Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-29 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: 6/29/2026 Document dates: 6/22/26 – 6/29/26 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Larry Burnett To:Larry Burnett Subject:A Pastor"s Request Date:Sunday, June 28, 2026 9:08:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Larry Burnett for Freedom Bridge Press * * * * * * * * * * * * Valued American Leader, ~ Obviously, life is full of issues which must be managed. And, in that effort, we bring some into the foreground while others must remain in the background. I hope I can convince you, in the course of this short note, that the issue it describes deserves a foreground priority. The consequences of leaving it in the background truly are dire and now more imminent that most realize. I have been an American pastor for almost half a century and a serious writer for more than half of that time. And, in both roles, I try never to traffic in the superficial. And this note is no exception. It has, to date, gone out to more than 22,000 conscientious American leaders like yourself. And, it is all in an effort to freshly shine a light on a long-time internal enemy - and the looming danger they now pose to this nation. "America's Predator," is a white paper which I recently authored to help freshly alert the nation to this treacherous movement which continues to live very deceptively among us – as they have for more than a hundred years now. And, in every one of those years, their every tactical effort has remained laser focused on the complete destruction of the American way of life. And, across that entire span of time this seditious movement has been steadily accumulating the needed strategic influence to actually accomplish that national takedown. And now, in this consummate stage of their seditious work, the vicious nature of this disloyal movement has become much more visible. It has been made so by its current bold lawlessness - in our streets, in our government, in our judicial system and throughout the fabric of our society. And, this very open defiance actually marks the showdown moment which is now beginning to unfold around us. And, indeed, it is a moment which cries out for a distinctly elevated level of concern, an accurate understanding of this threat, and a timely and effective response. It’s these needs which have shaped "America's Predator" and this note of introduction This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report – a note which I assume has now either done its job or it has not. Either it has stimulated your decision to explore this informative white paper to assess the priority of this issue for yourself; or instead, it has only led to a quick dismissal of the issue by a click of your delete button. My hope, of course, is that you will choose that first option by clicking one of the Safe Links below. Either link will take you to this paper which thoroughly exposes and realistically addresses this looming and truly existential threat. ~ My sincere thanks for your attention to this note. And, may clarity, courage, and godly goodness ever mark your leadership – LB You can read, "America's Predator" On Our Blog: The Wall-Fly Exhibit https://countermeasures7.blogspot.com/2025/11/americas-predator.html Or, On Our Unique Website: TheBack40Museum.com https://www.theback40museum.com From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Who"s Watching? Safeguarding Our Privacy, Sunday - What You Need to Know Date:Sunday, June 28, 2026 8:10:32 AM Attachments:image1782608873597.png printed program final.pdf Begin forwarded message: From: davidw@indivisiblepaloaltoplus.orgDate: June 27, 2026 at 6:08:25 PM PDTTo: IPA+ Team <team@indivisiblepaloaltoplus.org> Subject: Who's Watching? Safeguarding Our Privacy, Sunday - What You Need to Know  Dear Friends, This email confirms your registration to join us tomorrow, Sunday, for Who’s Watching? Safeguarding Our Privacy. On behalf of Indivisible Palo Alto Plus and Safety Over Surveillance, we are so glad you will be joining us for what promises to be an extraordinary event. This forum will take place at First Presbyterian Church, 1140 Cowper Street, Palo Alto. The church has a parking lot and there is typically ample parking on the surrounding streets. Doors open at 2:30 PM, and the program begins promptly at 3 PM in the Sanctuary. The information tables will be set up and we will be serving light refreshments. We encourage you to come at 2:30 for the information table, to meet other participants, to partake in some yummy snacks, and to find your seat before we begin at 3 PM. We’re expecting a crowd, so we do suggest you come early. The first hour will feature our panel: Cindy Cohn, former executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and author of the bestselling memoir Privacy’s Defender Brian Hofer, executive director of Secure Justice and former chair of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission Reem Suleiman, senior campaign director of Fight for the Future Moderated by Cyrus Farivar, technology journalist (Forbes, The San Francisco Standard) and author of Habeas Data Then, we will break into four smaller sessions: Legal Strategies for Fighting Surveillance - Classroom 1 Cameras in the Streets: ALPRs and Us - Fellowship Hall Mass Surveillance and Vulnerable Populations - Chapel Protecting Our Digital Privacy - Lounge Please see the attached program for more details on each of these breakout sessions. It is not too early to begin to consider what session will most appeal to you. After the breakouts, we’ll reconvene briefly to synthesize what we’ve learned and to identify next steps. This gathering is part of Democracy Forum, a series of action-oriented events hosted by Indivisible Palo Alto Plus. Democracy Forum aims to provide a “deep dive” educational experience that will equip participants with the knowledge, skills, and tools that they need to preserve and strengthen the American democratic experiment. We look forward to this opportunity to confront the new reality of mass surveillance and, together, learn, connect, and act. See you Sunday afternoon, David Waksberg First Presbyterian Church, Palo Alto Sunday, June 28, 3:00 PM – 5:30 PM 2:30 PM Refreshments and Information Sharing 3:00 PM Welcome 3:10 PM Panel: Watching the Watchers: Mass Surveillance & Democracy Cyrus Farivar (moderator), journalist and author Cindy Cohn, former executive director, Electronic Frontier Foundation Brian Hofer, executive director, Secure Justice. Reem Suleiman, senior campaigns director, Fight for the Future 4:10 PM Transition to Breakout Sessions 4:15 PM Breakout Sessions Legal Strategies for Fighting Surveillance - Classroom 1 Some legal remedies to check government and corporate surveillance have proven highly successful—and some have not. Learn about the current state of anti-surveillance law, and about the need for new legislation. Adam Schwartz, Electronic Frontier Foundation Cara Silver, Indivisible Palo Alto Plus 4:15 PM Breakout Sessions (Continued) Cameras in the Streets: ALPRs and Us - Fellowship Hall Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) pose an immediate and visible threat to privacy and civil liberties. Presenters will discuss the scope of that threat, along with tactics for countering it within their communities. Brian Hofer, Secure Justice Austin Marshall, Indivisible Palo Alto Plus Mass Surveillance and Vulnerable Populations - Chapel How are government agencies using surveillance data to track immigrant and BIPOC communities? Can surveillance technologies be used to monitor dissent? What can residents do to support those who are targeted? Reem Suleiman, Fight for the Future Kimberly Woo, SIREN Protecting Our Digital Privacy - Lounge How your phone is spying on you and how to take back your privacy. Tristan, Indivisible Palo Alto Plus Linda Frommer, Indivisible Palo Alto Plus 5:10 PM Call to Action: Safeguarding Our Privacy—and Our Democracy SPONSORING PARTNERS: ACLU of Northern California (Santa Clara County Chapter) Blue Turn Indivisible Envision Transform Build (ETB) East Palo Alto Fight for the Future Indivisible Mid-Peninsula Indivisible San Jose Los Altos for Representation and Equity (LARE) Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice National Civilian Oversight Academy Secure Justice Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America SIREN (Service, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network) SOS (Safety Over Surveillance) Youth United for Community Action (YUCA) This printed program is sponsored by the National Civilian Oversight Academy. From:Aram James To:Jasso, Tamara Cc:Julian Garcia; Council, City; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; editor@paweekly.com; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Riley Cooke; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; Josh Becker; marc.berman@cityofpaloalto.com; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; PD Kristina Bell; Supervisor Betty Duong; District5@bos.sccgov.org; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Friends of Cubberley; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com Subject:Hospitals race to upgrade earthquake Safety Date:Sunday, June 28, 2026 7:50:52 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be interested. Hospitals race to upgrade https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=d350e838-19d0- 4ee8-9a0d-b497d305dd2a&appcode=SAN252&eguid=25abc6f8-8e74-4434-978c- 3c9391ef1681&pnum=2# For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here: From:Barry Katz To:City Mgr Cc:chrisschremp88@gmail.com; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Bulatao, Eric Subject:OSVs on public streets Date:Saturday, June 27, 2026 6:46:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Shikada — As a representative of the Ventura Neighborhood Association, I would like to amplify a few points made by Mr. Marinaro, Mr. Schemp, and others. I will start by acknowledging that there has been some success in addressing this vexing issue, particularly along Park Blvd. At this point, however, the City’s initiative appears to have stalled. Despite numerous complaints from neighbors, a residual population of OSV dwellers has figured out how to game the system — parking just beyond the legal limit from intersections, moving their vehicles from one side of the street to the other, etc. The result, as one frustrated enforcement officer put it, is that “Our hands are tied.” Since this is obviously not what was intended by our various codes and ordinances, it has become increasingly clear that the codes must be changed. Since everyone recognizes that the impact upon vehicle dwellers will be significant, I would like to make a couple of additional points: 1. At a City Council meeting earlier this year, one speaker cast this issue in explicitly racial terms, stating: “The pitchforks are out for brown people.” Apparently this individual has never visited the Ventura District: 12 out of 20 residents on my street are non-white or first- generation immigrants; none of them cares whether the person pouring motor oil or battery acid down our storm drains is black, brown, white, or yellow. The attempt to racialize this issue is misplaced and deeply offensive. 2. In a similar vein, this must not be construed, as some have explicitly stated, as an attempt on the part of the affluent to “criminalize poverty.” Many residents, especially in south Palo Alto, have made and continue to make significant personal sacrifices to live here and are now being asked to subsidize those who prefer to live for free on public thoroughfares. To sum up: Without changing the laws around OSV parking on public streets, further enforcement efforts will be fruitless. BK Barry M Katz 233 Margarita Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94306 650.644-8697 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; JacobHakmo; 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; 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:Palo Alto"s Ongoing OSV Crisis - - Bob"s OSV Count (6/26/26) Date:Saturday, June 27, 2026 5:29:55 PM Attachments:RV Inventory_26Jun26.xlsx OSV Inventory_26Jun26.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, OSV Ad Hoc Committee, City Employees, and Concerned Residents and Businesses, Based on my 6/26/26 OSV Count it appears as though the number of OSVs on Palo Alto streets is holding relatively steady in the 130-140 range. That is better than the numbers in the 200s that we saw last Fall but we have not seen any appreciable decrease in the last several months. And… the unfortunate fact is, that we have not seen any movement by the City Council in recent months to give us any indication that they are effectively working the issue. How many times can you see these photos of the impacted streets of Palo Alto and turn a blind eye? The fact that there has not been any follow-up discussion or policy proposals in recent months demonstrates that the City is more concerned with the squatters that clog up our streets than the tax-paying residents and businesses - - the very people that elected you. This is most unfortunate! Show us that you and your staff are diligently researching every option available. Show us that you are serious about removing these OSVs from our streets in the short term because every day that they remain they become more comfortable and emboldened. I wish you could cycle with me as I ride the current 20 impacted streets. Just because they are not on your street does not mean they are not a nuisance to others in town - especially in south Palo Alto. How would you like it if at the end of the day you came back to your residence with a RV or graffiti covered trailer in front of your house with the constant sound of generators running day and night polluting your air. And, by the way, you tell us we can no longer replace our gas water heaters because of the omissions, but these RVs are regularly running their engines or their 5000 watt generators! It’s time to roll up your sleeves and show your constituents that you are serious about tackling this problem sooner rather later. You were elected to your office as someone who can effectively lead and solve difficult issues just not to appear at smiley-face PR events! The lack of continued action on this issue is not acceptable! Regards, Bob Marinaro East Meadow Circle - - 38 OSVs on 6/26/26 East Meadow Circle - - Intruder #1 up to no good! East Meadow Circle with Echelon Condos in the background - - 38 OSVs on 6/26/26 East Meadow Circle - - 38 OSVs on 6/26/26 East Meadow Circle - - 38 OSVs on 6/26/26 East Meadow Circle - - No RV, then I guess a Box Truck will do! Fabian Way at the Intersection of East Charleston - - These two RVs have permanently put down their roots here much to the chagrin of these condo residents San Antonio Rd- - Bad Actor #3 refuses to go anywhere even though this vehicle cannot be street legal Faber Place (off of E. Embarcadero) home to 12 OSVs and their ancillary vehicles taking up valuable parking spaces from nearby businesses Corner of E. Embarcadero and Faber Place smothering Anderson Honda and other nearby businesses E. Embarcadero Rd - - 10 RVs in front of Palo Alto Labs, Stanford Credit Union, and other businesses Colorado Ave. adjacent to Greer Park Soccer Fields - - 8 RVs adding to the Charm of Palo Alto Parks Matadero Ave - - Now a fixture next to the Shell gas station much to the chagrin of local residents Birch St. in the Ventura Neighborhood - - Why here and not in the more heavily impacted streets in south Palo Alto? Ash St. - - Bad Actor #1. Several of his 12-ish vehicles on five different streets in the Ventura Neighborhood Acacia Ave - - Several more of Bad Actor #1’s vehicles in front of the currently leasing Acaia Townhomes Page Mill Rd. just east of Park Blvd. - - A nice accent to the tech firms on this stretch of Park Blvd. Palo Alto On Street OSV Count Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs #################12/3/2025 ################1/28/2026 ############################4/9/2026 #######5/8/2026 #######6/9/2026 ####### & 10/22/25 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 & 4/11 1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 16 17 16 17 17 0 2 1 5 4 6 3 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 8 7 8 8 9 8 9 12 10 11 9 11 10 9 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 56 53 52 51 49 53 48 41 43 43 41 40 40 39 38 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 11 11 11 12 12 11 6 5 4 6 8 7 7 7 5 7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 13 15 13 10 11 11 3 3 5 6 6 5 7 7 7 8 San Antonio Rd.East of 101 - -- -- -- -- -- -- -5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 10 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 11 10 11 11 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 4 4 11 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 13 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 6 6 2 4 3 1 1 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 8 13 Amarillo Ave.Bordering North Edge of Greer Park - -- -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 15 8 10 5 5 9 6 9 6 7 8 6 7 9 10 15 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 10 11 7 8 7 6 9 9 11 11 11 10 11 10 10 16 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 23 25 20 19 15 16 17 14 15 17 17 18 18 14 12 17 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -3 4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 18 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 19 Ames Av./Ross Rd.At Intersection with Ross Rd.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 1 0 200 197 195 180 170 165 168 138 136 119 120 120 123 123 123 116 20 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 21 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 (2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.1 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 23 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 6 4 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 24 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 25 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 26 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 27 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.- -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 Acacia Ave.Between El Camino & Ash St.- -- -- -- -- -- -3 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 7 5 29 Page Mill Between Park Blvd. & RR - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 1 1 20 20 20 19 11 13 12 11 15 12 12 13 13 15 20 14 Total:220 217 215 199 181 178 180 149 151 131 132 133 136 138 143 130 Delta:9 -2 -16 -18 -3 2 -31 2 -20 1 1 3 2 5 -13 Days since first count: ########29 43 60 85 99 115 129 141 159 170 185 199 213 231 248 Months since first count: ########1.0 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.6 6.1 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.2 Yellow OSVs on new street Palo Alto City Council: City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Green Utility construction Bob Marinaro: E:Mail: rmarinaro@mac.com, Cell: 650-269-5936 Ash Street Numerous auxillary vehicles in addition to OSV Abandon Vehicle Hotline: 650-329-2258 Some columns may be hidden to facilitate easy one page view Ventura Area RV Inventory_26Jun26 6/29/2026 1:47 PM From:miriamnnw66 To:lsarafan@thekey.com Cc:wascsr@wscuc.org; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; senator.niello@senate.ca.gov; senator.perez@senate.ca.gov; senator.umberg@senate.ca.gov; boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org; jhausaman@wscuc.org; robertc2@stanford.edu; kchisholm@wscuc.org; assemblymember.muratsuchi@assembly.ca.gov; kmatarrese@wscuc.org; senator.ochoabogh@senate.ca.gov; Council, City; wasc@wscuc.org; david_montes@padilla.senate.gov; senator.becker@senate.ca.gov; assemblymember.mbonta@assembly.ca.gov; ocr.sanfrancisco@ed.gov Subject:Stand Against Hate: Stop SJP"s October 7 "Martyr" Event Date:Friday, June 26, 2026 7:09:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Additional Recipients: Governor Gavin Newsom; U.S. Senator Alex Padilla; U.S. Senator Adam Schiff; U.S. Representative Ro Khanna (CA-17); U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights; U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon; Members of the Press; Leo Terrell, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Human Relations Commission; Campus Watch; North American Values Institute (NAVI); Christians United For Israel (CUFI) and U.S. Representative Kevin Kiley, Chair of the Early Childhood and Secondary Education Subcommittee. Stanford's Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), together with the Muslim Student Union, is organizing an event on Sunday, October 5, to build a "visual display honoring our martyrs" -- to be unveiled on October 7 [1], nearly two full years after Hamas's barbaric massacre and mass hostage-taking of Israeli civilians, during which more than 1,200 innocent people were slaughtered and 48 hostages -- both living and deceased -- remain held in captivity. This planned display is a grotesque glorification of terrorism and the textbook definition of a hostile environment. It directly targets and traumatizes Jewish and Israeli students, retraumatizing those whose families and friends were murdered, kidnapped, or raped on that day. To allow a campus organization to celebrate the perpetrators of those crimes on the anniversary of their atrocities is unconscionable, unsafe, and completely incompatible with federal civil-rights protections. By any measure, this event would create and perpetuate a hostile environment in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [2], which obligates Stanford to protect students from harassment and intimidation based on shared ancestry or ethnic identity. This duty is explicitly reinforced by Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti-Semitism, 2019) [3] and Executive Order 14188 (Strengthening Efforts to Combat Antisemitism, 2025) [4], both of which direct This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast funding is denied to institutions that fail to act. California law provides parallel safeguards under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 51) and the California Education Code § 220, prohibiting discrimination and harassment in educational institutions on the basis of religion or ethnic heritage [5]. The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) maintains enforcement authority to investigate and prosecute such violations within the state [11]. The federal government and over thirty-five states, including California, recognize the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, which defines antisemitism as including the demonization, delegitimization, or double standards applied to Israel [14]. By glorifying Hamas terrorists as "martyrs" and portraying the murder of Israeli civilians as resistance, this display demonizes the Jewish state, denies Israel's right to defend its people, and holds Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel -- all examples identified within the IHRA framework. Failure of your administration to act under these statutes and executive orders can trigger enforcement by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, including loss of Title IV federal funding [9]. Stanford's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status likewise prohibits any use of taxpayer resources to promote terrorism, unlawful discrimination, or antisemitic harassment [10]. Both federal and California law authorize penalties, funding suspension, and civil or injunctive action against institutions that violate these standards, and any retaliation toward students, faculty, or staff who report antisemitism constitutes a separate violation under Title VI and California law [12]. No Jewish or Israeli student should be forced to walk across campus and see "martyrs" -- meaning Hamas terrorists -- publicly glorified in Stanford's central plaza. Stanford's own Student Code of Conduct requires all students to uphold the rights and dignity of others and forbids behavior that threatens, harasses, or endangers any individual or group [6]. The Student Organization Policies further prohibit student groups from activities that "violate law or University policy, create hostile environments, or incite violence or harassment" [7]. This planned display clearly breaches those rules. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, it is a federal crime to provide material support or resources -- including coordinated advocacy -- to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Hamas has been designated by the U.S. Department of State since 1997 [8]. The promotion or veneration of its members and actions constitutes terrorist propaganda and material support for terrorism, not protected speech. Institutions that enable or host such conduct risk federal scrutiny and potential loss of funding. The precedent is clear. George Washington University suspended its Students for Justice in Palestine chapter after it projected messages such as "Glory to Our Martyrs" and other antisemitic and pro-terror slogans onto campus buildings following the October 7 massacre [13]. GWU recognized that such behavior was not protected political expression but a deliberate glorification of terrorism and a direct threat to Jewish and Israeli students. If Stanford allows this planned display to proceed, it will be disregarding the same standards of safety and accountability that other universities have already enforced. Support for terrorism has no place at Stanford or any American university. Failure to act decisively will endanger Jewish and Israeli students, undermine public trust, and irreparably damage Stanford's reputation as an institution committed to safety, equity, and the rule of law. This is not merely a matter of compliance but of conscience. By tolerating this kind of antizionist libel and incitement, your administration risks becoming complicit in the broader antizionist hate movement -- the latest round in a centuries-old cycle of Jew-hatred that has destroyed Jewish communities worldwide. The threat extends far beyond any one campus. Antisemitism has risen at an explosive rate across the United States and worldwide. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have confirmed that antisemitic incidents and threats in America are at historic highs, with the ADL reporting over 7,500 incidents in 2023 alone -- a 360 percent increase since October 7 [15][16][17]. On college campuses, hate has escalated from intimidation to assaults and vandalism targeting Jewish students and faculty [18]. These displays of glorified terrorism and dehumanizing rhetoric do not remain confined to campus grounds -- they spill into the broader community, emboldening hate and placing American Jews in real danger. Stanford must decide whether it will stand against this growing wave of antiZionist hate movement or be remembered as an institution that allowed it to take root. History will remember how Stanford chose to respond -- whether it upheld its principles or turned a blind eye to the glorification of terror and the neglect of its Jewish students. Sincerely, References: [1] Placeholder - Visual Evidence https://imgur.com/a/bft4CzM?s=sms [2] Title VI of the Civil Rights Act - https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI [3] EO 13899 - https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order- combating-anti-semitism/ [4] EO 14188 - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/20/2025- 10954/strengthening-efforts-to-combat-antisemitism [5] California Unruh Act & Ed Code §220 - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml? sectionNum=220.&lawCode=EDC [6] Stanford Code of Conduct - https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/student- conduct/student-conduct-process/student-code-conduct [7] Stanford Student Organization Policies - https://studentships.stanford.edu/policies/student- organization-policies [8] Designation of Hamas - https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/ [9] U.S. DOE OCR - https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html [10] IRS 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501 [11] California Civil Rights Department - https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/ [12] DOE & CRD Anti-Retaliation Protections - https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html and https://calcivilrights.ca.gov [13] George Washington University SJP Suspension - https://compliance.gwu.edu/students- justice-palestine-suspension [14] IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism - https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working- definition-antisemitism [15] FBI Hate Crime Statistics 2023 - https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi- services-and-information/ucr/publications#HateCrime [16] ADL Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2023 - https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit- antisemitic-incidents-2023 [17] U.S. DHS National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin (May 2024) - https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/may-2024 [18] U.S. DOE Guidance on Antisemitic Harassment in Schools (2024) - https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations-guidance.html Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Hartley, Craig; Lee, David; Hornung, Joel Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; Pigman, Sophie; Stone, Greer Subject:Re: ADA Accommodation Request and Request for Mediation Regarding Communication and Response Practices Date:Friday, June 26, 2026 1:35:52 PM Attachments:Dr rose declaration.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Police Department, Re: ADA Accommodation Request and Request for Mediation Regarding Communication and Response Practices I am writing to explain the impact that repeated failures to communicate regarding significant safety concerns have had on my disabilities and to request reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Repeatedly reporting safety concerns to the agencies responsible for addressing them, only to receive little or no response, has had a significant impact on my health and functioning. I have been diagnosed with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD) and ADHD. These conditions affect how my nervous system responds to prolonged stress and repeated exposure to situations where I perceive danger but am unable to obtain assistance from the institutions charged with protecting vulnerable residents. For an individual with C-PTSD, repeated experiences of seeking help and not receiving a meaningful response can contribute to what trauma researchers describe as institutional betrayal. When a person repeatedly reaches out to the very organizations responsible for public safety and the protection of vulnerable individuals, only to experience little communication or follow-up, the nervous system can begin to interpret those systems as unsafe. This can result in hypervigilance, heightened anxiety, sleep disturbance, difficulty regulating emotions, and an increased physiological stress response. ADHD further compounds this situation. ADHD affects executive functioning, emotional regulation, organization, and the ability to shift attention away from unresolved problems. When significant safety concerns remain unresolved, my brain cannot simply “move on.” The uncertainty and repeated need to advocate for basic safety consume cognitive resources and significantly increases my stress. The result is not simply frustration. It is cumulative trauma. Every unanswered email, delayed response, or failure to investigate reinforces the expectation that asking for help will not result in protection. Eventually, even contacting agencies such as the Palo Alto Police Department becomes psychologically difficult because previous experiences have conditioned my nervous system to anticipate another traumatic disappointment rather than meaningful assistance. This is particularly concerning because my advocacy has not been limited to myself. I have also been advocating for Tom Wilson, an 89-year-old veteran with a brain injury and dementia. When repeated reports involving vulnerable individuals do not receive timely attention, the psychological burden increases because there is an ongoing fear that preventable harm will continue while those responsible are deciding whether or how to respond. I feel that the repeated failures to communicate, acknowledge, and meaningfully respond to my reports are causing me ongoing psychological injury. They exacerbate my C-PTSD and ADHD symptoms and significantly impair my ability to safely interact with the very institutions responsible for protecting vulnerable residents. Whether these failures are the result of misunderstanding, lack of information, inadequate procedures, or another reason, the impact on me has been real and significant. Accordingly, please consider this a new request for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As reasonable accommodations, I respectfully request: • Timely acknowledgment that my reports have been received. • A designated point of contact whenever feasible. • Meaningful follow-up explaining what action has been taken, what action cannot be taken, and the reason for that decision. • Prompt communication if additional information is needed from me. • Written communication whenever possible so that I am not required to repeatedly relive traumatic events by starting over with different personnel. These accommodations would reduce the ongoing psychological injury I experience and allow me to communicate more effectively with the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Police Department. Additionally, I respectfully request the opportunity to participate in mediation with the City of Palo Alto to discuss these concerns, identify appropriate accommodations, improve communication, and work toward a constructive resolution. My goal has always been to protect vulnerable residents, including myself and Tom Wilson, and to work collaboratively toward solutions. I respectfully request a written response to this accommodation request and to my request for mediation. Sincerely, Becky Wolf From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:City Mgr; Pigman, Sophie; Council, City Subject:Fwd: Tom Wilson, 509, 89 year-old veteran Date:Friday, June 26, 2026 11:28:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sophie, I need you to answer one question: Who has the authority to stop what is happening to Tom? If it is not you, then tell me exactly who it is, because what is happening is unacceptable. An 89-year-old veteran with a brain injury and dementia is being harmed, and I have been reporting these concerns for months. Yesterday, his room was entered while he was away, his lock was removed, and remediation equipment was placed in his room. Today, I recorded him telling his VA social worker that he desperately needs help and wants out of that room. I have reached the point where I no longer understand why the City continues to stand by while this is happening. It is your job to protect vulnerable residents, and I have repeatedly asked for intervention. If the City does not act, I will continue escalating this. I will contact reporters beyond the local media, state and national organizations, veterans’ advocacy groups, and anyone else willing to look at what is happening. I am not walking away from Tom, and I will continue advocating for him for as long as it takes. Please tell me today who has the authority to intervene so that someone can finally do something instead of allowing this to continue. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Tom Wilson, 509, 89 year-old veteran To: Marisela Baca <mbaca@abode.org>, Julia M. Adams <JAdams@ztalaw.com>, Vargas- Aguilera, Elisa <elisa.vargas@paloalto.gov>, Mino Ngo <Mino.Ngo@scchousingauthority.org> CC: lief.christensen@paloalto.gov <lief.christensen@paloalto.gov>, Pigman, Sophie <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>, City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>, info <info@housing.org>, <info@scchousingauthority.org>, Hartley, Craig <Craig.Hartley@paloalto.gov>, Hornung, Joel <Joel.Hornung@paloalto.gov>, Lee, David <David.Lee@paloalto.gov>, Tom Wilson <paratroopertom509@gmail.com> To Whom It May Concern and Sgt. Hornung: I am requesting that the PERT team come to Tom’s room today to personally observe the conditions he has been asked to live in. Tom is an 89-year-old veteran with a documented brain injury and dementia. Since October, I have advocated on his behalf. Despite this, the building has repeatedly ignored my advocacy, stating that I have not submitted the proper documentation. I have repeatedly asked Abode’s attorney, Julia Adams, exactly what documentation Tom needs to sign in order for my advocacy to be recognized. I have never received a response. There is a continuing pattern in which I report serious concerns, law enforcement contacts Abode or Marscella Baca, and a different version of events is provided. My reports are then disregarded without anyone independently verifying the conditions. That is not an adequate investigation. The police were willing to come to my room over a keychain worth less than five dollars that I found and returned, yet they have repeatedly declined to come examine the conditions an 89- year-old veteran has been living in despite numerous reports that he is unsafe. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. For months, I have asked that someone conduct a meaningful welfare check instead of simply asking Tom whether he is suicidal. There have been three Adult Protective Services reports and multiple cross-reports regarding his welfare. APS social worker Rashonda Burns initially came to the building and stated that the building was the problem and that Tom needed to move. After meeting with property management, her position changed dramatically. Tom has withheld rent because of what he believes are uninhabitable living conditions after receiving advice from Swords to Plowshares, a nonprofit serving veterans. At Gabriel’s recommendation, I prepared and submitted a rent abatement letter on December 8. I have repeatedly attempted to negotiate with management, but they have refused to engage. At the same time, Tom has been told he cannot receive assistance or in-home support unless he first pays at least $1,500 in rent. My understanding is that his eligibility for In-Home Supportive Services is determined independently and is not controlled by Abode. Yesterday, while Tom was away, management removed the lock from his room, entered the unit, and installed remediation equipment. Tom has told me he would have provided a key had anyone simply asked him. He reports that his room was left unsecured while a replacement lock was obtained. Tom also described the remediation equipment as unbearable and stated that he has been forced to walk across the street to use a restroom because of the conditions in his own room. During a recorded telephone conversation today with his VA social worker, he repeatedly stated, “I need help,” and agreed that he wanted to leave the room because of the conditions. I have preserved that recording. There is also an active Notice of Violation issued by the City of Palo Alto identifying mold and unpermitted work affecting Tom’s room. My understanding is that the City had not signed off on the work performed yesterday. If that understanding is correct, I respectfully request that this be investigated. I am asking that an officer or the PERT team respond today—not to rely solely on competing accounts, but to personally observe the conditions and document what exists. Please do not allow assumptions or conflicting narratives to replace an independent assessment. Tom deserves that much. Thank you. Becky Transcript of audio recorded today, conversation with Ruby, Tom’s VA (Social Worker): I mean, I could give her, I don't know what's going on with property management there. However, I'm calling for another reason to try to get somebody there to help you out with your hand, because that was something that was reported to the patient advocate that, you know, I'm just trying to follow up with that, that you want somebody to help you with your hand. In the morning, it's not even the hand. 
It's this. I'm flooding this damn place. All the time, I don't know what the hell I'm doing. 
I keep asking. I need help. I need help. 
You guys can't get in your head. You figured this because I can walk, I travel all over the world, but I'm lost half the time, but it's something I gotta do, because there's nothing there for me. So, uh, anyway, uh, I've got to just do what it is I need help real bad. 
And I keep asking everybody, and I just, I need somebody to come by, and all you guys say, you pay, you pay. Sounds like what I was in Vietnam. If I wouldn't have paid, they would have left me in jail. 
But anyway, I'm gonna let it go and you have a good one, Ruby. Oh, I mean, Mr. once in a while, I'll let you go, then. I hope to be able to talk to you later sometime in the week, okay? 
Hope everything goes well, and hope that I'll talk to property management in regards to what's going on with those things, and if they're gonna make any accommodations for you to go to another unit, would that be something that you are open to? You know, I don't even know. I don't even know what I'm gonna do. 
Say yes, say yes, Tom. All right, we'll give. Wait, wait, wait, wait. 
We got another unit, because I remember that, that's what they promised. Well, if I got another You say yes, Tom. If I want another, you mean permanent? 
No. Whoa, whoa, no. Temporarily, and then, we could go from there. 
Well, if I got another unit, I would promise second floor, when I got here, they'd give it somebody to help. That's been working on me for a couple years. But no, you know, I... 
So would you, are you cheating to remain, then that's my question. Do you want me to tell them to put you in another year till you're not there without the heavy machinery, and all the noise, and the demon? Well, all I want is a damn bed and something. 
I dont want to move all my stuff down. Just a bed, yes. I think that you can move some of your things. 
You know, at least. I know that she mentioned that they would put a bed there for you. You can take some of your your items there, you know, that you need. 
Is that something that you're open to, so you're not completely... Yeah, I need to get out of here. I got to walk to the restroom, cross the street. 
Yeah, well, that's something that I want to talk to them about. Are they going to be able to put you on a unit where you have access to a toilet, and you don't have to walk across the street? You have a room. 
Is that something? All right, yeah, see what you can do. So do you want to, okay, I'll call the property manager right now, and I'll see you, and I'll call you back, okay? 
All right, thank you, Ruby. Okay, you're welcome. Bye bye.
 The silver metal piece is metal from his door knob or lock that maintenance ripped off his door. On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 3:54 PM Becky Wolf-Loretz <beckywolfloretz@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Marscella Baca and Julia Adams, CC: Elisa Vargas, Lief Christensen I am writing on behalf of Tom Wilson. On November 30, 2025, I provided written notice, with Tom Wilson’s permission, that I am his advocate for discussions regarding his tenancy, services, and any decisions affecting him. That notice also advised that Tom requested I be present for meetings concerning his housing and that information regarding Tom not be discussed outside of his presence or mine. A copy of that notice is attached. Today, Tom again clearly verbalized that he does not want any meetings whatsoever with management unless I am present as his advocate. He stated that he feels bullied, overwhelmed, and unable to process these conversations because of his cognitive impairments. Despite those repeated requests, management has continued to meet with Tom alone. Today I personally observed maintenance entering Tom’s room, removing his doorknob, and bringing mold-remediation equipment into his room while Tom was away. Tom has not authorize management to enter his room or begin this work. Tom’s room is specifically identified in the City of Palo Alto’s Notice of Violation as being affected by mold and unpermitted work. My understanding is that the Notice of Violation requires City preapproval before this remediation work proceeds. To my knowledge, that did not occur before work began in Tom’s room. Accordingly, I am demanding the following: 1. Immediately cease all entry into Tom Wilson’s room except as required by law or with Tom’s informed consent. 2. Immediately cease all remediation work in Tom’s room until the City of Palo Alto confirms that all required approvals have been obtained. 3. Do not conduct any meetings with Tom unless I am present as his designated advocate, as Tom has repeatedly requested. 4. Do not ask Tom to sign any documents unless I am present. 5. Confirm in writing that these requests will be honored. Given the ongoing City investigation, I am also requesting that the current condition of Tom’s room be preserved until the City has had the opportunity to inspect it. Please consider this a formal request to respect Tom’s expressed wishes and his rights as an elderly veteran with documented cognitive impairments. Finally, I find it completely inappropriate to subject an 89-year-old veteran with dementia and a documented brain injury to ongoing mold-remediation activities while expecting him to continue living in the room. Tom has documented medical and ADA accommodation requests regarding environmental exposures, yet management has proceeded in a manner that has left him frightened, overwhelmed, and unable to process what is happening. At this point, the priority should be protecting Tom’s health, safety, dignity, and rights—not exposing him to additional stress and environmental conditions while work is being performed around him. I expect a written response. Respectfully, Becky Wolf Advocate for Tom Wilson From:Aram James To:Jasso, Tamara; Reifschneider, James; james pitkin Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Riley Cooke; Emily Mibach; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Human Relations Commission Subject:Re: Your Mail Box is full Date:Friday, June 26, 2026 10:09:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 6/26/2026 Hi Chief Tamara Jasso: I hope you and your family are doing well. I am very interested to get information on the earthquake/seismic inspections of apartment complexes like the Southwood Apartment Complex at 2850 Middlefield Rd, in Palo Alto. Any information you can provide me regarding this critical issue would be appreciated. Sincerely, Aram James 415-370-5056 On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:53 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:44 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 6/25/2026 Hi Julian, Thanks for returning my phone call this morning. As promised, I am sending this note to you in hopes of receiving the most current information on the earthquake/seismic safety of the Southwood Complex. Is there, for example, an annual report/inspection of Southwood to assess the integrity of the complex in the event of a major earthquake? Any information on this critical subject would be most appreciated. Thanks so much. Peace, Aram 415-370-5O56 From:Becky Wolf-Loretz To:Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Pigman, Sophie; lief.christensen@paloalto.gov; City Mgr; Stone, Greer Date:Thursday, June 25, 2026 6:15:36 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 I am writing this letter so there is a public record that cannot simply disappear. If my emails are ignored, at least this will be chronicled. Today, an 89-year-old veteran returned to find that the locks to his room had been changed while he was away and remediation equipment had been placed inside his room. I am his advocate. I submitted a formal letter of advocacy on his behalf, and it has gone ignored. He was pressured to meet with property management this week, and they attempted to get him to surrender his room. When he refused, they waited till he was away and changed his locks. This is the same veteran who submitted a reasonable accommodation request on October 8 asking that he not be placed in situations like this because of his medical sensitivities. In December, he became ill following pesticide treatment in the building. Despite repeated requests for assistance, I have watched agency after agency fail to act. The Housing Authority has done nothing. The City of Palo Alto has done nothing. Senior Code Enforcement has done nothing. The Palo Alto Police Department has done nothing. We have rights. Those rights do not disappear because we are elderly, disabled, poor, or living in supportive housing. Those rights do not disappear because our emails go unanswered. How many times does an 89-year-old veteran have to ask for help before someone decides his rights matter? I have repeatedly raised concerns not only for him, but for many residents of the Opportunity Center. Instead of transparency, we have been met with silence. Instead of accountability, we have been met with delay. My advocacy has been ignored, but I will not stop advocating simply because it is inconvenient for others. We are not going away. I will continue fighting this battle for as long as it takes. Residents have the right to organize, to advocate, and to speak with one voice. The Tenant Union will be created whether those in power approve of it or not. Residents cannot be controlled into silence, and they should never be made to fear retaliation for standing up for themselves or their neighbors. I am asking the City Council to publicly explain what oversight exists when accommodation requests are ignored, when residents are locked out of their rooms, and when residents and their advocates cannot obtain answers from the very agencies charged with protecting them. History will reflect who spoke up and who remained silent. Respectfully, Becky Wolf Advocate From:Shailo Rao To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Re: FORMAL COMPLAINT: Escalated Enforcement Needed for 3935 Duncan Place Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:47:38 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Jonathan, Thank you for looking into this matter and for directing code enforcement staff to issue an official notice regarding the penalty fee schedule to the property owner. I appreciate your personal attention to our neighborhood’s safety and compliance. However, I must formally correct the information provided to you by the inspection manager regarding the history of after-hours construction at 3935 Duncan Place. The assertion that a review of records failed to validate unpermitted after-hours activity is factually inaccurate. To ensure the City’s administrative record is precise, please consider the following documented facts: 1. Official President's Day Citation The construction crew at this address was actively caught violating permitted city hours and was formally issued a citation and financial penalty on President's Day (February 17, 2026). This incident alone establishes a validated, official record of non-compliance. 2. Documented Call Logs and Response Latency My neighbors and I have placed more than a dozen separate calls to the Palo Alto Police non- emergency line to report ongoing, unpermitted early-morning and late-evening work. Because our police department is appropriately prioritizing high-stakes life-safety calls, the average response time for these non-emergency construction complaints typically exceeds one hour. Consequently, the crew sometimes concludes their unpermitted activity or vacates the site before an officer physically arrives. This logistical lag results in an "unverified" status in the police log, despite a clear violation having occurred. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report 3. Irrefutable Time-Stamped Video Evidence To clear up any ambiguity, our neighborhood group has compiled a substantial log of time- stamped video recordings documenting multiple distinct violations of permitted construction hours. This evidence independently verifies the recurring nature of these infractions. I am happy to share a link to this digital folder directly with you or the code enforcement division. A More Efficient Use of City Resources While we will continue to utilize the non-emergency police line as you suggested, relying on active law enforcement to repeatedly monitor a speculative house-flipper is a highly inefficient use of city finances and an already understaffed police department. Instead of treating these incidents as isolated or unverified complaints, we respectfully request that the Planning and Development Department take proactive, escalated administrative enforcement action against this developer and house flipper. We value our community deeply and are simply asking for the basic enforcement of city codes to protect the peace and safety of our families. Thank you again for your leadership on this, and we look forward to a swift resolution. Sincerely, Shailo On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:29 AM Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, Thank you for your email. I understand the project planner has been in touch with you and will visit the site to verify a code compliance issue addressed in a prior email. Regarding your three points below, I spoke with the inspection manager who acknowledge there were some issues related to the subject construction but that there are no current incidents of building material falling onto neighboring property. The manager also stated a review of police records for afterhours construction at the subject location did not validate any unpermitted construction activity. I appreciate being adjacent to a construction site can be challenging and upsetting - and recent changes in state law regarding accessory dwelling units limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to address privacy concerns. I do want to make sure the city is able to issue a citation if a violation of afterhours construction is validated. I’ll ask our code enforcement staff to send a notice to the property owner advising of the requirements and penalty fee schedule. If you observe construction activity outside of the permitted hours, please contact the police department at their non- emergency line: 650 329-2413. Sincerely, Jonathan JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:29 PM To: City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: FORMAL COMPLAINT: Escalated Enforcement Needed for 3935 Duncan Place CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Manager and Planning and Development Services Leadership, I am writing to formally request escalated intervention regarding the construction project at 3935 Duncan Place. Despite numerous interactions with your staff—specifically Garrett Sauls, Kyle Shea, and Jodie Gerhardt—since May 2025, the project continues to operate with a systemic disregard for city codes and neighborhood safety. Over the past year, my neighbors and I have documented over a dozen specific incidents of non-compliance. While we appreciate the staff’s responsiveness to our individual reports, the current approach of periodic check-ins and verbal warnings to the general contractor has proven entirely ineffective. The project continues to be a source of ongoing disruption and hazard. Our core concerns remain: Public Safety and Property Damage: We have reported serious safety hazards, including debris (wood boards) falling into neighboring backyards and instances of trespassing. Persistent Code Violations: There is a recurring pattern of construction activity occurring outside of the permitted 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM window, including work on Sundays and early morning disturbances. Lack of Accountability: Repeated warnings from the Building Inspection team have resulted in only temporary compliance. The cycle of violation and subsequent, short- lived "corrections" has created an exhausting and untenable environment for the surrounding residents. The current remediation strategies are not working. I am requesting that the City re-evaluate its approach to this site immediately. We ask that you consider more stringent enforcement mechanisms, such as formal citations, a temporary stop-work order, or active daily oversight, to ensure this project adheres to the standards expected of our community. We are hopeful for a resolution that restores the safety and quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these documented issues with you directly. Sincerely, Shailo Updates & Events: June 2026 LWVUS ACTION ALERT: Speak up! Oppose the proposed Mail-inBallot and Absentee Ballot Regulations!Send your comments to USPS by July 2 LWVUS sent an action alert on 6/21/26, asking you to oppose a proposed USPS rule. From:LWV of Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:Did you get the LWV email about the effort to limit absentee and mail-in ballots? Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 5:19:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Everyone agrees that election mail should be secure. But that shouldn't mean creating new barriers to voting! The United States Postal Service (“USPS”) issued a new rule on 06/02/2026 that would establish elements of national standards for absentee and mail-in ballots in federal elections.  But these new federal requirements will create barriers that could prevent eligible voters from receiving and returning their mail-in and absentee ballots in time to be counted. Concerning provisions include: States would have to provide USPS with lists of voters eligible to receive mail ballots for federal elections.  USPS would verify that mailed ballots are only being sent to voters on those submitted lists. This gives USPS a new role in election administration that has traditionally belonged to state and local election officials. The proposal would establish mandatory ballot-mail design and tracking requirements, including requiring states to update their mail ballots envelopes to include voter unique ballot-tracking barcodes.  This proposal would: Create new administrative burdens for election officials. Delay ballot distribution. Allow USPS to refuse delivery of ballots, which would disenfranchise eligible voters. These new proposed rules will create unnecessary barriers that prevent eligible voters from receiving and returning their mail-in and absentee ballots in time to be counted. Voting is a fundamental right for citizens that must be guaranteed. Voting by mail is part of that right and is a critical part of the election process throughout the United States. The USPS comment period is open until July 2, 2026, at 2 p.m. Pacific time. Click on the link below to file your comment today. Thank you! Contact USPS now! Updates & Events WEBINAR THIS EVENING! Primary Election Reform Continuing through the summer, the League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause are hosting a webinar series on our primary election reform work. Each webinar will feature coalition members leading an educational presentation on the importance of primary election reform and how our proposed policy would improve voter participation. This information will help you and your members take action in your communities, educate others, and build local support for primary election reform. Join us for our second webinar in the series on June 24, from 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm, featuring an educational panel discussion. Panelists include: Jala Ashan Abner, Program Associate, California Common Cause Dora Rose, Deputy Director, League of Women Voters of California Moderated by: Ninochka McTaggart, LWVC Board of Directors, League of Women Voters of Greater LA Register here. Democracy Forum – “Who’s Watching?” in Palo Alto on June 28 On Sunday, June 28, 2026, Palo Alto will host a Democracy Forum titled “Who’s Watching? Safeguarding Our Privacy” as part of the Indivisible Palo Alto Plus series www.findaprotest.info+1. Event details: Date: Sunday, June 28, 2026 Time: 3:00 PM – 5:30 PM (PDT) Mobilize Location: First Presbyterian Church, 1140 Cowper St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mobilize Organizer: Indivisible Palo Alto Plus Theme & Purpose: The forum addresses the growing threat of mass surveillance in the US.exploring how Big Tech and federal government surveillance intersect to erode privacy rights. It emphasizes the importance of the Fourth Amendment and examines how surveillance technologies—both online and offline—impact democracy, civil liberties, and vulnerable communities. Coming up! J U N E - No Board Meeting 25-28: LWVUS National Convention - Columbus, OH J U L Y - No Board Meeting 17-18-19: Good Trouble 2! A U G U S T - No Board Meeting 8: LWVUS - Unite & Rise 8.5 17: LWV Night at the Valkyries Game! 25: Board Retreat & Meeting S E P T E M B E R - TBD: LWV Candidate & Issue Forums N O V E M B E R 3: ELECTION DAY Take Action! Use Your Voice. Contact your Members of Congress; reach their offices by phone or email at: SEN. ALEX PADILLA | SEN. ADAM SCHIFF | REP. SAM LICCARDO (16th District) | Find your CA state representative ACLU Protesters’ Rights (for attending a protest, rally, or other demonstration. Know your rights: Protest Safety Guidance Use this ACLU form to call for an end to the ICE operation in our cities, oppose further funding, and a transparent investigation. Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2026 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Email us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:Aram James To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Vicki Veenker; Lu, George; Stone, Greer; Lotus Fong; Human Relations Commission Subject:San Jose State ordered to give professor back her job after firing found to be “excessive” – The Mercury News Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 4:41:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/06/24/san-jose-state-ordered-to-give-professor-back-her- job-after-firing-found-to-be-excessive/ From:Shir, Arnold Cc:Thompson, Aly; Coxe, Nicole; McClinton-Brown, Rhonda Subject:You’re Invited: Level Up Your City at the Healthy Cities Summit! Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 2:17:39 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. i Dear Valued Community Partner, The County of Santa Clara Public Health Department (SCCPHD) is excited to invite you to our upcoming event, Level Up Your City: Healthy Cities Summit on Thursday, September 24, 2026, from 8:30am-12pm at the Mexican Heritage Plaza. This half-day, in-person summit underscores how strong city partnerships are essential to creating healthy conditions through policy. Because most of our residents live in cities, strong city leadership and collaboration play a pivotal role in shaping the health of our entire county. By examining two policy areas to reduce chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease, we will explore how innovative public health solutions rely on close collaboration among cities, county agencies, community organizations, and residents to ensure equitable protection for all. What to expect at the summit: Receive updates on SCCPHD’s Healthy Cities Dashboard Engage in two policy panel discussions with subject matter experts and local policymakers on: Sugary Drink Excise Taxes as a Tool to Improve Health Policies to Reduce Youth Access to Tobacco and Cannabis Learn about findings from new county data on sugary drinks and tobacco Connect with partners across the county Reserve your spot today! Register here: https://bit.ly/4eyFHFm. Space is limited to just 150 attendees, so please register by Thursday, September 10, 2026. After registering, don’t forget to add the event to your calendar using the instructions provided on the confirmation page. We can’t wait to see you there and work together toward a healthier, more equitable future for all. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to Arnold Shir at Arnold.shir@phd.sccgov.org. This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Warm Regards, Arnold Shir Arnold ShirHealth Planning Specialist IIIOffice of the Director County of Santa Clara, Public Health Department 150 W. Tasman Drive, 2nd Floor, San Jose, CA 95134Mobile: 1-669-324-9315Pronouns: he, him, hisEmail: arnold.shir@phd.sccgov.org NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. From:Lisa Van Dusen To:Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; pat@patburt.org; Vicki Veenker; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Ed Lauing; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Join me Sat 6/27 at the Downtown Palo Alto POPOS Tour Fwd: Discover Downtown Palo Alto’s Hidden Public Spaces Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2026 9:40:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings Ed, Vicki, Greer, George, Julie, Ed, Keith, Pat, and Chantal (plus PTC members), In case you missed it…(from the City of Palo Alto Public Art Program and the City’s website. Some of you have already joined me for a tour of Palo Alto’s POPOS (Privately Owned Public Open Spaces), and some were able to join me for the Public Benefit exhibition at Avenidas last October. Thank you! For those of you who have not, here is another opportunity to join me for a Public Walking Tour of the downtown POPOS this Saturday, 6/27, meeting at Avenidas, 450 Bryant Street, at 11:00 am (the tour ends at 800 High Street, the POPOS where St Michael’s Alley has outdoor tables, about 12:30 pm). Details and RSVP via Eventbrite (RSVP helpful but not required) below - courtesy of Palo Alto’s wonderful Public Art Program. This is part of a series of Public Benefit: Pop-Ups in the POPOS supported in part by an ArtLift Grant from the Palo Alto Public Art Program. More to come (including two more public tours this summer/early fall). As the City takes a more proactive role (my hope and plan) in stewarding the POPOS as a Public Benefit, it could be very helpful to have visited them. Seeing is believing. …Plus, it will be super fun, and you will no doubt meet some members of the Public! Thank you, George, Julie, and Ed Shikada for your leadership on this!) Please share this with anyone you’d like. You can also visit on your own using the handy map and descriptions/photos at paloaltopopos.org. You can also learn more at my website lisavandusen.com Thank you for your service and attention to so many aspects of civic life in our community, Lisa Lisa Van Dusen lisa@lisavandusen.com | 650-799-3883 lisavandusen.com | paloaltopopos.org Instagram @lisavandusen LinkedIn Begin forwarded message: From: Palo Alto Public Art Program <denise.laxendizazzo@paloalto.gov> Subject: Discover Downtown Palo Alto’s Hidden Public Spaces Date: June 23, 2026 at 10:15:49 AM PDT To: lvandusen@mac.com Reply-To: denise.laxendizazzo@paloalto.gov     This Saturday: Discover the Hidden Spaces Around You! A past POPOS activation led by artist Lisa van Dusen. Some of Downtown Palo Alto’s public spaces are hiding in plain sight. Join artist Lisa Van Dusen for a walking tour and participatory public artwork exploring Downtown Palo Alto’s hidden Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS). Created as public benefits through agreements between the City and developers, these plazas, pathways, and gardens were intended for public use - yet many remain unknown and underused. Part walking tour and part public artwork, participants will playfully activate these overlooked spaces while exploring what they reveal about public life and imagining what they could become. Saturday, June 27, 2026 11:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Meet at Avenidas, 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto Free and open to the public. All ages welcome. RSVPs are helpful but not required — day-of walk-ins are welcome. Public Benefit: Pop-Ups in the POPOS is a citywide series of playful, site-specific pop-up activations by artist Lisa Van Dusen, unfolding across Palo Alto’s POPOS - Privately Owned Public Open Spaces. The project brings underused public benefit spaces to life through temporary, participatory encounters, from tours and performances to creative experiments and moments of surprise. This is funded by the ArtLift Grant Program, Palo Alto Public Art Program. Reserve Your Spot Now! CONTACT US Elise DeMarzo Public Art Program Director 650.617.3517 elise.demarzo@paloalto.gov Nadya Chuprina Public Art Program Coordinator 650.329.2227 nadya.chuprina@paloalto.gov  Denise Laxen di Zazzo Communications and Artist Studio Program Coordinator 650.617.3506 denise.laxendizazzo@paloalto.gov Joseph Saxe Project Manager joseph.saxe@paloalto.gov   paloalto.gov/publicart Palo Alto Public Art Program | 1313 Newell Road | Palo Alto, CA 94303 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice From:Shailo Rao To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:FORMAL COMPLAINT: Escalated Enforcement Needed for 3935 Duncan Place Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:29:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Manager and Planning and Development Services Leadership, I am writing to formally request escalated intervention regarding the construction project at 3935 Duncan Place. Despite numerous interactions with your staff—specifically Garrett Sauls, Kyle Shea, and Jodie Gerhardt—since May 2025, the project continues to operate with a systemic disregard for city codes and neighborhood safety. Over the past year, my neighbors and I have documented over a dozen specific incidents of non-compliance. While we appreciate the staff’s responsiveness to our individual reports, the current approach of periodic check-ins and verbal warnings to the general contractor has proven entirely ineffective. The project continues to be a source of ongoing disruption and hazard. Our core concerns remain: Public Safety and Property Damage: We have reported serious safety hazards, including debris (wood boards) falling into neighboring backyards and instances of trespassing. Persistent Code Violations: There is a recurring pattern of construction activity occurring outside of the permitted 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM window, including work on Sundays and early morning disturbances. Lack of Accountability: Repeated warnings from the Building Inspection team have resulted in only temporary compliance. The cycle of violation and subsequent, short- lived "corrections" has created an exhausting and untenable environment for the surrounding residents. The current remediation strategies are not working. I am requesting that the City re-evaluate its approach to this site immediately. We ask that you consider more stringent enforcement mechanisms, such as formal citations, a temporary stop-work order, or active daily oversight, to ensure this project adheres to the standards expected of our community. We are hopeful for a resolution that restores the safety and quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these documented issues with you directly. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Sincerely, Shailo From:Aram James To:Reifschneider, James; Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Goodell, Erin; Goodell, Erin; Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky; Malinsky, Jason; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Stephen Connolly; Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Human Relations Commission; Shikada, Ed; Sean Allen; Carla Torres; Pat M; Rose Lynn; mike braxton; marc.berman@cityofpaloalto.com; Josh Becker; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org; District5@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; Raymond Goins; Raj Jayadev Subject:Re: Explanation of my Complaint to PAPD Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:02:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 5:59 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 6/23/2026 Dear Chief Reifschneider, I am sending this correspondence to you on behalf of Professor Roberta Ahlquist. Per Professor Ahlquist each time she has attempted to send her email to Sergeant Erin Goodell her email has bounced back. I would appreciate if you would pass this email onto Sergeant Goodell. Sincerely, Aram James 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 a 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 then was stood up, and( after being handcuffed) tossed, face down, over the entire 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. 6. Isn't a conflict of interest if the police officer (Erin Goodell) is at the scene of this June 6, 2026 arrest, and then is also the PAPD investigator in the police interview? Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist, Emerita Professor SJSU I give permission for Aram James to distribute this to other interested parties. Roberta Ahlquist From:Aram James To:Reifschneider, James; Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Goodell, Erin; Goodell, Erin; Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky; Malinsky, Jason; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Stephen Connolly; Vicki Veenker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Human Relations Commission; Shikada, Ed; Sean Allen; Carla Torres; Pat M; Rose Lynn; mike braxton; marc.berman@cityofpaloalto.com; Josh Becker; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org; District5@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; city.council@gilroy.org Subject:Explanation of my Complaint to PAPD Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:00:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 6/23/2026 Dear Chief Reifschneider, I am sending this correspondence to you on behalf of Professor Roberta Ahlquist. Per Professor Ahlquist each time she has attempted to send her email to Sergeant Erin Goodell her email has bounced back. I would appreciate if you would pass this email onto Sergeant Goodell. Sincerely, Aram James 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 a 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 then was stood up, and( after being handcuffed) tossed, face down, over the entire 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. 6. Isn't a conflict of interest if the police officer (Erin Goodell) is at the scene of this June 6, 2026 arrest, and then is also the PAPD investigator in the police interview? Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist, Emerita Professor SJSU I give permission for Aram James to distribute this to other interested parties. Roberta Ahlquist From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:Should Donald Trump Win the Peace Prize? Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 3:06:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City, PEACE IN IRAN Question of the Day: Should Donald Trump win the Nobel Peace Prize for securing dozens of “ceasefires” in the same war? No. Still no. Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office. Donald Trump keeps announcing peace, but threatening more war. At the negotiating table, the administration continues ceding ground to Iran. To reopen the Strait of Hormuz– a strait that wasn't closed until Trump launched his unsanctioned war– this administration has lifted sanctions on Iranian oil, thereby providing Tehran about $5 billion in monthly revenues to finance the rebuilding of the Iranian military. Through the Islamabad Accord, the administration also offers $300 billion for the “reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Vice President J.D. Vance hails progress in getting Iran to allow nuclear inspectors–a concession than Iranian negotiators publicly deny, and one that never made its way into last week’s written agreement. Notably, even that “progress” merely restores the IAEA nuclear inspections that routinely occurred before President Trump tore up the JCPOA in 2018. America now stands in a worse position than before Trump launched this reckless war. Whether the US and Iran resume fighting, we can already declare the victor of this war: China. Read my latest op-ed in The Mercury News for more. Preparing for the Jobs of Tomorrow This week, Congressman Jimmy Panetta and I introduced the Supporting Knowledge Through Industry-Led Learning (SKILL) Act. As AI reshapes our economy, some jobs will disappear — but new career tracks will emerge. The SKILL Act helps American workers prepare for both disruption and opportunity by using tax credits to incentivize employers to invest in local public colleges, universities, community colleges, and registered apprenticeship programs. The companies and educators will co-create upskilling and retraining programs– typically certificate and degree programs that a student can complete in less than two years– for fast-growing fields, and employers will offer internships, and receive tax credits for hiring out of the same programs. We cannot know what skills workers will need a decade from now. We can be certain, though, that the private sector will know before the public sector does. By encouraging companies to build the talent pipelines they need, we can help more workers land good-paying, in- demand jobs of the future. The SKILL Act turns disruption into opportunity: companies build their workforce, and more Americans find a path to better jobs in an AI- driven economy. I’ll keep you updated as this legislation progresses. The Frontlines of Climate Change A few weeks ago, our neighbors in Pacifica suffered a devastating loss when the Pacifica Municipal Pier collapsed, taking the beloved Chit Chat Cafe with it. Video More than a year ago, I stood with Pacifica leaders at that same pier and called on the Trump Administration to reinstate the critical Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which helps communities shore up vulnerable infrastructure before disaster strikes. Pacifica had been short- listed for funding to strengthen its seawall. By freezing the program, the Trump Administration wasted time Pacifica did not have. Now that a federal court has ordered the administration to reinstate BRIC, we must move swiftly. We gathered local leaders and residents to call for federal and state action to help Pacifica recover, protect the coast, and prevent the next disaster. I wrote to the Director of California’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) to support Pacifica’s request for a state of emergency, and to the Department of Homeland Security, calling for the release of critical BRIC funding and an extension for the Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation project to prevent further erosion. While in Pacifica, I announced my forthcoming bipartisan Ounce of Prevention Act, which will help communities use federal Community Development Block Grant funding for disaster prevention. Cities should not have to wait for tragedy to strike before they can get federal help; we need to give them the flexibility to wisely invest in prevention. The pier has meant much to many in our community. In these videos, you can hear from Chit Chat owner Ginger and Lisa, the daughter of a Pacifica fisherman, about the community built on the pier. Video After the press conference, one of our neighbors, Bae, was swept away by a sneaker wave. Community members stepped up to rescue her, and after a brief stay at the hospital, we are relieved to share that Bae is recovering well back home. If you plan to visit the coast, please learn the warning signs of sneaker waves and how to stay safe here. Make sure you follow us on Facebook, Instagram, X, Bluesky, TikTok, and YouTube for the latest. Onward! Sam U.S. Representative for California's 16th Congressional District Get Future Updates from Washington Unsubscribe from future messages. From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo To:Council, City Subject:Five Ways to Explore Palo Alto with Your Family This Summer Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 8:02:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Your Summer Guide to Palo Alto: Explore the JMZ and Beyond June 23, 2026  Dear Friends, Summer is a great time to enjoy everything Palo Alto has to offer. Whether you're exploring a local park, attending a play, or visiting the Junior Museum & Zoo, there are plenty of ways to get outside and connect with your community. The JMZ has been a cherished part of Palo Alto for generations, and the Friends is proud to help keep it accessible for families. We're also lucky to be surrounded by so many wonderful local destinations. This month, I'm sharing five ways to explore, connect, and make memories right here in our own backyard. I hope you'll discover something new this summer. Warmly, Lauren Angelo President, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Five Ways to Explore Palo Alto with Your Family This Summer Summer often means more time with family and friends, and longer days offer plenty of chances to slow down and explore together. Here are some of our favorite ways to make memories this season in and around the JMZ. 1. Visit the JMZ Families are excited to visit the JMZ this summer. Naturally, our number one pick is to visit the JMZ! No matter how many times you visit, there’s always something new to discover, including the newest exhibit, the Rainbow Tunnel! Say hi to Sadiq, the tree-dwelling chameleon, and Sahara, the uromastyx, who moved into their new enclosures outside the Baby Meadow earlier this year. The JMZ will continue to offer animal encounters throughout the summer, including flamingo feedings daily at 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and presentations with Sequoia the bald eagle 12:45 p.m. on Wednesdays and Saturdays. 2. Three for One! Visit Rinconada Park & Pool and the Children’s Library Rinconada Pool is ready for water play and swimming. Right next door to the JMZ, Rinconada Park offers 19 acres of recreational activities, including an inclusive playground that was renovated in 2022. After the kids work up a sweat scaling the massive climbing tower, walk over to Rinconada Pool to cool down with some water play. When you’re ready for some indoor relaxation, enjoy a good book or attend a scheduled storytime, puppet show, or family craft at the Children’s Library. The best part of this plan is that you only have to park once to enjoy all three activities! 3. Explore Your Inner Artists at the Palo Alto Art Center Students engage in an art class outside of the Palo Alto Art Center. Down the street from the JMZ, the Palo Alto Art Center offers free admission all year long. With rotating exhibitions, your family will have a reason to keep coming back. The Art Center also offers art classes and summer camps for children, so your little artist can flourish in their creative skills. Be sure to visit the Annual Clay and Glass Festival hosted at the Art Center on July 11th and 12th this summer. 4. Catch a Show at the Children’s Theater Young actors perform for an audience in the outdoor amphitheater. The Palo Alto Children’s Theater is known for their high-quality productions featuring local youth. This summer, they’ll be continuing their Summer Hot Dog Series, where guests are invited to bring a picnic and a blanket to enjoy outdoor performances. Tales of the Arabian Night will be featured throughout June and Wheels On The Bus - The Musical will premier on July 15th. Your child might catch the acting bug and be inspired to join the Children’s Theater for their next production! 5. Take a Nature Walk Pearson-Arastradero Preserve offers stunning lake views. Palo Alto is home to some of the Bay Area's most beautiful natural spaces. Take a family nature walk through the Baylands Nature Preserve, where you can spot shorebirds along the water's edge or head to Pearson-Arastradero Preserve for shaded trails, open meadows, and a fishing lake. Wherever you go, bring binoculars, a field guide, and a sense of wonder. From all of us at the Friends — we hope you and your family have a wonderful summer exploring all of the amazing opportunities for community and connection Palo Alto has to offer. DONATE TODAY   Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo | 1451 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice From:Ann Pianetta To:Council, City Subject:Short Term and Long Term Rentals Date:Monday, June 22, 2026 9:21:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: I understand that you are investigating how Palo Alto manages the rental market. What you decide will determine what kind of city Palo Alto evolves into. I live next to a homeowner who bought his house in 2015. He and his family came and remodeled the home with the idea of living in it and sending their children to schools in the area. Instead they decided to move back to India. That is when they decided to rent out the house. In the beginning he was renting to Stanford students for the school year. Later it was more professional people renting it. Eventually the house was remodeled again to make way for 6 bedrooms, 6 baths, dining room and kitchen. All the rooms and the front door were keyless locks with password codes to enter. He got permits to do this work but also worked beyond the permits. In addition he repurposed an old metal shed into an ADU that was deemed illegal for habitation but not for storing things. I now live next to a hotel or boarding house where people come by foot, bike, Uber or car to stay in the rooms. It is a short and long term rental place and is shown on various platforms on the internet. For almost 2 years I have worked with the Planning Department to investigate and instruct me as to what I have to accept vs illegal habitation. The Planning Department has issued documentation to the home owners that short term rentals are not allowed in Palo Alto. That means no Airbnb or VRBO rentals. Long term, meaning yearly rentals, are the only kind allowed in Palo Alto. And even though the homeowner has been advised, he still allows short term tenants. I don’t have a problem with my neighbor renting out long term rentals. However, I have a problem with not knowing my neighbors as the homeowner still lives in India. I use What’s App to communicate with him. In the past there have been problems where I needed to contact someone in the house but was unable to find anyone locally. In one case there was a broken water pipe and it totally flooded my back yard. Since he is using this house as a hotel, why isn’t he paying hotel taxes? The bigger picture is what kind of community are we building if there are constant random people showing up. It doesn’t make me feel very safe. I know all my neighbors around me. Barron Park is a very friendly area. The biggest problem with people skirting the law is that this is a code enforcement and not a crime. It is a civil matter and the City doesn’t have a process to address it. Please come up with some solid solution. I would appreciate an answer from you all as soon as possible. Sincerely, Ann Pianetta From:Aram James To:Jay Boyarsky; Rosen, Jeff; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Yusra Hussain; steven mcgill; Bil Barber; EPA Today; Dave Price; Bill Newell; Zahra Billoo; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Sean Allen; Preminger, Steve; Supervisor Otto Lee; Ari Tarver; Anna Griffin; Zelkha, Mila; marc.berman@cityofpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Shikada, Ed; editor@paweekly.com; Council, City; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Perron, Zachary; Justin Zalkin; Supervisor Betty Duong; District5@bos.sccgov.org; Raymond Goins; Pat M; Carla Torres; Salem Ajluni; Susan Hayase; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Roberta Ahlquist; Rodriguez, Miguel; Enberg, Nicholas; james pitkin Subject:https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/SyJ7C93z8rIRDkBxSofJcqb7z2?domain=facebook.com Date:Monday, June 22, 2026 5:14:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2421779568287363/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City Subject:New Yorker article 1962 Date:Monday, June 22, 2026 4:38:07 PM Attachments:New Yorker article 1962.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Father’s Day Renemberace circa 1962 From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC; Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 06-03-26 UAC meeting Date:Monday, June 22, 2026 3:38:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Commissioners and Council members, Here's a TRANSCRIPT of UAC's 06-03-26 meeting, to which I have added my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red, beginning with "### "). 06-03-26 UAC agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19038 ### The agenda (at this URL) says the meeting was scheduled to start at 6:45 pm. I suppose that a previous version of the agenda said the meeting was scheduled to start at 6:00 pm 06-03-26 video (City's) -- (3:55:35) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUVOwzHI4cw ### The Midpeninsula Media Center's version of the video was not available (as of 06-22-26) https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ GENERAL COMMENTS * I think Council blundered when it insisted that UAC make a workplan annually. Over the course of the year, the workplan just becomes more and more out-of-date. UAC used to use a 12-month rolling calendar to keep track of what it wanted to do next, and it updated the calendar at each meeting. Should UAC still do that? Lately, staff has insisted that the calendar be updated only every other month. Council should direct staff to return to agendizing a 12-month calendar update at every meeting, so that UAC can update it if it wants to. * UAC seemed unclear about what things should be on a workplan. Should UAC list everything it must consider for the year? Or maybe just the items where Council is most in need of UAC's advice? The latter makes more sense to me. This year, UAC ran out of time to "prioritize" its workplan items. * Last year, Council said that UAC's workplan looked more like a list of staff's accomplishments than a list of what UAC was planning to do. What will Council say this year? This year, staff played a major role in identifying and wording the list items. * When UAC considers a DISCUSSION item, does Council get any advice from UAC? If not, then Council should consider directing staff to agendize every UAC item as an ACTION item, so UAC can vote on what its advice is. * More than 20 years ago, Council adopted the policy of referring to public officials by title and last name, rather than first name. Should UAC do the same? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- Attended by: UAC: Croft, Mauter, Metz, Phillips, Tucher Liaison: Lauing Staff: Bilir, Crowley, Farias, Kurotori, Nose Public: Shah, Thesen ================================================================================================== TRANSCRIPT 0:25:05: Chair Mauter: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your patience in getting started. ### What caused the delay? What does the Brown Act say about canceling the meeting at the scheduled time and agendizing a new meeting at a different time with the same agenda? ROLL CALL 0:25:14: Chair Mauter: Could you please call the roll? 0:25:17: Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz. 0:25:19: Commissioner Metz: Here. 0:25:19: Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher. 0:25:21: Commissioner Tucher: Here. 0:25:22: Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta. Commissioner Gupta is absent. Vice Chair Phillips. 0:25:28: Vice Chair Phillips: Here. 0:25:31: Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft. 0:25:32: Commissioner Croft: Here. 0:25:32: Belle Farias: Chair Mauter. 0:25:34: Chair Mauter: Present. 0:25:34: Belle Farias: Commissioner Scharff. Commissioner Scharff is absent. For the record, 5 present 0:25:41: Chair Mauter: Could Commissioner Phillips please read his statement on remote participation? 0:25:49: Vice Chair Phillips: I have just cause to attend this meeting remotely under the Brown Act. I have attended no meetings remotely this calendar year. I must attend this meeting remotely because I have a need related to a disability which could not accommodated at this meeting. In this room, I am accompanied by no one over the age of 18. 0:26:10: Chair Mauter: Thank you, Vice Chair Phillips. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 0:26:14: Chair Mauter: I will proceed to the section on agenda changes, additions, and deletions. And I do wish to make a change to the agenda this evening. Item 2, Special Presentation and Discussion on Partnering Norms Between Staff and Commissioners for Maximum Effectiveness, will not be heard tonight, and will be deferred to a future meeting, based on the absence of two commissioners. I would also, in this process, like to call attention to a new section that we have begun to include in our packets, which are a response of our Utilities Director to outstanding questions that were raised by the commission in previous IN PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT 0:27:06: Chair Mauter: With no further ado, I would like to turn to in-person Public Comment. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on items NOT on the agenda today? 0:27:20: Belle Farias: We do have two requests to speak. Our first speaker is Sven T. 0:27:32: Sven Thesen: Good afternoon, UAC members. And I just want to say, first, thank you for doing what you do. God bless you. God, I'd hate to have to do your jobs. And you're volunteers. Thank you. Two, thank you for the support around our induction stove rebate program. And, more importantly, in moving our emphasis in educating our citizens ### and other utility customers not just on climate change, but on the health impacts of natural gas stoves. As the science tells us, having a natural gas stove in your house is essentially the same as having a smoker -- second-hand smoke -- in your house, in related to the concentrations of benzene, formaldehyde, NOx, and other toxic components. But that's not what I'm here about. Big picture, you as a Utility Advisory Committee, ### Commission to meet our climate change goals, to make our climate inhabitable for our descendants -- and when I'm talking about that, I'm talking about our kids and our grandkids. And just making -- keeping the climate nice, so we can please let us go skiing, for the love of God. We've got to be an example city, and end our natural gas use, particularly in the residential sector, as soon as possible. And I'm talking 2045. So, I'd like to refer you to an email of David Coale from May 13th, 2026. ### In Public Letters to UAC, 05-08-26 to 05-21-26, page 6. Roughly one-third of our new building homes have natural gas hookups, mainly for stoves. And this -- We need to get those people who are doing that to sign a notarized document that acknowledges the health impacts of that natural gas stove. And they also need to put up a bond to take care of the decommissioning of that gas line. Because they know -- we all know, the gas is going to be turned off. We all know the air district is putting in rules that's going to ban gas appliances. So, it does every citizen, every resident a disservice and puts a cost burden on them when we allow additional gas lines for new homes. And I'm not saying we can't stop them from doing it. But we can make they pay -- THEY PAY their fair share of the decommissioning. 0:30:01 Second of all, the Buena Vista mobile home project now has gas lines back in. And it -- Again, these gas lines are only going to be in use 19 years -- to 2045. Maybe to 23 years -- to 2050. And that's what -- Our gas lines have already been in use for over 70 years here. So, we only get one-third the cost value of these gas lines out. So, they really should be priced 3 times higher, because that's their useful life now. And so, it makes so much more sense to spend our money on electrification and education than it does for putting these gas lines in. 0:30:46: Closing, what I said at the beginning. Thank you guys for doing what you're doing. It is most appreciated. Thank you. And it is thank-LESS. Although I'm saying thank you right now. 0:31:04: Commissioner Tucher: Thanks for your comment. I'm sure it will come into play when we talk about gas and transition later in the meeting. 0:31:09: Chair Mauter: We're just going to wait for the next -- 0:31:11: Belle Farias: Our next speaker is Avroh S. 0:31:13: Avroh Shah: Good evening, Utility Advisory Commissioners. My name is Avroh Shah. And I'm a student at Palo Alto High School. I think following the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Restaurant Association versus the City of Berkeley, ### California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/california-restaurant-association-v-city-of-berkeley_cfec1d we all are aware of the steps the City has taken in scaling back our reach codes and finding a new way to try to regulate natural gas in the residential sector. I think we have been impressed with our ability to circumvent that ruling in the sense that we see a majority of new homes being all-electric. But within the percentage of homes that isn't, which is, from my understanding, between 25 percent and 33 percent, the majority of those homes -- or a significant proportion of those homes that have a gas line -- have one simply just for natural gas stoves. So, I think we've been very pleased to see that, following the March 2nd study session on the S/CAP, we've made a lot of progress, and we have now health communication embedded into that S/CAP, to help address that specific factor. But there are more steps that the UAC can take to recommend to the utilities to take action to address the other parts of this big, big story, that had not been focused on so -- as much. So, we've, I think, done a lot on health in the recent months, embedding that in the S/CAP and getting the communications team to reenvision the S/CAP's marketing. But I would like to urge you all to consider the issues that we haven't focused on so much regarding natural gas, in terms of how can we move towards -- in line with our climate goals, decommissioning gas lines, and abandoning -- hoping to abandon them in the future. I think Mr. Thesen has lined out -- outlined several potential areas where we can go where we can go into that. And I would like to urge you all to consider that, while Palo Alto might be a small city in a vast world, we do play a part in holding ourselves accountable for the emissions that our city is responsible for. And I know that you all, as commissioners on this advisory board, have an opportunity and a possibility to take action to help play a part in that. We can do things at the city level that can ripple out. And they can also start here. And I think that the solutions that we can take to help step away from natural gas in the residential sector and the commercial sector, and move away from gas lines through decommissionment and helping make that easier are the steps that need to be taken. Thank you. 0:34:15: Chair Mauter: Thank you. Are there any public comments online? 0:34:19: Belle Farias: Just as a reminder, we'll take virtual general public comment at the end of the meeting. 0:34:23: Chair Mauter: Oh, great. Thank you. I had forgotten that change. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 0:34:29: Chair Mauter: All right. We'll proceed to Approval of the Minutes. And does anyone have any comments or discussion points on the minutes? Or could I get a motion to pass them? 0:34:42: Commissioner Metz: I have one comment. This was on my discussion of the Stanford Sustainable Data Center meeting. I wanted the minutes to include my comment, which was "many rainbows and unicorns." I think it's important that the minutes communicate that I found the meeting unrealistically positive about datacenter impacts. 0:35:14: Chair Mauter: Could we modify the minutes accordingly? 0:35:21: Belle Farias: Could Commissioner Metz state what you would like to change or add? I'm sorry. 0:35:27 Commissioner Metz: Yeah. Quote "many rainbows and unicorns" unquote. 0:35:32: Chair Mauter: I think we'd just like to maybe add another sentence that says that -- I'll let you put it in your own words, but -- 0:35:42: Commissioner Metz: I can say -- If I can add then, I "found the meeting unrealistically positive about data center impacts, with inadequate examination of the challenges." 0:36:00: Chair Mauter: Are there any other requested changes? 0:36:06: Commissioner Tucher: I don't request a change. And I'm not going to pose this question here, Alan. But I'd like to understand, maybe at the next meeting -- We've asked this before. How do the minutes get written? I can't help but note and emphasize and opine and worry. Those are all verbs that are attributed to me. And many more. How does -- Is this a manual process, I guess, is the question I'd like to come back to at some appropriate time, on how we do minutes, whether these are the best way we -- and the most efficient way to do minutes. I'll leave it at that. 0:36:45: Belle Farias: Yeah. 0:36:45: Commissioner Tucher: Take a comment. Maybe even another month if you want. 0:36:48: Belle Farias: I can answer your question, Commissioner Tucher. The City Clerk's office currently uses a transcriptionist -- an outside transcriptionist. But we're currently looking into using AI. And so, we've been taking all of the transcripts from our past meetings and using different AI options, to see what is the best option. ### Does UAC want to weigh in on how the various AI options are being evaluated, or just accept the assessment of the City Clerk's office? ### Be aware that AI sometimes makes mistakes. ### I'd vote for verbatim minutes (which UAC used to do before June 2004). Maybe AI can make verbatim minutes easier to produce than they used to be. ### I'd like a way to use browser search to find the next item (up or down), and the next motion, and the next vote, 0:37:10: Commissioner Tucher: Thank you. 0:37:11: Commissioner Croft: I move to accept the minutes. 0:37:15: Chair Mauter: Do I have a second? 0:37:18: Commissioner Metz: This is to accept the minutes as amended? Yes? I'll second. ### Any further discussion? UAC habitually omits this step. 0:37:24: Chair Mauter: Could you please call the vote? 0:37:29: Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher. 0:37:32: Commissioner Tucher: Yes. 0:37:33: Belle Farias: Vice Chair Phillips. 0:37:35: Vice Chair Phillips: Yes. 0:37:37: Belle Farias: Chair Mauter. 0:37:38: Chair Mauter: Yes. 0:37:39: Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft. 0:37:41: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 0:37:42: Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz. 0:37:44: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 0:37:45: Belle Farias: MOTION passes 5-0. ### Gupta, Scharff absent. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 0:37:47: Chair Mauter: OK. We will now turn to the Utilities Director Report. 0:37:51: Director Kurotori: Great. Thank you, commission. So, I wanted to give an update on some of the recent Council approvals. So, there was a contract amendment with VERTEXONE SOFTWARE. ### 05-11-26, Item 6, Consent. It's a -- It's for our water smart utilities customer portal. It's the main way that we communicate to our customers and our billing system. We had a professional services agreement contract with Concourse Tech and Prospect Silicon Valley, ### 06-01-26, Item 8, Consent. which provide technical assistance and project analysis to help non-residential customers evaluate and implement building electrification projects. And then we had a purchase order with Jensen Precast and Oldcastle Infrastructure. ### 06-01-26, Item 5, Consent. And those are our electric utility underground boxes. And then, we went to City Council to -- updates to our Utilities Rules and Regs, I believe. Is that -- hold on one second, please. Just confirm. Utilities Rules and Regs also went to Council for approval. ### 06-01-26, Item 14, Consent. I wanted to provide an update to our Foothills Utilities Underground project. As you know, we are undergrounding about 9 miles of overhead lines, more or less on the other side of 280. We roughly have 1,200 feet left of this to do, which is about 2 percent of the project. We're very pleased with that. The remaining conduit is expected to be completed in the end of June. Most of the work is in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. So, the next steps for that will be undergrounding some of the secondary services to the customers. ### How's the fiber part of this project going? FTTP drops? (You know, while the trench is open.) So we expect to de-energize that in November. So, this will be, hopefully, the last year that we have this overhead line during the quote-unquote "fire season." So, we're very excited to finish that project and to provide this update. So, it's kudos to our engineering team, and working with a contractor to get that done. 0:39:51: We were also recognized, as part of that project, in what we call the T&D World magazine, which was talking about our Foothills Underground Project. ### 04-24-26: "Palo Alto's Foothills Go Underground" -- Catherine Elvert (CPAU) https://www.tdworld.com/intelligent-undergrounding/article/55369570/palo-altos-foothills-go-underground So, Palo Alto was highlighted as one of those cities really on the forefront of dealing with areas in the high fire district. 0:40:11: Talking about induction cooktops, there's going to be a demo at the Chili Cook Off. So, Utilities, for the first time this year, will have -- be hosting a booth. At the Chili's Cook Off, we have a tagline, but you'll have to be there to hear it, on July 4th. So, we're going to promote the rebate program for induction cooktops, which includes $500 for installing a permanent induction cooktop or range. And there's $50 for portable induction cooktops. These are the highest in class that we've seen from our neighboring agencies. So, we're really pleased to roll that out. And then, for income-qualified customers, that actually raises up to $1000. And then $100, which is almost the full cost of that portable induction cooktops. In addition, the Palo Alto Library -- working with the library, they're offering checkouts for portable induction cooktop as a loaner program. Utilities is actually purchasing additional units. So, we're purchasing another dozen for them to use, to loan out. So, we're very pleased with that. So, we'd love to see the community out there on -- the Chili Cook Off on July 4th, from 11 to 3 pm. We'll be doing some demos on that program. So, be happy to talk about that once we have that event. 0:41:27: And then, another event for the community is the annual Municipal Service Center Open House. It's kind of -- save the date. It's a look at the service provided to the community. It's our Municipal Service Center. It's on the website. ### https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/Utilities/Municipal-Service-Center-MSC-Open-House ### One reason to spell names correctly is so that Google can find them. I originally Googled " 'municipal services center' 'open house' <past-year>" and didn't find it. If there were an official citywide spelling document, maybe it could define the correct spelling of things. as well as provide common misspellings. (But how would people know where to find it?) ### Ask yourself how many municipal services the MSC is the center for. It's July 25th. We highlight several of the services we provide. And then the community can take a look at, you know, how we repair water leaks, We're -- There's the aerial bucket. -- uh -- I wouldn't say ride, but you can go on that. It's very popular. We added that last year. But here's food trucks, displays, and you'll hear a lot about our City services and programs. And that completes my report. 0:42:10: Chair Mauter: Thank you. NEW BUSINESS 0:42:12: Chair Mauter: We will now turn to new business Item 2 -- Partnering Norms Between Staff and Commissioners (postponed) 0:42:15: Chair Mauter: A reminder that we will not be hearing Item number 2 on the agenda, which is the special presentation and discussion on partnering norms between staff and commissioners for maximum effectiveness. We expect to postpone this to the next meeting, in hopes that more commissioners are able to attend. Item 3 -- FY 2026-2027 Workplan 0:42:36: Chair Mauter: Which brings us to our single agendized item today, which is the Review and Recommendation of the Utilities Advisory Commission FY 2026 through FY 2027 Workplan for City Council Approval. ### Did anyone consider postponing this item as well, hoping more commissioners could attend? We have talked through a process for this that Alan is going to provide a couple of introductory remarks around. And then, I'm going to help lead us through a process where we each have a couple of minutes to talk about the high priority items that we sent in. Relate them back to the draft objectives, noting places where they simply don't overlap. And THEN we will go through the process of prioritizing between these 13 plus added items. So, with that, Alan, I'll let you kick it off. And then I'll take over again. ### The staff report didn't really explain the concept of priorities for the workplan. Is a high-priority item item one for which UAC thinks Council might make a suboptimal decision if it doesn't get UAC's advice? Should items be ranked according to how suboptimal Council's decisions might be in the absence of UAC advice? 0:43:34: Director Kurotori: Great. So, just for the record, Alan Kuritori, Director of Utilities. I'm joined by Terry Crowley, our Chief Operating Officer, and Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose. The process we went to develop this workplan objectives -- the draft -- was actually receiving input from all the UAC commissioners. ### According to Appendix B of the staff report, Commissioner Scharff provided no input. We put that in as of May 28th. We tried to put that in the draft objectives. We have updated our process to mirror City Council and actually coming through these objectives. We came up with the top 13. ### See Appendix A. ### I don't quite get why each item explicitly cites the part of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) that shows that the item is within the purview of the UAC. As part of your deliberation process, you will see that Belle will bring up those objectives so we can work and modify those in real time. You can change those priorities and make adjustments. The other part that I would like to kind of -- to mention for the public is, we provided that -- the whole list of those submittals from the commissioners in Attachment B. ### Great. We also put the purpose and duties of the UAC, more for the public's information, on what type of items go to the commission. ### Providing a URL reference would have been appropriate. Municipal Code, Chapter 2.23. Utilities Advisory Commission https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-61350#JD_Chapter2.23 If staff could also add, there's obviously a lot of interest by the commissioners to do high priority work. As you go through your deliberation process, we would appreciate if maybe the top 5 or top 6 priorities that you absolutely want to see as those priority deliverables, if those could be highlighted for staff, we would absolutely appreciate that. We understand these are your priority objectives, and also recognize that some of these items may span longer. This is a multi-year commission, and -- but wanted to make sure that these priority objectives were accomplished. So, we're here to help -- as staff to help facilitate those discussions, and able to answer any questions, as you go through your process. 0:45:25: Chair Mauter: Great. Thank you. I really appreciated everybody's participation in sending in workplan items items that were important to them. I thought that it might be useful -- there's not -- it's not possible to discuss process offline with a full group. And so, I did just want to make sure that the process that we've laid out makes sense for tonight's meeting. In particular, I want to give everybody a couple of minutes -- not 15 each, but a couple of minutes. I may rely on this clock here, to -- if they like -- elaborate a little bit on items that they submitted, and why they were particularly, you know, excited or motivated to work on those items. Staff has done a very nice job of trying to include each of those items in the draft objectives. Although I will say, just for me personally, I think that there's definitely an opportunity to reword some of these, to ensure that they fully capture the intent of the items I submitted. So, I wanted to provide people the opportunity to do that. And then, I think that we should go through a process of prioritization that could take a couple of different forms. We could take a majority kind of rules approach, and simply put forward a set of numbers that we each prefer, and then compare them, and kind of use that to elevate what matters for our commission. Or we could pursue some alternative path that I'm open to discussing. Vice Chair Phillips, do you have any thoughts on process before we get started? 0:47:28: Vice Chair Phillips: Yeah. I think maybe it's more a question of what difference does the -- what difference does it make in the prioritization? You know, I didn't -- I think it's going to be very difficult to get this body to agree on priorities. Maybe I'm wrong. But I would love to hear, you know, what does it mean to be prioritize first versus 13th? The 13th mean if -- assuming we end up with 13 -- that that one might just get left off if staff gets too busy? Or, what is the meaning of the prioritization process? 0:48:05: Chair Mauter: Yeah. Absolutely. That's a great question. And I appreciate your asking it. We have a 12-month rolling calendar. And so, realistically, if we get to one significant item each month, we could, you know, feasibly get through 12 -- actually more like, you know, 11 items. ### In FY 2026, UAC met 10 times and considered 31 New Business items, of which only 20 were action items (you know, the kind of items where UAC actually votes its advice to Council.) ### I don't know what's meant by a "significant" item. I don't know why one "significant" item per month is a practical limit. But, as we all know from experience, in practice, it's not possible, in many cases, to get through one item in each meeting. ### In the past, UAC has sometimes met more than once a month. For example, in March of 2003, UAC had a two-day meeting mid-month exclusively about FTTP. And so, especially when it comes to rates. You know, we review preliminary rates. We come back and have, you know, final approval of rates. And so, that's typically several meetings that we would touch on that agenda item. We cannot really touch on every agenda item here, realistically, if we're going to stay sane and leave before midnight. So, I don't think 13 means that we don't ever get to it. But it might mean that it's a very light touch item, or it gets folded into another item, rather than having a dedicated space on our workplan. Is that fair? 0:49:30: Vice Chair Phillips: Thank you. And my other question is, is the list we got -- is that staff's recommended prioritization, or is that listed in no particular order? 0:49:40: Director Kurotori: They're listed in no particular order. That's a very good point. Thank you. ### A similar question: Did the commissioners who submitted items (Appendix B) think they were supposed to list them in priority order? ### Also, did the commissioners think they were suppose to submit a comprehensive list, or just a list of the projects they personally were most interested in? 0:49:43: Vice Chair Phillips: Thank you. 0:49:48: Chair Mauter: Any other thoughts on process? 0:49:49: Commissioner Tucher: Just a quick question. I see it printed out here, but did I miss -- was it sent in advance -- the list of all of our 5 priorities? It was sent in advance in email? 0:50:02: Chair Mauter: Yes. ### If so, then the public didn't get it, which is a violation of the Brown Act. An alternative would have been simply to publish the agenda (including Appendix B) earlier. 0:50:03: Commissioner Tucher: I missed it. My bad. 0:50:06: Chair Mauter: OK. So, we were provided the attachments here. And I'd like to give everybody an opportunity, if they so desire, to quickly review the priorities that they sent in for their workplan. I'd like to take this in the order presented in the packet, which is alphabetically. Commissioner Croft, are you open and amenable to starting? 0:50:38: Commissioner Croft: Sure. 0:50:38: Chair Mauter: Wonderful. And, if you don't mind, let's keep these to 5 minutes each for anything that you've submitted. You don't have to take the whole time. I will not. But just to keep things moving tonight. 0:50:51: Commissioner Croft: Great. OK. So, I submitted three items. My first item was regarding time-of-use rates. My -- You know, I would like us to review the time-of-use rates pilot, and see us roll out and promote time-of-use within the City within the year, basically. And to extend it to NEM customers. ### I thought TOU couldn't be extended to NEM customers anytime soon because of problems with the City's billing system. I did see the update that was sent in the packet. So, that's the type of thing I want to see. I want to see updates on where we are, what's the plan, and kind of push us to roll it out further. And I did suggest my KPIs here. I saw a public comment that was like why do we even care about time-of-use rates? ### I suppose Commissioner Croft is referring to my message of 06-02-26, "COMMENTS -- 05-28-26 UAC meeting -- Commissioner Suggestions for Workplan Objectives," which can be found in 06-03-26 Public Letters to UAC, 06.01-06.03. My point was that whenever staff has predicted what TOU rates might be, they have said that the TOU rate for off-peak hours would be only a small amount less than the non-TOU rate, but the TOU rate for peak hours would be a lot more than the non- TOU rate. I think we are -- We just have to be knowledgeable about where our energy comes from. Our City has a goal of S/CAP -- of reducing carbon footprint of our power. We are going to have more and more people driving electric vehicles, and coming home, and they could plug in right in the peak hours. So, we could have electrification actually cause all of our energy prices go up. So, it just -- To me, this is a priority, to roll them out and hopefully have as many people as possible take advantage of them, and hopefully we can help them reduce their costs of electricity. 0:52:21: My second item was -- this could even be my first item, but -- regarding electric affordability. So, we have kind of delved into this in our financial subcommittee. But I think it's extremely important for us to maintain our competitive pricing relative to our neighboring cities, and to keep it as inexpensive as possible, to encourage electrification. So, we're planning on this beautiful future, where we're moving over to electricity. We want people to use electric cars. And I think it's imperative on us to keep our prices down. They already are down, but to keep them down. So, I'd like to see that be a priority in our discussions, how we are going to do that. ### I agree that the City should do what it can to keep its costs of providing electric service down, so that rates can be low. The City's rates are far lower than PG&E's rates. The City's rates are a little higher than Santa Clara's rates. But Santa Clara owns a gas-powered electric generator. 0:53:03: Let's see. The last thing was about communication. And this has kind of been, you know, a side topic for many discussions. It's just, does the community know what our priorities are? Do they know what we are doing? Are they -- Is the uptake what we want it to be? And do we even have contact information -- digital contact information -- for every customer? So, I'd love to see us adopt a communication plan that involves, you know, having a direct line to every single customer. Some digital way to get in touch with them if there is a leak, or anything that we need to contact them about. And to do some kind of annual reporting out to them on the goals of the City. I know it's more often than that through the bills. But I don't get a bill anymore. So, having some kind of universal way that we can communicate with our customers. Ideally, it's digital. And for those who refuse to give us a digital means, we could make it mail. So, those are my three topics. 0:54:08: Chair Mauter: Thank you. Commissioner Gupta is not present. I have reviewed his submissions, and I hope that each of you have had a chance to. I'm going to read them briefly. The first is rate affordability and transparency. The second is interactions with SFPUC and BAWSCA. Specifically around independent analysis of SFPUC water projections. The third is energy transition coherence, largely around unifying plans for gas and electric utilities. The fourth is wastewater and the capital improvement plan, and associated increases in projected rates associated with that capital improvement plan. And the final is fiber to the premises. I think we all know of Commissioner Gupta's interest in fiber to the premises, so I was personally surprised to see that as number 5. ### Was Commissioner Gupta ranking his items? I'm guessing not. In Appendix B, he said FTTP should be agendized EVERY MONTH. To me, that sounds like he thinks it should be high priority. But glad to see that it was included. 0:55:29: Chair Mauter: I will no proceed to talk about my two recommended items. The first is to review the performance of the recycled water utility, and advise on any modifications to City strategy around recycled water. As a commission, we have not touched on recycled water in my tenure on the commission. And I believe that it's both an important part of our water supply portfolio, but also critical to affordably maintaining our wastewater utility in the years ahead. I would like to see that specifically addressed in a more substantive way through not just our rates -- you know, or any discussion of rates -- but to have some separate and focused analysis on the recycled water utility, which is currently in the process of some significant transition and upgrade. 0:56:32: The second item is to review the capital improvement plans and operating expenses for the wastewater utility more broadly, in support of preparing for future rate increases, and identifying potential cost-saving measures. As Commissioner Gupta noted in his submission, the wastewater utility accounts for some of the FASTEST increases. Although it's not to say that those are the LARGEST increases. So, we should differentiate between those two things. But the wastewater utility will need to raise rates, and continue to raise rates. I believe that our support as a commission could help to strengthen the capital improvement planning efforts for that utility, and help us anticipate exactly when and to what degree those rate increases are in fact necessary. So, I look forward to finding ways to incorporate those two items into a stronger part of our rate discussion, as well as our capital improvement plan discussions. 0:57:39: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Metz. 0:57:42: Commissioner Metz: Thank you, Chair. My priorities. Number one was gas utility long-term business strategy. And I think this needs to be something like 10 to 20 years, that addresses technical aspects, capital, economics, legal -- I think there's some big legal problems. So, I think this is a pretty -- I can see reasons -- technical, legal, and economic reasons -- why this is going to be quite hard to do. I really don't know how to deal with stranded assets in this instance. But I think we need -- It's extremely important. This is one area that several commissioners raised. I think this is one of the most popular topics. With a little bit different flavors. But several people raised a similar issue. 0:58:31: Number two is electric utility business strategy and strategic planning process. Again, a topic raised by several commissioners. I think, since we're dealing with an environment that's highly uncertain. It's -- as evidenced by the big envelope of future demand in the CPAU forecast. I think it's important that we have a planning process that's suited for that kind of business strategy. And I think it needs to include -- again, like the gas strategy -- all aspects, from business, financial, economic, and technical. I did like Commissioner Gupta's idea of a unified transformation strategy that incorporates both gas and electric, since, presumably, we're talking about eliminating gas, replacing it, in pretty much all functions, with electricity. So, I think doing those together is a good idea. So, I would definitely endorse that. But I think it's really important that these be complete business strategies. For example, the first item, the gas strategy, is related to number 1 on the draft CPAU list. And the electric business strategy is related to number 7 on the CPAU list. But as I read those proposals, they're much narrower, dealing with capital and stuff like that, which, of course, is important. But capital is, you know, one quarter of a business strategy. So, I think it's really important that these be comprehensive. 1:00:10: Third area, improve UAC operational effectiveness. We talked about this at the last meeting. I think it's important, as Commissioner Tucher emphasized a little while ago, to improve how UAC operates, so we can do a better job advising City Council. And in particular, I think one of the biggest areas is timing. Addressing some of these gargantuan issues, like water planning, and so on. And -- what we just talked about -- electric and gas, requires much more time than reading, you know, a presentation a few days before a meeting and trying to come up with a recommendation. I think that -- I mean, if we're not rubber stamps of staff's proposals, we just need a lot more time to consider and analyze, to come up with good recommendations. ### Several years ago, Council asked staff to post the agendas for its meetings 10 days before the meetings. (The Brown Act requires at least 3 days.) Staff said that was impossible. Council said DO IT ANYWAY. Staff discovered it was not impossible after all. ### If UAC would like to agendize an item as a discussion item in one month and then agendize a continuation of the item as an action item in the very next month, to give commissioners more than a month to digest the staff report before voting its advice to Council, that's fine, assuming two time slots are available. What I'm not fine with is just agendizing an item as a discussion item in one month and not following up. 1:01:02: Fourth area I want to recommend is emergency preparedness. This actually was teed up last year. And we agreed to do it as part of reliability, resilience, and adaption standing topic. So, what I'm asking for on that is simply that we do what we said -- what we committed to doing last year. 1:01:24: And the four bullets are down there. Increase FTTP cash flow Again, this is another topic that several commissioners raised as priorities, each with a little bit different flavor. My personal thought is there might be ways to accelerate cash flow, which would make this look a lot better. And, you know, whatever approach we take, it's obviously an important topic to -- at least 4-5 commissioners. So, it's -- Also, it's related to item 6 in the staff draft. But I think the staff draft is far too narrow in what it addresses. I think most of the -- it's fair to say, most of the commissioner comments relate to strategy and broader issues than simply did the pilot do technically what it -- you know, what we said it would do. So -- And I would also add one other area, which was not in my submission, which is reliability. Since we're emphasizing electrification, I think it's important that we set specific for reliability. I know we've talked about, you know, doing well in this space. But I think we need to really set quantitative metrics, to be able to demonstrate to residents that we really are reliable, and that we are paying attention to it, and to be able to show them and communicate that, because we're asking them to make a bet on only electricity. And I think, for a lot of people, that's going to be a stretch. So, we need to do our part to demonstrate that it makes sense. OK. And I think that's it. 1:03:10: Chair Mauter: Thank you. Vice Chair Phillips. 1:03:15: Vice Chair Phillips: Thank you. First of all, I'd like to compliment the staff. I like the list a lot that you came up with. One thing I do like about it is the way it is drafted. It starts, in most cases, with a verb. So, it's -- we can check, at the end of the year, did we actually do this thing? So, I'm very much in favor of that as a list of objectives. So, can we ** it back at the end of the year and say did we do that, rather have things like talk about or think about or discuss. 1:03:52: My -- I guess my priorities are -- can be stated pretty shortly. Pretty succinctly, I think. And hopefully map in to some extent with what's there. 1:04:07: I do think we should achieve a clear go/no-go recommendation on fiber to the premises. Following up on Commissioner Metz, this is more than just a technical thing of YAD work, and we got some people hooked up and they like it, to what is the business plan, you know, what do we really see going forward, so we don't just keep going through the end of the year kind of, well, we're going to do more pilot, see if it works. I'd love for us to have that recommendation which goes to the UAC, presumably the Finance Committee, and the Council. Maybe it's a surprise to no one. 1:04:47: And number 2 on my list, review the reserve management policies, and potentially change as needed. This has turned out to be one of the most effective levers we've had for influencing rates and keeping rate raises down. And yet, you know, we've not -- and particularly now that Baker Tilly has released their report, there's a lot of uncertainty about what they're saying. You know, I do think we need to do this. We mentioned at the last meeting, and I think -- I thought we agreed that this would be in the July meeting, because in the minutes, that's what it says. But I don't see it on the -- scheduled for the July meeting. So, that's a change. I'm a little unhappy with that. But I do think that's something we need to discuss. And, again, I'll come across at the future agenda. 1:05:35: The datacenter strategy I believe we need. The long-term strategy for natural gas, consistent with the S/CAP. I think everybody is saying that's a pretty high priority, given that we have 85 percent of households that have at least one gas appliance. And that doesn't seem to be shifting very quickly. It may not be as high priority as some of the other items. But I do believe it's something that we need to do. And, again, you know, my other two items were -- have a clear strategy for addressing the potential demand from datacenters, and clearly communicate our concerns regarding the SFPUC water policies -- the BAWSCA and the SFPUC as well. Thank you. 1:06:30: Chair Mauter: Thank you. Commissioner Tucher. 1:06:35: Commissioner Tucher: Thanks. First, I want to be clear on the question I was answering. Because I was answering the five priorities that were -- with the clean piece of paper. In other words, I wasn't trying to add items. Yeah? 1:06:51: Chair Mauter: I'm so sorry. Do you mind restarting the clock? I just don't want him to run out of time. 1:06:56: Belle Farias: Yes. ### That is, yes, I'll restart the clock. 1:06:58: Commissioner Tucher: That's OK. I was answering the question, what are the five most important priorities to me as if I had a clean piece of paper. I wasn't looking at last year's list, or the list from staff, and saying "What's missing?" And so, I did that. I also looked back at last year's workplan, and I -- it won't surprise you -- have to be pretty critical of that document. Critical in the sense, for example, that it lists our accomplishments. We didn't have much to do with most of those accomplishments. There were -- I don't know, 15-20 accomplishments, like, you know, rolling out AMI and replacing the gas mains, sewer system, and so forth. These were the accomplishments of CPAU. They weren't the accomplishments of UAC. When you actually look at what our workplan priorities were, there are a lot of things that we're talking about again this year, because we -- as Bob said -- in a couple of instances didn't do them. One was, for example, a gas transition plan for 5 to 20 years. You know, we've talked about that, but I don't think we have a very ready gas transition or abandonment plan. 1:08:08 So, my five items. First and foremost is Grid Mod. And I sent a 2-3 page public memo on that topic, ### See the 06-03-26 UAC agenda, public letters, 06-03-26 Public Letters to UAC 06.01-06.03, pages 12-15. with just a bunch -- 10 questions I would like us over time --not now -- to dig into. Grid Mod for me is far and away the most important priority for CPAU, and therefore for UAC and the Council, because it's so big. It's now, according to the current budget, between $375 [million] and $450 million as a multi-year project. That makes it the biggest thing the City is doing, along with the regional water, you know, treatment plant. It's taking us onto the bond market this fiscal year. It's going to affect rates this year, next year, and for time foreseeable. So, in tying into affordability, which has been a theme from several commissioners, you know, Grid Mod needs to be seen that way. I don't want any of -- I don't want this document, or this priority, to suggest I'm not a big advocate for Grid Mod. We need Grid Mod. I just think it's very poorly understood. And the case -- the sales case -- for Grid Mod to the community, for something so large, almost half a billion dollars, isn't clear and compelling. I won't go into the whole document now, but there are things like a substation station level, localized, even feeder- level heat map of where's the trouble? Where are the upgrades? I'm sure you know this. You guys are great. But it's not clear to -- I think it's not clear to us, the UAC, and it's not clear to the community. That's just one example. Grid Mod was planned years ago. I'm sure you updated all the time. But, you know, so much has changed in the 3-4-5 years since we first floated Grid Mod. Back then, it was a $200 million project. Now, it's more than twice that, likely. But nevertheless, the most important thing I highlight that has changed is the cost of battery storage. There will be storage -- battery storage -- everywhere in the grid across America, including in our substations, sooner or later. And I wish we'd get there sooner. I don't think Grid Mod is as visionary and big and bold and exemplary as Palo Alto could do it. I don't think it's a Grid Mod for the future. It may be a Grid Mod to keep up with the present. Like 2030, but not 2050. And I'd like us, in many ways, to put a lot of attention on Grid Mod. We can get into how and why and so forth later. And, of course, this ties in with -- every commissioner has said some -- well, most of us have said something about electric. This just ties into electric. 1:10:52: So, I'll be brief on the next things, Water. You've heard it from others. I think there were 2 or 3 others who said our basic stance towards SFPUC and BAWSCA needs to be more active. We have -- I've heard over the months that that's political. Well, of course, it's political. And we, UAC, and CPAU the Council needs a strategy to fix this problem that we don't have a good faith partnership with SFPUC. And we don't have BAWSCA representing us and the 20-something others appropriately. And there are many ways that we can try to change that. We don't have a ton of leverage. But we do have some. And we got to do something. So, that's item number 2. I've called it gas abandonment plan, or transition plan. But it's time that I use the word -- I mean, I use the word "accelerate." We need to accelerate this, so that it becomes clear and more specific. How do we identify which neighborhoods win? And based on what triggers, where we into a neighborhood and said, for better or worse, you're first. You know. And in X years, we're going to have to abandon gas. So, it's time that we get a little bit more blunt on gas abandonment plan. 1:12:02: On fiber, which is my fourth item, you've heard it from others, so I won't repeat it, except to say, it's very hard to talk about fiber if we're not going to find a way to be candid. Because you're basically doing strategic consumer marketing planning on YouTube, for the public. And I know how hard that must be. But we've got to find ways around that, or else I don't think we can do it. 1:12:24: My fifth and final hovers over everything. And that's process. Or what Bob -- Commissioner Phillips -- called -- or, I'm sorry, what Phil Metz called operational effectiveness. Same thing, probably different words. And you've heard me say these things too many times, so I'll leave it there. 1:12:26: Chair Mauter: OK. Thank you. 1:12:43: Liaison Lauing: Can I add just one thing? 1:12:44: Chair Mauter: Please. 1:12:45: Liaison Lauing: Just on your process issue, where you started this. 1:42:48: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 1:42:48: Liaison Lauing: First of all, as has already been said tonight, a lot of these projects are multi-year projects. But as Commissioner Metz has said many times already, including tonight, I think, a lot of these things are so huge that they're sort of the creation or elimination of old business models. So, these are not trivial, little things. Again, stating the obvious, but in that sense, I want to take off some of the pressure of you having to solve all these business models in the next year or two. But the other thing, that I'm sure will make me completely unpopular in this room, is just to point out that you're not limited to 12 meetings a year. ### Bingo. So -- And particularly as you have, I think, effectively started to implement what we would call ad hoc committees, those are really effective, in having 2 people, 3 people really work it, and get the multiple. The down side is that not all 7 people are involved in all the details, even at the decision point. But that's OK. Because you come up with the summary and the judgment and so on. ### The hard part is for the ad hoc subcommittee (which, I'm assuming, has done its work behind closed doors) to tell the whole UAC enough about its deliberations and conclusions to convince the whole UAC (and Council, and the public) that the conclusions are reasonable and can be trusted. And I've just found on commissioners and Council, it just works terrifically well. So that -- either one of those -- you know, more regular meetings or more ad hoc meetings sort of expands your capabilities. But I salute you, at this point already, for just putting these "big deal" items on there, that we would love to have more visibility on sooner. And I know staff agrees with that. Thanks. 1:14:18: Chair Mauter: Thank you, Council Member Lauing. I agree that -- I would like to see significant expansion of our use of ad hoc committees. I think it's going to be really important, as we proceed through this workplan over the next year. And also important in streamlining how we approach staff, and how we reach -- if not consensus, then at least action items that come before Council. ### Does the Chair mean action items that come before UAC, that allow UAC to give its advice to Council? 1:14:50: Liaison Lauing: And some of the ad hocs is -- just to say one more thing -- can almost act s a liaison to work that's already going on on staff It's not let's start spending more time that we wouldn't already on stuff. It's already going on. And maybe one person ### A one-person ad hoc subcommittee?? sits in on some meetings over there just for a little bit more detail. Or whatever. I mean, there's just a lot of ways to do this without exploding all the work that staff would have to do to address these things. 1:15:15: Chair Mauter: Absolutely 1:15:16: Assistant City Manager Nose: Chair, if I might add something, as another consideration. 1:15:20: Chair Mauter: Please. 1:15:20: ACM Nose: I appreciate where -- Sorry. Kiely Nose, Assistant City Manager. I appreciate where everyone's dialogue is, and very much appreciate where Council Member Lauing has added the additional tools that we have. I will also just say, yes, we can have more meetings. There is also staff bandwidth that is at play here. And so, more meetings, more priorities. And the question becomes, what doesn't get done, or what additional resources are necessary to accomplish this. So, I think you'll hear from staff as we move through this, both a focus on what can be accomplished in 12 months, which is the time period that's before you, what resources are available for you to do so, or, frankly, some hesitation, frankly, or pushback on what can be accomplished in that period of time. 1:16:09: Chair Mauter: Thank you. OK. So, with that background and opportunity to share a little bit more of the details, I'd like to turn to the process of, first, editing any of the draft objectives that staff presented. And, as much as I hate real-time editing, this is our only way to do it as a committee. So, we're going to do real-time edits. And I think we will just take them in order. ### That is, in staff's Appendix A order, which is to say, no particular order. If everyone wants to take just a minute or two, if they want to review consistency between the priorities. You know, staff assembled and tried to represent your priorities in these draft objectives. But they may not have captured the intent behind some of your words. So, if there's any edits that we want too make, we'll do that first. And then we will talk about prioritization 1:17:15: Commissioner Croft: I have a suggestion. 1:17:17: Chair Mauter: Please. 1:17:17: Commissioner Croft: There's several items on here that I think could be combined into one item regarding the electric utility. So, I have a suggestion. I'm just going to make it. OK. So, my suggestion is to have one item, which is electric utility. I've written this up. So, just -- if you want to listen, that's fine. 1:17:40: "Electric utility: Review and advise on major priorities including: * Prioritize affordability, with goal to retain percentage discounts to PG&E" -- my pet project -- * Define goals for Grid Modernization -- timing, metrics, residential amperage, policies, and pricing, new technology assessment and integration. * Expand TOU offering to all residential customers. -- Report on uptake -- Analyze load shift, customer savings. -- Conduct additional COSA if required, and * New datacenter policy and price tiers." ### That's a strange combination ("New datacenter policy and price tiers"). 1:18:15: And I had stopped writing at that point. But I think you've got one in here for large load customers, that we could insert that language if required. So, that would be, to create one workplan on the electric utility that incorporates those items. Which, I don't know if that makes sense, but -- 1:18:32: Chair Mauter: Could I us to differentiate between what we need staff to do on the electric utility side versus what we as a UAC will do? I think that the draft objectives that staff kindly synthesized are a lot of reviewing and advising -- reviewing and recommending. We could, for instance, review a new COSA for the electric utility. We cannot perform a new COSA. Right? ### Hypothetically, UAC could propose (so that Council could direct) what a new electric COSA might take into account. For example, should a new electric COSA have tiers? Should the tiers be different for residents with electric (heat pump) heating versus gas heating? Etc. So, I just want to make sure that -- as Vice Chair Phillips, you know, articulated -- the verb here is really important to nailing this workplan. And I don't object to documenting the kind of set of cohesive energy -- or, you know, electric utility goals that we'd like to review or advise on. But I think we just need to be fairly clean about what we say we are going to do personally. Or as a commission. Does that make sense? 1:19:43: Commissioner Croft: So, taking the example of what I gave, -- 1:19:46: Chair Mauter: Yup. 1:19:46: Commissioner Croft: There are four topics in there related to the electric utility. * One is affordability. * One is Grid Mod. * One is TOU, and * One is datacenters / ** load / large load. So, there are different items on here. 1:19:59: Chair Mauter: Yup. 1:19:59: Commissioner Croft: And is that how you would like them to stay? 1:20:03: Director Kurotori: if staff could opine it. 1:20:05: Chair Mauter: Please. 1:20:05: Director Kurotori: We actually like having them discrete deliverables, because we have different teams working on them. And then, when we're clear, bringing them back, we can -- you know, we can say this was complete. And if something has to move, it's part of it being moved, versus -- we can have that. It also provides an opportunity to -- Council Member Lauing's point is, you may want to look at maybe a smaller ad hoc, looking at part of this, under discrete activity. And you want to make this -- hey, let's talk about this now, because we want it before the end of the year, in the case of TOU rates. So, you know, there is a -- there is a -- sometimes a benefit to consolidate it. There's overarching themes of affordability, which we're hearing, and that might be across the board, and like a baseline objective that you want to see as part of our bringing back items to you. But keeping those discrete, I think, would be helpful. So, when you think about the potential for ad hocs, think about how that might be just one item. 1:20:59: Chair Mauter: Yeah. I think the other thing just for us all to keep in mind is that these are really helpful documents in informing how staff approach these specific objectives. But they don't necessarily -- Like, there's not room in the workplan from Council ### What workplan FROM Council? I thought UAC was supposed to proposing a UAC workplan TO Council to represent all of that detail. So, it's -- you know, we're not going to ignore that. But I think it's -- it helps us to shape what then comes into the presentations. 1:21:32: Liaison Lauing: Yeah. And just to underscore something I meant when I said the last thing is not that there have to be a lot of staff adds. This -- A lot of this stuff is already going on. And it's happening in various departments within the City, and in the Climate Action -- Climate -- Council meeting. ### Is this a reference to the Climate Action & Sustainability Committee (CASC) -- also known as the S/CAP Committee? And so on. So, it's not like this is all brand-new stuff. And that's why I suggested a touch point, maybe of -- in some cases, having it be a liaison to ongoing work. Or there's increased communication to that one person liaison, as opposed to long report outs here. Because that's already happening. You don't want to duplicate that work. And you don't want them to duplicate the work. 1:22:17: Commissioner Tucher: May I ask -- 1:22:18: Chair Mauter: Please. 1:22:19: Commissioner Tucher: Are we looking to make a workplan document that's much different from what we did last year? I leveled some critique on last year's one, but -- I mean, like, last year has one big chunk -- it's number 3 -- for electric. And it includes Grid Mod. Everything's kind of thrown in there. Like I said at -- earlier, I mean, the workplan hasn't really been a very effective tool for -- I don't know if it's effective for staff, but it hasn't meant too much to UAC, I would claim. 1:22:49: And, to Rachel's point, whether we combine all the electric-related items, like she does, or not is -- I'm fine with it. But, I guess - - Let me ask the question again. Are we just going to try to update what we did last year, or are we going to do something significantly different? 1:23:12: Director Kurotori: Yes. So, as I -- I probably didn't do a very good job of articulating -- when we took the comments from all the commissioners and consolidated on a list of 13 items that are -- I think are hopefully on the screen in front of you. And the intent was to take those discrete action items -- ### In what sense were these action items? as part of YOUR objectives, and then, you know, if possible, kind of prioritize those. And there was -- I think we're trying to, you know, potentially work off this list. You know, this is YOUR list. This is YOUR objectives. And this is really -- as we mentioned before -- kind of mapping, and a similar process that City Council goes through. So, they're really kind of distinct objectives that you would want us to have in your workplan to be completed this year. ### That is, FY 2027. 1:23:54: Chair Mauter: And maybe, more specifically, as we're building a 12-month calendar, these are discrete items that we can agendize. ### As I understand it, staff has veto power over what can be agendized. ### Also, is this saying that the only items that UAC can ask to be agendized in FY 2027 are items that are identified (word for word) in the FY 2027 workplan? That seems crazy to me. Staff is not similarly constrained regarding what it can agendize. ### Also, is Chair Mauter suggesting that, over the fiscal year, as FY 2027 items get "used up," there are fewer and fewer items that can UAC can agendized? Whereas, in the past, I think we've had a workplan that's not necessarily facilitated discrete action and simple agendizing. OK? Commissioner Phillips. I'm sorry. Vice Chair Phillips. 1:24:24: Vice Chair Phillips: Yeah. Please get that right. 1:24:27: Chair Mauter: [laughs] 1:24:28: Vice Chair Phillips: The -- I guess part of my question is -- This is supposed to be the UAC's annual workplan. But an immense amount of this -- in fact, the vast majority of it -- is work that staff does. You know. So, the -- number 12, the annual report -- I mean, we read the annual report. I think we approve it. Or don't approve it. Or, you know, make some edits to it. But -- And, you know, number 9, procure new power purchase agreements, -- 1:24:59: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 1:25:59: Vice Chair Phillips: -- we're not going to do that. Staff's going to do that. ### Hypothetically, UAC might want to weigh in on what power purchase agreements the City should be seeking. 1:25:03: So, I'm -- you know, I'm a little confused. If I were to say what's ours, you know, it's not our job -- and not something we do is it - - to procure your new power purchase agreements. Although it's, you know, I think it's extremely important, of course, that staff does that as needed. How do we -- How do we think about that? I mean -- 1:25:29: Chair Mauter: Thank you for that question. I had noted the noted the same verb there, and was concerned by it. It is not our function as a UAC to procure anything. But we can recommend the the City procure new resources. Right? So, we can modify that. This is kind of where we're at right now, is, if we we could go, one by one, to edit each of these line items, so that we have clarity on what exactly the staff would bring before us. We can have discussion, documented in the minutes, of what that includes. I think we've already had some, as reflected in these submitted workplan items. And, you know, our verbal discussion just now. But if there's, you know, specific points we want to make sure are included in these lines, we can do that. Then, we need to prioritize them. OK? 1:26:30: **: ** 1:26:31: Commissioner Croft: Where is Grid Mod on here? 1:26:33: Commissioner Tucher: Exactly. It's not. The word isn't even there, let alone -- you know. 1:26:40: Chair Mauter: So, this is a fair question. If -- This is why staff is here. So, if there are places where you are trying to map from the recommendations you made to these draft objectives, please ask away. I am personally going to recommend that we edit a couple of these, to better include the two priorities I added, which were not in -- I don't think fully represented. Right? But we can do that in editing. 1:27:14: Commissioner Tucher: May I please amplify Rachel's question? The biggest capex program in UCPAU ### Or, rather, just CPAU? and the City is not mentioned. So, I don't know how we're going to edit and tweak a document that is, from my point of view, structurally wrong from the get-go. 1:27:30: Chair Mauter: Perhaps we could -- If you would like an honest answer to that, we can also ADD a line. Right? Add a line. It's OK. [laughs] But we can also start by editing the lines that exist. Right? 1:27:45: ACM Nose: Might I also suggest -- again, with all due respect, commissioners -- a couple of things. Staff took their stab at analyzing -- and among -- pulling together everybody's -- seven ### six different opinions. They are also trying to do this in the context of the existing work that needs to be done. ### Explain this context. Is ACM Nose saying that UAC's items must include all of the work that staff was planning to do anyway? So, I can appreciate that you may not see your exact words in here. And perhaps asking and seeking clarification may be a point to start. Versus simply throwing all of it out, assuming mal or ill intent, in terms of something being excluded. As an example, there is a 5-year CIP program for the pace and replacement of infrastructure financing mechanisms. That's an item that you could simply add, specifically with a focus on Grid Modernization. And that might be a very simple five-word edit that can get at the intention, versus wiping the entire process. 1:28:50: Commissioner Tucher: But you'll forgive me if I look at this document and say, when one of those seven -- actually apparently there were five that you got -- ### Six. Although staff thought that one was pretty late. But when of those top five ### Six. priority lists -- mine -- says Grid Mod's by far the most important thing, and it doesn't seem to really appear, except maybe through a back door in item --you know, item number 5, I'm perplexed. I don't really know how to start with this document. We seem to have totally disparate views on what this document even is. So, I don't know, you edit something that, you know -- I don't know how you edit when you don't even agree what the document's supposed to be. 1:29:27: Chair Mauter: OK. We are going to proceed through edits. If we want to make additions at the end, that's fine. I would encourage you to try to do your best, to see where there are points of connectivity. And if you are envisioning a separate agendized item ### Again, the items in Appendix A are NOT agendized items. (At least not yet.) we can come to that at the end. OK? Does that work for everybody? Great. If you wouldn't mind making these bigger. Because I think that -- I'm doing fine, but I don't want to bank on everyone else doing fine. And I think three at a -- or even one at a time would be great. OK. Draft Objective Number 1 @ 1:30:15: Chair Mauter: So, item number 1. Or line 1. Again, these are in no order. ### That is, they are not in priority order. We do need to get through all three of them. So, I would like -- or, all 13 of them. So, I'd like to be somewhat efficient about this process. If you could kindly set a 5-minute limit on these. ### I think Chair Mauter was trying to set a time limit of 5 minutes per draft objective, not 5 minutes per commissioner per draft objective. I don't think each of them need to take 5 minutes. But just to help us make sure we get through them. OK? If we need to come back to one at the end, we can come back. OK? 1:30:44: Line 1 is gas transition related. Take a minute to read it. [pause] OK. First, are there any concerns with how the commissioners' priorities -- particularly focused on the coordinated analysis of a gas transition with an electric growth scenario is captured in this particular line item. 1:31:36: Vice Chair Phillps: Could I make a contribution? 1:31:38: Chair Mauter: Please. 1:31:39: Vice Chair Phillips: I think the goal should be to adopt a gas transition study. You know. Again, this is on us. And I think if we - - Obviously, we're relying on staff to do what they're saying they're going to do, which is complete the gas transition study. But I think we should be able to look, at the end of the year, ### FY 2027. and say, one of the things we did is, we have a gas transition study. It's been approved by the UAC, and, you know, moved forward, and everybody can look at it and ask if this is -- if this is the issue. ### How many times would this item have to be agendized for UAC in order to achieve this result? I'm personally less concerned about this -- or, not VERY concerned about the coordination of electric planning and gas planning. I think the gas planning is going to be over such a tremendously long time frame, to be honest. In that we have 85 percent or more of our households that have at least one gas utility. ### Gas appliance. They're not changing out very quickly. We don't have a plan to get them to change out very much more quickly, that I know of. And we don't have any way to force people out. So, we need to -- we will need to keep and maintain the current gas infrastructure, whether we like it or not, for a fairly substantial period of time. 1:33:04: Chair Mauter: Great. I think that that's a very helpful addition. That the UAC would adopt a staff-proposed gas transition study. I want to check in with staff about whether it's realistic to have completed a gas transition study. We've had past conversations about that. But what is it that staff expects to do over the next year, relative to gas transition? 1:33:30: Director Kurotori: So, we would probably -- Instead of "adopt," is that you -- the UAC, would "review" -- 1:33:35: Chair Mauter: REVIEW? ### Eww. 1:33:35: Director Kurotori: -- the transit[ion]. You don't necessarily have to adopt it. And then, that allows you to look at the baseline assumption maps, and then potentially create -- or recommend policy implementation. Is something of a change. Or, I'd add, that's what I kind of heard through that. So we can wordsmith this a little bit more. 1:33:58: Chair Mauter: We've had two -- if my memory serves me, we've had two separate discussions this year on the gas transition. What are the follow-up items that you are still working on, before formal adoption of said study? 1:34:16: Director Kurotori: Yes. The key one is actually modeling the system. So it was -- The initial work and update that was provided from sustainability climate action ### That is, it was work for the S/CAP committee? A.k.a. CASC? was really looking at what it looks like on a calculation basis, but it wasn't looking at the actual system. So, staff is -- with our updated models, can do that analysis now. But that is a heavier lift than just an evaluation of, you know, of what this potentially could look like on a generic -- on a generic level. 1:34:41: Chair Mauter: And, in terms of timing on that, is that realistic to accomplish in the next year or not? 1:34:55: COO Crowley: The intent is that we could get a base model. So, do some corrections to the existing model. Fix some errors. Fix some service connections that need to be done, get that base model studied, so we can actually look at that load flow, and then start to look at areas that if we decommission this section of gas, what does that do to load flow, and what sections of main line prevent from replacement. Right? But that base model needs to be built. And the thought process considering all the other work is that staff could probably finish that base model within the next 12 months. We couldn't finish -- I don't think that we could realistically finish a 10- to 20-year comprehensive plan for the gas transition. I think we can get to a start. I think, as Director Kurotori suggests, we could get to a point of some guiding principles on what that 10- to 20-year plan might look like. But we need to really finish that base model, and identify areas that have high potential for decommissioning, and what that looks like, as far as the cost model. But that -- It all starts with this base model, making sure that that foundation is accurate and informative 1:35:56: Chari Mauter: Is there any place where there's policy judgment required to -- I guess I'd ask, is this a technical problem, which should be handled squarely by staff, or is this a policy and judgment problem, that would benefit from input from the citizens of Palo Alto? ### Not to mention the non-citizen residents of Palo Alto. 1:36:18: COO Crowley: I -- My initial response would be that it's initially technical -- largely technical -- to get to this base model. There may be things that come into -- as far as acceleration of pace and areas to focus that may be more policy driven after we do this initial base model. 1:36:32: Chair Mauter: OK. But you've just stated that the base model will not be done for 12 months. So, is it feasible to incorporate this into the workplan? Or should this be priority number one for next year's workplan? I mean, we have 13 things. We can only get 5 or 6. Right? ### This doesn't seem to me to be an immutable rule. 1:36:49: COO Crowley: Exactly. And making that division between what staff is doing and what the UAC is doing. So, staff would be directed to finish the base model and provide some initial update, maybe an informational item on that. And then we would incorporate into fiscal year 2028 workplan. Those guiding principles of how do we progress to a 10-20 year model, and what's that pace look like? 1:37:12: Director Kurotori: And there is some policy decisions that the UAC could recommend for City Council to consider. And, you know, we were looking at a gas transition plan. I do not believe City Council's made -- taken a position of stopping the gas utility, in that regard. So, really, that study and evaluation -- that technical work -- first, what does that look like, I think is really important. 1:37:34: Chair Mauter: I don't know how to make a policy recommendation without talking, like, budget. Right? Like, what's the cost? And what's the implication of like -- you know, what does that look like? And so, if we're data-poor over the next year, I don't even know what the policy discussion is that we can viably have. Could staff clarify that for us, so that we can ascertain whether this is something to agendize this year or next year? 1:38:02: ACM Nose: So, I can just opine that perhaps -- because I think you're going to run into this as you move down this list -- 1:38:09: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 1:38:09: ACM Nose: -- which I really appreciate. Kind of nailing down the outcomes. Right? The smarty kind of goals is what Council has moved towards. And it's been helpful. This might be what we would consider a Q4 goal kind of thing, meaning it likely will - - We don't want to lose track of it. We don't want to lose sight of it. But the likelihood of us getting it to this year is -- you know, it's not going to be until the latter portion of it. And it may spill over. So, that's one way the we've signaled in our Council prioritizations. 1:38:38: Chair Mauter: OK. So, we might say something along the lines of -- we're -- the UAC would review the results of the costs -- cost estimates around -- or financial -- I don't want to say cost -- would review expected economic impacts of a gas transition plan. And advise on -- what -- advise on policy related to the pace of transitioning -- 1:39:17: ACM Nose: Yeah. 1:39:17: Chair Mauter: -- as soon as Q4. 1:39:18: ACM Nose: I mean, ultimately, I think you're looking for the language of enable -- you know, review baseline infrastructure maps and explore potential targeted electrification utilizing selection criteria aligned with these frameworks, AND cost- effectiveness. Ah. What was the other one you identified? 1:39:40: Chair Mauter: I don't know. Whatever. The minutes are going to help us. But I guess I'd say there are like -- OK, who cares whether WE know our base -- the baseline infrastructure maps? That's -- 1:39:50: ACM Nose: But you've got to review them for the context of the policies to develop the 20-year plan. 1:40:00: Commissioner Croft: I don't -- Isn't it that we want staff -- we definitely want staff to prioritize this. Right? We want them to work on it. So, to the extent that that we're not going to see the outcome of this model until -- it just has to be an item on here that's a priority -- is to do a gas transition study and bring it to us for review. And we can put more specifics around it. 1:40:22: Commissioner Metz: I really think this has gotten sidetracked around a technical and capital issue. By my count, 4 commissioners recommended long-term business strategies for the gas utility. And the fact that we don't have one -- or, the fact that it would be hard to generate one -- I think is not evidence for not needing one. I think we do need one. And we need the framework for one, in order to make good decisions about what capital and what economic things and what technical things to be looking at. You know. So, I think the framework for a strategy which needs to be in place -- And in parallel do the technical work. I sort of feel like we're teeing up work that we feel comfortable doing over work that we really need to get done if we're going to make this transition. 1:41:21: Commissioner Croft: Do you want to propose an edit? 1:41:25: Commissioner Metz: Excuse me. 1:41:25: Commissioner Croft: Do you want to propose an edit? 1:41:28: Commissioner Metz: Well, I think I wrote it down. Develop a comprehensive 10-20 year business plan for the gas utility that addresses strategic, financial, operational, organizational, and resource concerns. 1:41:45: Commissioner Croft: But I think what we're hearing is, we need this thing that's here first. So it's achieve progress towards -- 1:41:53: Commissioner Metz: No. This -- If you read this, it says, includes capital investment criteria. It's not mostly -- Certainly capital is important. It's obviously a capital-intensive business. But it's not mostly a capital study. It's just -- It's a business study to get to alternative plans that the City Council can consider. If we were to do X, this is what it would cost. This is how it would impact our community. If we did Y, it would have these other set of impacts. I think that's what's really needed. You know. And it's more or less the same thing for the electric utility -- I shouldn't go there. But I think it's more or less the same thing there, as well, in terms of what we need. So, this is, you know, we have good technical people, good capital equipment people. And we're good at installing gas mains, and water mains, and so on. And I think that's what this is built around. And I think that's what this is built around. But, unfortunately, it's not what we need. 1:42:49: Commissioner Tucher: Could I second that, so to speak? In that, you know, when we did -- when we voted on gas rates, I voted no. And my primary reason was, there were gas rates based on a business plan that seemed to be -- like this was a GROWTH sector for us. And, in fact, it's quite the opposite. So, when I read Phil's write-up for this priority point, I thought, I agree with that. It can also include the need to rightsize, as best we can, the 5-year business plan, capex plan, everything around, you know, gas. Because the thing I voted no on a couple of months ago didn't feel like the sort of business we consider gas to be, which is one we want to get out of, long-term. 1:43:40: Chair Mauter: Vice Chair Phillips. 1:43:41: Vice Chair Phillips: Could I suggest that -- I hear that we can make a lot of progress by Q4, but maybe not get all the way there. In some sense, that's OK. We can have a stretch goal. And if we make it, that's great. I would say something like, the UAC will review a draft transition -- gas transition study. Maybe leave out some of the details. Because I would like to see within the next year some progress on this. And, you know, that's a guess. And if it's not complete, I can't imagine going a year from now and saying, gee, we need another 3-6 months before we can see anything. I think, given the interest -- You know. And call it a draft. Call it a partial draft. I don't care. But something that we will see within the next year, that gives us some clarity as to, you know, what we might need to be doing in the relatively short run, as well as the long run. And, to me, you know, it doesn't need to be wrapped up with a bow and -- you know, a formal study. But, you know, that's just me. I can't see waiting more than a year to see some results, or see come recommendations. 1:45:04: Commissioner Metz: A specific example of something that would be useful to do -- beyond, you know, the technical and gas mains and all that -- would be, what have other cities done, who tried to transition away from gas? What has been their experience? What have been some of the successes and failures? In other words, to build the infrastructure from multiple points of view, both technical and capital and business and sustainability standpoint, to figure out how we might get there from here. And if we just limit ourselves to thinking about what we can do in one year, you know, it's like -- I remember folks I used to work with at HP, some group -- you know, the difference between talking about 15 percent cost reduction a year or cutting our cost in half in 5 years.. Right? That -- They boil down to the same thing. But you can come up with qual -- If you set the goal of where we're going to be 5 years from now, or something like that, you can expand your -- the options for getting there. And I think we need to include all those aspects of the problem. 1:46:10: Chair Mauter: OK. Could I -- I want to keep us moving. I know this is a really important item. Can I propose an edit? ### Staff transcribes Chair Mauter's words to the screen. The UAC will review a gas -- a draft gas transition study -- Or, maybe we'll say, we'll review PROGRESS towards a gas transition study -- which doesn't put you ### You, staff on the hook for a draft one, but at least keeps us accountable to this, that addresses the political, economic, legal, environmental, regulatory, and financial -- 1:46:48: **: (inaudible) 1:46:48: Chair Mauter: I said economic, but -- 1:46:51: Commissioner Tucher: Oh, you're right. 1:46:51: Chair Mauter: [laughs] political, economic, legal, regulatory -- 1:46:57: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. Regulatory is a good one I left out. 1:47:00 Chair Mauter: Right. You -- That's OK. Operational, 1:47:08: **: Yeah. 1:47:10: Chair Mauter: Regulatory and operational. Maybe we'll just end with operational. Elements. Of. The gas transition. 1:47:22: **: Yeah. 1:47:23: Chair Mauter: A potential gas transition. Let's just say that. Of a potential gas transition. 1:47:28: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I would take out -- 1:47:28: Chair Mauter: -- potential gas decommissioning. How about that? 1:47:36: Vice Chair Phillips: Sounds great to me. I would leave out the word "draft." But that's -- Otherwise, I like -- 1:47:41: Chair Mauter: Sure. Progress toward a gas transition study. That's sounds great. Could we get rid of the rest of it? Because because I don't need to see infrastructure maps, frankly. You guys are great. The utility is great at infrastructure maps. We should never really need to see this. 'Cuz we're not qualified. ### Speak for yourself. The Chair should refrain from saying information is unnecessary which she thinks she is personally is incapable of understanding. 1:47:59: Commissioner Tucher: What's an infrastructure map? 1:48:01: ACM Nose: So, I think the intention of this is to explore the -- it's -- The action is not the infrastructure maps. The action is using the infrastructure maps to inform a selection criteria. 1:48:15: Chair Mauter: I agree. But -- So that's -- I get that that's missing. There's a lot of words between there. But -- 1:48:20: Commissioner Metz: Could we take out everything after "decommissioning"? 1:48:23: Chair Mauter: Yes. That's -- My goal is to delete the rest of it. If that's OK with staff. ### Who cares whether it's OK with staff? This is supposed to be UAC's document, not staff's document. Great. 1:48:31: Commissioner Tucher: ** we still like maps. We don't have to have it in the note -- 1:48:33: Chair Mauter: We don't -- We don't -- In fact, I don't need to see that PowerPoint either. OK. Are we -- Do we feel good about that one? 1:48:43: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. I would simply -- I feel good about it. I would simply say, anything you can do to make this bullet closer to the thing that Phil wrote -- that would be good. 1:48:53: Chair Mauter: OK. 1:48:55: Commissioner Croft: Does "economic" encompass rates? 1:48:56: Chair Mouter: Yes. But we also will do rates later. So, I think that this is -- It does. But I don't think it addresses like -- it doesn't cover next year's rates. 1:49:09: Commissioner Tucher: But it -- 1:49:09: Commissioner Croft: No. I'm talking about like what happens when only a few customers are left, and we have to -- 1:49:14: Chair Mauter: Absolutely. 1:49:15: Commissioner Tucher: And how big do the reserves need to be, so that we can fund the -- you know, in 10 or 20 or 30 years we can fund the ** gas -- 1:49:23: Chair Mauter: OK. Do you want to add the word "reserve elements"? Well, we have economic. Do you want to add -- economic and -- if it's -- if a reserve isn't operational, and it's not economic, do you want to add that in? Otherwise, can we -- can we move on? Do you have any edits that you'd like to make? 1:49:49: Commissioner Tucher: No. 1:49:49: Chair Mauter: OK. Great. Can we move on? I mean, we've spent 20 minutes on this first one. So, I've got to get us through 13 of them, plus any other ones. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 1: Staff expects to complete the The UAC will review progress towards a gas transition study that addresses the political, economic, legal, environmental, regulatory, and operational elements of a potential gas decommissioning, including capital investment criteria for a managed transition -- enables review of baseline infrastructure maps that explore potential targeted electrification utilizing selection criteria aligned with state level (CPUC/SB1221) frameworks (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(1).(A) & 2.23.050.(b).(4) ### This version eliminated the PAMC citation. Unintentionally? ### It strikes me as odd that all 13 draft objectives in Appendix A cite which chapter and verse of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) authorizes UAC to advise Council on the item. In Appendix B, the commissioners did not do this Is staff trying to say that if a draft objective became an agendized item, its scope would be restricted to only the cited PAMC sections? ### When citing the subsections of PAMC 2.23.050, it is customary to use parentheses but not periods. Right? Draft Objective Number 2 @ 1:49:55: Chair Mauter: All right. Can we do number 2? 1:49:56: Commissioner Metz: Could I make one comment -- 1:49:58: Chair Mauter: Please. 1:49:58: Commissioner Metz: -- I think might expedite -- 1:48:59: Chair Mauter: Please. 1:48:59: Commissioner Metz: As I looked at these, I thought 7 of them were what I would call procedural, -- 1:50:04: Commissioner Tucher: Yes. 1:50:04 Commissioner Metz: -- which are things that we for sure need to do, like rates an so on. But, you know, didn't happen to be on any of the commissioners' lists. Those items ae 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. ### That's 8 items (not 7). All those items, I think, have to be done. 1:50:25: Commissioner Tucher: I totally agree. Those are not -- Those are not UAC workplan, that we do -- I mean, we need to talk about communications and hear about them, but those aren't UAC priorities. I mean, you -- I think it should be our goal to have fewer goals. You know. Just make 5, 6 -- 1:50:41: Commissioner Croft: 8 was one of my priorities. 1:50:42: **: It was -- 1:50:42: Commissioner Croft: And communications was one of my priorities. But -- 1:50:45: Commissioner Tucher: I didn't check 8, but I did check things like, you know, setting rates and reviewing capex goes without saying. 1:50:50: Chair Mauter: We have a -- is there a MOTION with that? ### In this meeting, up to now, MOTIONs have not been required to do wordsmithing. Are you making -- propose to change -- 1:50:57: Commissioner Metz: I would say we just accept those. And I'm -- 1:51:30: Chair Mauter: But I would like to make edits to them. 1:51:02: Commissioner Metz: OK. Commissioner Croft, I was not demeaning that one. I was simply saying that, yeah, we have to set rates. We have to do -- you know, the things we have to do every year. 1:51:11: Commissioner Tucher: I have a specific proposal, and that is that you have a list of 3 or 4 of 5 things. They do not include time- of-use. But things like rates, things like capex, things like looking at our communications and our customer surveys. They don't go without saying, but just make a short list that -- Of course, UAC does these 4, 5, 6 things. But our priority items -- our new things -- the things we want to draw attention to -- is this OTHER list. And that might be 6-7 items. 1:51:38: Chair Mauter: Yes. We can do 5 to 6. And that was part of our proposed process. We're going to get to that after we edit the ones that are on the list right now. So, could we please finish editing. I realize that some of them are going to go -- I HOPE that some of them are going to go significantly more quickly than the last one. 1:51:56: Commissioner Tucher: So, are we on number 2? 1:51:57: Chair Mauter: We are on number 2. So -- 1:51:59: Commissioner Tucher: What IS number 2? is it emergency? If you had to give it a headline -- a two-word headline -- what is it? Is it water or is it emergency? What is it? Seriously, read it and try to tell me what that is. 1:52:11: Chair Mauter: You are welcome to make edits or propose edits. Would you like to make an edit? 1:52:17: Commissioner Tucher: I propose we call this thing emergency response plan. If that's -- That seems to be what it is. And water's part of it, but so is everything else. 1:52:27: Commissioner Metz: Could some explain what this is? I honestly -- I honestly didn't understand what it was. Was the document that we reviewed a month or two ago, that -- 1:52:37: Chair Mauter: I don't know. 1:52:38: Commissioner Metz: OK. 1:52:39: Chair Mauter: Sorry. Staff developed **. 1:52:40: Commissioner Metz: Maybe someone can help explain to us -- 1:52:43: Chair Mauter: And this is why staff is here. 1:52:43: Commissioner Metz: We have 3 out of 5 who don't understand -- ### Right. Appendix A was supposed to be staff's synthesis of the priorities identified by 6 individual commissioners. But no commissioner present seemed to be able to recognize it as one of his/her priorities. 1:52:44: Chair Mauter: So, could we clarify what number 2 is supposed to cover? [pause] 1:53:07: Director Kurotori: I mean, so, again, some of items I hear mentioning were kind of the baseline activities. This one was basically looking at, basically, our water system, in terms of how we keep the system up and running for emergency. And then, our preparedness as well. It was kind of taking time accounts from some what we heard from the commission. Again, it is compliance related. So, I can see how this, you know, would be confusing, in terms of how it's written up. It doesn't necessarily have to rise to the occasion. Again, we did a first cut of trying to figure out if this -- and distill it, to see if was meeting your needs. If it doesn't, you can take it off the list. 1:53:49: Commissioner Tucher: Alan, it rises to the occasion. Emergency preparedness is arguably a top priority for -- was on somebody's list -- 1:53:58: Director Kurotori: And -- Exactly. So, -- 1:53:58: Commissioner Tucher: But it just needs to be written clear. 1:53:59: Director Kurotori: Staff provided a first cut. And, again, it is up to the commission to make those changes. And that's why we provided it ahead of time. 1:54:07: Chair Mauter: OK. So, my assessment of this one is that it does NOT cover the emergency and reliability elements that Commissioner Metz has encouraged us to think about. And it is quite limited to the water utility in particular. If there are -- you know, Commissioner Metz/s comments were actually mostly around the power utility, in terms of reliability. Not to say that the water utility is unimportant. But if this is supposed to encompass the 5-year drought -- design drought -- discussion, it doesn't -- So, like, that could be more specifically called out. If it's not supposed to cover that, and it's supposed to be general emergency response and preparedness, then I would encourage us to change the language. Or strike the thing entirely. 1:55:12: Vice Chair Phillips: I think I would strike it and replace it with something more understandable and more general. 1:55:19: Chair Mauter: And in the direction of emergency response and resiliency? Or in the direction of the water utility's and our interaction with SFPUC? ### And BAWSCA? 1:55:31: Vice Chair Phillips: The latter. We have another one, which is our interaction with SFPUC, which is number 13. 1:55:36: Chair Mauter: The former. OK. So, the former. This is general risk, resiliency, and reliability. So, what are -- Maybe we could be a bit with staff, in terms of -- You know, I know that we've done some -- there's been some one-on-one conversation between staff and Commissioner Metz related to emergency preparedness plans. Are there policy -- or other elements, even a public dissemination needs, where the UAC's input or the opportunity for a public forum around emergency preparedness, resiliency, and reliability would be helpful? 1:56:26: Commissioner Metz: If this is -- 1:56:26: Chair Mauter: Across the utilities. 1:56;27: Commissioner Metz: If this is generally about reliability and resilience, then I would say there are two objectives, which are, number 1, reliability: set specific goals, quantify them, and communicate them to the community, so that people can see how we're doing, in terms of, particularly -- this is particularly to your point about electricity -- but communicate them. And then second would the one I proposed on emergency preparedness. Which, agreed, I wrote mostly thinking about electricity, but it would apply to anything -- to be -- as we agreed last year -- to determine what IS a design emergency, you know, and establishing our risk framework with OES. There's nothing specific to electricity here. 1:57:13: Chair Mauter: Right. I agree. 1:57:13: Commissioner Metz: It's emergency preparedness. 1:57:16: Chair Mauter: So, would we like to replace this? Or is there -- it -- I don't want to direct staff to do things that they're not going to do and they don't have the resources to do. So, -- ### Never fear. UAC (let alone just the Chair) can't direct staff. It's in the Municipal Code. UAC could advise Council to direct staff, but then Council would be responsible for the resource issue. 1:57:27: Commissioner Metz: Since no one has explained what this was about, I would suggest removing it. 1:57:33: Chair Mauter: Oh, I think we will remove this. But if we wanted to replace it with -- 1:57:36: Commissioner Metz: OK. 1:57:36: Chair Mauter: -- if that was intended to cover your item on emergency preparedness and resiliency, then we need to give staff an opportunity -- 1:57:46: Director Kurotori: Why don't we -- I'm going to have Terry Crowley kind of re-wordsmith this a little bit, because we also had some comments from Council, ### Was this from individual Council members or from Council acting as a body? Why weren't these comments documented as part of the staff report? ### (When I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is.) and try to have some reliability metrics. So, maybe we can weave that into this, and ** change it up. 1:57:57: Chair Mauter: That sounds great. 1:58:59: COO Crowley: So, my thought would be to focus this into the risk and resiliency assessment. So, reliability and resiliency, and that we focus in on -- potentially, for the next 12 months -- water and electric utilities, and bring back policies that -- surrounding that -- those two areas for those two utilities. 1:58:20: Chair Mauter: That sounds great. 1:58:21: COO Crowley: That could include the reliability metrics, the goals for the electric system, as well as, you know, the long-term resiliency. And the same for water. 1:58:31: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] That's like SAIDI and outages and stuff. 1:58:33: COO Crowley: It's SAIDI and SAIFI. You know. System availability for electric. And then, for water, looking at, you know, emergency preparedness, reliability, and those types of goals. 1:58:45: Commissioner Tucher: Does it include all the R&R stuff Jonathan talks about? The same -- that's included in this? 1:58:50: COO Crowley: Yes. Yes. So, that's kind of a -- potentially a deeper dive of what Jonathan's brought before the UAC and other ad hoc committees. ### Fine point of grammar: UAC is not an ad hoc committee. 1:58:58: Chair Mauter: OK. And -- Are there places where our input and our work is going to be particularly valuable in that? I mean, staff needs to deal with reliability and resiliency on a daily basis. ### Municipal Code 2.23.050(a) has the phrase "excluding daily operations." But I don't think that should preclude UAC's giving Council advice about reliability and resilience. What is it that WE can contribute to that discussion? 1:59:18: COO Crowley: So, what would help -- be helpful for me is so when we come back with the electric reliability goals is that we have a conversation about like what is meaningful. Right? So, from a technical perspective, something might be meaningful to me but relate well to the community. And so, having those conversations of developing that.-- that metric that's meaningful for the community, for the UAC, and potentially for the Council. That would be a good discussion to have here at the UAC. 12:59:42: I think for the water system, it would be a good discussion to say how much money are we wanting to invest in reliability and resiliency of the water system? And how do we get there through our capital improvement program? And I think that's a measure of, you know, what level of reliability do you want from your system? And so, how fast do you move though you CIP plan? 2:00:04: So, I think those are two discussions that are basically policy issues 2:00:08: Chair Mauter: Yup. 2:00:08: COO Crowley: And that's good to have awareness at. 2:00:12: Chair Mauter: But if, for water -- I mean -- and, Lisa, correct me if I'm wrong -- like, we have backup wells. But that's it. Like, there just is not more that we're going to do. [laughs] So, I'm not sure that there's a lot of -- Is there much -- Is there a decision there? Or is this primarily electric? 2:00:31: COO Crowley: I would say that there's decisions in electric to be made about setting the metrics. And then, how do you achieve the metrics, or maintain those metrics. Right? For water, I think you would look beyond just a supply of water, but you also look at what IS your reliability through a natural disaster. And what's your resiliency? What's your ability to recover from a large earthquake, or a large natural disaster? And what's -- how are you preparing for those things? Right? So, that's your investment in your system 2:00:59: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:00:59: COO Crowley: Which -- 2:00:59: Chair Mauter: Isn't that mostly SFPUC? Like, our reliability isn't local. Like our reliability problems aren't local -- 2:01:06: COO Crowley: We maintain the distribution system. So, that's, I guess, where I'm focusing. 2:01:09: Chair Mauter: OK. OK. 2:01:09: COO Crowley: The distribution system that the City maintains, the storage system that the City maintains, the pumping, -- 2:01:14: Chair Mauter: Right. 2:01:14: COO Crowley: All of that. So, that redundancy -- 2:01:16: Chair Mauter: So that would be a specific look at Palo Alto distribution system reliability on the water side. 2:01:23: COO Crowley: That is correct. 2:01:23: Chair Mauter: OK. Great. Let's clarify that, just so we know that this is not us trying to set SFPUC reliability across a fault zone. Right? Not our -- Frankly, not our purview. But local distribution system reliability absolutely is. Maybe we focus on distribution system reliability for both water and electric. 2:01:49: COO Crowley: Exactly. 2:01:50: Chair Mauter: Awesome. OK. So, instead of goals for the water and electric utilities, might we say goals related to the distribution systems of the water and electric utilities? 2:02:16: Commissioner Metz: I think that's a little too narrow, because we're really concerned about delivering water. In an emergency, for example. So, it's not only about the distribution system. 2:02:29: Director Kurotori: Well, the distribution system comprises of the -- you know, the connections to SFPUC, the storage, the pumps, -- 2:02:35: Chair Mauter: Yes. That's right. Absolutely. 2:02:35: Director Kurotori: -- backup diesel generation, the interconnections, the -- you know -- with other agencies. So, I think it is -- it IS more comprehensive when you say distribution. 2:02:44: Commissioner Metz: Right. But, to the Chair's point, we have wells. And also, we have -- 2:02:48L Chair Mauter: We could say, distribution and backup supplies. 2:02:50: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. 2:02:50: Chair Mauter: OK. Great. How about, distribution system and backup supplies [pause] of the water and electric utilities? 2:03:00: Commissioner Croft: I think on electric utilities, is there any element of like, you know, local generation that might come into this resiliency plan? 2:03:09: Chair Mauter: Exactly. 2:03:09: Commissioner Croft: For example -- So, it -- Do we want to make electric utilities kind of have a descriptor on it? Like -- 2:03:18: Director Kurotori: I don't think -- It's different for the electric utility. There's not a backup supply for the electric utility with -- 2:03:24: Chair Mauter: How about local supplies? Related to the local supplies and distribution systems -- 2:03:31: Commissioner Metz: It's the delivery. It always comes down to actually -- 2:03:36: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:03:36: Commissioner Metz: -- delivering the water or the electricity. And it -- we may set a target -- Just for example, we might set a target for reliability or resilience in an emergency that would REQUIRE us to have local generation of something like that. 2:03:50: Chair Mauter: Great. So, can we say, the local supply and distribution of water and power? 2:04:01: COO Crowley: That would work. I mean, you may be able to simplify it and just say delivery of services. Delivery of -- 2:04:07: Chair Mauter: But I do not want to get into gas -- 2:04:09: COO Crowley: Water -- 2:04:09: Chair Mauter: Fiber, or --um -- [laughs] ### I don't see what's so funny, in principle. Reliability ought to be one of the ways municipal FTTP can be superior to private- sector alternatives. 2:04:12: COO Crowley: And sometimes delivery of water and electric services 2:04:14: Director Kurotori: If you do delivery, sometimes that can conflate it to SFPUC and other supplies. So, I'm trying to narrow it. 2:04:22: Chair Mauter: I'm trying to keep this very narrow. OK. Great. Could you get rid of that last piece? And then, could we move on? We saved 3 minutes, relative -- Well, no, we saved more than 8 minutes relative to the other one. OK. Does anyone have any concerns with that, or can we move to number 3? 2:04:41: Commissioner Metz: I just don't quite -- Should there be a comma after resiliency? I'm asking -- 2:04:49: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Yes. 2:04:54: Commissioner Metz: OK. That's good. 2:05:00: Chair Mauter: Maybe get rid of the "and" and add one more comma -- Because reliability -- "reliability <comma> resiliency <comma> 2:05:09: Commissioner Metz: [unamplified] Oh. OK. 2:05:10: Chair Mauter: Great OK. I'm a fan of the Oxford comma, ### Me, too. but that's just me. [laughs] Could you put a comma after "response," please? Because I edit for a living, you know. 2:05:26: **: There you go. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 2: Advise on updates to ensure Water Utility regulatory compliance such as but not limited to the Risk and Resiliency Assessment (RRA) and emergency response and preparedness plan. (PAMC 2.23.050. (b).(2)) Review and recommend reliability, resiliency, emergency response, and preparedness metrics and goals related to the local supplies and distribution of water and power. ### Should the PAMC citation should go at the end. Draft Objective Number 3 @ 2:05:27: Chair Mauter: Number 3. 2:05:30: Commissioner Metz: That's what you get for being the lead author. 2:05:32: Chair Mauter: That's right. 2:05:33: Commissioner Tucher: Vampire weekend. 2:05:35: Chair Mauter: [laughs] Review and recommend to City Council rate changes. 2:05:41: Commissioner Tucher: For -- I would say this goes on the list of things we --you know, I would call that -- ### I think Commissioner Tucher was trying to say that this would happen even if UAC didn't advise Council to direct staff to make it happen. 2:05:45: Chair Mauter: I would really like to change this to include recycled water. 2:05:50: Commissioner Tucher: Do we have rates on that? I don't know. 2:05:57: Chair Mauter: No. 2:05:56: Commissioner Tucher: Should we? Or is that -- I mean. 2:05:58: Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:05:58: Commissioner Tucher: This just -- OK. This item, to me, just is one of those -- Of course, we review all rate -- 2:06:03: Chair Mauter: Unless my recycle bottle was supposed to go somewhere else. 2:06:06: Commissioner Tucher: Somewhere else. 2:06:09: Commissioner Metz: That's a good place. 2:06:10: Chair Mauter: I think -- 2:06:11: Commissioner Tucher: That's a strategic thinking -- 2:06:11: Director Kurotori: It would be a rate change, technically. So, -- 2:06:13: Chair Mauter: Yes. I think so, too. So, let's include recycled water here, because our specific purview as a UAC includes recycled water. Just to make it very clear on the purposes and duties of the UAC. OK. Thank you. 2:06:33. Commissioner Tucher: When we put time-of-use here, it feels like we're kind of slipping it in. Whereas, time-of-use -- I think it's somewhere else on the list. It should not just be slipped into this rate review thing. Rate review is just something that we do. 2:06:50: Commissioner Croft: I think the other -- the other topic on time-of-use kind of got to my point, which is more like reviewing the pilot. It's not just rates. So, I think we'll get to that one. 2:07:01: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:07:01: Commissioner Tucher: Then, as an editor, I'd suggest to take it out. Keep this document simple. Of course, we review all rates, including electric, and E-3, E-7, time-of-use -- everything. 2:07:11: Commissioner Metz: Demand charges -- 2:07:12: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. Everything. 2:07:13: Commissioner Metz: -- and everything else that we -- 2:07:14: Chair Mauter: OK. So, we'll strike "including time-of-use rates," please. But I would -- 2:07:21: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] COSA -- I mean, all COSAs -- 2:07:31: Chair Mauter: Well -- But -- I'm going to respectfully disagree on that. 2:07:27: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] You're probably right. 2:07:29: Chair Mauter: I would like to ask, could you please -- could staff please remind the UAC about the timing on the most recent COSAs for these different utilities? 2:07:43: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified It looks like water's the only one -- 2:07:44: Director Kurotori: The current one for this year would be the cost of service for water. I don't have the entire list, because there are -- 2:07:51: Chair Mauter: That's OK. 2:07:51: Director Kurotori: We can bring that back. 2:07:52: Chair Mauter: Can you remind me when we did the electric one? 2:07:59: Director Kurotori: [hesitates] '24? 2:08:00: Chair Mauter: '24. 2:08:02: **: '24? 2:08:02: Chair Mauter: OK Great. 2:08:05: Director Kurotori: We'll look that up as you -- 2:08:05 Chair Mauter: Can you remind us whether in that cost of service there was any discussion of reliability or access -- maintenance costs vis a vis consumptive charges on the electric power utility? [pause] Like, when we structured -- When that COSA was performed -- 2:08:37: Director Kurotori: Are you talking about fixed charges? 2:08:38: Chair Mauter: Yes. Fixed charges. 2:08:38; Director Kurotori: We have a -- I believe that's when we added the fixed charge. 2:08:43: Chair Mauter: Yup. 2:08:43: Director Kurotori: But we have a small -- the relative size of that fixed charge in comparison to utilities is small. 2:08:48: Chair Mauter: And -- But -- In the COSA that was performed, was there a specific recommendation about the balance of a fixed charge versus a variable charge? Or was that a policy decision that was made? 2:09:05: Director Kurotori: It was part of the COSA. 2:09:07: Chair Mauter: Well, I know. But is that a value judgment, or is that a -- 2:09:10: Director Kurotori: It is part of **. Right? I didn't see Lisa was there. I asked her to comment further. But it is a part -- I believe it is $5 for the fixed charge -- 2:09:18: Chair Mauter: Yeah, but that's nothing. 2:09:20: Director Kurotori: So, it is smaller than our surrounding entities, and the rest of the IUs. 2:09:25: Chair Mauter: By like what percentage? 2:09:27: Director Kurotori: I think it -- I wanted to say percentage. I believe Palo Alto's is $5 and the IOUs and PG&E's is around $25. 2:09:37: Chair Mauter: Great. 2:09::39: Lisa Bilir: Do I need to add anything, or are you good? 2:09:41: Director Kurotori: Correct me, please. 2:09:43: Lisa Bilir: So, in the most recent cost of service study, Palo Alto went from zero in the fixed charge to this $5 level. And so, that was a finding from the most recent COSA study. ### Since August of 2024, my utility bill has had an electric service "customer charge." But it hasn't been "fixed" exactly. 2024 -- 8-13: $3.36, 9-11: $4.42, 10-15: $4.58, 11-12: $4.88, 12-12: $4.58, 2025 -- 1-9: $4.27, 2-12:$5.19, 3-13: $4.42, 4-9: $4.12, 5-12: $4.42, 6-9: $4.58, 7-10: $4.88, 8-12: $5.54, 9-10: $4.91, 10-14: $5.25, 11-12: $5.42, 12-11: $4.91 2026 -- 1-12: $4.74, 2-12: $5.93, 3-16: $4.91, 4-13: $4.74, 5-12: $5.42, 6-10: $4.91 Did each CPAU residential customer's bill have numerically the same "customer charges"? ### Maybe the point is, the cost to the city for providing electric infrastructure to a residential customer doesn't change depending on how much electricity the customer uses. 2:09:55: Chair Mauter: And that $5 fell our of the COSA? Or that $5 was voted on by UAC because it was a small incremental increase relative to zero? 2:10:07: Lisa Bilir: It resulted from the COSA study. 2:10:10: Chair Mauter: And do we believe that that holds given our current Grid Modernization efforts? 2:10:22: COO Crowley: I would just -- 2:10:24: Chair Mauter: Sorry for all the -- 2:10:25: COO Crowley: No. It's going deep. But it's a good question. ### It may be more appropriate for when an item about the electric COSA is agendized, rather than now, when the annual workplan is being decided. But working from previous experience at other agencies, there's an art and a science with your rate setting. Right? So, the financial model that informs your rates is very strict and detailed, and allocates costs. Right? The allocation of costs to the customer classes, and the balancing between fixed charges and variable charges is the art of any cost of service and the development of rates. And there is some policy discussions in there. And so, you may understand or be familiar with water. Generally, the fixed charge in water is about 30 percent of the total revenue requirement. ### For water, CPAU's "fixed charge" depends on the size of the pipe going to your house. For electric, it tends to be much, much less. But the electric industry is moving away from that smaller fixed charge and moving towards something that's more equatable to water. 2:11:16: Commissioner Tucher: But if we're embarking on a ** million dollar Grid Mod project, that's going to significantly change the fixed cost. And, unless we just peanut butter the whole thing over all Palo Alto -- if instead we're putting it in certain substations more than others -- Again, my request for a heat map -- then, you know, the bottom line is, Grid Mod's going to have an impact, and a change on COSA for electric. And the last one we did was '23, '24 -- for that fiscal year. And, you know, it doesn't mean we need to rush and do one this year. But in the next 2-3 years, I imagine it's on the -- 2:11:51: Chair Mauter: So, 5 years is standard for new COSAs. I guess my line of questioning here is that, like, as part of rate study this year I would love to see an analysis -- or further discussion -- around that ART of rate-setting. And the balance of fixed charges versus variable charges ** power utility. I think that is incredibly important, given the -- both, you know, growth of on-site generation and the reliability service that we provide through grid connectivity, and the planned investments that we are making in Grid Mod. So, to reflect that art, I would love to see staff do some thinking about what the impacts of increasing our -- or the benefits of increasing our fixed charges and decreasing our variable charges might be. So, it's going to help us electrify. Right? And if we could be specific about that in this rate-setting piece, for electric, I think that would be -- or, we could incorporate that down below, I guess -- is maybe the broader point. But, to me, that's pretty important. 2:13:09: Commissioner Tucher: But, Meagan, we were super specific about it. Staff was very specific about it when we did rate setting. We talked all about fixed costs and variable. It's not the same as doing a COSA. But we did discuss it a lot. We always do. 2:13;22: Vice Chair Phillips: I'm -- I guess I'm a little confused on what the value of doing this outside doing a COSA would be. 2:13:28: Chair Mauter: I don't think we need to redo a COSA. I think it IS time to redo the COSA for water. But I think that there are -- um -- as Terry pointed out, there's an ART to that rate-setting. Because it -- All rates in utilities, which are monopoly peanut butter costs. Right? Like, by definition. 2:14:00: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] They don't -- Well, they allocate to customer class -- 2:14:03: ACM Nose: Commissioner, if you could turn on your microphone, please. 2:14:05: Chair Mauter: Well, but, spatially, they peanut butter. So, I think the point is, we -- 2:14:12: Commissioner Tucher: Spatially -- 2:14:13: Chair Mauter: -- there is an art to doing this. 2:14:14: Commissioner Tucher: Our commercial customers are spatially concentrated. They are not, you know, spread evenly. So, they vary by substation. And Grid Mod will the commercial burden. 2:14:23: Chair Mauter: That's right. Anyway -- we can come to this later. But -- Oh, I'm sorry. 2:14:30: Vice Chair Phillips: I agree with everything you say, but I'm not quite sure. 2:14:34: **: Could you turn on your video? 2:14:36: Vice Chair Phillips: Oh, yes, I will. I'll try to. And having -- Oh. I thought I would [pause] And having sat through the gas COSA process, a) I'm a great believer in unders- -- in the fact that there is art. And there's no -- there's no objectively perfect way of doing this. It's just -- What are we getting out of doing it outside of the COSA? We can't use it to change rates unless it's a COSA. 2:15:12: Chair Mauter: I think that we CAN change rates. Go ahead. 2:15:12: Director Kurotori: So, I think the first question is, you know, what is the cadence of new ones coming out? 2:15:17: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:15:17: Director Kurotori: The water one is planned for this year. 2:15:18: Chair Mauter: Right. 2:15:18: Director Kurotori: We have -- We have our kind of -- I wouldn't say rotation, but a plan to go through other ones as well, including wastewater, which is also one of your goals, to make sure that looks correct in affordability. For us to go forth and do another analysis on the electric is another engagement, and another task that we would have to push back, in terms of staff availability. 2:15:41: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:15:41: Director Kurotori: So, I wanted just to put that in, for clarity. It may be something that you put in for a future year, in terms of, when we do that electric COSA, that you want to have those requirements there, and looking at the fixed cost, as we develop that scope. And we can certainly bring that back. 2:15:53: Chair Mauter: Does adding -- Like, does increasing our fixed charges more than our variable charges require a new COSA? Or can we just do it? 2:16:01: Director Kurotori We would have to have a COSA to make those changes -- 2:16:05: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:16:05: Director Kurotori: -- throughout. 2:16:06: Chair Mauter: OK. But, in terms of the art element of that CO- -- the existing COSA -- Like, there is an art there. If we -- Like, it was -- Did the COSA that we -- exist -- we have -- Does the current COSA provide us any leeway in rebalancing fixed versus variable charges in the electric power utility? 2:16:26: ACM Nose: [unamplified] What it would be, [amplified] Commissioner, would be similar to what you did with gas -- 2:16:30: Chair Mauter: Uh huh. 2:16:30: ACM Nose: -- where we had an original COSA. We go back. We reassess the data. We revise the COSA. And we come back, **, based on the policies. 2:16:39: Chair Mauter: So, there wasn't any leeway in that initial one. 2:16:43: ACM Nose: Again, a COSA is an amalgamation of assumptions. 2:16:46: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:16:46: ACM Nose: And so, what -- in compliance with law, and reasonable assumptions, as deemed by -- um -- precedent. 2:16:55: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:16:55: ACM Nose: So, you would have to go through that same process to change that ratio. 2:17:00: Chair Mauter: Right. We will table it this year. I just want to put it on staff's radar. ### Technically, this is outside the scope of Item 3, which is looking just a year ahead. Also, putting things on staff's radar is not part of UAC's purpose and duties. Putting things on Council's radar is. And, frankly, the rest of the UAC's radar. That I think this is pretty important to come back to, as we're talking about the electric power utility in the future. 2:17:19: Commissioner Croft: On this topic of rates, you know, we have seen -- on the topic of affordability. So, I had, in one of mine, the affordability of electric. We have, prior, as a UAC, highlighted the difficulties of the affordability of water AND electric. And I wonder if we could add that in here that we want particular focus on affordability of electric and water rates? ### What does it mean to prioritize affordability? Sure, we want rates to be low. But are we willing to compromise safety? Reliability? Quality? Sustainability? Or prioritize -- 2:17:51: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** 2:17:51: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I mean, really on all rates. But do we want to ask for any special work to -- 2:18:03: Chair Mauter: Do we want to add, at the end, "and fiber optic services," to ensure affordability? [pause] Or with a prior- -- with a priority on affordability? 2:18:19: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I like that. 2:18:21: Director Kurotori: We have something similar on item 5 -- 2:18:23: Commissioner Croft: ** 2:18:26: Director Kurotori: On item -- number -- line -- I'll call -- 2:18:29: (multiple speakers) ### When multiple speakers are each telling Ms. Farias what to type to edit an objective, it's hard to transcribe. 2:18:30: Director Kurotori: -- pay as you go, to ensure affordability across the 5-year rate projections and financial plans. So, I mean, I love the word affordable -- 2:18:37: Commissioner Croft: But that is a CIP item, isn't it? 2:18:39: Director Kurotori: If you do want to add it here, that's certainly welcomed. 2:18:42: Commissioner Croft: OK. I think putting in rates is more appropriate, because it is where we see the results of not only CIP but everything getting combined and charged to the user. 2:18:56: Commissioner Tucher: Agree. 2:18:58: Chair Mauter: OK. Do we feel good about that one? Excellent. 2:19:01: Commissioner Tucher: A tiny little question. Fiber optic service. Is it wrong to say -- to call it fiber internet services, that -- and people know what internet is? Or is dark -- ### Good point. The City's decades-old dark fiber business is a LOT different from the City's fledgling (or nascent) FTTP business. So the advice UAC ought to give Council about the two businesses ought to be a LOT different. ### By the way, most dark fiber customers use their dark fibers to provide themselves internet services. 2:19:11: Director Kurotori: We also have dark fiber as well. So we try to keep it a little more generic. ### This sounds like the participants are just trying to check a box, rather than identify a specific need. 2:19:14: Commissioner Croft: Just call it fiber services? 2:19:16: Commissioner Metz: This means dark fiber and fiber dissolve. Correct? 2:19:22: **: [unamplified] 2:19:23: Chair Mauter: [laughs] Sorry. 2:19:24: **: [unamplified] ** 2:19:27: Chair Mauter: OK. [laughs] ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 3: Line 3 --- Review and recommend to City Council FY 2028 rate changes to Water (including advise on a new Cost of Service Study), Gas, Electric (including Time Of Use Rates), Wastewater Collection, Recycled Water, and Fiber Optic Services with priority on affordability - (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(4)) Draft Objective Number 4 @ 2:19:33: Chair Mauter: Number 4. Could we just say "on implementation"? [laughs] 2:19:45: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** 2:19:45: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:19:50: Commissioner Croft: I s- -- I read that report with -- not despair, but -- I mean, going that direction. Right? Do we want for force ourselves to prioritize this at this point? It's going to cause our rates to go up. Are we worried about -- I mean, we asked to review reserves, hoping that we could consolidate a bunch of accounts, and use that as a way to affordability of rates. And, instead, what we heard from Baker Tilly is, if you want to go down this road, it could really have an impact on the upward direction. So, my thought on this would be to, you know, not prioritize it, essentially. We want to prioritize our solidity -- or, what do I want to say -- that -- how solid our reserves are, on a wholesale basis. But I don't know how much we want to dig into this particular topic. 2:21:07: Chair Mauter: Can I just remind us that, at the present moment, we are just editing. And we will work on prioritization later. So, if there's any edits to this, I will entertain those at this time. And then we'll come back, Commissioner Croft, to whether we want to address this this year. Um -- 2:21:33: Vice Chair Phillips: I don't have any edits. I like it. 2;21:37: Commissioner Croft: I would just -- there's a typo Review and advise on reserve policy changes. So, just in that very first line, reserve policy changes. 2:21:53: Vice Chair Phillips: I think it's reserve policies. Because there's different policies for the different -- 2:21:57: Commissioner Croft: Oh, yeah. Good point. Good point. Good point. 2:21:59: Commissioner Tucher: And I hope review goes without saying. If we're going to advise. You could -- 2:22:05: Chair Mauter: Well, first, we have not had an informational -- 2:22:08: Vice Chair Phillips: No. It should remain -- 2:22:09: Chair Mauter: We DO need to review it. 2:22:11: Commissioner Tucher: I'm just looking to get rid of words. 2:22:13: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:22:13: Vice Chair Phillips: It should remain policies. It should not be changed. 2;22:18: Chair Mauter: But the comma splice before that is -- 2:22:22: Commissioner Tucher: Get rid of "changes." 2:22:22: Chair Mauter: -- working. I mean -- [laughs] But we'll let that go. 2:22:28: Commissioner Tucher: No. Don't. Insist on commas. 2:22:31: Chair Mauter: That was a splice. [laughs] OK. I think generally -- we're -- it's good. It's fine. We good on this one? 2:22:45: Vice Chair Phillips: Yup. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 4 (unchanged from Appendix A) Review and advise on reserve policies changes informed by the Baker Tilly Utility Reserve Assessment, that balance the need to be attractive to private markets and rates that are affordable to residents and competitive to businesses, for inclusion in the FY 2028 rate setting. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(4)) Draft Objective Number 5 @ 2:22:45: Chair Mauter: OK Number 5, which is the 5-year capital improvement program. 2:22:59: Commissioner Tucher: Be explicit about the word "bond market." We're going into that bond market, not just financing mechanisms. I mean, it's bonds versus pay-as-you-go. 2:23:12: Vice Chair Phillips: Are there other mechanisms, aside from bond finance and pay-as-you-go that are being contemplated? ### Or that should be being contemplated? 2:23:23 Director Kurotori: We do have state revolving fund loans. So I think financing mechanisms -- If you want to put a little more granularity to it, maybe can put revenue bonds or -- 2:23:35: **: Just bonds. Why would he -- 2:23:37: Chair Mauter: Well -- You really like those SRF loans, let me tell you. 2:23:44: Director Kurotori: Love them. 2:23:44: Commissioner Croft: Can we just leave it? Because we also have grants. I mean, -- 2:23:49: Commissioner Tucher: Oh, yeah. We'll never know what we meant. But OK. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 5 (nearly unchanged from Appendix A) Recommend FY 2028 and five year capital improvement program including projects to be included, timing of the projects, pace of infrastructure replacements, and use of financing mechanisms vs pay‐go to ensure affordability across the five year rate projections and financial plans. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(4)) Draft Objective Number 6 @ 2:23:53: Commissioner Tucher: Fiber. ### Not until 2:33:53. 2:23:55: Chair Mauter: Can I just ask a question about the 5-year capital improvement program? We tend, in my experience, to look at this on a utility by utility basis. And this is recommending -- it's discussed as a single capital improvement program. Can you clarify? Could staff kindly clarify whether that is a change, or whether you intend to address this utility by utility? [pause] ### These are supposed to be UAC's draft objectives. Even though staff altered the wording. 2:24:34: COO Crowley: Staff's intent with this was to not look at it as a holistic -- covering all the utilities at one single time. Staff's intent was to use one line item that would cover each of the single utilities. And we would discuss those INDIVIDUAL utilities' capital improvement plans. So -- such as -- Grid Mod shown on here. 2:24;52: Commissioner Croft: Right. 2:24:52: COO Crowley: Grid Mod would definitely be included under the capital improvement program. And then you would also have a capital improvement program for water, that would influence your rates. And wastewater, that influences your rates. And so, we would talk about those things individually -- 2:25:06: Commissioner Croft: Right. 2:25:06: COO Crowley: -- but not necessarily in a one holistic conversation. That would dilute any of those individually utilities. ### In other words, this one draft objective might result in one agendized item per utility at UAC meetings in FY 2027? 2:25:13: Chair Mauter: OK. Are there -- I mean, there's a clear request on behalf of the commissioners to prioritize electric power, and to prioritize -- personally -- wastewater. Realistically, I think we tend to do a very broad -- Like, when we've gotten into this task, we've tended to do like either not nearly enough detail or way too much detail. 2:25:50: Director Kurotori: And you may want to add on there is it with, you know, with a priority focus on the electric utility and the wastewater utility -- 2:25:55: Chair Mauter: And the wastewater utility. Yeah. 2:25:57: Director Kurotori: Because that could be specific to that goal So, you receive the standard or normal type of information -- 2:26:02: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:26:02: Director Kurotori: -- and with a higher focus on the wastewater utility and electric utility. That's -- We could make that -- 2:26:06: Chair Mauter: Would that be helpful? 2:26:09: Commissioner Tucher: No. 2:26:09: Chair Mauter: Well, it would be helpful for me. Does anyone else object to that? ### In theory, UAC is supposed to be identifying (and wordsmithing) draft objectives now, and prioritizing them later. But Chair Mauter is asking to prioritize some things now. 2:26:16: Commissioner Tucher: If -- what you mean, helpful -- Of course it's helpful, and it goes without saying that Grid Mod is in our capex. What I'm trying to convey is the need for Grid Mod to be an ALL CAPS HEADLINE PRIORITY topic for UAC inn the months and years ahead, as it is inevitably going to be. And so, I can't say it more strongly than that. 2:26:40: Commissioner Croft: Can you just propose an edit, and we can comment on what you are wanting to add? I do think Grid Mod needs to be its own item, personally. 2:26:51: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] So that would be my edit. 2:26:52: Chair Mauter: OK. You are welcome to propose language on [draft objective] number 5, which is what we are currently working on. 2:26:59: Commissioner Tucher: Number 5 -- just like number 3 before it was we review rates -- number 5 says we review capex. Like -- I say it many times -- it goes without saying. A separate item would be -- if you want me to edit it now. I don't think you do. But it would be -- discuss Grid Mod. It would be a condensed version of my 2-3 page memo. Discuss Grid Mod in every way. All the time. ### And agendize these discussions as ACTION items, NOT discussion items. 2:27:23: Chair Mauter: OK. Could we add, on number 5, you know, with a special focus on 5-year capital improvement -- 5-year capital improvement program -- um -- [pause] -- [sigh] -- We have 5-year again financial plans -- with -- maybe at the very end -- financial plans, with a special focus on the electric and wastewater utilities. 2:28:00: Vice Chair Phillips: I -- Is that really needed? I mean, I'm pretty interested in gas, as well, given the other discussions. 2:28:10: Chair Mauter: I think we've had a lot of discussion about the gas transition study already, and so -- Not that it wouldn't be covered but -- we can also take it out. 2:28:21: Commissioner Metz: My suggestion about Grid Mod would be to discuss it in the context of number 7. 2:28:30: Chair Mauter: OK. So, Commissioner ### Vice Chair Phillips, you're uncomfortable with electric and gas and wastewater? 2:28:37: Vice Chair Phillips: I just don't see the -- particularly if we're going to have Grid Mod separately, why there would be a special focus. I mean, I don't know what it means. 2:28:46: Chair Mauter: I think it's just -- that's where our biggest capital improvement investments are going to be. So, it -- like -- and insofar as we want to share with Council what our priorities are, and where we want staff to prioritize their time and effort, I think there are elements of calling out specific utilities that could be especially helpful 2:29:07: Vice Chair Phillips: Fine. I mean -- 2:29:10: Commissioner Metz: The only thing is, the wastewater treatment plant's capex is OUTSIDE our purview. 2:29:16: Chair Mauter: And I think that that is a problem. 2:29:19: Commissioner Metz: It's not a problem. It's just -- It's actually -- It's an anti-problem. It's out of scope. 2:29:24: Chair Mauter: Well, [laughs] 2:29:28: Commissioner Tucher: Do you want to dig into that one? 2:29:34: Chair Mauter: I think it is challenging to set rates when you have no control over the capital plan. 2:29:41: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. That's what happens in water. It's called -- 2:29:44: Chair Mauter: But there's actually some [laughs] internal citywide accountability to that, that we DO have agency over, and that I think we should do something about. That was my two cents. As you can see in my -- I tried to be very lean, guys. I really think that the capital improvement plan and operating expenses for the wastewater utility are very important for us to dig into, and are not currently in our operational purview, but absolutely should be. 2:30:21: Commissioner Tucher: When you look at all we've accomplished in the utility space -- 2:30:24: Chair Mauter: [laughs] 2:30:24: Commissioner Tucher: -- according to our workplan last year. imagine what we could do for the wastewater treatment plant. [laughs] If you put that in the minutes, I hope you'll note it was a joke. ### Duly noted. 2:30:33: Commissioner Croft: I'm fine with it as edited. 2:30:35: Commissioner Tucher: I'll just leave it out. 2:30:39: Chair Mauter: But I -- 2:30:40: Vice Chair Phillips: We should have a colleagues memo or something on the topic. ### Or something? ### Any time 2-3 UAC commissioners want to get together to write a colleagues memo, they can. They don't need permission from UAC, as a body. And then, staff has to agendize an item so that UAC can act on it. ### The UAC Bylaws document (2022), Section 7.6, provides rules for writing what it calls a "commissioner memo" (I don't know why it's not called a "colleagues memo" here.) https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory- commission/reference-files/approved-bylaws-11-2022.pdf Are commissioners satisfied with all the fine-print limitations? If not, maybe some commissioners could write a colleagues memo about that. ### The 2025 "City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook: A Reference Guide." fails to address colleagues memos. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/5/city-clerk/bcc-handbook.pdf I mean, if that's what we really believe. I don't think it necessarily belongs in this. But there should be some potential action. Maybe we can take it offline. ### The Brown Act limits what can be taken offline. 2:30:53: Chair Mauter: I -- There was not a strong reflection of that -- I mean, you know, lest you think that I came up with those list, [laughs] my own second priority didn't make it in a particularly large way. So, I -- 2:31:16: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] You know, I didn't read that second item to mean that. So, it's cool. 2:31:19: Commissioner Croft: Well, yes, it was -- 2:31:21: ACM Nose: Commissioner, please use your microphone. 2:31:22: Chair Mauter: It -- it -- there was a lot of discretion -- that -- there -- in the second item. 2:31:30 Chair Mauter: But anyway, let's move on to number 6. 2:31:33: Director Kurotori: Can I actually make one -- 2:31:34: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:31:34: Director Kurotori: -- just for clarity, 'cause it's going to hurt my brain. So, we say including projects to be included. Can we just say which -- 2:31:44: Chair Mauter: [laughs] 2:31:44: Director Kurotori: -- which projects to include? Sorry. 2:31:48: Chair Mauter: Capital Improvement Plan 2:31:50: Director Kurotori: Program. Which projects to include. 2:31:53: Chair Mauter: Yes. Thank you. 2:31:54: Director Kurotori: Sorry. It was hurting my brain. Which projects to include. 2:32:02: Chair Mauter: Maybe we don't need that at all. Just -- Capital Improvement Program, timing of the projects, etc. 2:32:08: Director Kurotori: That was the other option. But I thought you wanted -- you wanted to pick the projects that -- 2:32:13: Chair Mauter: No, I don't need to pick the projects. I want to see the plan. [pause] And know that the plan is being correctly developed -- (with a holistic viewpoint). OK. 2:32:28: Chair Mauter: OK. Number 6, fiber to the premises. 2:32:34: ACM Nose: I'm sorry, Chair. The clerk still has to track changes in Item number 5, with a special focus on electric and wastewater utilities. 2:32:46: **: We've got that -- Generally is great. 2:32:46: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Do you want to keep that? 2:32:48: Chair Mauter: Please. Only 'cause it gives me cover. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 5: Recommend FY 2028 and five year capital improvement program including projects to be included, timing of the projects, pace of infrastructure replacements, and use of financing mechanisms vs pay‐go to ensure affordability across the five year rate projections and financial plans with a special focus on the electric and wastewater utilities. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b). (4)) Draft Objective 6 2:32:53: Chair Mauter: All righty. Fiber to the Premises. I appreciated the inclusion of KPI discussions here. Does anyone have any edits? 2:32:10: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. 2:32:13: Vice Chair Phillips: I would be strong. I would say that -- since this is us -- I think we should commit to make a recommendation to City Council. So, it's not -- to me, it's not just reviewing. I mean, we're doing a hell of a lot of reviewing. I guess that's -- you know, that's the nature of the UAC. But this is one where I think we should commit ourselves to make a recommendation. Which could be, you know, continue expansion or not. 2:33:48: Chair Mauter: Are we going to have -- Could we get a refresh from staff on where we will be 12 months from now in a -- 2:33:59: **: [unamplified] ### I wish I knew who this was and what was said. 2:34:00: Chair Mauter: OK. Great. So, we'll be done with not only Phase zero ### What Chair Mauter is calling "Phase Zero" is what staff has been calling the pilot. but Phase 1 -- 2:34:05: **: [unamplified] 2:34:06: Chair Mauter: or whatever. 2:34:06: ACM Nose: I think we should -- I don't think we will be done with the totality of Phase One, with data to then report out on. But I do think we will have data associated with the subset of Phase One -- the initial pilot area. And then, you know, we can make some assumptions and have that policy discussion. 2:34:28: Chair Mauter: Great. Can I ask how Council is going to feel about recommendations that come before the conclusion of Phase One? ### Technically, if asked how Council feels about something, the Liaison is supposed to say how Council feels, if he knows. Not to offer hypotheticals if he doesn't know. 2:34:40: Liaison Lauing: Well, I think if you see some big red flags -- 2:34:42: Chair Mauter: Yeah, you're going to want to hear about it. 2:34:44: Liaison Lauing: -- that will -- Yeah. We'll want to hear about it. This -- I'm glad you asked the question, because somewhere I was looking to make the comment that at some point in time, if there are things that are already approved by Council -- 2:34:54: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:34:54: Liaison Lauing: -- but you think are a concern, then you obviously want to raise that with staff. ### UAC's job is not to raise things with staff. It's to raise things with Council. And it's -- And use the right format ### Process? to get that information to Council. Which might be, you know, staff creates a discussion item on the pilot. I mean, a study session. Excuse me. As opposed to an action item, which would be a public hearing. ### Why would it be better for Council to agendize a study session rather than an action item to find out about the FTTP pilot? 2:35:13: Chair Mauter: Yeah. OK. 2:35:14: Commissioner Metz: I think this item -- If you look at the commissioner priorities, two of them had to do with go/no-gos. 2:35:22: **: Um hum. 2:35:22: Commissioner Metz: One had to do with cash. And another one had to do with execution. So, I think somehow this has to incorporate the idea of money. Right? Particularly with the City's fiscal situation. ### The money financing FTTP as this point belongs to the fiber utility. It's not supposed to available to spend on whatever non-fiber thing Council decides. ### Recently, the wastewater utility borrowed some money from the fiber utility, but that's different. They promised to pay it back before the fiber utility needed it. 2:35:34: Chair Mauter: So, do we want to -- 2:35:37: Commissioner Metz: Metrics -- the metrics here are engineeringish metrics. 2:35:40: Chair Mauter: Yup. 2:35:40: Commissioner Metz: And we need to have BUSINESS metrics. 2:35:42: Chair Mauter: Well, there's a financial forecast projection. But you said you'd like to add -- How do want to edit this one? 2:3549: Commissioner Metz: Where does it -- 2:35:50: Commissioner Croft: I have a suggestion on the financial fore[cast] I was also going to point out. I think we need to have, instead of financial forecast projection, a revised financial model. Like, long-term -- long-term financial -- revised long-term financial model. And CAPITAL. If we're -- expenditure estimates. 2:36:13: Commissioner Metz: I think the numbers I would like to see would be revenue -- and it could be a projection of revenue -- you know, the take rate times, you know, what we expect to get in other areas. Revenue, cash flow, and number of customers signed up. I think. You know. And capex -- 2:36:27: Commissioner Tucher: But if -- 2:36:27: Commissioner Metz: But if that's the case, we would spin profitability in the business. Right? 2:36:33: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] That would be great, Phil. But -- And we've just -- [amplified] Every time we discuss fiber -- every time we discuss fiber, this issue of like -- Phase Zero, Phase One -- what's pilot -- what's -- you know, we just heard that there won't be any -- We've just heard that Phase One won't be actionable, or finished, in this coming fiscal year. If I heard right. And if that's the case, all we'll have to go on is the Phase Zero, that I kind of think of as a technical -- work the kinks out. It's not going to give us take rate. It's not going to give us revenue projections. We're not going to be able to make conclusions, I think, even about pricing. 2:37:11: I mean, our time-of-use pilot has less than 10 users. You could never make any, you know, model on the back of that. ### Good point. For the TOU pilot, staff was computing the bills manually. That's not economic. And I fear that in the course of FY '27 -- if it's -- as we just heard from the desk -- if that's the way things are going to be for fiber, we're not going to make any assumptions or recommendations next year. That's sobering, but I don't see -- how else can we see it? 2:37:40: Commissioner Croft: I think we need -- still need to see the KPIs that they DO collect. And I think we should always have a working financial model, like what we THINK it's going to cost us as we roll it out. And we can make different assumptions on the take rate. You could make different assumptions on the pricing. Those are really easy things to change in the model. But a LOT of the stuff is going to be -- We're going to figure out how much it costs to put that cable in, ### Cost per premises passed. Costs more for undergrounded than for aerial. to attach each house. ### Cost per premises connected. Connect only premises that are customers. And those things should be in a revised model. Um -- 2:38:15: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. 2:38:16: ACM Nose: And I think that can be informative. For whatever that's worth. It's -- Remember, this initial phase is almost 1,000 passings, So, it's not the whole City. And it's not thousandS, that were initially in the larger, geo-fenced Phase One area. But it can give you an initial snapshot. And I think that's what staff's intent is, is to bring that forward, update the business model. To identify if there are any early red flags. You know, this is an evolving business line, in general. ### I don't buy the "in general" part. Lots of municipalities have been running FTTP networks successfully for a long time. Chattanooga, TN, since 2008. Longmont, CO, since 2014. Loveland, CO, since 2018. Cedar Falls, IA, since 2013. (Before that, Cedar Falls had an HFC network since 1996.) And so, having these checkpoints, I think, is the intention to keep an eye on those flags early, so that we can continue to make informed decisions. 2:38:59: Vice Chair Phillips: Yeah. I think -- 2:39:00: Liaison Lauing: You can also do an assessment of the competitors at that point as well. That should be data that's available. 2:39:06: Vice Chair Phillips: That's a great point. I think staff shared early on with -- with -- at least -- I don't know, the Finance Subcommittee ### Committee. shared an economic model that went out 35 years in the future or something. Just updating that with the new information. You know, as Commissioner Croft said, what are the take rates we're seeing? What are the costs that we're actually seeing? You know, how would we update, given what we've seen? That may not mean it's not the final, but it'll give us a good indication -- when we went into this, does it look like we were over optimistic or over pessimistic or about right? 2:39:44: Chair Mauter: OK. Are we recommending changes to these KPIs? Or are we going to keep this as-is? Or, any further changes to the KPIs? 2:39:56: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I had one suggestion, which was not a change to the KPIs but whether the scope of this should be increased. You know, basically, we're talking about looking at the pilot and then evaluating it a little more quantitatively. What I was suggesting was, find ways to accelerate the cash flow. To -- Which, through harder -- you know, more intense sales marketing, or possibly through other connection methods beyond fiber to the home. We might be able to accelerate that. 2:40:29: Chair Mauter: Should we say, "review fiber to the premises utility financial standing and pilot results?" 2:40:40: Vice Chair Phillips: So, I guess -- I think the question says we're going to inform a recommendation. I mean, that says to me, why don't we say review and make a recommendation? 2:40:50: **: Yeah. 2:40:50: ACM Nose: Sure. The way to write that could be -- is to recommend next steps? 2:40:55: Chair Mauter: OK. Review and recommend next steps 2:40:58: Commissioner Metz: Right. For example, -- 2:41:00: Chair Mauter: Following fiber -- the fiber to the premises policy results. 2:41:05: Commissioner Metz: Like, one really important thing would be -- you know, we're talking about take rates. But supposing the take rate's lower than what was forecast. Is that because people changed their minds? They don't really want it now? Or is is because we could do a better job at sales? Or some other factor? I think it's important to understand those factors, and -- this says now to, you know, recommend actions. 2:41:37: Chair Mauter: What is going on with -- screen thing? 2:41:47: Vice Chair Phillips: And just recommend next steps. 2:41:50: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. [pause] 2:42:01: Chair Mauter: Great. 2:42:04: Chair Mauter: OK. Number 7. Can we reset our clock so that I can -- 2:42:09: Commissioner Croft: Can we please take out the comma after the word "revised"? It's a revised long-term financial model. Thanks. 2:42:16: Chair Mauter: Great. Can we reset the clock, please? Just so I can try to keep us on time. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 6: Review Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) pilot results including use of key performance indicators (KPI) and recommend next steps to inform a recommendation to continue the build out of the whole phase 1 expansion geographic area (Examples of KPIs include take rate, customer satisfaction, cost per passing, revised long-term financial model, and capital expenditure estimates financial forecast projection ) (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(5)) Draft Objective Number 7 2:42:21: Chair Mauter: OK. Number 7.appears to be our Grid Mod abbre- -- what could be abbreviated as Grid Mod. Does -- Do we want to expand this one to include other elements? 2:42:45: Vice Chair Phillips: Is this Grid Mod or datacenters? It's not clear to me, since it talks about large commercial loads and non- residential. 2:42:54: Director Kurotori: These are large commercial loads that are for research and development. Some folks can say datacenters. That's not really what we're seeing here in Palo Alto. We're seeing those larger loads associated with kind of research and development and tech companies. 2:43:11: Vice Chair Phillips: So this was not Grid Mod, per se. 2:43:13: Director Kurotori: This is not Grid Mod -- 2:43:14: Chair Mauter: This is datacenters. I just misspoke, or misremembered. 2:43:18: Director Kurotori: What -- The term in -- is electric -- large electric loads. . Because it's -- Sometimes datacenters is, frankly, too limiting, or to expensive. 2:43:31: Commissioner Croft: Do we want just to clarify the "including but not limited to a financial charge for the reservation of electric system capacity"? Is that long-term reservation of electric system capacity? Is that what we're intending to say there? Like, we don't people to come in with big loads and then go out of business and not have any liabilities? I mean, we've talked about that before that our contracts have to have a -- Is that what that means? 2:44:02: COO Crowley: So, one of the intents that staff would like to develop a policy around is, 1) we have new businesses that come in, and they want to understand what capacity is available. Right? And once they understand what capacity is available to that particular site, they want to reserve that capacity for their project that they're developing. The concern is that they make that reservation at no cost? Or there a small fee that reserves that in place? That's step 1. Right? So, they have a policy around that. Step 2 is that, as they develop their site and their project, what's the cost recovery agreement for that development -- of that? Do they pay everything up front? Is there some other mechanism that's a portion up front and a portion paid out over time? Is there a risk that if they don't meet certain metrics with their load and usage, that they have to pay additional fees? That's the second part of that policy. And then, that kind of that tail end of that is the third part, is, what's the rate structure for these larger, research- or development-type loads? Is it still appropriate for the large commercial rate -- existing rate for those customers? Or should there be something else that modifies that rate? Say a demand charge that's a little bit different, or unique for that type of customer class. So, that's kind of the three parts to this. It really is focused on those large commercial loads. But there's a three-step process that we go through. And some of the challenge we have right now is, everybody is fighting for available capacity. And so, how do you fairly allocate that available system capacity, but not necessarily provide it to one person for free, and they hold it hostage and prevent maybe somebody else from coming in and providing that benefit -- broader benefit to the community. 2:45:45: Commissioner Croft: That sounds extremely important. The question I had about the long-term commitment to take the energy that they are contracting for -- is that incorporated in this somehow? 2:45:47: COO Crowley: It could be incorporated in the cost recovery agreement. It could be incorporated into a rate agreement. And so, there's a different structure in there. We can talk through that. But that's the intent, is to try and put this as a -- you know, a goal or priority, to finish with -- inside of the next 12 months, so that we can actually be consistent and effective in working with this type of customer. 2:46:21: Chair Mauter: OK. I'm going to move on after one more minute. So, Vice Chair Phillips, you get the last work on this one. 2:46:29: Vice Chair Phillips: Oh, good. Is this a study -- like a comprehensive study -- that you're planning to do, and come up at some point in the next 12 months with a policy to present that says for large commercial loads and people who want to reserve capacity, here's a new rate structure? A new policy? What are you thinking? This is something that would come to us? And does it have to go to City Council? Or -- because it's new rates? 2:47:00: COO Crowley: That's correct -- is that --- to have those initial discussions with the UAC about the policy for reserving system capacity, a policy for cost recovery through the development of the project, and then potentially have that discussion about the existing rates and how those are appropriate. Or, potentially, discussions about how those would be adjusted for these large customers. 2:47:22: Vice Chair Phillips: And potentially products. I don't know if you're talking about interruptible load or any of this stuff. But is that on the table? 2;47:31: COO Crowley: It could include standby charges or special facility charges. 2:47:36: Vice Chair Phillips: OK. Thank you. I support it. 2:47:43: Chair Mauter: Great. And it doesn't require a new COSA. [pause] I'm kidding. You don't have to respond to that. [laughs] OK. Did I hear any proposed edit? So, I'd like to move on. 2:47:52: Commissioner Metz: I had one question -- this is not an edit -- which is, one of my priorities is electric utility BUSINESS strategy, of which I would say this is an important proper subset. 2:48:02: Chair Mauter: Great. 2:48:02: Commissioner Metz: So, do we take that up here, or as a separate item? 2;48:06: Chair Mauter: I think that's a separate item. 2:48:08: Commissioner Metz: OK. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 7 (no edits): Develop policies and fee and rate structures specifically for large electric load growth including but not limited to a financial charge for the reservation of electric system capacity, expansion of the large non‐residential electric rate (E‐7) or new rate structure for large commercial loads within Palo Alto. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(1) and 2.23.050.(b).(4)) Draft Objective Number 8 2:48:08: Chair Mauter: Let's proceed to Number 8 Could you reset the clock, please? Thank you. E-1 Rate Design. 2:48:22: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Just say residential -- 2:48:24: Commiaaioner Croft; I think this is meant to be "review and evaluate preliminary results of the E-1 electric utility time-of-use RATE ### The rate is called E-1 TOU. pilot. Is that -- [pause] results of the pilot -- it's not really correct -- on energy usage patterns, to inform further implementation of the full Palo Alto community. I mean, I'm -- financial impacts to customers and utility. I would expand that [pause] In the future, I think we should have Google Docs, ### Google Docs https://workspace.google.com/products/docs/ ### I believe this has been tried before. What happened? There ought to be a report. so we can all -- 2:49:14: Commissioner Croft: Where are we? OK. So, I don't see any edits going in. "Review and evaluate preliminary results of the E-1 electric utility time of use rate pilot." Comma. "Changes in." Strike "design on." So, it says, "changes in energy usage patterns, to inform further implementation to the full Palo Alto community." Comma. "financial impacts to customers and utility." And utility. Sorry. Customers AND utility. 2:50:04: Chair Mauter: Do you want to move the "inform further implementation" to the end of that? Because it now doesn't quite make sense. 2:50:18: Commissioner Croft: Sure. So, you would take out "to inform further implementation to the Palo'' Yeah. "Palo Alto community" and put that at the end. So, cut -- cut it and then paste it at the end. 2:50:33: **: Yes. 2:50:37: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplfied] Benjamin Franklin refused to take ** the Declaration of Independence, because he would not write something that would be subjected to a committee. 2:50:46: Chair Mauter: Well, I pity staff for having had to take the first shot at this. [laughs] We can thank staff for KINDLY taking the first shot at this. 2:50:56: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplifed] ** Jefferson will -- 2:40:58: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:50:59: Commissioner Croft: And then put an "and' after "patterns." So it will go, "energy usage patters and financial impacts to customers and utility." That's fine. 2:51:06: Chair Mauter: OK. Great. Wonderful. Let's reset the clock and move on to -- 2:51:15: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] PPAs. 2:51:15: Chair Mauter: -- PPAs. We have a lot of power utility items here, and I think it may be helpful -- just if staff wouldn't mind, kind of clustering those as a series on numbers, I think it would aid in our discussion later on. If there's an offline thing you guys could do while we're continuing to edit. 2:51:45: Commissioner Tucher: This includes the Integrated Resource Plan, which we haven't looked at. 2:51:47: Chair Mauter: No. Absolutely. And I'm not -- This has nothing to do with Number 9. I'm just going to note that we have many different power things. 2:51:54: Commissioner Tucher: Oh -- 2:51:54: Chair Mauter: -- and I'd like to get a sense of which numbers are more power related, which numbers are -- we have to do these things no matter what. So, if somebody could think about numerical ordering here, to facilitate prioritization, that would be helpful. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 8: Review and evaluate preliminary results of the E-1 Electric Utility time of use rate pilot, changes in design on energy usage patterns and to inform further implementation to the full Palo Alto community, financial impacts to customers and utility to inform further implementation to the full Palo Alto community. (PAMC 2.23.050,(b).(2) and PAMC 2.23.050.(b). (4)) Draft Objective Number 9 2:52:10: Chair Mauter: OK. So, we have Number 9, which is procuring these new power purchase agreements. Commissioner Metz: Initially, -- 2:52:18: Chair Mauter: We don't procure. So, I'd just like to make that -- 2:52:25: Director Kurotori: ** review and recommend approval -- 2:52:27: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:52;27: Director Kurotori: -- of new power purchase agreements. 2;52:28: Chair Mauter: Great. That sounds great. 2:52:30: Director Kurotori: OK. 2:52:31: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] And what about a bigger IRP? 2:52:36: Chair Mauter: Um -- 2:52:38: Commissionr Tucher: Rachel, you've often asked about the status of IRP. Is that something that -- be called out here? 2:52:45: Commissioner Croft: Just seeing the portfolio -- the power portfolio -- I know you guys do an IRP periodically. I'm not sure. When are you due to do one next? 2:52:55: [staff huddle] 2:53:13: Director Kurotori: We'll look that one up and you can -- 'cause that might be a separate item. 2:53:18: Commissioner Croft: I'm guessing it was 2023. ### 2023 Integrated Resource Plan. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/power-content-labels/2023-cpau-irp-report-final.pdf Just, I'm -- I know we looked at it once, and that's why I thought we looked at it every year. But then I realized we don't do it every year. I -- my -- if we're due to do one, we should put it on here. But if not, it would just be to, you know, review the power portfolio into the future. Because it always tails off. And see what we're going to do to fill in our requirements in the future, including the power purchase agreements. 2:53:45: Director Kurotori: Yeah. Maybe we -- what we add in there is also aligned with electric portfolio strategy and integrated resources plan. So, why don't we just specifically put it in there? So we make sure we have that there. 2:53:39: Chair Mauter: OK. That sounds great. 2:24:02: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] The last on was '23. 2:54:01: Commissioner Metz: This one -- I wanted to suggest adding in, "demand forecast." 2:54:11: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Could be 5 -- could be 70 percent. Who knows? 2:54:17: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:54:17: Commissioner Croft: So can we just go to drafting? Alan, you made a suggestion. 2:54:21: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, I was going to add -- sorry, can I have ** -- long-term performance strategy -- and --and -- integration -- consistency with the integrated resource plan. [pause] 2:54:43: Chair Mauter: Isn't that our long-term electric portfolio strategy? Let me -- 2:54:53: Commissioner Metz: Isn't the portfolio strategy a subset of the integrated resource plan? 2:54:57 Director Kurotori: It -- I was trying to be specific on the integrated resource plan. I mean, at -- some folks could -- Maybe we change long-term electric portfolio strategy, just, you know, with compliance to RPS. I'm looking left and right here. 2:55:16: Chair Mauter: OK, guys. Uh. It's fine. Just take out the "and integration and consistency with," and just say, "and aligned with the City's electric portfolio strategy and the integrated resources plan.." So, get rid of the "with." I just can't have "integrated" in there twice. OK. That's fine. Moving on. 34 seconds. Um. Sorry. I'm -- 2:55:48: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] S/CAP? ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 9: Procure Review and recommend approval of New Power Purchase Agreements or other supplies to ensure electric supply contracts are cost-effective and aligned with the City's long-term electric portfolio strategy. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b). (2)) Draft Objective Number 10 2:55:51: Chair Mauter: [Draft Objective Number] 10. S/CAP. 2:55:53: Commissioner Tucher: Well, this is almost verbatim to what we have in last year's plan. And I would be hard-pressed to tell you what UAC did to -- um -- 2:56:02: Chair Mauter: We have a meeting Friday.. ### CASC / UAC Joint Meeting https://www.paloalto.gov/Events-Directory/City-Clerk/2026/61226-CASCUAC-Joint-Meeting ### 06-12-26 video (3:04:52) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656Hka46Di4 ### This meeting was not noticed on UAC's meetings web page. https://www.paloalto.gov/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions/Utilities-Advisory-Commission ### The City's website doesn't make it especially easy to click to the home page for CASC. How is the public supposed to find it? 2:56:02: Commissioner Tucher: -- advise on S/CAP. Hmm? 2:56:04: Chair Mauter: We have a meeting Friday. 2:56:06: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. So, that's good. What's our advice going to be? 2:56:13: Director Kurotori: So, that agenda is being -- 2:56:16: Chair Mauter: Yeah. I was going to say, it's not on the agenda for tonight. So we will not discuss it. 2:56:21: Commissioner Tucher: Does this even need to be a priority for us? Number -- Why not delete the whole thing? 2:56:28: Commissioner Croft: I feel like S/CAP for us -- Like, we care about it. Right? It's important for the utility. But I'm not sure the funding and financing strategies are the thing that we need to highlight here. It almost feels like review S/CAP goals in progress and strategies for aligning the utility with those goals.. And it's -- Because -- 2:56:54: Commissioner Metz: I think that's the important thing -- The alignment of CPAU with S/CAP. -- 2:56:58: Commissioner Croft: Right. 2:56:58: Commissioner Metz: -- because it's kind of nutty to be having a plan for sustainability without the participation of the group -- ONLY group that can make it happen. 2:57:07: Commissioner Croft: And are we seeing the funding and financing because we're thinking of taking money from -- we're thinking taking money from our cap -- cap and trade? 2:57:19: Director Kurotori: Correct. 2:57:19: Commissioner Croft: Or cap and invest. 2:57:20: Director Kurotori: So, the conversations and the commitment by the City -- a lot of the funds being used -- available funds -- restricted reserves -- can be coming from the cap and invest fund, the public benefits charge, the low carbon fuel standard credits. So, those are -- those are restricted utility revenues that benefit both the utility, the customers, and the climate and sustainability goals. 2:57:45: Commissioner Croft: OK 2:57:45: Director Kurotori: So, there's levers you can pull, in terms of where those fundings -- funds can be used. And that impacts affordability, and then the priorities. 2:57:53: Commissioner Croft: OK. I see why that's important. And I'm actually OK with the language. I would like us to align all of our discussions with -- with S/CAP.. But I see that this is a very specific one. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 10 (no edits): Advise on funding and financing strategies for S/CAP for City Council consideration (see S/CAP 2026‐2027 Work Plan Item CA13) and advise on revision to current Carbon Neutral and Cap and Invest (C&I) funding City Council spending resolutions to clarify uses balancing S/CAP strategies, long term affordability, and decarbonization incentives. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(5) Draft Objective Number 11 @ 2:58:06: Chair Mauter: OK. Number 11. Report on and seek advisory positions. I'm not going to be doing any reporting. I don't know if -- was this -- 2:58:31: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] It was on last year. It's every year. 2:58:33: Vice Chair Phillips: I think the point for us is to provide advice on positions on legis- -- So, I'd say, take our the "report on and seek" advisory. Just say "provide advice on, you know, UAC positions on legislative." Means, the way I -- you know, the way I see it would work is, the reporting is done by staff. We come back and say, yeah, we think definitely we should be -- you know, we should be lobbying for that, or, no, we shouldn't be. 2:59:04 Chair Mauter: Great. So, provide UAC's advisory positions. 2:59:14: Commissioner Tucher: Could we just say, "advise Council"? Or "advise on"? 2:59:24: Chair Mauter: But we're not going to advise on those proposals? I mean, we -- 2:59:32: **: [unamplfied] ** 2:59:33: Chair Mauter: Right? 2:59:34: ACM Nose: So, if you'd like the Muni Code language, it's, "Formulate and review legislative proposals" for recommendation to City Council, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. ### PAMC 2.23.050(b)(3). ### It seems a little lame to just adopt the PAMC (general purpose) language as a FY 2027 objective. (Not that ACM Nose was recommending that.) ### Look. As things are now, staff is in charge of finding and hiring legislative experts. Staff is in charge of telling the legislative experts what staff thinks the City should want. The experts and staff write up something that says what they think the City should do to foster those objectives. At this point, UAC can weigh in. Is that really what the City should want? Is that really the best way to get it? ### If UAC really wanted to be proactive, it should be able to suggest objectives that the experts should advise on. 2:59:43: Chair Mauter: Formulate -- and review. 2:59:46: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] You mean, formulate -- 2:59:46: Chair Mauter: [laughs] I don't want to formulate anything. 2:59:48: ACM Nose: I agree. So, I would say "review and recommend." 2:59:52: Chair Mauter: "Review and recommend advisory positions" Let's do that. OK. Great. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 11: Reporrt on and seek Review and recommend advisory positions on legislative proposals at the local, state and federal level impacting any of the five utilities through new laws, regulations, or ordinances. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(3)) Draft Objective Number 12 2:59:57: Chair Mauter: Number 12. Annual report on customer survey results, communication methods, and new initiatives. For example, Commissioner Croft's request around leak notifications. Including review of effectiveness of those engagements. 3:00:25: Vice Chair Phillips: I mean, to me, it's -- what we do is review and approve, just in the sprit of having -- 3:00:32: Chair Mauter: That's right. We need a verb here. 3:00:34: Vice Chair Phillips: -- having -- um -- verbs. 3:00:35: 3:00:55: Chair Mauter: OK. Any concerns there? 3:00:59: Commissioner Croft: I mean, I don't know how others feel about this. I don't want to belabor it terribly long. I do feel like many, many times, we wonder if the community knows what we're doing. And having some kind of more formulaic way of getting in touch with them. ### Formulaic? That's what I'd like to see. But I don't want -- I don't think it's the most important thing on this list. So -- 3:01:24: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** on the couch. 3:01:25: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. That would be actually probably helpful. Or even commenting on Nextdoor, which is not our policy. ### As far as I know, the policy is that members of legislative bodies (such as UAC) shouldn't comment online, because if other members saw it, it could contribute to a Brown Act serial meeting violation. Is there a policy that UAC, as a body, shouldn't comment online? 3:01:42: Chair Mauter: Do we -- OK. Do we have anything? 3:01:41: ACM Nose: Nothing wrong with striking things. 3:01:42: Chair Mauter: Well, yes, but we're not striking right now. 3:01:44: ACM Nose: Oh. Sorry. 301:45: Chair Mauter: Thank you. But no, thank you. 3:01:46: [laughter] 3:01:48: Commissioner Croft: I still want to hear about them. I'm just not recommending a change to this particular item. But I still think communication is extremely important. I don't want to strike it. At this point. ### Every month I get a snail mail telling me how many gallons of water per day my residence used, and comparing that with what the average residence used. (It doesn't mention UAC.) 3:01:58: Chair Mauter: OK. Provide -- advise -- advise -- There's a typo there. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 12: Review Annual report on customer survey results, communication methods, and new initiatives for the year (e.g. implementation of leak notifications), including review of effectiveness of engagements to inform continued iterative changes. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(5).(c)) Draft Objective Number 13 @ 3:02:10: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] 13. 3:02:10: Chair Mauter: 13. Advice to the BAWSCA board director, Vice Mayor Stone, clearly communicating UAC's recommendation for Palo Alto's perspectives and priorities regarding SFPUC water policies. Um, could we please replace that "s" with a "c"? 3:02:43: [whispering] 3:02:46: Chair Mauter: Right. 3:02:49: Director Kurotori: Sorry. Just to back Item 12, I don't know if you're actually approving the customer survey results. 3:02:55: Chair Mauter: We can just review. 3:02:58: Director Kurotori: Just review. 3:02:58: ACM Nose: So, get rid of -- you can strike proof. Thanks. 3:03:08 Chair Mauter: I prefer to unclearly communicate. [laughs] 3:03:13: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Well, this does a good job. 3:03:15: Chair Mauter: [laughs] 3:03:16: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] You should be very happy. 3:03:21: Chair Mauter: ** appreciate my jokes. 3:03:24: Commissioner Croft: Is this number 13? I mean, I didn't put water. I know there are -- have been several people that are extremely vocal about needing to get to SFPUC with our comments. Is this the only way we're going to do it -- is through Vice Mayor Stone? Or do you guys want to collaborate with him on strategies to -- I don't know if this is -- 3:03;50: Chair Mauter: I think this is a very important question. And I would like to defer to our Council member representative to the UAC to advise us on how to advise relative to action 13. ### Draft objective 13. 3:04:08: Liaison Lauing: Yeah. I do think that this is a cooperative effort that has to be driven by staff and Council. ### Is this Liaison Launing's personal opinion, or is he reporting what Council's position is? The Vice Mayor happens to be, you know, the sort of -- the point person on this., but -- and you've gone over this before, in terms of how difficult this is. And I think the action has to be probably driven by staff. Is my off-the-cuff. I mean, you're on record. So, you know, being there to, you know, take action to create some changes in the current policies, or something like that, where you're working with staff to make that happen. But I think it has to be -- It has to be driven by Council and Council representatives. So, it's -- definitely has to be done through that person. But -- That is about all I can say. 3:05:04: Chair Mauter: Maybe, more concretely, I will just say that there was some discussion of, like, OK, what do we actually -- I'm not sure that we are ABLE to provide strong recommendations in the current environment, and that most of what I've heard has been a request for information, rather than a request for changes. Because, frankly, we've had a bunch of wet years. They're not putting any money in this year or next year. 3:05:41: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Putting money in -- 3:05:41: Chair Mauter: Maybe they are. But we'll not go any further down that rabbit hole. But, like, if there's going to be a capital improvement -- like, that's going to go back to BAWSCA for approval before any big capital improvement happens. So, we're -- with all due respect, making a lot of noise around long-term hypothetical planning, but there isn't an action that we are objecting to, other than that hypothetical planning, which is only materialized and implemented through capital improvements. So, if there's information that we want staff to pursue, we need to be much more clear about it here than this action item ### Draft objective -- not action item. Or, we need to deprioritize this, because we don't believe that we can get that information, or that we don't believe that it's important this year. 3:06:45: Director Kurotori: So, to - on a staff perspective, when we look at the deliverables going maybe that SFPUC is looking at through BAWSCA, maybe that information would be helpful, to help you look at your priorities. I think one of the key ones that we're seeing is actually in the 2028 timeframe, when they're looking at their -- the larger alternative water supplies. And they'll be making decisions on bringing other cities, who are not permanent customers. And what that process looks like. So -- 3:06:20: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 3:06:20: Director Kurotori: So, I would -- Others may not agree, but those are probably the higher priorities in the 2028 timeframe. 3:07:28: Chair Mauter: I think that that's exactly right. So, what do we need to be doing, as a utility, to get ready for 2028? 3:07:27: Director Kurotori: So, what I think -- what I'm hearing is to bring back some of the items that will go before BAWSCA, so that UAC CAN make some of these recommendations on our positions -- or potential positions. And maybe that -- ring up a timeline of what -- of those upcoming items are. And I'll look to -- 3:07:57: Chair Mauter: Lisa, who's here -- 3:07:57: Director Kurotori: -- to Lisa, if I am incorrect on that assumption. 3:08:01: **: -- staff representative. 3:08:02: [staff huddle] 3:08:14: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, the alternative water supplies are the 2028 timeframe. But what I think -- 3:08:20: Chair Mauter: 2028. 3:08:20: Director Kurotori: 2028. So -- 3:08:21: Chair Mauter: OK. 3:08:21: Director Kurotori: -- what I think -- what staff can do is, we can bring back kind of what those actionable items on the next phases that SFPUC is required to provide to BAWSCA. And we get that in front of UAC, so you can see what ones you think you want to have discussions in and around. ### Would those "discussions" be agendized as ACTION items? 3:08:35: Chair Mauter: OK. But, I mean -- somewhat -- to like what end? Right? Like, I appreciate that, and I think it's good for education It's important for anticipating future rates. But I want to be a little bit more specific about the information that we're seeking, so that we can do something with that information. 3:08:57: Director Kurotori: So, the structure of BAWSCA -- of the 26 agencies -- as Council Member ### Liaison Lauing mentioned, it's Vice Mayor Greer, ### a.k.a. Vice Mayor Stone who's our representative. That is the mechanism where all the 26 agencies have those conversations with SFPUC. Staff attends those conversations. I was -- 3:09:17: Chair Mauter: Yup. 3:09:17: Director Kurotori: -- at the last BAWSCA meeting, to hear the -- you know, the report out, and comments from the general public So, we are actively engaged.-- as the Council mentioned -- as staff. The -- BAWSCA does not -- or, SFPUC does not report, or have any obligation. 3:09:39: Chair Mauter: I know. Yeah. 3:09:40: Director Kurotori: Like, to your point to UAC. That said, UAC is a body of -- that provides -- 3:09:46: Chair Mauter: It's a member of that body. ### I don't think that was exactly what Director Kurotori was trying to say. 3:09:47: Director Kurotori: And then, we're trying to be more clear in saying that, you know, Vice Mayor Stone is our BAWSCA Board of Directors. ### That is, Vice Mayor Stone is Palo Alto's representative on BAWSCA's Board of Directors. https://bawsca.org/about/board/bios So -- 3:09:53: Chair Mauter: OK. So -- 3:09:55: Director Kurotori: But hearing all the interest here, we're just trying to bring back like what -- what are the upcoming items we might -- 3:10:00: Chair Mauter I know. And I'm trying to level set expectations on this committee about what we can do and what we can't do, if we want to have 12 other things -- or fewer -- but like realistically, we cannot spend five or six meetings talking about water every year. Right? We just can't. So -- Because it's at the expense of other things. So, I want to be very specific about what we want, and what we NEED. Like, there are big decisions coming in '28. 3:10:33: Commissioner Metz: Right. 3:10:33: Chair Mauter: BIG decisions, guys. 3:10:35: Commissioner Metz: Can I make a suggestion? 3:10:36: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 3;10:37: Commissioner Metz: I don't think -- It's complicated. I don't think we'll resolve it here tonight. ### Right. It's not on the agenda. There's no staff report. The public wasn't invited. I think this would be one area to have -- as our Liaison suggested -- an ad hoc committee, of -- there's a few people who are really interested in this topic -- and let them work on the question you just raised. ### I don't share Commissioner Metz's enthusiasm for ad hoc committees. They deprive the public of the right to know what's going on. They don't leave a paper (and video) trail 3:10:55: Chair Mauter: Well, I -- I would say -- I do not want to decide on an ad hoc committee tonight for any of these things. I think that there are several things that might warrant one. But I don't want to commit to those right now. What I would say is that -- and where I was going with this is that there are big decisions coming in '28. And there's a degree of education that needs to happen in advance of us approving those decisions. ### Or, more accurately, deciding whether or not to recommend that Council approve those decisions. Right? So, what are the educational pieces that are important for us to get, in advance of '28? And to encourage good strong staff and community engagement with those educational pieces? And, I would say, the CONCEPT of recycled water is a really important one to get moving on. And I think that the -- the like need for, and -- But people need to understand why we need new supply, and why we want to pay for a different kind of supply, that's resilient in a new way. Right? How it fits into that portfolio. And have some early indicator of what that's going to mean for rates. 3:12:25: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] When you say recycled -- [amplified] When you say recycled water, are you talking -- um -- 3:12:30: Chair Mauter: I'll just say generally -- 3:12:33: Commissioner Tucher: -- purple -- are you talking purple pipe =- 3:12:22: Chair Mauter: -- like, no, no. Alternative water supplies. 3:12:34: Commissioner Tucher: Oh. Well -- I mean, we've -- we went down that road. We reached our conclusions. 3:12:41: Chair Mauter: We reached our conclusions locally. SFPUC can do whatever they want on alternative water supply development. 3:12:48: Commissioner Tucher: Right. And what I'm hearing from you is that the UAC not prioritize -- in other words, take a fairly passive hands-off approach to the entire SFPUC politics. And , you know, -- 3:13:04: Chair Mauter: How about -- How about if we say this: I'm concerned about us preparing ourselves for good decision-making in '28. And I'm cons- -- which is when a decision on any of this would act- -- that would affect rates would actually happen. Because right now, frankly, nothing's getting built that would affect rates. Of any substance. 3:13:25: Commissioner Tucher: What sort of decision even stands before us '28? I mean, -- 3:13:29: Chair Mauter: I will -- I will not -- 3:13:30: Commissioner Tucher: I don't even understand what category you're talking -- of decision you're talking about. 3:13:35: Director Kurotori: So, what I would suggest, again, is let staff come back, and talk, and provide you, the UAC, of some of the upcoming deliverables and actions and activities that SFPUC has to make in their decision-making process. 3:13:49: Chair Mauter: OK. I think that that is a reasonable action item -- 3:13:52: Director Kurotori: If that's the action item to bring back -- and this -- That's an action item we can bring back to that, and then that will help -- to Commissioner Tucher's -- like, what is coming up. If that's the action one, we can -- 3:14:03: Chair Mauter: I guess my point is, like, this -- like, I'm sorry, but Number 13 doesn't say anything. So, if we could be more specific about -- you know, we will review the upcoming action items on the BAWSCA agenda. And materials that prepare us for -- you know, I don't know -- and review educational materials -- or, I don't want to say educational, just materials that are material to forthcoming decisions. So, it's not just what is coming up this year. But it's what do we need, as a community, to know, as we prepare to engage with much bigger decisions that are likely to come in the future. 3:15:04: Chair Mauter: I don't want the first part of it. It doesn't say anything. 3:15:08: Commissioner Tucher: Well, two -- two of the top five lists -- me and Utsav -- DO say something specific about water. Not mealy-mouthed -- not, you know, confusing. It's very direct, what we think one ought to do with water. Or, on this workplan item. Bob Phillips also comments on water. We ought to clearly concern -- uh -- communicate City concerns. But, you know, it -- 3:15:42: Chair Mauter: Yes, but -- 3:15:42: Commissioner Tucher: -- it sounds like you don't -- you don't want to make that a priority item -- that one do ANYTHING about SFPUC -- 3:15:47: Chair Mauter: It's not about me. 3:15:47: Commissioner Tucher: -- not in 2028 but right now is, we're looking at 10 percent rate increases this year, and next year, and as far as the eye can see. And I know SFPUC -- 3:15:56: Chair Mauter: That's a combination of our distribution system -- 3:15:59: Commissioner Tucher: That's right. 3:15:59: Chair Mauter: -- and our -- 3:16:00: Commissioner Tucher: That's right. But as a -- You started by mention- -- you're referring to alt water investments, which SFPUC will make or they won't. But it's also straight up standard capex maintenance and deferred maintenance, where their CIP program is ballooning, and it just rolls downhill on us. And so, we either are silent and take it, or we come up with some kind of policy approach. Of course, starting through our Council representative on BAWSCA. But there are a number of other, you know, ways that we might find leverage. We might also work with other BAWSCA member- -- with other neighbor cities and districts. You know, I don't want to get into it here, but -- It's not just alt water. It's standard capex. It affects us now, not just in 2028. Um. Enough said. 3:16:58: Chair Mauter: Did you want to revise this in any way? 3:17:01: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Yeah. You can just copy -- paste some of the things that are already in place. 3:17:04: Chair Mauter: I -- OK. But in service to wrapping up this exercise, -- 3:17:13: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Uh -- 3:17:13: Chair Mauter: -- I would like to see that final thing on there. I suggested striking the earlier stuff because -- 3:17:20: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** in effect provide advice to Council. Provide advice to Council on a policy stance, -- 3:17:27: Chair Mauter: OK. 3:17:27: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] -- strategy, tactics, approach -- whatever -- towards -- or vis a vis -- SFPUC and BAWSCA. There's something in all these words. So -- 3:17:36: Chair Mauter: And there, we can provide advice to -- Sure. To Council. 3:17:39: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] -- so that we can -- you know, with an aim towards, you know, better drought planning statistics, more collaborative -- collaboration -- all the things we've talked about many times. It doesn't help to rattle them off here, but -- so that we don't have 10 percent rate increases for the rest of time. 3:17:56: Chair Mauter: But we have -- We have CIP. And we have rates above -- But I think that there's some valuable anticipation of what IS coming down the pike, so that we can -- and education around that -- so that we can anticipate whether there's going to be large rate increases. 3:18:16: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Can I ask -- 3:18:16: Vice Chair Phillips: I like seeing both of them, but I would also just say, just provide advice to Council on a policy stance toward BAWSCA and SFPUC, without getting into the details of drought planning and all this other stuff. 3:18:33: Commissioner Tucher: That's fine. I like that brevity. But, Meagan, could I ask, one last time, what are these things coming down the pike that are different from what we're facing RIGHT NOW? I don't see what happens in two years. 3:18:45: Director Kurotori: So, there are decisions -- Again, I don't want to belabor this, but I think coming back with the specific items that are in San Francisco's agreement with the cities, and how they're going to be providing -- or not providing -- waters to other cities in 2028. And they're -- and they're -- So, again, I would just like to bring those back -- those action items and activities -- for that -- for you to consider. And, without going through the items here. Given that you were still going through your priorities. 3:19:22: Chair Mauter: Yes. And it's not agendized. So, given that, is -- everyone feels generally comfortable with Number 13? 3:19:33: Chair Mauter: OK. Are there any other items that were not on -- 3:19:39 Commissioner Tucher: No. I just -- Like Bob said, the -- 13 should just say provide advice. Am I looking at the right thing? Yeah. 13. Provide advice to Council on policies -- 3:19:48: Chair Mauter: How do you -- How do you do that? What -- Like, what is it? 3:19:52: Commissioner Tucher: That's a whole other question -- how we provide advice to Council. But what do you mean? We -- How do we -- 3:19:58: Chair Mauter: Everything else is much more specific. Right? At least, this tells us what is the input that we are providing advice about. We are not all subject matter experts on this topic. For this community. Staff is. BAWSCA is. SFPUC is. We need to be very careful about where our technical expertise stops and starts. ### Remember when physicist Richard Feynman was appointed to a commission looking into the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster? https://feynman.com/science/the-challenger-disaster/ He wasn't a rocket expert per se, but he knew how to ask the right questions to get to the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-8PWkbdJR0 (20:50) 3:20:25: Commissioner Tucher: It stops at zero. Um -- 3:20:28: Chair Mauter: I think we can review their materials for policy priorities -- 3:20:35: Commissioner Tucher: OK. 3:20:35: Chair Mauter: -- or something. But this is not our job, to design and operate their system. 3:20:41: Commissioner Tucher: No. It's our job to advise Council on important utility issues -- 3:20:45: Chair Mauter: Exactly. 3:20:45: Commissioner Tucher: -- and the water rate increases that we are getting -- 3:20:48: Chair Mauter: Absolutely. 3:20:48: Commissioner Tucher: -- wholesale are one of those. So, if these words capture that, then I'm fine with these words. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 13: Provide advise to the BAWSCA Board Director (Vice Mayor Stone) clearly communicating UAC's recommendation for Palo Alto’s perspectives and priorities regarding San Francisco Public Utilities Commission water policies. (PAMC 2.23.050.(b).(1).(B)) Review materials that inform upcoming action items on the BAWSCA agenda regarding SFPUC water prices and provide advice to Council on a policy stance toward BAWSCA and SFPUC. ### It's goofy that the PAMC thing doesn't come at the end. ### The acid test, for this draft objective -- and, indeed for all draft objectives -- will be: when staff agendizes an item for UAC, will staff comply with the intent of the draft objective -- not only the draft objective's (wordsmithed) words, but the discussion behind it? Other Draft Objectives 3:20:53: Chair Mauter: OK. Are there any items that we would like to ADD? 3:20:58: Commissioner Croft: We need to add a Grid Mod one. I have mocked one up. 3:21:02: Chair Mauter: OK 3:21:02: Commissioner Croft: Does anybody else have one they want to -- 3:21:05: Commissioner Metz: I have two I would like to add. 3:21:07: Commissioner Croft: OK. On Grid Mod? 3:21:08: Commissioner Metz: Not on Grid Mod. 3:21:09: Commissioner Croft: OK. So -- 3:21:10: Commissioner Metz: They're related. Electric utility business strategy. ** 3:21:13: Commissioner Croft: OK. Let me just read the Grid Mod one. And then you can do your two. 3:21:17: Commissioner Metz: OK. 3:21:18: Commissioner Croft: OK. I'll just speak it, and then we can edit. So, Grid Mod <colon> Review strategy for citywide grid upgrades <comma> design standards and technologies <comma> timing of investment and work <comma> and customer impacts. ** 3:21:59: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] There's got to be a comma here. 3:22:01: Chair Mauter: OK. 3:22:02: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] There's an Oxford comma for you. 3:22:05: Chair Mauter: Hmm. Appreciate it. Any other additions? 3:22:05: Commissioner Metz: You mean separate items, or to this? 3:22:15: Chair Mauter: To this. Someone's having a party outside. 3:22:28: Commissioner Metz: Oh, I would say, the demand impacts is important. 3:22:33: Commissioner Tucher: Is that -- 3:22:35: Commissioner Metz: The impact of demand on the -- all this other stuff. Yes. 3:22:43: Chair Mauter: OK. Maybe, review citywide load projections and strategy for these upgrades. Right? Because the load projections drive Grid Mod. 3:22:55: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] I don't know. [laughs] I'm not sure that's true. 3:22:58: Chair Mauter: I don't know how -- We've changed our -- We absolutely -- Come on -- 3:23:04: Commissioner Tucher: I mean, one of the things I said in my memo is that -- we hear this from Council a lot -- the reminder that much of the $450 million ### The 01-07-26 staff report says the current estimate is $443 million (up from the original estimate of $300 million). Grid Mod project has to be done anyway. I've never seen an analysis that gets anywhere close to delineating what has to be done anyway, with what is presumably optional, better, premium -- really modernized. So, it'd be a helpful exercise, in my opinion, to understand what has to be done anyway. ### Here's my understanding. Every piece of equipment in the City's electrical system has an age (how many years it's been in service) and a useful life estimate. The City has a policy about when to replace each piece of equipment. If the City replaces a wire with a bigger wire, capable of carrying more current, that means it doesn't have to replace the wire with a wire of the same size when it reaches the end of its useful life. If the City replaces a transformer with a larger transformer, capable of providing more current, that means it doesn't have to replace the transformer with an identical transformer when it reaches the end of its useful life. Etc. ### The 01-07-26 staff report (page 2) lists estimated costs for six categories of Grid Mod equipment. It does NOT list the costs saved by not having to update those categories of equipment in the non-Grid-Mod scenario. 3:23:36: Commissioner Croft: I thought that was a pretty good review that we had earlier. We had one presentation -- really reviewed -- like, what's antiquated, what do we need to change, what are the still questions that are still outstanding 3:23:50: Commissioner Tucher: And does it describe what comes above and -- oh, I know we went to when and where. But am I the only who doesn't have a good understanding of what is baseline, or we have to do anyway, and what premium -- what comes above that. 3:24:12: Commissioner Croft: I thought it was pretty good. And I actually would love to continue to have more discussions, to understand how the vision changed. But in the original presentation, I thought it was pretty well explained what we need to do. 3:24:30: Commissioner Tucher: I'll go back and look for that. And also be curious what the dollar amount is that we -- you know, what falls in which bucket. How much of the $375 [million] to $450 [million] is baseline? 3:24:44: Chair Mauter: OK. This is not an agendized item. ### So it doesn't have a staff report that provide some of this information. So, I want to keep it to what we are actually planning to work on, while recognizing that we recently had a presentation on this. Do you have any specific needs of -- Does the UA- -- Or, does the electric utility have any specific needs of us, vis a vis reviewing load projections and strategy for the language on this? 3:25:15: COO Crowley: So, I think there's a continued need to provide staff advice on the impact and pace of the CIP -- the spending, and how that affects rates. Right? So, I think that's an overall project. And the staff will design that to minimize the impact of rates. But as we minimize that impact to rate[s], we're going to have to look at prioritizing projects. And so, we will come back with staff -- staff will come back and actually provide that. So, part of this -- creating this goal would actually kind of reinforce that need to continue to come back to the UAC and talk though what this plan for Grid Mod is, and how it's evolving, and how the costs are continuing to project, and what they are -- forecast, as far as long-term. Right? 3:25:57: Chair Mauter: OK. And do you see this as sufficiently differentiated? Or do you have a clear understanding of how that presentation would be different than the presentations related to the capital improvement plan for the electric power utility? 3:26:12: COO Crowley: To me, I see this proposed addition as very, very similar to what would be brought back under the CIP review. 3:26:22: Chair Mauter: OK. Hearing that, as a UAC, is there value in placing this as a sub-bullet in our CIP? ### So, now, we're flirting with sub-bullets? 3:26:38: Commissioner Croft: I -- I actually -- 3:26:40: Chair Mauter: Or do you want it separate? 3:26:41: Commissioner Croft: Can I -- One comment I have is that -- two important words, to me, in here are "design standards." So, kind of to Commissioner Tucher's point. What are we designing? What are going to be our standards? So, we are kind of talking about upgrading everything from 4 [kV] to 12 [kV]. Anything that's 4 kilovolts is underpowered. So, we need to get those up to -- I don't remember -- we are taking them to 12 [kV]. And then, you know, like, the transformers. How many houses will they serve? You know, we still have some critical questions we need to answer. And I feel like those are design standards. You know, we're -- we need to decide, like, what are we building to? And then, where do we not have that? I thought your presentation was great, in terms of describing where we need upgrades anyway. We have equipment that's 70 years old ### The individual pieces of equipment in the City's electric system are of various ages, some as old as 70 years. (See UAC's 01-07-26 meeting, Item 2 presentation.) It's at the end of its useful life. We need to replace those. You know. Or we are bringing up the voltage to be uniform across the City. So, you presented to us things that needed to be done But we still had some open comments. And I do think that design standards for Grid Mod is a specific thing I would like to understand. And it's not just -- I mean, you could describe it in the CIP process. But it's kind of a separate -- like, it's driving the CIPs. And if we just see those CIP projects without understanding why they are, it's hard to advise on them. 3:28:18: COO Crowley: Yeah. And I would agree with that -- that the load profile design standards drive and justify which CIPs are recommended for funding. And so, to me, that's integrated into that presentation of the CIP. Why is this project moving forward? Well, it's because of this low projection, or because of this design standard that we're trying to meet. So, we could include those in that discussion, to do the deeper dive on the CIPs. Why this project and not another one. Or what's driving the need for this project. We could keep that as a standalone item if that's the intent. 3:28:52: Director Kurotori: And part of the standalone items, and having those, is so you can highlight what you're going to be looking at. Right? And so that the lay person can see that. Though I would -- I love using the word "Grid Mod" It's still a jargon for us. We probably should say "electric grid modernization," and put in parentheses that that's Grid Mod. But -- ### One of the things it should say is "Grid Mod" -- so Google can find it. 3:29:12: Commissioner Croft: I agree with that. I was going to suggest that change. Grid modernization. 3:29:16: Commissioner Metz: Oh, isn't that what -- I think it should stand alone. It's -- It's so -- It's bigger than everything else and electricity put together. It's bigger than all the gas capex put together. So, it's just big enough to stand by itself. 3:29:32: Commissioner Tucher: Another bullet under electric and Grid Mod is -- a lot of our community speakers, who've written letters and so forth for years and talked about the issue of things like panel sizing and whether we're overbuilding in certain neighborhoods just because the panels get bigger. And never mind what actual peak load at that particular residence. Again, I keep reminding myself that I'm talking residential, when that's the minority. It's the small part of our usage. Commercial is another big topic. But just in residential, now that we have AMI, I'm very keen -- I think several of us are -- is to see -- are there learnings from AMI that show us whether this panel upsizing problem, I'll call it, you know, whether it's there. In other words, are we finding interesting -- or, you know, correlations and trends between panel upsizing and actual peak load? And then, one has to wonder, did we plan Grid Mod build-out to serve all these 600 Amp panels that actually aren't using the load that you might think they do? I mean, those are things I'm sure you know, but I think we on UAC don't track that yet. 3:30:50: Chair Mauter: OK. Um. I think rather than -- I -- Like, we need to stay focused. And I need to get out of here. So, what I would like to do now is, I understand that there may be a couple of additional items that Commissioner Metz would like to add. Is that correct? 3:31:09: Commissioner Metz: Correct. 3:31:09: Chair Mauter: OK. Could we do that quickly, and wrap this in the next 5-10 minutes, so that we can vote? 3:31:19: Commissioner Metz: OK. 3:31:20: Chair Mauter: And prioritize? 3:31:21: Commissioner Metz: The first one, which is written down, is electric utility business strategy. So, I would just copy what was submitted, which was, develop a flexible scenario-based business strategy that incorporates impacts on CPAU of increased and highly uncertain demand from datacenters and other loads <comma> both within CPAU territory and throughout Cal ISO [CAISO]. 3:31:48: I think that's -- the second part is something very important that has not been discussed much. Because even if we were to do NOTHING with datacenters, the impact of AI is going to cascade throughout the grid. And it's going to affect us, whether WE have any local loads or not. Energy demand is just skyrocketing in electricity, in ways that hasn't happened in decades, probably since the early history of electrification. So, it's a tremendous transformation that we need to be able to deal with. 3:32:24: OK? So I had some more details in there, but I think this would be fine for just a label. 3:32:35: Chair Mauter: What kind of questions does staff have, in terms of the business strategy pertaining to our electric utility? 3:32:48: Director Kurotori: So, I think there is some -- if you look at our IRP [Integrated Resource Plan] looking some changes. We look at a high, low, and medium forecast. And we are communicating with -- meeting with our customers, or setting up these policies and procedures. Try to keep them very narrow. I think this one, while interesting, I don't think it's like a priority for us right now as a utility, to be more straightforward on that. And then, throughout the CAISO. The CAISO is -- it's a -- it's a balancing authority throughout the state of Northern California. ### "The ISO manages the flow of electricity across high-voltage, long-distance power lines that make up 80 percent of California's and a small part of Nevada's grid." https://www.caiso.com/ For us to take on that type of analysis is really kind of far-reaching, in terms of what that would look like. So, as a staff trying to prioritize on making sure that when we bring in load, we are protecting our customers, we're making updates to our IRP, we're doing these highly structured and close ones -- really are our key areas. I think on a business strategy plan, you know, I'm struggling with that a little bit, in terms of how we would put that together in the timeline, or -- 3:34:01: Commissioner Metz: I think we -- We don't need to be mapping out what's going on in -- throughout CAISO in detail. But we do need to have a sense of what's going to happen to the demand for energy and capital equipment and so on, as a result of decisions made, you know, throughout the world. And especially in Cal ISO. I think they're going to affect availability of energy for us. They're going to affect what we talked about before -- our PPAs that we try to establish. Particularly, it's going to affect gas, as we're seeing through the country already. So, you know -- I'm not saying this is easy. But, I mean, the utility teed up a demand forecast with a window of 100 percent, 10 years out. And so, we're talking about spending real money on capital, and making big decisions about PPAs and so on. So, I'm suggesting a planning process that can get us closer to making good decisions on those big expenditures. 3:35:07: Director Kurotori: I think -- I think we -- I think you captured in Item 14, though, in looking at the load projections, and how that ties to our Grid Modernization. Um. You know, the CAISO process, working with the CEC, working with CAISO -- I mean, there's a lot of moving parts in there. So, I'm, you know, looking at -- the Grid Modernization is really, I think, that area of focus for us. I -- And I'll look to Terry. I don't see that as a -- the near-term priority. I think looking at the Grid Modernization, and how that impacts rates and affordability, is really kind of that focus. I think that is that near-term business strategy. I wouldn't even say it's our mid-term business strategy. There are a lot of the agencies an extensive Grid Modernization. They're very few, throughout the state. 3:35:58: Commissioner Tucher: Phil, it sounds to me like what you're saying is, like, anybody who reads the newspaper knows that power/energy around the world is -- you know, it's exploding in demand. So, it sounds like your fears, or your concerns here, are -- will that affect cost? Like the cost of a transformer, or the lead time, or just our ability to get infrastructure stuff. And your other concern probably is, does this mean our power cost -- like the next Trolley deal -- is going to be much more expensive? And maybe what you're saying is, Council expects the UAC to have a position on -- given these huge macro things that are going -- they're going to shake the world -- you know, OUR world, in electric. What's -- you know, what's our position? Are we discussing this actively with staff? Is that what you're saying? 3:36:52: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. This is all the above. And Item 14 is a capital plan. and which, of course, is extremely important in a business that's very heavily capital intensive. But we're throwing in a ringer, which never existed before, which is that demand is changing dramatically, in unpredictable ways. And that affects every ingredient of the business. It affects our revenue It affects our costs, both on the energy side and on the capital side. And we need to have at least a framework for thinking about that. 3:37:24: Commissioner Tucher: So, maybe, instead of saying, you know, we want a business strategy for electric -- which makes it sound like we don't have one -- and we do. Maybe it's more like, like given these major shifts -- And the question on everyone's mind -- like, what's happening in the electric space, both in buying the power and buying the stuff, what's -- does UAC -- and is UAC and staff -- are we collaborating to have advice to Council? Maybe -- Maybe Item 16 or whatever says something like that. Separate from Grid Mod. I don't know. 3:37:56: Chair Mauter: I mean, I have to get us down to six items. OK? ### Why six? 3:37:59 Commissioner Tucher: Well, then get rid of all the ones that are baseline, like reviewing the rates and the capex. Seriously. 3:38:05: Commissioner Croft: But we don't need to GET rid of six. We're just going to prioritize six. Right? 3:38:09: Chair Mauter: We need to prioritize six. And I just want to be realistic. We're not going to get to [pause] 15. 3:38:19: Commissioner Tucher: You asked for additions ** -- 3:38:20: Chair Mauter: I want the additions. But I just want to be clear on where there's -- if there's any tweaks we can make to the existing ones, that would capture elements of this. Because we have many on the electric utility already. And I -- 3:38:39: Commissioner Croft: And my point about affordability of electricity -- I mean, you could build in something that acknowledges the current environment. Because I do think it is on everyone's mind -- is that electricity is going to become more expensive. Market rates are probably going to become more expensive if we become more exposed to market rates, because we power purchase agreements, etc. So, if we focus on long-term affordability -- 5-year affordability -- put those words in the affordability category. I mean -- 3:39:10: Chair Mauter: I would strongly support if there's -- if there's -- if the focus is on the impact on affordability. Right? You know, the business strategy -- is it solvency or is it affordability? I mean, those are the two things about a business strategy. Right? 3:39:31: Commissioner Tucher: I mean, you can -- you can shoehorn any item into another item. And then we have these omnibus priorities. And then we have a workplan like last year's, that really had no impact. So, you know,-- 3:39:41: Chair Mauter: Well, I -- we did do some work last year. 3:39:44: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. Look at those accomplishments. We replaced the sewer main lines. 3:39:48: Director Kurotori: If I -- just going back to the Chair's question. Like, how many of these priorities are related to electric, is, it's 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. And maybe I missed one. But -- 3:40:01: Chair Mauter: 14 and 15. 3:40:02: Director Kurotori: 14 and -- Yes. 14 and 15. So, there's 3:40:05: Commissioner Tucher: This is gas -- 3:40:07: Director Kurotori: I think -- And -- And the new 15. So, I think -- 3:40:09: Commissioner Tucher: 1, 4, 7, -- What? 3:40:11: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 8 -- 3:40:12: Commissioner Tucher: 4 is reserves. 1 is gas. 3:40:13: Chair Mauter: 9, 10 -- 3:40:14: Commissioner Tucher: I must have the wrong -- 3:40:15: Director Kurotori: ** reserves -- 3:40:16: Chair Mauter: 14, 15. We have eight of our 15 so far. 3:40:20: Commissioner Tucher: What? I'm sorry. There's -- Item 1 is about gas transition So, is that about electric? Yeah, indirectly. 8 is about time of use. 4 is about reserves. I don't know what that has to do with electric, other than -- [pause] 3:48:38: Director Kurotori: So, I mean, I mean, there's electric -- I mean, I can take out the one specifically, but -- I mean, we do have a fair amount of electric activities associated in this first year. And may I suggest that from these activities THIS year, that might help inform maybe something of a larger strategy later on. Again, it -- This is your -- this is YOUR workplan. 3:41:03: Chair Mauter: I want to finish our addition, but I am really going to cap this at 3 minutes for the -- any subequent items. OK? So, we could start the clock, I would be very grateful, 'cuz we got to get out of here before 11 [o'clock]. [pause] ### Too bad this meeting got started late. 3:41:20: Commissioner Croft: Are you asking for priority at this point? 3:41:22: Chair Mauter: No. I'm -- if -- I do need to -- I don't want to shout anyone down. And I think that there was -- Are there any other additions that we need to make? And, apparently, I need to have -- ask for seconds on these, if we're adding whole new ones. Which I didn't realize. ### Where did that requirement come from? (I'm guessing it came from ACM Nose.) 3:41:41: Commissioner Metz: Presumably we needs seconds on all. 3:41:49: Chair Mauter: We -- I think that's true. 3:41:43: Commissioner Tucher: We need a second on every one the 14, 15? 3:41:56: Chair Mauter: No. I think we need -- on the new ones. 'Cause the weren't -- 3:42:00: ACM Nose: So, ultimately -- 3:42:00: Commissioner Tucher: I'm sorry. Why do the old ones, that staff wrote, not need a vote -- 3:42:05: ACM Nose: Might I interject, please? 3:42:08: Commissioner Tucher: Sure. 3:42:09: ACM Nose: Ultimately, this should be a reflection of a majority of the UAC's recommendation. ### Not exactly. The totality of UAC's recommendation should get at least affirmative 3 votes (a majority of the commissioners present). So, typically, if what we are doing is essentially making, in a formal sense -- but rather an informal sense -- amendments to the motion -- ### That would have been one way to approach Item 3, but it's not the approach that UAC took. THERE IS NO MOTION. ### What would the MOTION -- prior to the amendments -- have been? Just to adopt staff's 13 draft objectives? In theory, UAC's workplan is supposed to come from UAC, not staff. Maybe the MOTION should have been to adopt a NULL workplan, and then a commissioner could have offered a draft objective as an amendment, and then another commissioner could have offered an amendment to that amendment, to wordsmith the draft objective, etc. you would, technically have a second. So, you're operating in a rather informal manner, which is fine. ### Or not. But if you're trying to figure out Roberts Rules of Order. ### None of the City's deliberative bodies uses Roberts Rules of Order. Council has documented the Rules of Order they use. So has PTC. UAC should do the same. and how you can navigate whether or not a recommended change is supported or not, you typically do it through a vote. 3:42:45: Chair Mauter: OK. 3:42:46: ACM Nose: And I make a suggestion, a second. You know. And then, if it gets a second, then you have the discussion. If it doesn't receive a second, You know. And those typical processes -- So -- 3:42:57: Chair Mauter: OK. 3:42:57: ACM Nose: -- just something for you to consider. 3:42:59: Commissioner Tucher: Can't we vote on the whole thing once? The whole -- 3:43:00: ACM Nose: Correct. But I also think the Chair is also trying to figure out how to manage the meeting. And if you create a long list, they you're just creating another agenda ### Not an agenda in the Brown Act sense. to talk about, do we include it, yes or no. And so I think, given the time, trying to figure out how to be efficient. 3:43:17: Liaison Lauing: Do you need this wrapped tonight? ### A very good question. Although it's probably not the Liaison's place to ask it. Why couldn't UAC just continue the item to the next UAC meeting? 3:43:20: **: Yes. 3:43:22: Chair Mauter: OK. So, final -- I'm going to skip the seconds on this. ### Reasonable, since there is no MOTION. You can add two more items, but let's do it efficiently. 3:46:34: Commissioner Metz: Oh. That's it. ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 14: Electric Grid Modernization: Review load projections and strategy for City-wide grid upgrades, design standards and technologies, timing of investment and work, and customer impacts. ### Note: No PAMC citation. (No loss.) ### The result on the screen for Draft Objective Number 15: Electric Utility Business Strategy: Develop a flexible scenario-based business strategy that incorporates impacts on CPAU of increased and highly uncertain demand from data centers and other loads, both within CPAU territory and throughout CAISO. 3:43:35: Chair Mauter: That's it. Perfect. OK. So now, we have 15 items. ### a.k.a. draft objectives (within the workplan item). 3:43:39: Commissioner Tucher: Sorry, Meagan. 3:43:40: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 3:43:40: Commissioner Tucher: I did not add an item. But at least two of us have put operational efficiencies -- or the way UAC operates -- on our top-five list. I don't know if -- It doesn't feel like something like something that belongs on a workplan item. It's very important, in my opinion, and the whole workplan, in my opinion, doesn't even work if we don't make some changes to how -- to our operational efficiency, someone called it. ### That is, the efficiency with which UAC gets its advice to Council? Um. Anyway, I don't want to talk about it now. I'm sure no one else does. But -- 3:44:11: Commissioner Metz: I agree with you. That's why I didn't raise it now. Because I agree with you how important it is, but I felt it didn't fit in this list. 3:44:18: Commissioner Tucherr: OK. It's not going a way as an item that we talk about it in the months ahead. 3:44:23: Commissioner Metz: No. ### How can UAC operational efficiency be agendized for a UAC meeting in FY 2027 if it's not an objective on the FY 2027 workplan? 3:33:24: Chair Mauter: OK. Um. So, we have 15 items. Our goal now is to prioritize them. Um. What? We don't have to. ### Where did Chair Mauter get this advice? It's not audible on the video. ### Years ago, Council discussed the possibility of not using electronic communications during meetings, so that the public could see where all the communications were coming from. It's part of what makes open meetings open. 3:44:37: Chair Mauter: OK. 3:44:38: ACM Nose: So, this is a workplan. These are not your priorities. So, the workplan is -- I mean, it's ONLY your priorities. ### Superficially, at least, these two thoughts contradict one another. Let me be clear. This is a workplan. it is everything from what you're required to do, per the Muni Code -- what your job is -- What Council has asked you to look at. ### How has Council asked UAC to look at specific things? If Council had done so, wouldn't that be summarized in the staff report for this item? ### Of course, Council has created PAMC 2.23 to specify in a general way what it wants UAC to do. 3:44:54: Chair Mauter: OK. 3:44:55: ACM Nose: And what you, as a UAC, are recommending as priorities to be looked at. 3:44:59: Chair Mauter: OK. 3:44:59 ACM Nose: So, I think, in general -- 3:45:04 Chair Mauter: Suggest a list. 3:45:55: ACM Nose: we can -- we can roll with this. 3:45:06: Director Kurotori: You can roll with the list. And then, as soon as -- 3:45:09: Chair Mauter: Great. 3:45:09: Director Kurotori: -- Council comes back and makes some adjustments, changes, adopts it, then you can help them with that priority. So, you ca move that to the later date. 3:45:15: ACM Nose: And work with staff on calendaring it across the next 12 months. 3:45:19: Chair Mauter: Wonderful. 3:45:20: Commissioner Croft: Do we WANT to put it in order, to SHOW what's important to -- I mean, somewhat in order? 3:45:26: **: Not -- 3:45:26: Chair Mauter: I think -- 3:45:26: Commissioner Croft: I think I would move Grid Mod up, move some other stuff down. Just kind of make it sound like these are the things we care about -- are at the top. 3:45:35: Commissioner Metz: We could ask staff to organize these -- 3:45:38: Commissoner Tucher: [unamplified] No. 3:45:39: Commissioner Metz: No? 2:45:39: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified[ Sorry. 2:45:40: **: I -- 2:45:40: Liaison Lauing: You could do A's -- You could do like A's or B's. So you don't have to prioritize the whole thing. This an A level. This is a B level. ### Again, the Liaison is not supposed to participate as if he were a UAC commissioner. 3:45:47: Commissioner Metz: No. It's not about priorities. I just meant in terms of organizing the electrical items. 3:45:52: Chair Mauter: I was going to make that suggestion. To cluster the electrical items. I think it would be helpful. So that it is clear. Um -- 3:46:05: Commissioner Tucher: That's fine. I've said it. I think I'm not the only one. it -- I think -- If I were Council, looking at this list of 15 or 17, or whatever the number is -- ### 15. it would be too many. I would say, boy, what a hodgepodge of items. It's good to cluster them. I would also create a cluster -- and call it baseline, or whatever you want. But the things we just do with -- it goes without saying. And I've referred several times to rate review review, capex review, customer survey review -- things we do all the time. And, of course, they're important. Put those in one list, and then put -- 3:46:41: Chair Mauter: So, we have standing. 3:46:43: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Standing. Yeah. Sure. 3:46:45: ACM Nose: I think what I'm hearing is just a desire for some version of categorization, which -- There's some that are ongoing. I would say, some that are -- um -- perhaps we USE the term key priority. So, Grid Mod is one, I think, would be a key priority, per this discussion. And some that are maybe CIP or financially related. You can try and bucket -- :3:47:09: Director Kurotori: We can try to bucket them. And if they're hitting all utilities, we put those and the electric ones -- maybe the -- highly related to Grid Mod. So, we -- And then, to Commissioner Tucher's point, the ones that are -- we -- de facto ones we have to do. So, I think, we -- you've given enough information to staff. ### UAC's job is not to give information to staff. It's to give advice to Council. And there are 15. So it's -- you know, the perfect is the enemy of the good. 3:47:29: Chair Mauter: Wonderful. And I would encourage -- for the record, I would encourage Council to strike anything that they don't want our advice on. ### I don't agree. Council should appoint commissioners capable of coming up with good advice. And then, Council should heed the advice. Not take the advice in all instances. But heed it. ### In June 2004, Council rescinded UAC's ad hoc responsibility for giving advice about the fiber utility (even the dark fiber business). In 2010, Council added the fiber utility to UAC's official duties (PAMC 2.23.050). So, Council missed out on 6 years of fiber advice. Because I think that that would actually be very helpful in -- It's a two-way street. Right? We are going to be most useful if we advise on the things that you [Council] want our advice on. I don't know if we can ask that. But -- 3:47:54: Liaison Lauing: No. They sometimes come back with edits. They don't get rubber stamped. 3:47:59: **: [unamplified] I don't get it. 3:47:59: Chair Mauter: Great. I would -- I would LOVE for Council-level A and B on these. Like -- ### This would be an example of UAC not doing its job. 3:48:09: Liaison Lauing: I thought you were going to tell us to cut six of them. 3:48:11: Chair Mauter: I would love you -- I would LOVE for you to cut half of them. 3:48:15: Liaison Lauing: [laughs] We'll do what we can. [laughs] 3:48:17: Chair Mauter: OK. Wonderful. My other request -- and I'm now just being snarky -- but I think we received our workplan like a couple months ago, for last year. ### it's a good -- not snarky -- point. What is the [laughs] -- sorry -- like, if we are going to use this as a template, is there a sense of when this is agendized for discussion? ### Council doesn't agendize items for discussion. Sometimes it agendizes items as study sessions, but that's not appropriate here. Sometimes, Council agendizes items on the Consent calendar, where discussion is not permitted. But three Council members can pull items from the Consent Calendar -- and they should. Sometimes Council can agendize reviewing the workplans of multiple commissions in a single item. But that would be a mistake. UAC's workplan deserves Council's undivided attention. 3:48:43: Director Kurotori: Our intent is to bring it as soon as -- August 10th, I think is the first -- What's the -- Oh. They're bundled. 3:48:51: ACM Nose: Correct. So, commission workplans are typically bundled. ### That's dumb. So, UAC's bundle will typically go in the September/October timeframe. And so, I think we do need to work with the Mayor on whether or not it's a Consent item or an action item. Um . But -- ### So, if staff and the Mayor and Vice Mayor agendized a workplan item as a Consent item, and then three Council members voted to pull it, when could it be agendized as a non-Consent item? ### If staff recommended a workplan item as a non-Consent item, how likely is it that the Mayor and/or Vice Mayor would overrule staff and agendize it as a Consent item? 3:49:08: ACM Nose: OK. I don't have those details 3:49:09: Chair Mauter: That's fine. But I will just say, it's nice to know that it's coming sooner rather than later. OK. So, on this -- 3:49:16: Commissoiner Tucher: [unamplified] ** capture your statement -- starkily, sneakily -- 3:49:20: Chair Mauter: [laughs] 3:49:20: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] -- positive that, 3:49:23: Chair Mauter: So, in order to make this happen, we need to vote on this. Because this is a -- This is and action item. That was supposed to last an hour. ### UAC should feel free to completely ignore staff's opinion about how long an item should take. So, we -- do I have -- 3:49:33: Commissioner Croft: Can we look at what's on the screen? ### Since 3:44:34, staff has been crafting a proposed MOTION on the screen, in hopes that someone might MOVE it. Like Radar on M*A*S*H, who anticipated and obeyed orders even before getting them. I think 10 is NOT an electric item. 10 is the S/CAP. 3:49:50: Commissioner Metz: It's part -- 3:49:51: ACM Nose: Commissioners, might we suggest item 1 ### That is, Draft Objective Number 1. be revised to identify or group -- um -- yes -- workplan objectives -- 3:50:04: **: Objectives 3:50:04: ACM Nose: -- by utility, as well as categories such as key priorities or ongoing. 3:50:11: Chair Mauter: Sounds great. 3:50;13: ACM Nose: We'll do that independently. ### How does UAC know staff will preserve UAC's intent? 3:50:14: Cahir Mauter: That sounds great. 3:50:17: Chair Mauter: OK. So, do I have a MOTION to recommend that the City Council approve our workplan? ### Or, hypothetically, to MOVE anything else relevant to Item 3? 3:50:30: Commissioner Metz: I'll move to do that, once they finish typing. 3:50:34: Chair Mauter: Thank you. OK. And do I have a second? 3:50:43: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** 3:50:44: Chair Mauter: I don't know. 3:50:45: Vice Chair Phillips: I'll second. 3:50:46: Chair Mauter: Wonderful. Just trying to be a neutral arbiter around here. 3:50:53: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** 3:50:53: Chair Mauter: Great. ### Any further discussion? Could we please call the role on this? Call the votes? Call the votes. 3:51:03: Belle Farias: Just wanted to state for the record that we had no public comment request for Item 3. Commissioner Croft. 3:51:10: Commissioner Metz: No? I can't believe it. 3:51:15: Belle Farias: Or, would we like to open public comment now? ### At some point, I think UAC should have a serious discussion about when within an item the public should be invited to comment: * At the very beginning? * After the staff presentation? * Just before the first MOTION? * Other? ### 2003 "The Brown Act: Open Meetings For Legislative Bodies" (page 73) https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown-act.pdf "54924.3(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2." 3:51:19: Chair Mauter: Sure. We will open public comment. 3:51:21: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Is there a comment? 3:51:22: Belle Farias: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item 3, please raise you hand or press *9 now. We have no requests to speak. 3:51:34: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Beaten them into submission. 3:51:36: Chair Mauter: OK. Now, could you please call the votes? 3:51:40: Belle Farias: Yes. Commissioner Croft. 3:51:42: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 3:51:43: Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz. 3:51:45: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 3:51:46: Belle Farias: Vice Chair Phillips. 3:51:48: Vice Chair Phillips: Yes. 3:51:49: Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher. 3:51:50: Commissioner Tucher: Yes. 3:51:51: Belle Farias: Chair Mauter. 3:51:52: Chair Mauter: Yes. 3:51:52: Belle Farias: MOTION passes 5-0. ### Gupta, Scharff absent. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS/EVENTS 3:51:56: Chair Mauter: OK. Thank you, everyone. Do we have any commissioner comments or reports from meetings and events? 3:52:05: Commissioner Tucher: Oh, I have one. Water smart. I woke up 10 days ago or so to a text message that said my house was leaking, and it was to the tune of 300 or 400 gallons a day. And I was able to jump on it. And I looked at my meter 5 times to Sunday and saved a leak. And I thought that was great. 3:52:26: Also, I got a letter -- I'm not sure, maybe all of you EV owners did. Apparently, our utility looks at DMV data and writes to me to say that they know I have an EV. Mine is basically a glorified golf cart made by Fiat. I guess it still counts. And so, it's kind of interesting to get this letter. Did you all get one? OK. Everybody knows what I'm talking about. 3:52:52: Chair Mauter: Electric bikes don't count, apparently. 3:52:54: Commissioner Tucher: What's that? 3:52:54: Chair Mauter: They don't know I have an electric bicycle. 3:52:57: Commissioner Tucher: Oh, yeah. They should. VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT 3:53:00: Chair Mauter: OK. We'll now turn to virtual public comment. 3:53:10: Belle Farias: If any member of the public would like to speak on an item not on the agenda, please raise your hand or press *9 now. We have no hands raised. 3:53:23: Chair Mauter: Fabulous. Thank you, everybody. I feel positive about the year ahead, and appreciate your stamina this evening. With that, do I have a MOTION to adjourn? 3:53:36: Vice Chair Phillips: One -- one -- one moment. 3;53:38: Chair Mauter: Please. 3:53:38: Vice Chair Phillips: On the 12-month rolling calendar, I -- in July, we had agreed at the last meeting to address the reserve policy. In fact, we had a discussion about whether to do it in July or September, and agreed to do it in July. But I don't see it on the calendar. 3:53:58: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Phillips, I -- can we address the July issue at the moment? Or no. 3:54:07: Director Kurotori: It's -- It's not supposed to be for discussion. But I've heard the comment. If that helps. 3:54;13: Chair Mauter: Great. 3:54:14: Director Kurotori: And we'll take a look at the calendar. 3:54:16: Chair Mauter: OK. Because the 12-month rolling calendar was not agendized today, we cannot have a discussion about it. But there are several issues with July, and please pay attention to your emails -- ### Which the public doesn't get to see. because there will be some coordination emails going out in the next couple of hours. ADJOURNMENT 3:54:45: And with that, do I have a MOTION to adjourn? 3:54:49: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] MOVE to adjourn. 3:54:50: Commissioner Metz: Second. ### Discussion? Vote? (A show of hands would suffice.) 3:54:51: Chair Mauter: OK. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. ### Why have a MOTION and a second and then not vote on it? END From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - June 22, 2026 Date:Monday, June 22, 2026 3:17:56 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png FW housing@housing.sccgov.org.msg RE SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE Re URGENT 48-Hour Disconnect Noticed While Disputing the Additional DebitExtra Charges on Recent Bill on April 8.msg Fw What about the Public Hearing.msg RE What about the Public Hearing.msg Re Room 205 permit questions meeting.msg FW RPP 400 block Stanford Ave vehicle parked for days.msg Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the Council inbox through June 22, 2026. Respectfully, Danille Danille Rice Administrative Assistant City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation (650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov