members,
I’m am commenting on item 13 for the June 8 city council meeting: • PUBLIC HEARING:
Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and a Resolution
Adopting the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. CEQA Status: Exempt under
Water Code Sec. 10652.
The City carries out various seasonal and general water conservation campaigns
via the use of print and digital advertisements, utility bill inserts, social media,
email newsletters, and dynamic content such as through videos. Palo Alto also
regularly updates the City’s website on water conservation programs and public
workshops
Our family operates as much as possible as if we were in a drought. We collect our
shower water and use it to flush our toilets because it is not that inconvenient. We
probably are in the lowest consumption category, and are motivated to do this so we can
divert our water to our redwood and fruit trees. I understand that some people can’t be
bothered and would rather just pay more for their water usage, but I do think more
people would reduce their water consumption if given better information. Comparisons
are very helpful in changing habits. With many people using autopay/online for water
bills, people often have no idea how many gallons they are using, and have no idea how
their consumption compares to others. The bill is simply paid.
Here is a prior suggestion which may be more relevant with the current water supply
issues we face:
To the utility bill, include examples:
- The avg 2-person household* in Palo Alto used __ gals this month.
- The avg 4-person household in Palo Alto used __ gals this month.
- The avg 2-person household in your neighborhood used __ gals this month. **
- The avg 4-person household in your neighborhood used __ gals this month.
*It would be great to separate out apartment/townhouse dwellers from those in single
family homes but not sure that information is available.
** Neighborhood could be defined as some radial distance, or by zip code.
Regards,
Star Teachout
Barron Park
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr; Fukuji, Bruce
Subject:Item 16
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:31:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
The number one complaint of merchants is “improvements are taking too long.”
Sometimes you all are one the ball, focused and informed. But with Cal Ave? What the heck? That was one of the
most disconnected, rubber hitting the sky council discussions I’ve ever been subjected to. Seems like phase 1 is
going to move forward, but wow. That was bad.
From:dgoldeen@icloud.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 16, Emergency Access
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 10:26:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
What causes most injuries/need for emergency services? CARS. The fact that Cal Ave is closed to cars is in and of
itself vastly reduces the need for emergency access.
When Evergreen Park barricades were being implemented, the biggest objection was emergency services access.
But since the neighborhood has gotten the barricades, both crime and injuries from collisions went way DOWN.
From:dgoldeen@icloud.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 16 - paving
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 9:32:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Taking out the pavement markings that are there is a BIG part of improving the aesthetics for the street. This is what
has been determined as very important.
From:Deborah Goldeen
To:Council, City
Subject:Item #16 (Phase 1, Cal Ave)
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 9:20:24 PM
Pat Burt is DEAD WRONG!!! And Julie, NO, Pat Burt does NOT understand biking on Cal Ave.
CAMBRIDGE is NOT an alternative. The Cal Ave car and TRUCK DELIVERY traffic is now on CAMBRIDGE.
It’s nuts to suggest it can be made safe for bikes. I put 7,000 miles a year on a bike as transportation. I know what
I’m talking about.
You CAN address E-bike issues. AND you how do you know the plan that has been developed for Phase two is
implemented?
GRRRRRRRRRR!
Deborah Goldeen - 94304
From:Greg Hood
To:Council, City
Cc:Sproat, Derek; Jon Goldman; Albert Mendoza
Subject:Re: Grate at 2741 Middlefield
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 8:16:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council
FROM: Greg Hood
ON BEHALF OF: North Laurelwood, LLC
DATE: June 1, 2026
SUBJECT: Recognition of Swift Action and Public Safety Support at 2741 Middlefield
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I hoped to share the following in person as I feel it is that important.
On behalf of the property ownership and our management team, I am writing to
express our sincere appreciation for the outstanding service recently provided by the
city's Public Works / Urban Forestry Section, and specifically Derek Sproat.
As property managers in Palo Alto, maintaining safe infrastructure and mitigating risks
for our community are our highest priorities. Our commercial property at 2741
Middlefield proudly houses three busy, kid-centric businesses: Allcares, Wushu
Central, and Young Builders. With heavy daily foot traffic from young families and
parents a broken tree grate posed a significant tripping risk for all.
When we brought this to the city’s attention, the response was exemplary. The
Forestry team acted immediately supplying and installing a new cast-iron tree grate,
which eliminated the danger.
When municipal responsiveness is so critical, this team's swift action demonstrated a
true commitment to public safety and care for our community. The replacement took
less than a day. They went above and beyond to protect the youngest members of
our Palo Alto community.
When criticism is too common, we wanted to bring this positive experience to your
attention to ensure the department and its leadership receive the recognition they
deserve for keeping our neighborhood sidewalks safe, protecting all.
Thank you for your continued leadership and support of our local business
community.
Sincerely,
Greg Hood and the team at Premier
539 ALMA ST PALO ALTO, CA 94301
DIRECT: 650 / 618-3020
MAIN: 650 / 618-3000
FAX: 650 / 618-3009
From:Leland WiesnerTo:Council, City; michael@labodeguita.com; calavecompromise@gmail.com
Subject:Support for Michael & Lara Ekwall Request to Reopen Calif Ave after 6 years of trying but never finishing
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 6:47:48 PM
Attachments:letter - Cal Ave Re Eval 2026.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members:
I am writing in support of Michael and Lara Ekwall's letter requesting reopening Calif Ave after 6 or 7 (I am losing count) years of closure of Calif Ave with no
positive fiscal or community results.
With flagging economics in Palo Alto amidst one the biggest supercycle growth periods in Silicon Valley, I would think that by now Council would realize they are
doing something wrong. I have personally seen the boom in AI save almost the entirety of San Francisco and many cities up and down the southern corridor yet Palo
Alto, the epicenter of almost every technology trend for the past 100 years, is unable to funnel this deluge of money and opportunity into meaningful tax revenue and
instead is suffering a shortfall. Perhaps the problem is not with Palo Alto but the people at the top who want to make Palo Alto into some type of European haven for
restaurants and entertainment instead of the envious tech mecca that it has fought hard to become.
Indeed, Council has had 6-7 years of toiling, millions of dollars of consultants along the way and hundreds of hours of community meetings but the only thing
California Ave has a few potted plants, red safety cones, circus tents and signs urging people to walk their bikes that they summarily ignore. Of course, it is hard to
argue that there has been no return on the investment made by Palo Alto as the city has promised the world but spent almost nothing.
And on the issue of making Palo Alto more European, I would like to note upon my recent trip to the beautiful and ancient City of Como near Lake Como, Italy, the
cars and people mingle together as it is all good for business (see attached photo of Como with cars and dining side by side). No one business in Como suffers at the
expense of others due to road closures as people roam while cars, scooters and bicycles all weave carefully around each other. Streets may open and close
temporarily depending on the events (ie like a farmers market) however nothing is permanently closed. And despite Como's 2200 year old age, they have been able
to adapt ancient cobblestone streets to work with cars, bicycles, people and even ebikes and create a vibrant economy (at least by European/Italian standards).
If a 2200 year old city in Italy can figure this out, why can't our City Council? Do we need 2200 years or is 6 years enough?
Please open the streets and stop messing around with something that was never broken in the first place.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Leland
--
Leland Wiesneremail: leland@esqprop.comEsquire Properties366 Cambridge Ave.Palo Alto, CA. 94306 650-248-1144 c/t 858-754-9708 c/t San Diego DRE 00954319
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Jeff Hoel
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City
Subject:COMMENTS -- Item 2 -- 06-03-26 UAC Meeting -- Partnering Norms
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 6:26:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks.
Commissioners,
I'd like to COMMENT on Item 2 of your 06-03-26 meeting.
06-03-26 UAC meeting agenda:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19038
I do not have URLs for either the staff report or the appendix. I have provided the texts below, to which I have added my comments (paragraphs in red beginning
with "### ").
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
Item 2 staff report:
Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report
From: Alan Kurotori, Director Utilities
Lead Department: City Manager’s Office
Meeting Date: June 3, 2026
Report #: 2604-6224
TITLE
Special Presentation and Discussion on partnering norms between staff and Commissioners for maximum effectiveness. CEQA – Not a Project
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss partnering norms between staff and Commissioners for maximum effectiveness.
BACKGROUND
On a citywide basis, the Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCC) Handbook [1] provides comprehensive guidance for the operation of the City’s BCCs.
City departments that provide staff to BCCs periodically discuss opportunities to enhance effectiveness in providing support to the work and BCCs, and one
recently identified area for exploration is establishment of norms for interactions between BCCs and staff.
In addition to addressing issues of importance to the Palo Alto community, the City’s Boards and Commissions provide an important role in staff development as
well as potentially in the development of community volunteers. As such it is important that the City provide all participants an environment that is welcoming and
conducive to professional and personal development, while also effectively and efficiently conducting the work entrusted to each body.
On an ongoing basis, staff work with individual commissioners on concerns with staff interactions as they arise. This report and discussion represent an effort to
proactively address issues before they become concerns, for the benefit of all. Staff hope to discuss this topic citywide, with all BCCs. This was discussed the
Human Relations Commission on October 16, and Parks and Recreation Commission on December 16, 2025.
[1] City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/cityclerk/board-and-commission-handbook.pdf
### The above URL did not work. But I found:
May 2025: "City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook."
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/5/city-clerk/bcc-handbook.pdf
Item No. 2 Page 1 of 2
ANALYSIS
Recognizing the broad range of topic areas and procedures involved with the City’s advisory bodies, staff is not recommending that each Commission adopt of a
uniform set of norms. At the same time, in order to provide a starting point for each discussion, staff has developed an initial draft of topic areas for discussion.
This initial draft is provided in Attachment A. This draft is simply provided as a starting point, with the expectation that Commissioners may have differing views
on the topic areas as well as additional topic areas to suggest. The points provided should serve as a reference point if/when issues arise in the future.
Depending on the Commission’s interest level, next steps could vary. This could simply be a one-time discussion, not requiring any follow-up. Otherwise, it could
be included as a topic for further discussion at a future Commission meeting. Additional follow-up may also be suggested. In any case, staff appreciate the
opportunity to discuss this important issue with the Commission.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
No resource impact is anticipated from this report and associated discussion.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Partnering Norms for Commission / Staff Effectiveness DRAFT
AUTHOR/TITLE:
Ed Shikada, City Manager
Item No. 2 Page 2 of 2
Attachment A:
### This file is apparently just a photo image. It did not allow itself to be cut-and-pasted. or browser searched. So I retyped it.
### The phrase "Preliminary for Discussion" is written diagonally across the whole (one-page) document.
Partnering Norms for Commission/Staff Effectiveness*
### What does the asterisk mean?
City staff values our relationships with Board/Commission/Committee (BCC) members, and effective collaboration between BCC members and staff is integral to
providing quality services to the Palo Alto community. This sheet highlights a few key points that can help guide our work together.
1. Understand the Commission's Scope --
Follow the Commission's enabling Ordinance or Resolution. If new topics of interest arise within the scope of the Commission, the Commission or staff
should request Council/staff review (primarily through the Commission's annual workplan) before assuming an expanded role.
### I think it's a bad idea to require that UAC ask Council for a change of scope only once a year, in the annual workplan.
2. Be Clear on the Commission's Advisory Role --
Most Commissions make recommendations to the City Council
### Yes. When an item is an action item, UAC can vote its recommendation to Council. And when an item is a discussion item, they cannot.
or staff,
### When an item is an action item, UAC can vote to recommend that Council compel staff to do something. And when an item is a discussion item, they
cannot.
not standalone decisions. City staff implement policy and manage operations, with input from the Commission as a body (rather than individual
commissioners).
### Does input from the Commission as a body require that the item be agendized as an action item?
Commissions do not direct staff nor oversee City functions and resources.
3. Support Professional and Respectful Conduct and Communication --
Commissioners should maintain unbiased civility and professionalism at all times,
### What does "unbiased" mean in this context?
with staff as well as with fellow commissioners. Disagreements are fine; disrespect is not.
4. Respect Everyone's Time --
Staff should provide clear and concise reports and presentations to Commission,
### Staff reports and presentations should be long enough to give UAC the information they need to make its recommendations to Council.
and manage agendas to make effective use of Commissioners' time. Commissioners and staff should be aligned on requests for information or follow-up,
understanding that staff may have competing priorities.
5. Engagement through Staff Presentations --
Recognizing the structure nature of public meetings and to avoid the potential awkwardness of interruptions, staff presentations should provide a brief
overview of the topic and key issues on which Commission action is sought, then inviting questions for more detail. Commissioners should hold questions
until completion of presentations.
### I don't agree with this as a hard-and-fast rule.
During subsequent discussions, all will respect others' ability to express their thoughts without interruption.
6. Maintain Transparency and Legal Compliance --
All should follow the Brown Act
### Yes. Furthermore, they shouldn't complain about having to follow the Brown Act.
as well as complete all required training and disclosures.
### Yes. Per the BCC Handbook. (Not just about the Brown Act.)
7. Provide Feedback on Staff Work Privately --
Feedback is important to staff development, and Commission meetings can have either a positive or negative effect on staff attraction and retention.
Concerns with staff work or performance should only be shared privately with the staff liaison, department director, or the City Manager. Commissioners
do not supervise or evaluate staff performance.
### I hope this means that commissioners can complain in public about deficiencies in staff reports, presentations, the status of projects, etc. But they
should not attribute those deficiencies to specific staff individuals.
8. Uphold the City's Values and Public Trust --
Commissions serve as a bridge between the community and the City and help to uphold the City's mission, vision, and values in all communications and
interactions between Commissioners, with the public, and with staff.
===========================================================================================================================
From:Steve Tjiang
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 5:31:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
My name is Steven Tjiang and I live in Evergreen Park Neighborhood. 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.
Since my neighborhood is near the California Avenue area, I look forward to the vibrancy that
building more housing there will create. More housing will provide the foot traffic to support
local businesses. It location near the caltrain station will help to mitigate traffic issues. It will
become an attractive area for commuters and businesses alike.
re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, please plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year, instead of 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 in supporting homes for all in our community,
Stee Tjiang
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:Todd Burke
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting the outdoor dining on California Avenue
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 5:23:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a longtime Palo Alto resident and frequent visitor to California Avenue to express my
strong support for the proposed Outdoor Dining Activation Guidelines.
I spend a great deal of time on California Avenue. I meet friends for dinner, grab coffee, work from local
cafes, and attend community events. What makes California Avenue special is not just the businesses
themselves, but the experience of being there. The outdoor dining environment has transformed the
street from a place people drive through into a place where people want to linger, connect, and spend
time.
The proposed guidelines are an important next step. The temporary outdoor dining structures served their
purpose, but permanent standards will create a more attractive, cohesive, and welcoming environment.
They will give businesses the confidence to invest in higher-quality outdoor spaces while ensuring that
the street remains safe, accessible, and visually appealing for everyone.
As someone who regularly chooses California Avenue over other dining districts throughout the
Peninsula, I believe these improvements will strengthen what already makes the area unique. Great
outdoor dining creates energy. Energy attracts people. And people create the sense of community that
makes California Avenue one of Palo Alto's most enjoyable destinations.
California Avenue has become one of the few places in the city where you can truly feel the vibrancy of
urban life while still enjoying the character of a neighborhood business district. These guidelines will help
preserve and enhance that experience for years to come.
I encourage the Council to adopt the Outdoor Dining Activation Guidelines and continue investing in a
thriving, people-focused California Avenue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Todd Burke
Palo Alto Resident
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Cc:LAFCO
Subject:Supplemental Information No. 1 - LAFCO Meeting on June 3, 2026
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 4:41:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The following supplemental information has been added to the June 3rd LAFCO Meeting Agenda:
Supplemental Information No. 1 Agenda Item # 5 - Public Comments Received on Santa
Clara County Central Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence Amendment /
Annexation 2026.
The agenda and related materials, including the above supplemental information, can be viewed
online at: 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
You've never replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
From:Leela Hebbar
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 4:35:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi,
I am a longtime resident of the Ventura Ave neighborhood. I support efforts to promote more
homes, multi-family housing, and protect tenants. Please prioritize the below two actions to
make Palo Alto affordable for more families and support more information about the
rental market.
1. To help Palo Alto have more affordable housing options near public transit, 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.
2. 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.
I care a lot about these issues for three main reasons. 1. We live in a rental unit. 2. My family
is middle income (I.e we currently earn less than 210k) and would like to purchase a
townhome or apartment in the city where I raise my kids. 3. I believe that communities are
culturally richer when they are of mixed income because people are exposed to neighbors in
all walks of life, not just people like themselves.
Thank you for your leadership to support home ownership for all in our community,
Leela Hebbar
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Ann Balin
To:Council, City
Subject:Paseo design for Cal Ave
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 4:23:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Council Members,
I am writing first to thank you for your vote regarding the closure of Churchill.
I know that was the right decision.
As a former Cal Ave Observer for CTRA and Palo Alto native I attended meetings with the consultant Bruce Fujiki
where he presented excellent examples of pedestrian paseos including Pearl Street in Boulder and State Street in
Santa Barbara. These successful paseos impressed neighbors, merchants and restauranteurs in attendance. Later the
design changed because of pressure from the bike lobby and a bike enthusiast on council to create a bike commuter
corridor for Stanford Research Park where the original concept was then ditched. Now the consultant is a city staff
member.
Many in town supported a calm pedestrian-friendly avenue especially with all of the future development pressing in
the pipeline’s queue including Builder’s Remedy. Residents want to walk, dine, shop and hang out on the avenue
without having to be in reaction mode as bikes blow through. Parents have to be on alert to snatch up a child. Adults
have to also be careful when crossing California Avenue as the cyclists ride fast.
So many residents and others want to enjoy the Cal Ave destination and appreciate this oasis away from the revved
pace of Silicon Valley. With bikes zooming through the avenue that ambiance is gone. The kinetic pace is ramped
up because of this commuter-cyclist highway.
Why did the city ABANDON the orginal pedestrian paseo concept?
The city needs to reset this decision permitting bikes along California Avenue. Cyclists can use other avenues to get
to Park Boulevard.
Please stand with residents and send this back for a truly pedestrian-centric design as was originally intended — a
paseo. When the bike lobby tells you that pedestrians can stick to the sidewalks who are they kidding?
Respectfully,
Ann Lafargue Balin
From:Jensen, Crystal
To:UTL-Customer Service; UTL-Customer Service; Guerra, Emily; Council, City; City Attorney; City Mgr
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Park, Richard
Subject:RE: URGENT: 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional Debit/Extra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 4:14:48 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
Hi all,
We will respond to this customer today.
Thank you,
Crystal
From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 8:14 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; Guerra, Emily
<Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov>; City Mgr
<CityMgr@paloalto.gov>
Cc: Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>
Subject: URGENT: 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional Debit/Extra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks.
This dispute is still not resolved.Today I received a 48-hour disconnection notice at my door demanding payment of $675.25 by 4:30 PM on 06/03/2026n (see attached screenshots). This directly conflicts with your written statement that my account has been placed on hold, that no additional late fees w
i
This message needs your attention
Some Recipients have never replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
CGBANNERINDICATOR
This dispute is still not resolved.
Today I received a 48-hour disconnection notice at my door demanding payment of $675.25 by 4:30 PM on 06/03/2026n (see
attached screenshots). This directly conflicts with your written statement that my account has been placed on hold, that no
additional late fees will be assessed, and that service will not be subject to disconnection for non-payment of the back charges while
this matter remains under review.
We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill. The disputed back-billing amount remains under review. Please confirm in writing
today that:
1. the 48-hour disconnection notice is rescinded and void,
2. the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this dispute remains unresolved,
3. no disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity will occur based on the disputed back charges, and
4. the $675.25 amount on the notice is itemized, including what portion is current undisputed charges and what portion relates to
the disputed back-billing amount.
CPAU Rule 9 states that utility service will not be disconnected for non-payment of a disputed bill during investigation or review by
CPAU, and that the non-disputed portion remains due and payable. That is exactly what we are doing. CPAU also previously stated in
writing that this account was on hold during the escalation process.
If this 48-hour notice was generated in error, please say so clearly in writing today and confirm that the account has been coded to
prevent disconnection while the dispute remains under review.
For the record, this dispute is not resolved, and we expect immediate written confirmation.
Powered by Mimecast
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Sunday, May 31, 2026 at 09:18:30 AM PDT, Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thank you for your email and partially answered questions. It still does not resolve this dispute.
You missed to respond to a couple of our questions, so we will ask again.
1. You mentioned the backcharging defined in rules and regulation but you failed to answer why the amount you are back charging us
exceeds the 500$ limit stated in the rules and regulations? Rules and regulation 11.1 “…Where a Customer has been undercharged or
overcharged for metered Service, the date and cause of which can be reliably established by CPAU, the retroactive billing adjustment
(back bill or refund shall not exceed three years. The maximum bill adjustment for undercharges shall be $500 per Account, per
incident”
2. Why does your bill not comply with California law, PCU 394.4.(e)? On a side note, our legal counsel advised us that as long as your
bill does not comply with California law, it is not enforceable and will not hold up in court.
3. Why were we never informed about the broken meter? We only found out when you put a “Misc debit $509.80” charge on the April
2026 bill and we had to contact support to find out what that means. On a side note, that is a very unfriendly practice towards your
customers. Your rules and regulations also defines in 11.1 that the customer shall be notified of the reason of the over or undercharge
with the date and cause!
4. Why did you give us contradicting information about the timeline when the meter was broken? We have one email that states it was
broken before we moved in and another that says you only encountered the broken meter in February. Please confirm that to your best
knowledge the meter was in working condition for the last tenant until they moved out and as unbelievable at it sounds must have
broken just when we moved in!
5. Why did you charge us 18$ something a month for admin for nine months, when you clearly did not admin or maintain the meter or
checking on the bill?
If any of our questions are not clear or you do not understand them please let us know. Just ignoring to answer is not acceptable.
For the record, we do not consider this dispute resolved, and we expect a complete written response.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 04:58:00 PM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Darya,
We apologize for the delay in responding to the questions outlined in your email. Below is a detailed response addressing each item.
1. Due to the adjustment period spanning approximately eight months and limitations within our billing system, we are unable to
generate one corrected billing statement that reflects actual monthly meter reads. Any revised statement produced by the
system would display estimated monthly reads and the associated therm usage only. In addition, our standard monthly
statements do not include the rate change information requested. As a result, a corrected statement would not provide the
level of detail you requested.
2. In place of a revised detailed billing statement, we prepared a spreadsheet outlining the monthly quantities and applicable
rates used in our calculations. Our billing structure includes two usage tiers that apply across both winter and summer rate
periods, and the spreadsheet identifies the allowance applicable to each tier. This document is attached for your review.
3. A service notification was created by me on February 18, 2026 (Service Notification #30446449). During the subsequent field
investigation, our technician, Johnny Mulato, determined that the meter was not registering properly and was stuck. Based on
this finding, the affected billing period was identified as May 2025 through February 2026.
4. As part of my role as a Billing Specialist, I review meter reads flagged by our billing system as exceptions. An exception occurs
when a meter read falls outside the expected usage parameters established from the historical usage profile associated with the
meter. Identical or unusually low reads over multiple billing periods may result from several factors, including periods of non-usage,
seasonal consumption patterns, weather-related changes, or meter malfunction.
In February 2026, the meter was replaced as part of the City’s transition to AMI meters, which allow for remote reading capability.
During the replacement process, the technician conducted a meter test to confirm proper operation and determined that the
existing meter was stuck. The Billing Office was then notified so that an estimate of unrecorded historical usage could be completed.
With respect to your account specifically, because you are a newer tenant, we did not have sufficient usage history tied to your
occupancy period to perform a customer-specific historical comparison. Consistent with our established procedures and governing
regulations, the estimate was therefore calculated using available historical consumption data from 2024. While we recognize that
gas usage can vary significantly depending on household occupancy, appliance configuration, and individual usage habits, the
estimate was calculated in accordance with the guidelines currently in place.
That said, we are willing to review your most recent 12-month usage history to determine whether any additional adjustment to the
current charges may be appropriate.
5. Utility Rules and Regulations – Rule 11 provides the following: CPAU may bill the Customer for the undercharge based on an
average bill. The bill will be computed based on an estimate of the Customer’s consumption during a prior month in the same
season or on the consumption in the same period of the prior three years.”
Please also refer to Attachment A: Rule and Regulation 11 (Billing, Adjustments and Payment of Bills) Attachment A: Rule and
Regulation 11 (Billing, Adjustments and Payment of Bills) UPDATED and CLEAN
Additionally, your account has been placed on hold during this escalation process. No additional late fees will be assessed, and
service will not be subject to disconnection for non-payment of the back charges while this matter remains under review.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Emily Guerra
Customer Service Specialist
Utilities Customer Service
650-329-2161 Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:32 AM
To: Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer
Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov>; Guerra, Emily <Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed
<Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you for your email. It still does not resolve this dispute.
Your responses to date have not been helpful because they continue to leave key questions unanswered. Referring us repeatedly to management by phone instead of providing
written answers and documentation is not an adequate response.
At this point, our concern is not simply about clarification. We are questioning the validity and enforceability of this charge. CPAU has still not provided a valid corrected bill
showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to our account, the rates applied, and how the total amount was calculated. “Misc debit $509.80” is not a sufficient
corrected bill for purposes of resolving this dispute.
Your latest email also introduces yet another explanation of the defect period. Earlier communications stated that 2024 historical usage was used and that the meter was
considered stuck over a broader period, while your latest email now states that the meter was determined to have been stuck specifically from our move-in date of May 30,
2025 through February 19, 2026. CPAU still has not explained how that defect period was determined, why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation,
or why we were never informed of the meter problem at the time. These shifting explanations do not resolve the dispute. And it would be an almost unbelievable coincident
that the meter just broke when we moved in.
CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules
state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. We paid those monthly service charges throughout our tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect meter-
related service charges each month, fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to us through retroactive estimated
billing.
CPAU has also failed to answer our written questions regarding the legal basis for this charge, including how the amount exceeds the $500 maximum undercharge adjustment
stated in Rule 11. Stating that management has decided the back bill will stand is not a substitute for providing the bill, records, and legal basis we have repeatedly requested.
We do wonder why the bill you sent us does not comply with PCU 394.4.(e) standards for consumer issued bills and why you do not follow your own “Rules and
Regulations”, so please refer to the exact laws that make a charge “Misc debit $509.80”, without any possibility for us to recalculate the amount, a valid charge.
We do not consider this dispute resolved. We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill only. Any attempt to enforce collection of the disputed amount without first
providing a valid corrected bill and the requested written documentation will be treated as an improper collection effort.
Please provide, in writing:
1. A valid corrected bill showing the gas quantity attributed to each billing period and the rates applied
2. The worksheet or spreadsheet supporting that calculation
3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced
4. A written explanation of how CPAU determined the defect period and why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation
5. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on for this charge
Please also confirm in writing that the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this dispute remains unresolved and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees,
penalties, or collection activity.
If CPAU continues to pursue collection without providing the requested written response and supporting documentation, we escalate this matter to the appropriate City
officials and we will preserve all available legal remedies.
For the record, we do not consider this dispute resolved, and we expect a complete written response.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 11:03:04 AM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Hello Darya,
I called and left a message and am following up with an email.
During the process of upgrading our meters with AMI technology, we identified that some meters in the field were not recording
usage properly. As part of this initiative, we worked with our gas shop to locate and physically inspect meters that showed signs of
abnormal or no usage to determine whether they were stuck or malfunctioning. Through this review, we confirmed several meters
were indeed stuck, which required us to address the associated back-billing accordingly.
I do understand your concern regarding usage from 2024, which would not apply to your account, as you moved in on May 30, 2025. I
reviewed this situation with my manager, Crystal Jensen, who advised that the current back bill would stand. However, after a full
year of actual meter usage has been collected, we will be able to reassess the account and make any necessary adjustments at that
time.
For your specific account, the meter was determined to have been stuck from your move-in date May 30, 2025 through the date of
inspection and meter exchange on February 19, 2026.
I have also copied my manager and Specialist Emily, who processed the calculation, should you require any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Lorraina Alvarez
Customer Service Specialist Lead
Utilities Customer Service
(650) 329-2161 | lorraina.alvarez@PaloAlto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 8:47 AM
To: Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer
Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for your response. It still does not resolve my dispute.
Your latest message states that when the meter replacement was reported in February 2026, CPAU then reviewed the prior readings and found that the meter had been
showing the same reading around the time my tenancy at this address began. However, CPAU still has not answered my key questions or provided a valid corrected bill.
I am requesting a written response, not just a referral to management by phone. Please provide:
1. A legit corrected bill showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to my account, the rates applied, and how the total amount of $509.80 was calculated
2. The worksheet or spreadsheet supporting that calculation
3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced
4. A written explanation of how CPAU determined the defect period and why repeated unchanged readings did not trigger earlier investigation
5. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on for this charge
CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules
state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. I was paying those monthly service charges throughout my tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect
meter-related service charges each month, fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to me through retroactive
estimated billing.
At this time, “Misc debit $509.80” is not a valid corrected bill for purposes of resolving this dispute.
This charge remains disputed. We are paying the undisputed portion of the bill. Please confirm in writing that the disputed amount will remain on hold for as long as this
dispute remains unresolved and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity while I await and review the requested documents.
If CPAU cannot provide a valid corrected bill and the supporting records and legal basis for this charge, then the disputed back-billing amount should be withdrawn from the
account.
Regards,
Darya taheri
On Monday, May 4, 2026 at 11:18:33 AM PDT, Park, Richard <richard.park@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Hi Darya,
Thanks for your patience in this matter. When our meter reader reported that the gas meter needed to be replaced back in February
2026, that’s when it triggered us to review your past meter readings. We found that it was reporting the same meter reading
(Read:130) around the time that your started utility services.
Regarding your other inquiries and requests, you will need to speak with management for further assistance. Please give us a call at
650-326-2161 and ask for Crystal. An extension has been placed on your current invoice with a new due date of 5/31/26.
Thank you,
RICHARD PARK
Customer Service Representative
Customer Services Utilities
(650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Darya T <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 9:44 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for your response. It does not resolve my dispute. At this stage, I am requesting the records, calculations, and legal
authority necessary to evaluate CPAU’s position, because your explanations to date remain incomplete and not fully reconciled.
Your prior adjustment document states that the meter was stuck from March 2025 through February 2026, that back-billing was
made effective starting June 2025, and that 2024 historical usage was used to calculate the charge. Your latest response states that
the issue was identified only in early 2026 and that the meter was replaced on February 25, 2026. Please explain how CPAU
determined that the meter had been stuck since March 2025 if the issue was not identified until early 2026, and why repeated
unchanged readings over many months did not trigger earlier investigation.
Please also provide a legit corrected bill showing, by billing period, the quantity of gas attributed to my account, the rates applied,
and how the total amount was calculated.
CPAU’s own rate schedule states that the monthly gas service charge covers customer service, account management, meter
reading, and meter equipment, and CPAU’s rules state that CPAU owns and maintains the gas meter. I was paying those monthly
service charges throughout my tenancy. It is therefore unreasonable for CPAU to collect meter-related service charges each month,
fail to timely detect or correct the meter problem, and then shift the full consequence of that failure to me through retroactive
estimated billing.
In addition, please explain why prior historical usage from the service address was considered a reasonable estimate for my
tenancy, given that I was a new tenant and may have had different occupancy and usage patterns than any prior occupant.
Please also explain how the total charge of $509.80 complies with Rule 11’s maximum undercharge adjustment of $500 per account
per incident, including whether CPAU contends that the Utility Users Tax is outside that cap and the legal basis for that position.
Please provide, in writing:
1. The legit corrected bill showing the gas quantity attributed to each billing period and the rates applied
2. The full worksheet or spreadsheet used to calculate the charge
3. The records showing when the meter problem was first identified, investigated, and repaired or replaced
4. The specific rule, regulation, or code sections CPAU relies on
5. A detailed explanation of why prior historical usage from the service address was considered a reasonable estimate for my
tenancy
This charge remains disputed. Pending receipt and review of the requested materials, please confirm that the disputed amount will
remain on hold and will not be subject to disconnection, late fees, penalties, or collection activity.
Best regards,
Darya
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 28, 2026, at 14:26, UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Dear Ms. Taheri,
Thank you for your letter regarding the gas back-billing charge on your account. We appreciate you bringing your
concerns to our attention and the opportunity to respond.
Below are responses to the items you requested:
1. Records regarding identification and repair of the meter
Our records indicate that the gas meter serving your residence was identified as not registering usage accurately during a
routine review in early 2026. A field investigation was subsequently conducted, and the meter was repaired/replaced
shortly thereafter. Please see service record below:
2. Notification and timing of billing correction
We understand your concern regarding the timing of notification. In this case, the issue was not confirmed as a stuck or
non-registering meter until the field investigation was completed. As a result, corrected billing was not issued until after
the condition was verified and sufficient data was available to calculate usage. We acknowledge that earlier
communication would have been preferable and are reviewing this matter internally.
3. Use of historical usage for billing calculation
Because the meter was not accurately recording consumption during the affected period, it was necessary to estimate
usage. This estimate was based on available historical consumption data for the service address, which may include
prior periods, to approximate typical usage patterns in accordance with standard utility billing practices. 2024 historical
consumption was used for the calculation as it was the lesser consumption of the prior three years.
4. Legal and regulatory basis for back-billing
Utility billing adjustments of this nature are governed by applicable municipal code and utility regulations, which allow
for the correction of under-billed accounts when metering inaccuracies are discovered. These provisions permit utilities
to recover charges for unbilled service within a defined timeframe, even if the issue is identified after the fact. We can
provide the specific code references upon request.
Thank you,
RICHARD PARK
Customer Service Representative
Customer Services Utilities
(650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 9:35 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Dehlinger, Michael <Michael.Dehlinger@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Re: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Richard,
I am formally disputing the gas back-billing charge of $509.80 on my account 30131069.
Your adjustment document states that the gas meter was stuck from March 2025 through February 2026, and that back-billing was made effective starting June
2025. We moved in on May 31, 2025.
If City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) knew, or had reason to know, that the meter was stuck in June 2025, then I should have been notified promptly, the meter
should have been repaired promptly, and billing should have been corrected at that time. Instead, no clear notice or explanation was provided, and the charge
was not imposed until April 2026.
The right to back-bill does not justify delayed maintenance, delayed repair of a known stuck meter, or failure to communicate with the customer. CPAU owns
and maintains the gas meter, and any failure to timely repair, notify, or bill correctly should not be shifted to me retroactively.
I also dispute the use of 2024 historical usage as the basis for calculating my bill. My account should not be charged based on estimated usage from a prior
period or prior occupant pattern rather than my actual metered consumption.
Please provide in writing:
1. Records showing when CPAU first identified the stuck meter and when it was repaired or replaced
2. An explanation of why I was not notified promptly and billed correctly once the issue was known
3. An explanation of why 2024 historical usage was used to calculate charges for my account
4. The legal and regulatory basis for applying this back-billing despite delayed notice and delayed correction
Until this dispute is resolved, please place the charge on hold and apply no late fees, penalties, or collection activity.
Given the delayed notice, the apparent failure to timely address the stuck meter, and the use of prior historical usage rather than actual consumption, I request
that this back-billing charge be removed from my account.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Monday, April 13, 2026 at 03:15:30 PM PDT, UTL-Customer Service <utilitiescustomerservice@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Hi Darya,
Thank you for your message. We’ve attached the details of the back billing adjustment made on your gas meter due to
the register being stuck. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
RICHARD PARK
Customer Service Representative
Customer Services Utilities
(650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Darya T <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 9:35 AM
To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>
Subject: disputing the additional debit/extra charges on recent bill on April 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Utilities,
I am disputing the additional debit/extra charges under misc charge
(Debit) recently added to my utility bill for Account Number: 30131069
Due Date: April 8.
I was told these charges relate to a broken gas meter, but I have not been
given any clear written explanation or documentation showing how you
calculated an amount of over $500. My interaction with customer support
was also not helpful, and no proper information was provided.
Please provide in writing:
1-A full breakdown of the amount charged
2-The exact billing period covered
3-The method used to calculate this amount
4-Evidence that the meter was faulty, including any inspection, repair, or
replacement records
5-Copies of any prior notices or communications sent to me about this
issue
6-The legal or contractual basis for charging this amount retrospectively.
Until this is properly explained, I request that the disputed amount be
placed on hold and that no late fees or collection action be taken.
I am keeping a written record of this dispute and all related
communications.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
Email: darya.taheri@gmail.com
Phone: 650-799-9657
Sent from my iPhone
From:James Lloyd
To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki;
Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; City Attorney; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty
Subject:public comment re items 17 & 18 for tonight"s Council meeting
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 4:03:34 PM
Attachments:Palo Alto - Joint SB 79 letter - 1 Jun 2026.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Please see attached public comment from the California Housing Defense Fund and
Californians for Homeownership regarding agenda items 17 and 18 for tonight's Council
meeting, proposed ordinances to implement SB 79.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
james@calhdf.org
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Jun 1, 2026
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
By email: Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov; Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov;
George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov; Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov;
Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov; Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov;
Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov; city.council@PaloAlto.gov
Cc: city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org; city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org;
CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org; Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org;
Re: SB 79 Ordinances
Dear City of Palo Alto,
Californians for Homeownership and the California Housing Defense Fund submit this
letter in regard to the City’s proposed ordinances temporarily exempting the City from the
provisions of SB 79. We appreciate staff taking the time to develop an implementation plan
for this landmark law. However, the City may not use urgency or interim ordinances to
temporarily exempt the City from SB 79, nor may it implement objective standards that do
not allow the proposed density. Finally, when adopting an ordinance implementing SB 79,
the City must abide by the process provided in the law.
The City is proposing two interim/urgency ordinances to implement SB 79, in addition to
temporary ordinances. These ordinances do not comply with state law, as discussed infra.
SB 79 is not a sudden emergency requiring an urgency ordinance
Per Government Code section 36937, subdivision (b), ordinances will not be effective for 30
days unless necessary to preserve the public peace, health, or safety of the City and the City
Council adopts by a four-fifths majority a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency.
The State Supreme Court has ruled that “the nature of the ordinance itself will . . . be
determinative, and where a sudden emergency has arisen, a statement of the nature of the
urgency finds proper place to support the declaration.” Ex parte Hoffman (1909) 155 Cal. 114,
120.
SB 79 was signed into law in October 2025, giving the City almost nine months before its
effective date of July 1, 2026 to enact an ordinance preserving the public health and safety of
its residents. This was ample time; had there been an immediate and urgent threat to the
public health and safety of residents, the City would have enacted an ordinance more
quickly.
The City cites “unanticipated strain on public infrastructure and cause additional points of
conflict between vehicles and bicycles or pedestrians in the effected [sic] areas” to justify the
use of an urgency ordinance. The many years that project entitlement and construction
requires provides more than adequate time to plan for any potential traffic. Furthermore,
the Legislature has already found that, “Building more homes near transit access reduces
housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes environmental
sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion.” (emphasis added) (Gov.
Code, § 65912.155, subd. (c).
The City also cited the need to wait for guidance from the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and also the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC). However, there was never any confusion as to what the result was going to be: Palo
Alto was going to need to plan for its Caltrain stations to be Tier 1 TOD stations, as required
by the plain language of SB 79. Other parts of the state have more complicated
implementations of the law, with bus rapid transit, multiple commuter rails using the same
station, etc. Palo Alto does not have these complications.
The City therefore may not use urgency ordinances to adopt an SB 79 implementation
ordinance.
The City’s Use of an Interim Ordinance is Unlawful
In addition to adopting its SB 79 ordinance as an urgency ordinance, the City is adopting it as
an interim ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65858 in order to take illegal
shortcuts in adopting this ordinance. Section 65858, subdivision (a) provides:
Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a
zoning ordinance, the legislative body of a county, city, including a charter city, or city
and county, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, may adopt as an urgency
measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a
contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body,
planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or
intends to study within a reasonable time …
As discussed supra, just as SB 79 poses no risk to “public peace, health, or safety” it also
poses no risk to “public safety, health, and welfare.” In fact, the Legislature has found the
contrary to be true. (See Gov. Code, § 65912.155.)
Furthermore, the interim ordinances are not being done to prevent a particular type of use
from being developed in an area where the City intends to plan for a different type of use, as
is required by the law. (Gov. Code § 65858, subdivision (a).) It is not as though the City is
seeking to prevent the development of noxious industry in an area where it is planning for
residential. Instead, the City is simply resisting a State-mandated level of residential density.
Finally, each ordinance states, “... this ordinance would not have the effect of denying any
approvals needed for the development of projects containing multifamily housing.” This is
simply untrue. There are applicants ready, willing and able to submit applications for
multifamily development as soon as SB 79 goes into effect on July 1, 2026. The purpose of
these ordinances is transparently to prevent multifamily development and worsen the
state’s housing crisis.
The City may therefore not use interim ordinances to skip legally required steps in the
adoption of an SB 79 implementation ordinance.
The Proposed Envelopes Will Not Accommodate the Proposed Density
The City has proposed dramatic envelope controls (in both the urgency/interim ordinances
of agenda item 17 and in the temporary ordinances of agenda item 18) on parcels adjacent to
lower-density zoning, including a height limit of 16 feet with a sky exposure plane extending
at a 45 degree angle from this point.
Of note, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (c)(1) the City must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that its proposed objective standards do
not physically preclude the applicable densities. The City has not provided any such
evidence.
Furthermore, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (d), the
California Department of Housing and Community Development must evaluate whether or
not the City’s implementation ordinance will physically preclude residential development at
the required densities.
It is doubtful that the City can produce the required preponderance of the evidence, given
the degree to which the proposed objective standards will constrain development,
particularly on smaller lots adjacent to lower-density zoning districts.
The City Appears to Have Failed to Notify HCD as the Law Requires
Pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (d)(1), the City must have
submitted a draft SB 79 implementation ordinance to HCD. There is no evidence that the City
has done so.
This is not a harmless error. The Legislature included this step to ensure that the
Department could fulfill its statutory obligations regarding overseeing the implementation
of the law. The City’s failure to include HCD in the implementation process has likely
contributed to the restrictive zoning envelopes discussed supra.
⧫ ⧫ ⧫
For these reasons, we urge the Council to reject the urgency/interim ordinances and to direct
city staff to restart the ordinance adoption process, beginning with providing a copy of the
ordinance to HCD as is required by SB 79.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand Dylan Casey
Californians for CalHDF
Homeownership
\
From:Star Teachout
To:Council, City
Cc:Grand, Linda
Subject:Include Water Consumption comparisons in utility bills
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 2:53:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello council members,
I’m am commenting on item 13 for the June 8 city council meeting: • PUBLIC HEARING:
Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and a Resolution
Adopting the 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. CEQA Status: Exempt under Water
Code Sec. 10652.
The City carries out various seasonal and general water conservation campaigns via the use
of print and digital advertisements, utility bill inserts, social media,
email newsletters, and dynamic content such as through videos. Palo Alto also regularly
updates the City’s website on water conservation programs and public workshops
Our family operates as much as possible as if we were in a drought. We collect our shower
water and use it to flush our toilets because it is not that inconvenient. We probably are in the
lowest consumption category, and are motivated to do this so we can divert our water to our
redwood and fruit trees. I understand that some people can’t be bothered and would rather just
pay more for their water usage, but I do think more people would reduce their water
consumption if given better information. Comparisons are very helpful in changing habits.
With many people using autopay/online for water bills, people often have no idea how many
gallons they are using, and have no idea how their consumption compares to others. The bill
is simply paid.
Here is a prior suggestion which may be more relevant with the current water supply issues we
face:
To the utility bill, include examples:
- The avg 2-person household* in Palo Alto used __ gals this month.
- The avg 4-person household in Palo Alto used __ gals this month.
- The avg 2-person household in your neighborhood used __ gals this month. **
- The avg 4-person household in your neighborhood used __ gals this month.
*It would be great to separate out apartment/townhouse dwellers from those in single family
homes but not sure that information is available.
** Neighborhood could be defined as some radial distance, or by zip code.
Regards,
Star Teachout
Barron Park
From:Magdalena Cabrera
To:Transportation
Cc:Council, City
Subject:311 request
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 2:36:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I am a resident on Fernando Ave. and I live in front of Boluware Park. WE have a new crosswalk which is great.
However, often times, motorists do NOT cede to pedestrians including myself ( 72 year old disabled senior) or my
daughter with her two year old daughter. Just now, a young motorist might have run me over if I had not hurried
across the street from the park side toward my house. She seemed intent on going from 0 to 60 quickly.
I would respectfully like to request that the city strongly consider installing a speed bump in front of the park to
make crossing safer. A speed bump was recently put in on Park AVE by the new development where the old
FRy’s Electronics store was. There are many fewer VULNERABLE pedestrians crossing there than on Fernando
AVE.
Please respond to this email and let me know what further steps I can take to move this along to realization.
Thank you,
Magdalena Cabrera
397 Fernando Ave
Palo Alto
From:Tim MacKenzie
To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;
Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Item 2 Study Session on Flock Automated License Plate Recognition Technology
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 2:12:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Councilmembers,
My name is Tim MacKenzie and I am a member of the Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists
of America. I am writing to urge Council to support public safety by stopping the Flock
contract through non-renewal and ceasing usage of automated license plate readers (ALPRs).
If the Flock contract is renewed, I have specific suggestions for topics to include in the
planned ALPR audit to ensure reliable and trustworthy results.
Despite claims to the contrary, ALPRs are a threat to public safety rather than an effective tool
to support it. Unlike traditional police work where people power is allocated towards places
where there is articulable suspicion of a crime, ALPRs are tools of mass surveillance that
capture every individual's movements through the world and stores the data for future
retrieval. According to the Flock transparency portal for May 5, less than 0.5% of ALPR
recordings matched to a previously designated hot list. The evidence shows that the majority
of the work of ALPRs is to capture innocent passersby and not to target criminals. By its very
nature mass surveillance captures all of us at a time of unprecedented federal hostility when
we have seen US citizens executed in the streets.
Collecting this data does real harm to our communities. Repeated cases show police officers
have used ALPR data to stalk former partners. Police have sought out people seeking
abortions or simply engaging in peaceful protest protected by the first amendment. There are
countless examples of ICE illegally accessing ALPR data even when strictly crafted
surveillance use policies are in place. After ICE shot Marimar Martinez five times, they
searched historical ALPR data to find justification for their baseless claim she was a domestic
terrorist. These examples demonstrate the vulnerabilities that arise from collecting and storing
this data. The only way to keep the data safe is to avoid collecting it at all.
Another issue with ALPRs is the persistent problem of false positives. There are repeated
instances of innocent people being pulled over and facing real harm as the situation escalates.
A Black woman in San Francisco was pulled over and held at gunpoint. A 12 year old in New
Mexico was handcuffed. A Black man in Toledo was mauled by a police dog. A man in
Colorado can no longer use his vehicle because his license plate was added to a 'hot list' even
though his license does not match the crime-involved plate. All these examples occurred after
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
an erroneous notification from ALPRs. We should not be adding to the already difficult job
police officers face by adding to their cognitive load and making them filter out hallucinated
ALPR hits.
All of these real harms are counterposed to theoretical benefits which do not match the
empirical evidence. It is evident even from the stories from supporters of ALPRs that the
cameras do not prevent crime but can only be used after the fact at best. Standard police
investigative tools would likely still be effective in closing out cases, and the crime rate data
does not show any clear reduction after installation of ALPRs. It is also clear that
unsophisticated strategies like swapping license plates is enough to fool the cameras. After the
mass shooting at Brown University in December, the killer swapped plates and was able to
murder a professor in Massachusetts shortly afterwards. A woman in Oakland was pulled over
in March after criminals swapped license plates. This occurred even though her vehicle was
silver and the crime involved car was black, undercutting claims from Flock of the
effectiveness of their "vehicle fingerprint".
Among the most difficult public safety situations are mass casualty events. Unfortunately,
ALPRs are not effective in saving lives even in the best of circumstances. Before the shooting
at the mosque in San Diego, the police were alerted to the specific car and license plate of
concern. Despite an extensive ALPR network, police went to the wrong area and were unable
to act in time before people died. The tragic loss of life would have been a perfect opportunity
for ALPRs to demonstrate their efficacy at keeping people safe, but they failed that major test.
They do not work as claimed, and they cause real and direct harm as explicated above.
There is a simple reason for all the issues outlined above. Flock Safety and all ALPR vendors
are not for public safety - they are for profit. The real business model is to sell fear to police
departments to convince city councils to use taxpayer dollars to install cameras so they can
collect what they really care about - our data. WE are the product. The disconnect between
Flock's revenue and valuation recognizes this simple fact. The company is building a massive
surveillance network to sell off to the highest bidder and not trying to meet our community's
needs. The shady practices are well demonstrated by the fact that Flock illegally installed
multiple unauthorized cameras in Cambridge, MA and the situations where Flock has changed
the terms of the contract from what was negotiated by city staff in some jurisdictions.
It is easy to see the extensive surveillance network Flock seeks by looking at their patents
rather than the sales pitch they provide to police and council. Despite company employees
publicly stating the cameras only track vehicles, the Flock patent claims the ability to track
people by personal or immutable characteristics like age, gender, clothing, gait, height, race,
and weight. Recall it was just earlier this year Flock aborted a partnership with Amazon Ring
to expand their mass surveillance. There have been Flock cameras pointed at gymnastics
centers and playgrounds, showing vehicles are not the only target. Despite claiming cities own
the collected data, Flock maintains an exclusive worldwide license to use the data to train their
AI models. They need a worldwide license because they exploit workers in the Global South
for poverty wages to train their models. These examples give further evidence that Flock is
pursuing the classic Silicon Valley model to operate at a loss in order to build market
dominance. As they move fast and break things, they don't much care if what breaks is public
trust or our collective safety so long as their investors like Peter Thiel get a return.
Added to all of these direct harms to members of our local community, utilizing ALPRs and
Flock Safety as a vendor in particular put Palo Alto at major risk of massive financial
penalties. Flock has flagrantly violated California law and local contracts, allowing data
sharing out of state despite specific policies designed to prevent that. Violations of SB 34 can
result in penalties of $2,500 per violation, risking lawsuits ballooning into the hundreds of
millions of dollars. Flock Safety, multiple private operators, and multiple California cities are
facing major lawsuits for ALPR usage already (e.g. Los Angeles, Oakland, and multiple
against San Jose). A leaked memo from Berkeley legal counsel highlights the legitimate risk
and major potential costs. Responsible stewardship of the city necessitates canceling the
ALPR system.
The lawsuit issue is particularly salient because data access breaches are not hypothetical and
have already occurred. Mountain View was the first local city to disclose the illegal and
unauthorized access to their system earlier this year. Even so, other cities have had similar
breaches in prior years (e.g. Atherton and Menlo Park), showing Flock's callous disregard for
data integrity. At Sunnyvale in April it was revealed that Flock only just implemented two
factor authentication for access, demonstrating the low security environment in which they
typically operate. Palo Alto has also had its data illegally accessed. Although the Police Chief
has said the is no issue because there were no responsive records and therefore no Palo Alto
images were sent out, that is no comfort. If police broke into your house without a warrant and
searched through everything only to tell you that your 4th amendment rights were not violated
because they didn't take anything for evidence, would you find that acceptable? Our rights and
contract have already been violated. Continuing to operate ALPRs simply puts us at further
risk of financial penalties.
If council is not yet prepared to stand on the side of public safety by canceling the Flock
contract, there is specific direction that could be provided with regards to the planned audit of
the system. Simply looking at access logs produced by the company in question is not
sufficient since Flock is financially incentivized to make themselves look better. Furthermore,
some of the data will not be present by design and will lead to false negatives. According to a
2021 Biden era DHS policy, ALPR vendors are forbidden from tracking ICE access in any
data logs other than those accessible to ICE. We already know our data has been accessed by
unauthorized agencies, but the full extent of that access is unable to be determined by design.
A true audit would find out what the ALPR false positive rate is (that is, how many times does
an officer get an erroneous notification for each accurate one?). There is a need to study data
retention length. The state of New Hampshire requires all data to be deleted within three
minutes if it does not match a previously designated hot list. A surveillance use policy aligned
with fourth amendment protections would necessitate the requirement for a warrant for
EVERY search of our local data, and the feasibility of such required protections must be
studied in an effective audit. Another question to research is data access. It is unclear if Palo
Alto's data is accessible to a wider network than expected - if Palo Alto shares data with one
jurisdiction but not another, and that second jurisdiction shares with the third, is Palo Alto's
data still protected? Can access daisy chain through the system in a way that we no longer
have control over who accesses our data? What happens when the data is integrated into a
regional intelligence fusion center where we no longer control it and can have no oversight as
to whether our policies are followed? Flock has already proven that data security is an
afterthought at best with their turning on of the nationwide lookup tool.
I urge council to cancel the Flock contract by not renewing it during the budget when the time
comes. ALPRs put all of our collective safety at risk.
Tim MacKenzie, PhD
From:Randy Mont-Reynaud
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 1:49:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Randy Mont-Reynaud and I live in the California Avenue neighborhood. I
strongly support efforts to promote more homes, planful construction, and protections
for 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.
We have already done much good as a city - haven't we?- with the recent teacher housing,
forthcoming construction at Mollie Stone's and along El Camino, San Antonio. Let's see how
we can share more, help others to live as well as work in our city.
Re Tenant Protections and the rental registry, Please plan to revisit expansion of the rental
registry next year and not Defer 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.
I am fortunate to live here, and I care and I want to share with others.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Randy Mont-Reynaud
From:Alex Pianetta
To:Council, City
Cc:Planning Commission
Subject:SB 79 Implementation (Item 17) + Expansion of the Rental Registry (Item 3) Public Comment
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 1:16:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
My name is Alessandro Pianetta and I live in Barron 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.
Transit stops with many amenities close by are the exact places we should be building dense housing. It means
residents have less need for cars, taking traffic off the road and making our roads better for everyone.
Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community,
Alessandro Pianetta
From:Emily Ramos
To:Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith;
Council, City
Cc:Regina Celestin Williams; Jeremy Levine
Subject:RE: Agenda Item 4 – Recommendation to Indefinitely Defer Expansion of the Rental Registry Program and
Further Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 1:05:38 PM
Attachments:Outlook-rmqd4n3i.png
6-1-2026 Palo Alto tenant protections.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone and Members of the Palo Alto City Council
On behalf of SV@Home, Palo Alto Forward, and our members, we write to urge the City
Council to limit the delay of the expansion of the Rental Registry Program and establish
thresholds to trigger Council consideration of a local rent stabilization ordinance.
Please see the full letter attached.
Kind regards,
Emily Ann Ramos
Tenant Protection & Empowerment Associate
(650) 468-0493
emily@siliconvalleyathome.org
110 North 3rd Street, Suite 20, San Jose 95112
Become a Member | Donate
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
City of Palo Alto June 1, 2026
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Agenda Item 4 – Recommendation to Indefinitely Defer Expansion of the Rental
Registry Program and Further Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Dear Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone and Members of the Palo Alto City Council
On behalf of SV@Home, Palo Alto Forward, and our members, we write to urge the City
Council to limit the delay of the expansion of the Rental Registry Program and establish
thresholds to trigger Council consideration of a local rent stabilization ordinance.
We recognize the operational and fiscal concerns raised by staff and the Policy and Services
Committee. However, we believe there are reasonable alternatives to indefinitely deferring
these efforts.
We recommend that Council defer expansion of the Rental Registry Program for one year
while staff continue refining program administration and collecting additional longitudinal
data. This would allow the City ample time to address implementation concerns around
expansion.
Further, we recommend that Council establish objective benchmarks or “trigger” conditions
using Rental Registry data that would prompt future Council consideration of rent
stabilization policies. For example, the Council could direct staff to return with additional
analysis if future annual reports show sustained rent increases above 5 percent, worsening
rent burden indicators, increased displacement trends, or significant market changes. This
approach would preserve the City’s flexibility to respond to future conditions while
grounding decisions in data.
Regardless, Palo Alto should make its rental registry data publicly accessible for others to
analyze. Right now, the registry only shows whether properties are rentals, not what rent
levels are or how they change over time. If the city wants to protect tenant privacy, it
should still release the data in a time-limited fashion, maybe two years after collection. The
rental registry only works long term if its data is transparent.
SV@Home has been partnering with the City of Palo Alto on tenant protections and anti-
displacement strategies for many years. The Palo Alto Renter’s Association, now a part of
Palo Alto Forward, has also supported this work. Since 2019, we have worked alongside City
staff through a city-initiated grant from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future to support
research, community engagement, and policy development related to housing stability and
renter protections. This work grew out of earlier City Council direction beginning in 2017
and continuing through subsequent Council discussions recognizing rising concerns about
displacement and housing instability in Palo Alto.
Board of Directors
Nevada Merriman, Chair
MidPen Housing Corporation
Randy Tsuda, Treasurer
Alta Housing
Pilar Lorenzana, Secretary
CoLab Spark
Candice Gonzalez
Sand Hill Property Company
Chad Bojorquez
Destination: Home
Maria Noel Fernandez
Working Partnerships USA
Alison Brunner
Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley
Victor Vasquez
SOMOS Mayfair
Julie Mahowald
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Wendi Baker
Harmonie Park Development
Staff
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
June 1, 2026
RE: Agenda Item 4 – Recommendation to Indefinitely Defer Expansion of the Rental Registry
Program and Further Consideration of a Possible Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Page 2 of 2
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
Over the years, Palo Alto has taken a thoughtful and measured approach to these conversations. Rather than
rushing toward a single policy solution, the City has focused on studying local conditions, identifying gaps in
existing protections, and exploring a broader range of tools to support housing stability. The Rental Registry
Program itself emerged from that work and represents a significant investment in data-informed
policymaking.
We appreciate the substantial effort City staff undertook to implement the Rental Registry Program and
prepare the first-year analysis. The program achieved an exceptionally high participation rate and has already
provided important insight into Palo Alto’s rental housing landscape.
However, we are concerned that indefinitely deferring these policy discussions would prematurely halt a
multi-year effort before the City has had sufficient time to evaluate longer-term trends or fully utilize the
data infrastructure it has worked to establish.
The first year of rent registry data shows that approximately 11% of households experienced rent increases
above 5%. In one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, even moderate rent increases can
create serious instability for renters already struggling with housing costs, particularly lower-income
households, seniors, fixed-income residents, essential workers, and communities of color who continue to
face disproportionate displacement pressures. The median monthly rent for a one bedroom apartment in
Palo Alto is $3,260. An increase greater than 5% would be more than $150 a month, an unsustainable
amount for many of Palo Alto’s cost-burdened residents.
Importantly, the current Rental Registry Program only captures properties with three or more units. This
leaves a substantial portion of the rental market outside the City’s existing dataset, including many smaller
rental properties and single-family rentals. Without a more complete understanding of the rental landscape,
it may be difficult for the City to fully assess displacement risks or determine whether additional renter
protections may be necessary in the future.
Continuing to study these issues does not obligate the City to adopt rent stabilization. Rather, it preserves the
City’s ability to respond thoughtfully and proactively if housing conditions change in the future.
Palo Alto has taken great strides in tenant protections and data-driven governance. The City’s work on renter
protections has already helped inform conversations throughout the Bay Area. We respectfully urge the
Council not to indefinitely defer these efforts and instead continue the careful, measured approach that has
guided this work over the past several years.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director, SV@Home
Jeremy Levine
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Reifschneider, James
Subject:June 1, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #2: Flock Automated License Plate Recognition
Date:Monday, June 1, 2026 12:51:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
JUNE 1, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #2
FLOCK AUTOMATED LICENCSE PLATE REGCOGNITION
The number of nationwide cameras and agencies stated in thestaff report in the second paragraph on the first page of thestaff report and on the first paragraph on the sixth page ofthe staff report appear to be inconsistent.
It is easier to note the discrepancies by showing the numbersin the usual format where each grouping of three digits toright is separated by a comma from the next digit to the left.
The first page of the staff report says that there are morethan 6,000 Flock cameras nationwide in more than 4,000 lawenforcement agencies.
The sixth page of the staff report says that there are Flockcameras in almost 6,000 law enforcement agencies.
I believe the number of agencies stated on the sixth page ofthe staff report is correct.
Palo Alto is a small city with 30 Flock cameras.
It is literally correct that there are over 6,000 camerasnationwide when there are almost 6,000 law enforcement agencieswith Flock cameras, or even if there are only 4,000 lawenforcement agencies with Flock cameras, but it is alsoliterally correct if the number of cameras nationwide is statedas being over 6,500 cameras nationwide.
The staff report should state the number of cameras nationwideto the nearest thousand so that the nationwide number ismeaningfully comparable to the correct number of lawenforcement agencies.
Flock and Ring
Controversy occurred when it was revealed that Flock had acontract to obtain surveillance data from Ring cameras that hadinstalled a Search Party feature to combine data from multipleRing cameras, which led to the contract being cancelled.
Does Flock have any other similar contract with othercompanies, government agencies, or individuals?
Past Illegal Surveillance
You usually don't take action on Study Session items except todirect staff to provide more information.
There is adequate time for the public to provide the CityCouncil with more information before the City Council takes anyaction that affects how Flock cameras are used in Palo Alto.
I recall that in the past there was a lawsuit regarding whatinformation the Police Department collected and retained aboutindividuals who were exercising their first amendment rightswhile participating in public activities.
I intend to search for and provide the City Council with thatinformation prior to any future action by the Council thataffects the use of Flock cameras in Palo Alto.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Herb Borock