HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-22 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: 6/22/2026
Document dates: 6/15/26 – 6/22/26
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
From:Aram James
To:Reifschneider, James; Council, City; julie.ruhlin@oirgroup.con; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Enberg,
Nicholas; Stephen Connolly; Dave Price; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee;
District5@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Riley Cooke;
editor@paweekly.com; Ruth Silver Taube; Sean Allen; sharon jackson; Bill Newell
Cc:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Roberta Ahlquist
Subject:Watch "The Shocking Truth about Police Canines" on YouTube
Date:Sunday, June 21, 2026 6:32:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
https://youtu.be/cSbEj6RIoDE?is=wJJ24hvh9bmRsvOO
From:JOE ROLFE
To:Council, City
Subject:One City Might Have Just Cracked the Housing Crisis
Date:Sunday, June 21, 2026 6:28:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I hope that you have seen this article in this morning's New York Times about a new
approach to housing in Vancouver BC:
Here is the link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/opinion/vancouver-housing-crisis-
development.html
Almost all of my life I have listened to "Residentialists" defending and advocating for
single family residences - and finding reasons why this is the only option. I'm glad to
see some changes beginning to take place in Palo Alto,
We have a severe housing crisis (you already knew this). I'll lend my voice to a fresh
approach.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Linda Swan
To:Cody Einfalt
Cc:Council, City; Carol Gottlieb; Bernardo Ferrari; Sally Wood; Barry Smith; Sylvia Jensen
Subject:Fwd: flyer for July 8th event - please preview
Date:Saturday, June 20, 2026 12:42:29 PM
Attachments:July 8 reading flyer - rev 1.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
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
Cody,
Please publicize.
Flyer for Public Reading of the Declaration of Independence
Linda
Begin forwarded message:
From: Los Altos Chapter NSDAR <losaltosdar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: flyer for July 8th event - please preview
Date: June 19, 2026 at 10:30:05 AM PDT
To: Linda Swan <lindaswan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Cc: Sally Meadows <smeadows@losaltosca.gov>, Cody Einfalt
<ceinfalt@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Thank you!
See updated version, attached.
Ann
On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 8:11 AM Linda Swan <lindaswan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
wrote:
I would switch the positions of the America 250 and DAR Logo. Otherwise,
looks good.
Linda G Swan, Councilmember
Los Altos Hills, CA
Powered by Mimecast
On Jun 18, 2026, at 3:00 PM, Los Altos Chapter NSDAR
<losaltosdar@gmail.com> wrote:
Please see attached for the revised version of the flyer!
Sally and Linda--if this looks OK, I'll start distributing it.
thanks,
Ann
On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 6:34 PM Sally Meadows
<smeadows@losaltosca.gov> wrote:
Hi Ann,
Thank you for the flyer, it looks very good. I do have one
request, which is that the America 250 logo on the right be an
official America 250 logo rather than a DAR one, since a DAR-
branded America 250 logo is already included on the left. The
flag that will be flying at Veteran’s Community Plaza will be the
official America 250 flag. I’ve attached a logo below.
Thank you,
Sally
<America250_logo.svg-2.png>
___________________________________________________________________
Sally Meadows │ Mayor, City of Los Altos
Los Altos City Hall
1 North San Antonio Road │Los Altos, CA 94022
Main: (650) 947-2700 │ Direct: (650) 947-2766 │ smeadows@losaltosca.gov
<Outlook-ntrqce0p.png>
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
On Jun 17, 2026, at 1:34 PM, Los Altos Chapter NSDAR
<losaltosdar@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Thank you very much for your support for the July 8th
Independence.
I've put together a quick flyer to help raise awareness and
encourage attendance.
Please take a look--let me know if you have improvements or
concerns or if it's ready to go.
and fyi - our little event is on the official national map of reading
locations!
https://hawaiiamerica250.org/reading-locations
thanks and regards,
Ann
<July 8 reading flyer - rev.pdf>
Public Reading
Declaration of Independence
Presented by Los Altos Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolu on with
the City of Los Altos and the Town of Los Altos Hills
July 8th, Wednesday
Veterans Community Plaza
Corner of Main and State Streets
Downtown Los Altos
Celebra ng the 250th anniversary of the first public reading of the
Declara on of Independence on 8 July 1776 in Philadelphia: part of a
na onwide, simultaneous reading of the Declara on at 3:00 pm PDT
2:45 pm - Welcome and opening remarks
3:00 pm – Begin the na onwide reading of the
Declara on of Independence
Los Altos Hills Mayor Rajiv Bhateja
Los Altos Mayor Sally Meadows
Elected officials and community leaders
From:Michael Morganstern
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you Re: Gilroy proposed ICE facility
Date:Saturday, June 20, 2026 11:03:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Thank you for voting to file an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit against
ICE to prevent construction of a concentration camp (aka detention facility)
in Gilroy.
Sincerely,
Michael Morganstern
567 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto 94301
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Elliot Margolies
To:Council, City
Subject:Thanks for your principled vote!
Date:Saturday, June 20, 2026 7:48:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
What an important, unanimous decision to stand with our greater community and say
NO to immigrant Detention Centers.
Thanks for generating an an amicus brief in favor of the county's and California's AG Bonta's lawsuit against ICE.
No prison or worse in Gilroy!
Elliot Margolies
Palo Alto, CA
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Sally Hayman
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank You
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 9:47:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Thank you for standing up to ICE in our community. They have no place here.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Clerk, City
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Possible employment of myself
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 1:42:32 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Upton <denkafer1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 6:44 PM
To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>
Cc: Dennis Upton <denkafer1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Possible employment of myself
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Council Members,
I would like to speak very briefly about possible employment in your Department of Public Works. It is my
intention to appear with Faith Bell of Bell’s Books, who has noticed work in downtown Palo Alto which is being
badly neglected since the demise of Downtown Streets Team.
I volunteered very proudly for 12 years with DST, and my expertise is and was with the areas of downtown,
which Faith has noticed and observed are being very badly neglected. I took great pleasure and satisfaction in doing
what I did as the longest serving Yellow Shirt.
Both Faith and I would like to appear at the next meeting of the City Council, Monday June 22, and address the
City Council for a few minutes each.
With kind regards,
Dennis Upton
Sent from my iPad
From:Aram James
To:Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Jeff Conrad; Shikada, Ed; EPA Today; Emily Mibach; Human Relations Commission;
Council, City; james pitkin; Lotus Fong; Gennady Sheyner; Diana Diamond
Subject:“Another Wasted Life”: Rhiannon Giddens on How Death of Kalief Browder Inspired Her Song | Democracy Now!
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 10:40:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.democracynow.org/2026/6/19/another_wasted_life_rhiannon_giddens_on
From:Peter Drekmeier
To:commission@sfwater.org
Cc:bawscaboardofdirectors@bawsca.org; CAC@sfwater.org; TLennear@sfwater.org
Subject:YRA Letter Re: UWMP and Storage
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 9:25:07 AM
Attachments:YRA Letter to SFPUC Re- Reservoir Storage.pdf
PastedGraphic-1.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear SFPUC Commissioners:
Please see my attached letter regarding the Urban Water Management Plan and lack of
transparency regarding the role of reservoir storage in projecting future water rationing.
Thanks you.
-Peter
Please note my new email address.
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
(Formerly Tuolumne River Trust)
peter.drekmeier@yosemiterivers.org
1
June 19, 2026
President Josh Arce and Commissioners
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
commission@sfwater.org
Re: Item 8 (June 23, 2026): 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) and Reservoir Storage.
Dear President Arce and Commissioners:
I was surprised while reviewing Appendix B of the UWMP (Summary
of San Francisco’s Response to 2012-2016 Drought Experience – pdf
page 450) and Appendix C (Summary of San Francisco’s Response to
2020-2023 Drought Experience – pdf page 462).
There is no mention of reservoir storage levels during those
droughts.
As you know, storage is critical to SFPUC water supply. On pdf page
497 of the packet it states, “…the RWS depends on water supply that
is stored prior to a drought; the storage in RWS reservoirs at the start
of a drought is the main source of water supply that the SFPUC
manages during a drought.”
The severity of a drought should be measured by the low point in
storage during the drought. Ignoring storage is like having a bank
statement with deposits and debits, but no account balance.
For storage levels during the 2020-2023 drought, please see
Attachment A.
The UWMP Itself Fails to Consider Reservoir Storage
Table 8-3 in the UWMP suggests that in 2050 the SFPUC would only be
able to provide 68% of baseline water demand in Year 1 and 57% in
Years 2 through 5 of a 5-year drought if the Bay Delta Water Quality
Control Plan is implemented. What’s hidden from this table is how the
numbers were calculated.
2
Table 8-3 is based on the SFPUC’s methodology for addressing 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 its 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. The five consecutive dry-
year sequence shown in the tables below represent years 2 through 6 of the design drought.”
The rationing figures 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 on the following page 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.
Each of the following three tables addresses 2050 water supply projections with the Bay Delta Plan
implemented. They do not include dead pool storage that is not easily accessible.
To put the storage figures in perspective, water demand in the SFPUC service area has been under 200
million gallons per day (mgd) for the past 11 years. 200 mgd equals 224 thousand acre-feet (TAF). Table
YRA-1 uses 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 the following years. If the SFPUC were to adopt a
more reasonable drought scenario, this water could be used to erase the extreme rationing projected in
the UWMP.
3
Table YRA-1. 8-year Design Drought, with the Bay Delta Plan implemented, 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.
• “Annual impact on storage” includes 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.
I think we would all agree that the SFPUC has a much more reliable water supply than Valley Water, yet
the five consecutive dry-year sequence Valley Water uses found that they would experience no
rationing in Years 1 to 3 of the drought, and less than 10% rationing in Years 4 and 5 (see Attachment B).
Table YRA-2 on the following page shows what the five consecutive dry year sequence would look like if
the SFPUC followed the letter of the UWMP Guidebook (like Valley Water) and just looked at the driest
consecutive five-year sequence out of the six-year drought of record (1987-1992). You’ll see that
without any rationing, the SFPUC could manage the drought with the Bay Delta Plan implemented, and
still have water remaining in storage. In fact, almost enough water in storage to last a sixth dry year.
4
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 implemented. 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 left in
storage. Instead of showing 32% rationing in Year 1 and 43% rationing in Years 2 through 5, the UWMP
would 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. In this scenario the SFPUC could manage the driest consecutive six -year
sequence, exceeding the UWMP requirement, and this is using the UWMP demand projections, which
are considered the “outside envelope.”
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).
5
With such misleading calculations and conclusions in the UWMP, it’s not hard to see whey the SFPUC
ranks low in terms of being trusted.
You’ve run out of time to make substantive changes to the UWMP, but you still have time to ask
questions and make recommendations that can help put the SFPUC on a path toward better
environmental stewardship and reduced water rate increases.
Let’s have a workshop on the Design Drought!
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Cc: BAWSCA
SFPUC Citizens’ Advisory Commission
6
Attachment A
SFPUC Water Shortage Emergency Declaration (2021)
Summary
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 .
7
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.
8
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.”1
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 Shortage Emergency and call for water conservation impact finances and water
rates?
Was it prudent for the SFPUC to declare a Water Shortage Emergency when they had 4.5 year’s-worth of
water in storage? The Design Drought suggests it was.
1 SFPUC FY 2023-24 1st Quarter Budget Report, December 12, 2023 –
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/se1f88d7d5b3a41829939713649bc1802
9
In FY 2023-24, the SFPUC experienced a $25 million shortfall in retail (San Francisco) water sales and a
$5 million shortfall in wholesale (BAWSCA) sales.
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 the drought
surcharge?
Source: SFPUC Water Supply Conditions Update, October 2, 2023.
The SFPUC ended the 2023 water year entitled to enough water (2.77 million acre-feet) to refill all of its
reservoirs almost twice.
10
Attachment B
Valley Water’s 5 Consecutive Dry-Year Sequence
7.3.3 Five Dry Year Service Reliability
The greatest challenge to Valley Water’s water supply reliability is multiple dry years, such as
those that occurred in 1988 through 1992 and in 2012 through 2016. The five dry -year period
used in this analysis is 1988 to 1992, which was an extended and mo re severe drought within
historic record and WEAP modeling period. Estimated supplies and demands for the period,
under different demand years, are shown in Table 7 -4. The analysis indicates that with existing
and planned projects’ supplies, Valley Water’s diverse water supplies are sufficient to meet
demands throughout the full five-year drought in demand years 2035 and 2040 without having
to call for short-term water use reductions, but in demand years 2030 as well as 2045 through
2050, there will be shortages in the last two years of the drought. The shortages are less than
10% of projected demands, thus within Valley Water’s level of service goal of meeting 100% of
annual water demand during non-drought years and at least 80% of annual water demand in
drought years. Those shortages will be addressed through a combination of supply
augmentation from transfer and exchange and water use reductions.
11
From:Da Ta
To:Jensen, Crystal
Cc:UTL-Customer Service; Guerra, Emily; City Attorney; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed; Park, Richard; Council, City
Subject:RE: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Re: URGENT: 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional Debit/Extra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 8:22:49 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
This Message contains suspicious characteristics and has originated outside your organization.
i
No, your response did not answer our questions.
You addressed the temporary hold on the account, but you did not answer the core issues we have raised repeatedly in writing. That is why this dispute
remains unresolved.
Despite multiple written requests, CPAU still failed to answer the following:
CPAU still failed to answer why it contends this bill complies with applicable law.
CPAU still failed to answer why the amount being back-billed not complies with CPAU’s own rules and regulations.
CPAU still failed to answer why we were never informed about the broken meter, despite CPAU’s own notice requirements.
CPAU still failed to answer when, to the best of its knowledge, it first became aware, that the meter was broken.
CPAU still failed to answer why it charged monthly meter-related service fees while failing to timely detect or correct the problem.
You also still have not provided a valid corrected bill. “Misc debit $509.80” is not a sufficient corrected bill. It does not state what specifically was being
billed, why it was being added, or how the amount was calculated. We only learned what CPAU claimed this charge was after we contacted support and
asked.
Your continued refusal to answer these questions in writing does not resolve this dispute. It only reinforces our concern that CPAU is attempting to
enforce a charge without providing the legal and factual basis required to support it.
So we are asking plainly:
Is it CPAU’s final position that it will not answer these questions in writing and will instead proceed toward enforcement of this charge?
If this is not the final position, then please identify the next level of review or appeal, including the name and title of the person with authority to review
the legality and sufficiency of the bill and CPAU’s handling of this dispute.
If our questions are not answered in writing by June 30, 2026, or if CPAU takes the position that there is no further internal review available, then we will
have to consider next steps, including seeking review in civil court.
For the record, we do not consider this dispute resolved. We expect complete written answers.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 12, 2026, at 11:12, Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Account #30131069
Hello Darya,
In response to your requests:
1. The 48-hour disconnection notice has been suspended pending review of the disputed charges and will not be acted upon
while the dispute remains under active review.
2. The disputed back-billing amount will remain under review and will not be required for payment until 6/30/2026 when the
review process is completed.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
or other enforcement actions will be initiated based solely on the disputed back-billing amount while the dispute remains
under review. However, you remain responsible for paying any current, undisputed charges when due.
4. The $675.25 balance referenced in the notice consists of the following:
Current, undisputed charges: $[160.31]
Disputed back-billing charges: $[509.80]
We placed a lock on your account until June 30, 2026 to allow additional time for us to provide a thorough explanation of your back-
billed charges.
To best of my understanding, we provided all of the information regarding these charges that you requested. If there is anything
specific that remains unclear or if you need further clarification, please let us know.
If you would like to set up an installment plan to spread out your payments, please contact us before 6/30/2026, so we can discuss
available options.
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: Da Ta <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 4:25 PM
To: Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov>
Cc: 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>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>;
Park, Richard <Richard.Park@paloalto.gov>
Subject: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Re: URGENT: 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional Debit/Extra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8
This Message contains suspicious characteristics and has originated outside your organization.
Thank you for stopping the 48-hour disconnection notice.
However, this dispute still remains unresolved, and we still have not received answers to our questions in writing. If there is any
problem with the questions, or if anything is unclear, please say so in writing.
Leaving voicemail messages and asking for callbacks instead of answering our questions in writing is not acceptable. We have
repeatedly asked for written answers and written documentation, and we expect CPAU to address the substance of this dispute
in writing.
Please provide a complete written response to the outstanding questions so this dispute can be properly reviewed and resolved.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2026, at 16:42, Jensen, Crystal <Crystal.Jensen@paloalto.gov> wrote:
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,
<image001.png>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
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.jpg>
<image005.jpg>
<image006.png>
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 andclicking on links.
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 $675.25 amount on the notice is itemized, including what portion is current undisputed charges and what
portion relates to the disputed back-billing amount.
CPAU Rule 9 states that utility service will not be disconnected for non-payment of a disputed bill during investigation or
review by CPAU, and that the non-disputed portion remains due and payable. That is exactly what we are doing. CPAU
also previously stated in writing that this account was on hold during the escalation process.
If this 48-hour notice was generated in error, please say so clearly in writing today and confirm that the account has been
coded to prevent disconnection while the dispute remains under review.
For the record, this dispute is not resolved, and we expect immediate written confirmation.
Regards,
Darya Taheri
On Sunday, May 31, 2026 at 09:18:30 AM PDT, Darya Taheri <darya.taheri@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thank you for your email and partially answered questions. It still does not resolve this dispute.
You missed to respond to a couple of our questions, so we will ask again.
1. You mentioned the backcharging defined in rules and regulation but you failed to answer why the amount you are back
charging us exceeds the 500$ 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,
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.
<image001.png>Emily Guerra
Customer Service Specialist
Utilities Customer Service
650-329-2161 Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov
www.PaloAlto.gov
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.jpg>
<image005.jpg>
<image006.png>
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,
<image010.png>RICHARD PARK
Customer Service Representative
Customer Services Utilities
(650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
<image011.png>
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,
<image010.png>RICHARD PARK
Customer Service Representative
Customer Services Utilities
(650) 329-2161 | richard.park@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
<image011.png>
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:Chris Schremp
To:Bulatao, Eric; Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith
Cc:Christine Schremp; Robert Marinaro; Barry Katz; Dana Dahlstrom
Subject:OSV blocking sidewalk on East Meadow
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 7:42:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Ed and Members of the Ad Hoc Committee,
Following the recent city report suggesting a decline in OSV impacts, our
neighborhood coalition is resuming its direct reporting to ensure you have an
accurate assessment of the escalating conditions on the ground.
Attached are two photos taken yesterday on East Meadow Drive demonstrating
active public safety hazards and a clear layout of the ongoing "neighborhood shell
game":
Photo 1 (Taken at 7:00 PM): This OSV was stationed on East Meadow from
at least 9:00 AM through the evening. As we walked our dogs, we were forced
to veer off the pedestrian sidewalk because the occupant left their main cabin
door swung completely wide open, physically blocking the public right-of-way.
Photo 2: This document captures the second major OSV stationed
simultaneously on East Meadow throughout the day
As I have emphasized in our formal policy submission, these specific vehicles do not
represent an economic displacement or a homelessness crisis. Yesterday, we
observed one of these OSV occupants exit their trailer and drive away in a brand-
new, premium Mini Cooper. The other occupant utilizes a late-model, 7-passenger
SUV.
These individuals are utilizing our residential blocks as free, rent-free commuter
parking utilities because they have learned how to successfully manipulate the city's
current 72-hour enforcement clock.
We look forward to addressing these issues and leveraging the plan I sent yesterday.
Regards,
Chris Schremp
Palo Alto Resident
From:Tech Strategy Initiative
To:Council, City
Cc:Veenker, Vicki
Subject:Friendly Reminder: RSVP for MSC | Stanford Dinner Reception (July 2, 6.30 p.m.)
Date:Friday, June 19, 2026 2:28:24 AM
Attachments:260605_MSC_TSI_Invitation_Reception_Stanford.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks.
Dear Mayor Veenker,
We would like to kindly follow up on Ambassador Ischingers and Dr. Kahls invitation to the dinner reception hosted on the occasion of the Tech
Strategy Initiative’s inaugural meeting in Silicon Valley on July 2, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.
We would be delighted to welcome you to this special evening, which will feature remarks by Admiral Pierre Vandier, NATO Supreme Allied
Commander Transformation.
Kindly find attached the invitation which includes the RSVP link to register for the event.
Should you have any questions or require further details, please do not hesitate to reach out.
We very much hope you can join us.
Warm regards,
The MSC Team
Munich Security Conference
Karolinenplatz 3 | 80333 Munich, Germany
E tsi@securityconference.org
Website | | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | YouTube | Threads | Newsletter | Bluesky | WhatsApp
Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz gGmbH
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Benedikt Franke, Sara-Sumie Yang
Eingetragen im Handelsregister B des Amtsgerichts München unter HRB 191372
Von: Tech Strategy Initiative <tsi@securityconference.org>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2026 11:45
An: City.council@paloalto.gov
Cc: Vicki.veenker@paloalto.gov
Betreff: Invitation: MSC | Stanford Dinner Reception –Tech Strategy Initiative (July 2, 6.30 p.m.)
Dear Mayor Veenker,
On behalf of Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, and Dr. Colin Kahl, Director of the
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, we are pleased to extend a personal invitation to a dinner
reception held on the occasion of the Tech Strategy Initiative’s inaugural meeting in Silicon Valley (attached).
It will take place on July 2, 2026, at 6:30 p.m., and will feature remarks by Admiral Pierre Vandier, NATO Supreme Allied
Commander Transformation.
We would be honored to welcome you to this occasion and kindly ask you to RSVP at your earliest convenience via the link provided
in the invitation.
Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards,
The MSC Team
Munich Security Conference
Karolinenplatz 3 | 80333 Munich, Germany
E tsi@securityconference.org
Website | | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | YouTube | Threads | Newsletter | Bluesky | WhatsApp
Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz gGmbH
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Benedikt Franke, Sara-Sumie Yang
Eingetragen im Handelsregister B des Amtsgerichts München unter HRB 191372
July 2, 2026 TSI Dinner ReceptionInvitation
The Munich Security Conference (MSC) and the Freeman Spogli Institute for
International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University cordially invite you to a dinner
reception on the occasion of the inaugural MSC Tech Strategy Initiative meeting.
The Initiative aims to anticipate technological advances that remain beyond
the horizon and their strategic, geopolitical implications. For its first convening,
the Initiative gathers at the heart of global innovation: Silicon Valley.
The evening will feature remarks by Admiral Pierre Vandier, NATO’s Supreme
Allied Commander Transformation, and bring together members of the MSC
and FSI communities alongside regional friends and partners.
We look forward to welcoming you to an evening of reflection, dialogue, and
meaningful exchange.
Wolfgang Ischinger Colin Kahl
Chairman | MSC Director | FSI
Venue
Bechtel Conference Center at Encina Hall
Stanford University Campus
Date
July 2, 2026 (6.30 p.m. - 9.30 p.m.)
Dress Code
Casual attire
Kindly RSVP at your earliest convenience
via the following link:
https://securityconference.org/tsi-dinner-reception/
Please direct any questions to:
tsi@securityconference.org
@MunSecConf www.instagram.com/munsecconfwww.facebook.com/MunSecConf Image Source: Jason Doiy / Getty Images
TSI Dinner Reception
From:Gabe Molitor
To:Council, City
Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email
message is because I think the one acre property at 3191 midlefield road should be turned into a residential park
for the neighbors that lived ne...
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 10:22:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Goodell, Erin
Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Goodell, Erin; Sean Allen; Stephen Connolly; Dave Price; Brandon Pho;
Braden Cartwright; Roberta Ahlquist; Riley Cooke; Council, City; Emily Mibach; District5@bos.sccgov.org;
Shikada, Ed; editor@paweekly.com; Alaniz, John; Malinsky, Jason; Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky
Subject:Citizen complaint regarding Palo Alto Police
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 8:10:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 7:07 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:
stephen
From: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 7:04pm
Subject: Explanation of complaint against the PAPD
To:
June 18, 2026
TO:
Sergeant Goodell, PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT:
I was interviewed by the PAPD June 17, regarding an incident on the 600 block of Webster
St, June 6.
I want to make very clear my reasons for filing a police complaint: I saw this arrest as an
abuse of police power,
with four police cars and six police officers, four of whom were white,(one white woman),
one man of color. It was serious overreach.
1. No person should be treated as this young, small-framed African American man was
treated.
This man was treated as less than human. He showed no resistance, and was very passive.
Yet
four white police officers roughly shoved him to the ground on the street, and padded
him down.
2. There was no explanation as to why he was then stood up, and( after being handcuffed)
tossed, face down,
over the front hood of a police car. Why was this done? Why, next, were lanyards placed
around his neck?
3. Noone should be subjected to the rough treatment by these four officers; he was
searched, padded down, flat on the ground in the
middle of the street, jostled face down onto the front hood of a police car. He was
passive, quiet, and did not try to run.
Yet several lanyards were placed around his neck.
4. This is inhumane, abusive treatment. Our police officers need to treat everyone as human
beings, no matter what the charge.
5. I was a victim of sexism and ageism by police agent Dominique. Noone told me if he had
his body camera on, but
I doubt it, as he was belligerent, hostile, and defensive when I politely asked him
questions, and for some clarification.
But this young African American man was treated even more abusively.
The PAPD needs to better train its police force to be civil, calm, and humane.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist,
Emerita Professor
SJSU
I give permission for Aram James to distribute this to other interested parties.
Roberta Ahlquist
From:Emily Renzel
To:ParkRec Commission
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Rededication of Measure E site as parkland
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 5:48:35 PM
Attachments:61826 email. to PRC cc CC.pages
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission:
Please recommend re-dedication of the entire 10-acre Measure E site.
Just as general background, Highway 101, the Bayshore Freeway, was the bay shoreline in
Palo Alto. Almost all the land north of Bayshore Freeway is former wetland, including the
Athletic center, the Golf Course, the Airport, the Sewage Plant, the Duck Pond, the
Interpretive Center, the Flood Basin, the Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plant site and most of
Byxbee Hills Park PLUS all the development along East Embarcadero and along East
Bayshore Frontage Road. Many of those lands are California Public Trust Lands.
Almost 50 years ago, as a Planning Commissioner, I proposed allowing the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to satisfy its Site and Design requirement for screen
landscaping on the adjacent Byxbee Park to protect the natural park from a view of the
industrial-looking sewage clarifiers. That was approved and the required 125-foot landscaped
buffer was installed by the RWQCP and has been maintained by them to fulfill that
requirement. It is the principal natural connection between the Bay and the Renzel Wetland.
The landfill service road (and loop Trail link) is also located in that area.
As the landfill went from a single lift to a “hill and valley” plan to the ultimate 64’ high
Byxbee Hills Park, the Palo Alto Refuse Fund’s ratepayers paid $100,000 per acre/year for use
of dedicated parkland and also collected many thousands of dollars of gate fees. This
occurred from approximately 1976 until Byxbee Hills Park opened in the early 2000’s. That
money was used to balance the City budget after Proposition 13 reduced City income.
All of the 126-acre Byxbee Park took another 40 years to open to the public. In the
meantime, the RWQCP received approval for a “beneficial use” project on the former ITT
property which entailed installing a major pipeline under the landfill perimeter road adjacent
to the buffer to provide salt water to habitat for the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.
This was a substantial use of parkland to benefit RWQCP and became the Emily Renzel
wetland.
The Park Dedication Charter Amendment was intended to prevent capricious use of
park land whenever the City wanted new facilities and didn’t want to pay for the
required land. This current attempt to hold onto 2.6 acres of Measure E parkland for
RWQCP expansion is precisely a case in point.
It’s ironic that Measure E removed the required landscape buffer land from park dedication
and may result in an even more industrial and smellier RWQCP facility to be even closer to
the park for which this buffer had been intended.
I think we can all agree that the RWQCP will be around for a very long time. As I look at the
attached aerial photo of the site, I note (eyeball measurement) that there are approximately
five acres of private buildings on Embarcadero Way adjoining the RWQCP. It would make
much more sense for this immortal public sewage infrastructure to be located there instead of
on Byxbee Park.
Please at least recommend to the Council that it explore that option in lieu of further disrupting
Byxbee Park.
I believe that the City should honor and protect its requirements and commitments such as the
Site and Design commitment made lo those many years ago. Otherwise, it renders all our
actions a farce.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Renzel
Planning Commissioner 1973-79
Councilmember 1979-91
9/22/22 PRC Staff Report
Key Sections from Ballot Measure E (Resolution)
Shall ten acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park be undedicated for the exclusive
purpose of building a processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste and other organic
material?
• The Property shall be removed from dedication as parkland, for the exclusive purpose of
building a facility (“Facility” herein) for converting yard trimmings, food waste, other
municipal organics and/or sewage sludge from the regional wastewater treatment plant by
biological and/or other environmentally equally protective technology.
Ten years from the passage of this Initiative (ER NOTE: Nov 2021), the City Council may
rededicate any portion of the site.
Any other use, except for parkland, would require a new vote of Palo Alto residents.
From:Chris Schremp
To:Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Cc:Christine Schremp; Robert Marinaro; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Chris Schremp; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy
Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Loren Brown; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette
Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen
Subject:Rebuttal of OSV Staff Report & Proposal for Action
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 5:05:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Ad Hoc Council Members, Mr. Shikada, and Mayor Veenker,
I spent some time reviewing the City Council Staff Report #2603-6171, published on June
8, 2026.
First, I want to acknowledge that work is being done and efforts seem to have delivered
progress on some aspects of the OSV issue. However, for the most part, these efforts have
been isolated to specific neighborhoods in Palo Alto, which have ultimately only shifted the
problem to others. This inequity is at the heart of so many of the current problems we
are facing.
And while this report indicates "measurable progress" and "success in reducing impacts,"
our direct, daily observations on our streets suggest a profound disconnect between the
report’s conclusions and the reality on the ground. The report includes metrics that don’t tell
the whole story, omits critical geographic displacement data, and misinterprets resident
exhaustion as a sign of municipal compliance.
Below is an analysis with the intent of contextualizing the misleading and incomplete nature
of the report.
In addition, in the spirit of not only pointing out problems but also identifying solutions, I
have included a detailed proposal below (and attached) which we expect the City and the
Council to take seriously and consider adopting in the coming weeks.
REGIONAL ANALYSIS & REBUTTAL TO REPORT #2603-6171
1. On "Point-in-Time" Claims and Hidden Metrics
The Report States: “'Point-in-time checks' by the Police Department showed an
overall decline in OSVs across monitored locations between January and May,
though in some areas numbers remained consistent... staff found that the number of
OSVs reduced from 191 to 133."
The Neighborhood Rebuttal: The City presents a generic drop from 191 to 133 as a
citywide victory, yet completely hides the geographic breakdown. What are the
"monitored locations"? Please publish the exact numbers per monitored location.
Which specific streets saw a decrease, and which specific streets "remained
consistent" or saw increases? Our observations indicate that while the overall count
may have shrunk citywide, the vehicles have simply migrated away from heavily
policed commercial zones and taken up permanent residence in residential
neighborhoods like ours. In fact, it appears most, if not all, of those remaining 133
vehicles are now on our side of town, given that the committee found a way to
effectively restrict OSVs in North Palo Alto.
2. On Fiscal Misallocation and Indefinite Timelines of Phase II
The Report States: "Phase II could expand deep cleaning and street sweeping to
additional streets, supported by permanent signage... The full scope of Phase II
remains under development with the City Council ad hoc Committee."
The Neighborhood Rebuttal: This confirmation reveals that Phase II lacks any
definitive, actionable timeline, while the Finance Committee simultaneously
recommends allocating additional funding for FY27. This confirms to taxpayers that
the City's primary operational strategy is to continuously spend our tax dollars
cleaning up the biological and mechanical waste left by unregulated OSVs, rather
than enforcing active parking bans. Why is Phase II an open-ended, exploratory
concept while the financial burden of managing this crisis is continuously shifted onto
Palo Alto property owners? Will the City refund or reduce our property taxes during
this uncapped Phase II timeline? Will you compensate homeowners for impacted
business losses and depressed property values?
3. On the Myth of "Phase I Success" and Displaced Noncompliance
The Report States: "Phase I successfully reduced noncompliance and some
impacts related to OSVs on public streets... Conditions improved over time as
compliance increased..."
The Neighborhood Rebuttal: This statement is demonstrably false and misleading.
Phase I did not solve the problem; it merely acted as a displacement mechanism. By
selectively clearing a few high-profile zones, the City exacerbated the crisis in South
and Midtown Palo Alto. OSV encampments have grown increasingly bold,
encroaching onto previously unaffected residential streets like Ames, Ross, Louis,
Colorado, Loma Verde, and East Meadow, and directly blocking bike lanes and
Fabian Way / Charleston Village (in front of the Blue Condos) and
East Meadow Drive (directly obstructing Ramos Park).
4. On Omitted Towing Data and Selected Jurisdictions
The Report States: "From January to September 2025, there were 73 tows, of which
15 were OSVs... From October to December 2025, there were a total of 50 tows, of
which were 31 OSVs... The Police Department has paid $91,600 for OSV towing
services."
The Neighborhood Rebuttal: The report explicitly boasts about spending $91,600
on increased towing rates to address noncompliant vehicles. Which specific streets
and neighborhoods did these tows take place in? Our neighborhood has witnessed
almost zero towing enforcement, leading to zero visible consequences for habitual
violators blocking public rights-of-way. Show us the geographic log of these OSV
tows so taxpayers can see exactly which neighborhoods the City is choosing to
protect, and which ones it is choosing to ignore.
5. Incorrectly Interpreting Reduced 72-Hour Violations as "Success"
Correspondence from Council Member Ed Lauing: “That statement by the news
organization is a bit misleading to the reader, but it is correct. The writer is referring to
the fact that, after substantial towing, there are fewer OSV dwellers violating the 72
hour parking law and the expired vehicle registration law. It does not mean the city is
content with the current OSV count or that we are not continuing to tow.”
The Neighborhood Rebuttal: Telling us that OSV dwellers are simply getting better
at avoiding towing is not reassuring in the slightest. It confirms exactly what
neighbors have been pointing out for months. When you state that there are fewer
individuals violating the 72-hour parking law, you are describing a system that has
taught violators how to game the rules, not a system that has achieved compliance.
The OSV owners have simply figured out the exact timing required to avoid a tow
sticker: they move their vehicles just enough feet, or shuffle them around the
immediate neighborhood blocks, to reset the city's 72-hour clock.
As noted above, this rotating displacement has pushed vehicles directly in front of
Ramos Park, where they are blocking sidewalks and bike lanes used by
neighborhood families, and actively parking directly in front of residential homes on
East Meadow, Ross, Louis, Ames, Loma Verde, Colorado, and Fabian Way /
Charleston Village. A vehicle shifting positions every 72 hours might look like a
successful data point on a compliance spreadsheet. From our vantage point as
residents, it is an active shell game. The public safety hazards, the blocked sightlines,
the infrastructure damage, and the accumulated trash do not disappear just because
an RV moves 50 feet down the block. Measuring the "success" of a policy by how
effectively violators can dodge enforcement is a fundamental misdiagnosis. We do
not want them getting better at avoiding current laws; we want the City to pass and
enforce citywide boundary restrictions that permanently protect our neighborhood
infrastructure.
6. On Misreading "Nuisance Citation" Declines
The Report States: "There has also been a reduction in the number of nuisance
citations related to OSVs. In 2025 there were 89 public nuisance citations issued and
in 2026, through May 13, 2026, there have been 27 citations issued."
The Neighborhood Rebuttal: The City Manager is profoundly misinterpreting
resident behavior as a policy success. The drop from 89 to 27 citations is not due to
"improved behavior" on the streets; it is due to resident exhaustion. Homeowners
have realized that logging active public nuisances, illegal dumping, and safety
hazards into the City's 311 system results in zero operational follow-up or
enforcement. We have stopped acting as the City’s unpaid, uncompensated code
enforcement watch out of sheer frustration, not because the nuisances have stopped.
7. On the False Claim of Responsiveness to Correspondence
The Report States: "Staff continue to monitor and respond to correspondence
submitted to the City Council on this topic."
The Neighborhood Rebuttal: This claim is outright false. Other than occasionally
offering "listening sessions" or ad hoc meetings that present no concrete plans,
residents have received zero meaningful, actionable written responses to the
extensive safety and code violations we have flagged. To state in an official public
record that staff is actively responding to constituent correspondence while our direct
inquiries are met with weeks of complete silence is an abdication of municipal
transparency.
THE PROPOSAL & ACTIONABLE POLICY BLUEPRINT
Our coalition of residents has taken the time to extensively consult with experts who are
well-versed in municipal governance, traffic safety infrastructure, and California
constitutional law.
The result of those consultations is the proposal detailed below.
We believe this proposal provides an immediate, legally sound, and fiscally responsible
operational roadmap. It balances public safety and equitable land use with a structured,
compassionate transition plan for vehicle dwellers. By leveraging the post-Grants Pass
legal landscape, the City can restore neighborhood safety, clear blocked public
infrastructure, and fulfill its fiduciary duties to its tax-paying residents.
Neighborhood Escalation, Community Myths and the Misperception that
Viable Alternatives Don’t Exist
Because enforcement has stalled, OSV operations have grown increasingly bold, migrating
into previously unaffected neighborhoods, streets and park ecosystems. And the council’s
suggestion that there are limited alternatives is incorrect.
Residential Encroachment: Active clusters have established an ongoing presence
along Ames, Ross, Louis, Loma Verde, Colorado, East Meadow and Mitchell
Park.
Infrastructure Hazards: Vehicles are now stationed on Fabian Way / Charleston
Village directly obstructing the Blue Condos and frequently along East Meadow
Drive right in front of Ramos Park, physically blocking pedestrian sidewalks and bike
lanes, creating acute life-safety hazards for neighborhood children and families.
The Lifestyle Commute: Direct observation confirms that multiple OSVs are being
utilized as rent-free, mid-week "commuter pads" to shorten commutes to employment
hubs like Livermore. These operations are frequently supported by brand-new,
premium transport vehicles ($80k+ SUVs, luxury sedans, and Teslas), fundamentally
dispelling the narrative of universal economic destitution. In multiple documented
cases, these vehicles have boats attached or expensive motorcycles parked next to
them, further proving this is not a homelessness issue. Furthermore, working in or
around Palo Alto does not equate to having deep roots or historical ties to our civic
community.
The Accommodating Magnet & Long-Term Choice: Direct engagement and local
media coverage confirm that multiple OSV dwellers explicitly chose their current
locations because Palo Alto's non-enforcement policy is so "accommodating," with
individuals migrating from as far away as Sacramento and Tahoe— disproving the
City's claim of local community ties. Furthermore, conversations reveal that a
significant number of these individuals have lived out of their OSVs for 5, 10, or 15+
years; this duration establishes a permanent choice rather than a temporary,
situational economic crisis.
Double Standard for Economic Reality: We need to call out the double standard
happening on our streets. If a hard-working housed family—whether they are a
professional, a retail worker, or entry-level corporate staff—can no longer afford the
cost of living in Palo Alto, they make the difficult, standard economic choice to
relocate. They move to other parts of California or to entirely different states like
Indiana, Wisconsin, or Colorado where their dollar stretches further. They do not get
to appropriate a piece of a public park or a residential bike lane to subsidize their
preferred climate or proximity to Silicon Valley.
The exact same standard must apply to OSV dwellers. There is absolutely no
shortage of physical space or infrastructure for full-time vehicles living in this
country. There are millions of acres of dedicated Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) Long-Term Visitor Areas in Arizona explicitly set up for year-round
vehicle habitation, and thousands of highly affordable, legally zoned RV parks
across the Midwest and Southwest where monthly lot rents are as low as $300
to $500.
These individuals are choosing to occupy Palo Alto’s high-value residential
streets and park zones not because they have zero options left in America, but
because Palo Alto’s non-enforcement policy makes it free and easy for them to
do so at the direct expense of our local taxpayers. Working or wanting to live in
Palo Alto does not grant anyone an un-zoned right to free public land.
Alternatives to Palo Alto and CA Exist:
Quartzsite & The Lower Colorado River Valley (Arizona)
This is the epicenter of long-term, high-capacity vehicles living in
the United States.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) operates massive Long-
Term Visitor Areas (LTVAs) (such as La Posa in Quartzsite or
Imperial in California/Arizona borders). For a nominal fee (around
$180 for an entire 7-month permit), anyone can legally park an OSV
on thousands of acres of designated land.
These areas are explicitly designed for long-term vehicle habitation,
offering centralized stations for trash disposal, freshwater filling,
and blackwater dump stations.
The Upper Midwest & Ohio River Valley (Indiana, Ohio, Michigan)
If vehicle dwellers are looking for affordable, permanent stationary
options, the states that actually manufacture the vast majority of the
country's RVs have the highest density of cheap, long-term RV
infrastructure.
States like Indiana and Ohio feature hundreds of rural and semi-
rural mobile home and RV parks with massive vacancy rates. Unlike
the Bay Area, where a single RV space can cost upwards of
$1,500/month, long-term lot rentals in these regions frequently cost
between $300 and $500 per month, including utility hookups.
The cost of food, gas, and basic amenities is drastically lower,
allowing a fixed or low income to stretch three to four times further
than it would in Silicon Valley.
Escapees RV Club Co-Ops (Texas, New Mexico, Nevada)
For long-term vehicle dwellers who want a structured, legal, and
community-oriented environment without paying California real
estate prices, the Southwest features dedicated RV Co-Op parks.
Networks like the Escapees RV Club operate massive, low-cost
cooperative parks throughout Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada.
These locations are specifically zoned for full-time RV residency,
offering permanent lot options, low maintenance fees, and robust
community infrastructure (laundry, medical access, and community
centers).
A FOUR-PHASE BLUEPRINT FOR RESOLUTION
PHASE 1: Adopt a Citywide Boundary Restrictions Model
The Operational Bottleneck: Staff previously estimated that block-by-block signage
to enforce localized restrictions would cost millions of dollars—a projection that
serves as an artificial barrier to action.
The Solution (CVC § 22651(n)): Under the California Vehicle Code, the City can
satisfy its physical notification obligations by enacting a uniform citywide overnight
restriction (prohibiting OSVs from parking on any public right-of-way between 2:00
AM and 6:00 AM).
Implementation: The City can establish full legal compliance by installing heavy-duty
legislative notice signs exclusively at city inlets and municipal borders (e.g., entry
points from Mountain View, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto). This achieves citywide
enforcement capability within 30 to 45 days at a fraction of the cost of block-by-block
signage.
PHASE 2: Implement a 30-Day Proactive, Compassionate Transition Period
The Philosophy: Residents understand the necessity of giving OSV dwellers fair,
reasonable time to adjust to municipal policy changes. We firmly believe public funds
are far better spent on extensive forewarning and structured outreach than on the
continuous, reactive cleanup of unregulated encampments.
The Solution: Upon passage of the citywide ordinance, the City will initiate a strict
30-day transition clock. During this window, code enforcement and social services will
conduct intensive community outreach, distributing flyers directly to all occupied
OSVs.
Resource Allocation: This 30-day window provides ample, humane notice for
transient occupants to relocate to legitimate, zoned RV parks in our state or
elsewhere in the US, or utilize designated municipal safe-parking programs, ensuring
no individual is caught off guard when active enforcement commences.
PHASE 3: Re-Establish the "Social Contract" via Equitable Enforcement
The Geographic Disparity: Certain neighborhoods, such as Old Palo Alto (e.g., the
1400 block of Webster St), enjoy the aggressive protections of Residential
Preferential Parking (RPP) districts, where non-permitted vehicles are strictly ticketed
or towed within a 2-hour window. Concurrently, South and Midtown Palo Alto
residential streets are treated as unregulated overflow lots.
The Solution: The City must eliminate this two-tiered system of municipal protection.
If the City’s operational and legal frameworks are robust enough to keep streets clear
near downtown and the properties of city leadership, those exact same standards of
protection must be applied equitably to the streets surrounding Ramos Park, Fabian
Way, and our broader neighborhoods.
PHASE 4: Transition from "72-Hour Warnings" to Active Safety Citations
The Myth of the 72-Hour Right: Under CVC § 22651(k), a 72-hour warning sticker
applies exclusively to vehicles legally parked but left standing.
The Solution: When an OSV parks on a residential street obstructing an active bike
lane, blocking the line-of-sight of a critical intersection, or encroaching onto an ADA-
compliant sidewalk, it is in immediate violation of public safety codes.
Actionable Directive: Instruct the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) and Code
Enforcement to issue immediate, non-waivable traffic safety citations for
infrastructure blockages upon discovery. Repeat violators who exhaust their 30-day
transition window must face immediate impoundment under active safety-hazard
protocols rather than receiving sequential, consequence-free warning stickers.
CLARIFYING THE LEGAL & POLICY REALITIES
1. The Post-Grants Pass Landscape
The City’s previous hesitation to implement sweeping restrictions was tethered to 9th
Circuit precedent (Martin v. Boise). However, the United States Supreme Court's ruling in
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson completely shifted the legal landscape, returning full
authority over public rights-of-way and camping ordinances to local policymakers.
Constitutional fears are no longer a viable justification for municipal delay.
2. Dissecting "Community Ties" vs. Transient Migration
The narrative that Palo Alto is solely managing a localized population with deep roots in our
community is contradicted by empirical evidence. Recent regional media coverage (KPIX |
CBS News Bay Area) highlighted OSV occupants openly admitting they migrated to Palo
Alto from as far away as Sacramento and Tahoe purely because our municipal posture is
uniquely "accommodating." Palo Alto has inadvertently turned itself into a subsidized
regional destination. We have verified and documented instances of occupants who hold
permanent residences in Capitola and Scotts Valley using our neighborhood streets as a
weekly bridge for their commutes.
3. Distinction of Scope: Vehicle Removal vs. Land Use
We must clarify a common misstatement often repeated in public forums: "if people are
removed from their RVs, we have a different type of homelessness problem." Residents are
not asking the City to remove people from their vehicles. Occupants have every right to
reside in their RVs. However, they do not have a right to appropriate public thoroughfares,
family transit corridors, and neighborhood parks as un-zoned, rent-free mobile home parks.
The City's primary fiduciary duty is to the tax-paying citizens who fund the municipality; it is
not obligated to source private land or absorb regional RV demand prior to enforcing its
own municipal safety codes.
CONCLUSION & CALL TO ACTION
We urge the City Council to bypass open-ended "pilot program" frameworks—which
frequently result in prolonged dialogue while conditions on the ground spirit away—and
directly vote on the following directives ahead of the summer recess:
1.
Direct the City Manager to draft an ordinance implementing a uniform citywide
overnight OSV restriction utilizing the border-signage model, coupled with an
immediate budget allocation for the 30-Day Proactive Notification and Outreach Flyer
Campaign.
2.
Direct the City Attorney to provide an immediate briefing on municipal enforcement
options optimized by the Grants Pass ruling to protect R-1 and residential zones.
3.
Direct PAPD and Code Enforcement to initiate immediate, proactive enforcement of
bike-lane obstructions and safety-sightline hazards at parks and school routes
without the application of elective 72-hour grace periods.
Taxpayers contributing upwards of $50,000 annually in property taxes are fulfilling their
financial obligations to Palo Alto; we expect the City to fulfill its reciprocal obligation to
protect the basic safety, sanitation, and accessibility of our streets.
I look forward to your response and partnership to act upon our proposal.
Regards,
Chris Schremp
From:Humphrey, Sonia
Cc:LAFCO
Subject:Now Available - Agenda Packet for June 22, 2026 LAFCO Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review TAC
Meeting #2
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 1:00:14 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The agenda packet for the June 22, 2026 LAFCO Countywide Water and Wastewater Service Review
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2 is now available on the LAFCO website:
https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/countywide-water-and-wastewater-service-review-technical-
advisory-committee-tac-meeting-2.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
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:Kat Snyder
To:Council, City
Subject:thank you for taking up against the Gilroy ICE detention center
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 11:26:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council,
I just saw on Palo Alto Online that you've joined the lawsuit against the Gilroy ICE detention
center and wanted to let you know I very much appreciate it. That center could increase Bay
Area ICE raids dramatically if it gets completed.
Take care,
~Kat Snyder
Palo Alto Resident
From:Rami Jioussy
To:Council, City
Cc:Heba Jioussy; Transportation
Subject:Re: Safety and Neighborhood Impact of RV Parking Near Ramos Park
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 9:07:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
And this:
On Jun 18, 2026, at 8:23 AM, Rami Jioussy <sramij@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Rami Jioussy and I live near Ramos Park. I am writing to express my
serious concerns regarding the persistent and growing issue of oversized vehicles
and RVs parking near Ramos Park and throughout the city.
I have lived in Palo Alto for the past decade, specifically because I valued the
city's commitment to maintaining a safe, orderly, and beautiful environment.
Currently, these RVs are frequently parked on our neighborhood streets, often
blocking sidewalks. My children walk to Ramos Park on their own, and with
those vehicles there, I am always concerned and will no longer allow them to do
so, since walking so close to such large vehicles poses a significant safety hazard.
Beyond the safety concerns, the continuous presence of these vehicles
significantly detracts from the visual appeal and overall character of our
neighborhood. This is not the environment I envisioned when choosing to raise
my family in Palo Alto.
I urge the City Council to take decisive action to enforce parking regulations and
explore effective solutions to address this issue compassionately but firmly.
I would also like to know, are you guys doing anything about this?
Thanks
Rami<IMG_6655.jpeg>
From:Rami Jioussy
To:Council, City
Cc:Heba Jioussy; Transportation
Subject:Safety and Neighborhood Impact of RV Parking Near Ramos Park
Date:Thursday, June 18, 2026 8:24:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Rami Jioussy and I live near Ramos Park. I am writing to express my serious
concerns regarding the persistent and growing issue of oversized vehicles and RVs parking near
Ramos Park and throughout the city.
I have lived in Palo Alto for the past decade, specifically because I valued the city's commitment
to maintaining a safe, orderly, and beautiful environment.
Currently, these RVs are frequently parked on our neighborhood streets, often blocking sidewalks.
My children walk to Ramos Park on their own, and with those vehicles there, I am always
concerned and will no longer allow them to do so, since walking so close to such large vehicles
poses a significant safety hazard.
Beyond the safety concerns, the continuous presence of these vehicles significantly detracts from
the visual appeal and overall character of our neighborhood. This is not the environment I
envisioned when choosing to raise my family in Palo Alto.
I urge the City Council to take decisive action to enforce parking regulations and explore effective
solutions to address this issue compassionately but firmly.
I would also like to know, are you guys doing anything about this?
Thanks
Rami
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Robert Neff
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for the action on the BPTP on June 15
Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 9:57:57 PM
Dear Members of City Council,
I appreciated your thoughtful discussion and approval of the 2026
Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan when I attended the June 15 city
council meeting. I appreciated that you considered the public input, be
it for California Avenue and an important bikeway, for reconsideration
of some recommendations made by PABAC, or intersections or segments
where you know from long experience that improvements must be included
in this next 10-year document.
I'm glad that this passed - there are many places in our bike network
where we can go from just OK for some to excellent for all ages and
abilities. I look forward to progress on that in the next 10 years.
And enjoy your summer break!
Thank you for your service to our community,
-- Robert Neff
Emerson near Loma Verde
Member of PABAC (for identification).
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Pigman, Sophie; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Stone, Greer; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki;
Council, City; Mino Ngo; info@scchousingauthority.org; Julia M. Adams; Maeve Brown; Marisela Baca;
barr@stanford.edu; ean@lifemoves.org; Project Sentinel Fair Housing; osh@hhs.sccgov.org;
nathanial.r.hill@hud.gov; Hoyt, George; Hartley, Craig; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; info; Jaslynn Wygal;
julie.lythcott@paloalto.gov; Reckdahl, Keith; Kaminski, KJ; Apple, Kara; Christiansen, Leif; r9intakeinbox11
Subject:Re: Opportunity Center Tenant Association Request for Immediate Intervention, Independent Oversight, and
Resident Meeting
Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 4:52:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Signatures.pdf
Tenant Union
On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 4:35 PM Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> wrote:
Opportunity Center Tenant Association
Request for Immediate Intervention, Independent Oversight, and Resident Meeting
6-17-26
To the City of Palo Alto, Housing Authority Representatives, Housing Officials, and
Oversight Agencies:
Residents of the Opportunity Center have organized to form an Opportunity Center Tenant
Association because many believe there is no meaningful way to have concerns heard,
documented, investigated, or resolved.
This letter is intended to document concerns regarding inspections, grievances,
accommodations, resident organizing, and the upcoming transition of services at the
Opportunity Center.
---
June 17 Housing Authority Reinspection
A Housing Authority reinspection was scheduled between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM.
I remained available throughout the inspection window because I wanted inspectors to hear
directly from residents regarding ongoing concerns involving mold, water intrusion,
habitability, pest control, disability accommodations, retaliation, relocation issues, and
resident safety.
My door remained open.
I had documentation prepared.
I also placed a sign outside Room 205 that read:
"HELP"
"MOLD"
"I am suffering"
The purpose of the sign was simple: I wanted inspectors to know that a resident who has
repeatedly reported concerns was present, available, and asking to be heard.
No one knocked on my door.
No one interviewed me.
No one requested documentation.
No one discussed the concerns that residents have been raising for months.
This is particularly concerning because the inspection notice included second-floor units,
including Room 212, for reinspection. I therefore expected second-floor residents would be
included in the process.
Residents deserve to know:
• Which units were inspected.
• Which residents were interviewed.
• How resident concerns were incorporated into inspection findings.
• How residents can provide information directly to inspectors and oversight agencies.
---
Formation of the Opportunity Center Tenant Association
Residents from multiple floors and units have signed authorization forms supporting the
creation of an Opportunity Center Tenant Association.
The purpose of the association is to provide residents with a collective voice regarding:
• Habitability concerns
• Mold and water intrusion
• Pest control practices
• Disability accommodations
• Resident safety
• Relocation issues
• Transparency
• Retaliation concerns
• Access to services
• Resident rights
Residents organized because many feel they have exhausted every other avenue for
assistance.
---
Removal of Tenant Association Materials
As part of the effort to organize residents, informational materials regarding the proposed
tenant association were posted on resident bulletin boards throughout the building.
These bulletin boards are regularly used for resident notices and community information.
The tenant association materials were subsequently removed from every floor.
Residents are concerned that information regarding organizing efforts was removed while
other materials remained posted.
The removal of tenant association information raises serious concerns regarding residents'
ability to communicate, associate, and organize around issues affecting their housing.
Residents should be encouraged—not discouraged—to participate in efforts aimed at
improving safety, accountability, transparency, and quality of life within the building.
---
Failure of the Grievance Process
One of the primary reasons residents have organized is the apparent failure of the grievance
process at the Opportunity Center.
Management states that a grievance process exists.
However, I have personally never met or spoken with a resident who has received a
meaningful written decision, hearing, finding, or resolution through that process.
Residents report submitting grievances only to receive:
• No response
• No written findings
• No decision
• No timeline
• No appeal information
• No meaningful resolution
A grievance process cannot be considered functional if residents have no meaningful way to
obtain a decision and no effective path to appeal.
We request an independent review of the grievance process currently being offered to
residents.
---
ADA and Section 504 Accommodation Concerns
The same concerns exist regarding ADA and Section 504 accommodation requests.
Residents submit requests involving:
• Disabilities
• Medical needs
• Transfers
• Communication accommodations
• Safety concerns
• Habitability concerns
Residents frequently report receiving:
• No written determination
• No explanation of the process
• No interactive discussion
• No meaningful avenue for appeal
Many residents do not know:
• Who reviews accommodation requests
• How decisions are made
• What standards are applied
• How denials may be appealed
• Who is responsible for ensuring compliance
This is especially troubling because the Opportunity Center serves elderly, disabled,
medically fragile, and vulnerable individuals who depend on these protections.
---
Transition Away From Abode Services
Residents have been informed that Abode Services will no longer be providing services at
the Opportunity Center and that responsibilities may be transitioning to other organizations.
This raises significant concerns regarding continuity of services and protection of resident
rights.
Residents deserve answers regarding:
• Pending grievances
• Pending ADA and Section 504 requests
• Resident records
• Psychiatric services
• Case management services
• Housing support services
• Appeal procedures
• Responsibility for unresolved complaints
Residents should not lose access to protections, services, accommodations, records, or
unresolved complaints because service providers change.
---
Request for Independent Oversight
Many residents believe they are caught in a system where concerns are repeatedly redirected
between management, service providers, oversight agencies, and public entities without
meaningful resolution.
Residents deserve an independent review process that does not require them to rely solely on
organizations directly involved in operating the property.
We respectfully request oversight that is transparent, independent, and accessible to
residents.
Pest Control Concerns
Residents continue to live with persistent cockroach infestations despite years of ongoing
pest control services and multiple pest control contractors. Many tenants report regularly
seeing roaches in their rooms, bathrooms, hallways, and common areas, creating ongoing
concerns regarding sanitation, health, and quality of life. At the same time, residents are
frequently blamed for infestations despite the widespread nature of the problem throughout
the building. When treatments are performed, residents have raised concerns regarding
safety, notice, transparency, and effectiveness. Vulnerable tenants, including elderly,
disabled, medically fragile, and immunocompromised individuals, have reported adverse
health effects following pesticide applications and have questioned whether adequate
precautions are being taken before treatments occur. Residents deserve effective pest
management, clear notification regarding products being used, appropriate accommodations
for those with medical sensitivities, and treatment practices that prioritize both safety and
long-term eradication rather than simply shifting responsibility onto tenants while
infestations continue.
---
Requests for Immediate Action
The Opportunity Center Tenant Association respectfully requests:
1. A meeting between Housing Authority representatives, City officials, and residents.
2. Documentation regarding the June 17 inspection, including units inspected and residents
interviewed.
3. An independent review of the grievance process.
4. An independent review of ADA and Section 504 accommodation procedures.
5. Protection from retaliation for residents participating in advocacy, organizing, complaints,
accommodation requests, or relocation requests.
6. An explanation regarding the transition of services from Abode and how resident rights
will be protected.
7. An investigation into the removal of tenant association materials from resident bulletin
boards.
8. A direct method for residents to communicate concerns to an independent oversight body.
---
# Conclusion
Residents have organized because many feel they have exhausted every available avenue for
assistance.
We are not asking for special treatment.
We are asking to be heard.
We are asking for transparency.
We are asking for accountability.
We are asking for a meaningful grievance process, a meaningful accommodation process,
protection from retaliation, and independent oversight of a building that houses some of the
community's most vulnerable residents.
We respectfully request a written response and an opportunity to meet.
Sincerely,
Becky Wolf
Room 205
Opportunity Center Tenant Association Representative
On behalf of participating residents of the Opportunity Center
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Pigman, Sophie; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Stone, Greer; City Mgr; Veenker, Vicki;
Council, City; Mino Ngo; info@scchousingauthority.org; Julia M. Adams; Maeve Brown; Marisela Baca;
barr@stanford.edu; ean@lifemoves.org; Project Sentinel Fair Housing; osh@hhs.sccgov.org;
nathanial.r.hill@hud.gov; Hoyt, George; Hartley, Craig; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; info; Jaslynn Wygal;
julie.lythcott@paloalto.gov; Reckdahl, Keith; Kaminski, KJ; Apple, Kara; Christiansen, Leif; r9intakeinbox11
Subject:Opportunity Center Tenant Association Request for Immediate Intervention, Independent Oversight, and
Resident Meeting
Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 4:35:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Opportunity Center Tenant Association
Request for Immediate Intervention, Independent Oversight, and Resident Meeting
6-17-26
To the City of Palo Alto, Housing Authority Representatives, Housing Officials, and
Oversight Agencies:
Residents of the Opportunity Center have organized to form an Opportunity Center Tenant
Association because many believe there is no meaningful way to have concerns heard,
documented, investigated, or resolved.
This letter is intended to document concerns regarding inspections, grievances,
accommodations, resident organizing, and the upcoming transition of services at the
Opportunity Center.
---
June 17 Housing Authority Reinspection
A Housing Authority reinspection was scheduled between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM.
I remained available throughout the inspection window because I wanted inspectors to hear
directly from residents regarding ongoing concerns involving mold, water intrusion,
habitability, pest control, disability accommodations, retaliation, relocation issues, and
resident safety.
My door remained open.
I had documentation prepared.
I also placed a sign outside Room 205 that read:
"HELP"
"MOLD"
"I am suffering"
The purpose of the sign was simple: I wanted inspectors to know that a resident who has
repeatedly reported concerns was present, available, and asking to be heard.
No one knocked on my door.
No one interviewed me.
No one requested documentation.
No one discussed the concerns that residents have been raising for months.
This is particularly concerning because the inspection notice included second-floor units,
including Room 212, for reinspection. I therefore expected second-floor residents would be
included in the process.
Residents deserve to know:
• Which units were inspected.
• Which residents were interviewed.
• How resident concerns were incorporated into inspection findings.
• How residents can provide information directly to inspectors and oversight agencies.
---
Formation of the Opportunity Center Tenant Association
Residents from multiple floors and units have signed authorization forms supporting the
creation of an Opportunity Center Tenant Association.
The purpose of the association is to provide residents with a collective voice regarding:
• Habitability concerns
• Mold and water intrusion
• Pest control practices
• Disability accommodations
• Resident safety
• Relocation issues
• Transparency
• Retaliation concerns
• Access to services
• Resident rights
Residents organized because many feel they have exhausted every other avenue for assistance.
---
Removal of Tenant Association Materials
As part of the effort to organize residents, informational materials regarding the proposed
tenant association were posted on resident bulletin boards throughout the building.
These bulletin boards are regularly used for resident notices and community information.
The tenant association materials were subsequently removed from every floor.
Residents are concerned that information regarding organizing efforts was removed while
other materials remained posted.
The removal of tenant association information raises serious concerns regarding residents'
ability to communicate, associate, and organize around issues affecting their housing.
Residents should be encouraged—not discouraged—to participate in efforts aimed at
improving safety, accountability, transparency, and quality of life within the building.
---
Failure of the Grievance Process
One of the primary reasons residents have organized is the apparent failure of the grievance
process at the Opportunity Center.
Management states that a grievance process exists.
However, I have personally never met or spoken with a resident who has received a
meaningful written decision, hearing, finding, or resolution through that process.
Residents report submitting grievances only to receive:
• No response
• No written findings
• No decision
• No timeline
• No appeal information
• No meaningful resolution
A grievance process cannot be considered functional if residents have no meaningful way to
obtain a decision and no effective path to appeal.
We request an independent review of the grievance process currently being offered to
residents.
---
ADA and Section 504 Accommodation Concerns
The same concerns exist regarding ADA and Section 504 accommodation requests.
Residents submit requests involving:
• Disabilities
• Medical needs
• Transfers
• Communication accommodations
• Safety concerns
• Habitability concerns
Residents frequently report receiving:
• No written determination
• No explanation of the process
• No interactive discussion
• No meaningful avenue for appeal
Many residents do not know:
• Who reviews accommodation requests
• How decisions are made
• What standards are applied
• How denials may be appealed
• Who is responsible for ensuring compliance
This is especially troubling because the Opportunity Center serves elderly, disabled, medically
fragile, and vulnerable individuals who depend on these protections.
---
Transition Away From Abode Services
Residents have been informed that Abode Services will no longer be providing services at the
Opportunity Center and that responsibilities may be transitioning to other organizations.
This raises significant concerns regarding continuity of services and protection of resident
rights.
Residents deserve answers regarding:
• Pending grievances
• Pending ADA and Section 504 requests
• Resident records
• Psychiatric services
• Case management services
• Housing support services
• Appeal procedures
• Responsibility for unresolved complaints
Residents should not lose access to protections, services, accommodations, records, or
unresolved complaints because service providers change.
---
Request for Independent Oversight
Many residents believe they are caught in a system where concerns are repeatedly redirected
between management, service providers, oversight agencies, and public entities without
meaningful resolution.
Residents deserve an independent review process that does not require them to rely solely on
organizations directly involved in operating the property.
We respectfully request oversight that is transparent, independent, and accessible to residents.
Pest Control Concerns
Residents continue to live with persistent cockroach infestations despite years of ongoing pest
control services and multiple pest control contractors. Many tenants report regularly seeing
roaches in their rooms, bathrooms, hallways, and common areas, creating ongoing concerns
regarding sanitation, health, and quality of life. At the same time, residents are frequently
blamed for infestations despite the widespread nature of the problem throughout the building.
When treatments are performed, residents have raised concerns regarding safety, notice,
transparency, and effectiveness. Vulnerable tenants, including elderly, disabled, medically
fragile, and immunocompromised individuals, have reported adverse health effects following
pesticide applications and have questioned whether adequate precautions are being taken
before treatments occur. Residents deserve effective pest management, clear notification
regarding products being used, appropriate accommodations for those with medical
sensitivities, and treatment practices that prioritize both safety and long-term eradication rather
than simply shifting responsibility onto tenants while infestations continue.
---
Requests for Immediate Action
The Opportunity Center Tenant Association respectfully requests:
1. A meeting between Housing Authority representatives, City officials, and residents.
2. Documentation regarding the June 17 inspection, including units inspected and residents
interviewed.
3. An independent review of the grievance process.
4. An independent review of ADA and Section 504 accommodation procedures.
5. Protection from retaliation for residents participating in advocacy, organizing, complaints,
accommodation requests, or relocation requests.
6. An explanation regarding the transition of services from Abode and how resident rights will
be protected.
7. An investigation into the removal of tenant association materials from resident bulletin
boards.
8. A direct method for residents to communicate concerns to an independent oversight body.
---
# Conclusion
Residents have organized because many feel they have exhausted every available avenue for
assistance.
We are not asking for special treatment.
We are asking to be heard.
We are asking for transparency.
We are asking for accountability.
We are asking for a meaningful grievance process, a meaningful accommodation process,
protection from retaliation, and independent oversight of a building that houses some of the
community's most vulnerable residents.
We respectfully request a written response and an opportunity to meet.
Sincerely,
Becky Wolf
Room 205
Opportunity Center Tenant Association Representative
On behalf of participating residents of the Opportunity Center
From:Laia Chandran-Moles
To:Council, City
Subject:Request to Share Community Scam Prevention Seminar (July 11)
Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 10:20:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I hope you are doing well.
My name is Laia Chandran-Moles, and I am a student at Los Gatos High School volunteering
with Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputy Robert Yee on the Stop Scams Against Seniors
initiative.
Over the past few months, I have become increasingly interested in efforts to raise awareness
about scams targeting older adults and have learned about the significant impact that fraud can
have on seniors and their families. Many victims never report these incidents, making
community education one of the most effective tools for prevention.
To help address this issue, the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff is hosting a free public
seminar at De Anza College on Saturday, July 11 from 3:00–5:00 PM. The seminar will cover
common scams targeting older adults, local case studies, fraud prevention strategies, and
emerging threats involving artificial intelligence.
Because many Palo Alto residents and older adults may benefit from this information, I was
wondering whether the City of Palo Alto would be willing to share the attached flyer through
community newsletters, event calendars, senior programs, or other communication channels.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Laia Chandran-Moles
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:editor@geo-news3.com
To:crodriguez@yorbalindaca.gov; kennermayor@kenner.la.us; mayor@walnut-creek.org;
mayor@cityoffrederickmd.gov; mmugerauer@oshkoshwi.gov; dadams@pittsburgca.gov;
citycouncil@pittsburgca.gov; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; Hazardous Materials Questions
Cc:ofitzsimmons@bismarcknd.gov; bccbitner@nd.gov; bccbakken@nd.gov; bccmunson@nd.gov; info@cccfpd.org;
SupervisorCarlson@bos.cccounty.us; candace.andersen@bos.cccounty.us;
councilmembers@frederickcountymd.gov; fireandrescue@frederickcountymd.gov; theiman@oshkoshwi.gov;
gstelter@oshkoshwi.gov; district5@bos.sccgov.org; Fire
Subject:Geoengineering
Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 6:33:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
In fact, Geoengineering technologies are inherently unpredictable and pose new,
significant, unprecedented risks to the fragile ecosystems that sustain life on
Earth.
Join in supporting:
H.R. 4403, titled the "Clear Skies Act of 2025," This bill aims to prohibit, penalize, and investigate
weather modification activities, such as cloud seeding or geoengineering, within the United States. It
would ban the intentional release of substances into the atmosphere to alter weather
patterns.Referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure,
and Science, Space, and Technology.
Other Bills :
H.R. 7452 Air Quality Act
H.R. 6941 Atmosphere Study Act
Thank you,
Editor - Geo-News3.com
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:william.olcott@gmail.com
To:Kandikuppa, Nishita; Planning Commission; PlannerOnDuty; Raybould, Claire; Sauls, Garrett; Council, City;
mayor@paloalto.gov; City Attorney
Subject:Near adjacent homeowner concern re: 450 Lytton St. Development
Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2026 3:35:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the City of Palo Alto Planning Department and City Council:
I am writing as the owner of a nearby single-family home at 443 Kipling
Street to state my firm opposition to the proposed development at 450
Lytton Avenue, commonly known as Lot T.
My objection is not to affordable housing as a goal. I strongly support well-
planned housing in Palo Alto, including affordable housing. My objection
is to this particular site selection and implementation: replacing a heavily
used public parking lot in an already parking-constrained
downtown/residential edge area, without first providing a credible,
completed, and equivalent replacement for the public parking that will be
lost.
Lot T is not an abstract “underutilized” parcel. It is a 52-space public
parking lot located immediately adjacent to residential homes and
downtown businesses. For nearby homeowners, including my property
approximately 200 feet away, the loss of this parking will have direct and
substantial impacts. When public parking is removed, the demand does not
disappear. It is displaced onto surrounding residential streets, including
Kipling Street and nearby blocks that already absorb spillover from
downtown visitors, employees, service providers, and residents.
The proposed project would introduce a large six-story residential building
on a small site while simultaneously removing existing public parking.
Even if the project contains some internal parking, that does not solve the
public parking problem. Internal residential parking primarily serves the
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
building. It does not replace the existing public function of Lot T for
downtown visitors, workers, merchants, customers, and nearby residents.
I am also deeply concerned by the pending litigation challenging the City’s
authority to convert Lot T to housing. Public reporting indicates that the
lawsuit argues that downtown parking facilities, including Lot T, were
acquired, improved, and maintained through assessments on downtown
property owners and were intended to serve as public off-street parking. If
that history is accurate, the City should not move forward as though this is
an ordinary city-owned surplus parcel. At minimum, the City should pause
discretionary approvals until the legal status of the lot, the assessment
history, and the rights of affected property owners and the public are fully
resolved.
It would be profoundly unfair for the City to take away public parking that
was paid for and relied upon by the downtown community, and then ask the
immediately surrounding residential neighborhood to absorb the
consequences. This is especially troubling where the City itself has
acknowledged the need for replacement parking nearby. Replacement
parking should not be a future aspiration or a vague mitigation concept. It
should be secured, funded, approved, built, and operational before Lot T is
removed from public use.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City to:
1. Deny or suspend approval of the 450 Lytton Avenue project until the
pending litigation is resolved.
2. Require a complete, transparent accounting of the funding,
assessment, acquisition, maintenance, and legal restrictions applicable
to Lot T.
3. Prepare a serious parking-impact analysis focused not only on
downtown parking supply in the abstract, but on spillover impacts to
Kipling Street and the immediately adjacent residential neighborhood.
4. Require no net loss of public parking before any redevelopment of Lot
T proceeds.
5. Consider alternative sites for affordable housing that do not eliminate
critical public parking at the edge of a single-family residential
neighborhood.
Palo Alto can and should pursue affordable housing without disregarding
the legal, practical, and neighborhood impacts of removing long-standing
public parking. The current proposal places an unfair burden on nearby
homeowners and downtown users, and it should not proceed in its present
form.
Sincerely,
William Olcott
Owner, 443 Kipling Street
Palo Alto, California
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer
Subject:Open Letter to the Palo Alto City Council
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 9:40:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Open Letter to the Palo Alto City Council
The Opportunity Center Was Created to Help the Most Vulnerable. What Happened?
I am writing to ask a simple question:
What happened to the mission of The Opportunity Center?
This facility was created to help people facing homelessness, disability, trauma, poverty, and
serious health challenges. Yet since the Notice of Violation was issued regarding conditions at
the building, I have watched some of the most vulnerable residents disappear.
Many residents are now afraid.
They see people removed from the building, lose their housing, or simply vanish from the
community without understanding what happened. Whether these actions were lawful,
whether residents were fully informed of their rights, and whether appropriate services were
offered are questions that deserve answers.
One resident was Jen, who lived in Room 408.
Jen is a woman with significant mental health challenges and a history of trauma. Throughout
the time she lived here, I was aware that she struggled with substance use. However, her
struggles were never meaningfully addressed through treatment or support services that I
could see. She remained a vulnerable person in need of help.
Approximately a week and a half ago, Jen was no longer living in her room.
Yesterday I saw her again. The change was shocking.
Jen was always clean. She kept her room clean. She took pride in her space. Yesterday she
appeared filthy, smelled strongly of urine, could not stand still, and appeared deeply
traumatized. When I waved goodbye to her, she flinched so severely that it appeared she was
expecting something bad to happen.
The Jen I saw yesterday was not the Jen I knew while she lived at The Opportunity Center.
I have also observed another tenant using her former room for storage.
If Jen left voluntarily, where is the documentation? What services were provided? What
outreach was conducted? What efforts were made to ensure her safety?
If she did not leave voluntarily, what process was followed?
Another resident is Cynthia Gonzalez, who lived in Room 406.
Cynthia is 69 years old. She is physically disabled, cognitively challenged, and has significant
difficulty navigating systems on her own. Her room suffered from serious habitability
concerns, including mold conditions that I personally documented with photographs.
Cynthia received a three-day notice. From my conversations with her, she believed that if she
could not pay within those three days, she had to leave immediately.
As a result, she gave away many of her belongings and ended up living outside.
Since then, I have personally observed Cynthia sleeping in locations including a nearby
doctor's office parking lot and other outdoor locations.
How does a publicly funded supportive housing program allow a 69-year-old disabled woman
to end up sleeping outside without ensuring she has somewhere safe to go?
How does a supportive housing program discharge highly vulnerable residents without helping
them navigate housing alternatives?
How does this happen while the building is already under scrutiny for serious habitability
concerns?
These are not isolated stories.
Residents watch what happens to people like Jen and Cynthia.
The message they receive is simple: if the most vulnerable people can disappear from
supportive housing, anyone can.
That creates fear.
Fear discourages people from speaking up about health hazards, mold, disability
accommodations, retaliation, or unsafe conditions.
Supportive housing should not operate through fear.
Supportive housing should operate through support.
I also continue to be concerned by the overlapping relationships among organizations,
agencies, contractors, and decision-makers connected to this property. The public deserves
transparency regarding who is responsible for oversight, who is accountable when things go
wrong, and whether conflicts of interest are affecting decision-making.
The City of Palo Alto has celebrated The Opportunity Center through ribbon cuttings, public
announcements, and community recognition.
Now the City must answer for what is happening inside.
Where are the success stories?
Where are the protections for the most vulnerable residents?
Where is the accountability?
Most importantly:
What happened to Jen?
What happened to Cynthia?
And what is the City doing to ensure that no one else suffers the same fate?
If people do not feel safe in supportive housing, they cannot heal.
If they cannot heal, they cannot rebuild their lives.
And if they cannot rebuild their lives, then supportive housing has failed the very people it
was created to serve.
— Becky Wolf
Resident, The Opportunity Center
Palo Alto, California
#SilenceIsNotSurvivable
#SupportiveHousing
#PaloAlto
#HousingJustice
#DisabilityRights
#Homelessness
#Transparency
#Accountability
#TheOpportunityCenter
#Abode
From:Robert Marinaro
To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; City Mgr
Cc:Bulatao, Eric; Lindsey, Stephen; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Loren Brown; Dana Dahlstrom; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle
Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; T Bullman; Dave Stellman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Xenia Czisch; Bill McLane; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor
Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; Maggie Madlangbayan; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz
Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Pigman, Sophie; Baird, Nathan; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Jo Ann Mandinach; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green;
Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Arthur Keller; Jeff Levinsky; Becky Sanders; Douglas Moran; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; McDonough, Melissa; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin
Mayer; Boris Folsch; Margaret Abe-Koga; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Robin Holbrook; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; Gaines, Chantal; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Stephanie Wansek; Penny Brennan;
Taryn Sanford; Maia Harris; Sayuri Kabutogi; Bernadette Zimmerman; Doreen Chew; Kshama Jirage; Jenni Simon; Subadhra Arunasalam; Robert Russell; Doug Bacon; Chuan Wang; Shchopra; Al Dorsky; Phil Wettersten; Ann Wettersten; Todd Jin; Emily Emily;
Daryl Savage; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Jsydow@comcast.net; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert
Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Eggleston, Brad; Rius, Rafael; Lo, Ria; Andrade, Alex; Bob Kennis
Subject:A Day in the Life of East Meadow Circle (6/15/26)
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 9:29:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committee, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses,
All these photos were taken on Monday June 15, 2026. East Meadow Circle is a street in south Palo Alto adjacent to the Adobe Meadow Neighborhood which is 0.5 miles (2,640 ft.) long street and it has 40 OSVs parked on it.
Many of us residents, including many of the businesses, have voiced their concern but very little has been done over the past year. The City touts a much improved landscape in a recent report, but the fact is there are still 40
OSVs on this small street and the businesses here are suffering and frustrated!
What will to take for the City to act?
Regards,
Bob Marinaro
Got to love the name of the RV on the right
I’m pretty sure there is a regulation in the municipal code that says you need to park 50 ft. from an intersection with a stop sign!
What does that sign say?
View from someone’s condo
Nice truck!
And nice boat!
Living in a Box Truck in front of a Google Building
A saw an 18 wheeler trying to navigate this turn the other day
New Google building being remodeled
Sofia University - - Very concerned about what surrounds their campus
From:Aram James
To:Council, City
Subject:New Yorker article 1964
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 9:15:49 PM
Attachments:New Yorker article 1964.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
From:Aram James
To:Council, City
Subject:New Yorker article 1962
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 6:53:38 PM
Attachments:New Yorker article 1962.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
circa 1962
From:Becky Wolf-Loretz
To:Council, City
Subject:Open Letter to the Palo Alto City Council
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 5:03:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Open Letter to the Palo Alto City Council
Subject: Why Am I Being Denied Services, Accommodations, and Equal Treatment in Palo
Alto?
Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing because I no longer know where to turn for help.
For months, I have reported health and safety concerns, requested records, requested
accommodations, reported retaliation, asked for transparency, and sought assistance through
the channels I was told to use. Instead of receiving answers, I have experienced delays,
silence, redirection, and what feels like a complete breakdown in accountability.
I am asking a simple question:
Why am I being denied services, information, and protections that appear to be available to
others?
What troubles me most is that this is no longer about a single issue or a single department. I
have been denied meaningful assistance across nearly every system that was supposed to help
me. I have sought help from the Palo Alto Police Department, Code Enforcement, Human
Services, the City Manager's Office, members of the City Council, the Mayor, the Vice
Mayor, prior City leadership, Project Sentinel, and numerous other agencies and
organizations. I have reported health and safety concerns, requested accommodations, sought
protection from harassment and retaliation, requested records, asked for guidance regarding
appeals, requested housing assistance, sought access to food and basic services, and repeatedly
asked for help navigating issues affecting my health and housing stability. Instead of receiving
meaningful assistance, I have encountered delays, silence, incomplete responses, redirection,
or no response at all. At some point, it becomes impossible to dismiss this as a series of
isolated failures. The result is that I am left feeling as though I am being excluded from the
very services, protections, and support systems that exist to help vulnerable residents, while
continuing to watch others receive assistance that I cannot seem to access despite asking for it
repeatedly.
I am a survivor of domestic violence. I disclosed my status as a survivor and requested
accommodations related to PTSD and disability. I submitted accommodation requests and
repeatedly explained how certain actions and situations affect my ability to function safely and
effectively.
To date, I do not believe those requests have been meaningfully addressed. Those requests
have actually been Weaponized against me.
I have repeatedly reported concerns involving housing conditions, health impacts, retaliation,
harassment, and access to services. Yet I continue to find myself in the position of having to
fight for basic information regarding matters that directly affect my health, safety, and housing
stability.
I have requested records and explanations regarding permits, inspections, remediation
activities, appeals, and enforcement actions affecting the building where I live. Instead of
receiving clear answers, I have been left searching for information on my own.
I have repeatedly asked for the appeal procedures related to the Notice of Violation affecting
my building. If residents are expected to participate in a process, they should be told what that
process is. When information is withheld, residents cannot effectively protect their rights.
That is not transparency.
That is not accountability.
That is not public service.
I am also deeply troubled by what I have witnessed involving other vulnerable residents.
Many residents at the Opportunity Center are elderly, disabled, medically fragile, survivors of
trauma, or living with cognitive impairments. Yet I have repeatedly watched residents struggle
to obtain assistance while facing barriers that seem impossible to overcome.
Supportive housing should support people.
It should not leave people feeling trapped, unheard, or afraid to ask for help.
I am further concerned about the appearance of conflicts of interest and longstanding
relationships involving organizations, officials, and individuals connected to the Opportunity
Center. I am not alleging wrongdoing. I am asking whether independent review and
transparency safeguards are being applied so that residents can have confidence in the
decisions being made.
Most importantly, I want City Council to understand the human impact.
The lack of answers is traumatizing.
The lack of communication is traumatizing.
Being told to use the proper channels and then receiving no meaningful response is
traumatizing.
Watching vulnerable people lose housing, lose services, or lose hope while being told
everything is working as intended is traumatizing.
I am asking the City Council to answer the following:
1. What accommodations process exists for residents who have disabilities and PTSD-related
needs when interacting with City departments?
2. Why have repeated requests for information regarding permits, inspections, remediation,
and appeals not resulted in clear answers?
3. What process exists for residents to challenge decisions affecting their housing, health, and
safety?
4. What oversight exists to ensure vulnerable residents are receiving equal access to services
and protections?
5. What safeguards are in place to ensure impartial review when concerns involve
organizations or individuals with longstanding ties to City projects?
I am not asking for special treatment.
I am asking for equal treatment.
I am asking for transparency.
I am asking for accountability.
I am asking for the same access to information, accommodations, services, and protections
that every resident of Palo Alto deserves.
If the City of Palo Alto intends to continue declining to answer my questions, delaying
responses, or directing me from one office to another without resolution, then I am
respectfully requesting the opportunity to meet publicly with appropriate City representatives
before the City Council at the next available Council meeting. I believe the issues I have
raised involve matters of significant public concern, including access to services, disability
accommodations, resident protections, transparency, accountability, and the treatment of
vulnerable residents. If these concerns cannot be addressed through the normal channels
despite months of requests, then I believe they deserve to be discussed in a public forum
where both the questions and the responses can be heard by the community. I would welcome
the opportunity to meet openly, present my concerns, and receive clear answers regarding why
I continue to be denied the assistance, information, accommodations, and protections I have
been seeking for so long.
Respectfully,
Becky Wolf
Resident, Opportunity Center
33 Encina Avenue
Palo Alto, California
#SilenceIsNotSurvivable
From:Anne Hanzel
To:Council, City
Subject:3350 West Bayshore
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 4:49:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I am a resident of Palo Alto living on Loma Verde Ave. I have just become aware of
this horrifying proposal to develop 3350 West Bayshore Rd. into an enormous 8 story
residential building plus many townhouses.
The housing development on the opposite corner already has inadequate parking for
its residents, they park on Loma Verde Ave. Not only is parking for this new building
an issue, but to add at least 592 cars, with 2 cars per residence, and figure out how
will they access this area is not addressed.
Senate Bill 330 states that:
“The City may not disapprove the project or impose conditions that lower the density
of the project unless it finds that the Project would result in a specific, adverse health
or safety impact”,
This proposed building would definitely create a specific safety impact and possibly
an adverse health effect due to the increase in number of cars traveling on Loma
Verde Ave.
I would like you to try to reduce the height and mass of this development.
Thanks for your attention,
Anne Hanzel
988 Loma Verde Ave.
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Chris Schremp
To:Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Cc:Christine Schremp; Robert Marinaro; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Chris Schremp; Barry Katz; Ceci Kettendorf; Nancy
Ellickson; Dana Dahlstrom; Lydia Kou; Bill McLane; Dave Stellman; Loren Brown; Charlie Weidanz; Jeanette
Baldwin; Titan (Zhengtian) Gu; Becky Sanders; John Schafer; Scott Petersen
Subject:OSV Follow Up and Next Steps
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 7:06:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Ad Hoc Committee Members, Mayor and Mr. Shikada,
I'd like to suggest that we postpone today's meeting and we will come back to you with a
request to meet, as well as share a more formal proposal on what we think will be the most
effective next steps to address the OSV issues in our neighborhoods.
I appreciate the offer to meet this week with a small group of us, but indications are that
nothing new will be proposed or offered at that meeting, so I don't see a lot of value in it. We
are not looking more "listening sessions".
Thanks,
Chris
From:Dhruv Khanna
To:Council, City; Board of Directors; Margaret Bruce
Subject:Another El Nino
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 6:51:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
At 742 Alester Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, I have lived through the nastiness of the
1998 flood of the San Francisquito Creek and several near-flood occurrences since
then including an actual flooding of my garage.
Now 28 years have gone by since the 1998 flood. The JPA agencies have nibbled
away at the problem at a snail's pace. Now another El Nino is at hand.
It is time to admit that our government agencies in Silicon Valley are as defeated as
our tech companies are brilliant and successful. Admitting to the excessively
burdensome nature of the weight of the government's own regulations would be a
first-step in accelerating through the endless red tape. There are no signs of any
urgency: 28 years of still-not-handling the Pope-Chaucer Bridge-and-Dam speaks for
itself.
Our Governor Newsom is unable to build out his own pet project -- a fast train from
SF to LA. That's one more symptom of the same problem. I urge you all to issue a
press release widely and unanimously fessing up to the absolute failure of what I call
"California's Governmentalism." This Governmentalism is sheer lunacy. Taxpayers
are being ripped off daily as (many work-from-home-type) bureaucrats endlessly push
paper but get little done. And I'm truly sick of the self-adulation, self-congratulation
and bogus chest puffing of our California politicians and bureaucrats when there is a
smidgeon of successful forward movement and all this is done with little to no
acknowledgement of the misery being inflicted on the public and taxpayers because
of the snail's pace of forward progress.
Telling the truth and fessing up to the sorry state of government approvals of projects
and getting things done in California would be a honest step in recognizing the
absolute torment of the current state of affairs. Perhaps you will join me in recognizing
that the latest election in California reflects some signs that tax payers are fed up.
Please meanwhile articulate more forcefully the truth of the past-28-years as noted
above while the JPA indulges in needless and excessive self-congratulation and self-
adulation.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Thank you,
Dhruv Khanna
From:Green Mentors World
To:Council, City; ADA
Subject:Global Invitation to Co-Host a Session at the 10th NYC Green School Conference - 2026.
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2026 2:12:22 AM
Attachments:10NYC _Co host session Brochure_GM.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Sustainability Leader,
The defining challenge of our time is not simply climate change.
It is whether we can transform education quickly enough to prepare present and future
generations to respond to the environmental, social, technological, and economic realities
reshaping our world.
Across every continent, climate disruption, biodiversity loss, resource insecurity, artificial
intelligence, workforce transformation, and growing inequalities are redefining how societies
learn, work, innovate, and thrive.
These interconnected challenges demand a new generation of educational leadership—one that
empowers learners not only to understand global challenges but to become architects of
sustainable, resilient, and regenerative futures.
In this spirit, Green Mentors warmly invites your institution to co-host a session at the 10th
NYC Green School Conference 2026.
Celebrating a Decade of Greening Education, the conference will convene during Climate
Week NYC on September 23–24, 2026, bringing together universities, schools, UN agencies,
international organizations, governments, NGOs, foundations, research institutions,
sustainability networks, corporate leaders, educators, researchers, innovators, youth leaders,
and policymakers from around the world.
Under the conference theme:“Regenerating Futures: AI, Greening Education for a
Thriving Planet”
The conference seeks to advance global dialogue and collaborative action on climate-smart
education, sustainability leadership, regenerative development, future-ready learning, artificial
intelligence, biodiversity conservation, youth empowerment, and sustainable development.
Why Co-Host a Session?
The climate crisis cannot be solved by one country.
The future of education cannot be shaped by one institution.
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
cultures, and generations.
Co-hosting a session is not merely a speaking opportunity.
It is a meaningful contribution to the global movement advancing climate-conscious and
sustainability-centered education.
It is an opportunity to convene leaders, elevate critical conversations, showcase transformative
solutions, and help shape the future of learning for a rapidly changing world.
As a Session Co-Host, your organization will have the opportunity to...
• Curate and lead a high-impact dialogue on a topic of strategic importance.
• Showcase your institution’s research, innovations, programs, partnerships, and sustainability
leadership.
• Bring together your own speakers, experts, policymakers, researchers, practitioners, youth
leaders, and collaborators.
• Engage directly with global education leaders, governments, foundations, investors,
sustainability practitioners, and institutional decision-makers.
• Strengthen your institution’s visibility and influence during Climate Week NYC and UNGA
81.
• Position your organization as a global thought leader advancing education, sustainability,
innovation, and climate action.
• Build strategic partnerships that accelerate transformative solutions for people and the planet.
We Invite Co-Hosted Sessions On:
• Climate-Smart Education Systems
• Greening Universities and Campuses
• Sustainable Schools and Learning Communities
• Artificial Intelligence and Future Learning
• Climate Literacy and Environmental Stewardship
• Youth Leadership and Climate Action
• Biodiversity and Nature-Based Solutions
• ESG and Responsible Leadership
• Green Workforce Development and Future Skills
• Regenerative Development and Systems Transformation
• Global Partnerships and SDG Acceleration
A Global Platform for Collective Impact
The 10th NYC Green School Conference is more than a conference.
It is a global platform where ideas become partnerships, partnerships become action, and
action becomes impact.
Your participation as a Session Co-Host will support climate literacy, sustainability education,
youth engagement, international knowledge sharing, green workforce development, and
collaborative solutions that strengthen the capacity of education systems to address the
defining challenges of the 21st century.
A Call to Leadership
Future generations will ask how educational institutions, governments, organizations, and
businesses responded during this pivotal moment in history.
Together, we have an opportunity—and a responsibility—to ensure that education becomes
one of the most powerful forces for climate action, sustainability, resilience, innovation, and
human flourishing.
We invite your institution to lead the dialogue.
To inspire change. To showcase solutions. To convene global voices. And to help regenerate
the future.
Join us as a Session Co-Host at the 10th NYC Green School Conference 2026.
To submit your Session Co-Host Proposal or learn more about partnership opportunities here.
Together, let us advance the global movement for greening education and build a thriving
future for all.
Lead the Dialogue. Inspire Change. Regenerate the Future.
Passion for the Planet. Prosperity for You.
From:Joshua Safran
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Yang, Albert; City Mgr; Ah Yun, Mahealani; Lait, Jonathan; Raybould, Claire; Gollinger, Peter;
plandiv.info@paloalto.gov; PWD; City Attorney
Subject:Demand Letter to City Council of Palo Alto re 25PLN-00021 (June 15, 2026)
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 11:14:07 PM
Attachments:Demand Letter to City Council of Palo Alto re 25PLN-00021 (June 15, 2026).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Clerk –
Please find attached our letter of today’s date addressed to Mayor Veenker and Members of
the City Council.
All the best,
Joshua
Joshua Safran, Esq.
One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700
San Jose, California 95113
Phone: 510.384.7627
Email: jsafran@strategylaw.com
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential, and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privilege. If
you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately.
This message needs your attention
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
From:Aram James
To:Council, City; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Emily Mibach; Diana Diamond; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg;
district1@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Betty Duong; Supervisor Otto Lee; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Santa Clara County jail worker who exploited women gets light sentence - San José Spotlight
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 10:39:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-jail-worker-who-exploited-women-gets-light-
sentence/
From:Mark Shull
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Statement on BPTP (that I couldn"t deliver in person due to the hour))
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:58:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
The city council meeting ran late yesterday, so I had to sign off before I could make the following statement on Item
24, the 2026 BPTP:
I think the surprise decision to close the bike path on Cal Ave creates
serious safety problems that were not considered.
The city and CalTrans have compiled significant data on where people walk
and bike, stress locations, serious injuries and fatalities. This statistical
data shows that the overwhelming risk is the risk autos pose to pedestrians
and riders. The data does not show riders running into pedestrians.
That is not to say that illegal fast throttle e-moto's aren’t dangerous and a
serious problem. The biking community has been warning Council about
this for some time. I’ve brought up illegal e-motos to Council 4 times,
starting in 2023, stating (quote), “we should be educating and enforcing
these laws, and not letting the problem of illegal e-motos fester, and then be
used as an excuse to eliminate long-standing bike paths.” This is
happening.
As for Cambridge, even the speaker on June 1st who wanted bikes off
California said Cambridge is too busy. The city’s traffic studies show it
handles three times the traffic in and out as the other two access roads.
It’s narrow with street parking, two parking decks and a half dozen parking
lots, all with blind entrances. And, it's the primary road in and out of a
location, which Palo Alto Online describes as a “premier party zone.”
The new bike map shows a Class 2b buffered bike path on Cambridge,
which will require removing street parking. If Council redesignates Cal Ave
from multi-mode to pedestrian only, will it also commit to imnplementing the
Class 2b buffered path on Cambridge first? It is hard to imagine that it can
be anything less than a Class 2b, especially given that it will be a primary
path for school children riding to and from Green.
Finally, the safety of riders and pedestrians should matter equally, and
should be adjudicated professionally. One approach might be for the City
to engage the same safety consultants that it used to vet and resolve public
questions about the El Camino bike path to analyze the risk tradeoffs
between riders in proximity of pedestrians on Cal Ave and riders in proximity
of automobiles on Cambridge, and to propose mitigations and a balance to
optimize safety for both groups.
Thank you,
Mark Shull
2020 Tasso Street
Palo Alto
From:Ken Joye
To:Council, City
Subject:ítem #24 15 June 2026
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 9:55:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I came to the City Council chambers this evening in order to speak on an agenda item. Other matters discussed by
Council this evening prevented the agenda item of interest from being addressed as scheduled.
I regret not being able to stay long enough to hear your discussion of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
update. I have appended the brief comments which I would have made.
Thank you for your fortitude in attending to the City’s business.
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto
===================
I am a Palo Alto resident because my wife rode to work on one of the City’s bike boulevards
I look forward to making it safer and more delightful to ride to school, to work, to retail establishments and to city
council meetings
Thank you to city staff and the consultant team which produced this plan
I ask you to approve the plan
From:Yahoo
To:Council, City
Subject:SB 79
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 6:22:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Thank you for your support of the 50% limitations of SB 79. This will allow City Staff to properly plan and
implement guidelines for developments surrounding transportation hubs, such as CalTrain stations. With
the time to establish a specific set of standards and guidelines, the City Council can continue to support
the development of more diverse neighborhoods. Welcoming a variety of income levels and housing units
already make Palo Alto a unique city. New plans could also take into consideration commercial
opportunities for a range of neighborhood businesses..
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
From:Alfred Pace
To:Council, City
Cc:Al Pace
Subject:Agenda Item 23, June 15, 2026 meeting (TONIGHT) 414 California Avenue.
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 6:18:28 PM
Attachments:414 California Avenue.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
Letter Regarding SB 79, Interim Ordinance, etc.
Al Pace
Powered by Mimecast
June 15, 2026
Palo Alto City Council Meeting
Agenda Item #23. 414 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Mayor and Council members,
My name is Alfred Pace. I am a peninsula resident with more than four decades investing in and
developing multifamily housing throughout the western United States. I am also a business owner in Palo
Alto. My experience includes advising institutional investors and pension funds in the arena of multifamily
housing.
• In my capacity as a private citizen, I write to support the proposed redevelopment of 414
California Avenue. Specifically, I am in support of utilization of SB79 and oppose the Adoption of
Temporary Ordinancess Implementing SB79. Further, oppose Adoption of of Interim Urgency
Ordinances Exluding Certain Historic Resource Sites and TOD Eligible Sites from Govermnment
Code section 65912.157
Commentary
414 California Avenue is a long-standing vacant bank building with no viable tenants nor prior submittal of
a redevelopment plan. The current redevelopment proposal advances a project which will add new
housing, retail and will represent nearly $100M of new investment into California Avenue. As such, absent
support of this proposed development it is difficult to imagine when and where Palo Alto will endorse
housing in this important, transit-oriented location.
The proposed multifamily/retail redevelopment of 414 California lies steps from Caltrain and El Camino
Real, surrounded by jobs, retail, restaurants, available parking lots and services. It is precisely the kind of
location planners, environmental advocates and housing experts have identified for transit-oriented
development for decades. Specifically, California Avenue is the type of transit-oriented location where
State of California seeks to achieve more housing
Again, successful redvelopment of 414 California Avenue is a significant investment in California
Avenue…a vote of confidence, replacing an aging low-intensity, moribund commercial use with vibrant
market-rate and affordable housing as well as retail…all within one of the most transit-accessible
locations in the city. It will add residents who will walk to shops, support local businesses, pay sales
taxes, use public transit and continue to energize and activate this emerging ‘new downtown’. This is
exactly what California Avenue should become.
Permit me an added observation: As a lifetime professional investor, developer and advisor in the
multifamily sector, I observe property owners and investors should be able to reasonably conclude that if
they follow the City’s (and State) rules, address legitimate design concerns, and invest significant time
and capital, they deserve a realistic opportunity to proceed and succeed. Indeed, the inability to achieve
that goal is the catalyst behind SB 79, CEQA changes and other legislation designed to add housing. The
414 California Avenue development team has hired professionals and followed the rules; further
objections by the Council serve only to introduce cost, cause delay and uncertainty to an already complex
process. To what end? To what alternative use? To what alternative, practical plan?
No project is perfect. Design details can be refined. But the fundamental question before the Council is
whether it will allow a long vacant, former bank building to become much needed housing? Bank
buildings are gone; no longer viable. Office space is questionable. Housing is much in need. The Council
should approve. What gain is to be obtained in objection? What would the Council prefer as an
alternative? And what is truly economically workable?
Supporting 414 California Avenue is an opportunity for the Council to exhibit leadership in housing, to
demonstrate vision, serious intent and commitment to re-energizing California Avenue. Now THAT would
be exciting!
I respectfully urge your support.
Thank you.
Alfred Pace
Avpace@gmail.com
650-823-7300
From:holzemer/hernandez
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Support for Consent Item #23
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 6:11:53 PM
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:Support for Consent Item #23
Date:2026-06-15 17:02
From:holzemer/hernandez <holz@sonic.net>
To:city.council@paloalto.org
Dear Council Members,
I want to thank you for your unanimous support of the 50% limitations of SB 79, so City Staff
has the opportunity to properly plan and implement guidelines for future developments
surrounding our CalTrain stations. With the time to do the in-depth planning and establish a
specific set of standards and guidelines, our City community can develop more diverse
neighborhoods, welcoming a variety of income levels and housing units, as well as
commercial opportunities for a range of neighborhood-serving businesses.
Thank you. Please support Consent Item #23.
Terry Holzemer
2581 Park Blvd. #Y211
Palo Alto, CA 94306
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:BPTP--Attachment B
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 5:39:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
RE: Attachment B
Thank you Staff, Council, and all who participated in this process. No plan is
perfect, but this one is very good, and I’m glad of that.
I have a couple remarks on Staff Responses in Attachment B to PABAC’s
requested changes.
Regarding SB_20c
Please add the words “and Caltrain Station” to the end of staff’s response,
providing directive to improve bike/ped Caltrain Station access from SARAP
area.
Regarding: SI-1.9
Comp Plan Policy T-4.1’s current language, “Keep all neighborhood streets
open as a general rule.” has created confusion. T-4.1 was used by staff as
policy basis to reject traffic filtering (like that used on Bryant) to create bike
boulevards. Former CTO Josh Mello and planners argued that filtering was
“street closure,” and therefore, not a tool they could use. Result: The
controversial Ross Road design.
PABAC voted to clarify T-4.1. “Keep all streets open as a general rule.”
adding the words, “Street closures may be considered when such closure will
enhance safety or will increase use of active transportation modes.”
Staff rejected PABAC’s change, saying, “Modal filters do not close streets, as
defined by CVC; they safely manage and reroute traffic under the clear
authority of Comp Plan Policies T-4.2 and T-4.3”. However, T-4.1,4.2 and 4.3
were all in place when staff made the decisions about Ross Road. Given the
confusion current T-4.1 language created, the policy should be clarified to
allow filtering or eliminated.
Re: Cal Ave: Instead of completely closing Cal Ave to bikes, perhaps consider
time restrictions for bike access to enable continued use of Cal Ave for direct,
safe, school and work bike commutes throughout the day. Maybe consider
part-time restrictions on bike through-access during evening activities and
events that need the full street for strolling and dancing. Please consider this as
an alternative to full closure.
If you are going to divert bike traffic to Cambridge, that street will need work.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
PABAC Member, speaking as an individual
(PABAC did not get staff’s responses to our requested changes until this report
was released, so we have not had opportunity to discuss them.)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:jfleming@right-thing.net
To:Lait, Jonathan
Cc:astrauss@greenfirelaw.com; City Mgr; Tran, Vickie; Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board;
Shikada, Ed
Subject:RE: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272)
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 5:21:26 PM
Attachments:image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thanks, Jon.
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Right-Thing.net
650-325-5151
From: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 1:45 PM
To: jfleming@right-thing.net
Cc: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Tran, Vickie
<Vickie.Tran@paloalto.gov>
Subject: RE: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272)
Moving Ed to BCC
Thanks for your message, Jeanne.
I’ll ask one of our staff to respond.
JONATHAN LAIT
Director
Planning and Development Department
(650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: jfleming@right-thing.net <jfleming@right-thing.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 6:31 PM
To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>
Cc: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed
<Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; astrauss@greenfirelaw.com
Subject: FW: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Jon Lait,
Five weeks ago, I asked a member of your staff for the following information (see the
email thread below):
AT&T failed to start work on their new 1661 Page Mill Road cell tower by April
1st, causing the permit to expire. Has AT&T requested a new permit? And, if
so, has AT&T paid for this new permit?
I see that she is now on vacation through July 5th. Hence, I would appreciate it if
someone else from your office would answer the questions I’ve asked.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Right-Thing.net
650-325-5151
From: jfleming@right-thing.net <jfleming@right-thing.net>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:53 PM
To: 'Kandikuppa, Nishita' <Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov>
Cc: astrauss@greenfirelaw.com
Subject: RE: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272)
Thanks, Nishita. I look forward to learning where things stand with AT&T’s
application/permit.
I’ve CCed United Neighbors’ lawyer on this email. (You met Ariel at the ARB’s first
consideration of the 1661 Page Mill facility.) He is much more conversant with
procedure than I am.
Thanks and best,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Right-Thing.net
From: Kandikuppa, Nishita <Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:10 AM
To: jfleming@right-thing.net
Subject: Re: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272)
Hi Jeanne,
Thank you for your emails. I am coordinating with the applicant team and the issuer of the
encroachment permit (Public Works Engineering) to determine if any extensions were requested.
I will follow up with you once I have an update.
Best,
Nishita
Nishita Kandikuppa
Associate Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
(650) 838-2806 | nishita.kandikuppa@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
Note: I will be out of office on vacation from 06/12 through 07/05.
From: jfleming@right-thing.net <jfleming@right-thing.net>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 9:43 AM
To: Kandikuppa, Nishita <Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov>
Subject: FW: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Nishita,
I just want to be sure you received my email below. It has a follow-up question on the
1661 Page Mill facility.
Thanks and best,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Right-Thing.net
650-325-5151
From: jfleming@right-thing.net <jfleming@right-thing.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 12:15 PM
To: 'Kandikuppa, Nishita' <Nishita.Kandikuppa@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Follow Up Question: 1661 Page Mill Road AT&T cell tower (25ENC-00272)
Hi Nishita,
Thank you again for the information. As I think it over, I have a follow-up question.
Specifically, the AT&T encroachment permit for 1661 Page Mill (which United
Neighbors’ attorney received via public records request) a) is dated January 30th, and
b) has a stated start date of April 1st. The permit states: "This permit/lease* shall
expire if work on the encroachment described within does not commence within sixty
(60) days of the date of approval, or by the anticipated start date as indicated above,
whichever is later."
Given that AT&T has not started work, causing the permit to expire, has AT&T
requested a new permit? And, if so, has AT&T paid for this new permit?
Thanks and best,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Right-Thing.net
650-325-5151
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:June 15, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Meeting #3 Budget Adoption, Roth Building and Heritage Park
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 5:15:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
JUNE 15, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #3: BUDGET ADOPTION
ROTH BUILDING AND HERITAGE PARK
Agenda Item #3 includes the late addition without anysupporting documentation to "Authorize the City Manager ortheir Designee to Negotiate and Execute a Memorandum ofUnderstanding and Funding Agreement (or Lease AgreementAmendment) with the Palo Alto Museum to Provide Cost Sharingfor Repairs to the Basement and Waterproofing the Roth Buildingand Improvements to Heritage Park Drainage".
I urge you to remove this additional subject from this agendaitem and direct staff to return the proposal to a City Councilagenda after the Roth Building site is dedicated to parklandpurposes as an addition to Heritage Park."
When the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the RothBuilding and Heritage Park returns to a City Council agenda itshould be part of the same project as the Museum's applicationfor an Amendment to its Existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP)[Application #26PLN-00079], because the proposed CUP amendmentand the proposal for repairs to the Roth Building andImprovements to Heritage Park are part of the same "project" asthat term is defined by Regulations of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA), and CEQA Regulations prohibiteach segment of a CEQA project to be considered separately.
Park Dedication and County Historical Heritage Grants
The City Council dedicated the parkland now known as HeritagePark when it adopted Ordinance No. 4838 to rename that parkthat was originally named "The South of Forest Coordinated AreaPlan Phase I Park" and dedicated as parkland when the CityCouncil adopted Ordinance No.4815.
Both of those park dedication ordinances exclude from parkdedication the corner parcel where the Roth Building islocated.
The City of Palo Alto applied for and received multipleHistorical Heritage Grant funds from the County of Santa Clarato restore parts of the Roth Building.
County policy requires that projects receiving HistoricalHeritage Grant funds "must be located in a public park or onprivate property dedicated to park purposes."
The Roth Building is not located on private property. It islocated on public property. Thus, the City of Palo Alto isrequired to abide by Article VIII of the Charter to dedicatethe property as public park before the County can legally grantthe funds requested.
Charter Article VIII states, "All lands owned or controlled bythe city which are or will be used for park, playground,recreation or conservation purposed shall be dedicated for suchpurposes by ordinance."
When the City of Palo Alto leases land for park purposes froman owner of private property, the term of the park dedicationcan be set to equal the term of the lease, such as the propertyleased from Stanford University for the dedicated parklandknown as El Camino Park and known as the Palo Alto/StanfordMayfield Playing Fields.
However, when the City of Palo Alto owns the property, such asit owns the property where the Roth Building is located, thepark dedication can end only pursuant to majority vote of theelectorate.
A provision in a lease with a tenant on city of Palo Alto landthat the leasehold will be used for park purposes does notsatisfy the requirements of either the Palo Alto Charter orCounty policy for awarding Historical Heritage grants.
Despite the fact that the location of the Roth Building iscurrently excluded from Heritage Park, the City of Palo Alto inResolution No. 10252, Resolution O. 10006, and Resolution No.9948 falsely stated that the Roth Building is located inHeritage Park, and the County of Santa Clara relied on thosefalse statements to grant funds to the City for the restorationof the Roth Building.
The most recent application for grant funds also included acopy of Zoning Map No. 5 that described Heritage Park asincluding the Roth Building site.
I have not had the opportunity to review the earlier grantapplications to determine if they also included a copy of thatmap with the false boundaries for Heritage Park.
To ensure that you are not required to return County grantfunds that have been received and spent based on the City'sfalse statements that the Roth Building site is part ofHeritage Park, you should adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance forthe Roth Building site as soon as possible.
Repairs to Roth Building and Improvements to Heritage Park And Conditional Use Permit Amendment
The effective date of the Park Dedication Ordinance for theRoth Building Site should occur before action of the CUPamendment application and before authorizing the City Managerto expend funds for cost sharing with the occupants of the RothBuilding and before making the requested repairs to theexisting Heritage Park after the City Council receives
documentation that describes the work to be performed on theRoth Building and the existing park.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Herb Borock
From:L Ekwall
To:Council, City
Subject:Cal Ave Future (I"m unable to speak tonight)
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 4:44:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
City People June 15, 2026
Cal Ave deserves to be safe, accessible, clean and
attractive.
Here are a few thoughts I ask you to consider as you
decide on the future of our district…
SAFETY:
Safety should be first. How many times do emergency
services need to be delayed getting on to Cal Ave due to
dysfunctional bollards? The city is well aware of these
ongoing problems. If 911 is called for your child,
spouse... and you are watching the fire department
struggling with the bollards, you are immediately
reminded that every second counts. Where are the
safety studies? What do fire/police/first responders have
to say about delayed response times now that Cal Ave is
closed to vehicles and the bollards are functionally
inconsistent?
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
PARKLETS:
We are ready for Cal Ave to look inviting & great! But
what is the reality?? We still can’t get way-finding
signage after asking for YEARS… COVID and the long-
term ripple effect were (and remain) brutal on many
businesses in our district.
While your parklet plan was thorough, fancy and
expensive, I am concerned that someone in the city
overlooked the reality of who could/would afford to invest
and it turns out, many of us really can’t build a viable
parklet due to utility conflicts. You've had staff tick a lot
of boxes without doing a reality check. Does
the city consider a 10% participation rate for 19
restaurants successful. How will you define success?
Maybe ask Los Gatos?
https://losgatan.com/los-gatos-giving-serious-cash-to-
owners-moving-towards-semi-permanent-parklets/
https://www.losgatosca.gov/2633/Economic-Recovery-
Resources-Parklets
I’m not against the evolution to safe dining parklets for
those who can! If you can, please rock it!! The thought
of getting rid the ‘hodge-podge/shanty town look’ of tents
and questionable structures is exciting! We are hoping
the repaving take place sooner than later…
We are also asking for a safer barrier along ECR so that
children playing around the planters can be SAFE and
bikes/scooters can be discouraged from zoom-zooming.
Kids think it is a playground and the shorties walk around
the planters (parents can’t really see them) and are
COMPLETELY EXPOSED TO CARS on ECR. I have
noted this in the past. It is an extremely dangerous
transition from ECR on the Cal Ave. I am shocked that
this safety concern has not been addressed and
resolved.
SIDE NOTE: How do you define our business district?
Just the 2 blocks that are car-free? I see our district as
at least 6 blocks. Think about it, I frequently feel that our
neighbors are being ignored/excluded with the city efforts
to reinvigorate just the 2 blocks. It is a sad and
uninclusive perspective for those who see Cal Ave as
just 2 blocks… Something to ponder…
VISUAL FUTURE:
The car-free closure was promised to make the zone feel
like a European promenade. Not an obstacle course for
unsafe e-scooters. While the raised stripes might be
“whimsical” on paper, I FEAR that actually putting the
plastic strips on the Avenue will be truly regretted for
years and will carry more historical negativity than the
tree removal from years ago. Truthfully, I firmly believe
color stripes will look Fisher-Price, tacky and juvenile.
Imagine that Mother Nature ate a box of crayons and
threw-up on the closed 2 block portion of our district. No
really, pause for 3 seconds, imagine standing on Cal Ave
feeling like you are in a 2-d version of a plastic jumpy
house full of colorful balls…
We deserve to look like Stanford Mall, Town & Country,
maybe Los Gatos? Not like a Fisher Price playground
with a Lombard St-style bike obstacle course.
Please do not cover our district in color-stripes (notice I
am repeating my request multiple times !!) Think before
you proceed, what will Cal Ave realistically look like in
2027 and beyond. (Respectfully, finger crossed you do
not have the budget for the stripes anyway…)
If there is a little money, can we please have tasteful,
sustainable landscaping? Can we have safety lights
and something attractive when visitors walk from the
parking garages to the closed zone? Can visitors figure
out how to find our amazing parking garages!!! This is
likely a lot less expensive and could be executed by
people on staff without spending more wasted dollars on
consultants.
Cal Ave deserves to be safe, accessible, clean and
attractive.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lara Ekwall
Business Owner (Since 1997) and Local Resident
--
Lara Ekwall
______________________
La Bodeguita del Medio ®
463 S. California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
main 650.326.7762 (ext 0 bypasses recordings so you can talk with a real human during open hours)
@labo_paloalto (Instagram/Facebook)
www.labodeguita.com (Join our email list to learn about upcoming Neighbor Nights, Rum Pop-Ups, Rum of the
Month, Events & other specials...)
lara@labodeguita.com
From:Jennifer Commissaris
To:Council, City
Subject:Reject the proposed SB 79 emergency measures and remove Item 23 from the consent calendar for full public
discussion
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 4:38:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a concerned investor in building projects on California Avenue to
respectfully urge the City Council to reject the proposed ordinance that would broadly
restrict the implementation of SB 79 in Palo Alto.
California Avenue is one of Palo Alto’s most important commercial and mixed-use
corridors. It is a place where additional housing, thoughtful redevelopment, and new
investment can directly support the City’s broader goals: a more vibrant local
economy, more housing near transit, stronger support for small businesses, and a
more active and walkable community.
The future of California Avenue depends on renewed energy and a stronger customer
base. More residents in and around this corridor would help support existing
restaurants, retailers, and service businesses, while also making it more feasible to
attract new and innovative businesses that can strengthen Palo Alto’s identity as a
forward-looking city.
A blanket restriction risks discouraging exactly the type of investment Palo Alto
should be encouraging: projects that bring housing, economic vitality, design quality,
and new business concepts to areas that are already well suited for growth. California
Avenue is not the same as a quiet single-family residential neighborhood. It is a
commercial and transit-oriented area where carefully planned housing and mixed-use
development can serve the public interest.
I recognize the importance of preserving Palo Alto’s character and ensuring that
development is thoughtful. However, rejecting opportunities for housing and
innovation in appropriate corridors undermines the City’s stated objectives and may
make it harder to achieve long-term goals around affordability, sustainability, and
economic resilience.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to reject the proposed ordinance
and instead pursue a more targeted, balanced approach that protects truly sensitive
areas while allowing appropriate housing and mixed-use investment on corridors such
as California Avenue.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Jennifer C
Concerned Investor in California Avenue Building Projects
From:Adam Norton
To:Council, City
Subject:Public comment for today"s council meeting
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 4:36:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This comment Is not related to an agenda item for today.
I would like to express my concerns for the council to consider regarding the decision to
cancel Flock camera contracts.
Despite all the assurances of careful and limited use of Flock data, the reality is that abuse of
this data is only a mouse click away by any number of law enforcement or Flock employees.
Unfortunately we live in a time when the Federal Government, via Doge, has already
misappropriated confidential social security and tax data with no repercussions from this same
government's Justice Department. We also live in a time when the president and Justice
department are using all possible investigative tools and invalid prosecutions to harass
protestors and opposition politicians (perhaps including council members). We have also seen
this administration use its power to force private companies to bend to its will and provide
information it desires.
Paying to build the Flock network will only augment the means for this administration to
abuse power. Now is not the time to implement it.
Sincerely,
Adam Norton
Ross Road
Palo Alto
This message needs your attention
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Steve Tjiang
To:Council, City
Subject:Cancel the Urgency Ordinance and adopt Palo Alto Forward"s common-sense compromise to comply with SB79
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 3:58:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
As a long-time resident, I care deeply about the future of Palo Alto. I want my kids to have a
real chance of building their lives here, and I want the teachers, healthcare workers, and
retail staff who keep our city running to be our actual neighbors, not super-commuters
forced onto gridlocked freeways. I also want a younger me, coming to Palo Alto in the mid-
2020s, to be afforded the same opportunities I had in the early 1980s.
That’s why the June 15 vote on SB 79 is a defining moment. Right now, there is a strong
push to pass an "urgency" ordinance to slap a blanket 50% cut on transit-oriented housing.
While some see this as neighborhood defense, doing the bare minimum holds us back.
Instead of dragging our feet and looking for legal loopholes, Palo Alto has a rare
opportunity to lead. Peer cities are proving that transit-oriented housing revitalizes local
businesses and fosters vibrant, diverse communities. We should strive to be good-faith
actors solving our regional housing shortage.
Palo Alto Forward's "Up-and-In" strategy offers a smart, positive path. We focus growth
upward on commercial corridors—utilizing density heights already approved by the City—
and inward near Caltrain stations. Concentrating homes on El Camino Real, California
Avenue's commercial spine, and Downtown puts housing exactly where it belongs: near
trains, buses, and shopping.
Let’s stop treating new housing as a threat to be managed and start seeing it as an
investment in a sustainable, walkable, and welcoming Palo Alto. I urge the City Council to
adopt Palo Alto Forward's common-sense compromise on June 15.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Utsav Gupta
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Please Keep SB 79 Item on Consent
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 3:47:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers,
I write on behalf of the University South and Professorville Neighborhood Association to
support keeping the SB 79 item on consent and approving the half-size option now. The
neighborhoods and residents most directly affected by this decision have not yet been
meaningfully consulted.
The half-size option better preserves the status quo until the City has had time to study the
impacts of SB 79, engage the affected neighborhoods and residents, and develop a thoughtful
local approach.
For that reason, we urge Council to avoid last-minute changes that have not been vetted with
the people who will be most affected. If the item is pulled from consent, we urge Council to
approve the half-size option without amendment.
Going forward, any discussions about where and how SB 79 should apply in Palo Alto should
include the affected residents and neighborhood association from the beginning. We stand
ready to support our City and staff in driving forward this engagement and navigating this
issue.
Thank you as always for your time and service.
Sincerely,
Utsav Gupta
On behalf of the University South and Professorville Neighborhood Association
From:Melanie Grondel
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgency Ordinance (SB 79)
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 3:14:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
Your attention to the second reading of the Urgency Ordinance is much appreciated.
Please vote in favor of the Urgency Ordinance !!
It will provide time to devise best solutions all around, in a wider circle and for more residents
than in just a 1/2 mile.
Thank you for your consideration -
Melanie Grondel - College Terrace
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
From:Magical Bridge Foundation
To:Council, City
Subject:Magical Bridge Documentary Premiere Screening at BraveMaker
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 2:58:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Join us for the world
premiere of Magical
Bridge's new
documentary at
BraveMaker
No images? Click here
Join us for the world premiere of
Magical Bridge: Kind By Design
A short documentary by Splicer
Films with
Executive Producer The Schmidt
Family Foundation
Thursday, July 9 • 6pm • Fox
Theatre, Redwood City
BraveMaker Film Festival
We are pleased to invite you to the
world premiere of our short
documentary, Magical Bridge: Kind By
Design, at the BraveMaker Film
Festival on July 9th at 6pm in Redwood
City, California, with a gala reception to
follow.
The film spotlights how a mom’s
mission to build a playground where
both her daughters can thrive becomes
a global movement to design inclusive
spaces where everybody can play,
connect, and belong. We know many
of you have been with us on this
journey, supported our work, and have
loved our playgrounds and programs.
The film celebrates you and all those
who believe that “inclusive” means
everyone!
Special Screening
Thursday, July 9, 2026
6pm - 8:45pm (two films)
Fox Theater: 2215 Broadway,
Redwood City
Film 1: Magical Bridge: Kind By Design
(22 minutes)
6:00pm with panel discussion to follow
Film 2: Under The Lights (104 minutes)
A teenager with epilepsy risks
everything for one unforgettable shot at
prom, first love, and feeling normal.
Following the Films: Celebrate at the
Magical Bridge Night Gala
9pm - 11:30pm after party at Timber
& Salt Gala Ticket Required (see
below).
Continue the evening at Timber & Salt
for an unforgettable night of
connection, conversation, and
celebration. Enjoy handcrafted drinks,
delicious bites, and the chance to
mingle with filmmakers, cast, crew, and
fellow community members. The
festivities spill onto the patio and Con
Azúcar for coffee and sweet treats. As
one of BraveMaker’s signature
gatherings, the Magical Bridge Night
Gala brings together inspiring people,
meaningful stories, and the vibrant
spirit of community that makes the
festival so special.
Discounted Tickets
Screening Only Ticket $15 with
discount code — Tickets
Screening with Gala $25 with
discount code — Tickets
Gala Only $15 with discount code —
Tickets
For 50% Off, use code at checkout:
M@gical_Attendee50
For information about hosting a
screening of our documentary, please
contact us at
play4all@magicalbridge.org. We look
forward to sharing our mission around
the world through this meaningful film.
If a hardship or disability would prevent
you from joining us on July 9th, we
want to help. Please contact Olenka at
olenka@magicalbridge.org.
We hope to see you there and please
bring friends. Let’s fill the Fox Theatre
with magic!
Team Magical Bridge
Purchase Screening and Gala
Tickets Here
If you can only make the Gala, please
purchase here.
For 50% Off, use code at checkout:
M@gical_Attendee50
To learn more about our film, visit us at
magicalbridge.org/film
Share
Forward
Magical Bridge Foundation
959A Addison Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
magicalrbidge.org |. play4all@magicalbridge.org
Magical Bridge Foundation is a registered 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization with a Charity Navigator rating of
100%. EIN: 81-2377796
Unsubscribe
From:Business TAB + CCS
To:Council, City
Subject:Reject the proposed SB 79 emergency measures and remove Item 23 from the consent calendar for full public
discussion
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 2:13:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Reject the proposed SB 79 emergency measures and remove Item 23 from the consent
calendar for full public discussion
Dear Members of the City Council,
I urge the Council to adopt a more nuanced approach regarding SB79, rather than applying
broad-stroke legislation across Palo Alto. It is essential to examine how this bill impacts
specific areas differently, particularly by distinguishing between residential neighborhoods
adjacent to single-family homes and the urban core.
I believe that redevelopment in the core of Palo Alto, specifically in areas like California
Avenue, is vital for its recovery and long-term success. Further development will bring new
life to the area, supporting all local businesses and providing Palo Alto with a prestigious,
positive destination. Encouraging growth in this urban center will foster community
participation and create a necessary foundation for the rest of the city to thrive.This growth is
critical for existing businesses and essential for bringing new business to the area.
While I recognize that less urban areas should maintain lower density, allowing for strategic
growth in our more urbanized zones will serve as a strong foundation for the future of
California Avenue and the entire Palo Alto community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Dritan Azemi of Casual Chic Salon
Sent from Dritan (Dri) Azemi’s iPhone
For further inquiry call or text:
Business Line # (1) 650.272.6833 (Text/Call)
Business Line # (2) 650.382.2263 (Text/Call)
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Non Business Personal Line 650.656.5223 (Text/Call)
From:Marguerite Gong Hancock
To:Eggleston, Brad
Cc:achang@paloaltomuseum.org; Ramberg, David; Yu, Gloria; Boyd, Holly; ktanner@paloaltomuseum.org;
lausterman@paloaltomuseum.org; nnaik@paloaltomuseum.org; Nelson Ng; Ciralsky, Philip; Robustelli, Sarah;
Adam Rupp; Lai, Lauren; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:Re: City and PA Museum Meeting on Water Issue in Basement
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 1:43:07 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
Palo Alto Museum Memo to City Team June 15, 2026.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Good afternoon Brad and City team,
Thank you — the Museum team has genuinely valued our ongoing communications and the
productive working relationships we have built together. We are grateful for your continued
engagement and for sharing David Chung's recent detailed information from the Building
Department.
Reviewing the additional specialists and work now required by his note prompted our team to
take a fresh look at total project costs — and the implications for the cost-sharing item on
tonight's City Council agenda. In the spirit of transparency and collaboration that has
characterized our partnership, I wanted to share additional background context, the Museum's
perspectives, and a few specific requests for consideration before this evening. As always, we
welcome any questions, comments, or feedback.
Because of tonight's Council meeting, I am also copying City Manager Ed Shikada and
Council members so this context is available to them too.
We look forward to continuing to work closely with City staff and Council as we move
forward together — as good stewards of the Roth Building and in shared commitment to
opening the Palo Alto Museum for the community we all serve.
With appreciation,
Marguerite
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Marguerite Gong Hancock
President & CEO
(Supported by a founding leadership gift of the Thoits Family)
Palo Alto Museum
300 Homer Avenue | Palo Alto, California
paloaltomuseum.org
On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 5:59 PM Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@paloalto.gov> wrote:
Attached please find the building permit document that was handed out at today’s meeting.
Brad
BRAD EGGLESTON
Director of Public Works
Public Works Department
(650) 329-2636 | brad.eggleston@paloalto.gov
www.cityofpaloalto.org
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Marguerite Gong Hancock <mhancock@paloaltomuseum.org>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 11:25 AM
To: Marguerite Gong Hancock; achang@paloaltomuseum.org; Eggleston, Brad; Ramberg, David;
Yu, Gloria; Boyd, Holly; ktanner@paloaltomuseum.org; lausterman@paloaltomuseum.org;
nnaik@paloaltomuseum.org; Nelson Ng; Ciralsky, Philip; Robustelli, Sarah
Subject: City and PA Museum Meeting on Water Issue in Basement
When: Thursday, June 11, 2026 1:30 PM-2:30 PM America/Los_Angeles.
Where: 300 Homer Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301, USA; https://meet.google.com/fnd-hdwx-afd
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
City and PA Museum Meeting on Water Issue in Basement
Join with Google Meet – Agenda to be confirmed.
Join with Google
Meet
Meeting link
meet.google.com/fnd-hdwx-
afd
Join by phone
US) +1 551-777-4544)
PIN: 776376695
More phone numbers
.Agenda to be confirmed
When
Thursday Jun 11, 2026 ⋅ 1:30pm – 2:30pm
))Pacific Time - Los Angeles
Location
Homer Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301, USA 300
View map
Guests
Marguerite Gong Hancock - organizer
achang@paloaltomuseum.org - creator
brad.eggleston@paloalto.gov
david.ramberg@paloalto.gov
gloria.yu@paloalto.gov
holly.boyd@paloalto.gov
ktanner@paloaltomuseum.org
lausterman@paloaltomuseum.org
nnaik@paloaltomuseum.org
Nelson Ng
philip.ciralsky@paloalto.gov
sarah.robustelli@paloalto.gov
View all guest info
Reply for brad.eggleston@paloalto.gov
YesNoMaybe
More options
Invitation from Google Calendar
You are receiving this email because you are an attendee on the event.
Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organizer, be added to
the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or modify your RSVP. Learn more
MEMORANDUM
To: Brad Eggleston, Holly Boyd, David Ramberg, Gloria Yu, Phil Ciralsky, Sarah Robustelli, City
of Palo Alto
From: Marguerite Gong Hancock, President & CEO, Palo Alto Museum
Topic: Water remediation at the Museum
Date: June 15, 2026
The Palo Alto Museum is deeply grateful for the City Staff and City Council support for bringing
the Museum to life to serve our community. The public-private partnership that makes the
Museum possible is a source of genuine pride — and it is the spirit of that partnership that
guides this document as we explore FY27 budget cost-share for critical work to address water
intrusion and drainage issues in the Roth Building and adjacent Heritage Park. We share a
common goal: to bring a landmark building to life as a dynamic museum that Palo Alto deserves
and that serves the whole community. We bring this additional background, perspective, and
requests forward in that spirit.
I. Background: A Long History of Water Intrusion and Drainage Issues
The water intrusion affecting the Roth Building has a documented history spanning more than
two decades. Understanding this history is an important context for the current cost-share
discussions — and for arriving at an arrangement that is equitable for both the City and the
Museum.
2002–2003: Wing Removal and Site Modifications
Removal of the Roth Building wings and subsequent site changes altered drainage and
waterproofing conditions around the building. City staff later identified these changes as
contributing factors to ongoing water intrusion and moisture problems.
2006: City Identifies Water Intrusion and Proposes $415K Remediation
City staff found that grading and drainage conditions associated with Heritage Park were
contributing to water intrusion and moisture problems at the Roth Building. Museum
Palo Alto Museum - City of Palo Alto | June 15, 2026 | 1
sought a commitment that the building be maintained in "water-tight condition." Staff
proposed a $415,000 package of waterproofing, drainage, and moisture-control
improvements. (Source: June 5, 2006 CMR 249-06 Report) Heritage Park drainage not
fully addressed; issues contributing to water intrusion in the Roth Building documented
in subsequent years.
2011: Geotechnical Report Confirms Drainage Requirements
TRC identified low-permeability clay and silt soils and recommended subdrain systems
and permeable backfill to prevent water accumulation and hydrostatic pressure,
reinforcing the need for effective drainage infrastructure at Heritage Park. (Source: TRC
Geotechnical Update, March 21, 2011)
2020: City Commits to Delivering a Watertight Building
As part of the Phase 1 "Cold Shell" strategy, the City prioritized exterior envelope
improvements, seismic bracing, and moisture protection with the express goal of making
the building watertight. (Source: Dec 14, 2020 City Council Meeting)
2023: Aquatech Confirms Need for Building and Site Drainage Measures
Aquatech provided a report distributed to and discussed by Museum and City staff with
the Vance Brown team. The Museum selected and the City approved a
budget-constrained remediation approach. Aquatech's assessment identified
poor-draining soils, surface water flowing toward the building, and the need for
improved waterproofing and drainage measures — conclusions consistent with the
current remediation strategy. (Source: July 17, 2023 Aquatech Basement Waterproofing
Assessment; Vance Brown Project Communications and Project Meeting Notes, e.g. July
18, July 20, August 10, August 17, 2023)
2026: Leaks Confirmed in Multiple Locations; Collection at Risk
Beginning in January 2026, a series of active leaks were documented on both the east
and west sides of the basement in multiple locations. Previous waterproofing measures
proved insufficient. An independent investigation and report by SGH — a leading
structural and civil engineering firm — concluded that remedying the sources of water
intrusion requires waterproofing of the building, moisture control measures, and
remediation of park drainage. Heritage Park drainage remains both a contributing cause
and a required component of the solution. The leaks directly affect the area where the
Museum’s collection is stored. Damage to historic collection items has occurred. The
collection has been relocated to the first and second floors of the building — including
public gallery space that cannot be secured — making it operationally unfeasible to fully
open the Museum to the public until water mitigation is complete.
Palo Alto Museum - City of Palo Alto | June 15, 2026 | 2
II. Project Estimated Budget
Based on the SGH water specialist recommendations and subsequent detailed estimates
prepared by Vance Brown, the current base project budget totals $753K. This figure does not
yet reflect the full scope of required work.
Base Estimate Breakdown
• SGH Water Specialist Investigation & Report: $33,000
• Sandis Civil Engineer Topographic Survey & Design Documents: $23,000
• Vance Brown Estimate — Roth Building Waterproofing & Moisture Control: $294,367
• Vance Brown Estimate — Heritage Park Drainage: $402,456
Total Base Estimate: $752,823
Estimates for the Heritage Park drainage work will be further informed by detailed design
documents from Sandis currently under development.
Additional Building Department Requirements (Not in $753K Estimate)
The following items were identified by the Building Department in an email on June 8 as
required but are not yet included in the current estimate. Costs are to be determined and will
increase the total project budget:
• Structural engineering report & calculations/plans (required for shear wall demolition
and replacement)
• Architectural drawings and floor plans for dehumidifier (plumbing, mechanical, and
electrical)
• Certified independent waterproofing inspection agency — retained to observe and
document specialized repairs; final signed affidavit/compliance report required prior to
project sign-off
• Building permit and inspection fees
Potential Asbestos Issue: The Building Department also flagged that existing plaster slated for
removal may contain asbestos. If confirmed, this will trigger separate testing, abatement, and
disposal processes requiring licensed contractors and additional regulatory approvals — further
impacting scope, cost, and timeline.
III. The Museum’s Perspective: Key Points for Cost-Share Discussions
1. This is a shared challenge — and an opportunity to strengthen our partnership.
Palo Alto Museum - City of Palo Alto | June 15, 2026 | 3
The Roth Building is a City-owned landmark. Heritage Park is a City-owned park. The Palo Alto
Museum is a nascent non-profit organization, which is a tenant in a public-private partnership
created at the City Council’s direction to serve the Palo Alto community. The water intrusion
affects both City assets and the non-profit community institution that City and Museum leaders
have worked together to build and open. We are confident that the same collaborative spirit
that created this partnership can guide us to a strong and speedy solution — and we are
grateful for the City’s continued engagement as we continue to collaborate.
2. The Palo Alto Museum appreciates moving forward with the City in good faith.
The Museum has enlisted expert advisors, hired an independent water specialist and civil
engineers, invested in equipment and staff time to document and monitor the water issues,
and shared with City staff data and reports all along the way. The Museum team also
appreciates the email communications and series of productive meetings with City staff. On
May 27, the Museum proposed to take on the full cost of building waterproofing — the portion
most directly tied to our current lease obligations — while asking the City to cover park
drainage, a public infrastructure improvement that has needed attention since 2006. We made
that initial offer in the spirit of partnership. As new information becomes available, we look
forward to partnering with the City for approving and funding appropriate shares of the
necessary work.
3. The full scope — and full cost — is still coming into focus.
The $753K base estimate does not yet include structural engineering, architectural drawings,
independent inspection, building permits, or potential asbestos abatement — all newly
identified as required by the Building Department. As the scope becomes clearer, we believe it
is important that any cost-share agreement reflect the actual total, not a partial estimate. We
are committed to transparency as new information emerges.
4. The City ’s current FY27 budget allocation may need to be revisited.
To date, the City has identified $327K for its share in FY27 ($250K Mitchell Park + $77K Heritage
Park). Under either a building /park split, a 50-50 cost-share, or another potential model, that
allocation is likely to fall short of the final costs — even before the additional Building
Department requirements are incorporated. We welcome further discussion about how any gap
might be addressed, and we are open to working creatively toward a solution that works for
both parties.
5. A simple, agreed-upon payment process and schedule — with City funds transferred as
work progresses rather than after the fact — would protect both the Museum's financial
stability and the efficiency of the project itself.
Palo Alto Museum - City of Palo Alto | June 15, 2026 | 4
The Museum respects the City's review and approval processes and is committed to moving
through them in good faith. If the agreed-upon arrangement requires the Palo Alto Museum to
advance costs and then seek reimbursement, the Museum respectfully requests that a clear
funding process and payment mechanism be established at the outset — one that ensures the
City's share of costs is transferred in a timely manner. As a small nonprofit, the Museum cannot
absorb the role of a construction lender. Carrying $700–800K in construction costs in Q1-2 of
FY27 would represent a significant portion of our annual operating budget and would likely
require the Museum to secure bridge financing — an unnecessary burden on a community
institution preparing to open its doors for the first time. A simple, agreed-upon payment
schedule — with City funds transferred as work progresses rather than after the fact — would
protect both the Museum's financial stability and the efficiency of the project itself. We are
asking that the financial mechanics of the cost-share reflect the same spirit of collaboration as
the agreement itself.
6. Timing is critical — for the building, the collection, and the community.
We want to be transparent about the urgency of the timeline, not to create pressure but
because the constraints are real and shared:
• Building and collection protection. Water intrusion has already caused damage to .
the Museum collection of Palo Alto artifacts. Every rain event before repairs are
complete carries the risk of harm to a City-owned historic landmark.
• The construction window closes in mid-October. Once the rainy season begins, work
becomes more difficult, takes longer, and costs more. If asbestos testing is required, that
adds further lead time. The viable construction window is narrow — and it is closing
now.
• The collection has no safe interim home. There is no operationally and financially
feasible option to store the Museum’s collection off-site. The public galleries — the only
available space — cannot be secured for storage purposes. This is not a scheduling
preference; it is a hard operational constraint.
7. A clear, agreed-upon timeline will allow the Museum to serve the community well.
The Palo Alto Museum is a small nonprofit preparing to open its doors to the public for the first
time. The Museum’s ability to plan responsibly — and to fulfill its promise to the community —
depends on having a committed City timeline for approvals. Without it, we are unable to:
• Finalize our FY27 budget and cash flow — including the Museum’s share of project
costs, staffing, and operating expenses tied to an opening date
• Set and announce an opening date — which affects earned revenue projections,
donor commitments, press planning, and community trust
Palo Alto Museum - City of Palo Alto | June 15, 2026 | 5
• Plan the staff and project management resources needed to shepherd this
construction project while simultaneously preparing exhibitions, programs, and
operations for opening
We are not asking for certainty that doesn’t exist. We are asking for a committed process —
with named owners, decision points, and dates — so that the Palo Alto Museum can plan
responsibly now and be ready to open as feasible as work is complete.
IV. Four Specific Requests
In the spirit of the partnership we share, and with the community’s interest at the center, we
respectfully ask for the following:
1. Confirm the City ’s commitment to cost-share with the Palo Alto Museum as
appropriate for necessary work on the City-owned building and Park, and identify a
clear path to close any funding gap above $327K as the full scope becomes known.
2. Agree on a simple payment process and schedule — with City funds transferred as
work progresses rather than after the fact so that the Museum is not acting as a
construction lender, protecting both the Museum's financial stability and the efficiency
of the project itself.
3. Waive building permit and inspection fees, consistent with the Council’s unanimous
November 2021 direction and Policies and Procedures Policy 1-25 for public-private
partnerships, given that this is a capital improvement to a City-owned facility providing
community benefit.
4. Commit to an expedited, cross-departmental approval timeline (as required by the
lease by Planning, Real Estate, and Building Departments) with a date certain for permit
issuance, so that construction can commence and be completed before the mid-October
rainy season deadline.
The Palo Alto Museum is deeply grateful for the City’s partnership, and for the investment — in
time, resources, and civic vision — that Council members and City staff have made in this
Museum. We are eager to reach an agreement that reflects our shared vision, values, and
collaboration. We look forward to continuing to work with you toward a resolution of the water
issues for the Roth Building and Heritage Park that allows us to open the Museum — together
— for the community we all serve.
Palo Alto Museum - City of Palo Alto | June 15, 2026 | 6
From:Jeff Levinsky
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Support Your SB 79 Solution (Item #23 on June 15, 2026 Agenda)
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 1:03:22 PM
Dear City Council Members:
Thank you very much for your efforts two weeks ago to balance the many issues around SB 79
implementation in our city. Your unanimous vote back then (with two recusals) created a plan
that prioritizes areas such as the California Avenue Business District while giving the Council,
Planning Commission, staff, and the public time to look at the details.
The updated ordinances on tonight’s consent calendar look to be in good order. So please
vote YES on the item - it’s #23 on tonight’s consent calendar.
Again, with thanks!
Jeff Levinsky
From:CeCi Kettendorf
To:Council, City
Subject:SB 79
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 12:53:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you for last week's vote to maintain local control of zoning
From:Scott.Gesundheit@hklaw.com
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Ryan.Leaderman@hklaw.com; Ah Yun, Mahealani; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Lauing,
Ed; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; HAUPortal@hcd.ca.gov; housing@doj.ca.gov; Arellano, Caio;
megan.kirkeby@hcd.ca.gov; Jensen, Christopher; Yang, Albert
Subject:Item 23 — Opposition to Introduction and Adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance Excluding Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Eligible Sites from Government Code Section 65912.157; June 15, 2026 City Council Hearing
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 12:50:43 PM
Attachments:414 Cal Ave Letter to Council 6.15.26.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Please find the attached letter on Item 23, in advance of today’s City Council hearing.
Thanks for your attention.
Best,
Scott
Scott Gesundheit | Holland & Knight
Associate
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105
Phone +1.415.743.6917 | Fax +1.415.743.6910
scott.gesundheit@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
From: Gesundheit, Scott L (SFO - X56917, LAX - X52414)
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 2:27 PM
To: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov; City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov
Cc: Leaderman, Ryan M (LAX - X52405) <Ryan.Leaderman@hklaw.com>;
Mahealani.AhYun@PaloAlto.gov; Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov; Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov;
George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov; Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov; Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov;
Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov; Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov; HAUPortal@hcd.ca.gov;
housing@doj.ca.gov; Chris.Jensen@cityofpaloalto.org; Caio.Arellano@PaloAlto.gov;
megan.kirkeby@hcd.ca.gov
Subject: Item 17 — Opposition to Draft Ordinance Establishing 50 Percent SB 79 Development
Standards (Attachment C); June 1, 2026 City Council Hearing
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Please find the attached letter on Item 17, in advance of Monday’s City Council hearing.
Thanks for your attention.
Best,
Scott
Scott Gesundheit | Holland & Knight
Associate
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105
Phone +1.415.743.6917 | Fax +1.415.743.6910
scott.gesundheit@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("Holland & Knight"), and is intended solely for the use of
the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of Holland & Knight, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a
specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Holland & Knight in reply that you expect it to hold in
confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of Holland & Knight, you
should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be
available to protect confidentiality.
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 | T +1.415.743.6900 | F +1.415.743.6910
Algiers | Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Bogotá | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga
Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale | Houston | Jacksonville | London | Los Angeles | Mexico City
Miami | Monterrey | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland | Richmond
June 15, 2026
via email (city.council@paloalto.gov)
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
Re: Item 23 — Opposition to Introduction and Adoption of Interim Urgency
Ordinance Excluding Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Eligible Sites from
Government Code Section 65912.157; June 15, 2026 City Council Hearing
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents 414 California Ave., LLC (the “Applicant”), the owner of real property (the
“Project Site”) located at 414 California Avenue in Palo Alto, California (the “City”) (APN 124-
32-040). The Project Site, which currently contains a shuttered bank building and a surface
parking lot, is planned for a mixed-use, transit-oriented housing project consisting of multifamily
residential units, subterranean parking, and ground-floor retail and restaurant uses (the
“Project”). The Project Site is located less than one-quarter mile from the pedestrian entrance to
the California Avenue Caltrain station and therefore qualifies as a Tier 1 transit-oriented
development (“TOD”) site under Senate Bill 79 (“SB 79”), codified at Government Code
Sections 65912.155 through 65912.162, which takes effect July 1, 2026.
The Applicant respectfully urges the Council not to adopt the interim urgency ordinance
establishing 50 percent SB 79 development standards. (For the same reasons set forth below, the
Applicant likewise opposes adoption of the companion “temporary” ordinance establishing the
same standards, and submits this letter in opposition to both.)
1. The Interim Urgency Ordinance Is Legally Improper.
The City’s effort to adopt an interim urgency ordinance cannot be reconciled with the governing
law. Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (c), requires written legislative findings that
June 15, 2026
Page 2
#539962502_v2
“there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare” and that the
approval of entitlements at issue “would result in that threat.” Failure to make the required
showing renders an urgency ordinance invalid as a matter of law.1 As the Attorney General
stated in formal guidance issued to all California cities and counties on July 17, 2023:
“[S]tatements about the uncertainty of implementation of a new state housing law or generalized
concerns about visual or aesthetic standards are insufficient to support an urgency ordinance.”
The proposed ordinance rests on exactly the kind of generalized, anticipatory concerns the
Attorney General has identified as legally inadequate. SB 79 is not a sudden emergency. Had SB
79 posed a genuine, immediate threat to public health and safety, the City would have acted long
before the eve of the statute’s effective date.
The proposed urgency findings also misapprehend the function of an interim ordinance under
Section 65858. That provision exists to pause uses that conflict with a contemplated plan the City
is actively studying, not to resist a State-mandated level of residential density. The City here is
doing the latter. See Gov. Code § 65858, subd. (a) (authorizing an interim ordinance “prohibiting
any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning
proposal”).
The ordinance further recites that it “would not have the effect of denying any approvals needed
for the development of projects containing multifamily housing.” That recital is contestable at
best. There are applicants ready, willing, and able to submit multifamily applications as soon as
SB 79 takes effect on July 1, 2026, and the transparent practical effect of this ordinance is to
suppress precisely that development. It is rich that the City is pursuing an anti-housing ordinance
while it pursues a Prohousing Designation from the State of California for recognition of
“housing achievements over the last several years.”2
2. The City’s Infrastructure Findings Are Contradicted by Its Own Housing Element.
The City’s urgency findings rest principally on claimed strain to public infrastructure,
specifically, water supply for fire suppression, stormwater management, and wastewater
capacity. The City’s own certified 2023–2031 Housing Element says the opposite:
• “The City currently has adequate water and sewer capacity to serve its RHNA
allocation.”
• “All sites have been screened to have available wet and dry utilities, including water,
sewer, electrical and telecommunication services, and there is adequate capacity in all
utilities to serve the City’s RHNA allocation.”
1 California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, 365
2 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/Prohousing-
Designation-Program-Application, accessed June 15, 2026.
June 15, 2026
Page 3
#539962502_v2
• “Access to wet utilities is not an impediment to housing development.”
The City cannot simultaneously certify to the State that its utilities have adequate capacity to
serve planned housing growth and find, for purposes of an urgency ordinance, that the same
growth presents a current and immediate infrastructure threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
This internal contradiction confirms that the urgency findings are not supported by substantial
evidence and cannot carry the City’s burden under Section 65858.
Similarly, the City’s own data refute the premise that unchecked development poses “a current
and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.” On its public Housing webpage,
the City maintains a “2023–2031 Housing Dashboard” that, in its words, “tracks the City’s
progress on housing production” and “measures progress towards goals outlined in the Housing
Element,” and which the City represents is “updated monthly to reflect changes in key housing
data.”
As of the City’s current dashboard, Palo Alto has permitted just 811 housing units—only 13.33
percent of its 6,086-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023–2031 planning period.
With more than 86 percent of the City’s RHNA still unmet and the planning period more than
halfway elapsed, the operative problem in Palo Alto is a shortfall of housing, not an excess of it.
A jurisdiction that has permitted roughly one in eight of its required units cannot credibly find
that the prospect of additional transit-oriented housing constitutes an emergency threat to public
health and safety. These are not steps that a “Prohousing” city takes to accelerate housing
production.
The draft urgency findings also rest on claimed “additional points of conflict between vehicles
and bicycles or pedestrians in the affected areas.” If additional density creates such additional
conflicts, then these findings would militate against the approval of more density elsewhere
across the City, whether through the use of State Density Bonus Law, AB 2011, or other bonus
programs. Setting aside the demonstrated bias against density due to the purported additional
conflicts that the density from SB 79 would create, the ordinance identifies no intersection,
corridor segment, or quantified safety condition that the default SB 79 standards would create, let
alone a “current and immediate threat.” The Attorney General has held that generalized concerns
of this kind cannot support an urgency ordinance, and courts have rejected nearly identical
traffic-based justifications as failing to establish an immediate threat.
The premise is also backwards: the Legislature expressly found in SB 79 that building homes
near transit “promotes environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic
congestion.” Because entitlement and construction take years, the City has ample time to plan
any circulation improvements through ordinary channels; a speculative, long-term increase in
bicycle and pedestrian interactions is not the immediate threat the urgency mechanism requires.
June 15, 2026
Page 4
#539962502_v2
3. The 50 Percent Envelope Does Not Deliver the Density and Floor Area SB 79
Requires.
Beyond the procedural defects, the substantive development standards fail on their own terms.
Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1) permits a local exclusion only where local zoning
allows “density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards
specified under Government Code Section 65912.157.” Government Code Section
65912.160(c)(1) further requires the City to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that its proposed objective standards “do not physically preclude” the applicable densities. The
City has provided no such evidence.
The restrictive envelope controls are exactly the kind of standards that physically preclude
required densities on smaller lots:
• A daylight plane beginning at an initial height of just 16 feet, extending at a 45-degree
angle from lot lines abutting lower-density districts;
• 10-foot front and rear setbacks and 4-foot side setbacks on all lots;
• A 70 percent maximum site coverage figure, characterized in the staff report merely as a
“clarification” that “removes a potential source of confusion,” but presented with no
stated evidentiary basis whatsoever.
Given these constraints, it is clear that, when these additional development standards are taken
into account, there will be an even greater than 50 percent reduction in residential floor area,
particularly for smaller lots. The 50 percent figure does not account for the independent,
cumulative effect of the daylight plane, setback, and site-coverage standards, each of which
further constrains the buildable envelope. Because these standards operate together to shrink the
development footprint, a parcel that is nominally entitled to 50 percent of the SB 79 density and
floor area cannot, as a practical matter, achieve that yield with these standards. Thus, the
ordinance does not meet the statutory requirements of Government Code Section
65912.161(b)(1).
4. The City Has Not Satisfied SB 79’s Mandatory HCD Process.
SB 79 requires the City to submit a draft implementing ordinance to HCD at least 14 days before
adoption, and again within 60 days after enactment. HCD then has 90 days (extendable to 120) to
review the ordinance for substantial compliance. Gov. Code § 65912.160(d)(1)(A). The City
states that it submitted a preliminary draft ordinance to HCD on May 28, 2026. The City further
states that its draft was “substantially similar” to the version introduced at first reading, and the
version now before Council for adoption on June 15 differs further still.
There is no indication that the revised ordinance, including material additions, has been
submitted to HCD. See Gov. Code § 65912.160(d)(1)(A). The result is that HCD has never had a
meaningful opportunity to evaluate the standards the City is actually asking Council to adopt.
June 15, 2026
Page 5
#539962502_v2
5. Adoption of This Ordinance Has Consequences.
If HCD determines that the ordinance is not in substantial compliance with Government Code
Section 65912.161(b)(1), because it does not genuinely deliver 50 percent of SB 79 density and
floor area, the local exclusion falls away, and the full, unmodified SB 79 development standards
apply to every eligible parcel in the City. Once those standards take effect, qualifying projects
are protected by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). Under the HAA, a project that
complies with SB 79 and applicable objective standards may only be denied upon a finding of a
“specific adverse impact” on public health or safety that cannot be mitigated in any other way, an
extraordinarily high bar. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).
Ironically, the City will obtain a better project at 414 California Avenue without the ordinance.
Under the suppressed envelope, the Applicant is forced to choose residential viability over
ground-floor activation, and the corridor loses the very retail and placemaking the City says it
wants to preserve. Under the full SB 79 standards, the Applicant can deliver the project
California Avenue actually needs: meaningful housing in a transit-rich location, paired with
active, pedestrian-oriented ground-floor uses that have always defined the corridor’s character.
6. The Applicant Urges Rejection of This Ordinance.
The Applicant respectfully urges the Council to decline to adopt the interim urgency ordinance
(and, for the same reasons, the companion “temporary” ordinance establishing the same
standards).
The Applicant reserves all rights, including the right to submit additional objections in advance
of any subsequent hearing, to seek administrative review by HCD’s Housing Accountability
Unit, and to pursue any and all remedies available under the Housing Accountability Act, SB 79,
the State Density Bonus Law, and applicable provisions of the Government Code if the
ordinance is adopted as presented.
The Applicant is committed to delivering high-quality, transit-oriented, mixed-use housing on
California Avenue, housing that includes meaningful ground-floor retail, complies with
affordability requirements, and advances the City’s own planning objectives. The Council is
June 15, 2026
Page 6
#539962502_v2
urged to ensure that its SB 79 implementing ordinance does not inadvertently prevent that
outcome.
Sincerely yours,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Scott L. Gesundheit
Ryan M. Leaderman
cc: California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing
Accountability Unit; Office of the Attorney General of California; City Attorney, City of
Palo Alto
From:Michael Dann
To:Council, City
Subject:SB 79 Vote
Date:Monday, June 15, 2026 12:41:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council,
More housing near transit is good for affordability, sustainability, and inclusivity. SB 79 could
make it easier to build housing in key areas near transit. Instead, the council is taking an
obstructionist bare minimum approach that might get Palo Alto sued. We want the city to
embrace a plan that reflects our community’s values.
It's already late, so sooner is better than later. Let's limit the damage.
Thank you,
Michael Dann
Long time Palo Alto resident
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report