Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-10-05 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: 10/05/2026 Document dates: 9/28/26 – 10/05/26 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Aram James To:Raymond Goins Cc:steven mcgill; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; Gary Gechlik; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; EPA Today; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Rose Lynn; Lynn Krug; Rick Callender; Riley Cooke; Gennady Sheyner; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Robert Salonga; Roberta Ahlquist; Baker, Rob; Robert. Jonsen; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Penni Wilson; Gerry Gras; Daniel Kottke; Dana St. George; David S. Norris; Reifschneider, James; PD Kristina Bell; KRISTEN JOHNSON; Diana Diamond; Friends of Cubberley; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Matt Schlegel; Templeton, Cari; Pacific GrovePD; City Attorney; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Preminger, Steve; Sean Allen; frances.rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Doug Minkler; karen hall; Patrick Marshall; Mora Oommen; Lori Meyers; Human Relations Commission; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); Anne Cribbs; cromero@cityofepa.org; Enberg, Nicholas; Zahra Billoo; Bill Newell; james pitkin; Jim Lawrence; CityCouncil; city.council@gilroy.org; GRP-City Clerk; GRP-City Council; Lotus Fong; Brandon Pho; Jennifer Morrow San José Spotlight; Nick Tasers SF; Palo Alto Weekly; SFChronicle.com; Donna Wallach; Bil Barber; Sean Webby; Steve Wagstaffe; freddie.quintana@sen.ca.gov; Perron, Zachary; Aldinette Lockett; Sam Liccardo; Salem Ajluni; Reckdahl, Keith; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Martinez, Nicolas; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Jensen, Eric; Brian Good; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel Subject:Re: Asian Law Alliance & NAACP, Coalition: "Asleep on a Bench, Tased, Neck Broken" — Taser Ban Press Conference Wed. Oct. 7, Palo Alto PD Date:Monday, October 5, 2026 11:34:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks, Raymond!! On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 10:26 AM Raymond Goins <goinsrayl@gmail.com> wrote: THIS IS THE FOOTAGE THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGb9USh_6eY Raymond Goins On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 8:03 AM steven mcgill <playsvibes@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I am glad to your hard work is finally paying off! Good for you Aram!!! On Sunday, October 4, 2026 at 10:01:54 PM PDT, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: October 4, 2026 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Coalition Calls for a Ban on Tasers in Palo Alto and in Santa Clara County Jails After a Man's Neck Is Broken at Stanford Shopping When: Wednesday, October 7, 2026, 1:00 p.m. Where: Palo Alto Police Department, 250 Sherman Avenue, Palo Alto Who: Asian Law Alliance; CAIR San Francisco Bay Area; Silicon Valley De-Bug; Coalition for Justice and Accountability; NAACP San José/Silicon Valley Branch PALO ALTO, Calif. — A coalition of civil rights and community organizations will hold a press conference Wednesday to call for an end to Taser use in Palo Alto and in Santa Clara County's jails. What happened. On July 19, 2026, Stanford Shopping Center security called Palo Alto police to remove a man asleep on a bench in a publicly accessible area. According to the department's account and body-worn camera footage, an officer woke him, the man stood up disoriented, and the officer fired a Taser, striking him in the chest, an area Axon directs officers to avoid. He fell face-first onto concrete, suffering a gash to his forehead and a fractured vertebra in his neck. The coalition believes he lay face down and bleeding for an excessive time before a second officer and medical help arrived. The alleged offense was trespassing. Why it matters. The coalition believes the force was excessive, unnecessary, and in violation of department policy and the manufacturer's warnings. Axon's eight-page warning to law enforcement (attached) states that the Taser itself can tear muscles and fracture vertebrae, and that a fall onto a hard surface can break a neck. It warns that the risk of great bodily injury or death is greater for people who are elderly, mentally ill, under the influence, of low body weight, exhausted or highly excited, or who have heart or respiratory conditions. Of the 24 deaths Axon itself acknowledges, 18 were caused by falls, and a Reuters investigation documented more than 1,000 deaths following police Taser use in the United States. Because the manufacturer acknowledges that every use carries a risk of great bodily injury or death, the coalition's position is that a Taser must be treated as a deadly weapon. This man appeared to be elderly, unhoused, mentally ill, and frail, and he was standing on concrete. An alleged trespass did not justify that level of force. Being homeless is not a crime. Being mentally ill is not a crime. Resting in a place open to the public is not a crime. An old pattern. Removing people from public spaces because they are poor or unhoused echoes the "sundown town" practices that once drove Black residents, and later poor residents, out of communities by nightfall. That attitude is still voiced openly. At a September 10, 2026 candidate forum, discussing RV dwellers and unhoused residents, Palo Alto City Council candidate Bryna Chang said: "We've got to get the poor, and bad actors to move along." The County connection. OIR Group, led by Michael Gennaco, has served as Palo Alto's independent police auditor since 2006 and is also the oversight body for the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, where it supported the Sheriff's Taser pilot in the County jails. The Sheriff is Palo Alto's former police chief. The Board of Supervisors will receive a report on the pilot on November 17. On September 17, jail deputies reportedly Tased a man on an upper tier near the stairs after he was attacked by someone staff had released. No one will meet with the community. At least two coalition organizations have asked the Palo Alto police chief to meet on policing policy, and he has refused. The Sheriff has done the same. The coalition calls on: the Palo Alto City Council to ban Tasers; the City to terminate the officer; the District Attorney to investigate and prosecute the officer for assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code § 245) and assault by a public officer under color of authority (Penal Code § 149), because he disregarded the manufacturer's warnings and used force far beyond what an alleged trespass warranted; the Board of Supervisors to end the Sheriff's Taser pilot and ban Tasers in the County jails; both the City and the County to have these incidents reviewed by an oversight entity independent of OIR Group. Resources: Palo Alto Online, "Update: Taser victim in Stanford mall arrest identified" (Sept. 15, 2026): https://www.paloaltoonline.com/police/2026/09/15/probe- launched-after-officer-fires-taser-injures-man-at-stanford-mall/ Palo Alto Police Department news release and footage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Police/Public-Information- Portal/News-Releases Reuters, "Reuters finds 1,005 deaths in U.S. involving Tasers, largest accounting to date" (2017): https://www.reuters.com/article/world/reuters-finds-1005-deaths- in-us-involving-tasers-largest-accounting-to-date- idUSKCN1B21AH/ Axon, "TASER Handheld CEW Warnings, Instructions, and Information: Law Enforcement" (attached): https://axon.cdn.prismic.io/axon%2F3cd3d65a-7500-4667-a9a8- 0549fc3226c7_law-enforcement-warnings%2B8-5x11.pdf Sent from my iPhone From:Rice, Danille To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:Council Bundle - October 5 Date:Monday, October 5, 2026 10:04:10 AM Attachments:RE Crossing-guard schedule does not cover Gunn"s arrival time.msg image001.png image002.png RE El Niño preparedness for 880 Newell Rd - Zone AH 115 bags needed + 2 weeks away in December.msg FW Palo Alto OSV Count for the Week of 926.msg FW Parked in on Stanford Ave.msg FW Noise Ordinance Violations.msg RE Bike Lanes on East Meadow Dr.msg FW Fairmeadow Town Hall.msg FW Crossing-guard schedule does not cover Gunn"s arrival time.msg RE Repeated Failure to Enforce Municipal Code 18 Roosevelt Circle Request for Response Within 10 Days.msg RE Code Enforcement Case No. 26PCE-00395; Notice of Violation dated August 20 2026; Building Permit 26BLD- 01436 1021 Bryant St Palo Alto CA 94301.msg RE Subject Human Relations Commission Application Becky Wolf.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 October 5, 2026. Respectfully, Danille Danille Rice Administrative Assistant City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation (650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From:Shani Kleinhaus To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; amanda@scvbirdalliance.org Subject:Item 11: Please adopt a City position opposing Proposition 45 Date:Monday, October 5, 2026 9:49:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers, For tonight’s Item 11, please adopt a City position opposing Proposition 45. I also ask each of you to personally endorse the No on Prop 45 campaign. Santa Clara County has already opposed the measure. Its September 25 recommended opposition from Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) explains: “Proposition 45 – Modifies environmental review for certain projects Recommendation: Oppose Proposition 45 would amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Permit Streamlining Act by shortening the review process for housing, water systems, clean energy, medical facilities, some public safety infrastructure, broadband, education, and more. This measure would give local agencies, including both the lead agency and responsible agencies, 30 days to determine whether an application is complete, including environmental review and permitting. If a determination is not made in 30 days, the application is automatically deemed complete. Additionally, the initiative would shift environmental review and permitting timelines from calendar to business days as well as requiring a lead agency to issue permit decisions concurrently with environmental review. If passed, the measure would limit public comment periods for environmental impact reports to 45 days. While this measure is meant to reduce barriers for development, it creates difficult, if not impossible, deadlines for local agencies like the County. For these reasons, IGR recommends opposing Proposition 45.” Beyond these burdens on local government, Proposition 45 would weaken the California Environmental Quality Act by limiting consideration of less harmful alternatives and restricting court review and remedies. These safeguards help us protect public health, clean air and water, and wildlife habitat. Please take a few minutes to read the opinion piece I co-wrote with Alice Kaufman of Green Foothills in the Palo Alto Weekly, and please join the broad coalition of more than 450 organizations and public agencies opposing Proposition 45, including Santa Clara County. I also urge each of you to join the elected officials who have personally endorsed opposition. With ballots arriving this week, your leadership matters. Please oppose Proposition 45 as a City and add your individual endorsements to the campaign. Thank you, Shani Kleinhaus Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D. resident and Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance 650-868-2114 shani@scvbirdalliance.org From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Last Day to Register - PA Police Foundation Brunch with 49ers Steve Young Date:Monday, October 5, 2026 8:01:29 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ​ Palo Alto Public Safety Building The Palo Alto Police Foundation Presents: A celebration of the official opening of The Palo Alto Public Safety Building Saturday, October 10, 2026, 11:00am – 2:00pm Register Online >> Special Guest Speaker SF 49ers Champion Steve Young. Opening remarks from Congressman Sam Liccardo. Presentation by Police Chief James Reifschneider. Steve Young, Sam Liccardo, James Reifschneider Cops, Cars, and Canines A Community Fundraiser with Palo Alto’s Finest Brunch Catered by Terún Italian Restaurant Espresso Bar Police K-9 Demonstrations Palo Alto Police Car Show – A rare opportunity for a close-up look at the Mobile Emergency Operations Truck, the Rivian and to chat with the officers who operate them. Strong communities are built on strong partnerships. This outdoor celebration is an opportunity to support and connect with the Palo Alto Police Department while enjoying an authentic Italian brunch. We hope to see you at this very special (and fun) event. Bring the family! Lieutenant Joel Hornung and PAPF Founder Roger Smith Lieutenant Joel Hornung and PAPF Founder Roger Smith Saturday, October 10, 2026 11:00am – 2:00pm 250 Sherman Ave., Palo Alto (Adjacent to the Public Safety Building) $100/person. Kids under 12 are free. Space is limited. Registration deadline Oct. 3. REGISTER ONLINE >> Sponsorship opportunities are available. LEARN ABOUT SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES >> All proceeds from this event benefit the Palo Alto Police Foundation, a 501(C)3 nonprofit. The mission of the Palo Alto Police Foundation is to enhance the quality of life for Palo Alto’s residents and working population, and strengthen police-community relations. Can’t Attend? You can still make a tax-deductible contribution online >> or mail a check to the Palo Alto Police Foundation, P.O. Box 264, Palo Alto, CA 94302. Questions? Contact paloaltopolicefoundation@gmail.com. Italian Brunch Saturday, October 10, 2026 11:00 AM to 2PM Public Safety Building 250 Sherman Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 REGISTER >> --- SPONSORS Gold Silver   Palo Alto Police Foundation (650) 285-9221 paloaltopolicefoundation@gmail.com www.OurPAPF.org This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Aram James To:Council, City; Raymond Goins; Human Relations Commission; Sean Allen; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Gary Gechlik; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; board@pausd.org; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; BoardOperations; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; james pitkin; Lewis james; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Matt Schlegel Subject:At Cornell, a Rape Case Defines an Era Date:Monday, October 5, 2026 2:13:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.chronicle.com/article/at-cornell-a-rape-case-defines-an-era From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Sam Liccardo; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Sheree Roth; Zelkha, Mila; Human Relations Commission; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Hayden; Jeff Rosen; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Braden Cartwright; h.etzko@gmail.com; Raymond Goins; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; Mora Oommen; Friends of Cubberley; Riley Cooke; Roberta Ahlquist; Daniel Kottke; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Emily Mibach; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Linda Jolley; Diana Diamond; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Taylor, Cecilia; Nash, Betsy; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Betty Duong; District5@bos.sccgov.org; Sean Allen; Salem Ajluni; Sameena Usman; Board of Directors; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Anne Cribbs; Ann Ravel; Angel, David; Dave Price; David S. Norris; city.council@menlopark.gov; CityCouncil; city.council@gilroy.org; Pacific GrovePD; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; City Attorney; Perron, Zachary; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Lotus Fong; Rick Callender; Roberta Ahlquist; Penni Wilson; marc.berman@cityofpaloalto.com; Doug Minkler; karen hall; Alex Kobayashi; frances.rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Bains, Paul; Preminger, Steve; steven mcgill; Dana St. George; Steven D. Lee; Stone, Greer; Stephen Connolly; julie.ruhlin@oirgroup.con; ladoris cordell Subject:A Man of God Condemns The Vile Genocidal Illegitimate State of Israel Date:Sunday, October 4, 2026 11:54:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://substack.com/@peoplemustbefree/note/c-342773822? r=fjmzt&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action From:Aram James To:bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; Gary Gechlik; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Raymond Goins; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; EPA Today; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Rose Lynn; Lynn Krug; Rick Callender; Riley Cooke; Gennady Sheyner; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Robert Salonga; Roberta Ahlquist; Baker, Rob; Robert. Jonsen; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Penni Wilson; Gerry Gras; Daniel Kottke; Dana St. George; David S. Norris; Reifschneider, James; PD Kristina Bell; KRISTEN JOHNSON; Diana Diamond; Friends of Cubberley; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker Cc:Matt Schlegel; Templeton, Cari; Pacific GrovePD; City Attorney; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; steven mcgill; Preminger, Steve; Sean Allen; frances.rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Doug Minkler; karen hall; Patrick Marshall; Mora Oommen; Lori Meyers; Human Relations Commission; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); Anne Cribbs; cromero@cityofepa.org; Enberg, Nicholas; Zahra Billoo; Bill Newell; james pitkin; Jim Lawrence; CityCouncil; city.council@gilroy.org; GRP-City Clerk; GRP-City Council; Lotus Fong; Brandon Pho; Jennifer Morrow San José Spotlight; Nick Tasers SF; Palo Alto Weekly; SFChronicle.com; Donna Wallach; Bil Barber; Sean Webby; Steve Wagstaffe; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Perron, Zachary; Aldinette Lockett; Sam Liccardo; Salem Ajluni; Reckdahl, Keith; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Martinez, Nicolas; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Jensen, Eric; Brian Good; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel Subject:Asian Law Alliance & NAACP, Coalition: "Asleep on a Bench, Tased, Neck Broken" — Taser Ban Press Conference Wed. Oct. 7, Palo Alto PD Date:Sunday, October 4, 2026 10:02:56 PM Attachments:Tab 12 Aram James (DJ-1-12-18) (00000003) (2).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 4, 2026 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Coalition Calls for a Ban on Tasers in Palo Alto and in Santa Clara County Jails After a Man's Neck Is Broken at Stanford Shopping Center When: Wednesday, October 7, 2026, 1:00 p.m. Where: Palo Alto Police Department, 250 Sherman Avenue, Palo Alto Who: Asian Law Alliance; CAIR San Francisco Bay Area; Silicon Valley De-Bug; Coalition for Justice and Accountability; NAACP San José/Silicon Valley Branch PALO ALTO, Calif. — A coalition of civil rights and community organizations will hold a press conference Wednesday to call for an end to Taser use in Palo Alto and in Santa Clara County's jails. What happened. On July 19, 2026, Stanford Shopping Center security called Palo Alto police to remove a man asleep on a bench in a publicly accessible area. According to the department's account and body-worn camera footage, an officer woke him, the man stood up disoriented, and the officer fired a Taser, striking him in the chest, an area Axon directs officers to avoid. He fell face-first onto concrete, suffering a gash to his forehead and a fractured vertebra in his neck. The coalition believes he lay face down and bleeding for an excessive time before a second officer and medical help arrived. The alleged offense was trespassing. Why it matters. The coalition believes the force was excessive, unnecessary, and in violation of department policy and the manufacturer's warnings. Axon's eight-page warning to law enforcement (attached) states that the Taser itself can tear muscles and fracture vertebrae, and that a fall onto a hard surface can break a neck. It warns that the risk of great bodily injury or death is greater for people who are elderly, mentally ill, under the influence, of low body weight, exhausted or highly excited, or who have heart or respiratory conditions. Of the 24 deaths Axon itself acknowledges, 18 were caused by falls, and a Reuters investigation documented more than 1,000 deaths following police Taser use in the United States. Because the manufacturer acknowledges that every use carries a risk of great bodily injury or death, the coalition's position is that a Taser must be treated as a deadly weapon. This man appeared to be elderly, unhoused, mentally ill, and frail, and he was standing on concrete. An alleged trespass did not justify that level of force. Being homeless is not a crime. Being mentally ill is not a crime. Resting in a place open to the public is not a crime. An old pattern. Removing people from public spaces because they are poor or unhoused echoes the "sundown town" practices that once drove Black residents, and later poor residents, out of communities by nightfall. That attitude is still voiced openly. At a September 10, 2026 candidate forum, discussing RV dwellers and unhoused residents, Palo Alto City Council candidate Bryna Chang said: "We've got to get the poor, and bad actors to move along." The County connection. OIR Group, led by Michael Gennaco, has served as Palo Alto's independent police auditor since 2006 and is also the oversight body for the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, where it supported the Sheriff's Taser pilot in the County jails. The Sheriff is Palo Alto's former police chief. The Board of Supervisors will receive a report on the pilot on November 17. On September 17, jail deputies reportedly Tased a man on an upper tier near the stairs after he was attacked by someone staff had released. No one will meet with the community. At least two coalition organizations have asked the Palo Alto police chief to meet on policing policy, and he has refused. The Sheriff has done the same. The coalition calls on: the Palo Alto City Council to ban Tasers; the City to terminate the officer; the District Attorney to investigate and prosecute the officer for assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code § 245) and assault by a public officer under color of authority (Penal Code § 149), because he disregarded the manufacturer's warnings and used force far beyond what an alleged trespass warranted; the Board of Supervisors to end the Sheriff's Taser pilot and ban Tasers in the County jails; both the City and the County to have these incidents reviewed by an oversight entity independent of OIR Group. Resources: Palo Alto Online, "Update: Taser victim in Stanford mall arrest identified" (Sept. 15, 2026): https://www.paloaltoonline.com/police/2026/09/15/probe-launched- after-officer-fires-taser-injures-man-at-stanford-mall/ Palo Alto Police Department news release and footage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Police/Public-Information- Portal/News-Releases Reuters, "Reuters finds 1,005 deaths in U.S. involving Tasers, largest accounting to date" (2017): https://www.reuters.com/article/world/reuters-finds-1005-deaths-in- us-involving-tasers-largest-accounting-to-date-idUSKCN1B21AH/ Axon, "TASER Handheld CEW Warnings, Instructions, and Information: Law Enforcement" (attached): https://axon.cdn.prismic.io/axon%2F3cd3d65a-7500-4667-a9a8- 0549fc3226c7_law-enforcement-warnings%2B8-5x11.pdf Sent from my iPhone From:D Martell To:michellekraus@yahoo.com Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Jensen, Christopher; Pigman, Sophie; adriana@eberlaw.com; Reifschneider, James; Preminger, Steve; Drekmeier, Peter Subject:IMPORTANT: for Michelle Kraus ... Official Complaint Regarding Unprofessional Conduct of HRC Chair Michelle Kraus (October 2, 2026) Date:Sunday, October 4, 2026 5:00:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 4, 2026 Michelle Kraus, Chair Human Relations Commission (HRC) City of Palo Alto Dear Ms. Kraus: I am writing to formally address your unacceptable conduct during our interaction last Friday morning, October 2, 2026, downtown Palo Alto, Forest Avenue between Bryant and Waverley Street. When I raised concerns regarding your failure to address my issue during your tenure as Chair of the HRC— concerns documented in my repeated outreach to you in June 2026 (appended)—I spoke in a calm and steady voice. You met with me once briefly at the very beginning and now claim that you tried to help. However, as I pointed out to you, you never communicated what steps you took to assist me, and you were likely running in circles because I had already covered these bases ... or you were fabricating because I put you on the spot. I'm in a life-threatening situation and there were, and continue to be, many smaller issues to make my situation more tolerable and my chances of survival greater. Despite this, and rather than engaging professionally, you falsely accused me of shouting—a tactic I called out immediately as classic senior abuse, using claims of "hollering" to dismiss and discredit a 77-year-old Palo Altan. Having lived my life in Palo Alto, a Stanford University graduate student in Computer Science, ran for City Council twice, rescued old-growth trees, rescued historic and historical buildings, and dedicated decades to community outreach and service, I deserve your basic regard and professional respect. You then walked away while I was speaking. After about 20 feet, you turned and shouted, "You're a bitch!". I responded by letting you know that I never resorted to name-calling, your behavior is ethically dishonest, and "Do you really think I won't tell folks you called me the 'B word'?". You said nothing, and I walked away. As Chair of the HRC, walking away and shouting profanities at a lifelong community elder in public is disgraceful and alarming. Your conduct was unprovoked, abusive, and completely out of line with the standards of public office. Your behavior directly contradicts the mission and ethical standard . I demand a formal, direct, and explicit written apology for your actions. Sincerely, Danielle Martell ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residentialist– Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 Lifelong Palo Alto Resident & Community Advocate dmPaloAlto@gmail.com 650.856.0700 cc: Ed Shikada, Palo Alto City Manager Palo Alto City Council Christopher Jensen, Palo Alto City Attorney Sophie Pigman, Palo Alto City Human Relations Commission Staff Liaison Adriana Eberle, former Palo Alto City HRC Chair James Reifschneider, Palo Alto City Police Chief Steve Preminger, Director, Santa Clara County Office of the County Executive Peter Drekmeier, former Palo Alto City Mayor Appended Correspondence Record: 1. Email from Danielle Martell to Michelle Kraus – June 13, 2026 (Subject: for Michelle Kraus ... Checking In) 2. Email from Danielle Martell to Michelle Kraus – June 24, 2026 (Subject: PRESSING - for Michelle Kraus ... Request for Update) 3. Email response from Michelle Kraus – June 24, 2026 ("I don’t know how I can help.") 4. Email from Danielle Martell to Michelle Kraus – June 24, 2026 (Subject: for Michelle Kraus ... Request for Brief Phone Conference) 5. Email from Danielle Martell to Michelle Kraus – June 27, 2026 (Subject: PRESSING / IMPORTANT - for Michelle Kraus ... Request to Talk) APPENDED CORRESPONDENCE HISTORY ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 1:21 PM Subject: PRESSING / IMPORTANT - for Michelle Kraus ... Request to Talk To: michellekraus@yahoo.com <MichelleKraus@yahoo.com> Cc: Peter Drekmeier <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net>, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>, <sophie.pigman@paloalto.gov>, <adriana@eberlaw.com>, Preminger, Steve <steve.preminger@ceo.sccgov.org> Michelle Kraus, Chair Human Relations Commission (HRC) City of Palo Alto Dear Michelle, I need a little community help. My long-time friend Peter Drekmeier referred the HRC to me. He said members appear sincere and compassionate, and appreciate old Palo Altans. Attached is a current photo. -Danielle ------------------------ Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com 650.856.0700 Residentialist– Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 8:29 PM Subject: for Michelle Kraus ... Request for Brief Phone Conference To: michellekraus@yahoo.com <MichelleKraus@yahoo.com> Cc: Preminger, Steve <steve.preminger@ceo.sccgov.org> Michelle, Let's talk, please. Are you available tomorrow afternoon? -Danielle Martell ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: michelle kraus <michellekraus@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 2:33 PM Subject: Re: PRESSING - for Michelle Kraus ... Request for Update To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Cc: Steve Preminger <steve.preminger@ceo.sccgov.org> I don’t know how I can help. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 10:20 AM Subject: PRESSING - for Michelle Kraus ... Request for Update To: michellekraus@yahoo.com <MichelleKraus@yahoo.com> Cc: Preminger, Steve <steve.preminger@ceo.sccgov.org> Michelle Kraus Dear Michelle, I'm reaching out again. My situation has become extreme. I beg you please not to abandon me. -Danielle ------------------------ Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com 650.856.0700 Residentialist– Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 10:28 AM Subject: for Michelle Kraus ... Checking In To: michellekraus@yahoo.com <MichelleKraus@yahoo.com> Cc: Preminger, Steve <steve.preminger@ceo.sccgov.org> Dear Michelle, Updates to share? Thank you for your time and attention. -Danielle ------------------------ Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com 650.856.0700 Residentialist– Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 From:Aram James To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Jasso, Tamara; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; brianhama@gmail.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; Raymond Goins; Matt Schlegel; Lauing, Ed; Vicki Veenker; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Human Relations Commission; Julie Lythcott-Haims Subject:San Jose launches paramedicine pilot program Date:Sunday, October 4, 2026 10:49:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/10/04/san-jose-launches-pilot-program-for-mobile- healthcare-unit-on-downtown-streets/ From:alex Pelaez To:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; City Mgr; City Mgr; contact.center@calcivilrights.ca.gov; Council, City Subject:Request for Government Neutrality and Equal Treatment in City Flag Displays Date:Sunday, October 4, 2026 8:36:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing as a resident and taxpayer to express my concern regarding the City’s decision to display the LGBTQ Pride flag on City property. I respect the constitutional rights of every individual, including the rights of LGBTQ residents, to express their beliefs, identities, and viewpoints. My concern is different: I believe government property and government institutions should not be used to promote or endorse one particular group or viewpoint when doing so can make members of other groups feel excluded or disfavored. As a Christian, I want to be treated with the same dignity, respect, and consideration as every other resident. When the City officially displays a flag representing support for one particular social or political viewpoint, I believe it is reasonable to ask whether the government is maintaining the neutrality that should apply to all of its residents. The fact that the City previously enacted a resolution authorizing the flag does not, in my view, resolve the underlying concern. Laws and resolutions should continue to be examined in light of constitutional principles, equal treatment, and changing circumstances. History also demonstrates why government should exercise caution when identifying itself with particular groups or ideologies. I am not suggesting that Palo Alto is comparable to Nazi Germany. Rather, I am raising a broader historical concern: governments should be extremely careful about 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 creating a system in which one group is officially elevated or endorsed while another group feels that its beliefs are viewed as less acceptable. I respectfully ask the City Council to consider establishing a neutral policy governing flags displayed on City property. One possible approach would be limiting government flagpoles to official governmental flags, rather than displaying flags associated with particular social, religious, political, or ideological movements. If the City chooses to maintain the current policy, I would also ask the Council to explain how it ensures that Christian residents and residents holding other viewpoints receive equal treatment and are not excluded from meaningful participation in the City’s public expression. My purpose in writing is not to attack or demean anyone. I am asking for government neutrality, equal treatment, and respect for the religious freedom of all Palo Alto residents, including Christians. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I respectfully request that this issue be placed before the City Council for discussion and consideration. Sincerely, [Your Name] Palo Alto Resident Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers Cc:Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; h.etzko@gmail.com; Raymond Goins; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Brian Good; Sean Allen; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Sheree Roth; Shepherd, Nancy; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Taylor, Cecilia; David S. Norris; Jensen, Eric; Reifschneider, James; Robert. Jonsen; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Sam Liccardo; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Gardener, Liz; Gennady Sheyner; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Riley Cooke; Rick Callender; Lotus Fong; Friends of Cubberley; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil; Council, City; Daniel Kottke; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; Perron, Zachary; City Attorney; city.council@menlopark.gov; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com Subject:Eyewitness West Bank: Rush Rehm, ISM Activist - YouTube Date:Sunday, October 4, 2026 7:45:58 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHmn7t_eMM From:Cybele LoVuolo-Bhushan To:Council, City Subject:Prop. 4....Prop. 39 Date:Saturday, October 3, 2026 8:57:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members, According to the October 3, 2026 issue of the Daily Post, the City Council may take positions on upcoming ballot measures. If you choose to take official positions, I strongly encourage you to endorse the following: - YES on Prop. 4 (Public Campaign Financing): This measure ensures every vote counts by preventing wealthy donors from outspending and unfairly influencing elections. - NO on Prop. 39: Increased surveillance does not make our community safer and remains vulnerable to misuse. True public safety is built on health care, stable economic policy, and environmental sustainability, all of which foster genuine trust between residents and city leadership. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Cybele nee Judith LoVuolo-Bhushan 3838 Mumford Pl, Palo Alto, CA 94306 415.429.9830 From:John Kelley To:Shikada, Ed; Jensen, Christopher; Lait, Jonathan Cc:Armer, Jennifer; Sauls, Garrett; Council, City Subject:PA-ADUs--Main House Penalty---Requested priorities for public records requests --- Re: Supplemental Letter - Re: PA-POLI-letter to (a) PACC re Agenda tem #11 re ADUs and (b) PTC re Agenda Item #2 re ADUs for 9/9/26 meetings Date:Saturday, October 3, 2026 3:10:59 PM Attachments:POLI-PA-ADUs-MAIN HOUSE PENALTY — Further Requests 2026-10-03.pdf PA-POLI-Supplemental letter to PACC and PTC re 2026-09-09 meetings re ADUs - 2026-09-09.pdf PA-POLI-letter to PACC and PTC re 2026-09-09 meetings re ADUs-with exhibits.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Manager Shikada, City Attorney Jensen, and Director Lait, I have recently made three public records requests that relate to (a) the actions taken at the City Council’s September 9, 2026 meeting regarding ADUs, (b) an anticipated further City Council meeting regarding ADUs on October 26, 2026, (c) my prior letters, including those dated September 7 and 9, 2026 (copies of which are attached), and (d) impact fees (a subject that I understand may not be presented to the City Council until later this year). Because of the short time before ADU-related issues, including the “Main House Penalty,” will likely be discussed at the anticipated October 26th meeting, and their importance to ADU production in particular and local housing production in general, I believe it is critical for the City Council and the public to have access to at least some of the most relevant information. A tension exists between achieving a comprehensive understanding of these matters and the speed and alacrity with which relevant information can be assembled and shared. Recognizing that tension, I have indicated in an introduction to today’s request the order in which I would ask that responsive records please be produced: "Recognizing that one or more members of City Staff may be responding to both (a) one or both of the two requests made on October 2, 2026, and (b) these requests, I would be grateful if the CPA would please produce records in response to these requests first, records in response to yesterday’s requests regarding the August 28, 2026 letter second, and records in response to the supplemental requests concerning impact fees third.” City has its own procedures, and this request may not be complied with. It is my hope, nonetheless, that the City Council and the public will have access to at least some of the most relevant facts concerning the “Main House Penalty” and related matters as soon as possible and, in any event, well before the October 26th City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley On Sep 9, 2026, at 17:18, John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> wrote: Dear City Council, PTC, and City Staff, Please see the attached supplemental letter regarding the City’s Council’s September 9, 2026 meeting tonight. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley On Sep 7, 2026, at 21:29, John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> wrote: Dear City Council, PTC, and City Staff, Please see the attached letter regarding both the City’s Council’s September 9, 2026 meeting and the PTC’s September 9, 2026 meeting. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley From:Kevin Rennie To:Council, City Subject:Subject: Safety Concerns Regarding Waymo Vehicles in Crosswalks and Bike Lanes Date:Saturday, October 3, 2026 1:24:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express ongoing concern about the behavior of Waymo vehicles on Palo Alto streets. I have experienced—Waymo vehicles failing to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, including crosswalks with flashing warning lights, more specifically crossing Alma at Everett. I have also seen Waymo vehicles stop or wait in bike lanes, creating hazards for cyclists and potentially forcing them into moving traffic. These behaviors are especially concerning because pedestrians and bicyclists are among the most vulnerable people using our roads. Drivers are required to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and vehicles stopping in bike lanes can obstruct cyclists’ right of way and reduce their ability to travel safely. Autonomous vehicles should meet at least the same safety standards expected of human drivers, if not higher ones.I respectfully ask the City Council to: Investigate reports of Waymo vehicles failing to yield at crosswalks.Review incidents involving Waymo vehicles stopping or waiting in bike lanes.Require greater transparency about safetycomplaints, traffic violations, and collisionor near-miss data.Coordinate with relevant state and localagencies to ensure autonomous vehiclescomply with pedestrian and bicyclist right-of-way laws.Require corrective measures, including software updates or restrictions on operations in locations where these problems occur.Improve enforcement and monitoring around crosswalks and bicycle facilities. Palo Alto should be a city where residents can walk and bicycle without having to anticipate whether an autonomous vehicle will recognize their right of way. New transportation technology should improve street safety—not create additional risks. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate information about what steps the Council and city staff can take to investigate these concerns and protect pedestrians and cyclists. Sincerely,Kevin Rennie Menlo ParkPrivate citizen This is a picture of the Waymo almost hitting me in the crosswalk; notice how close it is. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Sent from my iPhone From:laurie miller To:Council, City Subject:ADU 3524 Louis Rd Date:Saturday, October 3, 2026 12:57:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon, i sent the council an email about this ADU recently, but i think a photo speaks for itself. Sincerely, Laraine Miller, 355 Ely Pl, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers Cc:Josh Becker; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Templeton, Cari; Lauing, Ed; Raymond Goins; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Council, City; Vicki Veenker; Shikada, Ed; Sam Liccardo; Matt Schlegel; Sean Allen; h.etzko@gmail.com; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Diana Diamond; brianhama@gmail.com; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Gerry Gras; Liz Kniss; Gardener, Liz; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; Mora Oommen; ParkRec Commission; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:Max Rishøj on Instagram Date:Saturday, October 3, 2026 12:46:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dcjkf3asqlP/?stkn=NW94bm84YXg1NXIw From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Sam Liccardo; Templeton, Cari; h.etzko@gmail.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; EPA Today; Raymond Goins; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Matt Schlegel; Nash, Betsy; Taylor, Cecilia; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Robert. Jonsen; Reifschneider, James; Sean Allen; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; brianhama@gmail.com; Emily Mibach; Lauing, Ed; Supervisor Otto Lee; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Betty Duong; District5@bos.sccgov.org; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; admin@janbtucker.com; Braden Cartwright; Gennady Sheyner; Gardener, Liz; Kaloma Smith; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Roberta Ahlquist; Reckdahl, Keith; Shankar Ramamoorthy; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Mora Oommen; Diana Diamond; Dana St. George; Damon Silver; David S. Norris; KRISTEN JOHNSON; Lynn Krug; Rosen, Jeff; Friends of Cubberley; Alex Kobayashi; patricia.guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Rick Callender; Sheree Roth Subject:Re: https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/tuePC7Dx63UWWvxBf8f3YsodNz3?domain=youtube.com Date:Saturday, October 3, 2026 11:28:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://youtube.com/watch?v=cSbEj6RIoDE&is=42kMisI_zwjG6OWt From:Lori wainen linberg To:Council, City Subject:10/3/26- HARDSHIP MAIL BURDEN Date:Saturday, October 3, 2026 9:07:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, I am on hospice very ill. My apt mail again has been broken into and we are awaiting new locks 9/23-3-4 weeks or more. I am on hospice and very ill. I wrote Sam Liccardo offices and he requested to fix the last expedited and to approve me for hardship delivery. I was told by Jackie I was then by Louis I was not. I get all my medical, meds, food etc only by mail as I can’t get out. I have VTA Access for handicapped for Santa Clara county where Palo Alto is located but even if I could, they won’t go to East Palo Alto. Can someone please have a heart and help me… this has happened 2x before with mail backed up and loads of late fees as well as not being able to get things. If you can’t help, can you please explain why I’m refused and why the staff at USPS gives us wrong numbers, no responses and invalid email addresses to write, it is only making it harder for me and others to figure this out! Please respond, Lori W Linberg 924 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto, Ca 94301 (650)283-5053 Sent from my iPhone From:Humphrey, Sonia Cc:LAFCO Subject:LAFCO Agenda Packet Now Available - 10/7/26 Meeting Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 8:00:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i The agenda packet for the October 7, 2026 LAFCO Meeting is now available on the LAFCO website: https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2026-10-07-131500. Best regards, Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4709 This message needs your attention You've never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker Cc:Raymond Goins; Gary Gechlik; Gardener, Liz; Sam Liccardo; Liz Kniss; Fernandez, Lisa; Jesse Gary; Gerry Gras; gstone22@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Yusra Hussain; EPA Today; Sean Allen; Matt Schlegel; Senator Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; brianhama@gmail.com; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Anne Cribbs; Angel, David; Anna Griffin; Ann Ravel; Mora Oommen; Bill Newell; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil; City Attorney; Perron, Zachary; Cait James; james pitkin; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen Subject:Source: Taxpayers Against Genocide Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 7:49:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Source: Taxpayers Against Genocide Taxpayers Against Genocide Taxpayers Against Genocide https://share.google/mC6jKjSpuVKtwg4vw From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Templeton, Cari; Sam Liccardo; Matt Schlegel; Raymond Goins; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Lori Meyers; h.etzko@gmail.com; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Friends of Cubberley; Sheree Roth; Supervisor Otto Lee; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Sean Allen; Yusra Hussain; Lauing, Ed; Shikada, Ed; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; rabrica@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; Anne Cribbs; Anna Griffin; Ann Ravel; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; Richard Konda; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; Valeros, Gilda B; CityCouncil; Perron, Zachary; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; Vicki Veenker; Jose Valle; Zahra Billoo; Zelkha, Mila; Bill Newell; Jeff Hayden Subject:NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Calls for Resignation of FMSD Trustee Marc Cooper Over Islamophobic Remarks Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 5:33:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch #1067-B 333 W. San Carlos Street, San Jose, CA 95110 408.444.6725 | info@sjsvnaacp.org October 2, 2026 VIA EMAIL — FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD AND RELEASED TO THE MEDIA Board of Trustees Franklin-McKinley School District 645 Wool Creek Drive, San Jose, CA 95112 Attn: Board President Hong Ha Hoang; Vice President Steven Sanchez; Trustee Rudy Rodriguez; Trustee Marc Cooper; and the Superintendent Re: Trustee Marc Cooper's Islamophobic remarks of Sept. 8, 2026 — support for the Sept. 22 resolution, call for resignation, and request for corrective action Dear President Hoang and Members of the Board: The NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch writes to commend the Board's Sept. 22, 2026 resolution admonishing Trustee Marc Cooper, to join Trustee Rodriguez's call for Mr. Cooper's resignation, and to request specific steps so that this does not happen again. What happened. At the Sept. 8 board meeting, Mr. Cooper used his seat on the dais to distribute Bible literature to trustees and the Superintendent. He described the September 11 attackers in terms that tied the crime to Muslims as a group. He also told the public that the U.S. Supreme Court has three times ruled that America is a Christian nation. That claim is false. The Supreme Court has never held that the United States is a Christian nation. The passing remarks sometimes cited, such as a line in an 1892 opinion, were not rulings and have never been law. The First Amendment forbids government establishment of any religion. Why it matters. Franklin-McKinley serves one of the most diverse student populations in Santa Clara County. Muslim children attend its schools. So do children of every faith and of no faith. The question is not what Mr. Cooper says he meant. It is how his words land on the people who heard them. A Muslim parent, student, or employee who heard a trustee call the 9/11 attackers "cowardly, radical Muslims" while handing out Bible literature and declaring America a Christian nation would reasonably conclude that their faith is suspect and that they are outsiders in their own district. His later clarification does not undo that impact. The Board recognized as much when it voted 4-1 that his conduct was discriminatory. California Education Code section 220 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion in any program of a district that receives state funds. The Board's own motto commits it to all children. This is not an isolated lapse. The Board previously censured Mr. Cooper over his ties to Informed Parents of Silicon Valley. The Board's Sept. 11 letter to the community and its Sept. 22 resolution were the right response. We thank President Hoang, Vice President Sanchez, Trustee Rodriguez, and the members who voted 4-1 to stand for every family. Call for resignation. Two formal rebukes have not changed Mr. Cooper's conduct. Islamophobia from the dais has no place in a public school district. A trustee who cannot represent all of the district's children without targeting some of them should step aside. The NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch calls on Trustee Marc Cooper to resign from the Franklin- Requested action. Whether or not Mr. Cooper resigns, we ask the Board to: 1. Adopt or strengthen a trustee code of conduct with clear, enforceable consequences for discriminatory remarks made in an official capacity, including removal from committee and liaison assignments. 2. Require all trustees to complete training on religious liberty, the Establishment Clause, and California's nondiscrimination laws within 90 days. 3. Adopt a rule that trustees may not distribute religious or partisan materials from the dais during board meetings. 4. Direct the Superintendent to report publicly on the supports in place for Muslim students and families, including how religion-based bullying and harassment complaints are received, investigated, and resolved. 5. Place this letter and the Board's response on a public agenda. We request a written response by October 16, 2026, and we would welcome a meeting with the Board President and Superintendent. The Branch stands ready to work with the district and its families. Respectfully, Sean Allen President NAACP San Jose/Silicon Valley Branch #1067-B References: San Jose school trustee admonished for discriminatory remarks sanjosespotlight.com Your Official Voter Guides are here! Ballots are being mailed October 5: howabout holding a neighborhood informationmeeting? At almost 1/2" thick, your state and From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:Learn your ballot - and how to host a neighborhood meeting! Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 4:45:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. county Voter Info Guides may look like a copy of War and Peace. DON'T WORRY - WE CAN HELP! Here's how to hold a neighborhood meeting to explain the propositions to your friends, family and neighbors, with a focus on Prop. 39 (voter ID). How to Hold Your Meeting 1. Schedule it before Oct. 24: Ballots will be mailed by County election officials on or before October 5. Many people will want to return their ballot very soon after receiving it, so try to schedule your ballot discussion with friends and neighbors very soon, and before Oct. 24, when early in-person voting begins. 2. Know what’s on the ballot. The League of Women Voters of California has done the research and is proud to share its nonpartisan guides with you and your guests. Ask them to 1) review these before the meeting and 2) choose the propositions they wish to present to the group. We hope you will lead the discussion with a review of Prop. 39 and why LWVC recommends voting NO. EZ Voter Guide: a concise summary of propositions and elections on the Nov. 3 statewide ballot (including Prop. 39), with no recommendations “Vote with the League” includes ballot recommendations and pro/con analyses of the 14 propositions. 3. Why vote No on 39? Prop. 39 is the state version of Trump's proposed federal SAVE ACT, requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote. As such, it is based on a lie - that noncitizen voting and voter impersonation are problems in our elections. The reality is that California elections are already secure. Voter impersonation and noncitizen voting are both extremely rare. Prop. 39 would make voting less secure, by requiring the last four digits of a government-issued ID to be written on the outside of every mail ballot envelope, exposing voters to identity theft and increasing the likelihood ballots would be rejected by errors in writing. Plus, it duplicates existing efforts: California already verifies voter identity several times through the registration process. First-time voters need to show some kind of ID, if they didn't already during registration. Besides being unneeded, it will cost a lot of (our) money. The state Legislative Analyst predicts complying with Prop. 39 would cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to "fix" non-existent problems. Learn more! Join Californians for Voting Rights in saying NO on Prop 39. Thank you for sharing this with your friends, family and neighbors! Let us know if you need specific help. We’re here for you! PS: a reminder that the League is nonpartisan - so while we take stands on ISSUES and host CANDIDATE FORUMS so you can hear who's seeking your vote, we don't endorse candidates or parties. Stay Informed! Sign up for local, state and national League news & alerts: Newsletter - League of Women Voters of Palo Alto LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts LWVUS Email News and LWVUS Action Alerts November 3 Ballot: Vote with the LWV of California Get the details here. Easy Voter Guide - CaVotes by the LWVCEF HOW THE LEAGUE CAN HELP: "I gather every election cycle with a small group of friends to talk about the ballot. Each of us has our own network, so we bring unique perspectives to the conversation - my task is to explain the League positions. We walk away better informed, and we each make up our own mind. It really helps us digest the huge amount of election material and feel more confident in our votes." - Laura Bajuk, Palo Alto (Midtown) LOCAL MEASURES Cubberley Community CenterSales Tax Measure J on the Ballot This measure authorizes a new sales tax in Palo Alto. QUESTION: Should the City of Palo Alto levy an additional 0.5% (½%) sales tax on sales and use transactions in Palo Alto to fund the acquisition of seven acres of the Cubberley campus and the improvement of the City-owned portion of the campus, and for other general purposes? The LWV of Palo Alto supports Measure J, based on its alignment with several national, state, and local League Position Statements, and study on a local level. We agree that the documented community needs and potential citywide benefits of repairing, renovating, and expanding Cubberley Center outweigh concerns regarding Measure J's funding mechanism, lack of a sunset, lack of a legal spending guarantee, and the equity implications of a sales tax. Read the Measure J Pro/Cons here. Regional Transit Measure (SB63) A Regional Sales Tax Measure that would impose a sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. QUESTION: To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: • Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, and other transit services for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, and persons with disabilities; • Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, and reliability; • Repairing targeted roads and potholes; and • Requiring financial transparency, oversight, and accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties and a 1% sales tax in San Francisco for 14 years, generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted? The LWV of the Bay Area supports SB63 - Regional Transit Measure. Read the full Regional Transit Measure Pros/Cons here. Coming up! O C T O B E R Sept. 24 - Oct. 13: ROV mails county election information guides to all registered voters 3: Prop 4 Kick-Off | 3: TABLING, Rinconada Library | 3: TABLING, Black College Awareness Fair 5: ROV mails vote by mail packets | 5 thru Nov. 2: Early voting at ROV office 7: CANDIDATE FORUM: Water Board - 5pm | CANDIDATE FORUM: CA Assembly District 23 - 7pm 10: Fall Kick-Off Meeting & Speaker - 3:00-4:30pm, Etz Chayim Social Hall 19: Last day to register to vote for Nov. 3 election with regular ballot 20 -Nov. 3: Conditional voter registration at any Vote Center or ROV office 24 thru Nov. 3: Vote Centers are open 27: Last day to request vote-by-mail replacement N O V E M B E R 3: ELECTION DAY! All vote centers open 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:Shailo Rao To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Sauls, Garrett; Shea, Kyle; Jeff Jeff; Gerhardt, Jodie; Sarah Smith Le; Hiral Parekh; City Mgr; pdsdirector; Amy Amy; Ethan Lin; Borjon, David; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Council, City Subject:Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 2:45:02 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image012.png image013.png image011.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Jonathan - Thank you for taking responsibility for this organization's utter incompetence. However, do not ever feel comfortable dismissing our community as unproductive or disrespectful. We pay your exorbitant salaries and benefits. Do not disrespect us. If none of you wish to be accountable to tax payers and home owners, you can all resign. This message thread clearly demonstrates that none of your team is earning their paycheck. They have failed countless times and have ignored doing basic tasks. Please clean house and get people on your team who will actually work with the community in a timely and professional manner. This is not how a functioning local government and democracy works. You're all smart enough to know that. On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 1:31 PM Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> wrote: Moved to BCC: Elisa Vargas, David Borjon, Jodie Gerhardt, Garrett Sauls, Kyle Shea, Jennifer Armer, PDS director Retained citymgr email which keeps the city manager’s office and city council informed of our progress. Shailo, Thank you for your emails. I am removing staff from future emails and would request that you continue your engagement directly with me. My review of this communication thread leaves me with the impression that it is neither productive nor particularly respectful. I have asked staff to not engage in further dialogue on this topic. I have placed a hold on any final inspection and occupancy related to this project. I have a copy of the plans and will personally review the project, specifically as it relates to the ADU and the concerns expressed about the offending windows and related glare. I am aware of the prior issue concerning the height of the main residence, which the neighbors brought to our attention, and as I understand it, has been since remedied. If there are specific code sections that you believe the project violates or is not in compliance with, you are welcome to share that with me, but that is not necessary. I hope to complete my review next week and will follow up with my findings and next steps. Thank you, 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: Friday, October 2, 2026 10:55 AM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Weeks of no response. You would all lose your jobs in a functioning organization. On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 7:00 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Ms. Armer, Kyle, and Garrett - You have not adequately addressed ANY of the items that are neighborhood has brought up repeatedly for years now. Please resign from your positions if you are not going to serve our community. Our taxes pay your salaries. City Council - Please review this staff budget. Why are these people on the payroll? On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 4:20 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Armer, I am writing to follow up on the unresponded formal complaint submitted on September 8 concerning the ongoing construction at 3935 Duncan Pl, following up on our previous correspondence from September 14. The Planning Department's continued lack of response and refusal to address these documented issues is unacceptable. The department cannot continue to shield itself behind narrow code interpretations while ignoring the severe, ongoing privacy and safety impacts this project imposes on neighboring residents. We expect the Planning Department to exercise its administrative authority and take concrete, actionable steps to hold this development accountable. Specifically, we demand that the City withhold final inspection sign-offs and the Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Pl until the following are completed: 1. An independent, inter-departmental review of the project's window placements, height calculations, and overall code compliance. 2. Independent, on-site field verification of the grade measurements and line-of-sight impacts. We look forward to your immediate response confirming that final sign-off has been paused pending these reviews. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 8:23 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jennifer, It's been a week and no response. Do your job. On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 7:33 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jennifer, Thank you for your response. However, your email continues the Planning Department’s troubling pattern of hiding behind selective, narrow readings of the municipal code while absolving itself of any duty to protect the privacy, safety, and livability of long-term Palo Alto residents. The assertion that the City has "evaluated whether these provisions apply" and has "no leverage" to intervene collapses under the documented facts of this project. We require the following issues to be placed squarely into the administrative record and addressed by city leadership: 1. The Department’s Track Record of Oversight on this Exact Parcel Your response asks the neighborhood to trust that staff has properly interpreted and applied every applicable code standard to this build. That trust has been thoroughly eroded by this department’s track record on this exact address: The Planning and Building Department previously reviewed, approved, and permitted a 23-foot-tall structure on this very lot—in blatant violation of the strict 17-foot Single-Story Overlay requirement. That massive, illegal error was not caught by staff’s internal reviews; it was uncovered only because our entire neighborhood was forced to do the department’s job, comb through the plans, and file formal complaints to force the City to rescind its mistake. Given that the City already committed a fundamental regulatory failure on this parcel, the reflexive assertion that the current window layout and ADU specifications are completely lawful and beyond review carries no credibility. 2. Abdication of Duty: Telling Taxpayers to Absorb the Costs of City Errors Acknowledging that shifting the mitigation burden to adjacent homeowners "comes at a cost to you" while brushing it off as "not a unique circumstance" is an unacceptable response from municipal officials. The City allowed a speculative house flipper to install clear, operable windows pointed directly into the private, floor-to-ceiling glass living spaces and children’s study rooms of adjacent Eichlers. Suggesting that long-term tax-paying residents should now spend thousands of dollars to plant mature trees, sacrifice their own open space, block their sunlight, and surrender usable yard area to shield against an invasive build is completely upside down. Any required physical buffer, screening, or architectural retrofit belongs on the developer’s property, paid for by the developer. The victims of poor planning should not be billed for the City's oversight. 3. The Fiction of "Zero Leverage" The statement that the City "does not hold leverage over the property owner" is legally and procedurally incorrect: The City holds the ultimate administrative leverage: the Final Building Inspection sign-off and the Certificate of Occupancy. A permit issued on defective premises or through administrative oversight does not grant a developer blanket immunity against municipal nuisance abatement or health and safety enforcement under California Civil Code § 3479. Furthermore, by accepting the developer’s clever labeling of this ADU as a "studio" to bypass egress privacy rules under PAMC 18.09.040(D), the City has facilitated a glaring loophole. If a future owner puts up a simple partition wall to create a bedroom, those clear, operable windows instantly become non-compliant egress windows facing an interior property line without the required opaque glazing. The City is knowingly signing off on a latent code violation. 4. Active Nuisance and Failure to Regulate Basic Neighborhood Harmony Dismissing our complaints regarding the blinding, overnight illumination by claiming the Dark Sky ordinance is not retroactive misses the core issue: Blasting stadium-level construction lighting directly into 5 to 6 neighboring bedrooms through the night is not a matter of whether a specific new ordinance applies—it is an active, actionable private and public nuisance under common law and general municipal police powers. That the Building Inspection Manager had to personally phone the job site just to get lights switched off proves that this developer has operated with total disregard for the community throughout the entire process. Next Steps & Formal Escalation Since Planning staff has repeatedly stated its inability or unwillingness to exercise administrative authority to protect our families, we will not allow this issue to be quietly closed out. 1. Withhold Final Sign-Off: We formally demand that the City withhold the final Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Place until an independent, inter-departmental review is conducted on the window operability, grade calculations, and side-yard clearances. 2. City Leadership Review: This entire record—including the initial 23-foot permitting blunder, the multiple verified after-hours citations, the photo documentation of direct privacy intrusion, and staff’s written refusal to require on-site remediation—is being submitted directly to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council. If the City Council's adopted policies in 2023 created loopholes so porous that speculative flippers can strip established residents of basic home privacy, then elected leadership needs to confront that failure directly on this case study before final sign-off is granted. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 4:42 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, As staff noted previously, there are instances where the City can apply privacy measures to ADU projects through its objective review process for a building permit. Those are specifically limited to ADUs built under Table 2 of PAMC Section 18.09.040 and the City’s privacy regulations under (k)(2) apply when an egress window faces a neighbor and/or when non-egress windows face a neighbor on an ADU where the first finished floor is two feet or more above grade. Staff have evaluated whether these provisions apply to this project and have determined that they do not. Separately, the City can only apply its Privacy Guidelines for Two-Story homes when application has been proposed; this is not a process available to homes in a single-story overlay. Staff has suggested some alternatives to consider minimizing impacts from this development and while we understand this comes at a cost to you, it is not a unique circumstance. The City does not hold leverage over the property owner to do more than what is required by the code in place at the time the permit was issued. The City’s recent Dark Skies ordinance only covers exterior lighting fixtures for the building – not interior fixtures or lighting from the building. Additionally, it came into effect after this permit was issued. City staff will look to update its ADU code in the future to ensure the privacy standards we can apply are meeting the community’s needs, but those standards would not be retroactively applicable to this project. While we will continue efforts to encourage the contractor to address the concerns and reduce impacts, we cannot require additional changes to this project that go beyond our code requirements. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 9:23 AM To: shailo@gmail.com <shailo@gmail.com> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 Shailo, I appreciate the documentation that you have provided. I find that full understanding is better accomplished through conversation and would welcome the opportunity, should you want to meet. Based on your email below, we will respond to your requests via email. You can expect a response by the end of the week. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 5:35 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Agenda 1. Hear neighbor concerns/project history (Shailo) -- This has been documented over countless emails and Police Reports. Our community has reported everything. Unfortunately these reports have been largely ignored. 2. Describe State mandates and City's regulations/options (Garrett) -- Your turn. 3. Discuss next steps (all) -- Thanks in advance for doing your job. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 5:30 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, Below is my expectation for this meeting. I would welcome your input. Agenda 1. Hear neighbor concerns/project history (Shailo) 2. Describe State mandates and City's regulations/options (Garrett) 3. Discuss next steps (all) Goal: Common understanding of issues, concerns, constraints, and options. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 4:59 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please provide a clear agenda for this meeting, including the meeting goal. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 3:35 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Fridays are a difficult day for site visits and in-person meetings, but I believe you have already had the chance to have Garrett out to the site. With a goal of having an in- person conversation soon, would tomorrow at 2pm or 2:30pm at City Hall be an option for you? Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 1:49 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Jennifer. How about this Friday 8:30 at our house 3905 Duncan Pl, Palo Alto, CA 94306? On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 8:38 AM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good Morning Shailo, Thank you for your detailed emails and efforts to address this situation. I would like to suggest that you, Garrett, and I meet to discuss your concerns and the options and constraints in this situation. For now, I have moved all the other email recipients to bcc, so they don't need to be part of our work to find a time to meet, but if you have other neighbors who wish to join us, please let me know. Is there generally a day of the week and/or time of day that will work well for you? I prefer an in-person meeting if we can find a time that works. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 4:43 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Kyle, and Planning Leadership, Thank you for the updates regarding the temporary outreach to the project manager on the lighting issues. However, suggesting that adjacent homeowners should spend thousands of dollars to plant mature landscaping on our own properties to shield against an invasive build completely misplaces the burden of this project’s impacts. The surrounding neighborhood should not bear the financial, spatial, and logistical burden of mitigating a speculative developer’s poor site design. The City has an administrative duty of care to protect the livelihood, privacy, and safety of its established tax-paying residents. We ask that the Planning and Development Services leadership review the following critical points before any final inspections, approvals, or occupancy certificates are granted: 1. Shifting the Remediation Burden is Inappropriate Suggesting that established homeowners plant screening trees on their side of the fence fails basic planning fairness: Our properties are historic Eichlers built around signature glass architecture and established backyard footprints. Forcing neighbors to eliminate their own sunlight, open yard space, and property functionality to shield against clear windows that never should have been approved in this orientation is an unreasonable demand. Any required landscape buffer, physical screening, or architectural mitigation belongs on the developer’s parcel, not on the surrounding community. 2. Operational Band-Aids Do Not Solve the Permanent "Lighthouse" Effect While we appreciate Kyle contacting the site manager regarding job site lighting, this only addresses an active construction infraction. As demonstrated by the photographs submitted across multiple nights, the elevation and unrestricted window placement create an intrusive "lighthouse" beaming directly into the bedrooms and living areas of 5 to 6 neighboring families. Once construction finishes and the house is sold, city staff will not be calling the new tenant every evening. A permanent architectural remedy is required now, while the City still holds regulatory leverage before sign-off. 3. The Failure of Local Enforcement vs. Holistic City Authority The Planning Department continues to rely on technicalities—treating this structure as a "studio" to bypass egress privacy rules and citing grade thresholds to avoid window restrictions. Relying on these technical loopholes ignores the City’s broader authority under PAMC Chapter 18.12/18.40 (Single-Family Residential Compatibility) and California Nuisance Law (Civil Code § 3479). A Single-Story Overlay was enacted specifically to protect neighborhood light, air, and character. Allowing a speculative developer to construct high, un-screened viewing planes that directly look into our children's study and living spaces represents an active breakdown in local zoning protections. Required Conditions for Final Sign-Off To resolve this issue equitably before occupancy is permitted, we demand that the City attach the following mandatory conditions to 3935 Duncan Place: 1. Mandatory Removal of Invasive Windows: Require the developer to completely remove all clear, operable side- and rear-facing windows overlooking 3905 and 3881 Duncan Place. These walls must be enclosed as solid walls or retrofitted strictly as high, fixed non-operable openings with zero operability or direct line of sight into private living spaces. 2. On-Site Developer Landscaping: Require the developer to install tall, evergreen privacy trees and screening on their property boundary before final inspection sign-off. 3. Lighting & Photometric Compliance: Mandate fully shielded, downward-directed fixtures (Dark Sky compliance) and automated cut-off timers on all exterior/interior boundary-facing illumination. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking the City of Palo Alto to enforce basic standards of safety, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. We look forward to an update from Director Lait and department leadership on how the City intends to enforce these necessary mitigations prior to final sign- off. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 8:16 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi all, It sounds like Kyle spoke to the project manager who agreed to ensure the lights are turned off at the end of the day. If that hasn’t been happening, please let us know and we’ll follow up with them. Unfortunately, our code doesn’t have requirements for landscape screening between properties whether it’s an ADU or a new home and adjacent properties unless they go through the two-story design review process so we cannot require those to be implemented here. We do have privacy measures for ADUs that meet certain criteria which we described before this one does not meet. I have seen other scenarios where neighbors will plant landscaping on their side of the property to provide them more privacy. I understand your frustrations with this project and the limits of the City’s ordinances. Unfortunately, even if the codes change in the future, I haven’t seen us retroactively apply these standards to projects that have permits issued before that ordinance took effect. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 4:51 PM To: Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov> Cc: Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. What's the long term solution? On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 12:11 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you Kyle, but assuming this unprofessional construction company even complies, this is nothing more than just a temporary bandaid. What's the long term solution to the lighthouse created by this house flipper's cheap design? Please be proactive here. The city should never have approved these plans and allowed the construction of this eyesore to get this far. This light was also on for for 2 straight nights. You acted way too slowly here again. You completely ignored Hiral Parekh's email 2 nights ago. Do better. On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 11:08 AM Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Jeff, I reached out to project manager yesterday regarding lights being left on throughout the night. He returned my call this morning and I have requested that all lights are off at the end of the day. Thank you Kyle Kyle Shea, CASp Building Inspection Manager Planning and Development Department O: (650) 617-3507 C: (650) 313-1897| Kyle.Shea@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:38 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: shailo@gmail.com; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to bring an urgent local issue to your attention regarding a major oversight in city planning and code enforcement in Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto recently allowed real estate developers and speculators to construct a massively tall and oversized new house right in the middle of our traditional Eichler neighborhood. Because iconic Eichler homes feature expansive glass walls, floor-to-ceiling windows, and continuous open outdoor spaces, living here is like living in a "fishbowl." Constructing such a massive structure right next to us feels like erecting a giant "lighthouse" directly over these fishbowls. Furthermore, these developers routinely keep all the electric lights on bright late into the night. The harsh light beams directly through the glass windows of 5 to 6 neighboring homes, severe disrupting residents' sleep. Despite these invasive conditions, the City has failed to enforce basic protections: Developers have not been required to turn off or dim lights at night. No temporary blackout curtains have been mandated to prevent light from shining into neighboring windows. Developers have not been required to plant tall privacy trees to buffer the visual and lighting impact on adjacent properties. Jeff Huang 3881 Duncan Place Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>於 2026年8月20日週四，上午8:07寫道： Good morning, Shailo, After speaking with the Chief Building Official and Planning Director, they agreed that Kyle and mine’s on-site measurement confirmed that the proposed building is consistent with the City’s regulations. As they are consistent with the requirements in our municipal code, we cannot require that the applicant do more than that. To your concerns around the tree roots and protection measures, please connect with my colleague Peter Gollinger in Urban Forestry: Peter.Gollinger@PaloAlto.gov. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:27 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. How could this be approved by the city? On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 7:56 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: It has been 48 days without a response. On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Please respond. This house flipper has created a dangerous situation. They can literally look directly into our kid's study room, living room, and kitchen. We can do the same for their cheaply constructed house. They are also making all neighbors uncomfortable with their viewing area. Please inspect this construction's current state. There are zero fire access reasons for this invasive design, On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:00 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Garrett, Thank you for your response and for performing the on-site measurement with Kyle. We appreciate your transparency regarding the methodology used under PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B) and your consultation with the Chief Building Official. While we understand that your department is executing a literal application of the text regarding studio egress, we cannot accept that a technical loophole should absolve a speculative project from holistic city compliance. Because this build creates an active, permanent privacy and safety intrusion into our homes, we are maintaining our formal complaint. However, rather than placing the burden on the surrounding neighborhood to absorb this impact or spend personal time drafting municipal petitions, the burden of proof and administrative due diligence must rest squarely on the applicant and the City. To resolve this conflict and ensure absolute compliance before any further structural inspections or occupancy permits are signed off, we request that the City mandate the following actions: 1. Developer Must Provide a Certified Topographic and Civil Survey While we appreciate your field tape-measurement, a manual measurement does not substitute for a certified engineering layout on a sloped R-1 lot where inches dictate code compliance. Because we formally contest the grading baselines used by the applicant, the City should require the developer to submit a certified, stamped topographic survey from a licensed civil engineer validating the exact, un-altered pre-construction natural grade. Construction progress on the ADU envelope should be placed on an administrative hold until the developer funds and provides this precise data to your department for verification. 2. Mandatory Inter-Departmental Referral to Urban Forestry The structural footprint, foundation excavation, and utility trenching for this ADU run directly along our shared property lines, deeply encroaching into the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) of our mature, established landscaping. Under PAMC Chapter 8.10, the developer is legally required to maintain strict protection protocols. We request that the Planning Department formally refer this project to the Urban Forestry Division to open an active field investigation file. The developer should be required to submit an independent arborist's report proving that their excavation has not permanently compromised or damaged the protected root systems of adjacent properties. 3. Planning Department Referral to City Council on ADU Ordinance Failures You mentioned that the City Council adopted these rules in 2023 believing they were appropriate. However, this project stands as a textbook case study of how speculative builders can easily manipulate "studio" designations and minor grading thresholds to completely subvert the single-story overlay protections of Palo Alto's historic Eichler neighborhoods. As the administrative body overseeing these codes, we request that the Planning Department flag this active enforcement failure directly to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of your department's ongoing monitoring of state and local ADU policy impacts. The onus shouldn't be on the residents to write policy petitions to fix a clear regulatory gap that your team has now physically witnessed on-site. Moving Forward Ultimately, our neighborhood group is asking for a livable, common-sense resolution. The simplest way for the developer to clear these administrative hurdles, satisfy the neighborhood, and avoid a prolonged timeline is to immediately retrofit the highly invasive windows with factory-frosted opaque glazing or high clerestory openings. Until the developer provides a certified civil survey and arborist compliance verification, we request that the city withhold further inspection sign-offs on the 3935 Duncan Pl structure. Thank you for your continued partnership and for ensuring our city codes are held to the highest standard of accountability. Warm regards, Shailo On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 9:21 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Kyle Shea and I were able to go out to the property last week to evaluate the height of the structure. Looking at the property, we noted the following: 1. The height of the ADU and window placement comply with the requirements I referenced before. To determine this, we took a measurement from existing grade at the adjacent properties which reflected what grade was prior to construction (consistent with how we measure grade based on PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B) for R-1 lots with slope changes of less than 10%) and measured to the first finished floor inside the building. The height did not exceed two feet which is the threshold for when the ADU privacy requirements must be incorporated into the structure. 2. Kyle and I spoke with the Chief Building Official about your concerns about the windows not being classified as EERO windows. The Chief Building Official echoed our previous response that the residential building code only requires one emergency escape and rescue opening. The door is designated as the required opening for this studio and so these windows would not be considered as egress windows. In addition, the windows which face your property are physically limited by the placement of the fence and would not qualify as egress points from the structure. As a result, we cannot apply our ADU privacy regulations to these windows. The City does not have privacy measures for single-story homes, only two-story homes. Council adopted privacy regulations for second dwelling units, but they only apply under the circumstances that I highlighted before. In this case, we are unable to apply these rules to this project. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:52 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Thank you for the update and for arranging the upcoming site visit with the inspection manager. We genuinely appreciate your proactive approach in verifying whether the physical construction matches the approved plan sets. While we acknowledge your point regarding the explicit tiering of certain rules under the single-story overlay, we must firmly push back on the notion that the City lacks any administrative framework to address severe, deleterious privacy impacts caused by single-story primary dwellings or ground-level ADUs. Before your site visit, we ask that your department evaluate the following established planning principles and municipal hooks, which we stand by firmly: 1. Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines Apply to All Dwellings While PAMC Chapter 18.12 and the Single-Story Overlay (S-Overlay) regulate specific structural metrics like height and floor-area ratios, primary single- family home approvals remain fundamentally bound by the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (adopted by City Council resolution). These compatibility standards do not expire or become optional simply because a home is single-story. The guidelines explicitly dictate that window placement must minimize direct privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors, specifically recommending the offset of windows, utilization of high-sill/clerestory openings, and obscured glass when facing the primary living spaces of adjacent properties. The developer’s choice to place low, clear, operable windows directly parallel to our historic, floor-to-ceiling Eichler glass walls directly violates the core compatibility tenets of these city-adopted standards. 2. Strict Field Verification of the ADU "Two-Foot Grade" Threshold (PAMC 18.09.040(E)) We are very glad the inspection manager is visiting the site, as this is where paper schematics must confront real-world topography. Because the lot at 3935 Duncan Pl sits on a natural slope relative to 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl, a measurement that looks compliant on a flat blueprint can easily manifest as a violation in the field. We formally request that the inspector measure the finished floor height relative to the actual, pre-existing natural grade at our shared property lines, rather than an artificial benchmark or modified grade fill imported by the construction crew. If the physical framing or concrete slab sits 2 feet or more above the true adjacent grade facing our yards, the privacy mandates of Section 18.09.040(E) must be retroactively enforced. 3. The Predictable "Studio" Loophole and Future Enforcement Burden By designating the ADU as a "studio" to establish the entry door as the sole legal path of egress, the developer has bypassed the window privacy rule (18.09.040(D)) on paper. However, if a future occupant adds a cosmetic partition wall to create a separated sleeping area—a highly predictable layout modification for a speculative flip—these exact windows will instantly become non-compliant, unpermitted egress openings. The City should not permit a speculative builder to bake a structural code conflict into the property's footprint, leaving long-term residents to bear the future enforcement burden. Coordinating the Site Visit We remain fully committed to working collaboratively with your office to find an equitable, livable solution. A simple, permanent remedy—such as requiring the developer to use factory-frosted opaque glazing or high-set window retrofits on the walls facing our properties—fully protects our families' privacy without reducing the developer's built square footage. Please let us know the scheduled date and time of your site inspection. We would like to ensure we are home to grant you and the inspection manager access to our backyards, allowing you to see the exact, unfiltered line of sight from our living spaces. Warm regards, Shailo On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 8:14 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Thank you for your email. We appreciate the concerns you raised previously in addition to the items you noted in your email below from yesterday. I am coordinating with the inspection manager to go to the site to determine whether they have built their project according to the approved plans we have on file. If there are any issues that I note which affect the need for privacy measures for the ADU, then I will let all you know. Can you clarify which specific provisions you are referencing in section 3 below regarding privacy from the single-family home? Palo Alto has a design review process and privacy measures for two-story homes, but we do not have privacy measures for single-story homes except as they apply to ADU/JADUs under PAMC 18.09.040 and .050. Given that the properties within this area have a single-story overlay, a two-story home would not be permissible where we would apply privacy measures. If there is a separate neighborhood organization for the eichler neighborhood that manages architectural style or design through CC&Rs, that is a private entity and rules that come from it are only privately enforceable. I stand by the response I provided before regarding egress windows and when privacy measures apply. The Council adopted ordinance, and the conversations I had with them around this issue in 2023, discussed many of the concerns you raised. Ultimately, they adopted these rules and felt they were appropriate. If you have any questions, let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 9:05 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Sauls and Ms. Vargas-Aguilera, Thank you for your response dated May 1, 2026. We appreciate the Planning Department's technical review of the architectural plans for 3935 Duncan Pl. The current construction creates an unprecedented, severe privacy intrusion that directly violates both the letter and the legislative intent of Palo Alto’s zoning ordinances. This correspondence serves as our formal Notice of Zoning Non-Compliance. We urge the Planning Department to issue an immediate Stop Work Order (Cease and Desist) on all window installations and wall enclosures facing our interior property lines until these issues are legally resolved. We submit the following points for the administrative record: 1. Defective "Studio" Designation and Egress Loophole (PAMC 18.09.040(D)) Your letter notes that because the applicant labeled the structure a "studio unit" rather than a traditional one-bedroom, the entry door is designated as the primary egress path, thereby rendering PAMC 18.09.040(D) inapplicable to the windows. As a matter of law and public safety, this interpretation is deeply defective: Secondary Egress Reality: Under California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 10, any window of sufficient dimension in a habitable space can and will function as a secondary emergency escape and rescue opening. Violation of Mandatory Code Language: PAMC 18.09.040(D) states explicitly: “Where feasible, egress windows... shall not face towards an adjacent interior property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize opaque glazing on the whole window.” The code uses the mandatory term “shall.” The "Where Feasible" Standard: The developer had ample alternative orientations (frontage, rear yard depth, or internal courtyard layout) to place these windows. Positioning large, clear, operable windows directly looking into our historic Eichler floor-to-ceiling glass walls fails the legal test of "feasibility." Labeling a unit a studio to bypass neighborhood privacy mandates constitutes an impermissible circumvention of local zoning restrictions. 2. Physical Fact-Checking of Finished Grade Height (PAMC 18.09.040(E)) Your review of the developer's submitted blueprint sets indicates that the first finished floor is not two feet or greater from grade. We formally challenge the accuracy of the applicant's submitted grade charts: Due to the specific topographical slope of the lots on Duncan Pl, the structure's physical height relative to the actual, existing natural grade bordering 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl creates a severe, elevated vantage point. Plan sets submitted by speculative house-flippers often rely on idealized or altered "finished grades" rather than existing natural topography. We demand an independent, on-site measurement by a city building inspector to verify the exact distance from the actual ground level to the top of the subfloor framing before any further structural inspections are approved. 3. Failure of the Primary Residence to Meet Neighborhood Compatibility Standards Our initial filing concerned privacy violations stemming from both the ADU and the main residential structure. Your response omitted any mention of the primary home. While the 2023 City Council discussions you cited may have limited certain uniform privacy restrictions on one-story ADUs, they absolutely did not strip the City of its authority or duty to enforce privacy mandates on primary single-family residential construction. Under Palo Alto's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Contextual Standards (PAMC 18.12/18.40), new structures must be compatible with the existing neighborhood fabric. Constructing clear, direct-sight windows facing the private, glass-walled rears of established Eichler homes violates these long-standing city development standards. 4. Demand for Immediate Administrative Action A house flipper operates on an abbreviated timeline to maximize profit and exit the community, leaving permanent, irreparable damage to the privacy, safety, and property values of long-term residents. To prevent this matter from escalating to formal litigation under California’s private nuisance laws and Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution (Inalienable Right to Privacy), we request that the City immediately take the following actions: 1. Halt Construction / Issue a Stop Work Order on the framing, window installation, and siding of the walls directly facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl. 2. Mandate a Corrective Plan Revision requiring the developer to retrofit all side/interiors-facing windows on both structures to utilize high-set, non- operable clerestory windows or permanent, factory-installed opaque/frosted glazing. 3. Conduct an On-Site Inspection alongside the affected neighbors to verify the actual visual impact and lines of sight from our living rooms. We are fully prepared to protect our families and our community's architectural integrity through all available administrative and legal channels. We look forward to your prompt response and the scheduling of an immediate on-site inspection. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Resident and Property Owner, 3905 Duncan Pl On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 8:08 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Shailo, Thank you for sharing this additional information. We are going to the Planning and Transportation Commission tomorrow to discuss changes to our ADU ordinance if you want to attend and provide your feedback and experience. The item will be heard around 6:15pm and you are welcome to attend virtually or in person to provide that feedback. Please note that the project complies with our code requirements and any changes to the code in the future would could not be applied retroactively to this project. Best regards Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 6:14 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see attached photos. The house flipper has created a mess where they can look directly into both of houses (living / dining areas). This is an invasion of our privacy and risks the safety of our families. If current city codes allow for this situation, they need to be updated. This should not be happening in our community. On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 2:38 PM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Thank you for reaching out and I apologize I didn’t respond sooner as I had to confirm a couple things before responding. Firstly, I am removing Brian from this thread as he is on leave. I have included his manager, Elisa Vargas-Aguilera, to this thread instead. Looking into the project further, I have the following feedback: 1. PAMC 18.09.040(D) identifies that egress windows either need to face neighboring property lines or utilize opaque glazing on the whole of the window. Egress windows are windows that are required for emergency exiting in the event of a fire or other life safety event. Typically, these are required from individual bedrooms but in this case, the applicant proposed a studio unit which doesn’t have a closed off bedroom separate from the rest of the unit. When a studio unit is proposed, the entrance to the unit serves as the egress. In speaking with the inspection manager, he confirmed that the plans do not call out the proposed windows as egress windows. Unless these windows were egress windows, we cannot apply this rule to the project. 2. PAMC 18.09.040(E) identifies that when the first finished floor of the ADU is two feet or greater in height from grade, then non-egress windows that face a neighboring property must have a five-foot sill height (if operable) or use opaque glazing on the window (up to five feet from the finished floor of the unit). As shown in the images below from the plan set, the proposed structure’s first finished floor is not two feet or greater from grade. Unfortunately, we cannot apply this rule to the project either. For some context, I spoke with the Planning Commission and City Council about these rules in 2023 and at that time, there wasn’t majority support to uniformly apply privacy rules to one-story ADUs, just to two-story structures with these specific caveats for certain circumstances. We appreciate the concerns that you’ve raised and want to continue to work with you when there are construction related issues that come up which you highlighted before. Hopefully, those haven’t continued since we spoke last. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 7:31 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Reynolds, Brian <Brian.Reynolds@paloalto.gov>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov> Subject: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department: We, the residents of 3905 Duncan Pl and 3881 Duncan Pl, are writing to formally submit a collaborative complaint regarding the ongoing construction at 3935 Duncan Pl. While we support the thoughtful addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within our community, the current development at this address demonstrates a clear disregard for Palo Alto’s privacy standards and specific zoning ordinances, creating an untenable situation for our families. 1. Violation of ADU Zoning Code 18.09.040 The construction of the ADU and main residence includes clear, operable windows that directly face the interior property lines of our homes. This design stands in direct violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.09.040 (D) and (E), which outlines clear standards for privacy and window placement: Sill Height and Operability (18.09.040.E): Because the first finished floor of this unit is elevated, the current installation of low, clear, operable windows violates the requirement for a minimum five-foot sill height for operable windows or opaque glazing for the lower half of non-operable windows. Glazing Requirements (18.09.040.D): The windows at 3935 Duncan Pl are currently clear and operable, directly overlooking our private living spaces. Per the code, egress windows must utilize opaque glazing. 2. Impact on Privacy and Safety Our homes are classic Eichler designs, characterized by signature floor-to-ceiling glass walls at the rear. This architectural style relies heavily on the privacy of our backyards. The windows at 3935 Duncan Pl are positioned such that they have a direct, unobstructed line of sight into our: Kitchens and dining areas Family rooms Study rooms and private home offices This is not merely a matter of aesthetics; it is a significant safety and privacy concern. Our households include young children whose daily activities are now completely visible to a revolving door of contractors and future occupants of a "spec" house. 3. Community Standards and Past Precedents When we remodeled our own homes, we worked closely with the City to ensure our designs respected our neighbors' privacy. For instance, the wall at 3905 Duncan Pl facing 3881 Duncan Pl utilizes high-set, non-operable windows to ensure no line of sight into the neighbor’s yard. The developer at 3935 Duncan Pl has shown a pattern of disruption and disregard for these established community norms. As this project is a "house flip," the current owners lack a long-term stake in the harmony of our street, yet their construction choices will leave a permanent negative impact on the privacy and property values of our established homes. 4. Requested Action We respectfully request that the City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement Division conduct a site inspection to verify these violations. We ask that the following corrective measures be mandated before any final permits are signed off: 1. Relocate all windows facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl with opaque/frosted glazing with no viewing ability as required by Code 18.09.040. 2. Modify operable windows to comply with the five-foot sill height requirement to prevent direct overlooking. We value the character of Palo Alto and the safety of our neighborhood. We are happy to meet with a city inspector on-site to demonstrate the severity of the privacy intrusion from our vantage point. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for your dedication to maintaining the standards of our community. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Resident of 3905 Duncan Pl From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Vicki Veenker; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; brianhama@gmail.com; Raymond Goins; Matt Schlegel; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Human Relations Commission; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Mora Oommen; Brandon Pho; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; board@pausd.org; supervisor.abe- koga@bos.sccgov.org; Board of Directors Subject:La Honda City council Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 12:38:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Gary, I suggest you drop out of the city council race and next election cycle run for office in La Honda. See today’s Daily Post. Avram P.S. BTW: Your state-bar information shows à La Honda address not Palo Alto. Please explain. From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Reckdahl, Keith; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Templeton, Cari; h.etzko@gmail.com; Gennady Sheyner; Matt Schlegel; Raymond Goins; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Jeff Conrad; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Gennady Sheyner; Human Relations Commission; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Mora Oommen; Gary Gechlik; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations Subject:Agree with Dave Price, Daily Post- Dave Price virtue signia Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 12:20:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Vicki, Please drop out the city council race -you and I and the Daily Post know you don't intend to complete your 4-term on city council. You are deceiving the Palo Alto voters. Drop out prepare for your 2028 race for state assembly and throw your votes to Raymond Goins. Avram “Eliminate The State of Israel” Finkelstein From:Shailo Rao To:Armer, Jennifer Cc:Sauls, Garrett; Shea, Kyle; Jeff Jeff; Gerhardt, Jodie; Sarah Smith Le; Hiral Parekh; City Mgr; pdsdirector; Amy Amy; Ethan Lin; Borjon, David; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Council, City Subject:Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 10:59:17 AM Attachments:Outlook-lxvzfakd.png image003.png image021.png image014.png Outlook-2i2ps0mg.png image013.png image018.png image015.png Outlook-Logo image026.png image017.png Outlook-imtrtmeh.png Outlook-ugsfxxlv.png image025.png Outlook-Logo Outlook-oqtig1du.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Weeks of no response. You would all lose your jobs in a functioning organization. On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 7:00 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Ms. Armer, Kyle, and Garrett - You have not adequately addressed ANY of the items that are neighborhood has brought up repeatedly for years now. Please resign from your positions if you are not going to serve our community. Our taxes pay your salaries. City Council - Please review this staff budget. Why are these people on the payroll? On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 4:20 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Armer, I am writing to follow up on the unresponded formal complaint submitted on September 8 concerning the ongoing construction at 3935 Duncan Pl, following up on our previous correspondence from September 14. The Planning Department's continued lack of response and refusal to address these documented issues is unacceptable. The department cannot continue to shield itself behind narrow code interpretations while ignoring the severe, ongoing privacy and safety impacts this project imposes on neighboring residents. We expect the Planning Department to exercise its administrative authority and take concrete, actionable steps to hold this development accountable. Specifically, we demand that the City withhold final inspection sign-offs and the Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Pl until the following are completed: 1. An independent, inter-departmental review of the project's window placements, height calculations, and overall code compliance. 2. Independent, on-site field verification of the grade measurements and line-of-sight impacts. We look forward to your immediate response confirming that final sign-off has been paused pending these reviews. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 8:23 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jennifer, It's been a week and no response. Do your job. On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 7:33 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jennifer, Thank you for your response. However, your email continues the Planning Department’s troubling pattern of hiding behind selective, narrow readings of the municipal code while absolving itself of any duty to protect the privacy, safety, and livability of long-term Palo Alto residents. The assertion that the City has "evaluated whether these provisions apply" and has "no leverage" to intervene collapses under the documented facts of this project. We require the following issues to be placed squarely into the administrative record and addressed by city leadership: 1. The Department’s Track Record of Oversight on this Exact Parcel Your response asks the neighborhood to trust that staff has properly interpreted and applied every applicable code standard to this build. That trust has been thoroughly eroded by this department’s track record on this exact address: The Planning and Building Department previously reviewed, approved, and permitted a 23-foot-tall structure on this very lot—in blatant violation of the strict 17-foot Single-Story Overlay requirement. That massive, illegal error was not caught by staff’s internal reviews; it was uncovered only because our entire neighborhood was forced to do the department’s job, comb through the plans, and file formal complaints to force the City to rescind its mistake. Given that the City already committed a fundamental regulatory failure on this parcel, the reflexive assertion that the current window layout and ADU specifications are completely lawful and beyond review carries no credibility. 2. Abdication of Duty: Telling Taxpayers to Absorb the Costs of City Errors Acknowledging that shifting the mitigation burden to adjacent homeowners "comes at a cost to you" while brushing it off as "not a unique circumstance" is an unacceptable response from municipal officials. children’s study rooms of adjacent Eichlers. Suggesting that long-term tax-paying residents should now spend thousands of dollars to plant mature trees, sacrifice their own open space, block their sunlight, and surrender usable yard area to shield against an invasive build is completely upside down. Any required physical buffer, screening, or architectural retrofit belongs on the developer’s property, paid for by the developer. The victims of poor planning should not be billed for the City's oversight. 3. The Fiction of "Zero Leverage" The statement that the City "does not hold leverage over the property owner" is legally and procedurally incorrect: The City holds the ultimate administrative leverage: the Final Building Inspection sign-off and the Certificate of Occupancy. A permit issued on defective premises or through administrative oversight does not grant a developer blanket immunity against municipal nuisance abatement or health and safety enforcement under California Civil Code § 3479. Furthermore, by accepting the developer’s clever labeling of this ADU as a "studio" to bypass egress privacy rules under PAMC 18.09.040(D), the City has facilitated a glaring loophole. If a future owner puts up a simple partition wall to create a bedroom, those clear, operable windows instantly become non-compliant egress windows facing an interior property line without the required opaque glazing. The City is knowingly signing off on a latent code violation. 4. Active Nuisance and Failure to Regulate Basic Neighborhood Harmony Dismissing our complaints regarding the blinding, overnight illumination by claiming the Dark Sky ordinance is not retroactive misses the core issue: Blasting stadium-level construction lighting directly into 5 to 6 neighboring bedrooms through the night is not a matter of whether a specific new ordinance applies—it is an active, actionable private and public nuisance under common law and general municipal police powers. That the Building Inspection Manager had to personally phone the job site just to get lights switched off proves that this developer has operated with total disregard for the community throughout the entire process. Next Steps & Formal Escalation Since Planning staff has repeatedly stated its inability or unwillingness to exercise administrative authority to protect our families, we will not allow this issue to be quietly closed out. 1. Withhold Final Sign-Off: We formally demand that the City withhold the final Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Place until an independent, inter-departmental review is conducted on the window operability, grade calculations, and side-yard clearances. 2. City Leadership Review: This entire record—including the initial 23-foot permitting blunder, the multiple verified after-hours citations, the photo documentation of direct privacy intrusion, and staff’s written refusal to require on-site remediation—is being submitted directly to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council. If the City Council's adopted policies in 2023 created loopholes so porous that speculative flippers can strip established residents of basic home privacy, then elected leadership needs to confront that failure directly on this case study before final sign-off is granted. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 4:42 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, As staff noted previously, there are instances where the City can apply privacy measures to ADU projects through its objective review process for a building permit. Those are specifically limited to ADUs built under Table 2 of PAMC Section 18.09.040 and the City’s privacy regulations under (k)(2) apply when an egress window faces a neighbor and/or when non-egress windows face a neighbor on an ADU where the first finished floor is two feet or more above grade. Staff have evaluated whether these provisions apply to this project and have determined that they do not. Separately, the City can only apply its Privacy Guidelines for Two-Story homes when application has been proposed; this is not a process available to homes in a single-story overlay. Staff has suggested some alternatives to consider minimizing impacts from this development and while we understand this comes at a cost to you, it is not a unique circumstance. The City does not hold leverage over the property owner to do more than what is required by the code in place at the time the permit was issued. The City’s recent Dark Skies ordinance only covers exterior lighting fixtures for the building – not interior fixtures or lighting from the building. Additionally, it came into effect after this permit was issued. City staff will look to update its ADU code in the future to ensure the privacy standards we can apply are meeting the community’s needs, but those standards would not be retroactively applicable to this project. While we will continue efforts to encourage the contractor to address the concerns and reduce impacts, we cannot require additional changes to this project that go beyond our code requirements. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 9:23 AM To: shailo@gmail.com <shailo@gmail.com> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 Shailo, I appreciate the documentation that you have provided. I find that full understanding is better accomplished through conversation and would welcome the opportunity, should you want to meet. Based on your email below, we will respond to your requests via email. You can expect a response by the end of the week. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 5:35 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This can be accomplished over email. Agenda 1. Hear neighbor concerns/project history (Shailo) -- This has been documented over countless emails and Police Reports. Our community has reported everything. Unfortunately these reports have been largely ignored. 2. Describe State mandates and City's regulations/options (Garrett) -- Your turn. 3. Discuss next steps (all) -- Thanks in advance for doing your job. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 5:30 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, Below is my expectation for this meeting. I would welcome your input. Agenda 1. Hear neighbor concerns/project history (Shailo) 2. Describe State mandates and City's regulations/options (Garrett) 3. Discuss next steps (all) Goal: Common understanding of issues, concerns, constraints, and options. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 4:59 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please provide a clear agenda for this meeting, including the meeting goal. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 3:35 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Fridays are a difficult day for site visits and in-person meetings, but I believe you have already had the chance to have Garrett out to the site. With a goal of having an in- person conversation soon, would tomorrow at 2pm or 2:30pm at City Hall be an option for you? Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 1:49 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Jennifer. How about this Friday 8:30 at our house 3905 Duncan Pl, Palo Alto, CA 94306? On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 8:38 AM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good Morning Shailo, Thank you for your detailed emails and efforts to address this situation. I would like to suggest that you, Garrett, and I meet to discuss your concerns and the options and constraints in this situation. For now, I have moved all the other email recipients to bcc, so they don't need to be part of our work to find a time to meet, but if you have other neighbors who wish to join us, please let me know. Is there generally a day of the week and/or time of day that will work well for you? I prefer an in-person meeting if we can find a time that works. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 4:43 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Kyle, and Planning Leadership, Thank you for the updates regarding the temporary outreach to the project manager on the lighting issues. However, suggesting that adjacent homeowners should spend thousands of dollars to plant mature landscaping on our own properties to shield against an invasive build completely misplaces the burden of this project’s impacts. The surrounding neighborhood should not bear the financial, spatial, and logistical burden of mitigating a speculative developer’s poor site design. The City has an administrative duty of care to protect the livelihood, privacy, and safety of its established tax-paying residents. We ask that the Planning and Development Services leadership review the following critical points before any final inspections, approvals, or occupancy certificates are granted: 1. Shifting the Remediation Burden is Inappropriate Suggesting that established homeowners plant screening trees on their side of the fence fails basic planning fairness: Our properties are historic Eichlers built around signature glass architecture and established backyard footprints. Forcing neighbors to eliminate their own sunlight, open yard space, and property functionality to shield against clear windows that never should have been approved in this orientation is an unreasonable demand. Any required landscape buffer, physical screening, or architectural mitigation belongs on the developer’s parcel, not on the surrounding community. 2. Operational Band-Aids Do Not Solve the Permanent "Lighthouse" Effect While we appreciate Kyle contacting the site manager regarding job site lighting, this only addresses an active construction infraction. As demonstrated by the photographs submitted across multiple nights, the elevation and unrestricted window placement create an intrusive "lighthouse" beaming directly into the bedrooms and living areas of 5 to 6 neighboring families. Once construction finishes and the house is sold, city staff will not be calling the new tenant every evening. A permanent architectural remedy is required now, while the City still holds regulatory leverage before sign-off. 3. The Failure of Local Enforcement vs. Holistic City Authority The Planning Department continues to rely on technicalities—treating this structure as a "studio" to bypass egress privacy rules and citing grade thresholds to avoid window restrictions. Relying on these technical loopholes ignores the City’s broader authority under PAMC Chapter 18.12/18.40 (Single-Family Residential Compatibility) and California Nuisance Law (Civil Code § 3479). A Single-Story Overlay was enacted specifically to protect neighborhood light, air, and character. Allowing a speculative developer to construct high, un-screened viewing planes that directly look into our children's study and living spaces represents an active breakdown in local zoning protections. Required Conditions for Final Sign-Off To resolve this issue equitably before occupancy is permitted, we demand that the City attach the following mandatory conditions to 3935 Duncan Place: 1. Mandatory Removal of Invasive Windows: Require the developer to completely remove all clear, operable side- and rear-facing windows overlooking 3905 and 3881 Duncan Place. These walls must be enclosed as solid walls or retrofitted strictly as high, fixed non-operable openings with zero operability or direct line of sight into private living spaces. 2. On-Site Developer Landscaping: Require the developer to install tall, evergreen privacy trees and screening on their property boundary before final inspection sign-off. 3. Lighting & Photometric Compliance: Mandate fully shielded, downward-directed fixtures (Dark Sky compliance) and automated cut-off timers on all exterior/interior boundary-facing illumination. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking the City of Palo Alto to enforce basic standards of safety, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. We look forward to an update from Director Lait and department leadership on how the City intends to enforce these necessary mitigations prior to final sign-off. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 8:16 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi all, It sounds like Kyle spoke to the project manager who agreed to ensure the lights are turned off at the end of the day. If that hasn’t been happening, please let us know and we’ll follow up with them. Unfortunately, our code doesn’t have requirements for landscape screening between properties whether it’s an ADU or a new home and adjacent properties unless they go through the two-story design review process so we cannot require those to be implemented here. We do have privacy measures for ADUs that meet certain criteria which we described before this one does not meet. I have seen other scenarios where neighbors will plant landscaping on their side of the property to provide them more privacy. I understand your frustrations with this project and the limits of the City’s ordinances. Unfortunately, even if the codes change in the future, I haven’t seen us retroactively apply these standards to projects that have permits issued before that ordinance took effect. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 4:51 PM To: Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov> Cc: Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. What's the long term solution? On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 12:11 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you Kyle, but assuming this unprofessional construction company even complies, this is nothing more than just a temporary bandaid. What's the long term solution to the lighthouse created by this house flipper's cheap design? Please be proactive here. The city should never have approved these plans and allowed the construction of this eyesore to get this far. This light was also on for for 2 straight nights. You acted way too slowly here again. You completely ignored Hiral Parekh's email 2 nights ago. Do better. On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 11:08 AM Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Jeff, I reached out to project manager yesterday regarding lights being left on throughout the night. He returned my call this morning and I have requested that all lights are off at the end of the day. Thank you Kyle Kyle Shea, CASp Building Inspection Manager Planning and Development Department O: (650) 617-3507 C: (650) 313-1897| Kyle.Shea@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:38 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: shailo@gmail.com; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to bring an urgent local issue to your attention regarding a major oversight in city planning and code enforcement in Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto recently allowed real estate developers and speculators to construct a massively tall and oversized new house right in the middle of our traditional Eichler neighborhood. Because iconic Eichler homes feature expansive glass walls, floor-to-ceiling windows, and continuous open outdoor spaces, living here is like living in a "fishbowl." Constructing such a massive structure right next to us feels like erecting a giant "lighthouse" directly over these fishbowls. Furthermore, these developers routinely keep all the electric lights on bright late into the night. The harsh light beams directly through the glass windows of 5 to 6 neighboring homes, severe disrupting residents' sleep. Despite these invasive conditions, the City has failed to enforce basic protections: Developers have not been required to turn off or dim lights at night. No temporary blackout curtains have been mandated to prevent light from shining into neighboring windows. Developers have not been required to plant tall privacy trees to buffer the visual and lighting impact on adjacent properties. Jeff Huang 3881 Duncan Place Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>於 2026年8月20日週四，上午8:07寫道： Good morning, Shailo, After speaking with the Chief Building Official and Planning Director, they agreed that Kyle and mine’s on-site measurement confirmed that the proposed building is consistent with the City’s regulations. As they are consistent with the requirements in our municipal code, we cannot require that the applicant do more than that. To your concerns around the tree roots and protection measures, please connect with my colleague Peter Gollinger in Urban Forestry: Peter.Gollinger@PaloAlto.gov. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:27 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. How could this be approved by the city? On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 7:56 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: It has been 48 days without a response. On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Please respond. This house flipper has created a dangerous situation. They can literally look directly into our kid's study room, living room, and kitchen. We can do the same for their cheaply constructed house. They are also making all neighbors uncomfortable with their viewing area. Please inspect this construction's current state. There are zero fire access reasons for this invasive design, On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:00 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Garrett, Thank you for your response and for performing the on-site measurement with Kyle. We appreciate your transparency regarding the methodology used under PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B) and your consultation with the Chief Building Official. While we understand that your department is executing a literal application of the text regarding studio egress, we cannot accept that a technical loophole should absolve a speculative project from holistic city compliance. Because this build creates an active, permanent privacy and safety intrusion into our homes, we are maintaining our formal complaint. However, rather than placing the burden on the surrounding neighborhood to absorb this impact or spend personal time drafting municipal petitions, the burden of proof and administrative due diligence must rest squarely on the applicant and the City. To resolve this conflict and ensure absolute compliance before any further structural inspections or occupancy permits are signed off, we request that the City mandate the following actions: 1. Developer Must Provide a Certified Topographic and Civil Survey While we appreciate your field tape-measurement, a manual measurement does not substitute for a certified engineering layout on a sloped R-1 lot where inches dictate code compliance. Because we formally contest the grading baselines used by the applicant, the City should require the developer to submit a certified, stamped topographic survey from a licensed civil engineer validating the exact, un-altered pre-construction natural grade. Construction progress on the ADU envelope should be placed on an administrative hold until the developer funds and provides this precise data to your department for verification. 2. Mandatory Inter-Departmental Referral to Urban Forestry The structural footprint, foundation excavation, and utility trenching for this ADU run directly along our shared property lines, deeply encroaching into the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) of our mature, established landscaping. Under PAMC Chapter 8.10, the developer is legally required to maintain strict protection protocols. We request that the Planning Department formally refer this project to the Urban Forestry Division to open an active field investigation file. The developer should be required to submit an independent arborist's report proving that their excavation has not permanently compromised or damaged the protected root systems of adjacent properties. 3. Planning Department Referral to City Council on ADU Ordinance Failures You mentioned that the City Council adopted these rules in 2023 believing they were appropriate. However, this project stands as a textbook case study of how speculative builders can easily manipulate "studio" designations and minor grading thresholds to completely subvert the single-story overlay protections of Palo Alto's historic Eichler neighborhoods. As the administrative body overseeing these codes, we request that the Planning Department flag this active enforcement failure directly to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of your department's ongoing monitoring of state and local ADU policy impacts. The onus shouldn't be on the residents to write policy petitions to fix a clear regulatory gap that your team has now physically witnessed on-site. Moving Forward Ultimately, our neighborhood group is asking for a livable, common-sense resolution. The simplest way for the developer to clear these administrative hurdles, satisfy the neighborhood, and avoid a prolonged timeline is to immediately retrofit the highly invasive windows with factory-frosted opaque glazing or high clerestory openings. Until the developer provides a certified civil survey and arborist compliance verification, we request that the city withhold further inspection sign-offs on the 3935 Duncan Pl structure. Thank you for your continued partnership and for ensuring our city codes are held to the highest standard of accountability. Warm regards, Shailo On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 9:21 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Kyle Shea and I were able to go out to the property last week to evaluate the height of the structure. Looking at the property, we noted the following: 1. The height of the ADU and window placement comply with the requirements I referenced before. To determine this, we took a measurement from existing grade at the adjacent properties which reflected what grade was prior to construction (consistent with how we measure grade based on PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B) for R-1 lots with slope changes of less than 10%) and measured to the first finished floor inside the building. The height did not exceed two feet which is the threshold for when the ADU privacy requirements must be incorporated into the structure. 2. Kyle and I spoke with the Chief Building Official about your concerns about the windows not being classified as EERO windows. The Chief Building Official echoed our previous response that the residential building code only requires one emergency escape and rescue opening. The door is designated as the required opening for this studio and so these windows would not be considered as egress windows. In addition, the windows which face your property are physically limited by the placement of the fence and would not qualify as egress points from the structure. As a result, we cannot apply our ADU privacy regulations to these windows. The City does not have privacy measures for single-story homes, only two-story homes. Council adopted privacy regulations for second dwelling units, but they only apply under the circumstances that I highlighted before. In this case, we are unable to apply these rules to this project. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:52 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Thank you for the update and for arranging the upcoming site visit with the inspection manager. We genuinely appreciate your proactive approach in verifying whether the physical construction matches the approved plan sets. While we acknowledge your point regarding the explicit tiering of certain rules under the single-story overlay, we must firmly push back on the notion that the City lacks any administrative framework to address severe, deleterious privacy impacts caused by single-story primary dwellings or ground-level ADUs. Before your site visit, we ask that your department evaluate the following established planning principles and municipal hooks, which we stand by firmly: 1. Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines Apply to All Dwellings While PAMC Chapter 18.12 and the Single-Story Overlay (S-Overlay) regulate specific structural metrics like height and floor-area ratios, primary single- family home approvals remain fundamentally bound by the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (adopted by City Council resolution). These compatibility standards do not expire or become optional simply because a home is single-story. The guidelines explicitly dictate that window placement must minimize direct privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors, specifically recommending the offset of windows, utilization of high-sill/clerestory openings, and obscured glass when facing the primary living spaces of adjacent properties. The developer’s choice to place low, clear, operable windows directly parallel to our historic, floor-to-ceiling Eichler glass walls directly violates the core compatibility tenets of these city-adopted standards. 2. Strict Field Verification of the ADU "Two-Foot Grade" Threshold (PAMC 18.09.040(E)) We are very glad the inspection manager is visiting the site, as this is where paper schematics must confront real-world topography. Because the lot at 3935 Duncan Pl sits on a natural slope relative to 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl, a measurement that looks compliant on a flat blueprint can easily manifest as a violation in the field. We formally request that the inspector measure the finished floor height relative to the actual, pre-existing natural grade at our shared property lines, rather than an artificial benchmark or modified grade fill imported by the construction crew. If the physical framing or concrete slab sits 2 feet or more above the true adjacent grade facing our yards, the privacy mandates of Section 18.09.040(E) must be retroactively enforced. 3. The Predictable "Studio" Loophole and Future Enforcement Burden By designating the ADU as a "studio" to establish the entry door as the sole legal path of egress, the developer has bypassed the window privacy rule (18.09.040(D)) on paper. However, if a future occupant adds a cosmetic partition wall to create a separated sleeping area—a highly predictable layout modification for a speculative flip—these exact windows will instantly become non-compliant, unpermitted egress openings. The City should not permit a speculative builder to bake a structural code conflict into the property's footprint, leaving long-term residents to bear the future enforcement burden. Coordinating the Site Visit We remain fully committed to working collaboratively with your office to find an equitable, livable solution. A simple, permanent remedy—such as requiring the developer to use factory-frosted opaque glazing or high-set window retrofits on the walls facing our properties—fully protects our families' privacy without reducing the developer's built square footage. Please let us know the scheduled date and time of your site inspection. We would like to ensure we are home to grant you and the inspection manager access to our backyards, allowing you to see the exact, unfiltered line of sight from our living spaces. Warm regards, Shailo On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 8:14 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Thank you for your email. We appreciate the concerns you raised previously in addition to the items you noted in your email below from yesterday. I am coordinating with the inspection manager to go to the site to determine whether they have built their project according to the approved plans we have on file. If there are any issues that I note which affect the need for privacy measures for the ADU, then I will let all you know. Can you clarify which specific provisions you are referencing in section 3 below regarding privacy from the single-family home? Palo Alto has a design review process and privacy measures for two-story homes, but we do not have privacy measures for single-story homes except as they apply to ADU/JADUs under PAMC 18.09.040 and .050. Given that the properties within this area have a single-story overlay, a two-story home would not be permissible where we would apply privacy measures. If there is a separate neighborhood organization for the eichler neighborhood that manages architectural style or design through CC&Rs, that is a private entity and rules that come from it are only privately enforceable. I stand by the response I provided before regarding egress windows and when privacy measures apply. The Council adopted ordinance, and the conversations I had with them around this issue in 2023, discussed many of the concerns you raised. Ultimately, they adopted these rules and felt they were appropriate. If you have any questions, let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule An Appointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 9:05 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Sauls and Ms. Vargas-Aguilera, Thank you for your response dated May 1, 2026. We appreciate the Planning Department's technical review of the architectural plans for 3935 Duncan Pl. However, we strongly disagree with your narrow interpretation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The current construction creates an unprecedented, severe privacy intrusion that directly violates both the letter and the legislative intent of Palo Alto’s zoning ordinances. This correspondence serves as our formal Notice of Zoning Non-Compliance. We urge the Planning Department to issue an immediate Stop Work Order (Cease and Desist) on all window installations and wall enclosures facing our interior property lines until these issues are legally resolved. We submit the following points for the administrative record: 1. Defective "Studio" Designation and Egress Loophole (PAMC 18.09.040(D)) Your letter notes that because the applicant labeled the structure a "studio unit" rather than a traditional one-bedroom, the entry door is designated as the primary egress path, thereby rendering PAMC 18.09.040(D) inapplicable to the windows. As a matter of law and public safety, this interpretation is deeply defective: Secondary Egress Reality: Under California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 10, any window of sufficient dimension in a habitable space can and will function as a secondary emergency escape and rescue opening. Violation of Mandatory Code Language: PAMC 18.09.040(D) states explicitly: “Where feasible, egress windows... shall not face towards an adjacent interior property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize opaque glazing on the whole window.” The code uses the mandatory term “shall.” The "Where Feasible" Standard: The developer had ample alternative orientations (frontage, rear yard depth, or internal courtyard layout) to place these windows. Positioning large, clear, operable windows directly looking into our historic Eichler floor-to-ceiling glass walls fails the legal test of "feasibility." Labeling a unit a studio to bypass neighborhood privacy mandates constitutes an impermissible circumvention of local zoning restrictions. 2. Physical Fact-Checking of Finished Grade Height (PAMC 18.09.040(E)) Your review of the developer's submitted blueprint sets indicates that the first finished floor is not two feet or greater from grade. We formally challenge the accuracy of the applicant's submitted grade charts: Due to the specific topographical slope of the lots on Duncan Pl, the structure's physical height relative to the actual, existing natural grade bordering 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl creates a severe, elevated vantage point. Plan sets submitted by speculative house-flippers often rely on idealized or altered "finished grades" rather than existing natural topography. We demand an independent, on-site measurement by a city building inspector to verify the exact distance from the actual ground level to the top of the subfloor framing before any further structural inspections are approved. 3. Failure of the Primary Residence to Meet Neighborhood Compatibility Standards Our initial filing concerned privacy violations stemming from both the ADU and the main residential structure. Your response omitted any mention of the primary home. While the 2023 City Council discussions you cited may have limited certain uniform privacy restrictions on one-story ADUs, they absolutely did not strip the City of its authority or duty to enforce privacy mandates on primary single-family residential construction. Under Palo Alto's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Contextual Standards (PAMC 18.12/18.40), new structures must be compatible with the existing neighborhood fabric. Constructing clear, direct-sight windows facing the private, glass-walled rears of established Eichler homes violates these long-standing city development standards. 4. Demand for Immediate Administrative Action A house flipper operates on an abbreviated timeline to maximize profit and exit the community, leaving permanent, irreparable damage to the privacy, safety, and property values of long-term residents. To prevent this matter from escalating to formal litigation under California’s private nuisance laws and Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution (Inalienable Right to Privacy), we request that the City immediately take the following actions: 1. Halt Construction / Issue a Stop Work Order on the framing, window installation, and siding of the walls directly facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl. 2. Mandate a Corrective Plan Revision requiring the developer to retrofit all side/interiors-facing windows on both structures to utilize high-set, non-operable clerestory windows or permanent, factory-installed opaque/frosted glazing. 3. Conduct an On-Site Inspection alongside the affected neighbors to verify the actual visual impact and lines of sight from our living rooms. We are fully prepared to protect our families and our community's architectural integrity through all available administrative and legal channels. We look forward to your prompt response and the scheduling of an immediate on-site inspection. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Resident and Property Owner, 3905 Duncan Pl On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 8:08 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Shailo, Thank you for sharing this additional information. We are going to the Planning and Transportation Commission tomorrow to discuss changes to our ADU ordinance if you want to attend and provide your feedback and experience. The item will be heard around 6:15pm and you are welcome to attend virtually or in person to provide that feedback. Please note that the project complies with our code requirements and any changes to the code in the future would could not be applied retroactively to this project. Best regards Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 6:14 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see attached photos. The house flipper has created a mess where they can look directly into both of houses (living / dining areas). This is an invasion of our privacy and risks the safety of our families. If current city codes allow for this situation, they need to be updated. This should not be happening in our community. On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 2:38 PM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Thank you for reaching out and I apologize I didn’t respond sooner as I had to confirm a couple things before responding. Firstly, I am removing Brian from this thread as he is on leave. I have included his manager, Elisa Vargas-Aguilera, to this thread instead. Looking into the project further, I have the following feedback: 1. PAMC 18.09.040(D) identifies that egress windows either need to face neighboring property lines or utilize opaque glazing on the whole of the window. Egress windows are windows that are required for emergency exiting in the event of a fire or other life safety event. Typically, these are required from individual bedrooms but in this case, the applicant proposed a studio unit which doesn’t have a closed off bedroom separate from the rest of the unit. When a studio unit is proposed, the entrance to the unit serves as the egress. In speaking with the inspection manager, he confirmed that the plans do not call out the proposed windows as egress windows. Unless these windows were egress windows, we cannot apply this rule to the project. 2. PAMC 18.09.040(E) identifies that when the first finished floor of the ADU is two feet or greater in height from grade, then non-egress windows that face a neighboring property must have a five-foot sill height (if operable) or use opaque glazing on the window (up to five feet from the finished floor of the unit). As shown in the images below from the plan set, the proposed structure’s first finished floor is not two feet or greater from grade. Unfortunately, we cannot apply this rule to the project either. For some context, I spoke with the Planning Commission and City Council about these rules in 2023 and at that time, there wasn’t majority support to uniformly apply privacy rules to one-story ADUs, just to two-story structures with these specific caveats for certain circumstances. We appreciate the concerns that you’ve raised and want to continue to work with you when there are construction related issues that come up which you highlighted before. Hopefully, those haven’t continued since we spoke last. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 7:31 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Reynolds, Brian <Brian.Reynolds@paloalto.gov>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov> Subject: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department: We, the residents of 3905 Duncan Pl and 3881 Duncan Pl, are writing to formally submit a collaborative complaint regarding the ongoing construction at 3935 Duncan Pl. While we support the thoughtful addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within our community, the current development at this address demonstrates a clear disregard for Palo Alto’s privacy standards and specific zoning ordinances, creating an untenable situation for our families. 1. Violation of ADU Zoning Code 18.09.040 The construction of the ADU and main residence includes clear, operable windows that directly face the interior property lines of our homes. This design stands in direct violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.09.040 (D) and (E), which outlines clear standards for privacy and window placement: Sill Height and Operability (18.09.040.E): Because the first finished floor of this unit is elevated, the current installation of low, clear, operable windows violates the requirement for a minimum five-foot sill height for operable windows or opaque glazing for the lower half of non-operable windows. Glazing Requirements (18.09.040.D): The windows at 3935 Duncan Pl are currently clear and operable, directly overlooking our private living spaces. Per the code, egress windows must utilize opaque glazing. 2. Impact on Privacy and Safety Our homes are classic Eichler designs, characterized by signature floor-to-ceiling glass walls at the rear. This architectural style relies heavily on the privacy of our backyards. The windows at 3935 Duncan Pl are positioned such that they have a direct, unobstructed line of sight into our: Kitchens and dining areas Family rooms Study rooms and private home offices This is not merely a matter of aesthetics; it is a significant safety and privacy concern. Our households include young children whose daily activities are now completely visible to a revolving door of contractors and future occupants of a "spec" house. 3. Community Standards and Past Precedents When we remodeled our own homes, we worked closely with the City to ensure our designs respected our neighbors' privacy. For instance, the wall at 3905 Duncan Pl facing 3881 Duncan Pl utilizes high-set, non-operable windows to ensure no line of sight into the neighbor’s yard. The developer at 3935 Duncan Pl has shown a pattern of disruption and disregard for these established community norms. As this project is a "house flip," the current owners lack a long-term stake in the harmony of our street, yet their construction choices will leave a permanent negative impact on the privacy and property values of our established homes. 4. Requested Action We respectfully request that the City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement Division conduct a site inspection to verify these violations. We ask that the following corrective measures be mandated before any final permits are signed off: 1. Relocate all windows facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl with opaque/frosted glazing with no viewing ability as required by Code 18.09.040. 2. Modify operable windows to comply with the five-foot sill height requirement to prevent direct overlooking. We value the character of Palo Alto and the safety of our neighborhood. We are happy to meet with a city inspector on-site to demonstrate the severity of the privacy intrusion from our vantage point. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for your dedication to maintaining the standards of our community. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Resident of 3905 Duncan Pl From:Leland Wiesner To:Carias, Ruth Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: [IMPORTANT] CAR FREE CALIFORNIA AVENUE PAVING NOTICE Date:Friday, October 2, 2026 9:05:51 AM Attachments:image001.png image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Why are you guys paving a street with no cars allowed yet leaving Cambridge Ave in is decrepit state despite carrying twice as much traffic as ever? "Car Free Paving" is the biggest oxymoron ever conjured up. Insanity has arrived On Fri, Sep 25, 2026, 3:38 PM Carias, Ruth <Ruth.Carias@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Business Owners/Representatives: Friendly reminder that repaving work will be taking place on October 1 and 2, 2026 on the closed portion of California Avenue. All items must be removed from the street by September 28. Please see the detailed information below regarding the repaving impacts. Please also note that once the repaving is complete, the new Outdoor Dining Program will be in effect. Anyone with an outdoor dining setup located on the street or sidewalk will be required to obtain a new permit before replacing any outdoor dining furnishings, equipment, etc. To begin the permit process immediately, please contact John McCarty at John.McCarty@paloalto.gov. If there are any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Regards, Ruth Carias Economic Development Specialist Office of the City Manager O: 650.329.2363|C: 650.586.8084 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report ruth.carias@PaloAlto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Carias, Ruth Sent: Friday, September 18, 2026 5:13 PM Subject: [IMPORTANT] CAR FREE CALIFORNIA AVENUE PAVING NOTICE Importance: High Dear Business Owners/Representatives: Please be aware that the Public Works Department will be repaving California Avenue (from El Camino Real to Birch Street) the week of September 28. To minimize disruptions to the Cal Ave business district, the contractor will strive to condense the paving work to 2 business days. Please be advised of the following schedule: All structures, furniture, and/or materials should be removed from the street September 28, remaining days for any necessary repaving preparations. Any items not removed will be removed and disposed of by the contractor, and the associated costs for labor, staff time, disposal fees, and project delay will be charged back to responsible businesses. Paving Day 1 (Tentative October 1st) – Grinding and paving activities are anticipated to take place between 7 AM and 5 PM. o Starting at 7 AM, the contractor will grind out the existing asphalt pavement on California Avenue from El Camino Real to Birch Street. This will result in noise from the asphalt grinder, jackhammering, trucks hauling material, and some dust in the surrounding area. o Ash Street and continue until the end of the workday. This work will include noise from trucks delivering asphalt and a noticeable asphalt smell. Paving Day 2 (Tentative October 2nd ) – The contractor will complete paving on California Avenue from Ash Street to Birch Street from 7 AM to 5 PM. Expect noise from trucks delivering asphalt and the typical asphalt scent associated with paving. October 21-23 and 26 – The contractor will install stamped asphalt crosswalks starting at 7 AM until 5 PM. This work has minimal noise and a minor scent of asphalt, similar to paving, due to re-heating the roadway surface during crosswalk installation. These dates are tentative and are subject to change due to inclement weather or delays. For any questions or concerns, please reach out to Economic Development Specialist, Ruth Carias at 650.329.2363 or ruth.carias@paloalto.gov. Thank you, Ruth Carias Economic Development Specialist Office of the City Manager O: 650.329.2363|C: 650.586.8084 ruth.carias@PaloAlto.gov www.paloalto.gov From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 09-02-26 UAC meeting Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 8:10:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners, Attended by: UAC: Croft, Gupta, Mauter, Metz, Phillips, Scharff, Tucher Liaison: Lauing Staff: Bilir, Crowley, Farias, Kurotori, Nose, Shikada Baker Tilly: Hagen (Zoom), Murdock (Zoom) Public: Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19059 Video: (3:49:54) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F83LsTsSag4 HIgh-Level Comments: Item 2 -- Partnering Norms * Someone who advocates the system of timing commissioners and limiting their "bites at the apple" should write up how it is supposed to work. (I think the system wastes more time than it saves.) -- Should staff be timed? And should the times of staff's answers count against the questioner? -- Does staff have the bandwidth to do both the timing AND motion-displaying functions? -- Why just accept staff's time estimate for items? -- Should the Chair get free time and free bites for the meeting-running function? -- Why don't general questions count as bites or times? -- For action items, how much time should be allocated to doing motions, versus the preliminaries -- staff presentation, clarifying questions, etc.? * Alternative ways of being efficient and effective: -- Don't interrupt. Don't try to complete each other's sentences. -- Stick to the rules of order. When it's time to second a motion, don't try to do anything else. When it's time to make a motion, make a motion, don't chit-chat about what might happen next. -- Don't do straw polls. Item 3 -- Reserve Management Policies * I think each reserve should have min/max bounds, not just a target. * It would make more sense to discuss how big the RSR should be than argue about whether it should exist. * For each utility, staff should -- Make a flow chart showing all reserves and how money flows from one reserve to another. -- For each reserve, list its name and acronym, and don't use any names not on this list. * Is there agreement that (for electric, gas, and water, at least) reserves can't be comingled? -- I don't quite get why one utility can lend to another utility, given that it increases the risk to the lending Item 4 -- Electric System Long-Term Resiliency * Why wasn't this an action item? (But since it wasn't, why vote on it?) * I agreed with the commissioners who wanted staff continue to consider all possible uses for grid-scale batteries, not just for long-term resiliency. * Palo Alto's share of the Trolley Pass Project will provide 50 MW (times 4 hours, I think). Palo Alto's peak load was 184 MW in FY 2025 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Utilities/Customer-Service/About-CPAU/Utilities-at-a-Glance but is expected to increase significantly in the future. Item 5 -- Wildfire Mitigation Plan * Can SCADA help watch the pad-mounted equipment for vegetation management? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- TRANSCRIPT [In progress] 0:14:59: Director Kurotori: Chair, your mike. ROLL CALL 0:15:03: Chair Mauter: Thank you. Would you mind calling the roll? 0:15:07: Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz. 0:15:09: Commissioner Metz: Here. 0:15:10: Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher. 0:15:11: Commissioner Tucher: Here. 0:15:12: Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta. 0:15:14: Commissioner Gupta: Here. 0:15:15: Belle Farias: Commissioner Scharff. 0:15:16: Commissioner Scharff: Here. 0:15:16: Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft. 0:15:18: Commissioner Croft: Here. 0:15:19: Belle Farias: Vice Chair Phillips. 0:15:21 Vice Chair Phillips: Here. 0:15:21: Belle Farias: Chair Mauter. 0:15:23: Chair Mauter: Here. 0:15:23: Belle Farias: For the record, seven present. ### For the record, Liason Lauing is also present. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 0:15:26: Chair Mauter: Are there any agenda changes, deletions, or additions today? 0:15:33: Director Kurotori: No changes. IN PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT 0:15:34: Chair Mauter: Great. OK. We will proceed to in-person public comment for any items NOT on the agenda. 0:15:43: Belle Farias: We have no requests to speak. MINUTES 0:15:46: Chair Mauter: Excellent. In that case, we will move on to Item 1, which is approval of the minutes for the August 5th, 2026 UAC meeting. Are there any public comments on the minutes from that meeting? 0:16:01: Belle Farias: We have no requests to speak for Item 1. 0:16:04: Chair Mauter: OK. Are there any commissioner questions or comments? 0:16:11: Commissioner Croft: I had one requested edit. I'm just scrolling to it. It is on page -- packet page 14. It is in the second-to-last paragraph. Well, it's a very long paragraph. Three lines from the bottom. It said, "Commissioner Croft liked the 4 nines and encouraged setting ...." I don't know if you found that yet. But I would rec- -- amend that to say, "Commissioner Croft recommended setting the goal slightly better than 4 nines, since we already meet that metric," and then it continues on. So, you'd strike "liked the 4 nines," and replace it with what I just said. 0:16:56: Chair Mauter: Did you catch that, or do you need a moment to -- ### Was Ms. Farias typing up the change to display on the screen? The video doesn't provide this information. 0:17:00: Belle Farias: I got it. Thank you. 0:17:01: Chair Mauter: You got it. Excellent. Anyone else? ### If any other commissioner had an objection to Commissioner Croft's proposed change, would they speak up now, or propose an amendment to the motion to approve? 0:17:06: Vice Chair Phillips: I MOVE we approve the minutes with the amendment from Commissioner Croft. ### Technically, it's not an "amendment" in the rules-of-order sense. 0:17:14: Chair Mauter: Can you call the vote? ### Technically, the motion needs a second. 0:17:15: Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta. 0:17:18: Commissioner Gupta: Yes. 0:17:19: Belle Farias: Vice Chair Phillps. 0:17:20: Vice Chair Phillips: Yes. 0:17:22: Belle Farias: Commissioner Scharff. 0:17:24: Commissioner Scharff: Yes. 0:17:24: Belle Farias: Chair Mauter. 0:17:25: Chair Mauter: Yes. 0:17:26: Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher. 0:17:27: Commissioner Tucher: Yes. 0:17:29: Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft. 0:17:30: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 0:17:31: Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz. 0:17:32: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 0:17:33: Belle Farias: Motion passes. ### 7-0. 0:17:35: Chair Mauter: Thank you. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 0:17:35: Chair Mauter: OK. We'll turn now to the Director's Report. And I think Alan has a presentation, if we could pull that up. ### The agenda has a 10-page presentation. With some clickable URLs. And a 4-page staff responses to UAC questions. I'm impressed. ###. Slide 1 -- Title page 0:17:42: Director Kurotori: Yes. Thank you, Chair Mauter. I just wanted to acknowledge and appreciate the comments, especially from the commission last meeting. And what you're seeing, on a going-forward basis, is a Director's Report with a presentation style that will be provided to you all prior to the meeting. ### When exactly? When the agenda is posted? Is there agreement that things that happen after the Director's Report presentation is posted won't be included in that month's presentation but in the next month's presentation? It's really supposed to be a stand-alone project, so you can look at it and have an understanding what we're going through, and timely. I also wanted to, you know, thank Commissioner Tucher, Commissioner Metz, and Commissioner Gupta reaching out earlier, from the last meeting, and giving some really good suggestions on some of that content. And appreciate any other feedback the commissioners have. So, with that, I'll just quickly go through the slides. Next slide please. 0:18:28: ###. Slide 2 -- S&P Global "AAA" Rating for Water Refunding Bonds So, we had -- the S&P Global continued our rating -- AAA rating -- for the water refunding bonds. So, this is from the 2009 water revenue bonds, that was actually for increasing our storage and emergency wells back in that system. One of the key things that we did here is, we actually did the presentation to S&P. It removed some of the -- in the refunding. It did save some money, in terms of that rate. So, a few hundred thousand dollars. About $309,000 until 2035. ### Per year, right? See 08-18-26 Finance Committee video at 0:20:55. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19156 And it removed some of the reserve requirements that obligated water, gas, and electric funds as essentially being a backstop for those bonds. ### In 2004, the question arose of whether any municipal utility "protected" by Propositions 218 (1996) could be used to back bonds for another utility. (Specifically, the question was whether the electric utility could back bonds for the fledgling fiber utility.) That is important for us to move forward as we go separately for electric fund, coming soon to the UAC on a Grid Modernization. It also eliminates some of the exposure to the Federal Interest subsidy sequestration. So, this did go to City Council on August 18th, ### It went to the Finance Committee on 08-18-26. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18604 and will go to Council later in September. ### It went Council on 09-14-26, as Item 8. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19156 So, I just wanted to give you some really good news on that, as we prepare to do our -- going to the rating agencies for our electric bonds coming up. Next slide. 0:19:42: ###. Slide 3 -- BAWSCA Board Meeting and SFPUC Presentation on Water Operations and Design Drought From the last meeting, wanted to talk a little bit more about the BAWSCA board meeting on the SFPUC presentation on water operations and design drought. ### 07-16-26 BAWSCA meeting -- presentation slides https://bawsca.org/uploads/presentations/26_BAWSCA_July16_Presentation_FINAL_compressed.pdf (The URL cited in Slide 3 -- "bawsca.org/uploads/presentations" -- is just ephemeral.) Wanted to highlight for the pubic the discussion that went from SFPUC on really how the system operates. So, they gave a pretty in-depth presentation on how the water bank works, in terms of how they bank water going through the Tuolumne. Through their agreements. And also talking about the 7-year design drought. It went in detail. I did want to actually also, you know, per our discussion, really talk about Vice Mayor Stone's representation on BAWSCA, and what the ask was. So, he really was looking for BAWSCA to formally request an update on that design drought model. And a formal risk assessment. And evaluating a - - the 5-year design drought that we had previously, versus a 7-year. So, that is upcoming. We are supporting Council Member Stone, ### Vice Mayor Stone. as our representative for BAWSCA , on that next steps. In addition, as you may recall, Council wanted to have a joint study session with the UAC on water studies. So, we're looking at November 16th for that date. And we also wanted to provide linkages to this information where you can find the presentation. We've also did a time stamp. It was a pretty long meeting, back in July. So, we wanted to show that, in terms of the presentation. You can also see the comments from Commissioner Stone ### Director Stone (and also Vice Mayor Stone). some support from San Mateo and other BAWSCA agencies. There was some pretty active discussions, in terms of whether that was the right design drought period -- the seven years -- or whether that was excessive. So, I wanted to take some time and just provide that to you in a formal write-up. Next slide. 0:21:43: ###. Slide 4 -- Palo Alto Water System Cyber Resilience Update – Minnesota Cyber Incident Response So, as part of just kind of the updates, in terms of our cyber and resiliency, there was reports in the news, in terms of cybersecurity attacks in Minnesota. The utilities is not only Public Works but the water utility were on a snap call with EPA, in terms of cyber threats. ### 07-29-26: "Water Sector Cybersecurity Snap Call" https://kyocp.wordpress.com/2026/07/29/water-sector-cybersecurity-snap-call/ ### Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program https://www.epa.gov/snap It was also attended by our Public Works department, in terms of the wastewater treatment plant, our City IT. And we did an assessment. So, we have basically a checklist of what we go through to make sure that we didn't have any threats. We did not find any risks or penetrations into our systems. So, just wanted to give you an update, in terms of, you know, when we do have those concerns about attacks, whether they're international, domestic, that the City is actually looking at collectively across many departments. Next slide. 0:22:40: ###. Slide 5 -- Gas Utility High Confidence Level with “Low” Risk Assessment So, as you may recall, the United States Department of Transportation provided us a $16.5 million grant. As part of that process, they do an assessment of all the grant recipients, in terms of their low -- their rating -- their risk rating. So, a low risk rating is actually really good, because it shows that we are good stewards of those funds. So, what does that mean, in terms of Palo Alto? We have less audits, less administration. And they have a high confidence level in what we're doing. So, we were one of the only two agencies -- cities -- the only city of those recipients that received that low rating. So, we're very proud of our team, who is going for these grants and administrating these grants. It also helps us, knowing that we are good stewards of those funds, as we apply for the next series of grants coming up. And we put an application for those next series as well. Next slide. 0:23:45: ###. Slide 6 -- Business and Key Account Customer Satisfaction Surveys So, I want to talk about our annual customer surveys. So, we work with California Municipal Utilities Association to do, every other year, residential, and, every other year, commercial. As part of that, we've already done a statewide survey. So, they would go across the state to, you know, all the investor-owned utilities and public-owned utilities, to get some baseline data. In addition to that, we are doing what they call an oversample. So, we check some of the questions that have gone on a statewide, but also add specific ones related to Palo Alto. So, wanted to know that that outreach is going to happen September 15th. We expect results later, in November. We're looking at your calendar, probably coming to you back in the January timeframe. So -- And then, following that, we'll have a residential customer survey. And, of course, we'll bring that back to you as well. It's just an update of what we're doing, and the outreach we're going to have to the community. Next slide. 0:24:44: ###. Slide 7 -- Wildfire Mitigation in Palo Alto Foothills So, stealing a little bit of thunder here. Actually, we could have removed this slide, but we're going to be talking about wildfire mitigation. But really wanted to acknowledge all the hard work from the team. We've energized the high-voltage underground electric lines for the foothills. So, what does that mean? The low- voltage service lines are the only ones we have left. ### What do "high-voltage" and "low-voltage" mean? Those initial service drops. This is great news for us, in terms of our wildfire protection, our reliability to our customers, and reducing risk. We're going to have a little bit more discussion as we talk about our wildfire mitigation plan. ### Agenda Item 5. So, I'm going to leave that there, and we'll just go to the next slide, just for time's sake. 0:25:25: ###. Slide 8 -- Large Load Projections: CEC Working Group & Staff Presentation So, large load projections. You know, Palo Alto is pretty much a leader in this space, as well, with some of the other large agencies. So, Acting Deputy Director Lena Perkins presented to -- an informal workshop to the CEC. ### The 1st cited URL, https://www.energy.ca.gov/event/meeting/2026-08/ca-energy-demand-forecast-data-centers 08-12-26: "CA Energy Demand Forecast: Data Centers" I don't know how to find minutes or a video. ### Agenda for the 08-12-26 workshop: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-08/Aug_12_Data_Centers_DAWG_Agenda_ada.pdf ### In the 2nd cited URL, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/Data_Center_Methodology_Memo_ada.pdf 04-15-26: "Supporting Document for the 2025 IEPR Forecast" (24 pages) Table 1 (page 6) shows "Data Center Capacity Requests." Palo Alto: 6 MW agreement, 55 MW inquiry. And these are the listed other large utilities. Not only investor-owned, but public utilities. So, what does that mean? We were able to provide some of our load projections in reference to others. So, what the CEC did is look at those factors, and group them based on confidence level. All customers -- or all new loads -- aren't created equal. So, if they have signed the agreements, if they have -- if they own the lands -- Right? - - if they are very active in that space, there's a certain confidence level -- you adjust. And these are very similar to some of the other utilities that have more advanced. And so, this is the same process that we've been using. Frankly, Santa Clara uses the same criteria. And the CEC is looking at adopting similar type of thresholds and policies as they look forward. So, if you look at our demand forecast, it does have a range, 'cause it is looking out in the future. So, we are planning for what we have the forecast, and then sensitivity analysis above and below that. Right? And so, relatively low growth. And potentially high growth if we have some more customers coming online. And that is typically not your large data centers. It is really just local compute related to high-tech businesses here. Next slide. 0:27:12: ###. Slide 9 -- Induction Cooktop Rebates and Library Loaner Program So, induction cooktop rebates. It's one of the Council goals. It is one of our energy efficiency measures. So, this is really funded not through ratepayer revenues. So, it is a special fee that only could be used for energy efficiency. We started offering these rebates in March. And we have really for -- all customers get a standardized rebate. And if you're income-qualified, you're basically doubling that rebate. We also started working with our Palo Alto libraries to have a loaner induction cooktop program. Went in there recently, and there were 18 people waiting for those induction cooktops. So, we rolled out another like 6 or 7 just recently, so we deal with that demand. We're also including a QR code for those residents who want to purchase one of those, you know, portable ones for themselves. And then really look at a permanent range replacing their gas stove. So, we have funds for that. So, we're really excited to roll out that program. And we're really hoping to get a lot of traction with the community. And, last slide here -- 0:28:25: ###. Slide 10 -- Status on UAC Follow-Up Items -- as it tries to come out -- is the status of the follow-up items. As mentioned by the UAC, you wanted to see what's -- are the outstanding items and when they're scheduled. ### How many of these items are now scheduled for a different time than they were scheduled for in the 08-05-26 21-Month Rolling Calendar? ### Item 08-05-26 09-92-26 Reserves Sept Sept Grid Mod Bond Financing ---- Oct Data Centers Oct Oct Customer Communications ---- Nov FTTP Oct Nov Joint Session TBD Nov I'm not going to go through all of them here, but the items that have been brought more recently, we put them on the calendar of your 12-Month [Rolling] Calendar. We'll keep that updated. And then, we'll track those. So, this is intended to mention the follow-up items, in terms of when they're scheduled and when they're going to be completed. ### The 12-Month Rolling Calendar doesn't schedule when items will be completed. Right? And would appreciate any feedback on that as we go through the 12-Month [Rolling] Calendar, as we will look at it next month. ### Let me mention once again that the 12-Month Rolling Calendar should be part of EVERY UAC meeting's agenda. But wanted to give you an update on that. Sorry for the longer report. But there's a lot of information we wanted to share. 0:29:08: Chair Mauter: Thank you very much. If there's any clarifying questions, we can take those right now. Obviously keeping those limited to clarifying questions rather than discussion. Anyone? 0:29:22: Commissioner Gupta: Just a quick question on the Joint Study Session with City Council. Very excited. For the tentative timing on that -- on November 16th -- is that going to be more afternoon or evening, do you suspect? Or no idea yet? 0:29:34: Director Kurotori: Yeah. It will be part of the City Council meeting 0:29:37: Commissioner Gupta: Oh, great. 0:29:37: Director Kurotori: So, it will be in the evening. 0:29:38: Commissioner Gupta: OK. Thank you. 0:29:42: Chair Mauter: OK. 0:29:43: Commissioner Tucher: If I may. 0:29:44: Chair Mauter: Please. 0:29:44: Commissioner Tucher: No questions in that. And I just want to thank you very much for doing this. So, as you pointed out, it came from some discussions we had a couple weeks ago around making the Director's Report a bit more of a report. And this is that. The kind of things that the three of us -- Utsav, Bill, ### Who's Bill? Bob Phillips? and I -- talked about with Alan were -- Let's see. We had the idea of reporting on any important -- in his -- in the Director's mind -- significant discussions with Council or Finance or S/CAP ### CASC is the committee. S/CAP is the topic. that he deemed worthy of bring back and reporting. So, likewise, meetings with regional bodies like BAWSCA -- the example that was one of Alan's slides. And just follow-up from things we did last month. Things we discussed at that prior meeting. If we could build that into a more structured, direct, and a more comprehensive Director's Report, the idea is, that would be good. The last category of updates that we asked for were on a few designated workplan items. Like, I think there are roughly 15 items. Not every one. But we may want, in the months ahead, to designate a few items -- like Grid Mod, or maybe FTTP roll- out, or what have you, and say, it would be great, every month or two, in the Director's Report, to get a short, concise update on how it's going on that project. They're not agendized items. ### Why not make them agendized action items instead? 0:31:28: We won't be able to discuss them. But hearing an update might prompt us to say, you know, we better get FTTP on our agenda sooner than it's current -- where it currently sits. ### How many months could that process take? And so, this was a great step -- in what I'm hoping for in the Director's Report. Thank you. 0:31:50: NEW BUSINESS Chair Mauter: Fabulous. OK. Well, if we are done with the Utilities Director Report, then we'll move on to new business. 0:31:59: Item 2 -- Partnering Norms (DISCUSSION) The first item of new business -- or packet item number 2 -- ### That is, agenda Item 2. is a Special Presentation and Discussion on Partnering Norms for Staff and Commissioners Effectiveness. 0:32:09: ###. Slide 1 -- Partnering Norms for Commission/Staff Effectiveness This is not a project. But we are THRILLED -- This is not a CEQA project. But it is a project. And thank you so much for joining us today, Ed. 0:32:24: City Manager Shikada: Thank you very much, Chair Mauter, members of the commission. It's nice to be back. Actually, for those who don't know, I actually sat in Alan's chair -- ooh -- 8 years ago, and for period of about 3 years with the Utilities Department. So, it is very nice to be visiting with you once again. The topic we have this evening, as was stated, Partnering Norms for Commission Staff Effectiveness. Let me first clear any concerns that -- I'm not here because someone did something wrong. This is now the 4th commission that we've taken this topic up. And it's been a bit of a road show. And I would fully expect and would hope this would be a very positive discussion. But each time, there was this sort of anxiety of did someone do something wrong? Is that why we're talking about this? So, I do want to be clear about that. And -- Or, my purpose here today -- and I'll explain some of the background -- is really to provide some hopefully proactive tools that can assist the commission in how you do your work, and how staff provides support, in the execution of your duties. Let's see. As was noted in this --- your staff report, the commission provides an important role in leadership for the City, including development for our staff, some of whom are here today, and some who are -- will be watching, both live as well as in the days that follow, in their development of their skills in presentations and interaction with the commission, on important duties that they provide for our organization. 0:34:07: So, the topic this evening came out of discussions that I've had -- my office have had -- with the various departments that support boards and commissions for the City, and a recognition that we, the City organization, could be doing more to reinforce this working relationship. And a desire to provide some common expectations. Or at least open a discussion for common expectations, and how we can provide that support, and how these environments can be really supportive, and productive professional development and forums, as well as conducting the important work for the Palo Alto community. 0:34:51: So, in preparation for this evening, I have watched the last several UAC meetings. At the gym. As it happens, my favorite way of watching meetings after the fact -- on the treadmill, at one and a half times speed. And so, really, I think I've got the opportunity to get a feel for some of your recent discussions. I will share -- as noted, you know, again, this being the fourth commission that I'm having these conversations with, that in some ways these topics are like mom and apple pie. And my joke with staff is that when things are going smoothly with the commissions, it's like mom and apple pie. When things are a little tense, or there are issues that we want to discuss, it's like bringing a pie to a food fight. So, we'll see in tonight's discussion where we fall on that spectrum. But I do hope that this will generate some discussion. I fully expect that there may be different perspectives on some of the points that we've put into your staff report. And I think the conversation itself is productive. And we would appreciate that. 0:35:58: Let's see. So, let's go forward to the next slide. ###. Slide 2 -- Context for Discussion of Norms We did provide a little bit of background, noting that the basic expectations for all the commissions are provided in the City's BCC -- Boards, Commissions, Committees -- Handbook. ### Available here: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/Municipal-Elections/Council-Candidate-Online-Resources ### May 2025: "City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook" (33 pages) https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/5/city-clerk/bcc-handbook.pdf It provides overall guidance, And, as I mentioned previously, we really wanted to take a perspective on that. And with this topic, from the lens of staff development and also supporting your work. And if tonight's discussion is productive, this may be something you want to revisit periodically -- perhaps annually -- as a part of your work planning, or however may make sense going forward. Next slide, please. 0:36:45: ###. Slide 3 -- Balancing Competing Interests I did want to acknowledge some of the tensions that are inherent in the work. Again, in particular, with the UAC. They're taking on issues such as rates, other environmentally critical topics, that there can be some tensions. So, just to call out a few of those noted here, individual topics of interest versus the priorities for the commission as a whole. You've gone through the process of setting your workplan, as a way to try to reconcile those. And, at the same time, those are topics that will, I'm sure, come up periodically. The ability to address issues of the day, and really be responsive to things we're hearing from the community or seeing in the industry today, versus, in many cases, our Brown Act requirements and public noticing, to ensure the public is aware of the topics that are coming up. Third, engaging on emerging issues that, again, may generate some interest in trying to address them immediately, versus our organizational accountability, to executing on the workplan, and to completing the work that has already been established. It's topic of governance versus management. We'll talk a bit more about that. And then, resource allocation, on how we do report progress versus actually making progress. Reporting on the work versus doing the work. And then, time management. That's an interesting little typo there. Requiring this collaborative governance on how we approach your work. Next slide, please. 0:38:29: ###. Slide 4 -- City Staff Generated Norms And then, the attachment has some specific suggestions and some text on each of these topics. I won't go through them specifically. But I did want to perhaps provide a little bit of context for each one. 0:38:35: [1.] Commission Scope. We've provided a reference to the Municipal Code and the UAC's stated purpose. ### Municipal Code: Chapter 2.23: Utilities Advisory Commission. See Section 2.23.50: Purposes and Duties. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-61350#JD_Chapter2.23 0:38:43: [2.] Second, on Clarity on the Commission Role. Really acknowledging -- And perhaps we'll want to discuss the difference between an advisory role, in the case of UAC, and perhaps the City Council, that has that more specific governance role. 0:39:59: [3.] Third, the Professional and Respectful Conduct. This, perhaps is, again, mom and apple pie, and obvious. But, you know, certainly, we understand when inquiries and interest evolve into frustration, and how that can play out on camera, at the dais. Certainly counterproductive to the work. And so, we really want to recognize the importance of that. 0:39:25: [4.] Time Management. Again, the UAC has a very ambitious workplan. And so, certainly want to support your ability to manage your shared time most effectively, including -- You see, we've our timer here, that the City Council has adopted as a way to perhaps allocate, or at least just keep track of that individual commissioners are using on a particular topic. And that helps stay mindful of time. Wanting to get through your agendas. 0:39:59: [5.] Let's see, fifth, Staff Presentations. Sort of OUR commitment, as well, to get through our presentations quickly, and then proceed to your questions in an orderly manner. 0:40:12: [6.] Transparency and Legal Compliance. This largely, a reference again to the Brown Act requirements, and staying on topic, public noticing, and the like, as well as other legal requirements, such as anti- harassment and conflict clearance, that are part of the work that we do. 0:40:30: [7.] Seventh, the Feedback on Staff Work. This is one where -- the distinction being wherever there might be dissatisfaction with staff reports, that any public discussion on that focus on the reports themselves, and the work, as opposed to the people who did the work. And to the extent that there are issues of performance with our staff, that you would take it up with the Director -- and, as appropriate, with me, when it's ABOUT the Director. Joking. But if not, that's also an option. 0:40:58: [8.] And then, finally, upholding the City's values and public trust. This is really kind of the catchall for just good governance, that we certainly want to reinforce, and reflect, and model in the work that we do in the public eye. And, again, recognize that we are all really here to increase and build the public trust, as opposed to, in any way, degrade from that. But that said, I'm sure we are all up to the task. 0:41:28: So, with that, Chair, that completes my overview. And certainly look forward to any discussion you'd like to have. 0:41:34: Chair Mauter: Excellent. Thank you so much. Before we move to discussion, I'd like to open this agenda item for public comment. Are there any people, either online or in person, seeking public comment? 0:41:47: Belle Farias: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item 2, please raise your hand on Zoom or press *9 now. There are no requests to speak. 0:41:57: Chair Mauter: OK. Well, with that, I'd invite commissioners to ask any questions or engage in any discussion that might be valuable here. [pause] 0:42:16: Vice Chair Phillips: So, a clarifying question. This is up for discussion. But are these the norms? I mean, is this what we're expected to do, and we can call each other out? Or you can call us out? Or Director Kurotori can call us out? I'm a little unclear. Or is this, these are some good idea we have. What do you think? 0:42:34: CM Shikada: Well, really the latter. And, again, recognizing these are drafted from the perspective of developmental lens. And, that said, you know, we haven't proposed -- and to date none of the commissions have suggested that they would adopt them. You know, if you wanted to, you certainly could. But I also suspect that if that were the outcome, there might be a lot of discussion on the specifics. And it may be best to treat these as general guidance, such that, you know, you could use it as a point of reference. If, let's say, in a future meeting, there are issues that come up. And, say, hey, remember when the City Manager was here talking about these norms? Do we have agreement that we want to stick to that? And use that as a basis, just to confirm we're on the same page? 0:43:26: Vice Chair Phillips: So, I actually ran this past my friend, Claude, about how this compared to the Handbook for Boards and Commissions. And it generally is duplicative of what's in there already. Which I believe highly normative. The one that came out as not duplicative is number 7, which has to do with -- you know, to provide the work -- provide feedback on staff work privately. I guess that's one I find -- you know, I can see that ad hominem attacks, or, you know, you've done a crappy job, or -- is not appropriate. On the other hand, it's not clear to me the line where something's brought up and we think, gee, that doesn't seem to be a very complete analysis. Or, you know, I really don't like -- you know, this is a very complicated, the way it's been presented. I think it could be done more simply. You know, that's the one that's not CLEAR to me. You know, if it's saying that ad hominem attacks are out, personal attacks are out, I'm perfectly fine with that. That's totally appropriate. And it would be unprofessional. If it's saying, well, you can't really criticize something that comes up in a presentation, then I'm NOT OK with it, actually. 0:44:36: CM Shikada: And, just to be clear, in terms of intent here, it is really exactly what you said. And, you know, I use the term, criticize the work, not the worker. And I think that distinction might be helpful. But, as you said, if the work is incomplete, let's call the work incomplete. 0:44:57: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Croft, did you have -- 0:45:00: Commissioner Croft: I guess we had -- I don't know how much this falls into this, but I think it does -- is the workplan. So, we had a LOT of debate on our workplan last year. And how to make sure things come here. We actually didn't even have it approved -- I think -- I don't even know when it was approved, but it was towards the end of the year, after we already did the whole year of work. So, I feel this topic, you know, we're supposed to stick to the workplan. But has City Council -- Do we have a way of kind of getting to a yes/no on our workplan sooner? And I don't think I've ever heard of anything on the workplan NOT being approved. So, it kind of felt like it was a rubber stamp on whatever we did. Which, I know, it shouldn't be that way. But can you just talk a little bit about the workplan, and how we can get clarity on what we propose kind of sooner in the year. 0:46:03: CM Shikada: Sure. And I think it's fair to say that it's been spotty, in terms of how those have been received and handled. Much of it being, to a certain extent, driven by the heavy docket with the Council. So, in this case, this year, the -- your workplan will to to the City Council next month, I believe. And so, that will be an opportunity to get that feedback. In October. Yes, I believe that's correct. 0:46:30: Chair Mauter: October 6th -- or 8th. ### it's on Council's agenda for 10-05-26, Item 10. https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=19168 0:46:32: Director Kurotori: It's in October -- ** exactly 0:46:34: Chair Mauter: Yeah. Middle of October. 0:46:36: CM Shikada: We'll confirm that. But, yes, scheduled for next month. With, I think, two other commissions. ### Three: ARB, HRC, and PTC. ### I think that when Council is asked to consider the workplans of multiple commissions within the same agendized item, it encourages Council not to consider any of the workplans seriously. ### In the old days, Council scheduled a joint session with each commission -- nominally annually. So, there's a specific time for that discussion. You know, it -- to your point, it IS an opportunity. And to the extent that the commission would like substantive feedback from the Council -- such as, is it too much, is it not enough, is it the right things, is it not, that's an opportunity to get that feedback. 0:47:05: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I guess my -- the first year I was on the commission, other commissioners who are no longer on the commission told me, yeah, this is just a, you know, super quick discussion item. The items are kind of all on there. It's no -- no -- we shouldn't spend any time on this. We have spent a LOT of time on our workplan, with this particular commission. And so, I do think it would be worth hearing from the Council what their priorities are. ### One of UAC's duties is to advise Council on what its priorities regarding utilities ought to be. We haven't really had a DIRECT -- we advise Council, but we don't have a lot of direct interaction with Council, as a normal course of business. Which is also been a subject that we've discussed. But I think it would be helpful to get some feedback on the workplan. Are there things that they care about more than others? 'Cause we certainly have things we agree on. And then, other things, one of us might put it on there. Right? 'Cause that's how we did the workplan this time. 0:47:55 CM Shikada: Understood. Chair.. 0:47:56: Chair Mauter:: May I ask a question about that? So, when I present the workplan to Council in the coming month, would it be possible to ask questions more directly of Council around their priorities? 0:48:11: CM Shikada: I think there's no boundary to that. And I'm looking to Council Member Lauing ### UAC's Liaison to UAC. as well. 0:48:18: Liaison Lauing: You know, I was just going to say, to state concisely, not every workplan is rubber stamped. I can assure you of that. So, if you didn't get any feedback, that's good. 0:48:29: CM Shikada: [laughs] 0:48:30: Council Member Scharff: So, not real bad -- But this time it was not a rubber stamp. [Council Member] Pat But had several questions -- 0:48:35: Liaison Lauing: Well, -- 0:48:35: Council Member Scharff: -- answered. There was a lot of discussion, if I recall, about certain issues that SOME Council members had concerns. 0:48:44: Liaison Lauing: Yeah. But in terms of the interface with Council at these quote "approval sessions," I think it's quite appropriate to have dialog with the representative. It's not a joint session. So, seven on seven wouldn't be appropriate. ### In the old days, it WAS appropriate.. But absolutely, in terms of priorities [pause] ### At this point, the YouTube transcript differs from the audio. Don't know why. 0:49:11: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Scharff. [laughs] 0:49:13: Commissioner Scharff: You know, I wanted to go back a little bit to what we discussed a little bit ago about professional and respectful conduct and communication and feedback on staff work. So, there are times on this commission where I feel we've been rude to staff. And I think staff has felt that way as well. And I think it's a really difficult line to toe. I mean, I totally agree that when staff gives something that's incomplete, that's not good. That we should call staff out on it. And I don't think there's any question about that. But it needs to be done in a respectful way. And I think there's one other part of it that I feel fairly strongly about, is, sometimes they'll be junior staff. This is, you know, first time presenting. Second time. And they're learning. And with them, I think we really should use kid gloves. I think it's inappropriate to -- You know, these are young people, who are starting off in their career. And it's scary for them to come here. And it's scary for them tot come to Council. And they should have a good experience. And it should be a safe space for them. Doesn't mean that we should accept everything they say and not say. Well -- But instead of saying, you know, this report is crappy -- and we use different terms -- we can say something more like, did you think about this? Or, next time, can we come back with that? It's the way you phrase it. And I don't know how you feel about that, Ed, but I sort of feel strongly about it. 0:50:32: CM Shikada: I could not agree more. And, in fact, Director Kurotori and I have talked about how PROSPECTIVE employees watch the commission meetings as well. And so, that's another example of how -- You're recruiters for us -- who, perhaps, whether you recognize it or accept that or not. And, given that these meetings are recorded and available for everyone forever, ### They're not available ONLINE for everyone forever. How long should they be available ONLINE? that is definitely a part of an ### prospective employee that's doing their homework on whether to come to Palo Alto. I might look to -- 0:51:06: Director Kurotori: You know -- You know, I'll give an example. Right now, we're going through our -- you know, our final Assistant Director position. that we're trying to fill on the engineering side for electric. ### The position vacated by Terry Crowley when he became COO. And multiple candidates called out watching the UAC meetings, in terms of the dialog, the interests of the UAC. Um. and so, it is -- It really does matter, in terms of that back and forth, in terms of the interest. 0:51:34: Commissioner Tucher: What did they call out? 0:51:36: Director Kurotori: That they went back and watched the UAC meetings, in terms of the engagement. The level of engagement. It wasn't positive or negative. It was like, you know, they do their homework, when they -- you know, when they're looking at prospectively working for the City of Palo Alto. ### Are they also watching CASC meetings? And part of our feedback, as staff, is, it's great to have this type of engagement. It really pushes us to dig deeper, and really get that interest from the community. 0:52:00: CM Shikada: And I also reinforce it, as noted, with our junior staff that are up and coming and that are really learning from what they see. And, you know, there are those -- not necessarily for this commission but others as well, and even including the City Council, say, I wouldn't want your job, after watching, you know, some interactions that occur. So, you know, it is really important for us to be mindful of it. 0:52:23: Council Member Scharff: And I think what you just said, Ed, is really important, is that I've heard both from candidates, you know, when I was on the City Council, when they applied for other City Councils, that the non-dysfunctionality -- I don't know how to say -- functionality of the commission or the Council or whatever impacts the candidates you get. So, in utilities, people will watch us, and if we seem dysfunctional -- if we seem rude, if we seem, you know -- they ask themselves, is that the kind of place I want to work? 0:53:02: Chair Mauter: I'd like to just echo some of Greg's comments, and underscore them. I think that, as Chair, I have some role to play in ensuring that there is kind of a clear line around respectful communication with staff. And so, that's something that I will certainly endeavor to manage. And, reciprocally, if I appear to be crossing the line, in any way, shape, or form, I would encourage other commissioners to speak out as well. 0:53:36: I also want to raise this -- kind of two topics around -- time. I am conscious that, you know, we do not manage staff's time. And yet, a lot of our interests can impose on staff's time. And can consume staff's time. That is time that we are not allowing staff to work the daily tasks that they have around managing the utility. And so, I think that we are in the process of kind of reestablishing norms around how much of staff's time is spent managing up, and how much of staff's time is spent performing and managing down. That is, you know, clearly going to benefit from changes in how staff communicate with us. But I think it is also going to require a prioritization on our behalf around what are a) the topics that are actually on our workplan, so that we are not covering every topic under the sun related to the utility, but we are narrowing and focusing on those topics that are essential and approved by Council. And it's also going to require us to be receptive to feedback when staff tell us that -- you don't have time. Right? And that either some combination of -- you've got other important things to do, or it's not on the workplan, you know, this year, but we can think about it being on the workplan for next year. Or, we can't get it done this month, but we'll get it done in a couple of months. I think just reminding ourselves that this is really, again, an advisory role, not a managerial role. That managerial role is, of course, held by Alan, as well as Alan reporting to Council -- ### Director Kurotori reports to City Manager Shikada, who reports to Council. However, curiously, Director Kurotori is the only non-Council-Appointed Officer who Council can dismiss at will. -- is just really important for us to keep in mind. So, we're going to work through that. The helpful commentary that commissioners provided on the Director's Report, as well as -- I know, you've received commentary from some publicly-named commissioner members, and you've also received some other commentary in the past from unnamed commissioners. ### I assume Director Kurotori knows who the "unnamed" commissioners are. But the public does not. Does CM Shikada know? Does Council? So, I think that that evolution is one helpful way to keep us moving in the right direction. But if there's other changes that people want to see, I'm happy to be kind of a receiver of that information. And you can send it directly to Alan as well. But I think, you know, I am also going to take responsibility for making sure that we are very workplan-aligned going forward, because we have so much -- Especially once that workplan gets approved, we have so much that we need to get through in the next year. 0:56:34: Chair Mauter: Yes. 0:56:35: Commissioner Gupta: Thank you. Yeah. I just want to echo, I think it's really important to have respectful communications, especially where there are disagreements. You know, thankfully, it's very rare, in my mind, where I can recall an instance of like absolute rudeness on this commission. I've actually felt like the discussions -- given the stakes of some of these conversations -- have been more or less very respectful. I invite any of you to watch C-SPAN and watch what, you know, other levels of government have -- the types of conversations they have. I mean, it is definitely kid gloves off. I mean, we're in those kinds of conversations, I think, relatively speaking, we've been pretty respectful. But I think that's always something that we should echo. And keep aligned. And it really, I think, produces better work product and better relationships out of that. 0:57:21: I was wondering -- you know, I kind of view our role as being advisory to Council. Right? And, you know, to what extent has Council informed this process of trying to establish these norms? Have they weighed in on this document? Or is it something that's been coming directly to the commissions first? 0:57:40: CM Shikada: It's actually been from staff. So, this -- at this point, really, hasn't involved Council directly, other than through the ongoing discussions that the Mayor and Vice Mayor have had with commission chairs and vice chairs, who have brought it up this year and in the past year. 0:57:56: Commissioner Gupta: OK. Great. Thank you. Yeah. But I agree with Vice Chair Phillips. I think a lot of this is in our Boards and Commissions Handbook, which I think is an excellent document, too. And I invite - - You know, we read it probably at the beginning of our tenure here. And probably worth reading every once in a while, just to stay refreshed on it. But thank you again for bringing this forward. I think, you know, as you go through commission to commission, I think there's also value in -- And I think you've seen that dialog here at the UAC to really great effect. Especially with the Director's Report, is -- you know, what are some of the issues that these commissions have also, in this relationship with staff? If there's any improvements that we can have, I think these are great opportunities for those discussions as well. And, you know, I'm all in favor of trying to be more clear about all of this. And I'll be specific about that. On the commission's advisory role, I think that's also somewhere -- place where there's a lot of gray area on where something's a daily operation. ### Municipal Code 2.23.50(a) says, "The purpose of the utilities advisory commission shall be to advise the city council on present and prospective long-range planning and policy and major program and project matters relating to the electric utility, gas utility, water utility, wastewater collection utility, fiber optics utility and recycled water matters, excluding daily operations." Or it's like within the purview of the commission. It should go through the commission before it reaches Council. And part of that is an issue of time, and -- you know, as well. Right? And it might be helpful to, as an example, provide us examples of what does staff think is generally a daily operation, versus what does staff think is something that should be brought before the commission? And we've done a lot of great work, I think, over the past year or two, on making that a lot clearer. We have this really cool 12-Month Rolling Calendar that really lists everything that's on the Consent Calendar for Council. So, we can raise things when we want to see them here. ### My question: Can UAC raise things immediately, or must it wait for next year's workplan to include them? Which I think has been great. But that's just an example where I think we -- where there are gray areas. I think further conversation, discussion, and kind of trying to write things out could be helpful. But thanks again for bringing this forward. 0:59:57: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Scharff, did you have something you wanted to add? 0:59:59: Commissioner Scharff: Oh, I was just going to -- I think it's fine. I was just going to briefly add Council put together that Handbook. ### Last edition: May 2025. I remember them going through that process. And this is basically a distillation of that. So, I would say -- I would have responded differently to the -- did Council have involvement on this. I would say this is Council directive. ### I would agree that the City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook document is, in effect, a Council directive. But is that all Item 2 of UAC's 09-02-26 meeting is? 1:00:20: Chair Mauter: Are there any other comments or questions? 1:00:22: Commissioner Tucher: Just to put a little bit of color or specifics on this, because, I mean, who can disagree that we ought to be professional and respectful? This just -- like you said -- I think you used the word "apple pie," What really is the point of this discussion? Have we come to any -- other than we should probably reread the norms and be on our best behavior? So, I guess I'd love to hear impressions from the treadmill. ### That is, from CM Shikada. Specifically, when you watched the videos, did you have anything you want to point out or share? How have you observed our commission, as compared to other commissions? How have you -- And some of you who have been on the commission for longer than I have, how is it different today that it was in past years? Specifics would help. Because otherwise we can just all sit around and agree with the obvious. 1:01:18: CM Shikada: Yeah. Well, without calling anyone out, I would say I've observed some points at which -- 1:01:25: Commissioner Tucher: You can call me out if you want. 1:01:25: CM Shikada: [laughs] I won't call anyone out. The points at which, you know, frustration becomes really obvious. And, again, at some point, that is not a productive look for the commission as a whole. And, again, as we've talked about, whether it's prospective employees or, you know, junior employees, that -- keeping that in mind is helpful, and the reason -- one of the reasons for bringing this forward. 1:01:55: Chair Mauter: I would say my other observation is that our meetings run very long. And I think it is important that we find ways to more strictly adhere to the agenda. Because that's a way in which we can be respectful both of each other and of staff, who don't necessarily want to be here until 10 pm. 1:02:19: Commissioner Tucher: I have enormous sympathy for staff at -- in the sense that the number of meetings -- the number of times you must present almost every PowerPoint that you put together. I've used the analogy to Broadway theater going to Boston just to practice. And it, you know, I -- sometimes I feel like, if nothing else, we are at least providing a sounding board for the presentation to Council that you'll have in 10 days. Not that the presentation's changed very much. ### If UAC had voted advice to Council that differed from staff's presentation, staff could at least consider changing its presentation. But, I don't know -- you know, when you say it takes time, in my view, the number one thing -- far and away -- that would make these meetings go faster would be better staff reports and better presentations. And so, we do spend a lot of time, I think -- But I'm not sure quite what you're saying when -- with the point that meetings last long, unless you have suggestions for how to make them quicker. We don't really go off agenda. Sometimes we talk about the agenda too much. But that's a different type of problem 1:03:30: CM Shikada: Well, I mentioned earlier, you know, one of the tactics, again, the City Council uses timing individual Council member -- or, in this case, it might be commissioner -- comments. You might be surprised. And I'm surprised myself. When actually timed, how long you go. And, again, don't know if that's an issue for you specifically. But it could be one that maintains a way of normalcy, and keeps us -- keeps the conversation moving. 1:04:04: Commissioner Scharff: I'll elaborate for her. 1:04:07: [laugher] 1:04:11: Commissioner Scharff: I love mansplain. 1:04:12: [laugher] 1:04:14: Commissioner Scharff: I think we, as a group, take too many bites at the apple. I think normally you should have one bite and one follow-up And yet, we tend to have, you know, sometimes 3-4-5. And I think whenever we speak, none of us actually realize how long we're talking for. I mean, I think all of us feel that way. When we're talking, it's not -- And, you know, what WE have to say, it always feels like that extra little thing. And I'm as guilty as anyone of that. Right? Something pops into your head, and you want to say it. But I think we need some discipline as to -- you know, you're limited to 2 times, or 3 times. Whatever. You know. So, that's all I'm saying. I think we need to be better at that. 1:05:03: Chair Mauter: And I think part of that is also -- like, we may have 10 comments. Right? But there's 2 important things that have to be said. And the 2 most important things on your mind are probably the 2 things that are really essential to convey to staff in a public forum. ### This seems to assume that UAC's job is conveying things to staff. UAC's job is giving advice to Council. But we might rely on private forum and email follow-up as, hey, I had these other comments that I didn't have a chance to get to this time. I want to make them aware -- you know, I want to make you aware of them. ### This seems to miss the point that UAC's business should be conducted in public. I want to make them available to you as things to reflect on, but not necessarily things that require fuller public discussion. 1:05:40: Commissioner Tucher: Well, I've stumbled into that approach myself, as you've seen. Namely, in the public memo. With no other way, really, to speak to -- you know, across the commission or to staff. You know, I'll just make it public. And one purpose that I have in doing that is to -- first of all, I get to think through the issue myself a little bit more clearly if I write it down. Secondly, I present to you questions that, if you choose to prepare or think ahead, you know, it's better than me just popping off on the dais. Gives the staff time to consider for a day or three. But, you know, when we -- If we want to have an open discussion about norms -- and maybe we don't -- then, you know, there are questions like, is this kind of public memo writing effective -- constructive -- or not? ### If 2 or 3 commissioners get together to write something, it's called a colleagues' memo (or commissioners' memo), and it gets agendized, so all of UAC gets to deal with it. If only one commissioner writes something, it's not automatically agendized. When we comment on any agenda item -- like wildfire preparation later tonight -- should each commission member have -- When you say one bite at the apple, I didn't know if you were talking about the commission at large talking about topics or each of us individually. But, you know, maybe I only get to speak once. I line up all my questions. I ask those questions. And then take my answer off the air? Or is this like a normal business meeting, where you have discussion? And, you know, we could decide. I think you just said, maybe we say, 2 or 3 times, you get to turn the light on, ### As an aside, at the 09-02-26 UAC meeting, I noticed that as many as 4 commissioners' microphone lights were turned on at once. But I didn't notice an audio problem. How fastidious should commissioners be about turning off their mikes when they're not speaking? on every agenda item, and then you're done. ### Action items may require more bites. I don't know. (unamplified) Want to get specific? 1:07:16: Chair Mauter: I think it would be helpful, if people would be open to it, to experiment with kind of a two-bite- at-the-apple approach, where most of the time, we all talk about once. Sometimes, we're talking twice. Usually, no one's talking three times anyway. But to kind of normalize the idea that we would talk a single time, and two [times] if there's a necessary follow-up exchange. And to try to keep that kind of dialog to under two minutes, so that we can really elevate the issues that are meaningful, that are kind of the most important. And then reserve anything else for maybe, here are some other points that I know we're not going to have time to discuss. I'd be happy to raise them here and then follow up with them with staff offline on those. ### Again, UAC's job is not to follow up with staff. UAC's job is to advise Council. Is that something that we'd be open to experimenting with, as we move forward? 1:08:19: Commissioner Croft: I think it's a good idea. I think we should try it. If I think through how an item would be discussed, it could be, like, I have questions on -- several questions on an item. 1:08:29: Chair Mauter: Yup. 1:08:29: Commissioner Croft: But other people have questions. And then we have to decide something. So, of course, you're going to, you know, voice your recommendation. 1:08:37: Chair Mauter: Yup. 1:08:37: Commissioner Croft: And if that feels like a good working method -- I'd be interested in what others think, but that feels like, to me -- So, everyone makes a comment, and then you can opine. I don't know about follow-ups. I mean, of course, things always come up. I think my impression is that we are -- We get VERY deep on topics with this commission, compared to when I first got on. And also are more antagonistic than we used to be. So, that's my impression from having been here for 3 years -- is, at the beginning, we -- There were easier discussions. And possibly more topics. I'm not really sure of that, because the staff COULD come without being like, "OK, I have my 50 questions I'm going to get from this group." So, I would hate to have people not want to come because they expect us to be so deep on every topic. 1:09:34: Vice Chair Phillips: I think there's a pattern that -- and I've been guilty of this sometimes -- that I think we should get out of. It's asking a lot of questions that aren't really germane to the decision that we have to make. 1:09:45: Chair Mauter: Um hum. 1:09:45: Vice Chair Phillips: We want to know things. Or, I want to know -- or, you know, why is this the way it is, when, you know, that's an interesting question, but it has nothing to do with the decision we need to make. ### For discussion items, UAC has no decision to make. ### For action items, the rules of order can limit the scope of the discussion. While discussing an amendment to an amendment, you can't talk about the amendment, let alone the original motion. And, you know, I would recommend that we -- you know, you note that down. And you can, you know, send an email afterwards. ### The Brown Act limits whom you can send emails to. The Brown Act contemplates the commission's doing its work in public. But certainly I've been in here at times, and people have gotten into questions and answers, and I'm like this really is not very -- I don't know what the answer's going to be, but it's not going to affect, you know, anything I think about this topic. ### Commissioners can differ regarding what they think is relevant. And I've been guilty of it myself. I've been trying to consciously, you know, hold back. I'm intellectually curious about this topic. I want to know more. But if it's not relevant to, you know, what's on the table, then I'm just, you know, taking up everybody's time, when I could just, you know, much more efficiently work. So, I think that's something to think about. 1:10:45: Chair Mauter: Yes. Commissioner Gupta. 1:10:46: Commissioner Gupta: Thank you. Yeah. I mean, you know, I liked -- you know, this is the -- my third -- start of my third year. I did like -- You know, there's pros and cons to different approaches to managing meetings. And I did like the approach we had taken, you know, the first two terms, ### years? where it was, you know, a lot of discussion and conversation, and, you know, there was an open field of questions. And I really appreciated, you know, Commissioner Scharff's perspective on having those kinds of open meetings. And I really felt like we did grok and really get to the heart of some really -- some great issues that way. I do also understand the time, and I think, you know, having a structured meeting can help with time. I'm willing to try a more structured meeting. I saw a Planning & Transportation Commission meeting recently. They also have long meetings. Really, you know, lots of issues, and lots on the agenda. And, you know, one approach they take is, you know, after the staff presentation, there's like a -- every -- they just go down the line for just clarifying questions. And then, it's open for discussion. And, you know, each commissioner kind of takes a turn on discussion. And I think there's time for a follow-up, kind of. 'Cause although they have more of a, you know, discussion as well. So, it's not super super structured. But I do like TRYING some structure. We can see how it goes. You know, the one thing I don't want to lose from before is our ability to have these kind of great open discussions. You know, I agree with Commissioner Phillips ### Vice Chair Phillips. that we should stay on topic. I think, you know, maybe that's something we can be better at, in kind of ** in the conversations, is, let's stay on the topic at hand. But I also don't want to muzzle -- You know, you might not understand -- I might not understand where someone else's question is going, but it might actually end up being relevant. I also don't want to muzzle the ability to have that kind of conversation. So, I think it's a great idea to try something more structured. And we can see -- we can evaluate the pros and cons, versus, you know, our past approaches. 1:12:42: I will say -- You know, I am glad that we are having more conversation, and that we are -- we are questioning things. I think that's what City Council wants us to do. ### Yes. You know. And people have told me -- who actually watch our meetings -- that they've seen a great improvement. The residents who watch us. They've seen a great improvement, they think, on the UAC, because we're not just -- You know, we had a reputation, I think, of just rubber stamping what came before us before. And people do appreciate that we are trying to dig, and get at the heart of these things, and make better -- good decisions. So, I just leave that there. 1:13:22: Chair Mauter: Well, are there any final comments or points of discussion? Being sensitive, in fact, to time. We are AT 7:00 pm. So, I [laughs] might -- Thank you very much for coming. And I think that you've given us lots of food for thought, and opportunities to TWEAK what's generally an effective commission. ### The item took 41:53. The agenda predicted it would take 30 minutes. No big deal. Item 3 -- Utilities Reserve Management Policies (ACTION) 1:13:52: Chair Mauter: Excellent. So, we will now move on to Agenda Item number 3, the discussion of the Baker Tilly Reserves Advisory Report, and recommendation to the City Council of proposed policy updates to the Utility Reserve Management Policies. And I believe I have titles correct, but Lisa's going to present. 1:14:16: Director Kurotori: Yeah. So, I just wanted to mention that Lisa Bilir, our Assistant Director of Resources will be here to give the presentation. Kiely Nose, the Assistant City Manager. I believe we also have Kate Murdock and Ross Hagen, with Baker Tilly, that are going to be online as well. And they were -- They developed the report that we'll be talking about today. Pretty detailed discussion. So, looking forward to the presentation and then questions from the commission. 1:14:52: Assistant Director of Utilities Resource Management ((ADURM) Lisa Bilir: OK. So, thank you so much. I'm here today, Lisa Bilir, to talk about the reserve policy recommendations. The Baker Tilly auditor went and did an advisory report that they delivered to the City Council in June. And the City Council accepted the results of that advisory report. And so, staff has taken that work and gone back and looked at the recommendations, and what we would recommend to do, as well as a workflow that we're ready to talk through tonight and present it in our report. So, you go to the next slide, please. 1:15:39: ###. Slide 2 -- Agenda I'd like to go through that workflow, to give you an overview of what we're recommending there. We'd like to use this workflow to revise the reserve policies for Council consideration over the next year, in Phase 1. And, a second phase I'll tell you about in the next year. And we have a brief overview of what the recommendations were from that Baker Tilly advisory report. And a series of staff recommendations, as well as some policy considerations. This report focuses primarily on the two recommendations from the Baker Tilly reserves advisory report that have the most significant rate impacts. And that is the capital improvement program and rate stabilization reserve policies. Next slide, please. 1:16:29: ###. Slide 3 -- Workflow to Review and Revise Capital Improvement Program and Rate Stabilization Reserve Policies. So, this is the workflow that staff is recommending. The way that we're approaching this is that by June of 2027, when we bring our fiscal year '28 rates forward to the City Council, we want to be able to have a Council policy in place on the reserves management practices that we can follow and try to bring the reserves to that level, or be on a plan to bring the reserves to that level. So, we would -- We're starting here in September, bringing our recommendations for the electric, gas, and water utilities to the UAC. And then, we would bring those recommendations to the Finance Committee. I want to mention that for the Wastewater Collection Utility, we do want to bring the whole picture of the utility to the UAC. And we are expecting some recommendations from the treatment portion that may be an important part of the overall picture. So, we've separated that out, and plan to bring that to you in November. And then, we would bring the recommendations to the City Council and get approval for whatever those end up being in January. And then follow those recommendations through in our final financial forecasts in -- next year. 1:17:44: Then, there are some specific reserve -- reserves policy proposals that may take a little bit more detailed work, particularly on the supply side. And you can see at the bottom of the slide, it talks about the hydro rate stabilization reserve and the gas price mitigation adder. We're recommending to look at those, probably with the help of a rate consultant, in order to take a close look. And then, we would bring those recommendations forward at a later time. That could mean that we need to revise the management practices after each phase, in order for them to be coherent, and as simple -- simplified as possible. 1:18:24: ###. Slide 4 -- Advisory Report Recommendations In a nutshell, the advisory report made five recommendations. 1:18:28: [1.] The first one is to not eliminate of the current reserve funds in place. There's no action that's needed for that recommendation. 1:18:35: [2.] The second recommendation is to clarify the CIP Reserve Fund language. And that -- if you read that recommendation, it also has to do with Electric Special Projects Reserve [ESP Reserve] -- the electric -- and making sure that there's clarity on that policy for the ESP Reserve, as well as for the CIP Reserve. And the Electric Special Projects Reserve does have a Council-approved policy in place. And we, as staff, agree that is time to go ahead and revise that policy. So, as part of our second phase, we would bring that revised policy forward. 1:19:12: [3.] The third recommendation is to formalize reserve tracking. And, as we described in the management response to the Baker Tilly report, we recommend an exception-based reporting method, where when we see something that's notable, it needs to go to the City Council, we would add that to our quarterly report, and bring that forward in a timely way. 1:19:33: [4.] So that brings me to recommendations 4 and 5. That is what we're focusing on here. And that is the levels. What levels should be appropriate targets for the Rate Stabilization and the CIP Reserves? Next slide, please. 1:19:49: ###. Slide 5 -- CIP Reserve So, beginning with the CIP Reserve, the advisory report had a primary recommendation, which is to use 20 percent of 60 months, which is a fancy way of saying one year of budgeted CIP expense. And it also had an alternate recommendation of an annual depreciation expense. Now, our current reserve policy for the CIP Reserve is similar but slightly different. We use We use 48 months of budgeted CIP expenses. Again, that's equivalent to one year of budgeted CIP expenses. ### Huh? (One year is 25 percent of 48 months.) But we use that as a MAXIMUM. The recommendation is instead to use that as a TARGET. And so -- And then, we -- And instead of having a maximum and minimum, which is what we have right now, to instead just simplify and have one target. Next slide, please. 1:20:44: ###. Slide 6 -- CIP Reserve Rate Impacts and Recommendations Looking at the rate impacts of those two options -- of the annual -- average annual CIP budget, we examined what we are building the reserves up to in our current rate forecasts, and then how much incremental increase we would need above that level in order to get to the target, based on an annual CIP as the target. For each of the utilities. And what the numbers in the table mean are an incremental increase every single year of a 5-year or 10-year implementation plan. So, it would be like an increase for the electric utility of 0.3 percent in the first year, and then 0.3 more percent in the second year, and so on for 5 years. So, that's what we mean in all the numbers in the tables in the presentation. 1:21:37: So, staff's recommendation is to replace the current policy minimum and maximum with a reserve target based on the average annual CIP budget. ### I don't understand (and therefore don't agree with) switching from minimum and maximum to target. ### With a min/max policy, if you're below the minimum, you want to think about how to increase the reserve. If you're above the maximum, you want to think about how to decrease the reserve. But if you're between the minimum and the maximum, you probably don't have to do much. ### With a target policy, if you're below the target, you might want to think about increasing the reserve, depending on how much below the target you are. And if you're above the target, you might want to think about decreasing the reserve, depending on how much above the target you are. To, me this is more complicated. ### At 2:10:42, ACM Nose seemed to say it didn't matter. I do want to mention that our depreciation expense is now about 30 to 40 percent of the annual CIP budget. ### Is this a pretty reliable statistic, from year to year? So, that is pretty low compared with the annual CIP needs. And we would propose to implement this over a 5-year time period for the gas and water utilities, recognizing that those utilities have very little cushion -- very little reserves in place right now. And for the electric utility, since there are some additional reserves, that we could implement that over a 10-year time period. 1:22:18: As an alternative, I wanted to bring to your attention that the UAC could consider recommending varying those targets by utility. So, some utilities, such as the gas utility, you could recommend using depreciation expense instead of using 12 months of CIP, recognizing that the gas utility CIP is more on the replacement end. ### Is there any cause-and-effect reason to believe that either depreciation or 12 months of CIP is going to be the better basis for choosing the RSR target? ### How accurate are depreciation numbers? ### As an aside, when staff proposed to implement a new dark fiber infrastructure, they claimed that fiber infrastructures have an expected life of 20 years. But this article https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2015/11/23/how-long-does-fiber-last/ says that if the fiber isn't abused, it will probably last more like 75+ years. (Nobody knows this experimentally yet.) So, how should fiber infrastructures be depreciated? Whereas, for the electric utility, it may make sense to use 12 months of CIP, given that it is -- there's a lot of new infrastructure needed with Grid Modernization. New investment. So -- Next slide, please. 1:22:59: ###. Slide 7 -- Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) Moving to the Rate Stabilization Reserve, the primary recommendation from the Baker Tilly report is the second bullet point here, which is -- the peer utilities ### Who were the peer utilities? Why were they considered to be peers? Were they all from California? Did they all have debt that was rated by S&P? What were the ratings? have a RANGE in their rate stabilization reserves, from 10 to 65 percent of either operating revenues or expenses. And I will say, in our existing reserve policy, we do NOT have a target for the rate stabilization reserve. And we have a policy where if there's a balance in the rate stabilization reserve, we must make a plan to return those funds to ratepayers by the end of the 5-year period. ### This makes no sense. Next slide, please. 1:23:41: ###. Slide 8 -- Rate Stabilization Reserve Rate Impacts and Recommendations So, we looked at implementing a target of 10 percent, because it is at the low end -- the -- 10 percent of operating expenses. That's the low end of the peer group. And so, we looked at the 5-year implementation period or a 10-year implementation period. And you can see the impacts of that recommendation. So, we're recommending that we implement the 10 percent of operating expenses over a 5-year period. We recommend -- Staff agrees with the Baker Tilly report that we should remove the provision that utilities must withdraw all the funds from the rate stabilization reserve by the end of the planning period. ### Yes. The reason for that is that those funds should be available to stabilize rates in the event of something unexpected occurring. And if we plan to use those funds as part of our general planning, then they will not be available in the event of something unexpected happening. So -- 1:24:40: However, we recommend -- and in line with the Baker Tilly report -- that if there is a rate increase proposed, that any amount in the Rate Stabilization Reserve that is in excess of the target must be drawn down during that 5-year period, in order to offset any proposed rate increase. 1:25:02: And I also wanted to mention that there's a supply component of rates. We're focusing here on the distribution component of the rates. And we'll look more closely, as I mentioned, at supply components in the phase 2 of the workflow. 1:25:18: ###. Slide 9 -- Five-Year Rate Forecasts So, I wanted to show you the 5-year rate forecast. This is for what was adopted by the City Council in June. And you can see that in the table at the top. We do have a series of increases for each of the utilities. The utility that's most primarily impacted by these rate recommendations is the gas utility. You can see that the recommendations add up to -- round up to the next -- to the next highest rate increase for that utility. Next slide. 1:25:48: ###. Slide 10 -- Recommendation So, for the recommendation, we're recommending that the UAC recommend that the City Council adopt these levels that we talked about. [1a.] Replacing the Capital Reserve minimum and maximum with a target that's based on the average annual CIP budget. [1b.] Adding a target for the Rate Stabilization Reserve based on 10 percent of operating expenses. And -- [2.] Achieving this within a 5-year time period for the Rate Stabilization Reserve [3.] And for the gas and water utility CIP reserves. And over 10 years for the electric utility [4.] And, as well, this proposed workflow for achieving these goals. 1:26:25: And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. 1:26:29: Chair Mauter: Excellent. if you don't mind, I think we'll open for public comment first, and then we'll turn to questions and points of discussion by the commissioners. Can you ask about public comments? 1:26:43: Belle Farias: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item 3, please raise your hand on Zoom or press *9 now. There are no requests to speak. 1:26:54: Chair Mauter: Great. In that case, why don't we go to short, clarifying questions first? And then we can proceed to longer recommendations and points of discussion. 1:27:02: Commissioner Tucher: So, these wouldn't count as a bite of the apple? 1:27:06: Chair Mauter: No. 1:27:07: Commissioner Tucher: Oh. Well -- 1:27:09: Chair Mauter: Very brief clarifying questions. 1:27:14: Commissioner Tucher: I have one. 1:27:14: Chair Mauter. Please. Go for it. 1:27:16: Commissioner Tucher: On electric, for CIP, how do you calculate the $35 million? ### To what is Commissioner Tucher referring? Specifically, is -- It does say cash funded. It does say that we exclude certain things, like grants. Is Grid Mod -- and it's -- pick your number -- roughly $200 million, let's say -- Is Grid Mod, which is largely bond funded, in there? 1:27:41: ADURM Bilir: No. We're not using any -- any -- We're only using the cash-funded portion of the CIP. And also not using anything that's grant funded. So, we're extracting those things and then just using that to come up with the total. 1:27:55: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] So, much of Grid Mod is not -- [amplified] Many of the Grid Mod projects -- the $20 million for the Hopkins upgrade, for example -- they're bond-funded, so they're not in the denominator of this. 1:28:08: ADURM Bilir: Correct. There is a portion of Grid Mod that is cash-funded. And that cash-funded portion is all that would be included in the calculation. 1:28:17: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Phillips. ### Vice Chair Phillips. 1:28:19: Vice chair Phillips: You mentioned, on the Rate Stabilization Reserve, that that this only covers the infrastructure part of it, not supply cost side? Or did I mishear? 1:28:29: ADURM Bilir: Yes. That's right. We looked at the different utilities. We looked at the gas price spike mitigation adder. And the rate stabilization -- the Hydro Rate Stabilization Reserve on the electric side. And realized that those are the -- those require some more analysis, including the work of a rate consultant. Those were established for very specific purposes, with very specific targets and rates in place, by the Council. And so, we're recommending to take a look at those more closely in the second phase. 1:29:04: Vice Chair Phillips: What -- And when is the second phase? I mean, what's confusing to me is, on the Rate Stabilization on the electric, hydro is 50 percent -- more or less -- of our rate. And we have a hydro stabilization. Then we're saying there's another one here that is going to cover the infrastructure side of it. Or the operations -- 1:29:28: ADURM Bilir: Operations. 1:29:28: Vice Chair Phillips: -- operations cost side. And then, there's going to be a third piece, which we haven't seen, which is the other resource cost side, which presumably will be another Reserve pot? Or, how does this work? 1:29:44: ADURM Bilir: So, the way that we were thinking about it is that, in terms of this -- moving forward with the recommendation on the Rate Stabilization Reserve, and having it cover the operational portion, rather than - - the distribution operation portion, rather than the supply side. Since that needs additional work, is like sort of like, we wouldn't regret getting started on building a reserve for the operations side. And if we need to do more on the supply side, then we could. And, I think, in terms of your question of simplifying, we could combine those into one simple reserve ultimately, that would require making a modification when we come back in phase 2. And, to your question of when is phase 2, we will be getting started with that work during this fiscal year, but we wouldn't be ready to bring something forward. We have to really focus on the CIP and Rate Stabilization right now, in order to meet the timeline of being able to implement that for next June, with the 2028 rates. 1:30:47: Vice Chair Phillips: Thank you. 1:30:48: Chair Mauter: Two very quick questions. Can you remind me about the policy on carried interest on reserves? And how that is managed? Where does that accrue? And what is the -- whether any of these impact the ability to move reserves from one reserve pot to another reserve pot -- which we do frequently? 1:31:12: ADURM Bilir: That's a really -- That's a couple of really good questions. So, the reserves do earn interest. The City calculate[s] -- My understanding -- Kiely can correct me -- my understanding is the the City calculates that interest. And then, at the end of every quarter, I think, applies that interest to the appropriate enterprise fund reserve. And so, those get accounted for in each of the reserves. Each of the utilities. And then, in terms of whether this would impact the transfers -- Let me explain a little bit more. I should have explained that what we're going to be doing as part of this process, the next time you would see this, we're going to actually rewrite the reserve policies, the management guidelines, and how we manage the reserves. And so, that would have all the specifics about, you know, which reserve can be moved to which other reserve, whether Council approves that, whether staff has any -- you know, pre-approved authority to move any funds for a particular reason. That's where all of that detail is. And before we bring this to the Council -- in January -- we need to have all that detail. So, we're going to writing that into those policies, and bringing that forward as we go forward. So, we're not able to complete that all by tonight. And I think, depending on the feedback from the UAC and Finance Committee, that might change how we exactly write those policies. But that's -- Those policies right now do outline that. And I would say to -- I guess to answer more specifically, I don't think we're proposing to change any of the ways that the funds are moved right now. 1:32:51: Chair Mauter: Any other quick, clarifying questions? And then we'll kind of open up for broader discussion. Yeah. Commissioner Croft. 1:32:57: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I just have a quick question. It is a little confusing to separate out operating expenses minus supply. Can you just tell us what percentage of the rate comes from operating expenses that are not supply-related? Roughly? Just to know kind of what might be coming forward? 1:33:17: ADURM Bilir: OK. 1:33:17: Commissioner Croft: In addition to -- 1:33:18: ADURM Bilir: I do need to compile something more specific that really has a good estimate. But I think it is probably about half. Um. About half. And so, if we were to sit here now and approve something like a 10 percent or a 65 percent of the total, it might be a bit more broad than we meant -- a broader stroke than we meant to have. And so, we were trying to make it a little bit more precise by focusing on the operations side. And then looking a little bit with more -- more depth on those supply reserves specifically. 1:34:05: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Scharff. 1:34:07: Commissioner Scharff: [unamplified] If you could -- [amplified] If you could just briefly remind me, what are our policies regarding Rate Stabilization Reserves? 1:34:14: ADURM Bilir: So we do -- 1:34:14: Commissioner Scharff: I mean, what do we currently do? 1:34:16: ADURM Bilir: We do have Rate Stabilization Reserves. There's no target. 1:34:20: Commissioner Scharff: So, are they zero? Or are they -- 1:34:23: ADURM Bilir: Some of them are zero. In the water utility, we have $4 million in the Rate Stabilization Reserve, because it had historically built up some funds prior to the drought. And we've been drawing on those funds, during the drought and after the drought, to manage the rate trajectory. So. it -- But in most of the utilities, there's nothing in the Rate Stabilization Reserve. 1:34:46: Commissioner Scharff: Do we have any Council policies regarding Rate Stabilization Reserves? 1:34:50: ADURM Bilir: Well, the two that come to mind are the Hydro Rate Stabilization Reserve, that has a specific -- I think -- I don't know if it's called a policy, but there's an approval for how much money should be in that fund and the reasons for it. And then, the Price Mitigation Adder Reserve for the gas utility. That is a specific adder that has a reason that it was adopted by the Council. So -- 1:35:16: Commissioner Scharff: And that was when we had those gas height spikes. 1:35:19: ADURM Bilir: Right. In 2023. 1:35:20: Commissioner Scharff: In 2023. I guess what I'm trying to get to is, are we trying to create larger Rate stabilization Reserves? Is that what we're trying to do here? [pause] 1:35:38: **: Did you want to try? 1:35:41: **: OK. 1:35:42: ACM Nose: Kate and Ross, could you maybe talk a little bit about the assessment report from Baker Tilly, and your recommendations associated with Rate Stabilization Reserves? Just to, I think, maybe sensitize the UAC to what your findings were, in relationship to perhaps our LACK of a concerted policy on this? 1:36:06: Ross Hagen: Yeah. Sure. And I can start. I'm Ross Hagen with Baker Tilly. So, as we evaluated rate stabilization reserve, you know, part of what we did was, you know, doing research around kind of industry best practices. And then, part of what we did was, you know, researching comparable utilities -- local utilities -- you know, what are their rate stabilization reserve policies? What are the balances that they hold? And, generally speaking, we found that, you know, most utilities -- comparable utilities -- did have rate stabilization reserves. It was kind of a best practice to have a reserve for rate stabilization. And typically, what -- you know, what that reserve target, or guideline level, that those utilities would have -- what that would be based on -- was some sort of a percentage of operating revenues or operating expenditures. So, as Lisa said, you know, we saw in our comparative report, you know, a range of between 10 percent on a low end, 65 percent on a higher end for rate stabilization. When looking at, you know, Palo Alto's Rate Stabilization Reserves, and seeing that in some utilities there were, you know, no reserves. Some, there WERE reserves. But I think, you know, primarily, the important thing from our perspective was that there wasn't a set guideline as to, you know, what the expectation would be, in terms of what's held there in rate stabilization reserves -- to really understand how that could then be used to stabilize the rates. I think that's where the deviation from the standard from the industry best practice really was, was, you know, not having that target amount. 1:37:44: And then, secondarily -- and Lisa mentioned this as well -- the provision to -- if there were rate stabilization reserves in hand, in a financial plan, having a provision and a plan to spend down those rate stabilization reserves and give those back to the customers in that financial plan. I think that runs a little bit counter to really the purpose of the rate stabilization reserve, which is to, you know, really, allow you to absorb, you know, financial volatility and protect that utility rate plan. ### Yes. So, as you have rate needs that arise, and maybe in some years they're larger than what you would find palatable, you could then utilize some of those rate stabilization reserves to help buy down that rate increase, so to speak. So, I think those two things, hand in hand, really were what we had highlighted as the needs to be addressed. One is to, you know, establish that target. What makes sense for your utility. And then, two, to kind of amend that language, so that we're not constantly in this cycle of, hey, we have a little bit of extra funds that have gone to the rate stabilization reserve. Well, now let's look to give that back to customers, kind of regardless of your other rate plans that you may have. 1:30:03: So, hopefully, that helps. I'm happy to expand as well. But, you know, just as an overview, from what we found, hopefully that helps. 1:39:13: Chair Mauter: Great. Are there any other clarifying questions? And then I'd like to open us up for discussion. OK, Commissioner Gupta. 1:39:19: Commissioner Gupta: I mean, just a -- So, when I first encountered the Baker Tilly report, I remember seeing a management response, and it had a much higher range of potential rate increases. Is there -- I mean, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I think it's much lower than was projected in that management response. But is it just a result of additional time to review the report and seeing what the rate impacts might look like? 1:39:42: ADURM Bilir That's a good question. And when we get the management response, the way that we kind of modeled what the rate impact would be is by looking at an increase at one point in time and then holding that increase in place for a number of years. And so, we did see a more sig- -- Because we modeled it that way, you see a much more sudden increase. And when we thought about it more, and went back and looked at it, then we took an approach that's more gradual. And we said, OK, we're going to build on the first year, and add more the second year, and add more the third year, so that we can take this more gradual but more cumulative approach, and take advantage of the accumulation over the years. And that -- you know, kind of the total amount recovered is the same, but the way of going about it is more of a gradual approach. 1:40:32: Commissioner Gupta: Got it. Just to kind of understand those numbers. So, like, looking a the table of like the 5-year implementation versus the 10-year implementation, ### Presentation slide 5. are we saying like in total it would be like a 1 percent increase? Like, looking at the 10-year implementation for electric, is it a TOTAL 1 percent increase? Or is it like -- 1:40:51: Chair Mauter: It's compounding. 1:40:51: Commissioner Gupta: It's compounding. 1:40:54: ADURM Bilir: It would be a little bit of both. So, yes, like if you just did some simple math and you added it up, that would be 1 percent. But there's compounding on the amount that was in the first year. 1:41:06: Commissioner Gupta: I see. OK. 1:41:07: ADURM Bilir: So it doesn't quite work out to be exactly that. You'd have to -- 1:41:11: Commissioner Gupta: I see. OK. And do we have those numbers of what the compounded result looks like? 1:41:17: ADURM Bilir: Well, what we have is the dollar amounts that we're trying to recover by the end of the 5-year or 10-year period. If -- So, you can look at Tables 3, I think, in the report. ### Table 3 is on page 8 of the late-packet report (15 pages). Tables 3 and 5 ### Table 5 is on page 11 of the report. Show you what the target amount is that we would be trying to recover from over that time period. Even though it doesn't have the exact answer you're looking for, in terms of 10. -- whatever the percentage would be. 1:14:52: Commissioner Gupta: Sure. No, thank you. 1:14:53: ADURM Bilir: We could calculate that for you if you'd like. 1:41:54: Commissioner Gupta: Thank you. And then, one -- and this might just be a rounding question. I noticed like the 5-year implementation LOOKS more expensive than the 10-year implementation of electric. Is that just like the way that the numbers got rounded, versus like -- 1:42:10: ADURM Bilir: Yeah. I think it's rounding, and then the effects of the cumulative number of years. 1:42:16: Commissioner Gupta: OK. And if you were to get -- like maybe this is more of a guesstimate -- like the total rate impact, is it still in that 8 to 10 percent range? Or are we looking at the higher end of the management response? 1:42:33: ACM Nose: So, commissioner, I actually think staff would be unable to provide that, because we're only looking at two reserves right now. 1:42:40: Commissioner Gupta: OK. 1:42:40: ACM Nose: That management response looked at the totality of the reserves. And so, in this staged approach, we wouldn't necessarily be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison, as you're identifying. I do think it's important to note that both staff and, I think, the commission are cognizant of wanting to look at, OK, we're going to do these piecemeal, and then let's look at what that looks like in totality. After we get some of that initial direction from folks. And with that 2-year process, if, after we look at it in the second year in totality from a policy perspective, we're like, wait a minute. When we look at the entire pie, as opposed to the components of the pie, we need to make some adjustments, then we have that actually built-in opportunity to do so. 1:43:26: Commissioner Gupta: Thank you. 1:43:26: ACM Nose: Um hum. 1:43:27: Chair Mauter: All right. 1:43:28: Commissioner Tucher: And one more clarifying question is to ask -- If I understand the vote -- the decision -- what's really on topic today -- it's to basically approve these reserve guidelines, and choose between the recommended and the alternate. In other words, the one-year capex versus the depreciation model in each case. And yet, we don't know how it all hangs together, we just heard. So, how are we going to decide -- 1:43:54: Chair Mauter: I think that sounds like -- 1:43:54: Commissioner Tucher: -- other than with a rubber stamp? ### When UAC votes on this item, its advice to Council can be ANYTHING AT ALL that's relevant to the item. UAC doesn't have follow staff's recommendations. 1:43:55: Chair Mauter: I think that sounds like a point of discussion. And I'd welcome that, but that's not a clarifying question. OK. So, we'll move on to open discussion on this topic. And, commissioner, if you'd like to start us off, that would be fine. I'm going to ask the clerk, if you don't mind setting setting a 2-minute timer for all of us, to just help us be sensitive to the amount of time that we're spending, that would be really helpful. Thank you so much. 1:44:25: Commissioner Tucher: I'd like to pass the apple. 1:44:30: Vice Chair Phillips: [unamplified] I'm happy to take the first bite. 1:44:32: Chair Mauter: Wonderful. Please proceed. 1:44:34: Vice Chair Phillips: I guess there's a lot in the report to talk about. You know. And getting into each detail, I -- various -- I really, you know, support a lot of various management practices. Eliminating minimum and max guidelines. ### Don't do this. You know, being able to roll over rate stabilization. There's also some verbiage around PA [Palo Alto] having more detailed rules about the reserves, that could be loosened. All of that sounds great to me. The thing that I haven't heard is any reason -- any GOOD reason -- or reason that convinces me -- to implement any of this. I mean, I've heard that -- of the rate changes. I mean, I've heard we just got AAA rating. ### The (late packet) staff report says, page 13, "On August 17, 2026, S&P Global Ratings assigned its “AAA” rating and “Stable Outlook” to the City’s anticipated Series 2026A Water Revenue Refunding Bonds and published a press release [46] https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/3612769 outlining its rationale for the rating." ### That's better than just having heard it somewhere. ### As far as I know, the City gets a separate rating for each of its bonds, not just one overall rating for the whole City. Right? I've heard that we're high-confidence, low-risk on the gas side, which I just learned a little while ago. That's all great. My question -- and, you know, other than, well, there's benchmarks and, you know, what are called best practices, although really I didn't see any reason they're best practices other than other people are doing them. Which doesn't make them best practices. ### Yes. It just means they're benchmarks. ### Why does it mean even that? And the GFOA guidance, which has a lot of flexibility into it. So, I find it hard to support any of the -- just based on this. And I'm particularly reluctant, now, to hear, well, this is just -- to mix the metaphor -- or, stretch the metaphor -- the first bit of the apple. There's going to be another bite coming along, saying, you know, on the electric side, we're going to have another rate stabilization amount that's going to work somehow with hydro stabilization. And is operating-based. I mean, it's even hard for me to get my head around all of that. 1:46:19: The part -- I -- Part of the reason I don't find it convincing is, I don't hear any story about what is this gain for us? What is the bad thing that happens if we don't do this? Where are the downsides? What's happened to other cities that have -- you know, don't have these reserves in place? You know, there's nothing that -- Well, Roseville and others. So, again, you know, my initial position is, I wouldn't -- I would not vote for doing this. 1:46:53: ACM Nose: Chair, if you'd like, staff can provide some feedback on, you know, the ratings, and where we've -- we're at on that, as well just -- and I can just speak -- not really from a utilities expertise, but from my past work, focusing as our former Chief Financial Officer. 1:47:08: Ultimately, reserves are all about risk tolerance. Other than when you have debt covenants that are legally obligated when you go to financial markets. And so, these are all absolutely policy calls. And if the commission chooses, at the end of the day, that the reserve policies that we have in place are appropriate for our risk tolerance, for each of our utilities, that's a fine answer. Perhaps there's some stuff -- Not perhaps. I know. There are a few things that staff would recommend at least cleaning up, to administratively make some things a little simpler. If intended by the commission to keep the policy levels the same, totally fine. 1:47:44: I do caution the thought that we're fine and we have a stable outlook. If you read S&P's rating, they actually put two significant paragraphs in their rating of the City, identifying instability. And if these factors changed, that they would downgrade us. ### In S&P's press release, one of the paragraphs is: https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/3612769 "We could lower the rating over the next two years if the utility’s debt service coverage or liquidity materially decline to levels observed in the past few years, either due to insufficient rate adjustments or unexpected capital needs that require additional debt or significant cash draws." ### Staff's (late packet) staff report didn't comment on this. ### I don't know what other paragraph ACM Nose is referring to. So, there's a paragraph in their recent rating that basically says limiting the credit strengths that they've identified, that if the all-in coverage figures were to change -- so, that means your reserve levels -- your cash-on-hand -- that -- and/or went to levels that have been in our water fund in the last 5 years, that that would trigger them to reevaluate our ** -- our current rating. The second was, actually, they did outline a downside scenario that says they would lower the rating over the next two years if the debt service coverage or liquidity declined to any of those levels. So, we ARE on that bubble. And so, I think, knowing that -- and that's where those markets are rating us, and knowing especially that we're going to go out with something significant from a financial perspective, is an important variable to consider. Because your rating will dictate how expensive your debt is. ### In theory, there might be a trade-off here. If S&P gives the City a AAA rating, that minimizes the interest rate the City has to pay for its debt financing. But to get the AAA rating, the City might have to maintain more reserves than the City thinks it needs. And that comes at an additional cost. 1:49:05: And when you're talking about bonding at that level on the electric side of things, that's a marked change and a rate impact. I don't say that because every utility needs to have have same perspective. I think, as staff has outlined -- and as ** ### Jiv-way has outlined -- each utility can be assumed at different levels. So, you could say, "Wow, I really want to invest in electric because we're going to go out and do this, and in these other areas, I don't. And I'm willing to take that risk." These are absolutely justified, and real policy conversations to have. And we're here to help facilitate that. 1:49:41: Director Kurotori: If I could also add on that, as well, just to piggyback that statement, there's a lot of strengths that Palo Alto had, and that's why we got the AAA rating. If you look at days of cash on hand, is, that -- provided in the report, we were not on the median. And that's why you see those comments. They also had confidence in Palo Alto, the City Council, and the community to maintain those liquidity levels. So, I think that was that level of confidence. And that's why we wanted to put it in here as well. So, when you look at, you know, rate stabilization -- and there was a range that Baker Tilly went through -- 10 to 65 percent. Right? That's a big range. ### Yes. The 65 percent was the City of Roseville. ### Google "roseville electric utility AAA 'S&P' " The AI Overview said: "S&P Global Ratings assigns an AA long-term rating—not an AAA rating—to the electric system revenue bonds and certificates of participation for Roseville Electric, operated by the City of Roseville, California." They don't HAVE an operating reserve. It's kind of combined. Right? So, I just want to put that in context. The other thing about having that rate stabilization is, when we have changes -- when we see adjustments that we need to make, having that stabilization really provides certainty to the residents and businesses, as they go through their budgets. If we say there's going to be a projected 10 percent rate increase, we're not going to do those variations. Right? So, we have that buffer that we can go to if we have those issues at hand. So, I just want to mention that, in terms of that policy. Santa Clara is the one that had a 10 percent range. And, you know, that's why we brought that forward as well. So, I just wanted to provide some bookends. And they also have an operating reserve as well. 1:51:01: Vice Chair Phillips: But, I mean, that's so much more compelling and interesting than -- you know, it was in the report, to be honest. I mean, I heard two things -- which, you know, I have not seen or heard before. One is that we're on the bubble. And maybe I should have gone down into, you know, the report -- the bond-rating report. And, two, there's the potential of needing to have it in case something happens which is not quantified or called out anywhere. You know. That, at least, is -- I can start to think about. And this idea that we want to be consistent with the City's risk tolerance, absolutely. But what is the trade-off there? I mean, I don't understand it. And it's not available to me in any of this. I can't argue with -- we want to be consistent with the City's risk tolerance. But I can only say, I don't see what that is, or how this relates to it. 1:51:59: ACM Nose: I would say the commission is helping set the risk tolerance level. There isn't a prescribed policy that dictates that. That is what we are actually seeking feedback from the commission on, is -- Right. -- What level do we want to charge folks. Because affordability is really important. Versus, how much do we want to save so we can mitigate those -- inevitable, just day-to-day and/or annual things. ### Recall that it is not UAC's job to provide feedback to staff. It's providing advice to Council. ### Further, the Municipal Code (currently) says UAC should not give Council advice about the "daily operations" of utilities. But that doesn't mean UAC can't give Council advice about policies that staff might be guided by day-to-day. So, just to be clear, there isn't a policy. You ARE the gatekeepers and advisory to help suss out how we want to set, and what your recommendations are. 1:52:41: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Scharff. 1:52:43: Commissioner Scharff: So, I guess I think about it a little differently. I would like that you came to me and said, we need to have -- hey, um -- electric reserve. Not use the word[s] "rate stabilization." An electric reserve -- a water reserve. You know, reserves -- that meet our bond requirements. And will not put us on the bubble. So, you've talked about that we're on the bubble. That we could lose our AAA rating. Because we don't have enough cash reserves. ### Re-read the S&P press release. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/3612769 "We could lower the rating over the next two years if the utility’s debt service coverage or liquidity materially decline to levels observed in the past few years, either due to insufficient rate adjustments or unexpected capital needs that require additional debt or significant cash draws." ### My (non-professional) take is that S&P is saying that the electric utility's current debt service coverage and liquidity is adequate to justify a AAA rating. But at times during the past 5 years, it wasn't. I suppose this is referring to the years when Council declined to raise electric rates, to help users survive the COVID pandemic. So, I would rather understand what cash reserves we need. And we have a policy to maintain cash reserves and liquidity that is that amount. ### Commissioner Scharff seems to be assuming that the only thing S&P cares about is the magnitude of a utility's cash reserves (and the magnitude of its debt service). But might S&P also care about whether the City has considered the various uses to which these reserves could be put? And, frankly, no more. ### In other words, the City's risk tolerance should be limited only by S&P? That sounds potentially imprudent. 1:53:27: I actually believe in price signals. I actually think that RATE stabilization reserves are a bad thing. I think that reserves are a good thing. You know. And they're DIFFERENT. I don't think that because electric rates are going up, we should, on the whole, subsidize that from prior -- from prior people that have paid into that the newer people don't have to pay as much. I think if, for some reason, gas spikes up, people should KNOW that gas is more expensive, and make choices to use electricity. If electricity spikes up, then I think we have bigger problems over time. And you can't maintain low rates on that, because electricity is so ubiquitous, shall we say. So, I would rather understand what reserves we need to maintain our bond -- and, you know -- and that they're used for calamities. Frankly, we should slow down our CIP that aren't critical in years in which we have really high rate increases due to, you know -- The price of electricity goes up. We have a really bad hydro year in Palo Alto. But you also have a hydro stability reserve. So, that mitigates my big concern with hydro. So, I'm not sure why we need it for the rest of the stuff, to be honest. 1:54:47: So, I mean, I'm open -- I'm open to this. But the way it's been phrased to me, I'm with Bob and we vote no. ### How commissioners will vote depends on what the motion[s] will be. 1:54:52: ACM Nose: Sure. Sure. I think that's helpful feedback. And, Lisa and team and Ross and Kate, please help out as well. Unfortunately, there isn't a perfect mathematical equation that will tell me this is the amount I need so that I can get a AAA rating. It's, as Director Kurotori identified -- and in just my experience in doing rating presentations with various agencies for various funds, it's an amalgamation of everything. It's a representation of your staff. It's a representation of the governance of everything. So, there's -- I, unfortunately, can't give you a number. 1:55:29: Commissioner Scharff: But that's why you're paid the big bucks. 1:55:30: ACM Nose: What I CAN tell you is that staff took that into consideration. And that's why we brought forward the recommendations that we did. Is that we were trying to not be overly conservative. That's why the RSR -- the Rate Stabilization idea -- was, put it at the lowest end. 10 percent. AND let's take out the supplies. So, let's not double count. Because we're already reserving in hydro. We're already reserving for gas spikes. Let's not double count that. We already have reserves for those. Let's do 10 percent, which is the lowest end of our comparators, as well as, just from a general financial principles perspective, a low level. You know, when we look at construction projects, you think about 10 percent contingencies to 20 percent contingencies. Right? So, take that low end. And let's do that on the smallest base. And that's where we think that is the best place for us to place ourselves now, knowing that there are many variables out there, and we're also trying to satisfy financial market -- 1:56:31: Commissioner Scharff: And that's what you're asking for tonight. 1:56:33: ACM Nose: Basically. 1:56:33: Commissioner Scharff: 10 percent. But what's the second bite of the apple? What's this -- This is only the preliminary -- What is all the -- 1:56:37: ACM Nose: Yeah -- No -- This is not preliminary. If you look at pages -- the packet page 81 -- you can see, under the electric and gas reserves. And under electric, you have $71 million in those specific use of restricted reserves. I said packet page 81. Uh. The staff report itself -- Item number 3 would be page 4 of 15. So, that outlines all of the reserves in these funds. And so, staff only targeted in this conversation your big ones. And the ones that are likely going to have your largest change. CIP and Rate Stabilization. We didn't come back with the Hydro Utilization Reserve -- or, Stabilization Reserve. The Gas Stabilization that we're talking about. And so, that's when we say, take a second bite, is, there's these more specific targeted reserves that we haven't put into the equation here. We've accounted for them in the sense that we're not double counting. But we didn't bring back a policy recommendation on, like, yup, this is the right target or no. Um hum. 1:57:43: Commissioner Scharff: Thank you. 1:57:43: Director Kurotori: Just one more item on -- if we look at that page, is, as Lisa has mentioned, we were looking for actually additional rate increases on the gas. And to note -- We don't have any CIP Reserve right now for the gas utility. So, we really need to replenish that to a minimum level. So, we don't have those changes in rate spikes. Right? So, we were able to get these funds associated with the D-O-T [Department of Transportation]. But that also means we also have to make -- maintain our commitment for our projects. So, there is not a lot of latitude that we have in stopping our other projects, because then we would not be eligible for those grants. You can't get those additional grants to have -- and bypass your current level of commitment. So, I just wanted to point that out as well. 1:58:28: ADURM Bilir: Can I add one? 1:58:30: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Croft. 1:58:31: ADURM Bilir: Oh. I just wanted to add one more thing to the response, is that if you look at the Baker Tilly report, they do have some tables in there. And, as Kiely said, they're not -- there's no FORMULA that we can use to know what the rating is going to be. But our cash is lower than those levels listed as being extremely strong and AAA cross the utilities. So, if we brought you a proposal that said, you know, this is the level that we need, it would be a much more aggressive proposal. And as we approached this, we tried to look a balancing affordability and a moderate proposal that would fall within the bounds of what Baker Tilly has outlined as in line with peers and in line with the industry guidance. 1:59:16: Commissioner Tucher: So that I don't miss the point, when you say "aggressive," do you mean more conservative -- a higher number? 1:59:21: ADURM Bilir: We would be proposing much HIGHER rate increases. 1:59:24: Commissioner Tucher: Aggressive conservatism. OK. So, we need a bigger -- Oh, more rate increases, to build reserves higher. 1:59:29: ADURM Bilir: Yes. 1:59:30: **: Yes. 1:59:31: Commissioner Tucher: Got it. 1:59:31: Ross Hagen: And if I could just briefly add -- you know, as Lisa mentioned, we include these tables in our report. ### 03-27-26: "City of Palo Alto / Office of the City Auditor / City of Palo Alto Utility Reserves Advisory Report" (40 pages) https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=ab3102f7-8c84-4348-a68d- 2e6bee10328c ### But this report doesn't mention "scorecard." So, is this the report Hagen is talking about? I'll just speak from S&P's perspective, just to give you a framework here. So, S&P has a scorecard when they do their rating. For electric and gas utilities, liquidity and reserves represents 25 percent weighting on that scorecard. There's various components to that. But, you know, as Lisa mentioned, there's a days liquidity component and an available reserves component. And then, they have various, you know, ratings that you would have there. I think what's important to know is, while I say there's a 25 percent scorecard -- and this goes back to Kiely's point -- it's really -- you know, when you get a rating, it's inclusive of many different factors, including the confidence that, you know, the boards, ### In the case of Palo Alto's electric utility, the relevant "board" would be the UAC. And UAC doesn't make "tough decisions" about rates and reserves, although it can advise Council to make "tough decisions." ### Again, in the case of Palo Alto's electric utility, the Climate Action & Sustainability Committee (also not a board) (CASC) comments on some things, but I don't think they make "tough decisions" about rates and reserves. Council, would be able to make, you know, tough decisions as needed to maintain your rates and your reserves, you know, to make your debt service payments. So, they will -- You know, while a scorecard might say, hey, you should be a AA -- you know -- rated utility, S&P has the latitude to adjust that to a AAA, based on their evaluation of management, of practices -- you know, the other metrics that they look at in the scorecard and how they value those. So, it's not as straightforward as saying, hey, you know, cash reserves, days liquidity, that's 25 percent of the formula. You know, if we're adequate there, we're not ### I think he meant we ARE. going to be able to maintain a AAA rating. But I do think, as you look at the liquidity, if you're starting to kind of, you know, show those red flags to S&P or Moody's -- whatever the rating agency may be -- and you're consistently showing maybe just adequate reserve levels over a sustained period of time, I think that's when they would look to maybe potentially dock you on that rating, where those other factors would not kind of compensate for that adequate cash position. 2:01:32: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Croft. 2:01:34: Commissioner Croft: Thanks. Yeah. I have two questions. The first question is, when looking -- and, Baker Tilly, this might be for Baker Tilly. But when you're just looking at the operating expenses excluding supply, can you just talk about what are the risks? Like, what spikes to cause those to need a Rate Stabilization Reserve? 2:01:59: Ross Hagen: Yeah. So, I think, from the framing of that question, it's important to distinguish between kind of our Operation and Maintenance Reserve and then a Rate Stabilization Reserve. Operation and Maintenance Reserve would really be more focused on, you know, liquidity -- current liquidity. If you have unexpected events -- Maybe drought. You start to have revenue shortfalls in kind of a short term, you O&M Reserve can help to, you know, support your, you know, day-to-day operational ability of the utility so that you're really not getting any interference with your ability to provide services as a utility. Whereas, the Rate Stabilization Reserve, rather than protecting, you know, the day-to-day stability of the utility, is more in place to kind of protect your rate plan, so to speak. So, it's more of kind of a medium-term to longer-term outlook of use of those reserves to be able to, you know, have kind of a balanced rate plan, versus having those maybe spikes that you might have in a given year because you add, you know, a new cost. Maybe you have a -- you know, you go out and issue debt, and you may need to increase your rates to be able to, you know, support those debt service payments. The Rate Stabilization Reserve can kind of help you do that over a longer period of time. Whereas, the O&M Reserve is more focused on those kind of short-term liquidity events. 2:03:26: Commissioner Croft: Sounds a little bit like slowly boiling the frog. So. we're going to try and prevent people from having a big spike in a year by giving them higher prices slowly over time. Which, to me, just sounds a little bit -- uh -- odd. But the other question I had is, I did look up online, you know, what cities might use a Rate Stabilization Reserve -- What would a city do if they didn't have a Rate Stabilization Reserve? And I did read that an Operations Reserve can sometimes be used for the function of the Rate Stabilization Reserve. So, my question is, COULD we do that? And, secondly, on [packet] page 81, I got a little wrapped up in the footnotes on both -- on the Operations Reserve for the electric reserves as well as the gas reserves. There are footnotes on back on both. And I'm wondering, on those reserves, are the numbers accurate? Or are they high? Or low? And could that be an approach that we take? Instead of actually creating a different reserve, could we use the Operating Reserve for that? 2:04:34: ADURM Bilir:Um, yes. We could use funds from the Operations Reserve as -- And I think it might be useful for Baker Tilly to talk about that a little bit. It's just different than what they found, in terms of the peers and the industry standard. I'll take your question about the accuracy of the numbers in the electric utility, based on those foot- -- Or, electric and gas utility, based on those footnotes. This is kind of like trying to do a little reconciliation here between what appeared in the budget and then what appeared in our financial forecast. So, we kind try -- maybe there's a different way we could have formatted that. But, basically, when we went and looked at these numbers, we wanted to note that there are some differences between what we presented in the financial forecast and what was presented in the budget. And so, the footnotes really just outlining the reasons for those differences. 2:05:25: Commissioner Croft: But the numbers in the table are accurate today? And are those the ones that the bond ratings are looking at? Those numbers -- 2:05:33: ADURM Bilir: These are -- OK. The bond-rating agencies are probably looking at a lot of different numbers, including reported numbers and forecasted numbers. These are point-in-time estimates from the budget for fiscal year 2027 projected ending balance. We have different projected ending balances in some of the funds that we felt was relevant to put into the footnotes in the financial forecasts. So, we can talk about the specifics. But those are just two estimates, and kind of a reconciliation between the two of them. And -- 2:06:09: ACM Nose: Lisa, I think maybe what would be helpful for the commissioner is, when they're thinking about reserve balance and cash on hand, as a rating agency would, what set of numbers would be a better reflection of how the agency would be evaluating our reserve levels? I'm going to suspect it's what's in the footnote. The lower values. 2:06:35: ADURM Bilir: Yeah. I think that what we -- when -- in utilities, when we come up with our financial forecast, we do have some additional information that we rely on. And I think, to your question, Kiely, that that's probably the most relevant and complete information, is what's in the footnotes, to provide to a rating agency. 2:06:55: ACM Nose: Commissioner, to your point -- And this is just common -- I've probably spent more than a decade reconciling all the different ways you can slice the same number and reflect it, whether it's in alignment with GAAP ### Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles_(United_States) ### Perhaps the City's website should cite a reference defining what these principles are. principles -- a monthly value, a quarterly value, or your annual budget. But knowing that, publicly, the budget numbers are available, we always have to make sure that -- you know, if we don't provide that, someone's going to open the budget book and say, well, you said it's this. And so, it's always a -- it's just a frustrating articulation. It's not that either number is wrong. It's just, they reflect different points in time, and different application of measurements and forecasts, basically. 2:07:39: Commissioner Croft: Great. I guess the question then remains, could the operating -- Operations Reserve be used for that? And are the levels appropriate to serve that purpose? Or do they need to be edited as well? 2:07:52: ACM Nose: Sure. One, yes. An Operations Reserve -- you could make it a policy that it's used for rate fluctuations as well. Again, policy choices. I don't know that staff is able to identify whether or not the current targets would be sufficient to serve both purposes. But we could take that back. 2:08:10: Ross Hagen: And if I could add to -- I think, in kind of doing research and understanding why it's considered a best practice to have kind of the separate O&M Reserve and Rate Stabilization Reserve. I think, you know, what comes up, time and time again, when you look at this is, having those kind of delineated purpose for those two different reserve funds helps to kind of protect the dollars that are there to be used, you know, in the manner that they're kind of set forth to be used. When you have that kind of combined pool of money, you know, you have X dollars -- Right? -- in this O&M Reserve to be used for rate stabilization, and for, you know, fluctuations in O&M costs that may come up. But you may not have as much comfort level in, you know, how much of this O&M Reserve should be used for rate stabilization purposes, when we do have those rate increases, that we want to stabilize, and how much is specifically that O&M Reserve. So, I think just having that delineation helps to have a good understanding of, you know, we have these two different pools of money. This is exactly what they're supposed to be used for. So, it's a little bit more straightforward from that perspective. 2:09:22: But, to your point, you absolutely can have one -- you know, one combined reserve, if that's what you choose to do. 2:09:30: Chair Mauter: Are there any other commissioner questions? 2:09:33: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I had a couple of questions. I think we understand the need for debt coverage and liquidity for bond rating. I guess the part I don't understand is, why is the proposed approach -- to have a target instead of a minimum and maximum -- helping us to achieve those? [pause] ### Good question. I think it's not. 2:10:00: I mean, that's the core of what you're asking us to recommend. Right? 2:10:06: ACM Nose: Sure. Commissioner, could you maybe rephrase that? I guess I'm perhaps struggling -- teasing out what you mean by target. ### Why isn't it clear that "target" means what it means in the staff report recommendation? 2:10:16: Chair Mauter: Well, you've replaced like a point number that we are supposed to hit -- 2:10:20: Commissioner Metz: 1.a says -- 2:10:21: Chair Mauter: -- versus a range 2:10:22: Commissioner Metz: -- replace the CIP Reserve minimum and maximum with a Reserve target based on the average annual CIP budget. 2:10:32: ACM Nose: Sure. 2:10:32: Commissioner Metz: So, why -- why -- how does that help us to, you know, maintain our bond rating and assure we have a debt coverage? 2:10:42: ACM Nose: I don't think a range versus a target matters, in terms of the debt coverage. ### Right. Those are, again, policy choices on -- do we want to aim for a single point and then have a plus or minus, or do we want to have a range. And I think, based on Baker Tilly's assessment -- and, Ross and Kate, you can correct me -- just the simplicity of a target versus a range, and the clarity that would provide -- as to, we're at the target, we're above the target, we're below the target -- versus where should I be in this range -- is one of the kind of ambiguities that the assessment was trying to make a recommendation on a way to adjust for that. But there's nothing required. 2:11:23: Commissioner Metz: So, it's not important that we recommend that -- 2:11:27: ACM Nose: I don't think it's required. No. 2:11:28: Commissioner Metz: OK. Then, the other question was, what if the reserves don't behave? In other words, if we raise the rates according to what's planned, recognizing that there are other rate increases that possibly could happen, and we don't get to our target, what do we do? 2:11:52: ADURM Bilir: So, our plan is to revisit this every year, as part of the rate forecast, and there are -- you know, see if unexpected things have happened. Were the results of our operations -- you know, did we have more funds than we thought? Did we have less? What were the things that were needed to be drawn upon from some of these reserves? And re-evaluate each year, and report back out on what occurred. 2:12:17: Commissioner Metz: So, if we look at our trajectory, and if we seem to be getting to where we want to be, we do nothing. And if we're not, they we would have to come back with another rate increase, or something like that. 2:12:29: ADURM Bilir: Yes. It would be something that we would be revisiting each year and revising as appropriate. 2:12:36: Commissioner Metz: OK. And -- 2:12:38: ACM Nose: You can choose to pass on making up the ground if you are lagging and you're having other financial challenges. The Council does this on a regular basis when we're proactively funding pensions. You know. We can talk about a billion dollar -- multi-billion-dollar -- liability -- that the City's paying a mortgage on. And when we are in challenging financial times, we will look at, do we keep making that proactive payment or do we put a pause on it? Or do we cut it in half? We're not at our target. But we need to balance the service impacts associated with the fiscal discipline. And so, the annual budget process enables that conversation if those anomalies do occur. And inevitably, they will. ### I'm not sure that talking about pensions (which are outside UAC's scope) added much to the discussion 2:13:19: Commissioner Metz: OK. Has there been any look at the operational dimension of this? In other words, if you're -- you know, say the construction reserve is always over. ### I think Commissioner Metz was trying to say, what if the construction reserve is always too low. I mean, it could be prices have gone up. It could be that we're not doing a good job managing construction. And so on. For Operations. Or, you know, anything. Is there a feedback loop, that we would, you know, look at -- WOW, the CIP Reserve is always low. Are we going to do something about it? Is that tied into -- It seems like that's really important. 2:13:56: Director Kurotori: There's absolutely a feedback loop. ### I think the feedback loop is manual, not automatic. To your point. In terms of, we don't have, you know, cash to do our capital projects, our operating -- There's impacts. There's impacts to the community. There's impacts on -- to risk. I think you'll see that, frankly, more in the conversation we'll have on the wastewater side, in term of -- because what you see is those higher rate increases. Right? But -- I don't want to get on that subject, but, you know, just on the gas side, not having an adequate CIP Reserve -- um -- and -- or -- to fund the projects creates some additional risk, that you have to do higher rate spikes. ### If the RSR were adequate, it could be used to smooth out spikes. And that's something that's -- doesn't bring a lot of confidence -- sometimes -- to the community. If you see these wide variations of rates. Right? For us. And what we've come to Council with is to try to smooth those out, so there's certainty. 2:14:47: Commissioner Metz: Right. 2:14:47: Director Kurotori: Keep them only what we need to have them, but have some policies in place, if bad things happen, that we have a reserve to do that. 2:15:55: Director Kurotori: Pandemic. Prime example. We had reserve. We used them. Right? Now, we have to replenish them. It's like how much do you want risk to have if you have no checking and savings? Right? So, that's -- we make those convers- -- we have those conversations as a family in your home. And, similar, on the utility basis. What is out risk tolerance, in terms of cutting things back. Right? And it happens not only in the General Fund but the Enterprise Funds as well. 2:15:22: Commissioner Metz: OK. OK. Great. Thank you. 2:15:26: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Gupta. 2:15:27: Commissioner Gupta: Oh. Thank you. I won't echo all the commentary that I agree with, in the interest of efficient meetings. But I will add kind of my perspective, which is, I always try to look at things in terms of cumulative rate impacts. I think for me to understand this better, I would want to understand what is the cumulative rate impact of this. And I think we should -- Whenever we present tables of, you know, annual increases, we should include what the cumulative impact is, you know, for that 5-year period. And the reason I say this is, this is the first year I remember -- that I remember -- seeing posts from our residents from our residents on Reddit and on Nextdoor about the summer rate increase, and complaining about their utility bill. ### The comments on Reddit were pretty tame. https://www.reddit.com/r/paloalto/comments/1vgh37h/utilities_bill_up_22_suddenly_every_month/ And I think that's only going to get more prevalent as we have these seven -- you know, 6 or 7 percent rate increases over time. I mean, it does add up to a big number. And for me to look at this reserve policy, I would want to understand the rate impacts. Because, you know, as you know, recalling my memory of the management response, I mean, that rate impact was anywhere from, you know, single digits of 8-10 percent, if I remember, to double-digit rate increase impact. And so, that's large, on top of the rate impacts we're already seeing in our utility. And I do think there is a kind of a growing residential demand on keeping our rates affordable and low. And we've seen public commenters to us, talking about, you know, an upcoming affordability crisis in Palo Alto because of our utility rates. If you do the math. And you look at, you know, those issues in the 5-year span. I mean, we could actually be seeing that. So, I think that when this comes around, I would really appreciate seeing kind of this, together with kind of that rate impact conversation, and what that looks like cumulatively. 2:17:27: ADURM Bilir: Could I just respond to that? If we could go to slide 9, it would be helpful, I think, in seeing the bigger picture of the rate impacts. I think there's been a little bit of confusion, potentially, in the conversation here. And I just want to clarify that we looked at all of the recommendations that we're making here tonight for the rate stabilization reserve and the CIP reserve cumulatively, and included those in the table of rate impacts. 2:17:53: ###. Slide 9 -- again And you can see that for the electric and water utilities, those do not impact the rate trajectory. There IS an impact. It pushes it up a little bit, but not as much as a percentage point. And then, on the gas utility, it does push it up half a percent each year. So, we rounded to the next whole number. I think earlier in the conversation, we had -- you had asked a question about the numbers that we presented, in terms of those double digits. And that was where we were analyzing the full possible scope of impact of the Baker Tilly recommendations, including up to, you know, the 65 percent level, and some other recommendations that were included in there. What we've done here as staff is applied some judgment, thinking about what would make sense for each of these utilities, and made a recommendation that's more in line with what we think could be palatable, as well as appropriate for the Palo Alto utilities: electric, gas, and water. And this is the total impact to customers. So, as we move through this, if we looked at a second phase, and looked at additional components for those specific parts that require some more complex analysis, we would include that in the whole picture as well. And then, you could make decisions on that basis. So, that's a great point. And I just wanted to make sure that some of those things were highlighted. 2:19:18: Chair Mauter: OK. Commissioner Tucher. 2:19:21: Commissioner Tucher: Thank you. Yeah. First, a question. The report points out that -- um, GFAO -- I mean, you -- we have the leeway to do different policies, set different targets and methodologies for each of the utilities we're talking about here. And yet, it seems to me we take a one-size-fits-all -- we treat them all the same in the approach. But the specific question is, why do we always opt to use the one-year average CIP method, and not what is called the alternative, which is the depreciation method? The difference is VERY large -- like 3:1, 2:1. In the case of electric, it's $35 million versus $13 million. And we never take the -- we never take that lesser approach. This is particularly relevant in gas, where the report points out -- The Ops Reserve is simply to replace and renew. And -- so, what -- 2:20:30: ACM Nose: I can speak from a CIP cost perspective. Perhaps staff can talk about the recommendation on the utility specifically. From a CIP perspective, one of the things that we're having to adjust for, citywide, is that past CIP costs are not a great reflection of future CIP costs. The -- If you look at CPI indexes over the last 10 years, versus capital cost indices over the last 10 years, capex costs have gone up exponentially more. ### Most costs go up "exponentially" (in the mathematical sense). I suppose what ACM Nose meant to say here was that these particular costs have gone up "humongously" more. And so, the price of materials, the price of labor, the supply chain challenges that have increased costs. It's just where we are, in terms of capital. So, when we were looking at the two methodologies, and thinking what is a good reflection of what our level of risk could be, in today's day and age, just looking at our past CIP is not a great reflection, from a financial liability perspective. 2:21:36: Commissioner Tucher: I understand why depreciation may seem too low -- too lowballing of an approach. I understand the danger you're talking about. But I just -- The report presents no analysis or discussion as to why, say, 70 percent of the average CIP -- or 50 percent, or something other than 100 percent of the average 1-year 5-year. And we're going to do that for all three utilities, even though we certainly could take a different approach with each one. But I'll put that aside. The -- If I were Council, having to decide on this -- and we're talking -- you know, our total reserves are, just for these three, leaving out wastewater -- $150 million. Um, I would want real clarity on the policy on whether we can cross-share -- whether we can share, or cross-subsidize, [1] from utility-utility, and [2], within the utility, from capex (or CIP) to Ops, and vice versa. ### I believe that state law requires that electric utility revenues not be used to subsidize non-electric things, at least not without 2/3 voter approval. And similarly for gas and water. (The fiber utility is not similarly "protected.") I know that we do that. We've done it in the past. But it's impossible to say whether this rate stabilization approach is, you know, enough or too much, when we don't know whether we can fall back on our -- you know, even an intra-utility --- Keep in mind, electric has 4, going on 5, reserves, just in electric. ### The staff report (page 4) listed: * Electric Special Projects * Underground Loan * Hydro Stabilization * Electrification * Public Benefit, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Cap & Invest ### It didn't list: * Rate Stabilization. And that doesn't count PBC. ### PBC? So, you know, there are a lot of pots to take from. And I -- Each ratio is probably perfect. But I don't see any analysis that says we've considered, you know, whether these are all layered on top of each other, adding up to too much. 2:23:15: So, the other thing I'd want as Council -- or what I'd want to -- when we have to vote for this tonight -- is to know what type of risks are we actually talking about? Like, you know, it's always generic, and we say, well, rates could spike, and we could have a -- you know, we could have a delay in capex. But I would urge you to paint a picture of what the different categories of risk are. Why gas is different than electric. Electric has hydro, which might -- Water has SFPUC rate decisions. Gas could burst a main line. These are the kinds of things that we're trying to protect from. And -- And, again, the report so tantalizingly tells me -- that we could do each one in a custom way. And yet we don't. 2:23:59: So, I -- I would -- We talked a little bit about the many different reserves that exist. But, you know, from my point of view -- In electric, for example, you have two categories. And, effectively, there -- it's -- there -- I mean, whether you call it hydro stabilization or a rate stabilization -- And, frankly, opex is really just there to make sure that our customers don't get crushed, in case of a surprise. So, all those three different pots -- from my point of view, they should just be one. And policy could be written to accommodate that. We have an ESP -- ### The Electric Special Projects Reserve Extra special plan, or something like that -- which is effectively just a capex reserve. And yet, we also have a CIP. Why are they not together? 2:24:46: It's gone over. So, I think I took too big a bite of an apple. But that would be my advice as you prepare for the next presentation. 2:25:01: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] I start to self-police our apple bites. 2:25:03: Chair Mauter: You know, you have red or green. [laughs] ### Apparently referring to the on-screen timing display, which shows time remaining on a green background, or time exceeded on a red background. Red or green apples. 2:25:08: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** 2:25:09: Chair Mauter: Yeah. Exactly. I just want to thank Baker Tilly and staff for preparing this. And I think my own -- Please start the timer, because this is my bite of the apple. You know, I think. as I evaluate this, the first round of rate -- I'll say, generally, I've been on the side of we've had too many reserves. There's too many complicated buckets. What are we doing? A single reserve. It should probably cover it. The report was actually like helpful -- and this discussion has been really helpful in clarifying that we're hedging different kinds of risk. We're hedging capital bud- -- improvement budgets that exceed what we expect. We are hedging operational expenses that exceed what we expect. We're hedging disasters, like earthquakes, which actually span all utilities at the same time, and therefore compound risk. And so, it is valuable -- from what I'm hearing today -- to have separate reserves. 2:26:11: I've also really appreciated clarification about the impact that this will have on rates. The first pass was very horrifying, in the initial report. I mean, just frankly, I was terrified of being the Chair that passed something that was going to spike everybody's rates. That's not what the evidence is supporting at this moment. Right? We're seeing very small increases, such that they're really at a non-detect level. So, that, to me, suggests that we've taken this very conservative approach of preferring the 10 percent rather than 65 percent. And, therefore, we're on a path that helps us stabilize bonds, and make sure that we have bond ratings that we like, but does not push us into huge rate increases. 2:27:03: I think the points that many of my commissioners have made are spot on, and ones that I had as well. Why would we take different approaches to different ones? And a stronger justification, I think, would be valuable for Council. I don't necessarily need to see that here. But I think that the final thing I'd like to add is that I don't have a quantitative -- I -- a very helpful commentary from Alan on -- you know, we've SAVED money from having good bond ratings. But what is the implication of having a worse bond rating? Especially as we go forward on wastewater, which we'll come to. But on electric power utilities. So, if we could clarify that going to Council -- Like, we're talking about this many millions of dollars in debt that we're going to be paying for Grid Mod. And the increase on that is X. And it covers all of the cost of our rate stabilization reserve. Like, that's even further justification. And now, I'm going to shut up. 2:28:02: Vice Chair Phillips: Can I do my second bite? 2:28:04: Chair Mauter: [unamplified] You can do your second -- [amplified] Yes, you can do your second bite. 2:29:06 Vice Chair Phillips: That's my second and final. 2:28:08: Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:28:09: Vice Chair Phillips: Presumably, my -- 2:28:09: Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:28:11: Vice Chair Phillips: I guess as I come around the discussion, I come up somewhere near where Commissioner Scharff was. Which is, we can't explain the risks that we're trying to deal with here. And we can't quantify them. And we're not going to, in any short summary. So, who should we allow to do this for us? I guess the bond market is as good as any, because it's their money that is going into this. And so, you know, what I'm leaning toward is, you know, what does it take for us to safely have total reserves -- or, a reserve with a set of policies that give us very high confidence that we will retain our AAA rating, you know, over a relatively wide range of potential opportunities? Other than that, I'm sort of -- Like, I understand that -- the rationale for these different pots. But, to me, there's too many pots. And, you know, the CIP and the - - Too many acronyms and pots, in a field that already has too many acronyms. So, you know, I would reduce the number. And maybe have 2 or 3, and consolidate them. But I'm also concerned about making a decision tonight, when there's you know, this second shoe that's going to drop at some point about -- You know, well, OK, we're going to have wastewater, too. And we're also going to have an additional supply cost -- reserve cost -- which we don't know right now. It makes it very hard for me to say, oh, yeah, we should add some here, when I don't know what the magnitude of that is going to be. So, I guess that's -- you know, summarizing. I'm probably going to vote against the -- you know, the -- what is proposed here. ### There's no motion yet, so there's nothing to vote against. What I would be counterproposing is something along those lines. Thank you. 2:30:05: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Croft. I do want to be -- just point out the time. We have 10 more minutes for this item. ### On the agenda, staff estimated that Item 3 would take 90 minutes. So far, it's taken 76 minutes. So, we will -- Please. We have plenty of time for everybody to give their TWO MINUTES, and then vote quickly. ### How much time should have been estimated for making a motion, plus any amendments, plus voting on the motion, plus any amendments? 2:30:20: Commissioner Croft: I -- I'm just hearing -- I feel similarly to what a lot of people have mentioned. I'm also sensitive that there is zero in the gas CIP at this point. And we've been seeing the numbers come across as really low for quite a while. And I feel uncomfortable with that. So, I was actually going to make a suggestion -- or, for discussion, that we propose the annual depreciation expense to refill the gas CIP Reserve. On the electric, I also realize we have gigantic projects coming. And I would suggest we also do the annual depreciation expense. But I'm not sure if that's enough, to be honest. I feel like maybe we -- The CIP Reserve -- I feel more strongly about than the Rate Stabilization. So, on that, I would be interested in discussion with the group on what to do with electric. On the Rate Stabilization Reserve, my proposal would be to wait until we have the full picture of the hydro analysis, and the -- the -- the IRP. I mean, we haven't got the IRP done. That's happening next year. So, in terms of our exposure to market rates, and what could happen with spikes in market rates, We don't understand that yet. So, just to get a full view of what's going to happen to rates possibly, I feel like that would be beneficial before we put in place a specific Rate Stabilization Reserve. So, my proposal on that would be to have that, you know, that function taken over by the Operations Reserve. And then have staff do some work to figure out what that number needs to be, to satisfy whatever our bond covenants are. Or, you know, future financing needs would be. That would be a proposal. So -- 2:32:13: Chair Mauter: [unamplified] Commissioner Scharff. 2:32:23: Commissioner Scharff: So, I think we're all coming together a little bit. Can you hear? Yeah. I think we're coming together a little bit on some of this stuff. I think we're confusing -- and tell me if I'm wrong, but I think we're confusing a Rate Stabilization Reserve -- and the need for that -- with our bond rating. We could just say we need more money in operations. Right? So, I'm going to vote against anything that has a Rate Stabilization Reserve. Just -- you know, I don't want it. ### Apparently Commissioner Scharff is unwilling to learn from the peer utilities. ### I think Commissioner Scharff is misunderstanding the intent of the RSR (or not trusting Council to use the RSR as intended). ### Look, raising the utilities' rates is something Council (usually) does only once a year. It's a major production. In the case of the gas and water utilities, the City has to notify the public of the proposed new rates and give the public the opportunity to protest. When the City sets new utilities' rates, it predicts that they'll be sufficient to last for a whole year. If that prediction turns out to be wrong, the RSR can tide the City over until the next regularly-scheduled rate increase. And if we need more money for bond financing -- if we needed that 10 percent -- I actually would support that if it goes into operations. And, at some point, I might be willing to go with a Rate Stabilization Reserve. But I think we need policies around it that say, it has to be like the pandemic. ### The pandemic is perhaps not the best example. When Council froze utilities rates during the pandemic, it wasn't to stabilize rates. It was to make utilities more affordable for customers whose buying power had been impacted by the pandemic. ### Here are better examples. The City contracts with electric suppliers based on an estimate of what customers will demand. If customers demand more -- perhaps for air conditioning during abnormally hot weather -- the City must get the extra electricity from the spot market, which costs more. Or, if customers demand less, the City must sell previously-contracted electricity to the spot market at a loss. It can't be that we're subsidizing, you know, basically things are going up in price and we don't like it. It has to be something that's going to spike up and come right back down. And so, we cut that off. And so -- And I don't think we've really done that. I am totally fine with the cap- - the CIP. I was a little confused as to -- if we switch to the depreciation, that's far more expensive. Correct? 2:33:26: **: [unamplified] **. 2:33:26: Commissioner Scharff: That's LESS expensive. ### Commissioner Scharff seems to want to choose between CIP budget and depreciation based on what the numbers currently are, rather than what the numbers might be in the future. OK. So, that's why I -- confusing. So, it's -- So, instead of being 0.1 percent, it would be -- 2:33:34: **: [unamplified] 0.03 2:33:35: Commissioner Scharff: OK. 2:33:35: **: [unamplified] It's a third of the cost. 2:33:37: Commissioner Scharff: So, it's a third of the cost. OK. That was my confusion. So, yeah, I could support that. Um. You know, I also have -- my concern is here with the CIP Reserve, and to make sure that we're good with that. So, I'm fine if staff thinks that actually would work as an alternative proposal. if staff thinks that's too little, because we're not going to get there, you know, I might be open to going back to -- 'Cause I -- Frankly, I don't think -- I don't think the -- what is it -- 0.03 percent if we do the other one. I think it's noise. And so, since it's noise, I'd probably put more money into it. You know, that's -- I think that's where I'm leaning. 'Cause, does it really make a difference? In the electric. And what we it in gas? It was point what? And it -- I guess would do both electric and gas -- I personally -- on the CIP. Just because I think the CIP matters. And I don't have the same -- I think it's bad practice on -- to have a Rate Stabilization Reserve that can be used to just lower rates whenever it's politically expedient. 2:34:48: The proposed FY 2027 workflow for ** -- that just means you come back to us. Right? I mean -- So, obviously, that's fine. And then, I think the next step is to -- sort of for us to craft -- to hear from everyone and craft something that's acceptable. And I think most people are in somewhat agreement, but I'm not sure. 2:35:09: Chair Mauter: I there anyone else that has a bite of the apple they want to take? Or should we start proposing amendments? ### Since there's no motion, you can't make amendments. 2:35:16: Vice Chair Phillips: Just one question. So, say we just voted this down, and we don't come up with a counterproposal. What is the -- What is the alternative then? Or, do we -- you need a recommendation for us to move forward? 2:35:31: Chair Mauter: You can go right to Council. 2:35:32: ACM Nose: I mean, if the UAC doesn't provide a recommendation, then staff will bring forward the item to the Finance Committee, with a summary of the UAC discussion, but also note that UAC didn't have an alternative. 2:35:45: Vice Chair Phillips: Oh. Thank you. 2:35:49: Chair Mauter: I think the most effective way to go about this is to move the current motion -- ### There is no current motion. There is a staff recommendation in the staff report. And then modify that. Or, can we modify -- Can we modify in advance of -- ### Whoever makes the motion can make any motion at all (that's within the scope of the item) ### One reason for the maker of the motion not to just move the staff recommendation is that using the amendment process to customize the motion reduces further flexibility. There can still be amendments to such a customized motion, but not amendments to the amendments. 2:36:00: ACM Nose: Yeah. 2:36:00: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:36:01: ACM Nose: Whoever wants to be the -- 2:36:03: Chair Mauter: Friendly amendments. ### Amendments don't have to be friendly. OK. Whoever -- 2:36:05: ACM Nose: But the initial proposal ### motion can -- you can change this. 2:36:08: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:36:08: ACM Nose: I'd like to make a motion of the staff recommendation with the following amendment. ### Technically, such a modification would NOT constitute an amendment. 2:36:11: Chair Mauter: Great. Thank you for being with parliamentarians. [laughs] OK. I am going to kick this off, and summarize what I think is a distillation of what I've heard tonight. People are welcome to make friendly amendments. ### Commissioners are always implicitly welcome to make amendments, friendly or unfriendly. So, this reflects maybe a bias on my part, but you can amend it later. 2:36:36: Chair Mauter: I would like to MOVE to recommend to the City Council via the Finance Committee ### Why name the Finance Committee? revisions based on the proposed reserve targets that maintain the capital improvement plan reserve -- um -- minimum -- yeah, replace that minimum and maximum -- um -- with maybe reserve target -- based on that annual CIP budget. ### The transcribed text is a mish-mash of what Chair Mauter is moving and how she's correcting what's being typed to the screen. 2:36:55: Commissioner Metz, if you'd like to put a 5 percent bound on that, I think that would be fine. ### What Commissioner Metz might do after the motion has been fully moved, and seconded, is not relevant at this point. But I think a point number is also a little bit clearer. We might strike this rate stabilization reserve element, hearing some objection to the idea that we're buffering those costs, and maintain the higher level of -- you know, based on this annual CIP budget of a 5-year -- um -- so, the 5-year -- separate -- I'm sorry. I'm trying to like parse all of these recommendations. But it would be in alignment not with the capital depreciation, but rather the 10 percent -- approximately 10 percent -- or, the level that staff has recommended, based on the Baker Tilly report. Is there a way to say that more clearly. 2:38:10: ACM Nose: I think it's the -- you want it remain at the staff recommendation? 2:38:14: Chair Mauter: Correct. 2:38:14: ACM Nose: That would be to -- uh -- reserve target based on the average annual -- 2:38:19: Chair Mauter: Annual CIP budget. OK. 2:38:24: Commissioner Scharff: [unamplified] In "a," -- ### I suppose this refers to point 1.a. of the staff proposal. I think what you're trying to do -- Sorry. 2:38:24: **: Yup. 2:38:24: Commissioner Scharff: "a," what it looks like you're trying to do is to say -- um -- increase -- is it -- you said capital improvement. Were you thinking about -- 2:38:33: Chair Mauter: I don't know. 2:28:33: Commissioner Scharff: Are you thinking about the -- um -- the operations budget? Is that what you were trying to get to? Or are you -- 2:38:40: Chair Mauter: Um -- 2:38:40: Commissioner Scharff: I was confused. 2:38:40: Chair Mauter: No, no. I think we could strike -- We don't need that new "a." I think we just --we just go with "b." We strike now the current "b." We keep the proposed 5-year timeline, which brings us up to that level quickly. Um -- not overnight, but, you know, in a timely manner. And that we could revise this. So, 2 and 3 -- Sorry. We get rid of 2 -- 2:39:14: Director Kurotori: You can get rid of -- 2:39:15: Chair Mauter: -- get rid of 2. Keep 3. And maintain 4, which we all agree we need. 2:39:25: Commissioner Scharff: i can second that. ### At this point, the screen looks something like this (on the video, the screen is hard to read): MOTION: Chair Mauter moved, seconded by Commissioner Scharff, to recommend to the City Council [via the Finance Committee] adopt the following ** 1. Revisions to the Utilities Reserve Management Practices based on staff's proposed policies for the reserve targets: a. Replace the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve minimum and maximum guidelines with a reserve target based on the Average Annual CIP Budget. b. Add a Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) target based on 10% of operating expenses and define rules for when reserve balance is above or below target; and 2. Proposed 5-year timeline for achieving revised RSR policy targets; and 3. Proposed timelines for achieving revised CIP Reserve policy targets: 5 years for the Gas and Water utilities and 10 years for the Electric Utility; and 4. Proposed FY 2027 workflow for revising and approving the Utilities Reserve Management Practices. 2:39:30: Commissioner Gupta: Just a quick question. Were we going to move to the depreciation version of this? 2:39:34: Chair Mauter: Um -- 2:39:35: Vice Chair Phillips: I thought we WERE. 2:39:36 Chair Mauter: We -- We could move to the depreciation version. I think the recommendation from Commissioner Croft was to move to the depreciation version for gas. Which we, as I said, this reflects MY preference. Because I don't see a huge impact on rates. And especially if we're already removing rate stabilization. I would rather go with the LARGER amount, so that we HAVE the cash reserves on hand, in order to meet bonding requirements. Because the rate stabilization reserve means that our lower -- this is already a lower cash on hand. 2:40:13: You're correct. We don't. We don't. We are -- We've heard tonight that we do not have precise numbers around requirements to maintain bond ratings, but that we are on the LOW end of our -- of our peers, and that -- um -- I -- the -- we're on the bubble. We've heard we're on the bubble. 2:40:42: Vice Chair Phillips: As clari- , what is the total 2027 ending reserves that we would expect for water, gas, plus electricity? I kind of think it's about $220 million. 2:40:55: Commissioner Tucher: It's $192 [million]. And gas is up in the air. I mean, gas could be 24. But then, the footnote says it could be 7. That's the opposite -- 2:41:04: Vice Chair Phillips: But I'm just looking at the table. Say we do the tables that are in the -- there. i was just doing the addition in my head, which is a highly unreliable calculator -- 2:41:12: Director Kurotori: While staff does the addition in their head. ### Or, rather, NOT in their head. So, some of these reserves are restricted reserves. So, our Public Benefits charge can only be used for certain items. Our cap and invest can only be certain items. 2:41:21: Commissioner Tucher: The number I gave is not -- 2:41:23: Director Kurotori: And they're typically not incorporated in the days of cash on hand when we go to the bond market, because they're restricted for certain requirements, and they're limited into their use. So, I just -- As we sum the numbers, I want to make sure we don't add those in, to think that we have more days of cash on hand. So, just as a point -- 2:41:40: Vice Chair Phillips: How many days of cash WOULD we have on hand if we had got -- hit our 2027 budget? [pause] Is that an impossible -- If that's impossible, then just say -- say fine. I was just looking at the table for Moody's -- you know, very strong: 150 to 270, $150 million to $250 million in available reserves -- where we fit in that. ### What table? The 03-27-25 Baker Tilly report https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=ab3102f7-8c84-4348-a68d- 2e6bee10328c has an unnamed table on page 20 that lists a series of strengths: "Very strong" corresponds to a liquidity of 150-270 days, and to available reserves of $100M-$250M. However, that table is attributable to S&P (not Moody's), for US municipal retail electric and gas utilities. 2:42:07: ACM Nose: I might just remind the commissioners, when rating agencies are looking at these funds, they look at each enterprise separately. You cannot combine them. ### Yes. 2:42:18: Vice Chair Phillips: That's not what it said. It said -- 2:42:21: ACM Nose: As of -- 2:42:21: Vice Chair Phillips: -- issued a credit opinion for the City of Palo Alto, the water system. And water -- which I think means electric and water and gas. But it's a combined utility. 2:42:28: ACM Nose: So, these rate -- the numbers -- are reflecting based on a individual debt obligation. I can tell you, from the presentation we just did a month ago, they only look by individual enterprises. Because each enterprise is governed by California law, -- ### The Fiber Utility is governed differently by California. But this item isn't talking about the Fiber Utility. 2:42:48: Chair Mauter: And you can't cross-subsidize -- 2:42:50: ACM Nose: -- ** 2:42:51: Chair Mauter: That's right. 2:42:52: ACM Nose: Now, to the question of the commissioners before, do we do inter-fund loans. And how those funds pay back, with an amortization schedule and interest being paid? Yes. However, it doesn't -- it's not a permanent. Right? It's always a repayment. And those are short cash flow only. You cannot comingle them, from a ratepayer -- 2:43:12: Vice Chair Phillips: Fair enough. So, I guess what I'm looking at is to quantify the statement that we're on the bubble. 2:43:17: ACM Nose: Sure. 2:43:17: Vice Chair Phillips: To some extent. For 2027. 2:43:20: ACM Nose: Um -- Fair. And I think, to your point, if you look at the Baker Tilly document, page 20, ### 03-27-26: 'City of Palo Alto / Office of the City Auditor / City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report" (40 pages) https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=ab3102f7-8c84-4348-a68d- 2e6bee10328c as Lisa Bilir tried to articulate, if you look at total days liquidity, "strong" is 90-150. Forget the numbers. Just the actual liquidity days is, 90 to 150 as "strong." "Very strong" is 150 to 270. "Extremely strong" is 270 and above. I don't think you HAVE to be at 270 and above to get a AAA rating. That's just my personal opinion, based my experience, given all the other factors at play. We are somewhere in the strong-adequate range. Our Operations Reserves are typically a 90-day reserve. So, when you look at that, plus our CIP reserves, that's when you get yourself in that "strong" range. So, what I'm hearing from the commissioners is, what's the lowest level we can go, when we combine our fungible reserves within each enterprise, so that we're in that "strong" to "very strong" range, so we can help -- 2:44:25: Vice Chair Phillips: Which -- I'm not sure it's exactly what I was saying. But I was trying to understand where we were -- where we were planning to be with the current policy. And, you know, would love to say we should be -- try to be in the "very strong" range, not necessarily "extremely strong," you know, in order to support -- And, again, it's only, I understand, a percentage of the evaluation for the bond rating. To support the bond rating. ### I think ACM Nose is saying she doesn't know the exact numerical percentage of the bond rating that is due to the liquidity evaluation. Anyway, -- 2:44:47: Commissioner Tucher: May I say something? 2:44:49: Chair Mauter: Please. 2:44:49: Commissioner Tucher: Earlier this evening, we talked about process, and we talked about staying on the agenda. I'm not going to say that talking about the bond market is not on the agenda. But it sure is off the staff report. I'm going to vote no on this entire proposal, simply because of the points I made before. We're sitting here trying, on the fly, to talk about like how the bond markets later this year will look at us, what requirements they'll be making. Keep in mind, we're only talking about setting targets. All of our decisions for funding reserves for fiscal '27, of course, are already in motion. That's the budget, and the plan. So, we're just talking about targets and methods. I can't imagine why we wouldn't ask to simply come back to this topic later, with better analysis, better presentation, answering questions like the ones I raised before. Can we or can we not share between funds? I heard the answer. It was crystal clear. Can I -- You know, how much -- how many -- what is the impact of having multiple reserves that we have, so that we're probably way over reserved? Too much in one area. Too little in others, like gas. I get it. Instead, we're, on the fly, trying to figure out days of reserve on hand. And when this whole issue wasn't even part of the report. 2:46:06: Chair Mauter: OK. We have a motion, and we have a second. So, I think we have opened discussion on this. Which is fine. but I want to be formal about that. And if other commissioners -- We've kind of taken a straw poll. ### The AI Overview for Google " 'straw poll' 'rules of order' " says, "Under Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), informal straw polls are explicitly out of order during a standard assembly meeting." Are they explicitly out of order under the rules of order UAC is using? The point is that a straw poll doesn't decide anything, so it's a waste of time. Here is a no. I don't know if anyone else wants to offer a quick -- 2:46:28: Commissioner Scharff: I would. Chair Mauter: OK. 2:46:30: Commissioner Scharff: I think that -- in listening to the discussion, it seemed to me that, with the exception of Commissioner Tucher -- and I'm not sure I've heard from all the commissioners, but from the people who have spoken about it. The question that's not resolved on this motion is, do we do depreciation -- 2:46:46: Chair Mauter: Depreciation -- 2:46;46: Commissioner Scharff: -- or do we do -- 2:46:47: Chair Mauter: That's right. ### What's right? 2:46:48: Commissioner Scharff: I would suggest we just do a straw poll And -- look -- I'm willing to go with whatever the majority wants to do. ### That kind of goes without saying. I prefer the non-depreciation, because I think it's noise -- the difference in the rate increase. But it's fair to disagree, and I'm willing to go with whatever the majority -- 2:47:02: **: is. 2:47:02: Chair Mauter: My bias is toward the current one, because I think that the electric investments over the coming years are NOT representative of historic depreciation. They are substantively new investments. And that's the only one that really matters in terms of rate increases. And also, we don't have a gas reserve fund. So, we should get that one up into something sometime soon. 2:47:30: Commissioner Metz: That was my thought as well. The -- I mean, if you just do "a" here -- 2:47:36: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:47:36: Commissioner Metz: -- it works out for the gas -- 2:47:38: Chair Mauter: That's right. 2:47:38: Commissioner Metz: -- because -- 2:47:49: Chair Mauter: That's right. 2:47:49: Commissioner Metz: -- it boils down to depreciation anyway. 2:47:40: Chair Mauter: Anyway. 2;47:40: Commissioner Metz: And electric has a huge incremental construction. 2:47:45: Chair Mauter: That's right. That's right. 2:47:46: Vice Chair Phillips: I would be MORE supportive of the depreciation side, but I'm willing to go with a majority -- seemingly-forming majority here, although I haven't heard that as an actual majority yet. 2:47:57: Commissioner Gupta: Sure. Yeah. I'm -- And speaking just precisely about the motion on hand, I would be more in favor of depreciation. And I'm also not necessarily in favor of removing our rate stabilization reserves. I would want to understand the impact of that a lot more before making that recommendation. I get the point. We don't want past people subsidizing, you know, the current spikes. But at the same time, I also want to understand what our -- you know, what are the pros and cons of the reserve, and, you know, how has it historically been -- these types of reserves been used. 2:48:36: Commissioner Scharff: They don't have -- 2:48:37: Commissioner Gupta: I know. I understand. We don't have one. 2:48:39: Commissioner Scharff: So, ** policy -- 2:40:39: Commissioner Gupta: But other communities -- 2:48:41 Commissioner Scharff: -- that's the difference. 2:48:41: Commissioner Gupta: Yeah. But other communities. How have they used rate stabilization reserves to respond to, say, rate spikes? Because, you know, if -- I -- you know, the Director made a comment on, it can be helpful for the community to have reliable rates. Right? They understand what they're going to be paying. And folks who are paying on a fixed income, that can be a really important aspect of their financial lives. And, you know, I'm hesitant to make a recommendation to remove it, unless we've had kind of more of a fulsome ### Meaning, I suppose, "complete," not "overdone." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulsome kind of conversation on the pros and cons. That's just my -- 2:49:13: Commissioner Scharff: Can I ask you to think about slightly differently? Like, I would be very supportive of a strong discussion of a rate stabilization reserve where it comes here with all the information. By taking it out, we're really doing what Commissioner Tucher is doing, and voting no on this part of it, saying we don't want that -- 2:49:30: Chair Mauter: Today. 2:49:30: Commissioner Scharff: -- today. 2:49:32: Chair Mauter: Today. 2:49:33: Commissioner Scharff: And, I'd be happy to add -- if -- that -- that -- that staff comes back to Council at some point -- NOT Council -- to UAC as some point with the pros and cons of a rate stabi- -- and we get into it, and we have a DISCUSSION about it. ### Be careful what you ask for. On 09-02-26, UAC had the opportunity to VOTE its advice to Council, that staff return to UAC with more information about the implications of having a Rate Stabilization Reserve for each utility (electric, water, gas), so that UAC could VOTE its advice to Council about that. BUT if staff returns to UAC with a DISCUSSION item about RSRs, UAC won't be able to vote it's advice to Council about that. That would be GREAT. I am fully supportive of adding language like that. 2:49:49: Chair Mauter: And we had a ton of that kind of discussion in the gas a couple years ago. ### 05-01-24, Item 4? https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13472 2:49:54: Commissioner Scharff: Correct. 2:49:54: Chair Mauter: Yeah. 2:49:54: Commissioner Scharff: And so, that way, you would have that discussion. It just doesn't disappear. ### Well, did the discussion about the gas RSR two years ago just disappear? ### Googling found this 4-page document entitled "Attachment C, Exhibit 3: Gas Reserves Management Practices." https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/2025/june-16/rates-attachments/finalized-attachment-c-exhibit-3-fy26-gas-reserve- management-practices.pdf It doesn't identify the document it's an attachment to, but I think it's Item 22 on Council's 06-16-25 agenda. But I can't -- I mean, I couldn't support saying that tonight with no information. 2:50:04: Commissioner Gupta: Yeah. I mean, to be frank, I mean, I'm just restricting my comments. I think I agree with Commissioner Tucher. I don't -- I think the whole thing needs to come back, personally. But I also think the rate impact is not noise. Like, if my napkin math right now is like it's at least a 6.5 percent cumulative increase across all three utilities that we're voting on. So, it's nor -- it's not noise. It does accumulate And -- But, you know, I think the changes we're making here -- I agree with remove -- with doing -- with adding in -- if that's a friendly amendment -- to bring back these additional questions we've talked about. 2:50:46: Chair Mauter: I'm happy to accept the friendly amendment. I'm not sure how to do that procedurally. ### Here's how: First, be sure about the wording of the friendly amendment. Then accept the friendly amendment. Then ask the seconder whether he accepts the friendly amendment. If it's accepted, change the text of the motion on the screen. Otherwise, give Commissioner Gupta the opportunity to offer the amendment as an "unfriendly" amendment. If it gets a second, then focus on the amendment until it gets an up or down vote. 2:50:52: Commissioner Scharff: Just accept. ### Incomplete advice. 2:50:52: OK. I accept it. Very happy to do that. Commissioner Croft, I know you've been waiting. 2:50:59: Commissioner Croft: I just had a thought on -- we have these two different sets of numbers for the CIP reserve. We have a depreciation-based one, and an annual CIP budget one. Another though might be that we retain a minimum and maximum. The minimum is depreciation, is the annual expenditure. And those are targets. ### To me, this mixes ideas in a way that doesn't make sense. We know we bop around between the two levels. That's -- it's just a thought, for -- not to cause -- 2:51:26: Commissioner Scharff: It's a good thought. 2:51:27: Commissioner Croft: -- extension. 2:51:30: Chair Mauter: I think my concern with that -- It's a very good thought. My concern is that we're already biased towards the very low end of what the Baker Tilly report highlighted as our peers' best practice. So, staff came forward with that 10 percent, not with 50 or 65 percent. Again, I don't think there's a right number at all. I'm just worried, on the electric power side, about the huge new debt load we're going to be taking on. Making sure that we can cover that. And the fact that annual operating expenses -- I'm sorry, annual capital -- annual depreciation does not represent the magnitude of new capex that we're going to have outlays around. So, I'm more worried about that for the electric power side. 2:52:18: Commissioner Scharff: So, on our straw poll, I know the -- three of us are for NOT using depreciation. ### Commissioner Scharff seems to be leading the discussion at this point. Not a good sign. Bob, you're FOR using depreciation still? Or not using depreciation? I was -- 2:52:28: Vice Chair Phillips: I'm on the -- 2:52:30: Commissioner Scharff: You're on the fence. And you -- 2:52:34: Commissioner Croft: [unamplified] I'm for using depreciation -- 2:52:35: Commissioner Scharff: Your views -- 2:52:35: Commissioner Croft: I'm for using depreciation on gas, just because we've all not wanted to invest so much in gas. But I'm not going to die on this argument. I would accept the average annual, if that's what the team wants to do. 2:52:50: Commissioner Scharff: And I was unclear on you, Ustav. ### Utsav Are you VOTING for this motion if we -- if we -- the way it is? Or are you -- are you just want -- ### The expeditious way to find out would be to follow the rules of order, which would entail voting on the motion. 2:52:58: Commissioner Gupta: On this precise motion of making the amendments -- 2:53:01: 2:53:01: Commissioner Gupta: I will probably vote for it, because it's improved versus what was there before. 2:53:06: Chair Mauter: OK. 2:53:06: Commissioner Gupta: But the overall thing -- When we get to the discussion there, I'll -- 2:53:09: Commissioner Scharff: ** 2:53:10: Chair Mauter: This is it. 2:53:12: Commissioner Gupta: This -- 2:53:12: Chair Mauter: THIS IS IT. 2:53:12: Commissioner Gupta: Oh, this is it. OK. Well, I -- I -- I -- 2:53:15: Chair Mauter: I accepted your friendly amendment. ### Vice Chair Phillips didn't accept the friendly amendment, but at least he didn't explicitly reject it. 2:53:17: Commissioner Gupta: OK. No, thank you for that. No, I think we -- I agree with Commissioner Tucher that we just need more information on this. And I would want to -- 2:53:23: Chair Mauter: So, you're going to vote no, despite the friendly amendment. ### There's nothing contradictory or even unusual about that. 2:53:26: Commissioner Gupta: Right. Because -- 2:53:27: [laughter] 2:53:29: Commissioner Gupta: This is the overall thing that we're voting on. 2:53:31: [laughter] 2:53:30: 2:53:34: Commissioner Gupta: I thought we were precisely voting on an amendment. 2:53:37: Chair Mauter: No. No. We are -- OK. ### In theory, commissioners might have wanted to propose other amendments, or even a substitute motion at this point. So, in that case, could you kindly call the roll? Or, the vote? Not the roll. The vote. 2:53:46: Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft. 2:53:49: Commissioner Croft: Sorry. I'm still reading it. Hang on just -- [pause] ### Here's the motion (copied from the Action Minutes) MOTION: Chair Mauter moved, seconded by Commissioner Scharff, to recommend the City Council (via the Finance Committee) adopt the following: 1. Revisions to the Utilities Reserve Management Practices based on staff’s proposed policies for the reserve targets: a. Replace the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve minimum and maximum guidelines with a reserve target based on the Average Annual CIP Budget. b. Add a Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) target based on 10% of operating expenses and define rules for when reserve balance is above or below target; and 2. Proposed 5-year timeline for achieving revised RSR policy targets; and 3. Proposed timelines for achieving revised CIP Reserve policy targets: 5 years for the Gas and Water Utilities and 10 years for the Electric Utility; and 4. Proposed FY 2027 workflow for revising and approving the Utilities Reserve Management Practices 5. Recommend that staff return with the pros and cons of the Rate Stabilization Reserve FRIENDLY AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER ### I think it's a little quirky to include parts 1b and 2 in a strike-out font, and also not to renumber the remaining parts. ### NOTE: Commissioner Gupta's friendly amendment apparently didn't change the text of the motion in any way. So, what did it accomplish? 2:54:00: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 2:54:03: Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz. 2:54:05: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 2:54:06: Belle Farias: Commissioner Scharff. 2:54:07: Commissioner Scharff: Yes. 2:54:08: Belle Farias: Vice Chair Phillips. 2:54:10: Vice Chair Phillips: Yes. 2:54:12: Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta. 2:54:13: Commissioner Gupta: No. 2:54:17: Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher. 2:54:18: Commissioner Tucher: Sorry. I'm still reading it. 2:54:20: Belle Farias: No worries. 2:54:21: Commissioner Tucher: No. 2:54:24: Belle Farias: Chair Mauter. 2:54:25: Chair Mauter: Yes. 2:54:26: Belle Farias: MOTION passes 5-2. ### (Gupta, Tucher No.) 2:54:29: Chair Mauter: OK. We are only like 12 minutes behind schedule. I feel GREAT about that. [laughs] 2:54:37: OK. But we're going to make it up. Would people like a 5-minute break? 2:54:44: Commissioner Scharff: Yes. 2:54:44: Chair Mauter: OK. Great. Let's take a 5-minute break BREAK 3:02:30: ### I'm not going to transcribe the post-break chit-chat that occurred between 3:02:30 and 3:03:15. 3:03:15: Item 4 -- Update on Electric System Long-Duration Resiliency (DISCUSSION) Chair Mauter: We are now moving to packet item number 4, ### That is, agenda item 4. which is an Update on the Electric System Long-Duration Resiliency -- CEQA Status: Not a Project. We have 20 minutes for this topic. And we're going to hew to that. So, I will turn it over to Terry. And encourage brevity were possible. 3:03:47: Director Kurotori: Well, I'm not going to speak. I'm just going to go to Terry. But this was a referral by Council to continue [to] engage in long-duration storage. 3:03:55: COO Crowley: So, evening, Chair, commissioners. So, I just have an update on, again, long-duration and - - long-duration resiliency. Next slide, please. 3:04:10: ###. Slide 2 -- Background So, just some quick background. So, in March of this year, City Council heard a presentation on local energy resources and long-duration resiliency. ### 03-02-26 Council agenda, Item 10, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18673 At that time, staff presented that it wasn't cost-effective yet. Close, but not quite there. And recommended not pursuing it further, as far as looking at additional studies or seeking to construct a site. While it was determined that it was not cost-effective, Council DID direct staff to continue to engage the Utilities Advisory Commission, Climate Action Sustainability Committee, and City Council within 2026. So, this is the first of that engagement, following the March 2026 meeting. Subsequent from this meeting, we'll follow up with the Climate Action Sustainability Committee, and then go to the City Council with this. Next slide, please. 3:04:59: ###. Slide 3 -- Microgrid Cost Trends So, just as an update, not much has really changed since March. You know, utility-scale microgrids continue to remain high, as far as cost, relative to benefits. There is publicly available reports that kind of talk through the cost and give some numbers. So, in 2023, the National Laboratory of the Rockies estimated cost of storage in -- $482 per kWh. And then forecasted in 2030 that those costs would fall roughly between 20 to 50 percent. In 2025, they updated that report. There's a significant drop in cost. But also, they forecasted another significant drop in cost by 2035. So, in the future, it shows, again, continued drops in the cost for battery storage. Again, these costs are specifically for battery storage. They do not include the full complement of a microgrid which would be solar and batteries. Next. Thank you. 3:05:57: ###. Slide 4 -- Storage Benchmark So, looking at -- 3:05:59: Vice Chair Phillips: So, looking at the capital cost -- 3:06:02: COO Crowley: This is the capital cost to -- 3:06:02: Vice Chair Phillips: -- the capital cost only? 3:06:03: COO Crowley: And that's how they've kind of developed it. So you look at the available kilowatt-hours that are in that battery storage, multiply that number out, and you get an idea. So, we'll kind of walk through those numbers with this slide. So, if we looked at a typical 4 MW, 4 hour battery, that could typically serve about 300 single family homes for a 24-hour period. Just looking at average load usage. So, if there WAS an outage, we could carry that load for 24 hours, and then we -- the battery would be fully depleted. Rough cost for that is $5.4 million. Cost is anticipated to fall to roughly half of that, $2.4 million by 2035. So, significant savings in the future. 300 customers represents about 1 percent of the 27,000 residential customers. So, it's $5.4 million for a small percentage. What's not included in these numbers, and was really important to remember, is that this is just the cost of the battery storage. This does not include, how do we recharge that battery when it's fully depleted? So, if you're into a long-duration outage, and you don't have access to your transmission, or you can't recharge that battery, you need to have some type of local generation to match that. That will be solar cost. These aren't included in there. But, roughly, when we start to look at solar cost to fill up a 4 MW battery that's got a 4-hour duration, we're looking at roughly 20 acres of solar, and probably about $12 million to $15 million in cost for that solar installation. So, we'd have to find that footprint to allow that to work. So, staff, you know, plans to continue to monitor these costs, and seek improved value, and plan to discuss that with the Integrated Resource Plan that's scheduled for 2027. So, every 5 years, the City updates their Integrated Resource Plan. That work will start in 2027 -- likely mid- to late-2027. And the UAC will see that draft plan come before them. And we will include additional discussion about local renewable and battery storage projects. How then fit into that plan. What the cost- effectiveness are. Next slide, please. 3:08:10: ###. Slide 5 -- System-wide Resiliency So, System-wide Resiliency. So, another thing we look at for long-term resiliency is, we look at natural disasters, and what the effect of those would be. We also look at the fact that, when we do suffer outages or natural disasters, the system becomes fractured. And there's no way to serve those customers until we actually do those repairs. So, if we set a battery someplace, say in a substation, if there's an outage downstream, that prevents those customers from being connected to it, that battery didn't do anything good for those customers. It sits there, kind of idle, waiting for those repairs to happen. And so, one of the things that we do have to continue to plan is, how do we plan for quick repairs? OR building redundant facilities. OR building resilient facilities. So, there's -- Typically, with cities, you have a local hazard mitigation plan. Santa Clara County has a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan that lists specific hazards. What we'd like to do is make a stronger effort with the design work that we're doing with the CIPs. All the new projects -- part of Grid Modernization -- is looking at these hazards and seeing what we can do, within that scope, to mitigate, or lessen the risk, of those hazards having a large impact on the City. So, we can look at redundancy. We can look at flood waters. We can look at sea level rise. We can look at all these different things to figure out like how do we quickly restore, or how do we ride through these hazards. So, we tried to look through -- And with the upcoming budgeting cycle, we would start to add some of that information into those capital improvement plans, what type of hazards we're trying to mitigate with these projects. Next slide, please. 3:09:49: ###. Slide 6 -- Recommendations So, Recommendations are really for staff is to continue to monitor and provide updates on the estimated local utility-scale battery storage. Update the UAC AGAIN with the next Integrated Resource Plan. And then, again, staff's recommendation is that we continue to propose reasonable hazard mitigations with the recommended capital improvement projects 3:10:10: And so, with that, I'd open it up to discussion and questions from the commission. 3:10:19: Chair Mauter: Before we head there, I would like to open this item for public comment. 3:10:28: Belle Farias: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item 4, please raise your hand on Zoom or press *9 now. There are no requests to speak. 3:10:37: Chair Mauter: OK. With that, we will turn to very brief clarifying questions from my commissioners. [pause] Commissioner Scharff, you've had yours on for a while. 3:10:51: Commissioner Scharff: I -- 3:10:51: Chair Mauter: OK. Commissioner Metz. 3:10:54: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I'd like to focus on the second point they raised in the last slide. The staff review and proposed reasonable hazard mitigations. Could you talk a little bit about what's planned there? 3:11:07: COO Crowley: So, giving an example, the Colorado substation. So, a critical facility for the City's electric utility. It's in the flood plain. 100-year flood. We have projections for sea level rise that would increase that by another 3 to, say, 7 feet, depending on what that looks like. If we're going in there and we're doing a 40- to 50-year life project, which -- 3:11:30: Commissioner Metz: The one at ** Loma Verde at Greer Park. ### 1082 Colorado Avenue, at Greer Park. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4398268,-122.1159116,19z? entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDkyMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D 3:11:34: COO Crowley: Yeah. 3:11:34: Commissioner Metz: OK. 3:11:34: COO Crowley: And so, that -- So, that project, we would look at how do we mitigate that hazard of flooding. Right? And sea level rise. Since we're building a 40-year project, it's critical for it's serving all other customers. And so, we would move through that process. So, that's one thing we would look at. We would look at liquefaction in those areas, and making sure that we're building any new foundation to withstand a large earthquake, or a liquefaction issue. And so, those are the hazard mitigations we would look at. Again, with Grid Modernization, we're also looking at capacity increases. So, if you're looking at a heat storm, and we're increasing our capacity in our system, we're mitigating those hazards. So, those are the typical examples. And we would start to walk through those. You know, there's some new hazards that have been added into these hazard mitigation plans, such as cyber attacks, or pandemics, or other things like that. We would also try an look through those things. So, as many of those things that we can identify. And then, we would identify what would that mitigation measure -- what would that additional cost be? Figure out if that's a reasonable cost for the customers. And then propose that with the CIP budget. 3:12:40: Chair Mauter: I have a quick clarifying question, which is, we have these recommendations. You're looking for us to pass a motion that supports those recommendations? ### Since Item 4 is a discussion item, UAC can't pass motions about it. 3:12:50: COO Crowley: To either provide that advice -- clarification of what staff's recommendation would be -- or, you know, advice of how we should move forward. That would be carried forward to the Climate Action Sustainability Committee, and then on to the Council Commission. ### (Council is not a commission.) So, if there's something addition, or something different that you would recommend moving forward with, that's fine. But this is staff's recommendation. 3:13:09: Chair Mauter: OK. Thank you. Clarification? Or are we ready to move on to more substantive? 3:13:17: Commissioner Croft: So, if we did have a battery -- or, more than one battery -- would these batteries be just kept full at all times? ### Some sources say that to maximize battery life, they should never be charged to more than 80 percent of capacity or discharged to less than 20 percent of capacity. Like not be able to be cycled? Because the whole point is redundancy -- or, resiliency, in case of -- 3:13:33: COO Crowley: That would be the planning aspect. And so, you would look at, you know, what's your weather, what's your forecast. And you would look at what's your risk tolerance for some unknown event that you couldn't predict. If you know that the weather's going to change, and there's going to be heavy rains, you may want to maintain storage. Right? And maintain full batteries. If you're in the summer months and you know that you're -- you have an arbitrage between the daytime pricing and nighttime pricing, you may want to look at that arbitrage and say, well, we're going to exercise this, because we don't foresee a need. But, again, the risk is, if you use it for that depletion of peak time energy, to avoid purchasing power at the peak, you're going to end up at some point in the evening -- late evening -- with nothing there. 3:14:15: Commissioner Croft: OK. That actually was going to be one of my questions, is -- was, the value of the arbitrage included? 3:14:20: COO Crowley: Yeah. 3:14:20: Commissioner Croft: But I was just kind of assuming they have to sit there full if they're for emergency use. 3:14:25: COO Crowley: Yeah. It's a risk assessment. And that would be part of that Integrated Resource Plan, is looking at -- like, can we actually use this to mitigate cost? Or is this something that's -- just sits there idle, ready for that emergency? 3:14:37: Chair Mauter: OK. Yes. I want to be very sensitive to time. If it's super-quick, fine. But like let's go to the 2 minutes and then go through -- 3:14:45: Commissioner Gupta: A super-quick clarifying question, I hope. And I might have just missed this. For the number of the 4 MW 4-hour battery powering the 300 single family homes, is that at FULL load? Or is that at some reduced load? 3:14:53: COO Crowley: It's not at a reduced load. It's looking at normal customer usage -- average usage -- through a day time. So, there's some assumptions there. And so, if you did talk with customers about potentially reducing consumption under this criteria, maybe that would help to extend that beyond that period. Or serve more customers during that period of time. Again, one of the big points, I think, I think is really critical is that if you site these batteries at some place, and your grid is fractured, because of that event, and you can't reach those customers, it doesn't provide the benefit that we're desiring. 3:15:34: Chair Mauter: OK. Commissioner Tucher. 3:15:36: Commissioner Tucher: It would be clarifying to me to understand why this -- why we're even asking this question. You said Council asked that staff engage UAC on large batteries. Was Counc- -- Did you take it, presumably, that Council said, please go consider a 4 MW battery for the sole purpose of resiliency in case of a 24-hour outage? How did this question get framed? 3:16:01: COO Crowley: My recollection of the discussion is, there's interest in developing microgrids in various sizes, to provide long-term resiliency. So, is that a small microgrid for a neighborhood? Is that a larger microgrid? There's a desire for that. To find a way to provide long-term resiliency, and use batteries as a technology to improve that out. 3:16:25: Commissioner Tucher: As for resiliency, was the sole lens - 3:16:28: COO Crowley: That is my understanding. Sole lens for that. 3:16:32: Chair Mauter: OK. We're going to move toward a maximum of 2 minutes each. And then, if we can just do one pass this time, I think that's going to help us stay on schedule. One bite. 3:16:48: **: [unamplified] OK. 3:16:49: Commissioner Metz: Well, I have -- 3:16:51: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Metz. 3:16:51: Commissioner Metz: -- a bit more extensive comments that I'd like to make, which I can do in writing. ### How will the public find out? If that's helpful to stay within the 2 minutes. All right. I'll follow up. I'll try to be very brief. First of all, thank you for making the math transparent. OK? The previous analysis of this, there was no math. This time, I can follow it. So, I appreciate that. One comment is that when we say this is not cost-effective, what we really mean is that it's more expensive than the lowest-cost option when everything is going well. Right? So, my thought is that that's probably the wrong question. And the real question should be, what should CPAU be doing for long-term resilience? You know, it's not surprising that this doesn't pencil out. Because if it did, we'd be already doing it. Right? So, that's not surprising. But I think what we need to look at is, what should we be doing for long-term resilience? And I think for that, we need to do two things. First, the stuff you already talked about. Grid Mod, and getting all the substations up to 12 kV, and, you know, all the things you folks are already doing to make the system more resilient. Second, tethered to the transmission grid, and so on. But I think we also need to define -- to work on the second bullet, namely, you know, working on worst-case emergency, the really long-term resilience problems. First, accept the principle that we need to invest in that un- -- for the electric utility, which I think has not really been done, even though we've done it for the water utility. We have, you know, wells. We have diesel generators, and so on. Second, to look at what problem are we trying to solve. And from I heard, it sounds like you have a good handle on that. But I think we need to get into more depth, working with the Office of Emergency Services, to define what is the desired emergency that we're targeting. And they have strong opinions on what those are. And you articulated some of them. Third is explicitly consider risk, because, as you said, it doesn't make sense if you don't consider risk. And then, I think it's important to develop scenarios for what we could do in this eventuality. God forbid, an earthquake. Here are things we could do. We could do nothing. We could do this intensive thing. We could do something in between. And then get THAT in front of City Council and the community, in terms of what are the benefits of doing X, what are the risks, the costs of doing X, and let City Council and the community take decisions both about what the City should be doing and about people's personal actions. And then, finally, you know, sharing these alternatives, and help people to decide. Also, I think there's a need to build a stronger competency within the utility to -- I see this as a long-term, important, strategic thing for CPAU. And therefore, we should have strong competencies internally in this topic. 3:19:57: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Emergency -- about which topic? 3:20:00: Commissioner Metz: In terms of -- rely -- being able to analyze and take action -- take action about reliability and resilience. You -- Knowing the sort of stuff that OES knows. But you have special domain knowledge that they DON'T have, about how -- a fire, an earthquake, flood could affect the electric utility. They have knowledge you don't have about what emergencies they're anticipating, what -- how that would affect the community. So, I think working together -- with your competencies and theirs -- would be very valuable for the community. 3:20:38: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Scharff. 3:20:42: Commissioner Scharff: Thanks. Um. You know, clearly it doesn't make sense. I mean, I think little things that I would like to know is, it says 300 homes, $5.4 million. But then it says 27,000 residential customers. Obviously, those aren't all single-family homes I can't translate between 300 homes and 27,[000], to figure out how much this would cost. You know. Unless you're going to take a small neighborhood and, you know, make THEM resilient. And how is that fair to the rest of the City, and to the ratepayers, to choose 300 homes in Palo Alto? I was really unclear, as Commissioner Metz said, what we're trying to achieve. Is it to protect against one 24-hour outage? And we could probably survive a 24-hour outage. I'm not sure that's -- I'm not sure that's the kind of thing that warrants spending -- You know, I don't know how much. It's unclear. Right? $5.4 for 300 homes Are we going to do a 1,000 homes? Are we going to do 10,000 homes? Are we going to do 20- ? So, I just don't think there's a magnitude that's well laid out in this. I understand -- And this is not an attack on staff -- I understand Council directed you to do this. I'm a little unclear on what we're voting for. ### We're not supposed to be voting. 3:21:50: Are we -- They seems to make no sense for you to continue to engage this year. If they said, "Come back in 3 years and see where prices were," I'd be like, "Yeah." I don't understand what Council is thinking on why they want you to engage every year, or just this year, when you've clearly laid it out. And maybe this is the information that they're looking for. It's in this report. So, I think if you're going to Council with this, I think it would be nice to lay out 300 homes, or 27,000 people -- ### 27,000 homes you know, what this really means in terms of costs today. Or are they thinking of just one neighborhood? The issues that you're going ahead on, what are you protecting against? I saw you had a bunch of stuff in the annex. Um. You know, some of them -- the earthquake is probably the most likely. I couldn't understand what -- how sea level rise -- it happens so slowly -- would cause an outage. ### I suppose that what staff was saying is that CPAU wouldn't propose installing grid-scale batteries at the Colorado substation without first protecting the substation from sea level rise. I mean, it's a slow-moving thing, for the most part. Unless maybe I'm missing it, and maybe the storm surge. Maybe one of our facilities are close, but you could deal with that with some sort of a protective wall or something. So, I just think that Commissioner Metz is right. How do we possibly mitigate against these disasters? And this does not seem like the way to approach it. Seems it needs to be broken down, to mitigate against them. 3:23:11: Chair Mauter: Anyone else? 2:23:14: Vice Chair Phillips: Yeah. I think I would agree -- which is not a very useful use of my Apple bite -- with my fellow commissioners. I was a little disturbing -- well, there seems to be this interest in microgrids. I don't -- I don't particularly have any interest in microgrids. And they're probably NOT going to be an element of any kind of resiliency of the type that Commissioner Metz and Commissioner Scharff were talking about for a long time. Part of what I take away -- you know, 20 acres of solar for 200 houses ### 300 homes and $5 million -- is not the answer to anything. I mean, if the idea is to keep your finger on the pulse of battery costs and, you know, technologies, and at some point, something might look better, that's great. That IS a little different from a resiliency plan, which is, you know, looking at all these and saying, OK, what do we do if these come up. So, I mean, I'll certainly support the recommendation ### The staff recommendation? And I wasn't privy to what Council -- direction Council gave you. But, you know, it seems the more valuable one -- you know, I'm assuming you're keeping tabs on various technologies. The more valuable one is thinking, and making -- maybe working with OES to say, OK, yeah, here's the plan if there's an earthquake, and, you know, half the City is down. 3:24:38: Chair Mauter: Right. Anyone else? 3:24:40: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I -- I've always been interested in batteries. I think breaking it down this way is really -- really helpful. Especially for resiliency versus the other things that I tend to think about, which is like the arbitrage opportunity. So, I agree. I think we should. in any future discussion, talk about what is the goal. Is the goal to provide all residents with backup power if the power goes out, by disbursing batteries all over town? Or is it just to provide a little bit of power for emergency uses for super-critical things in the City? Just to understand, you know, what are trying to achieve? And it does seem like the power of the battery -- it doesn't really make much sense to me without having solar -- some kind of power source, in terms of long-term resiliency. So, if feels like that needs to be part of the analysis when it comes back. 3:25:35: The second point is, I AM interested in batteries. But I feel like I've always been interested for that power spike in the evening. You know. Are we interested -- Do we want to -- We've invested in batteries elsewhere. Would it make sense to have them here for arbitrage, to make money? And then, you just happen to have a battery as a backup, in case, you know, the power goes out. So, it's like an ancillary benefit. So, I guess we don't have your proposal on the screen, 'cause we're tracking time. ### Not a good reason. But I think -- to me, it does make sense to not move forward on this and to definitely have it be part of the discussion. 3:26:13: ### At this point, the following (a variant of the content of Slide 6) appeared on the screen: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commissioner [*] moved, seconded by Commissioner [*] to recommend the following: 1. Staff continue monitoring and provide updated estimates for local utility scale battery storage and update the UAC with the next Integrated Resource Plan 2, Recommend staff review and propose reasonable hazard mitigations with recommended capital improvement projects ### However, up to now, nobody made this motion. It's the disaster -- I forget what it's called -- the Risk Mitigation -- have someone talk through exactly what they're trying to achieve with the disaster plans. And really drill in on what's the goal. And then have it come back to us with, you know, knowing that goal's in mind, does it make sense to look into it. And then, we might be willing to invest, you know, with a negative -- you know, maybe we'll find something that we're worth -- it's worth paying for and putting in a budget. 3:26:47: Commissioner Gupta: Thank you, Chair. Yeah. Thank you for the report and the presentation. I agree with the comments here. I think the -- at least as presented, the finances don't make sense. I'll focus on the mitigation part of it. I think that's where we can probably make the most difference in people's lives today. I serve as the neighborhood prep coordinator for University South and Professorville. Ed ### Liaison Lauing. in my neighborhood. And I think most people don't -- aren't prepared. Right? For a long duration electrical outage. It doesn't -- It's not top of mind, you know. But, you know, we know the risks. And our airplane can hit the transmission line -- our installed transmission line -- today. ### Yes, although it's pretty unlikely that an airplane could take out ALL 3 of the City's transmission lines, as happened on 02-17-10. And we could be out of power for 1 or 2 weeks. And I think that would hit a lot of people pretty hard. I think one thing we CAN do, in terms of that mitigation perspective, is make sure we're communicating -- hey, make sure if you have a medical device, if you need refrigeration for your medicines, you know, be prepared for those longer term outages. I don't know, you know, the best way for our utility to do that. I know we have -- you know, we send out pamphlets with gas risk. We have emails that have great information for our residents. Maybe we think through adding something like that as well, to communicate to residents, hey, maybe it WOULD be wise to think through and be prepared in a case of a long-term electrical outage. And that might be the way of mitigating this, in the -- at least in the short- to mid-term, while we look at battery prices. Thank you again. 3:28:20: Commissioner Tucher: Thanks. Yeah. Everyone I know of who is smart about the future of the grid says that there will be batteries EVERYWHERE. And we took our first step a year ago with Trolley. And at that time -- And that was great. And at that time, the question came up at Council or Finance, about -- what about local batteries? I, of course, will vote that -- with the staff recommendation, because if you frame the question as it's framed, it's a no-brainer. I insist it's asking the wrong question, though. I would advise Council that a different question be analyzed, and that is, you know, where would battery -- large, grid-scale batteries make sense in Palo Alto? And what is the multi- -- what is the value proposition? And there are multiple value propositions. You heard them from Rachel. You've heard them from Phil on emergency prep. It -- You know, a year ago, we -- A year ago, we looked at the batteries. It was battery-plus-solar in residence. And solar and battery -- You know, there was one scenario -- namely, commercial solar plus storage -- and even by the analysis of the consultant, it was positive cost benefit. 1.07, or something like that. And still, it got punted. And if I were Council, I would ask staff to come back with analysis of where do batteries most make sense? And why? And what's the value prop? ### Yes. Not just -- not in isolation. How many homes would they keep alive for a 24-hour period? Totally wrong question. So, -- And, as a small point, as Vice Chair Phillips said, I was not privy to what Council really asked. So, it would be helpful if the staff report had said a little more, and provided a link to our 4 minute 14 -- or whatever the heck it was -- so that we could quickly go and see what Council said. This goes back to that broken connection between us and the body we're supposed to be advising. 3:30:36: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Tucher, are you interested in moving this motion as it currently exists, ### No motion currently exists. or would you like to modify it, and --- 3:30:43: Commissioner Tucher: Well, if there were -- I guess the -- my question for -- gladly, if you generally agree. ### Generally, the maker of a motion doesn't know ahead of time whether it will pass. The way to find out is to make the motion. But, I mean, I don't know. I'd love to have a discussion. I don't know if now is the time. 3:30:55: Chair Mauter: I -- We are -- We are past time on this agenda item. So, I want to keep us moving for the rest of the evening. 3:31:02: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. I mean, if there's support -- 3:31:02: [multiple speakers] 3:31:04: Commissioner Tucher: -- I'll do a quick straw poll if you want. But -- 3:31:07: Chair Mauter: Yeah. That sound's great. Are we interested in supporting this or not? 3:31:10: Commissioner Tucher: It's on the workplan. Are we interested in supporting that? I am. 3:31:14: Vice Chair Phillips: I'm willing to move it. I don't know about the straw -- 3:31:17: [multiple speakers] 3:31:19: Chair Mauter: -- do you want to second it. 3:31:21 Vice Chair Phillips: I'll MOVE the staff recommendation. 3:31:21: Chair Mauter: OK. ### Since this is a discussion item, making a motion is not in order. But if it were in order, now would be the time to invite someone to second it. 3:31:24: Commissioner Metz: I would like to make an alternative -- 3:31:28: Chair Mauter: Right. 3:31:28: Commissioner Metz: -- motion, ### Alternative motion? Did he mean substitute motion? which is -- 3:31:29: Vice Chair Phillips: -- ** -- wait 'til this one -- Don't we have to -- If this one either dies -- 3:31:34: Commissioner Metz: -- taking a straw -- ** -- 3:31:37: Chair Mauter: If Commissioner Phillips moved something, ### At 3:31:21, Vice Chair Phillips moved the staff recommendation. Although there were multiple speakers at the time, so maybe not everyone heard it. we then have to open it up for a second. If there's no second, then I think we can make -- Once it's moved, then we can make a friendly amendment. ### Not until after the motion has been seconded. 3:31:49: Vice Chair Phillips: Yeah. 3:31:48: Chair Mauter: Is that right? OK. So, you moved it. ### Indicating (I think) Vice Chair Phillips. Do you second it? ### Indicating Commissioner Tucher. Why not just ask if ANYONE seconds it? 3:31:56: Commissioner Tucher: If the motion is to support the staff recommendation, yes, -- 3:31:59: Chair Mauter: OK 3:31:59: Commissioner Tucher: -- I will support that. With an amendment. ### Do UAC's rules of order allow Commissioner Tucher to second the motion only if he can make an amendment? 3:32:02: Chair Mauter: Perfect. 3:32:02: Vice Chair Phillips You can second -- 3:32:03: Chair Mauter: you can second -- you can second it -- OK -- 3:32:05: Commissioner Tucher: OK. Sorry. 3:32:05: Chair Mauter: Commissioner, would you like to -- Metz, would you like to make a friendly amendment? ### Usually, the Chair doesn't identify people to make amendments, friendly or otherwise. 3:32:12: Commissioner Metz: Sure. 3:32:12: Commissioner Tucher: Make it friendly. 3:32:15: Chair Mauter: ** easier to vote for. You know. [laughs] 3:32:21: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I -- The amendment I'd like to make is that -- I mean, given the title of the session was Long Duration Resilience -- or, Resilien-CY, if you wish -- that the focus of future efforts be, what should CPAU be doing for long-term resilience? 3:32:42: Chair Mauter: Would you like to use that as a third thing, or replace number 2? 3:32:47: Commissioner Metz: It's OK as a third thing. 3:32:48: Chair Mauter: OK. [pause] Do you want to -- Did you catch that? 3:32:56: Belle Farias: One second, please. 3:32:57: Commissioner Metz: For electric. I meant -- Yeah. Just for electric. The whole thing is about electric. 3:33:04: Chair Mauter: Well, and I think we're specifically doing water in the joint session. And we're doing something else -- 3:33:12: Commissioner Metz: It's just to help with the typing. What should CPAU be doing for long-term resilience? [pause] Which IS in our workplan. 3:33:30: Chair Mauter: It is. That's correct. I know it's something that you've been particularly committed to for a long time. 3:33:37: Vice Chair Phillips: I think it should read, what CPAU SHOULD do for long-term resilience. [pause] No. No. That's good. SHOULD be -- what CPAU SHOULD do for long-term resilience. 3:33:55: I'm happy to accept that amendment if the second -- and I assume the seconder is. [pause] ### Why assume? Let the seconder (Commissioner Tucher) say so. 3:34:02: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. 3:34:02: Commissioner Croft: Are we able to make further amendments? Or do we have to -- 3:34:08: Chair Mauter: So, you can inquire to the friendly amender. ### No. The previous friendly amendment has been accepted, so we're back to the main motion. 3:34:15: Commissioner Croft: So, I guess the question is, do we want to consider battery storage on its own? Or want to recommend that solar is considered with it? ### The way to ask the question is to make an amendment. 3:34:27: Chair Mauter: Both. 3:34:28: Commissioner Tucher: That would be my -- 3:34:29: Commissioner Metz: Batter- -- There has to be an energy SOURCE. 3:34:35: [multiple speakers] 3:34:35: Commissioner Croft: -- utility-scale batteries. That's all it says. 3:34:38: Commissioner Tucher: Rachel, I consider that -- May I make a friendly -- it's hard for me to be friendly -- amendment? Well, that's how we got started on all this. 3:34:51: Chair Mauter: I know. I know. This is not how we're supposed to be doing this, but it's OK. 3:34:55: Commissioner Tucher: I consider it just -- I mean -- well, I would recommend that staff, as I said, come back through UAC with analysis of the case for large, grid-scale batteries, for example, in substations and distributed sometimes in companion -- you know, in tandem with solar and sometimes on their own. Sometimes receiving ** -- you know, it doesn't go -- 3:35:24: Chair Mauter: My concern is that we are starting to direct staff work. ### No. If a motion were in order, it would be advising Council to direct staff's work. Which would be fine. 3:35:28: Vice Chair Phillips: Yeah. 3:35:28: Chair Mauter: And what we are trying to get -- 3:35:30 Commissioner Tucher: We're advising Council -- 3:35:30: Chair Mauter: -- is to -- Right. But we need to walk ourselves back from precise directives toward things along the lines of let's focus on long-term resilience. To me, that is not directing staff work. Telling them to analyze batteries at these 18 locations absolutely is. We can't go there. 3:35:52: Vice Chair Phillips: So, I am not open to further amendments of this. ### Vice Chair Phillips cannot forbid further amendments to "this" (main motion). I guess he's saying he will not accept any more amendments as "friendly." It sounded unnecessarily hostile to me. We can vote it up or vote it down. ### A commissioner can "call the question." (For example, see Council's rules of order, page 23.) https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/8/city-clerk/city-charterprocedures/council-protocols-and- procedures-manual-2026.pdf If 2/3 of the commissioners present agree, then the motion is voted up or down without further discussion. If there's a second for it right now. ### At 3:31:59, Commissioner Tucher seemed to second the motion (albeit conditionally). 3:36:01: Commissioner Scharff: I'll second. ### The audio wasn't clear, but I suppose that's what he said. 3:36:01: Vice Chair Phillips. OK. 3:36:02: Commissioner Scharff: But I think Tucher still seconded it. ### At 3:31:59 or 3:32:05. Or did you not? 3:36:04: Commissioner Tucher: No, I don't. No, I don't second it. I don't second a motion that says, you know -- 3:36:10: Commissioner Scharff: Then I'll second. 3:36:13: Chair Mauter: OK. We have a second. 3:36:13: Commissioner Tucher: -- are bad because they're not good for ** 3:36:19: Commissioner Scharff: Just Scharff instead of Tucher. 3:36:21: **: Yeah. 3:36:23: Chair Mauter: At the end of this, staff is going to recommend that I reread Robert's Rules. Which I will do. Yeah. Well, you're right. That I reread the process for amendments. [laughs] ### The UAC commissioners should identify the rules of order they should be using. (No legislative body in Palo Alto government uses Robert's Rules exactly.) And then all commissioners should reread those rules of order, so that they can object whenever the rules of order are not being followed. 3:36:38: We have a motion that has been seconded. Will you please call the roll on this motion? Or the vote on this motion? 3:36:47: Belle Farias: Commissioner Scharff. 3:36:48: Commissioner Scharff: Yes. 3:36:49: Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta. 3:36:51: Commissioner Gupta: Yes. 3:36:52: Belle Farias: Vice Chair Phillips. 3:36:54: Vice Chair Phillips: Yes. 3:36:55: Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft. 3:36:59: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 3:37:02: Belle Farias: Chair Mauter. 3:37:05: Chair Mauter: Yes. 3:37:06: Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz. 3:37:07: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 3:37:09: Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher. 3:37:11: Commissioner Tucher: Yes. 3:37:12: Belle Farias: MOTION passes 7-0. 3:37:15: Item 5 -- City of Palo Alto Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan (WMP) 2026 Update (ACTION) Chair Mauter: Fabulous. OK. We are now moving on to Item -- packet item number 5, ### Agenda Item 5. which is a City of Palo Alto Wildfire Utilities -- City of Palo Alto Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan 2026 Update - - CEQA - This Is not a Project. And I believe Terry will be -- 3:37:39: Director Kurotori: Terry will give an expedited presentation. 3:37:41: Chair Mauter: Amazing. ###. Slide 1 -- title 3:37:47: COO Crowley: Again, Chair, commissioners. Walking through the City's updated Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Next slide, please. 3;37:55: ###. Slide 2 -- Background Just some quick background. So, per public utility code, the City is required to prepare and submit a Utility Wildfire Mitigation Plan. The plan focuses on reducing the risk of utility-caused wildfires. So, preventative efforts, versus restorative efforts. The PUC code -- the public utility code -- does require that we present this plan in a public meeting and gather public comments for that. And then, this plan is due to be submitted to the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board on -- by October 2nd of 2026. And then, they have revised their schedule from an annual report to every other year. And there may be some additional changes to that later on. But the next report would be due in October of 2028. Next slide, please. 3;38:43: ###. Slide 3 -- CPUC High Fire Threat District So, just basically, just give you some orientation. So, the area that we're focused on with wildfire mitigation is the high risk areas that were identified by the CPUC. This map shows those areas. Largely -- predominantly -- it's the Foothill are for Palo Alto. These areas are aligned with the wildfire utility -- or, Wildland Urban Interface, and are subject to high winds and low fuels during the summer months -- or, low fuel MOISTURES during the summer months. Next slide, please. 3:39:15: ###. Slide 4 -- Key Elements of Palo Alto's WMP So, key elements to the mitigation plan for Palo Alto is, our largest mitigation effort is to underground the overhead lines. We also continue to do vegetation management. So, with the lines going underground, there's reduced vegetation management. While we still need to go up there and maintain clearance around the pad-mounted equipment. Inspections and frequently monitoring equipment also helps to prevent wildfires caused by utilities. And, again, we'll continue to update our current policy for preventative power shutoffs -- our public safety power shutoffs -- to identify how we want to operate with an undergrounded system. It's a different stance than we would have with an overhead system. And then, we'll continue to do customer education and notifications regarding the risk of wildfire and potential for public safety power shutoffs. Next slide, please. 3:40:11: ###. Slide 5 -- 2025/26 Accomplishments / Future Work So, accomplishments and future work. So, the biggest accomplishment the City has -- and it's a major accomplishment -- is that there's 9 miles of undergrounded area -- of underground line in the wildfire area. This is not a trivial effort. This is a multi-year-long effort. Many staff putting time into it. Many staff putting focus to it, and keeping it as a priority through that time period. And a major financial commitment from the City to provide that public safety. So, we're going to continue. We finished the primary, the high-voltage lines through that area. We do have some secondary low-voltage drops to houses. And we're going to continue to convert those, so that we are 100 percent, so that we are 100 percent underground with our high-voltage and low-voltage lines in this fire threat area. So, the future work, going forward, we want to finish this. We're targeting finishing it by the end of 2026 -- calendar year 2026. And then, as we continue to move forward, we're going to look at finalizing what our inspections and vegetation management program will be for the underground facilities going forward. We want to update our policies and procedures around the public safety power shutoffs for an underground system. And then, identify any additional wildfire mitigation work we may want to do adjacent to the wildfire areas. So, areas that are not exactly in there but maybe have some of the same conditions, as far as dry grasslands, and might be prone to wide-scale wildfires. Next slide, please. 3:41:35: ###. Slide 6 -- Staff Request So, staff's request to the UAC is to review the Wildfire Mitigation Plan, receive public comments, and recommend staff submit the plan to the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board. And with that, I would open it up to commission's comments and questions. 3:41:51: Chair Mauter: And we need a specific motion on that. 3:41:57: COO Crowley: The public utility code requires that we provide that public comment to this. ### Public Utility Code 8387 requires that CPAU have a Wildfire Mitigation Plan (with public comment, etc.). Council is responsible for making sure that it does. UAC can -- and should -- advise Council about how the City should do this. ### The 09-02-26 12-Month Rolling Calendar does not say when Council will consider the Wildfire Mitigation Plan. ### So, will CPAU have submitted its Wildfire Mitigation Plan by 10-02-26. But providing that direction and motion to us to file it would be helpful. 3:42:05: Chair Mauter: OK. Great. Let's move to public comment on this particular agenda item. 3:42:15: Belle Farias: if any member of the public would like to speak on Item 5, please raise your hand on Zoom or press *9 now. There are no hands raised. 3:42:25: Chair Mauter: OK. Brief questions. Clarifying questions. ### I took this to mean that motions were not yet in order. But at 3:44:44, Vice Chair Phillips moved something. 3:42:30: Commissioner Scharff: Do you use drones alone for the vegetation management? Or do you guys just go out there and look at it yourself? 3:42:37: COO Crowley: It's a visual inspection from the road. ### How accurately can the City inspect the 3-foot clearance from vegetation rule "from the road"? We don't have a policy that allows us to use drones in the City or for City facilities. That is something -- 3:42:47: Commissioner Scharff: We need a policy? 3:42:47: COO Crowley: We do need a policy. A permission from the Council to use drones for surveillance within the City. ### At the 08-06-26 UAC meeting, at Virtual Public Comment (2:14:03 - 2:24:05), Alex Momand, of Firescore, described his company's system for monitoring wildfire-prone areas via satellite. (See my TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS in the 09-02-06 Public Comments, 09.02.26 Public Letters to UAC 08.20.26 - 08-31-26.) Did anyone think that was relevant here? (I think Momand said the satellite images have a 1- meter pixel grid. Maybe that resolution isn't good enough.) 3:42:53: Commissioner Scharff: Could you come to the UAC if that would be helpful and we could talk about -- for utility purposes? I mean, I know PG&E and a lot of people use -- And it saves them a lot of money. But maybe it doesn't in Palo Alto. I don't know. 3:43:05: Director Kurotori: Well, a lot of these areas are now undergrounded, so we don't have as much. But there are entities that use them for some of the substations. They use them for other types of inspection work. So, those are some things that we are tracking. But that's -- we're doing some evaluation on that right now. 3:43:26: Vice Chair Phillips: It ### Slide 5 says "finalize an inspection and vegetation management program for the underground facilities." What needs to be managed for the underground facilities? Or is it just for the equipment on pads? 3:43:37: COO Crowley: So, for the equipment on pad mounts, we do have to maintain separation from flammable material. So, vegetation. So, we have to maintain 3 feet around there. ### Why does this 3-foot rule make sense? How could a pad-mounted piece of equipment start a fire even if vegetation were closer than 3 feet from it? ### Can pad-mounted equipment be measured remotely via SCADA? For example, for temperature? So, to continue to go up there and make sure that that vegetation isn't encroaching on there, we need to look at that. If you had a heavy windstorm, is there a thought process that you would want to go up there after that heavy windstorm and make sure that you cleared any vegetation that may have fallen onto that pad-mounted equipment? And so, that's the process that we want to through and update, is, figure out what's our stance for that vegetation inspection or post-event inspection of our system, to make sure that it's not in a compromised condition. 3:44:12: Vice Chair Phillips: Got it. So, it's just the pad-mounted equipment. There's nothing else needs to be inspected? 3:44:16: COO Crowley: Yeah. 3:44:16: Vice Chair Phillips: Thank you. 3:44:22: Chair Mauter: Commissioner Scharff. OK. 3:44:34: Vice Chair Phillips: I'm happy to MOVE the recommendation. 3:44:37: Chair Mauter: I will second that. Are there any -- 3:44:32: Commissioner Croft: I thought that was just -- clarify -- We're not going to have our apples? 3:44:36: Chair Mauter: We can have our apples, too. 3:44:37: Commissioner Croft: Can -- 3:44:37: Chair Mauter: But if it's been moved and seconded, then -- 3:44:41: Vice Chair Phillips: No more apples? 3:44:41: Chair Mauter: -- we can -- NO, NO. But then we can take our apples in -- currently in discussion about that. 3:44:47: Commissioner Scharff: [unamplified] ** 3:44:48: Chair Mauter: Yeah. Can you put the recommendation up? I think that's what I should have been doing all along, guys. But I'll iron this out before the next meeting. I promise. [pause] 3:44:59: ### The staff recommendation starts to be displayed on the screen. 3:45:16: Chair Mauter: If you would like, please -- please -- feel free to ask -- I think I should -- I don't know -- feel free to ask questions. We have time on the agenda. And, you know, I don't want to deny Terry the feedback that he's looking for. Or the public comment period on this. So, Commissioner Croft. 3:45:39: Commissioner Croft: OK. I just had two extremely minor things. But one of them was on packet page 50, ### That is, the Wildfire Mitigation Plan 2026 Update (Appendix A of Item 5), page 11. the performance metrics a and b. ### That is, a. vegetation management, and b. infrastructure maintenance? To me, I just read those and I was like, these metrics are not quantitative at all. And my impression was, I'd want to see like what percentage is being cleared, and what percentage is being inspected per year. ### Not how frequently inspection occurs? And I did notice in the actual -- later in the report, that IS how it's reported. But it's just like, theses definitions of what the metrics are didn't mean much to me. That was the first comment. So, just have it be some percentage I guess of total. 3:46:23: And then, the second comment was that the PSPS was drafted by both of your predecessors. And I guess the question was, you're going to be submitting a plan that was created before your time, and are you comfortable -- I know it's on the to-do list. But with the one that you're submitting with this. 3:46:49: COO Crowley: So, from staff's perspective, we look at this as a living document. And so, we don't use the document as a substitute for good judgment. And so, we know that that document was written for an overhead system. And that may not make sense in our current condition. And so, the last red flag warning, we actually worked with staff, and we adjusted our stance on how we would approach that event. And so, we'll continue to write that -- rewrite that standard for undergrounding. And that's part of our future work. But that's -- This plan is necessarily a point in time. It's not necessarily forward looking. It's looking back at the previous year and saying, OK, what did we do over the past year? What was our stance there? And then, it identifies that future work. And that future work is, again, looking at what is our inspection program for the vegetation? And what's our inspection program for the undergrounding? And, again, more importantly, what's our stance for public safety power shutdowns, now that we have an underground system? 3:47:54: Director Kurotori: And -- 3:47:54: Commissioner Croft: OK. That's helpful. 3:47:55: Director Kurotori: And, as Terry mentioned, in a few short months, we'll be undergrounding the low-voltage as well. 3:48:01: Commissioner Croft: By the way, I was so happy to read that we have de-energized those. So, congratulations. I know I'm taking time from the group. But that is a huge, huge milestone. So, congrats. And I'm also happy that it's before rain hits us this year. 3:48:23: Chair Mauter: Is there any discussion -- further discussion on the motion currently proposed and seconded? ### At this point, the screen reads: MOTION: Vice Chair Phillips moved, seconded by Chair Mauter to recommend the City of Palo Alto Utilities submit the 2026 Wildfire Mitigation Plan to the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board (WSAB) in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 8387. ### OK, it's advice, but it's pretty minimal advice. If not, could you please call the vote on the present motion? 3:48:39: Belle Farias: Chair Mauter. 3:48:41: Chair Mauter: Yes. 3:48:42: Belle Farias: Commissioner Tucher. 3:48:43: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Yes. 3:48:45: Belle Farias: Commissioner Scharff. 3:48:46: Commissioner Scharff: Yes. 3:48:47: Belle Farias: Vice Chair Phillips. 3:48:49: Vice Chair Phillips: Yes. 3:48:50: Belle Farias: Commissioner Gupta. 3:48:52: Commissioner Gupta: Yes. 3:48:53: Belle Farias: Commissioner Metz. 3:48:53: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 3:48:54: Belle Farias: Commissioner Croft. 3:48:55: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 3:48:56: Belle Farias: MOTION passes 7-0. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REPORTS FROM MEETINGS AND EVENTS 3:49:00: Chair Mauter: Thank you. We'll now move to Commissioner Comments and Reports From Meetings and Events. [pause] 3:49:09: VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT OK. Having none, I will open the floor for Virtual Public Comment on items not on the agenda. We will allow a range of 1-3 minutes, depending on the number of speakers. 3:49:26: Belle Farias: If any member of the public would like to speak on an item not on the agenda, please raise your hand on Zoom, or press *9 now. We have no requests to speak. 3:49:36: Chair Mauter: OK. And because this is NOT a month in which we would review the 12-Month Rolling Calendar, -- It has been provided in your packet ### And also on the agenda as Other Information topic A. But we will talk about it next month. ADJOURNMENT 3:49:48: And with that, we'll adjourn tonight's meeting. Thank you all. END ### For this meeting, here's how many times each commissioner spoke (according to the transcript): Mauter 165 Scharff 63 Tucher 51 Phillips 49 Gupta 39 Metz 36 Croft 35 (It's the number of times each commissioner's name appeared in the TRANSCRIPT, followed by a ":". So, it's not measuring times or bites.) From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers Cc:Lauing, Ed; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; h.etzko@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; Anne Cribbs; Ruben Abrica; Anna Griffin; Ann Ravel; Dave Price; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; EPA Today; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Vicki Veenker; Templeton, Cari; Sam Liccardo; Salem Ajluni; Emily Mibach; Matt Schlegel; steven mcgill; Preminger, Steve; board@pausd.org; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Bill Newell; Braden Cartwright; Embarcadero Media Support; gstone22@gmail.com; Gennady Sheyner; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Raymond Goins; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Marina Lopez; Malinsky, Jason; Cait James; Tim James; supervisor.abe- koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Nash, Betsy; PD Kristina Bell; Supervisor Betty Duong; Nash, Betsy; Taylor, Cecilia; dcombs@menlopark.gov; David S. Norris; Jay Boyarsky; Lewis james; City Attorney; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Reifschneider, James; Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; Carol Brouillet; Brian Good; Penni Wilson; james pitkin; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Mora Oommen Subject:Cruelty, Deprivation, Indignity: My 22 Months in Israeli Prison Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 8:03:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Cruelty, Deprivation, Indignity: My 22Months in Israeli Prison Palestinian journalist Mujahed Al-Saadi documents his harrowing experience in Israeli detention two years after being arrested from his home in Jenin. DROP SITE OCT 1 ∙GUEST POST READ IN APP The first story I commissioned for Drop Site News in September 2024 was about a brutal Israeli military operation on the city of Jenin in the occupied West Bank. I reached out to Palestinian journalist Mujahed al-Saadi for coverage from the ground on the targeting of Jenin’s hospitals by Israeli troops. A reporter from Jenin who has covered the region since 2012, Al-Saadi was no stranger to the dangers of working as a journalist in Palestine. In 2022, he was just a few feet away from his friend and colleague Shireen Abu Akleh, the legendary Al Jazeera correspondent, when an Israeli sniper shot and killed her. A couple of weeks after we published his dispatch, Al-Saadi was abducted from his home in Jenin by Israeli forces and thrown into administrative detention, where he was held without charge or trial for nearly two years. He was released on July 14, 2026. Barely a month after his release, he filed a video dispatch for Drop Site about an Israeli airstrike on a building near his home that killed three Palestinians. The report marked Al-Saadi’s first time back in the field after being released from prison. “The first experience today is the most difficult, as reporting information and news is intertwined with confronting the occupation for the first time,” he said. “But this is the reality I am reporting, and I am trying to convey it for the first time after my release from the occupation’s prisons.” Nearly 40 Palestinian journalists are currently imprisoned by Israel, the majority of them in administrative detention. We asked Al-Saadi to write about his harrowing experience in Israeli prison. Below is that account. It is the first in a two-part series. The second, to be published in the coming days, is about Al-Saadi returning to Jenin to find the refugee camp there destroyed by the Israeli military and all of its residents displaced. — Sharif Abdel Kouddous Drop Site is a reader-funded, independent news outlet. Without your support, we can’t operate. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a 501(c)(3) tax-deductible donation today. Upgrade to paid Mujahed Al-Saadi reporting from Jenin on September 8, 2024, less than two weeks before his arrest by Israeli forces. Photo courtesy of Mujahed Al-Saadi. Story by Mujahed Al-Saadi JENIN, occupied West Bank—Just after midnight on September 19, 2024, a large Israeli military force arrived in the city of Jenin and raided my home in the Al- Saada neighborhood, west of the city. It marked the beginning of what would be a 22-month ordeal of imprisonment for me. The sounds of explosions filled the air as occupation forces threw concussion grenades and broke down the doors of my house. They moved quickly. Within the first moments of their arrival, I was severely beaten in front of my family. I was then blindfolded and my hands bound. Israeli soldiers searched the house and confiscated my journalistic equipment, including cameras, electronic accessories, and mobiles. The soldiers hurled insults and obscenities at me, and continued beating me while I was shackled inside their military vehicle. They drove me to a military base west of Jenin, known as Salem Camp, where I spent a full day and night out in the open, without food or water. This was where the opening chapter of my imprisonment began. Since October 7, 2023, the occupation’s prisons, which are overseen by National Security Minister Itmar Ben-Gvir, have become graveyards for the living. Prisoners are subjected to various forms of abuse, including starvation, humiliation, and deliberate killing through a policy of medical neglect. The number of Palestinians detained by occupation forces since October 7 has topped 25,000, with nearly 10,000 currently behind bars, compared with just over 5,000 prisoners before. The following day, I was next taken to Megiddo Prison, located near the city of Jenin. I arrived there at 3 a.m. Incoming prisoners are welcomed with severe beatings—this is the ritual and the first stage of being admitted into the prison. I was beaten on sensitive parts of my body, then stripped of all my clothes and given poor quality and foul smelling clothing. All my belongings were taken from me, including my ring and my watch. LEFT: Mujahed Al-Saadi reporting from Jenin on June 5,2024. RIGHT: Mujahed Al-Saadi with colleagues in Jenin on April 22, 2024. Photos courtesy of Mujahed Al-Saadi. Megiddo prison consists of 10 sections. Each section contains 16 cells, with 10 prisoners held in each cell, in a space no larger than 20 square meters (around 215 square feet). At the end of each cell, there is a single bathroom shared by the 10 prisoners. I was taken into one of the cells and thrown onto the floor. I spent the first night without a mattress or a blanket. A day later, I was given a thin mattress that reeked—it was probably more than 10 years old. This was how the ritual of abuse and torture began, with prisoners deprived of even their most basic rights. There was hardly any food given to us. The morning meal consisted of no more than 50 grams of yogurt, a few small pieces of cucumber or tomato, and three slices of bread. Meals like this were distributed to all the prisoners. This was the first thing I was given to eat in the 48 hours since my arrest. Lunch consisted of no more than 30 grams of rice and around 50 grams of legumes, such as chickpeas. The food was served cold. Dinner was just as meager: no more than one egg, 10 grams of hummus, and a few slices of bell pepper. I weighed 89 kilograms when I was arrested and 59 kilograms when I was released —I lost nearly a third of my weight during my imprisonment. Since October 7, 2023, the occupation has both reduced the amount of food provided to prisoners and shut down the “cantina,” or “market,” inside each prison section where detainees used to be able to buy personal hygiene products as well as some food and canned goods they could take into the kitchen and prepare themselves. Some prisoners would save their breakfast, lunch, and dinner and eat all three together as a single meal—just so they could feel full. An adult male typically needs between 1,500 and 2,000 calories a day, but the three meals we were given amounted to no more than 5% of that. And that’s not to mention the poor quality of the food. Personal hygiene items were also taken away or withheld from us, including toothbrushes, razors, and nail clippers, along with other basic personal cleaning supplies. My first shower was a full 15 days after my arrest, when I received my first 30-gram packet of shampoo. We would receive just one shampoo packet per week for bathing or any other use. Deprivation of basic hygiene products led to some 95% of prisoners contracting scabies, a skin condition that spread because of poor hygiene, a severe shortage of cleaning supplies, and a lack of clothing. The shortage of clothes was so severe that prisoners were often forced to share. Scabies is so pervasive and persists for so long in prison, that some prisoners have attempted suicide because of it. Symptoms include rashes that appear all over the body and on sensitive areas, accompanied by constant, distressing itching that prevents prisoners from sleeping or resting. Boils develop that discharge infected blood. Prisoners have also been martyred as a result of systematic medical neglect. One prisoner developed boils on his body near his heart—they burst, causing internal bleeding and infection inside his body. LEFT Mujahed Al-Saadi immediately after his release fromprison on July 14, 2026. RIGHT: Mujahed Al-Saadi in Jeninon September 30, 2026. Photos courtesy of Mujahed Al-Saadi. Before October 7, the number of prisoners with medical files in the occupation’s prisons did not exceed 100. Today, all prisoners have medical files and are in need of intensive treatment. There are also prisoners with heart disease and diabetes, and others who need urgent operations and immediate surgical intervention, but the occupation delays their treatment. Over 90 Palestinian prisoners have died in Israeli prisons since October 2023, many of them from deliberate medical neglect, which includes the withholding of basic medications. In Megiddo, a single Acamol painkiller tablet—if any were available at all—would be shared by more than 10 prisoners who would grind it up and dissolve it in water. The raids and abuse practiced against me and all the prisoners were carried out through more than five units, including a unit called Dror, assigned after October 7 to the occupation’s prisons to suppress and humiliate prisoners and search their cells. Today, inside in the occupation’s prisons, even an empty plastic bag, kept by prisoners to store their meager bread rations to prevent it from drying out and spoiling, is considered a prohibited item. A prisoner can be singled out for abuse if a single-use plastic cup is found in his possession. If a prisoner raises the call to prayer aloud, or just practices religious worship inside the cell, this unit is brought in to suppress, beat, and abuse him. One evening at around 8 p.m., the Dror unit raided my cell in section 9 of Megiddo Prison. They searched the room and beat us. Then they took us outside in the frigid night, stripped us of our clothes, and threw us on the ground. They left us there for more than two hours, our bodies absorbing all that cold. We were forced to lie on our stomachs with our hands shackled behind our backs, our faces at the section’s sewage drain. The stench was unbearable. After they ransacked the room, they poured shampoo and cold water over our clothes, mattresses, and blankets. When we were taken back into the room, it smelled filthy because they had left garbage on the clothes and soaked everything with water. This was one of the forms of abuse practiced against us. It was a day I will never forget. That night, we all slept on the bare iron beds, without mattresses or blankets. Even the window in the room was left open without glass, leaving us exposed to the winter cold. Over the past three years, the occupation has imprisoned thousands of Palestinians, with the total at one point reaching over 10,000 prisoners. Many are administrative detainees, held under what is known as the Emergency Administrative Detention Law, which has been used in Palestine since the British Mandate era, and allows authorities to imprison Palestinians indefinitely without charge or trial. I was transferred to administrative detention 72 hours after my arrest. I was detained for six months, an arbitrary detention without a clear charge, based on the claim that I posed a security threat, even though I was just working as a journalist, covering events in the city of Jenin and across the West Bank. After the first six month detention period ended, my administrative detention was renewed a second, third, fourth, and fifth time, until I had spent 22 months in the occupation’s prisons without charge and without any evidence of what the occupation claimed. With the arbitrary extensions, the prisoner does not know when he will be released, increasing the bitterness of detention and the difficulty of adapting to the prison’s conditions. This is how the occupation holds dozens of journalists behind bars. As for military courts that prosecute Palestinians in the West Bank, there are two: the first is Ofer military court, near the city of Ramallah, and the other is Salem military court, west of Jenin. Another form of torture and deprivation is the lack of communication with prisoners’ families and restrictions on lawyers visits. Prisoners’ families have to obtain a permit from the Supreme Court approving a private lawyer’s visit to the prisoner—this is the only way to communicate and get some reassurance for both the prisoner and his family. But the visit costs the prisoner more than 700 shekels (about $230) and lasts only five minutes. Worse still, the prisoner is taken out of the cell at 6 a.m. and waits until three in the afternoon sitting on his knees, blindfolded, and with his hands shackled behind his back. There can be as many as 30 prisoners waiting at one time. Each prisoner is taken out to speak with the lawyer. On rare occasions, a visit may last 10 minutes. This is not enough time to exchange information and news about the prisoner and his family. During one of my lawyer’s visits, I was taken out of the cell at 6 a.m. I was beaten by the guards, my hands were shackled behind my back, and I was blindfolded. There were around 20 other prisoners waiting in the room with me. When my turn came, they removed my restraints and the blindfold from my eyes. I quickly sat down on the chair across from the lawyer. He was visibly shocked by my appearance, which had completely changed from the photos my wife had sent him on his phone. He stared at me in disbelief. This was after nearly six months of detention. After I had been sitting in the chair for five minutes, perhaps less, the lawyer told me that my older brother had been martyred during a raid on the city of Jenin in an attempt to arrest one of the neighbors. He was shot inside his home and died after ambulances were prevented from reaching him to provide medical treatment. I remember that I could not contain myself and broke down, crying heavily. Prison guards then beat me severely all over my body. This is how lawyer visits go. Under Israeli law, a prisoner has the right to a visit lasting between 30 and 45 minutes. But the occupation continues to deprive prisoners of this right. Life in prison is filled with cruelty, deprivation, humiliation, and indignity, from the first moment of arrest until the moment of release. When I was finally released, I was taken out of the cell early in the morning and given back my belongings that had been confiscated from me on the first day. I was then brought before the prison directors, who threaten and intimidate every prisoner being released. After that, I was held in a cell for more than three hours until the prisoner transport vehicle arrived. I was then driven to one of the checkpoints closest to the occupied Palestinian territories and let go. When a prisoner comes out of prison it appears that he has grown old, not only from the lack of food and ill treatment but also psychologically, due to the constant humiliation and deprivation. The prisoner reaches a point where he believes he cannot return to life, to humanity. With no direct contact with his family, he reaches a point where he loses confidence in life beyond prison, he believes the outside to be devoid of life. I used to think of it as a distant dream: the prison gate opening for me to walk out. Then I remember that I really did make it out of that dark graveyard. The number of prisoners who have died inside the occupation’s prisons since October 7 is many times greater than the number who died during decades past. I developed health problems in my frail body, specifically issues affecting my thyroid and liver. A number of my body’s functions have been impaired because of the lack of nutrition, the lack of food, and the poor hygiene. When I was arrested, my youngest daughter, Maria, was six months old. When I returned 22 months later, she was over two years old and she did not accept my presence in the house. It took many attempts and nearly 30 days before she accepted me. Whomever is released from the occupation’s prisons feels as though he has been given a new life. These prisons are mass graves where prisoners wait for their own deaths to be announced. Leave a comment Share A guest post by Drop Site Become a Drop Site News Paid Subscriber Drop Site News is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber today. Upgrade to paid A paid subscription gets you: 15% off Drop Site store Access to our Discord, subscriber-only AMAs, chats, and invites to events, both virtual and IRL Post comments and join the community The knowledge you are supporting independent media making the lives of the powerful miserable You can also now find us on podcast platforms and on Facebook, Twitter, Bluesky, Telegram, and YouTube. LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Drop Site News, Inc.Drop Site News Inc., 1930 18th St NWSte B2 #1034, Washington, DC 20009 Unsubscribe From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers Cc:Lauing, Ed; Vicki Veenker; h.etzko@gmail.com; Kitic S.; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City; brianhama@gmail.com; Brian Good; Rick Callender; Templeton, Cari; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Reckdahl, Keith; Human Relations Commission; Raymond Goins; Henry Etzkowitz; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Friends of Cubberley; frances.rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Sean Allen; Sam Liccardo; Salem Ajluni; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Diana Diamond; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Brandon Pho; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations Subject:Source: the Guardian Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 7:26:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Source: the Guardian Israeli forces overwhelmed by violent settlers in ‘terrorist attack’ on Palestinian family https://share.google/CuguALzKxWJAOCZWC From:Danielle Parish To:Council, City Subject:Re: Recommending Ellen Bob for Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 5:45:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Whom it May Concern: I understand Ellen Bob is up for consideration for the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission and wanted to resubmit my enthusiastic recommendation for her role on this commission. Thank you very much and please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Pastor Danielle Parish On Mar 28, 2026, at 10:55 AM, Danielle Parish <danielle@spark.church> wrote: To Whom it May Concern: I wanted to enthusiastically recommend Ellen Bob for the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. A long time resident and activist in Palo Alto, Ellen is an asset to every community and group in which she participates. Her calm, thoughtful manner provides for effective problem solving, her friendly demeanor welcomes engagement from others, and she is first to consider what a loving, neighborly response can be in light of any conflict. I have known Ellen since her days as a business owner of Bob and Bob Judaica Bookstore in Palo Alto. As a Christian and pastor in Palo Alto, I was often unsure as to how to best respond to various Jewish issues of concern in our community but she has been welcoming, accepting and kind in multi faith discussions and engagement. As the pastor of Spark Church, which rents space from Congregation Etz Chayim, of which Ellen was the Executive Director for many years, Ellen proved to be a wonderful advocate for our tenancy, a fantastic thought partner when various issues of communal concern arose, and an engaged activist for human flourishing in our two congregations and in our community at large. I cannot more enthusiastically recommend Ellen Bob for the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Pastor Danielle Parish Spark Church Danielle Parish Senior Pastor Spark Church 4161 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA., 94306 650-455-2324 (cell) Come & Learn to Walk Israel Study Tours Rose Guide to Genesis Exodus Bible Study From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Manu Kumar Cc:Nancy Ellickson; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; City Mgr; Burt, Patrick; Dmitri Samsonov; Bulatao, Eric; Police; Apple, Kara; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Schremp; Christine Schremp; Bill McLane; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Yudy Deng; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; Robin Holbrook; Arthur Keller; Becky Sanders; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jon Hellesoe; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Nicole Fernandez; Leslie Bulbuk; Andrade, Alex; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Dana Dahlstrom; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Jeff Levinsky; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; 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; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Kaye Crawford; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam; Francis Lim; Giselle Roohparvar; Stephen Casale; Luci Sheppard; Alex Tesler; Michelle Rosengaus; Grace Downer; David Downer; Mary Ann Norton; Jason Robinson; Jen Bartolomei; Dave Melisso; Polina Samsonov; Eva Gandhe; Ruby Flath; Laya Ganapati; Christin Zhang; Arvind Kumar; David Featherman; Melinda McGee; John Melnychuk; Eric Chan Subject:Re: Palo Alto OSV Count for the Week of 9/26 Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 4:08:34 PM Attachments:2277D6DA-3159-4944-9DF0-15789103DB01.png F96A35E3-B77E-44BB-91AC-4AFB1230D20C.png FC0DDE01-67CC-4B47-B2C5-DA3627E76734.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Well in today's Daily Post's page 1 story Ms Veenker again said it's "too soon" to ban them. On Thu, Oct 1, 2026, 4:04 PM Manu Kumar <manu@k9ventures.com> wrote: Thank you Nancy and Dana! When I arrived at our building today there was a new bus-sized RV parked rightoutside. Parked right up to the curb so that it's impossible for us to see if there isany traffic coming when we're leaving our parking spots and entering the street. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Within minutes of several of our employees returning from picking up lunch, I heard some loud noises outside. When I attempted to go outside to check, I saw me to stay inside (appreciate that and I complied). I watched on our security cameras that were installed specifically because we've had prior issues with a likely-meth-head RV dweller harassing our employees for almost 2 years in this exact same spot before. He was eventually arrested by MV police (Palo Alto Police responded each time I called/emailed. They were always great, but also ineffective at doing anything). I watched the police break the window of the RV to eventually get the person tocome out and then arrest him. I am sharing just some still shots here... I have no idea what the backstory was. I appreciate the police responding towhatever the issue was and taking action. Now I'm wondering how long this RV will be sitting here?? Will it be towed after 72 hours? This RV was parked in this spot by the two individuals in the image below at 7:15 PM PT on Wednesday, September 30, 2026. City Council and Staff are NOT doing their job and are being ineffective and incompetent at addressing this issue. They put our businesses and the safety of our employees at risk, and they waste the resources of Palo Alto's budget inimplementing/suggesting half-assed and sometimes just simply dumbfounding(allowing RV parking on alternate sides of the street, really?) solutions to basicproblems. How many million dollars was it going to be for implementing signage atthe meeting a year ago? And they also limit the ability of the police to take actionby maintaining the City's "soft-touch" policies. We want our residential AND our commercial neighborhoods to be safe and free of blight. For the City to provide resources to people without first even having a way to verify their residency is ridiculous. This way anyone can drive into Palo Alto, park magnet for these issues to continue (as they have for over a decade already!). Shared with continued disappointment with Palo Alto's City Council and Staff. Dr. Manu Kumar On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 1:53 PM Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All, Bob Marinaro is out of town through the 3rd week of October so Dana Dahlstrom and I did the OSV count this week (attached). There were 150 OSVs--this is one less than the last count but since a couple were kind of tucked away, we could have missed one. Something we found interesting is that there are 3 RV / trailer combinations--an RV hauling a house trailer. Please feel free to correct me but I thought that trailers were absolutely not allowed. While OSV enforcement has not been consistent, why are we at least not enforcing the no trailer ordinance? Thanks again for being interested in and/or supporting this effort. If you have questions or need additional information, copy the group. Best, Nancy Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 From:Manu Kumar To:Nancy Ellickson Cc:Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; City Mgr; Burt, Patrick; Dmitri Samsonov; Bulatao, Eric; Police; Apple, Kara; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Schremp; Christine Schremp; Bill McLane; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Yudy Deng; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; Robin Holbrook; Arthur Keller; Becky Sanders; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jon Hellesoe; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Nicole Fernandez; Leslie Bulbuk; Andrade, Alex; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Dana Dahlstrom; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; 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; Jeff Levinsky; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; 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; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Kaye Crawford; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam; Francis Lim; Giselle Roohparvar; Stephen Casale; Luci Sheppard; Alex Tesler; Michelle Rosengaus; Grace Downer; David Downer; Mary Ann Norton; Jason Robinson; Jen Bartolomei; Dave Melisso; Polina Samsonov; Eva Gandhe; Ruby Flath; Laya Ganapati; Christin Zhang; Arvind Kumar; David Featherman; Melinda McGee; John Melnychuk; Eric Chan Subject:Re: Palo Alto OSV Count for the Week of 9/26 Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 4:05:39 PM Attachments:2277D6DA-3159-4944-9DF0-15789103DB01.png F96A35E3-B77E-44BB-91AC-4AFB1230D20C.png FC0DDE01-67CC-4B47-B2C5-DA3627E76734.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Nancy and Dana! When I arrived at our building today there was a new bus-sized RV parked right outside. Parked right up to the curb so that it's impossible for us to see if there is any traffic coming when we're leaving our parking spots and entering the street. Within minutes of several of our employees returning from picking up lunch, I heard some loud noises outside. When I attempted to go outside to check, I saw about 10 inside (appreciate that and I complied). I watched on our security cameras that were installed specifically because we've had prior issues with a likely-meth-head RV dweller harassing our employees for almost 2 years in this exact same spot before. He was eventually arrested by MV police (Palo Alto Police responded each time I called/emailed. They were always great, but also ineffective at doing anything). I watched the police break the window of the RV to eventually get the person tocome out and then arrest him. I am sharing just some still shots here... I have no idea what the backstory was. I appreciate the police responding towhatever the issue was and taking action. Now I'm wondering how long this RV will be sitting here?? Will it be towed after 72 hours? This RV was parked in this spot by the two individuals in the image below at 7:15 PM PT on Wednesday, September 30, 2026. City Council and Staff are NOT doing their job and are being ineffective and incompetent at addressing this issue. They put our businesses and the safety of our employees at risk, and they waste the resources of Palo Alto's budget inimplementing/suggesting half-assed and sometimes just simply dumbfounding(allowing RV parking on alternate sides of the street, really?) solutions to basicproblems. How many million dollars was it going to be for implementing signage atthe meeting a year ago? And they also limit the ability of the police to take action bymaintaining the City's "soft-touch" policies. We want our residential AND our commercial neighborhoods to be safe and free of blight. For the City to provide resources to people without first even having a way to verify their residency is ridiculous. This way anyone can drive into Palo Alto, park in a for these issues to continue (as they have for over a decade already!). Shared with continued disappointment with Palo Alto's City Council and Staff. Dr. Manu Kumar On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 1:53 PM Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All, Bob Marinaro is out of town through the 3rd week of October so Dana Dahlstrom and I did the OSV count this week (attached). There were 150 OSVs--this is one less than the last count but since a couple were kind of tucked away, we could have missed one. Something we found interesting is that there are 3 RV / trailer combinations--an RV hauling a house trailer. Please feel free to correct me but I thought that trailers were absolutely not allowed. While OSV enforcement has not been consistent, why are we at least not enforcing the no trailer ordinance? Thanks again for being interested in and/or supporting this effort. If you have questions or need additional information, copy the group. Best, Nancy Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 From:Anne Wei To:Council, City Cc:Cody Puckett Subject:Re: Two way stops in downtown north Palo Alto Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 2:43:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, My name is Annie Wei and I live in Palo Alto's downtown north neighborhood. About a year ago, I wrote to the city council about the two way stops in the area (see above email). I was put in contact with Ria Lo who said staff would visit the intersections to understand my concern but I never heard back. I wanted to follow up on this issue, as I continue to be concerned about these intersections. I understand that these intersections are in accordance with state laws and city policies, but I believe they should be changed to four way stops. How can I help make this change? I am happy to start a petition or attend a city council meeting. Thank you, Annie On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:36 PM Anne Wei <anne.v.wei@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, My name is Annie Wei and I live in Palo Alto’s downtown north neighborhood. I’m writing in concern about the two way stops in the area. There are many intersections that are a two way stop (ie one street has a stop sign but cross traffic does not stop). Ramona/Hawthorne, Bryant/Hawthorne, Everett/Ramona are a few examples. I believe this is unsafe. Many of these intersections have poor visibility and as a driver, you have to inch over the designated stop line to see if a car or bike is coming (see attached photo at Bryant and Hawthorne— taken on Hawthorne going towards Emerson from a car POV—see how the bush is blocking visibility to see if cars are coming from the right—and this is at many of these intersections). I have witnessed many near-accidents at these intersections with due to this poor visibility. I have also seen and/or been in near accidents myself as a pedestrian with drivers on the non- stop part of the intersection not seeing pedestrians. This is a high traffic neighborhood with pedestrians including children and elderly people, as well as bikers and cars. I think a better solution would be to change all of these to four way stops. I have CC’d my husband who also has a vested interest in this issue. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Please let me know if there are any steps I can take (petition, talking to someone in particular, etc) to help change this issue. Thank you, Annie Wei From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers; Vicki Veenker; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; brianhama@gmail.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; Sean Allen; Riley Cooke; Gennady Sheyner; Friends of Cubberley; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Matt Schlegel; Raymond Goins; Daniel Kottke; Lotus Fong; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Human Relations Commission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Braden Cartwright; Josh Becker; Vicki Veenker; steven mcgill; Kaloma Smith; board@pausd.org; Diana Diamond; Gerry Gras; Dave Price; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Jeff Conrad; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil Subject:homelessness_letter_8-2-13 Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 1:01:15 PM Attachments:homelessness_letter_8-2-13.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Lori Meyers Cc:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; h.etzko@gmail.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Rosen; Sam Liccardo; Sameena Usman; Zahra Billoo; Sean Allen; Salem Ajluni; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; Cait James; Carla Torres; Raymond Goins; Roberta Ahlquist; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Matt Schlegel; Sheree Roth; brianhama@gmail.com; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Marina Lopez; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Malinsky, Jason; Council, City; City Attorney; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; city.council@gilroy.org; GRP-City Council; CityCouncil; Lewis james; Lotus Fong; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Henry Etzkowitz; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; BoardOperations Subject:Stop US aid_5.5x5.5 Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 12:57:16 PM Attachments:Stop US aid_5.5x5.5.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:ellen To:Council, City Subject:Follow up to the last question from last night that I only had ten seconds to answer Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 12:12:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members, Thanks for the opportunity to talk to you last night. I think you all understood that my main interest in the HRC is to be sure we have some focus on the original intent of the City Council in forming it way back when--to create a more just and fair city. When Mayor Veenker asked about how to better implement the unity statement excerpted below, she really shined a spotlight on my commitments. For sure, the low-hanging fruit is to promote cultural events already open to the general public. For example, the Obon Festival at the Buddhist Temple, the creche display at the Mormon church, and the Iftar dinner sponsored by American Muslim Voice are all events that contribute to multi-cultural understanding. The harder challenge is to create opportunities for potentially difficult conversations between groups. The times to have those conversations are not at the height of a crisis, but when tensions are closer to a simmer. Creating a subcommittee or Task Force through the HRC to come up with a plan would make a lot of sense to me. From the Unity Statement: "We believe in the power of dialogue and education to build bridges and promote relationship and healing in our community. We support initiatives that foster civil discourse, understanding, and reconciliation. We encourage Palo Altans to make an extra effort to participate in activities with neighbors that will bring about the understanding and empathy that will promote the healing process together." Good luck with your deliberations on appointments. It's a very impressive group of applicants with very different areas of expertise and community service skills. ellen bob palo alto, california This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce News & Events - October 1, 2026 Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 9:01:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Chamber Logo News & Events - October 1, 2026 Final Days to Register: 2026 Athena Leadership Awards Presentation in Two Weeks Vista Center's White Cane Awareness Day WeHOPE Seeds of Hope: From Seed to Harvest Event Rotary Club of Palo Alto/University Service & Projects Fair Last Few Days to Register - PA Police Foundation Brunch with 49ers Steve Young & Rep. Sam Liccardo Palo Alto Museum for Palo Alto Rocks! 15th Annual Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto Angel Award Event Free Business Funding Readiness Series 2026 PATMA Commute Survey - Win a $200 Gift Card Mark Your Calendar Athena International 2026 Leadership Presentation promo Irene Wong portrait Peying Lee portrait Athena International logo Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce proudly presents the 2026 Annual ATHENA® Awards Thursday October 15, 2026 5:30 pm - 8:00 pm El Prado Hotel 520 Cowper St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Get Your Tickets Today >> The ATHENA award is given to honor exceptional woman leaders who demonstrate the highest levels of professional excellence, give back to their communities and, most importantly, assist other women in realizing their full leadership potential – and it is an international award, having been given to more than 6,500 recipients in over 500 cities and 8 countries. Locally it is awarded by our Chamber of Commerce. Register Online >> Event Info ®​ Join Vista Center for their Second Annual White Cane Awareness Day! On Thursday, October 8, veterans, individuals living with vision loss, and community members will gather at Palo Alto City Hall for a meaningful community walk through downtown Palo Alto, followed by a brief program celebrating accessibility, inclusion, and independence. The white cane is a powerful symbol of dignity, self-determination, and safe, independent travel. White Cane Awareness Day is an opportunity to honor the achievements of people who are blind or have low vision while raising awareness throughout our community. Thursday, October 8, 2026 10:00 AM – 12:30 PM Palo Alto City Hall *No registration is required—everyone is welcome! We hope you’ll join us as we walk together in support of accessibility, inclusion, and independence. ​ WeHOPE Seeds of Hope: From Seed to Harvest Event Promo Seeds of Hope: From Seed to Harvest Date: October 8, 2026 Time: 6:00–8:00 PM Location: Crowne Plaza Foster City 1221 Chess Drive, Foster City, CA 94404 Ticket: $150 per person Table Sponsorship: $1,750 Registration: www.wehope.org/soh Online Campaign: www.givebutter.com/seedsofhope2026 Rotary Club of Palo Alto /University Friday Morning Mavericks Flyer Rotary Club of Palo Alto /University Friday Morning Mavericks Service & Projects Fair For the first time, Palo Alto/University Rotary is opening its Service Fair to the public. Come meet our people, explore our Avenues of Service, and discover where you can make a difference. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9 7:30–8:30 AM Sheraton Palo Alto 625 El Camino Real RSVP by Oct 2 to PAURotary@gmail.com Rotary membership is not required ​ Palo Alto Public Safety Building The Palo Alto Police Foundation Presents: A celebration of the official opening of The Palo Alto Public Safety Building Saturday, October 10, 2026, 11:00am – 2:00pm Register Online >> Special Guest Speaker SF 49ers Champion Steve Young. Opening remarks from Congressman Sam Liccardo. Presentation by Police Chief James Reifschneider. Steve Young, Sam Liccardo, James Reifschneider Cops, Cars, and Canines A Community Fundraiser with Palo Alto’s Finest Brunch Catered by Terún Italian Restaurant Espresso Bar Police K-9 Demonstrations Palo Alto Police Car Show – A rare opportunity for a close-up look at the Mobile Emergency Operations Truck, the Rivian and to chat with the officers who operate them. Kids games provided by Gamelandia Strong communities are built on strong partnerships. This outdoor celebration is an opportunity to support and connect with the Palo Alto Police Department while enjoying an authentic Italian brunch. We hope to see you at this very special (and fun) event. Bring the family! Lieutenant Joel Hornung and PAPF Founder Roger Smith Lieutenant Joel Hornung and PAPF Founder Roger Smith Saturday, October 10, 2026 11:00am – 2:00pm 250 Sherman Ave., Palo Alto (Adjacent to the Public Safety Building) $100/person. Kids under 12 are free. Space is limited. Registration deadline Oct. 3. REGISTER ONLINE >> Sponsorship opportunities are available. LEARN ABOUT SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES >> All proceeds from this event benefit the Palo Alto Police Foundation, a 501(C)3 nonprofit. The mission of the Palo Alto Police Foundation is to enhance the quality of life for Palo Alto’s residents and working population, and strengthen police-community relations. Can’t Attend? You can still make a tax-deductible contribution online >> or mail a check to the Palo Alto Police Foundation, P.O. Box 264, Palo Alto, CA 94302. Questions? Contact paloaltopolicefoundation@gmail.com. Italian Brunch Saturday, October 10, 2026 11:00 AM to 2PM Public Safety Building 250 Sherman Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Register >> Palo Alto Museum for Palo Alto Rocks! Concert The Countdown Begins: Join the Palo Alto Museum for Palo Alto Rocks! Saturday, October 10 | 4:00–6:00 PM | Heritage Park, 300 Homer Avenue | FREE A new museum is coming to Palo Alto, and the celebration starts now. Ahead of our Spring 2027 grand opening, the Palo Alto Museum is hosting six monthly pop-ups, each one a new chapter in the story of our city. Chapter One is a free music party in the park, presented in partnership with the City of Palo Alto. Sheryl B and her Stellar 5 open with jazz and R&B, then Palo Alto's own Past Curfew brings rock classics. Add free ice cream, local music trivia, prizes, and Museum swag you can only get here, plus a chance to meet the team building the Museum. Bring a blanket or lawn chair, bring your neighbors, and come rock the park! Reserve your free ticket → https://paloaltomuseum.ticketing.veevartapp.com/tickets/view/list/palo- alto-rocks Want the best seat in the park? Become a Founding Member and enjoy a reserved seating area close to the stage, all while helping build Palo Alto's newest cultural home from the ground up. Become a Founding Member → https://paloaltomuseum.org/membership/ Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto Angel Award Flyer 15th Annual Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto Angel Award October 28, 2026, 5:30–7:30pm Sheraton Palo Alto Hotel 625 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Purcase Tickets >> Learn More about our 2026 Angel Award Recipient >> For Your Information Business Funding Reediness Series flyer The City of Palo Alto Economic Development team is partnering with the Silicon Valley and NorCal Small Business Development Center, SBA, and California Office of the Small Business Advocate (CalOSBA) on a three-module small business training taking place on Sept. 23, 30, and Oct. 7. The purpose of the training is to provide local small businesses with technical assistance on access to capital. The training is free to small businesses and entrepreneurs. Regiser Online >> 2026 PATMA Commute Survey Logo The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) surveys employees who work in Palo Alto to better understand commute habits and preferences. Your participation in this 3 min. survey will help us improve our program offerings. Enter a prize drawing at the end of this survey for a chance to win one of two $200 gift cards to spend in Palo Alto. Please direct any questions or comments to connect@paloaltotma.org. Thank you! TAKE SURVEY >> View the Events Calendar Learn More About The Chamber ​ PALO ALTO CHAMBER & VISITORS CENTER 355 ALMA STREET | PALO ALTO | CA | 94301 | 650-324-3121 WWW.PALOALTOCHAMBER.COM This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Lester D Ezrati To:Council, City Subject:Window tinting on cars Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 8:53:33 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Something needs to be done about the excessive window tinting on the front windows of cars in Palo Alto. Bicycles and pedestrians are always advised to make eye contact with cars when crossing it into sections at intersections It is almost impossible to do that when the windows are tinted so that you can't even see if there's a driver in the car. This is a danger to the pedestrians and the bicyclists. I see no reason why this law is not enforced in Palo Alto or anywhere California. I would also suppose that policemen object to this excessive window tinting as they can't see who is behind the wheel when they approach a vehicle. Thanks for your consideration Best regards Les Lester Ezrati 6505754714 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Shailo Rao To:Armer, Jennifer Cc:Sauls, Garrett; Shea, Kyle; Jeff Jeff; Gerhardt, Jodie; Sarah Smith Le; Hiral Parekh; City Mgr; pdsdirector; Amy Amy; Ethan Lin; Borjon, David; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Council, City Subject:Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 Date:Thursday, October 1, 2026 7:04:21 AM Attachments:image026.png image017.png Outlook-imtrtmeh.png image015.png Outlook-ugsfxxlv.png Outlook-Logo image014.png Outlook-oqtig1du.png Outlook-2i2ps0mg.png image003.png image013.png image025.png image018.png Outlook-Logo image021.png Outlook-lxvzfakd.png image031.png image033.png image023.png image032.png image030.png image004.png image028.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Ms. Armer, Kyle, and Garrett - You have not adequately addressed ANY of the items that are neighborhood has brought up repeatedly for years now. Please resign from your positions if you are not going to serve our community. Our taxes pay your salaries. City Council - Please review this staff budget. Why are these people on the payroll? On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 4:20 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Armer, I am writing to follow up on the unresponded formal complaint submitted on September 8 concerning the ongoing construction at 3935 Duncan Pl, following up on our previous correspondence from September 14. The Planning Department's continued lack of response and refusal to address these documented issues is unacceptable. The department cannot continue to shield itself behind narrow code interpretations while ignoring the severe, ongoing privacy and safety impacts this project imposes on neighboring residents. We expect the Planning Department to exercise its administrative authority and take concrete, actionable steps to hold this development accountable. Specifically, we demand that the City withhold final inspection sign-offs and the Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Pl until the following are completed: 1. An independent, inter-departmental review of the project's window placements, height calculations, and overall code compliance. 2. Independent, on-site field verification of the grade measurements and line-of-sight impacts. We look forward to your immediate response confirming that final sign-off has been paused pending these reviews. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 8:23 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jennifer, It's been a week and no response. Do your job. On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 7:33 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Jennifer, Thank you for your response. However, your email continues the Planning Department’s troubling pattern of hiding behind selective, narrow readings of the municipal code while absolving itself of any duty to protect the privacy, safety, and livability of long-term Palo Alto residents. The assertion that the City has "evaluated whether these provisions apply" and has "no leverage" to intervene collapses under the documented facts of this project. We require the following issues to be placed squarely into the administrative record and addressed by city leadership: 1. The Department’s Track Record of Oversight on this Exact Parcel Your response asks the neighborhood to trust that staff has properly interpreted and applied every applicable code standard to this build. That trust has been thoroughly eroded by this department’s track record on this exact address: The Planning and Building Department previously reviewed, approved, and permitted a 23-foot-tall structure on this very lot—in blatant violation of the strict 17-foot Single-Story Overlay requirement. That massive, illegal error was not caught by staff’s internal reviews; it was uncovered only because our entire neighborhood was forced to do the department’s job, comb through the plans, and file formal complaints to force the City to rescind its mistake. Given that the City already committed a fundamental regulatory failure on this parcel, the reflexive assertion that the current window layout and ADU specifications are completely lawful and beyond review carries no credibility. 2. Abdication of Duty: Telling Taxpayers to Absorb the Costs of City Errors Acknowledging that shifting the mitigation burden to adjacent homeowners "comes at a cost to you" while brushing it off as "not a unique circumstance" is an unacceptable response from municipal officials. The City allowed a speculative house flipper to install clear, operable windows pointed directly into the private, floor-to-ceiling glass living spaces and children’s study rooms of adjacent Eichlers. Suggesting that long-term tax-paying residents should now spend thousands of dollars to plant mature trees, sacrifice their own open space, block their sunlight, and surrender usable yard area to shield against an invasive build is completely upside down. Any required physical buffer, screening, or architectural retrofit belongs on the developer’s property, paid for by the developer. The victims of poor planning should not be billed for the City's oversight. 3. The Fiction of "Zero Leverage" The statement that the City "does not hold leverage over the property owner" is legally and procedurally incorrect: The City holds the ultimate administrative leverage: the Final Building Inspection sign-off and the Certificate of Occupancy. A permit issued on defective premises or through administrative oversight does not grant a developer blanket immunity against municipal nuisance abatement or health and safety enforcement under California Civil Code § 3479. Furthermore, by accepting the developer’s clever labeling of this ADU as a "studio" to bypass egress privacy rules under PAMC 18.09.040(D), the City has facilitated a glaring loophole. If a future owner puts up a simple partition wall to create a bedroom, those clear, operable windows instantly become non- compliant egress windows facing an interior property line without the required opaque glazing. The City is knowingly signing off on a latent code violation. 4. Active Nuisance and Failure to Regulate Basic Neighborhood Harmony Dismissing our complaints regarding the blinding, overnight illumination by claiming the Dark Sky ordinance is not retroactive misses the core issue: Blasting stadium-level construction lighting directly into 5 to 6 neighboring bedrooms through the night is not a matter of whether a specific new ordinance applies—it is an active, actionable private and public nuisance under common law and general municipal police powers. That the Building Inspection Manager had to personally phone the job site just to get lights switched off proves that this developer has operated with total disregard for the community throughout the entire process. Next Steps & Formal Escalation Since Planning staff has repeatedly stated its inability or unwillingness to exercise administrative authority to protect our families, we will not allow this issue to be quietly closed out. 1. Withhold Final Sign-Off: We formally demand that the City withhold the final Certificate of Occupancy for 3935 Duncan Place until an independent, inter- departmental review is conducted on the window operability, grade calculations, and side-yard clearances. 2. City Leadership Review: This entire record—including the initial 23-foot permitting blunder, the multiple verified after-hours citations, the photo documentation of direct privacy intrusion, and staff’s written refusal to require on-site remediation—is being submitted directly to the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council. If the City Council's adopted policies in 2023 created loopholes so porous that speculative flippers can strip established residents of basic home privacy, then elected leadership needs to confront that failure directly on this case study before final sign-off is granted. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 4:42 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, As staff noted previously, there are instances where the City can apply privacy measures to ADU projects through its objective review process for a building permit. Those are specifically limited to ADUs built under Table 2 of PAMC Section 18.09.040 and the City’s privacy regulations under (k)(2) apply when an egress window faces a neighbor and/or when non-egress windows face a neighbor on an ADU where the first finished floor is two feet or more above grade. Staff have evaluated whether these provisions apply to this project and have determined that they do not. Separately, the City can only apply its Privacy Guidelines for Two-Story homes when application has been proposed; this is not a process available to homes in a single-story overlay. Staff has suggested some alternatives to consider minimizing impacts from this development and while we understand this comes at a cost to you, it is not a unique circumstance. The City does not hold leverage over the property owner to do more than what is required by the code in place at the time the permit was issued. The City’s recent Dark Skies ordinance only covers exterior lighting fixtures for the building – not interior fixtures or lighting from the building. Additionally, it came into effect after this permit was issued. City staff will look to update its ADU code in the future to ensure the privacy standards we can apply are meeting the community’s needs, but those standards would not be retroactively applicable to this project. While we will continue efforts to encourage the contractor to address the concerns and reduce impacts, we cannot require additional changes to this project that go beyond our code requirements. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 9:23 AM To: shailo@gmail.com <shailo@gmail.com> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 Shailo, I appreciate the documentation that you have provided. I find that full understanding is better accomplished through conversation and would welcome the opportunity, should you want to meet. Based on your email below, we will respond to your requests via email. You can expect a response by the end of the week. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 5:35 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This can be accomplished over email. Agenda 1. Hear neighbor concerns/project history (Shailo) -- This has been documented over countless emails and Police Reports. Our community has reported everything. Unfortunately these reports have been largely ignored. 2. Describe State mandates and City's regulations/options (Garrett) -- Your turn. 3. Discuss next steps (all) -- Thanks in advance for doing your job. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 5:30 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Shailo, Below is my expectation for this meeting. I would welcome your input. Agenda 1. Hear neighbor concerns/project history (Shailo) 2. Describe State mandates and City's regulations/options (Garrett) 3. Discuss next steps (all) Goal: Common understanding of issues, concerns, constraints, and options. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 4:59 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please provide a clear agenda for this meeting, including the meeting goal. On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 3:35 PM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Fridays are a difficult day for site visits and in-person meetings, but I believe you have already had the chance to have Garrett out to the site. With a goal of having an in- person conversation soon, would tomorrow at 2pm or 2:30pm at City Hall be an option for you? Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 1:49 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Jennifer. How about this Friday 8:30 at our house 3905 Duncan Pl, Palo Alto, CA 94306? On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 8:38 AM Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good Morning Shailo, Thank you for your detailed emails and efforts to address this situation. I would like to suggest that you, Garrett, and I meet to discuss your concerns and the options and constraints in this situation. For now, I have moved all the other email recipients to bcc, so they don't need to be part of our work to find a time to meet, but if you have other neighbors who wish to join us, please let me know. Is there generally a day of the week and/or time of day that will work well for you? I prefer an in-person meeting if we can find a time that works. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 4:43 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Kyle, and Planning Leadership, Thank you for the updates regarding the temporary outreach to the project manager on the lighting issues. However, suggesting that adjacent homeowners should spend thousands of dollars to plant mature landscaping on our own properties to shield against an invasive build completely misplaces the burden of this project’s impacts. The surrounding neighborhood should not bear the financial, spatial, and logistical burden of mitigating a speculative developer’s poor site design. The City has an administrative duty of care to protect the livelihood, privacy, and safety of its established tax-paying residents. We ask that the Planning and Development Services leadership review the following critical points before any final inspections, approvals, or occupancy certificates are granted: 1. Shifting the Remediation Burden is Inappropriate Suggesting that established homeowners plant screening trees on their side of the fence fails basic planning fairness: Our properties are historic Eichlers built around signature glass architecture and established backyard footprints. Forcing neighbors to eliminate their own sunlight, open yard space, and property functionality to shield against clear windows that never should have been approved in this orientation is an unreasonable demand. Any required landscape buffer, physical screening, or architectural mitigation belongs on the developer’s parcel, not on the surrounding community. 2. Operational Band-Aids Do Not Solve the Permanent "Lighthouse" Effect While we appreciate Kyle contacting the site manager regarding job site lighting, this only addresses an active construction infraction. As demonstrated by the photographs submitted across multiple nights, the elevation and unrestricted window placement create an intrusive "lighthouse" beaming directly into the bedrooms and living areas of 5 to 6 neighboring families. Once construction finishes and the house is sold, city staff will not be calling the new tenant every evening. A permanent architectural remedy is required now, while the City still holds regulatory leverage before sign-off. 3. The Failure of Local Enforcement vs. Holistic City Authority The Planning Department continues to rely on technicalities—treating this structure as a "studio" to bypass egress privacy rules and citing grade thresholds to avoid window restrictions. Relying on these technical loopholes ignores the City’s broader authority under PAMC Chapter 18.12/18.40 (Single-Family Residential Compatibility) and California Nuisance Law (Civil Code § 3479). A Single-Story Overlay was enacted specifically to protect neighborhood light, air, and character. Allowing a speculative developer to construct high, un-screened viewing planes that directly look into our children's study and living spaces represents an active breakdown in local zoning protections. Required Conditions for Final Sign-Off To resolve this issue equitably before occupancy is permitted, we demand that the City attach the following mandatory conditions to 3935 Duncan Place: 1. Mandatory Removal of Invasive Windows: Require the developer to completely remove all clear, operable side- and rear-facing windows overlooking 3905 and 3881 Duncan Place. These walls must be enclosed as solid walls or retrofitted strictly as high, fixed non-operable openings with zero operability or direct line of sight into private living spaces. 2. On-Site Developer Landscaping: Require the developer to install tall, evergreen privacy trees and screening on their property boundary before final inspection sign-off. 3. Lighting & Photometric Compliance: Mandate fully shielded, downward-directed fixtures (Dark Sky compliance) and automated cut-off timers on all exterior/interior boundary-facing illumination. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking the City of Palo Alto to enforce basic standards of safety, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. We look forward to an update from Director Lait and department leadership on how the City intends to enforce these necessary mitigations prior to final sign-off. Sincerely, Shailo Rao On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 8:16 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi all, It sounds like Kyle spoke to the project manager who agreed to ensure the lights are turned off at the end of the day. If that hasn’t been happening, please let us know and we’ll follow up with them. Unfortunately, our code doesn’t have requirements for landscape screening between properties whether it’s an ADU or a new home and adjacent properties unless they go through the two-story design review process so we cannot require those to be implemented here. We do have privacy measures for ADUs that meet certain criteria which we described before this one does not meet. I have seen other scenarios where neighbors will plant landscaping on their side of the property to provide them more privacy. I understand your frustrations with this project and the limits of the City’s ordinances. Unfortunately, even if the codes change in the future, I haven’t seen us retroactively apply these standards to projects that have permits issued before that ordinance took effect. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 4:51 PM To: Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov> Cc: Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. What's the long term solution? On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 12:11 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you Kyle, but assuming this unprofessional construction company even complies, this is nothing more than just a temporary bandaid. What's the long term solution to the lighthouse created by this house flipper's cheap design? Please be proactive here. The city should never have approved these plans and allowed the construction of this eyesore to get this far. This light was also on for for 2 straight nights. You acted way too slowly here again. You completely ignored Hiral Parekh's email 2 nights ago. Do better. On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 11:08 AM Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Jeff, I reached out to project manager yesterday regarding lights being left on throughout the night. He returned my call this morning and I have requested that all lights are off at the end of the day. Thank you Kyle Kyle Shea, CASp Building Inspection Manager Planning and Development Department O: (650) 617-3507 C: (650) 313-1897| Kyle.Shea@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 9:38 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: shailo@gmail.com; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to bring an urgent local issue to your attention regarding a major oversight in city planning and code enforcement in Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto recently allowed real estate developers and speculators to construct a massively tall and oversized new house right in the middle of our traditional Eichler neighborhood. Because iconic Eichler homes feature expansive glass walls, floor-to-ceiling windows, and continuous open outdoor spaces, living here is like living in a "fishbowl." Constructing such a massive structure right next to us feels like erecting a giant "lighthouse" directly over these fishbowls. Furthermore, these developers routinely keep all the electric lights on bright late into the night. The harsh light beams directly through the glass windows of 5 to 6 neighboring homes, severe disrupting residents' sleep. Despite these invasive conditions, the City has failed to enforce basic protections: Developers have not been required to turn off or dim lights at night. No temporary blackout curtains have been mandated to prevent light from shining into neighboring windows. Developers have not been required to plant tall privacy trees to buffer the visual and lighting impact on adjacent properties. Jeff Huang 3881 Duncan Place Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>於 2026年8月20日週四，上午8:07寫道： Good morning, Shailo, After speaking with the Chief Building Official and Planning Director, they agreed that Kyle and mine’s on-site measurement confirmed that the proposed building is consistent with the City’s regulations. As they are consistent with the requirements in our municipal code, we cannot require that the applicant do more than that. To your concerns around the tree roots and protection measures, please connect with my colleague Peter Gollinger in Urban Forestry: Peter.Gollinger@PaloAlto.gov. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 8:27 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. How could this be approved by the city? On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 7:56 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: It has been 48 days without a response. On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 6:07 PM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Please respond. This house flipper has created a dangerous situation. They can literally look directly into our kid's study room, living room, and kitchen. We can do the same for their cheaply constructed house. They are also making all neighbors uncomfortable with their viewing area. Please inspect this construction's current state. There are zero fire access reasons for this invasive design, On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:00 AM Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Garrett, Thank you for your response and for performing the on-site measurement with Kyle. We appreciate your transparency regarding the methodology used under PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B) and your consultation with the Chief Building Official. While we understand that your department is executing a literal application of the text regarding studio egress, we cannot accept that a technical loophole should absolve a speculative project from holistic city compliance. Because this build creates an active, permanent privacy and safety intrusion into our homes, we are maintaining our formal complaint. However, rather than placing the burden on the surrounding neighborhood to absorb this impact or spend personal time drafting municipal petitions, the burden of proof and administrative due diligence must rest squarely on the applicant and the City. To resolve this conflict and ensure absolute compliance before any further structural inspections or occupancy permits are signed off, we request that the City mandate the following actions: 1. Developer Must Provide a Certified Topographic and Civil Survey While we appreciate your field tape-measurement, a manual measurement does not substitute for a certified engineering layout on a sloped R-1 lot where inches dictate code compliance. Because we formally contest the grading baselines used by the applicant, the City should require the developer to submit a certified, stamped topographic survey from a licensed civil engineer validating the exact, un-altered pre-construction natural grade. Construction progress on the ADU envelope should be placed on an administrative hold until the developer funds and provides this precise data to your department for verification. 2. Mandatory Inter-Departmental Referral to Urban Forestry The structural footprint, foundation excavation, and utility trenching for this ADU run directly along our shared property lines, deeply encroaching into the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) of our mature, established landscaping. Under PAMC Chapter 8.10, the developer is legally required to maintain strict protection protocols. We request that the Planning Department formally refer this project to the Urban Forestry Division to open an active field investigation file. The developer should be required to submit an independent arborist's report proving that their excavation has not permanently compromised or damaged the protected root systems of adjacent properties. 3. Planning Department Referral to City Council on ADU Ordinance Failures You mentioned that the City Council adopted these rules in 2023 believing they were appropriate. However, this project stands as a textbook case study of how speculative builders can easily manipulate "studio" designations and minor grading thresholds to completely subvert the single-story overlay protections of Palo Alto's historic Eichler neighborhoods. As the administrative body overseeing these codes, we request that the Planning Department flag this active enforcement failure directly to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of your department's ongoing monitoring of state and local ADU policy impacts. The onus shouldn't be on the residents to write policy petitions to fix a clear regulatory gap that your team has now physically witnessed on-site. Moving Forward Ultimately, our neighborhood group is asking for a livable, common-sense resolution. The simplest way for the developer to clear these administrative hurdles, satisfy the neighborhood, and avoid a prolonged timeline is to immediately retrofit the highly invasive windows with factory-frosted opaque glazing or high clerestory openings. Until the developer provides a certified civil survey and arborist compliance verification, we request that the city withhold further inspection sign-offs on the 3935 Duncan Pl structure. Thank you for your continued partnership and for ensuring our city codes are held to the highest standard of accountability. Warm regards, Shailo On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 9:21 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Kyle Shea and I were able to go out to the property last week to evaluate the height of the structure. Looking at the property, we noted the following: 1. The height of the ADU and window placement comply with the requirements I referenced before. To determine this, we took a measurement from existing grade at the adjacent properties which reflected what grade was prior to construction (consistent with how we measure grade based on PAMC 18.04.030(64)(B) for R-1 lots with slope changes of less than 10%) and measured to the first finished floor inside the building. The height did not exceed two feet which is the threshold for when the ADU privacy requirements must be incorporated into the structure. 2. Kyle and I spoke with the Chief Building Official about your concerns about the windows not being classified as EERO windows. The Chief Building Official echoed our previous response that the residential building code only requires one emergency escape and rescue opening. The door is designated as the required opening for this studio and so these windows would not be considered as egress windows. In addition, the windows which face your property are physically limited by the placement of the fence and would not qualify as egress points from the structure. As a result, we cannot apply our ADU privacy regulations to these windows. The City does not have privacy measures for single-story homes, only two-story homes. Council adopted privacy regulations for second dwelling units, but they only apply under the circumstances that I highlighted before. In this case, we are unable to apply these rules to this project. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:52 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Thank you for the update and for arranging the upcoming site visit with the inspection manager. We genuinely appreciate your proactive approach in verifying whether the physical construction matches the approved plan sets. While we acknowledge your point regarding the explicit tiering of certain rules under the single-story overlay, we must firmly push back on the notion that the City lacks any administrative framework to address severe, deleterious privacy impacts caused by single-story primary dwellings or ground-level ADUs. Before your site visit, we ask that your department evaluate the following established planning principles and municipal hooks, which we stand by firmly: 1. Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines Apply to All Dwellings While PAMC Chapter 18.12 and the Single-Story Overlay (S-Overlay) regulate specific structural metrics like height and floor-area ratios, primary single-family home approvals remain fundamentally bound by the City of Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (adopted by City Council resolution). These compatibility standards do not expire or become optional simply because a home is single-story. The guidelines explicitly dictate that window placement must minimize direct privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors, specifically recommending the offset of windows, utilization of high-sill/clerestory openings, and obscured glass when facing the primary living spaces of adjacent properties. The developer’s choice to place low, clear, operable windows directly parallel to our historic, floor-to-ceiling Eichler glass walls directly violates the core compatibility tenets of these city-adopted standards. 2. Strict Field Verification of the ADU "Two-Foot Grade" Threshold (PAMC 18.09.040(E)) We are very glad the inspection manager is visiting the site, as this is where paper schematics must confront real-world topography. Because the lot at 3935 Duncan Pl sits on a natural slope relative to 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl, a measurement that looks compliant on a flat blueprint can easily manifest as a violation in the field. We formally request that the inspector measure the finished floor height relative to the actual, pre-existing natural grade at our shared property lines, rather than an artificial benchmark or modified grade fill imported by the construction crew. If the physical framing or concrete slab sits 2 feet or more above the true adjacent grade facing our yards, the privacy mandates of Section 18.09.040(E) must be retroactively enforced. 3. The Predictable "Studio" Loophole and Future Enforcement Burden By designating the ADU as a "studio" to establish the entry door as the sole legal path of egress, the developer has bypassed the window privacy rule (18.09.040(D)) on paper. However, if a future occupant adds a cosmetic partition wall to create a separated sleeping area—a highly predictable layout modification for a speculative flip—these exact windows will instantly become non-compliant, unpermitted egress openings. The City should not permit a speculative builder to bake a structural code conflict into the property's footprint, leaving long-term residents to bear the future enforcement burden. Coordinating the Site Visit We remain fully committed to working collaboratively with your office to find an equitable, livable solution. A simple, permanent remedy—such as requiring the developer to use factory-frosted opaque glazing or high-set window retrofits on the walls facing our properties—fully protects our families' privacy without reducing the developer's built square footage. Please let us know the scheduled date and time of your site inspection. We would like to ensure we are home to grant you and the inspection manager access to our backyards, allowing you to see the exact, unfiltered line of sight from our living spaces. Warm regards, Shailo On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 8:14 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Thank you for your email. We appreciate the concerns you raised previously in addition to the items you noted in your email below from yesterday. I am coordinating with the inspection manager to go to the site to determine whether they have built their project according to the approved plans we have on file. If there are any issues that I note which affect the need for privacy measures for the ADU, then I will let all you know. Can you clarify which specific provisions you are referencing in section 3 below regarding privacy from the single-family home? Palo Alto has a design review process and privacy measures for two-story homes, but we do not have privacy measures for single-story homes except as they apply to ADU/JADUs under PAMC 18.09.040 and .050. Given that the properties within this area have a single-story overlay, a two-story home would not be permissible where we would apply privacy measures. If there is a separate neighborhood organization for the eichler neighborhood that manages architectural style or design through CC&Rs, that is a private entity and rules that come from it are only privately enforceable. I stand by the response I provided before regarding egress windows and when privacy measures apply. The Council adopted ordinance, and the conversations I had with them around this issue in 2023, discussed many of the concerns you raised. Ultimately, they adopted these rules and felt they were appropriate. If you have any questions, let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 9:05 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Sauls and Ms. Vargas-Aguilera, Thank you for your response dated May 1, 2026. We appreciate the Planning Department's technical review of the architectural plans for 3935 Duncan Pl. However, we strongly disagree with your narrow interpretation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The current construction creates an unprecedented, severe privacy intrusion that directly violates both the letter and the legislative intent of Palo Alto’s zoning ordinances. This correspondence serves as our formal Notice of Zoning Non-Compliance. We urge the Planning Department to issue an immediate Stop Work Order (Cease and Desist) on all window installations and wall enclosures facing our interior property lines until these issues are legally resolved. We submit the following points for the administrative record: 1. Defective "Studio" Designation and Egress Loophole (PAMC 18.09.040(D)) Your letter notes that because the applicant labeled the structure a "studio unit" rather than a traditional one-bedroom, the entry door is designated as the primary egress path, thereby rendering PAMC 18.09.040(D) inapplicable to the windows. As a matter of law and public safety, this interpretation is deeply defective: Secondary Egress Reality: Under California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 10, any window of sufficient dimension in a habitable space can and will function as a secondary emergency escape and rescue opening. Violation of Mandatory Code Language: PAMC 18.09.040(D) states explicitly: “Where feasible, egress windows... shall not face towards an adjacent interior property line. If this is not feasible, then these windows shall utilize opaque glazing on the whole window.” The code uses the mandatory term “shall.” The "Where Feasible" Standard: The developer had ample alternative orientations (frontage, rear yard depth, or internal courtyard layout) to place these windows. Positioning large, clear, operable windows directly looking into our historic Eichler floor-to-ceiling glass walls fails the legal test of "feasibility." Labeling a unit a studio to bypass neighborhood privacy mandates constitutes an impermissible circumvention of local zoning restrictions. 2. Physical Fact-Checking of Finished Grade Height (PAMC 18.09.040(E)) Your review of the developer's submitted blueprint sets indicates that the first finished floor is not two feet or greater from grade. We formally challenge the accuracy of the applicant's submitted grade charts: Due to the specific topographical slope of the lots on Duncan Pl, the structure's physical height relative to the actual, existing natural grade bordering 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl creates a severe, elevated vantage point. Plan sets submitted by speculative house-flippers often rely on idealized or altered "finished grades" rather than existing natural topography. We demand an independent, on-site measurement by a city building inspector to verify the exact distance from the actual ground level to the top of the subfloor framing before any further structural inspections are approved. 3. Failure of the Primary Residence to Meet Neighborhood Compatibility Standards Our initial filing concerned privacy violations stemming from both the ADU and the main residential structure. Your response omitted any mention of the primary home. While the 2023 City Council discussions you cited may have limited certain uniform privacy restrictions on one-story ADUs, they absolutely did not strip the City of its authority or duty to enforce privacy mandates on primary single-family residential construction. Under Palo Alto's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Contextual Standards (PAMC 18.12/18.40), new structures must be compatible with the existing neighborhood fabric. Constructing clear, direct- sight windows facing the private, glass-walled rears of established Eichler homes violates these long-standing city development standards. 4. Demand for Immediate Administrative Action A house flipper operates on an abbreviated timeline to maximize profit and exit the community, leaving permanent, irreparable damage to the privacy, safety, and property values of long-term residents. To prevent this matter from escalating to formal litigation under California’s private nuisance laws and Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution (Inalienable Right to Privacy), we request that the City immediately take the following actions: 1. Halt Construction / Issue a Stop Work Order on the framing, window installation, and siding of the walls directly facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl. 2. Mandate a Corrective Plan Revision requiring the developer to retrofit all side/interiors-facing windows on both structures to utilize high-set, non-operable clerestory windows or permanent, factory-installed opaque/frosted glazing. 3. Conduct an On-Site Inspection alongside the affected neighbors to verify the actual visual impact and lines of sight from our living rooms. We are fully prepared to protect our families and our community's architectural integrity through all available administrative and legal channels. We look forward to your prompt response and the scheduling of an immediate on-site inspection. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Resident and Property Owner, 3905 Duncan Pl On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 8:08 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Shailo, Thank you for sharing this additional information. We are going to the Planning and Transportation Commission tomorrow to discuss changes to our ADU ordinance if you want to attend and provide your feedback and experience. The item will be heard around 6:15pm and you are welcome to attend virtually or in person to provide that feedback. Please note that the project complies with our code requirements and any changes to the code in the future would could not be applied retroactively to this project. Best regards Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 6:14 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov>; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa <Elisa.Vargas@PaloAlto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see attached photos. The house flipper has created a mess where they can look directly into both of houses (living / dining areas). This is an invasion of our privacy and risks the safety of our families. If current city codes allow for this situation, they need to be updated. This should not be happening in our community. On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 2:38 PM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Shailo, Thank you for reaching out and I apologize I didn’t respond sooner as I had to confirm a couple things before responding. Firstly, I am removing Brian from this thread as he is on leave. I have included his manager, Elisa Vargas-Aguilera, to this thread instead. Looking into the project further, I have the following feedback: 1. PAMC 18.09.040(D) identifies that egress windows either need to face neighboring property lines or utilize opaque glazing on the whole of the window. Egress windows are windows that are required for emergency exiting in the event of a fire or other life safety event. Typically, these are required from individual bedrooms but in this case, the applicant proposed a studio unit which doesn’t have a closed off bedroom separate from the rest of the unit. When a studio unit is proposed, the entrance to the unit serves as the egress. In speaking with the inspection manager, he confirmed that the plans do not call out the proposed windows as egress windows. Unless these windows were egress windows, we cannot apply this rule to the project. 2. PAMC 18.09.040(E) identifies that when the first finished floor of the ADU is two feet or greater in height from grade, then non-egress windows that face a neighboring property must have a five-foot sill height (if operable) or use opaque glazing on the window (up to five feet from the finished floor of the unit). As shown in the images below from the plan set, the proposed structure’s first finished floor is not two feet or greater from grade. Unfortunately, we cannot apply this rule to the project either. For some context, I spoke with the Planning Commission and City Council about these rules in 2023 and at that time, there wasn’t majority support to uniformly apply privacy rules to one-story ADUs, just to two-story structures with these specific caveats for certain circumstances. We appreciate the concerns that you’ve raised and want to continue to work with you when there are construction related issues that come up which you highlighted before. Hopefully, those haven’t continued since we spoke last. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@PaloAlto.gov Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Permit Applications Mapped | Schedule AnAppointment From: Shailo Rao <shailo@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 7:31 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sarah Smith Le <sarahsmithle24@gmail.com>; Shea, Kyle <Kyle.Shea@paloalto.gov>; Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com>; Jeff Jeff <3325usa@gmail.com>; City Mgr <CityMgr@paloalto.gov>; pdsdirector <pdsdirector@PaloAlto.gov>; Amy Amy <2955usa@gmail.com>; Reynolds, Brian <Brian.Reynolds@paloalto.gov>; Ethan Lin <erzhenlin@gmail.com>; Borjon, David <David.Borjon@paloalto.gov> Subject: Formal Neighborhood Complaint Regarding Violation of ADU Zoning Ordinance 18.09.040 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department: We, the residents of 3905 Duncan Pl and 3881 Duncan Pl, are writing to formally submit a collaborative complaint regarding the ongoing construction at 3935 Duncan Pl. While we support the thoughtful addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within our community, the current development at this address demonstrates a clear disregard for Palo Alto’s privacy standards and specific zoning ordinances, creating an untenable situation for our families. 1. Violation of ADU Zoning Code 18.09.040 The construction of the ADU and main residence includes clear, operable windows that directly face the interior property lines of our homes. This design stands in direct violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.09.040 (D) and (E), which outlines clear standards for privacy and window placement: Sill Height and Operability (18.09.040.E): Because the first finished floor of this unit is elevated, the current installation of low, clear, operable windows violates the requirement for a minimum five-foot sill height for operable windows or opaque glazing for the lower half of non-operable windows. Glazing Requirements (18.09.040.D): The windows at 3935 Duncan Pl are currently clear and operable, directly overlooking our private living spaces. Per the code, egress windows must utilize opaque glazing. 2. Impact on Privacy and Safety Our homes are classic Eichler designs, characterized by signature floor-to-ceiling glass walls at the rear. This architectural style relies heavily on the privacy of our backyards. The windows at 3935 Duncan Pl are positioned such that they have a direct, unobstructed line of sight into our: Kitchens and dining areas Family rooms Study rooms and private home offices This is not merely a matter of aesthetics; it is a significant safety and privacy concern. Our households include young children whose daily activities are now completely visible to a revolving door of contractors and future occupants of a "spec" house. 3. Community Standards and Past Precedents When we remodeled our own homes, we worked closely with the City to ensure our designs respected our neighbors' privacy. For instance, the wall at 3905 Duncan Pl facing 3881 Duncan Pl utilizes high-set, non-operable windows to ensure no line of sight into the neighbor’s yard. The developer at 3935 Duncan Pl has shown a pattern of disruption and disregard for these established community norms. As this project is a "house flip," the current owners lack a long-term stake in the harmony of our street, yet their construction choices will leave a permanent negative impact on the privacy and property values of our established homes. 4. Requested Action We respectfully request that the City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement Division conduct a site inspection to verify these violations. We ask that the following corrective measures be mandated before any final permits are signed off: 1. Relocate all windows facing 3905 and 3881 Duncan Pl with opaque/frosted glazing with no viewing ability as required by Code 18.09.040. 2. Modify operable windows to comply with the five-foot sill height requirement to prevent direct overlooking. We value the character of Palo Alto and the safety of our neighborhood. We are happy to meet with a city inspector on-site to demonstrate the severity of the privacy intrusion from our vantage point. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for your dedication to maintaining the standards of our community. Sincerely, Shailo Rao Resident of 3905 Duncan Pl From:Aram James To:Yusra Hussain Cc:Lori Meyers; Gary Gechlik; Sheree Roth; h.etzko@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Brian Good; Sean Allen; Zahra Billoo; Sam Liccardo; Salem Ajluni; Sameena Usman; Raymond Goins; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Susan Hayase; Steve Preminger; steven mcgill; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Doug Minkler; Donna Wallach; Kaloma Smith; karen hall; Diana Diamond; jason.green@bayareanewsgroup.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Cait James; Human Relations Commission; Lotus Fong; jessica@speiser.net; Templeton, Cari; Carol Brouillet; Friends of Cubberley; Gerry Gras; Gardener, Liz; Liz Kniss; ladoris cordell; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Bill Newell; Bil Barber; Penni Wilson; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Lauing, Ed; Emily Mibach; Today EPA; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; Jay Boyarsky; Jason Malinsky; David Angel; Dana St. George; Dan Okonkwo; Reckdahl, Keith; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Seher Awan; Carla Torres; Rick Callender; Riley Cooke; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Braden Cartwright; Council, City; CityCouncil; city.council@gilroy.org; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Yolanda Conaway; Roberta Ahlquist; of Directors Board Subject:Day of Reckoning ? Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 8:45:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Indeed! The Israelis have taken lies to a new low!! The entire nation is built on lies and more lies. Eventually, the entire Israeli population -with few exceptions- bought into the false, cult- like narrative that the wack job Zionists created to justify stealing the land of the Palestinians, starting even before the Nakba. Nakba Day - Wikipedia https://share.google/FPK3i2hvkvfi1nzbF. And of course, the U.S for its own geopolitical advantage in the Middle East, has funded the rogue apartheid state of Israel for billions of dollars every year to help facilitate the 75-year-long genocide of the Palestinian people. Anyone who refuses to speak-out against the Israeli Nazi nation — is complicit in the genocide and must be held to account. The day of reckoning will soon be upon us. Avram Finkelstein On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 7:35 PM Yusra Hussain <yusrahussainmd@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you James for this informative email. I wish more people like you, have the courage to expose the actions of the few who try to control the masses, from operation dessert storm to 9/11 to October 7, all have been conducted by high intelligence to force a change (often loss of civil liberties and a genocide) that people otherwise won’t accept. I highly recommend for people to read the book by Dr. Naomi Klein, called The Shock Doctrine. It’s a must read given how well we all have been lied to in order to advance the agenda of the few. Best regards! Yusra Yusra Hussain, MD Adj. Clinical Assistant Professor Stanford University School of Medicine 805 El Camino Real # A Palo Alto, CA 94301 Office: 650-328-1676 Fax: 650-445-0911 Checkout: Protectmedicare.net On Sep 29, 2026, at 12:11 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: ALERT! Transmitted below is a significant HAARETZ/ASSOCIATED PRESS report on recent disclosures relating to the 10/7 events. In light of the perpetual Zionist goal of a Palestine without Palestinians, it is entirely rational to suspect that Netanyahu may well have decided to let a Hamas attack happen, the more destructive the better, so as to provide the justification and opportunity for massive retaliation aimed at advancing that goal (https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/11/27/two-solutions-for-the- question-of-palestine). Indeed, since Netanyahu has admitted to diverting Israeli forces from Gaza's borders to the West Bank in the days immediately prior to October 7, he may even have decided to give a helping hand to the attack which UAE and Egyptian leaders were warning him was imminent. Furthermore, particularly after the recent 25th anniversary of the 9/11 events, it is difficult to ignore a similarity between 9/11 and 10/7 in addition to the widely recognized traumatic impacts of those events on Americans and Israelis, who had until then assumed that they were immune from retaliation for the atrocities which they inflicted upon lesser peoples, impacts which permitted and encouraged their two governments to go berserk in their responses. Unless one believes that it was Al-Qaeda that packed three World Trade Center buildings, including WTC-7, which was not hit by an aircraft, with the explosives that brought all three pancaking down in classic controlled demolitions, it is entirely rational to suspect that certain American "leaders" not only decided to let that day's attacks happen so as to provide the eagerly sought "New Pearl Harbor" justification and opportunity to unleash the sole- superpower American military in the subsequently declared pursuit of full- spectrum global dominance but gave those attacks a critical helping hand. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-09-28/ty- article/netanyahu-asked-uae-leader-to-deny-haaretz-report-on-oct-7- warning/000001a0-e77e-db4b-a7a5-f77eecd60000 Netanyahu Asked UAE Leader to Deny Haaretz Report on Oct. 7 Warning in Secret Visit, Sources Say The UAE's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on reports about the meeting. But it said it maintains 'open and direct lines of communication' with Israel and shares 'all relevant intelligence'. Jack Khoury and The Associated Press September 28, 2026 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed during a secret meeting Sunday to deny Haaretz's report that the Emirati leader had warned him of an impending Hamas attack shortly before October 7, 2023, a person familiar with the matter said. The source corroborated Haaretz's reporting on the topic from Sunday. Sources in the United Arab Emirates told Haaretz that Netanyahu and bin Zayed met at the airport. Netanyahu asked the Emirati president to deny reports of their phone conversation as well as details concerning the events leading up to October 7 that could embarrass him, according to the sources. He also asked bin Zayed for what the source described as "moral support." The Israeli prime minister held an hour-long meeting with the UAE president, according to two people who were briefed on Netanyahu's trip, which was first reported by Israel's Channel 12 News. Netanyahu, Sinwar and bin Zayed Revealed: Netanyahu received an explicit warning days before Oct. 7. He didn't brief Israel's security chiefs Click here to read the extensive investigation into the fateful warning delivered by UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed, which prompted Netanyahu to sent a warning letter ahead of a libel suit against Haaretz. The person who described Netanyahu's request said they had first-hand knowledge of the meeting. That person and a regional official briefed on the meeting spoke on condition of anonymity as the trip was secret. The UAE's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on reports about the meeting, but said it maintains "open and direct lines of communication" with Israel and shares "all relevant intelligence." There was no immediate comment from Netanyahu's office. According to Haaretz's investigation, published earlier this month, the Emirati president called Netanyahu about a week and a half before October 7 and spoke with him for 45 minutes. He explicitly warned Netanyahu that Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar was planning a major operation against Israel. Bin Zayed expressed concern that such an operation would lead to bloodshed and destabilize the region, threatening the Abraham Accords, and urged Netanyahu to take the warning seriously. Haaretz reported that bin Zayed was surprised by Netanyahu's response. The prime minister reportedly reacted relatively calmly, saying he believed Hamas was planning to act in the West Bank and assuring the Emirati president that Israel was prepared for any scenario. Netanyahu did not brief the heads of the security establishment about the conversation. Netanyahu has firmly rejected the report, with his office calling the investigation an "absolute lie," threatening to sue Haaretz and journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval. "Prime Minister Netanyahu didn't speak to the president of the UAE during the period in question and received no warning from him," his office said. Haaretz said in response that it stands by its reporting. On Saturday, two sources, including a person who spoke directly with bin Zayed, confirmed to The New York Times that the Emirati leader warned Netanyahu of a "major attack" by Hamas shortly before October 7. A transcript of a meeting Netanyahu convened with senior security officials in early October 2023, obtained by the media, indicates that he told them an Israeli military operation in Gaza could jeopardize what he believed were imminent prospects for Saudi Arabia to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. Last week, an Emirati official addressed Haaretz's report, saying that heads of state do not discuss such matters at that level, according to the Emirati news site The National. The official did not deny that the two leaders spoke, or directly deny Haaretz's account of the conversation. The reports about the UAE warning have emerged alongside new accounts of repeated warnings from Egypt in the months leading up to the attack. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Egypt's intelligence chief Abbas Kamel called Netanyahu days before Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack to warn him of signs of an impending assault from Gaza, after two earlier Egyptian warnings went unheeded, citing officials in an Arab government. The call was one of several warnings delivered to Israeli officials in the months before the attack. Netanyahu's office and the foreign ministries of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates did not respond to the Journal's requests for comment. Netanyahu on Monday denied the report and said he has instructed to file a libel suit. "In the months preceding October 7, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not meet or speak with Abbas Kamel, who was then head of Egypt's General Intelligence Service, and no Israeli intelligence source conveyed an Egyptian warning to the Prime Minister," he wrote on X. He added that "Netanyahu has never met or spoken with the head of intelligence of a foreign country without their Israeli counterparts." He also accused the media of running "a vile and false campaign" to pin the failures of October 7 on him. According to the Journal, Egypt first warned Israel in June 2023 that the situation in Gaza was volatile and urged it to resume negotiations with Hamas. In September, Kamel traveled to Israel and warned that the situation in Gaza was dire and could "blow up in everyone's faces," according to the report. Israeli officials told him the situation was under control. Kamel then called Netanyahu days before October 7 after the earlier warnings failed to prompt a change in Israeli policy, according to the Journal. Egyptian officials continued to warn Israel until as late as 48 hours before the attack, the report said. None of the warnings contained specific information about the timing or scale of the planned assault. The Journal report came after The Atlantic reported Saturday that Kamel had secretly traveled to Israel on September 26, 2023, 11 days before the attack, to warn Israeli officials that Hamas appeared to be preparing for a major assault. Citing Israeli, Egyptian, Arab, U.S. and European officials briefed on the visit, The Atlantic reported that Kamel recommended economic concessions to Hamas to avert a confrontation. Reports of an Egyptian warning to Israel came as early as October 9, 2023, when the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported that Kamel called Netanyahu days before October 7 and warned him of "something unusual, a terrifying operation," about to be launched by Hamas. According to the report, Netanyahu told Kamel, "In Gaza, we are in the picture, we are in control. Our problem is with the West Bank, and that's where we are also diverting forces." From:MD Patel To:Ripon.Bhatia@paloalto.gov Cc:Transportation; Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Rail Crossing Data Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 8:45:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Ripon, I reached out to the City Council and Transportation team in April regarding TrainSnap and Palo Alto's rail crossings. I wanted to circle back after seeing the progress since then, including the September 28 action advancing the Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road projects into 35% design and environmental review. I also saw Caltrain's RailSentry deployment at Churchill for detecting vehicles and other obstructions in the crossing. TrainSnap would be complementary to that safety function. Our patented, FCC-certified sensors continuously measure when a crossing is blocked, how long each blockage lasts, and recurring patterns over time. We can also provide live crossing status for traffic operations and emergency-response use. The sensors are power-independent and can deploy using suitable existing infrastructure, without railroad data access or trackside integration. With design and environmental work continuing before the eventual grade separations are built, continuous operating data across Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston could provide immediate visibility while also establishing a baseline for measuring conditions before and after the projects. Would it be worth a brief conversation? Best, MD Patel Founder, TrainSnap Inc. https://trainsnap.us From:Laura Schuster To:Police; Council, City; City Mgr; Clerk, City; PWD Subject:Oversized Vehicle & RV Parking on Portage Ave and Surrounding Streets Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 6:22:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi I am not sure who to contact but what is the policy of having these massive, unsightly RV's parked on Portage Ave and surrounding streets in front of and near Equinox? It's ridiculous. The streets are narrow enough as it is, trying to get in and out of that area is horrific. Parking is already a mess and to have the RVs taking over esp Portage is incredibly unsightly, unsafe, and makes it even harder to navigate w/out the fear of getting hit. They are everywhere. Some even put out red cones as if they own the spaces. They are there during the week AND the weekends. Please help make these streets safer to drive on by removing these RVs. Thanks This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik Cc:Lori Meyers; Vicki Veenker; Templeton, Cari; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Sam Liccardo; h.etzko@gmail.com; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; brianhama@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Lauing, Ed; Henry Etzkowitz; Braden Cartwright; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; Human Relations Commission; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City; Dave Price; Brian Good; EPA Today; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; Emily Mibach Subject:Gary a little more on Lori Meyers’ Zionist connections Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 6:12:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I looked specifically for documentation of Lori Meyers’s involvement with Club Z. Here’s what can be established from public sources. Her role The strongest source is Meyers’s current biography on the Z3 Project website. It states that her Jewish nonprofit experience “includes serving on the boards of Club Z and her synagogue.” It doesn’t give dates, her specific board position, or her responsibilities. I wasn’t able to locate an archived Club Z page or contemporaneous announcement that gives additional details about exactly when she served or what she did as a board member. Why Club Z is relevant to the Zionism question Club Z is considerably more explicit about Zionism than the general Jewish-community organizations we’ve discussed. Its own mission says it is a national organization for Jewish teens “raising modern-day Zionists” and describes its mission as creating activists committed to Zionism, Israel, and the Jewish people. Its Bay Area chapter was the organization’s original/pioneering chapter, based in Palo Alto. Club Z says students who complete its program can receive a two-week trip to Israel. And contemporary reporting on Club Z describes its national conference as explicitly centered on Zionist identity, including Israel-focused programming and activism. What we can reasonably conclude There is a meaningful distinction: Directly documented: Meyers served on the Club Z board, according to her Z3 biography. Directly documented about Club Z: Club Z’s institutional mission is explicitly Zionist and seeks to develop young people committed to Zionism, Israel, and the Jewish people. Not documented by the sources I found: What Meyers personally believed about Zionism, whether she described herself as a Zionist, or which specific policies concerning Israel and Palestinians she supported while serving on the board. So her Club Z board service is stronger evidence of an institutional association with explicitly Zionist education than her Z3 participation alone, but it still shouldn’t be converted into a claim about her precise personal ideology without a first-person statement. If you’re interested, I can go one step further and search older Club Z newsletters, archived pages, Palo Alto school/community records, and local news for Meyers’s actual activities or statements while she was on the board. From:Rajeev Tyagi To:Trees; Public Works Public Services Cc:Council, City; PlannerOnDuty; info@canopy.org Subject:Request to Preserve and Treat the Mature Redwood at 2034 Edgewood Dr Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 5:26:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Urban Forestry Team, I am writing regarding the beautiful mature Coast Redwood in our cul-de-sac at 2034 Edgewood Drive that I understand is currently slated for removal due to a disease. I respectfully ask the City to reconsider removal and first exhaust reasonable options to treat, manage, and preserve this tree. In particular, I would appreciate having the tree carefully evaluated to determine whether its condition can be addressed through treatment, pruning, monitoring, or other appropriate arboricultural measures before an irreversible decision is made. This redwood is not simply another tree. It is a mature part of our neighborhood canopy and gives our cul-de-sac much of its character and beauty. Trees of this size have taken decades to grow, and once removed, their canopy, shade, and presence cannot meaningfully be replaced for many years. I fully appreciate that public safety must come first, and I would never advocate retaining a tree that qualified professionals determine presents an unacceptable hazard that cannot reasonably be mitigated. But disease or defects in a mature tree should not, by themselves, make removal the default response. For an important mature tree such as this one, removal should be the last resort after reasonable preservation options have been thoroughly considered. Palo Alto has long taken pride in its urban forest. Preserving that legacy requires us not only to plant new trees, but also to care for the mature trees we already have whenever it is reasonably possible to do so. A newly planted replacement, while valuable, cannot replicate the canopy or neighborhood character of a mature redwood for decades. Before this tree is removed, could the City please: 1. Reassess the tree's health and structural condition and clarify the specific disease, defect, or hazard that has led to the proposed removal. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast 2. Determine whether treatment, pruning, structural mitigation, increased monitoring, or other measures could allow the tree to remain safely. 3. If removal is still considered necessary, provide the arborist's findings and explain why preservation or treatment alternatives are not reasonably viable. 4. Allow nearby residents an opportunity to understand the assessment and preservation options before an irreversible removal takes place. If there is any reasonable path to saving this magnificent tree safely, I strongly encourage the City to pursue it. Palo Alto's mature trees are precious community assets. We cannot replace in a few years what nature has taken many decades to create. I hope the City will apply a strong presumption toward treatment and preservation, with removal reserved for situations where the tree truly cannot be safely saved. Thank you for taking another careful look at this tree and for your stewardship of Palo Alto's urban forest. I would very much appreciate a response before any removal work proceeds. Sincerely, Rajeev Tyagi Palo Alto, CA From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Marguerite Poyatos Cc:CeCi Kettendorf; Nancy Ellickson; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; City Mgr; Burt, Patrick; Dmitri Samsonov; Bulatao, Eric; Police; Apple, Kara; Chris Schremp; Christine Schremp; Bill McLane; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Yudy Deng; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; Robin Holbrook; Arthur Keller; Becky Sanders; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jon Hellesoe; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Nicole Fernandez; Leslie Bulbuk; Andrade, Alex; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Dana Dahlstrom; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; Palo Alto Daily Post; Gennady Sheyner; Louis Hsiao; Ann Lafargue Balin; Annette Ross; Mary Gallagher; Maury Green; Terry Holzemer; Joseph Hirsch; Ben Lerner; Greg Schmid (external); Suzanne Keehn; William Ross; Ron Chun; Jeff Levinsky; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; 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; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Kaye Crawford; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam; Francis Lim; Giselle Roohparvar; Stephen Casale; Luci Sheppard; Alex Tesler; Michelle Rosengaus; Grace Downer; David Downer; Mary Ann Norton; Jason Robinson; Jen Bartolomei; Dave Melisso; Polina Samsonov; Eva Gandhe; Ruby Flath; Laya Ganapati; Christin Zhang; Arvind Kumar; David Featherman; Melinda McGee; John Melnychuk; Eric Chan Subject:Re: Palo Alto OSV Count for the Week of 9/26 Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 4:51:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Thanks to those volunteers doing the weekly OSV count, something the city should have been doing all this time. On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 3:28 PM Marguerite Poyatos <marguerite@paloaltoglass.com> wrote: From my understanding, trailers are only an issue if they are not attached to a vehicle. On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 3:05 PM CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com> wrote: It is time for the City Council to fire City Manager Ed Shikada. He continues to do little to address the OSV issue AND the lack of fire protection for the large swath of the city that is south Palo Alto. We are the "second family" from the wrong side of the tracks, who receive crumbs from the City. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Stanford has six dedicated fire fighters staffing their engine, one extra. We have NO dedicated fire fighters staffing Fire Engine 64. The squatters have illegally been afforded public land without the consent of the voters. Fire Ed Shikada. Ceci Kettendorf On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 4:53 PM Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All, Bob Marinaro is out of town through the 3rd week of October so Dana Dahlstrom and I did the OSV count this week (attached). There were 150 OSVs--this is one less than the last count but since a couple were kind of tucked away, we could have missed one. Something we found interesting is that there are 3 RV / trailer combinations--an RV hauling a house trailer. Please feel free to correct me but I thought that trailers were absolutely not allowed. While OSV enforcement has not been consistent, why are we at least not enforcing the no trailer ordinance? Thanks again for being interested in and/or supporting this effort. If you have questions or need additional information, copy the group. Best, Nancy Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com From:Marguerite Poyatos To:CeCi Kettendorf Cc:Nancy Ellickson; Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; City Mgr; Burt, Patrick; Dmitri Samsonov; Bulatao, Eric; Police; Apple, Kara; Chris Schremp; Christine Schremp; Bill McLane; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Yudy Deng; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; Robin Holbrook; Arthur Keller; Becky Sanders; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jon Hellesoe; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Nicole Fernandez; Leslie Bulbuk; Andrade, Alex; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Dana Dahlstrom; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; 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; Jeff Levinsky; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; 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; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Kaye Crawford; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam; Francis Lim; Giselle Roohparvar; Stephen Casale; Luci Sheppard; Alex Tesler; Michelle Rosengaus; Grace Downer; David Downer; Mary Ann Norton; Jason Robinson; Jen Bartolomei; Dave Melisso; Polina Samsonov; Eva Gandhe; Ruby Flath; Laya Ganapati; Christin Zhang; Arvind Kumar; David Featherman; Melinda McGee; John Melnychuk; Eric Chan Subject:Re: Palo Alto OSV Count for the Week of 9/26 Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 3:28:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From my understanding, trailers are only an issue if they are not attached to a vehicle. On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 3:05 PM CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com> wrote: It is time for the City Council to fire City Manager Ed Shikada. He continues to do little to address the OSV issue AND the lack of fire protection for the large swath of the city that is south Palo Alto. We are the "second family" from the wrong side of the tracks, who receive crumbs from the City. Stanford has six dedicated fire fighters staffing their engine, one extra. We have NO dedicated fire fighters staffing Fire Engine 64. The squatters have illegally been afforded public land without the consent of the voters. Fire Ed Shikada. Ceci Kettendorf On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 4:53 PM Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All, Bob Marinaro is out of town through the 3rd week of October so Dana Dahlstrom and I did the OSV count this week (attached). There were 150 OSVs--this is one less than the last count but since a couple were kind of tucked away, we could have missed one. Something we found interesting is that there are 3 RV / trailer combinations--an RV hauling a house trailer. Please feel free to correct me but I thought that trailers were absolutely not allowed. While OSV enforcement has not been consistent, why are we at least not enforcing the no trailer ordinance? Thanks again for being interested in and/or supporting this effort. If you have questions or need additional information, copy the group. Best, Nancy Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 -- Marguerite Poyatos Operations Manager PALO ALTO GLASS, INC.4085 Transport StreetPalo Alto, CA 94303650-494-7000 ext.110www.paloaltoglass.com From:sacredseaturtles@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:Support for Ellen Bob Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 3:07:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, I write to support Ellen Bob for a position a member of the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. I have known Ellen for decades. As a local interfaith leader myself, I have worked with her on a variety interfaith efforts and justice concerns. Ellen is honest, dependable, creative, smart and passionate. She cares deeply about people and about justice. She brings curiosity, open- mindedness and experience, along with a caring and compassionate heart. Ellen is committed to fostering Palo Alto as a place where people of all faiths and backgrounds can live safely and joyfully together. She has proven that with her work over many years in our community. She will bring much wisdom, insight, experience and thoughtfulness to the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. I fully support Ellen Bob for this position. Sincerely, Rev. Dr. Diana Gibson "Life is messy, but so is glitter." (Neighborhood book box) This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Nancy Ellickson Cc:Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; City Mgr; Burt, Patrick; Dmitri Samsonov; Bulatao, Eric; Police; Apple, Kara; Chris Schremp; Christine Schremp; Bill McLane; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Yudy Deng; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; Robin Holbrook; Arthur Keller; Becky Sanders; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jon Hellesoe; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Nicole Fernandez; Leslie Bulbuk; Andrade, Alex; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Dana Dahlstrom; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; 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; Jeff Levinsky; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; 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; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Kaye Crawford; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam; Francis Lim; Giselle Roohparvar; Stephen Casale; Luci Sheppard; Alex Tesler; Michelle Rosengaus; Grace Downer; David Downer; Mary Ann Norton; Jason Robinson; Jen Bartolomei; Dave Melisso; Polina Samsonov; Eva Gandhe; Ruby Flath; Laya Ganapati; Christin Zhang; Arvind Kumar; David Featherman; Melinda McGee; John Melnychuk; Eric Chan Subject:Re: Palo Alto OSV Count for the Week of 9/26 Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 3:05:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. It is time for the City Council to fire City Manager Ed Shikada. He continues to do little to address the OSV issue AND the lack of fire protection for the large swath of the city that is south Palo Alto. We are the "second family" from the wrong side of the tracks, who receive crumbs from the City. Stanford has six dedicated fire fighters staffing their engine, one extra. We have NO dedicated fire fighters staffing Fire Engine 64. The squatters have illegally been afforded public land without the consent of the voters. Fire Ed Shikada. Ceci Kettendorf On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 4:53 PM Nancy Ellickson <nellickson@gmail.com> wrote: All, Bob Marinaro is out of town through the 3rd week of October so Dana Dahlstrom and I did the OSV count this week (attached). There were 150 OSVs--this is one less than the last count but since a couple were kind of tucked away, we could have missed one. Something we found interesting is that there are 3 RV / trailer combinations--an RV hauling a house trailer. Please feel free to correct me but I thought that trailers were absolutely not allowed. While OSV enforcement has not been consistent, why are we at least not enforcing the no trailer ordinance? Thanks again for being interested in and/or supporting this effort. If you have questions or need additional information, copy the group. Best, Nancy Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 From:Nancy Ellickson To:Robert Marinaro; Council, City; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; City Mgr; Burt, Patrick; Dmitri Samsonov; Bulatao, Eric; Police; Apple, Kara; Ceci Kettendorf; Chris Schremp; Christine Schremp; Bill McLane; Roger Smith; Peter Xu; Yudy Deng; Chip Wytmar; Sharon Elliot; Robin Holbrook; Arthur Keller; Becky Sanders; McDonough, Melissa; Gaines, Chantal; Margaret Abe-Koga; Jon Hellesoe; Josh Becker; Marc Berman; Nicole Fernandez; Leslie Bulbuk; Andrade, Alex; Nick Marinaro; Jennifer Kain; Dana Dahlstrom; Chris Berg; Taly Katz; Barry Katz; Nancy Ellickson; John Schafer; Jeanette Baldwin; Alina Martinez; Micah Murphy; Danielle Dunne; David Famero; Carly Lake; Sandy Freschi; Theron Bullman; Dave Stellman; Steve Wong; Marguerite Poyatos; Manu Kumar; Lydia Kou; Patrick Kelly; Osbaldo Romero; Bryna Chang; Xenia Czisch; Ramon Moreno; Lester Wong; Cathi Lerch; Maor Greenberg; Moffatt, Pete; Jacob Hakmo; David Perez; Nancy Powers; Dan McKinley; John Lerch; Stacey Tomson; CMEI Wong; DMA Wong; Jin Wong; K Norris; Elidia Tafoya; Scott Hayes; Victor Sloan; John Seltzer; Kandace Kopensky; Moiz Sonasath; Peter Longanecker; Karsyn Smith Development; Raphael Zahnd; Riley Cooke; 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; Jeff Levinsky; Janet Hartley; Charlie Weidanz; Kevin Mayer; Ian Halker; Richard Willits; Heather Brownlee; Ken Brownlee; Cassandra Paige; Brad Watson; Alisa Pendicini; Ron Ellickson; 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; Anil Rachakonda; Linda Vanderhule; Adriana Hernandez; Stuart Kreitman; Scott Petersen; Alex Smelik; fred@bockmann.com; Janie Sydow; Deborah j Marinaro; Summa, Doria; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Milan Milan; Elliott Lee; Robert Berkovich; Letizia Rodriguez; Brennan Pang; Bob Kennis; Shani Kleinhaus; Christiansen; Martin Cuyegkeng; Julia Sun; Aki Hirsa; Colin Swindells; Andrew Li; Evan Mathews; Efrain Monttano Velazquez; Ignacio Montelongo Jr.; Joseph Montelongo; Nayirie Tashjian; Fernanda Prado; Dave Rubenstein; Johnny Vo; Priyanka Raghuraman; Andrew Koo; Joseline Sotomayor; Gerson Bers; Mike Emrick; Anand Srinivasan; Zohar Gillai; Maria Orlova; Marc Husemann; Niklas Sprungmann; Joe Sinnott; Linda Zausen; Danny Whelan; Gulya Timokhina; Matt Lynch; Oksana Selavri; Chuck Karish; Fred Bailin; Dave Adams; Christian Hothem; Aditya Jain; Anjali Jain; Jenny Lee; Arun Bodapati; Soumya Bodapati; Yingxi Liu; Susan Dorsky; Dave Price; Elaine Goodman; Brandon Cartwright; Clark Penado; Francescarael Rael; Lena Yarovaya; Kenneth Russell; Ryan Judd; Evan Reade; Kaye Crawford; Kay Satit; Sooji Nam; Francis Lim; Giselle Roohparvar; Stephen Casale; Luci Sheppard; Alex Tesler; Michelle Rosengaus; Grace Downer; David Downer; Mary Ann Norton; Jason Robinson; Jen Bartolomei; Dave Melisso; Polina Samsonov; Eva Gandhe; Ruby Flath; Laya Ganapati; Christin Zhang; Arvind Kumar; David Featherman; Melinda McGee; John Melnychuk; Eric Chan Subject:Palo Alto OSV Count for the Week of 9/26 Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 1:53:54 PM Attachments:RV Inventory_026Sep26.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. All, Bob Marinaro is out of town through the 3rd week of October so Dana Dahlstrom and I did the OSV count this week (attached). There were 150 OSVs--this is one less than the last count but since a couple were kind of tucked away, we could have missed one. Something we found interesting is that there are 3 RV / trailer combinations--an RV hauling a house trailer. Please feel free to correct me but I thought that trailers were absolutely not allowed. While OSV enforcement has not been consistent, why are we at least not enforcing the no trailer ordinance? Thanks again for being interested in and/or supporting this effort. If you have questions or need additional information, copy the group. Best, Nancy Nancy Ellickson E: nellickson@gmail.com M: 650-245-1012 000000Palo Alto On Street OSV Count Street Segment OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs OSVs 10/21/2025 11/19/2025 12/3/2025 12/20/2025 1/28/2026 2/13/2026 2/27/2026 3/11/2026 3/29/2026 4/9/2026 4/24/2026 5/8/2026 5/22/2026 6/9/2026 6/26/2026 7/10/2026 8/3/2026 8/22/2026 9/7/2026 9/26/2026 & 10/22/25 & 11/20 & 12/21 & 1/29 & 4/11 & 8/4 & 9/8 1 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & E. Meadow 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 17 0 2 1 5 4 6 3 4 12 11 12 11 2 Fabian Way Between E. Charleston & San Antonio Rd.9 8 8 7 8 9 8 9 12 10 11 9 11 10 9 9 8 8 8 6 3 E. Meadow Circle Off of E. Meadow Dr.52 56 53 52 49 53 48 41 43 43 41 40 40 39 38 37 38 39 36 35 4 East Meadow At Intersection with Fabian Way - -- -1 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 Industrial Ave.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.1 1 1 1 4 4 2 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 6 Transport St.Between E. San Antonio & Industrial Ave.12 11 11 11 12 11 6 5 4 6 8 7 7 7 5 6 6 5 6 4 7 San Antonio Rd.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.13 13 15 13 11 11 3 3 5 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 3 3 5 9 8 San Antonio Rd.East of 101 - -- -- -- -- -- -5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 6 9 Commercial St.Between E. Charleston & Transport St.12 15 15 15 16 17 9 11 10 7 7 9 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 Elwell Ct.Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.15 10 10 11 11 11 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 6 11 Corporation Way Dead End Off of E. Bayshore Rd.12 12 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Colorado Ave.Colorado Ave. & W. Bayshore Rd.5 6 6 2 3 1 1 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 8 8 4 5 7 6 13 Amarillo Ave.Bordering North Edge of Greer Park - -- -1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 E. Embarcadero Rd.East of 101 13 15 8 10 5 9 6 9 6 7 8 6 7 9 10 8 9 9 13 12 15 Embarcadero Way Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.14 10 11 7 7 6 9 9 11 11 11 10 11 10 10 12 12 11 11 11 16 Faber Pl.Dead End off of Embarcadero Rd.25 23 25 20 15 16 17 14 15 17 17 18 18 14 12 12 14 15 14 14 17 Mitchell Park Mitchell Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -4 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 4 6 18 Greer Park Greer Park Parking Lot - -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 19 Ames Av./Ross Rd.At Intersection with Ross Rd.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 200 197 195 180 165 168 138 136 119 120 120 123 123 123 116 117 124 123 132 136 20 Park Blvd.South of Page Mill 6 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 21 Lambert Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Ash St. (2 segments)Between Oregon Expressway & Portage Ave.1 0 0 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 5 3 4 6 5 7 5 23 Poratge Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.4 6 4 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 5 5 6 5 24 Olive Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 25 Sheridan Ave.Between Park Blvd & Caltrain Parking Lot 6 6 6 6 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 26 Orinda St.Between Fernando Ave. & Wilton Ave.1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 27 Matadero Ave.Between El Camino & Park Blvd.- -1 1 1 1 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 3 0 0 0 0 29 Page Mill Between Park Blvd. & RR - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 20 20 20 19 13 12 11 15 12 12 13 13 15 20 14 14 17 17 19 14 Total:220 217 215 199 178 180 149 151 131 132 133 136 138 143 130 131 141 140 151 150 Delta:9 -2 -16 -3 2 -31 2 -20 1 1 3 2 5 -13 1 10 -1 11 -1 Days since first count: ########29 43 60 99 115 129 141 159 170 185 199 213 231 248 262 286 305 321 340 Months since first count: ########1.0 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.6 6.1 6.5 7.0 7.6 8.2 8.6 9.4 10.0 10.6 11.2 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 OSVs Abandon Vehicle Hotline: 650-329-2258 Some columns may be hidden to facilitate easy one page viewing 32 35 36 34 36 33 32 32 35 35 38 37 Ventura Area 000000RV Inventory_026Sep26 0000009/30/2026 1:46 PM From:Amy Sabik To:Council, City Subject:last minute invite (Zoom) - tomorrow (Thurs) 9:30 am Ai & Sustainability - addressing governance and education gaps based on research Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 11:50:00 AM Attachments:AI and Sustainability Executive Summary (Final) .pdf AI Use Guide (Final).pdf Questions for Policymakers (Final).pdf AI and Sustainability_ Addressing Literacy and Governance Gaps (Final).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello PA City Council Team, I am reaching out to you as our non-profit has been hosting several presentations on AI and Sustainability research that our team has completed, addressing governance and educational gaps in this area. As this is such a hot topic (heavily covered last week at Climate Week in NYC) and very pertinent to our area given the vast number of current and proposed data centers in our area, we'd like to invite a representative from your council to join us tomorrow at 9:30 am via Zoom. We will also present at the same time to Sally Meadows (Los alts City Council). I realize this is rather last minute and thus if no one is able to attend from PA City Council, we would be happy to set up another meeting with you. I've attached documents we have produced related to AI and Sustainability along with background notes below. If there are others from the City who may be interested, feel free to send these documents to them and have them reach out to us for the invitation. Please let me know if you can join us! All the best, Amy Sabik Co-founder, SolPods Some background on what we will present on Thursday: Our non-profit SolPods launched a research project on AI & Sustainability, guided by one of our senior volunteers, Andrew Kweder (graduate of Indiana University, Kelley School). This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast What began as a research paper on machine learning and AI use resulted in a comprehensive set of resources to help individuals and organizations better understand the sustainability impact of AI and make more informed decisions about their use of AI. We developed a presentation on the research and have presented it to nonprofit leaders, mission-aligned for-profit companies, and elected officials. The presentation lasts roughly 30-40 minutes and we share a GIS tool that we developed to examine how existing and potential data center development intersects with environmental, infrastructure, and community conditions. Attached are a few of the documents we developed that you can review prior to the call if you have time. I've explained each of them below. Attached: Executive Summary of the Research Full Research Paper: AI and Sustainability - Addressing Literacy and Governance Gaps An AI Use Guide that organizations can use as a starting point for developing their own responsible AI policies and practices, including guidance around when AI is appropriate and applying human judgment. A framework of questions for policymakers that draws attention to issues identified through the research, including electricity demand, water resources, infrastructure, community impacts, public participation, and how costs and benefits are distributed. Whether you’re able to join us or not, if there are others that you think will benefit from this information, I’d love an introduction to them and I can send them the info or you can forward it to them and have them contact me for the invitation. And of course, we’d be happy to set up another time with you if you’d like us to walk you through this at a later time. Below is a bit more about SolPods’ mission overall so you can understand the context of why we embarked on this research. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best, Amy SolPods Empowering Students Today, Building a Sustainable Tomorrow hello@solpods.org www.solpods.org Instagram Linkedin: SolPods YouTube: SolPods Studio Interviews SolPods Community: Join Us! Support SolPods Mission; Donate Now From:Jon Kiya To:Planning Commission; brynachangptc@gmail.com; bgh@matteoni.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com; kevinji2021@gmail.com Cc:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 3. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 11:27:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. i To Chair Chang and Planning and Transportation Commissioners I am a resident of the El Dorado neighborhood in theMidtown area of Palo Alto. Although I always supportinfrastructure to make our city more biking/walking/runningfriendly, I don't believe the El Dorado plan fulfills atremendous need or alleviates a municipal transportationpain point. Below are a list of the issues i see in the ElDorado plan: <!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->Cost/Benefit: The cost/benefit of the current proposals is out of whack as it imposes private property takeovers,eliminates critical street parking on a residential block, and the installation of adangerous traffic circle into a narrow grid at the intersection of Bryant Street andEl Dorado Avenue strictly for city cost-saving reasons—completely ignoring themassive secondary costs imposed on our neighborhood's property rights and safety. ElDorado Avenue would be converted to a narrow 13-foot-wide, one-way westbound streetwith right-turn-only operations onto Alma Street. <!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->Critical Hazards to El Carmelo SchoolRoute: This intersection and the surrounding blocks serve as a primary neighborhoodroute for a steady stream of elementary school children walking and biking to andfrom El Carmelo School (3024 Bryant St) daily as the bike/pedestrian bridge islocated one block south of El Dorado. Mixing even more hurried, shortcut-seekingcommuter motorists into this active school zone potentially violates the safetyintent of California Vehicle Code Section 22352, may create traffic conflicts, andpotentially endangers vulnerable young pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists duringpeak morning and afternoon drop-off windows. <!--[if !supportLists]-->3) <!--[endif]-->Failed Ross Road Traffic CirclePrecedent: This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado repeats the failedRoss Road design flaws, where a similar continuous-flow roundabout caused immediatelocalized collisions and forced emergency city interventions. <!--[if !supportLists]-->4) <!--[endif]-->Substantial Impairment of Access underCalifornia Law: This traffic circle creates an blind-spot trap for nearbyresidential driveways, carrying the potential to result in a substantial impairmentof access under California law due to forcing continuous-volume traffic into aresidential bottleneck. <!--[if !supportLists]-->5) <!--[endif]-->Disruptive Cut-ThroughTraffic: Installing a traffic signal at Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue may likelyresult in the unintentional consequence of drawing disruptive cut-through trafficfrom Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street. It couldalso trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue,across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado to catch the newsignal. <!--[if !supportLists]-->6) <!--[endif]-->Obstructing Access to Intersecting Cul- This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report de-Sacs: The resulting extended vehicular queues could disrupt inbound and outboundvehicle and bicycle access, as well as pedestrian street crossings along theadjacent cul-de-sac enclaves of Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, SouthCourt, and Kipling Street. Crucially, these backups may compromise vital emergencyvehicle access, leaving fire engines, ambulances, and police responders physicallyblocked from entering these closed neighborhood blocks during peak commutewindows. PAFD expressed concern and said this option presented greater emergencyaccess challenges because the current concept includes a narrow 13-foot drive aisleon El Dorado Avenue, impacting access to multiple properties. Any alternativeadvanced for further design would be required to meet applicable fire and emergencyresponse standards, including adequate clear widths, emergency vehicle access, andwater supply access. <!--[if !supportLists]-->7) <!--[endif]-->Loss of Promenade Character &Parking: This influx of cut-through vehicular traffic, combined with the projectedheavy volume of regional bicycle traffic, would fundamentally alter the quietpromenade character of El Dorado Avenue and eliminate vital curbside parking. ElDorado residents and their visitors, contractors, caregivers, delivery services, andother service providers rely heavily on this curbside parking for daily access,making its removal a severe and disproportionate burden on the block. <!--[if !supportLists]-->8) <!--[endif]-->Oversized Volume in Narrow ResidentialFootprint: Ultimately, this structural safety crisis and neighborhood degradationall stem from a fundamentally flawed proposed design that attempts to squeeze anoversized volume of regional transit traffic into a narrow, quiet residentialstreet. <!--[if !supportLists]-->9) <!--[endif]-->Eminent Domain: Removes 4 residences – 3 of which are low income housing. I have also been made aware of some significant misses in the recent TransportationDepartment report to PTC: meetingTemplateId=20376&compileOutputType=1 <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Report, p. 75 middle of page refers to “the vicinity of El Dorado”. How did this objective become only El Dorado? <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Report Figure 3 Draft Network Enhancements does not have evaluation of adverse consequences of all the changes proposed. Noevaluation of increased accident risk to pedestrians, schoolchildren, and residentsentering/exiting driveways due to proposed traffic circle at Bryant and El Dorado. Noevaluation of the increased accident risk due to relocated stop signs changing El DoradoAvenue into a bicycle and e-bike speedway. If the Council is adamant about an east/west bike/ped corridor (which I might add alreadyexists with Cal Ave underpass which connects to Cal Ave. on the east side of the railroadtracks/Alma and runs almost all the way out to 101 bisecting virtually every north/souththoroughfare in Palo Alto including Bryant St.), I recommend the PTC and city evaluate analternate Loma Verde plan based on the following rationale: <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->It would likely avoid eminent domain. 2. <!--[endif]-->It routes bicycle traffic through Loma Verde, which is far more capable of handling large volumes of traffic. 3. At 42 feet wide, it is 15 feet wider than El Dorado and far better able to route more bicycle traffic. <!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->It is centrally located midway between Oregon Expressway and East Meadow and far better positioned to pull and distribute bicycletraffic from the greater neighborhood area. In contrast El Dorado is only a quarter ofthe distance from Oregon Expressway. Bicycles in the neighborhood wanting to cross thetrain tracks routinely use the Cal Ave crossing because it is close. A bike path at ElDorado would not contribute much utility. <!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->Loma Verde avenue provides uninterrupted access from Alma to Middlefield Road and then onto West Bayshore Road, so across theentire east-west expanse of this part of Palo Alto. Furthermore, from the intersectionpoint at West Bayshore, in less than half a mile, bicycles and pedestrians can access the bridge across highway 101 and arrive in the Shoreline office areas or Baylands parks. Thank you very much for your consideration and all of your service to our city. Jon Kiya Midtown Resident From:Yvette Royce To:Council, City Cc:Building Subject:Rental Registry Program Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 10:36:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I would like to call into question the legitimacy of the Rental Registry Program. As a landlord of 10 apartment units in Palo Alto, I am now required to pay $40 per unit annually to keep the City abreast of rent increases, occupancy change, lease change, and more. So, there are demands on me to provide information to the City on an ongoing basis AND I'm the one paying for it. What are the proceeds from this program earmarked for? This information could be rendered online throughout the year, but why the fee? It seems the owners are doing the work (for the City) AND paying for it. How is this justified? I appreciate your attention to this inquiry, Yvette Royce This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Register Today - 2026 Athena Leadership Awards Presentation in Two Weeks! Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 9:01:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Athena International 2026 Leadership Presentation promo Irene Wong portrait Peying Lee portrait Athena International logo Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce proudly presents the 2026 Annual ATHENA® Awards Thursday October 15, 2026 5:30 pm - 8:00 pm El Prado Hotel 520 Cowper St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Get Your Tickets Today >> The ATHENA award is given to honor exceptional woman leaders who demonstrate the highest levels of professional excellence, give back to their communities and, most importantly, assist other women in realizing their full leadership potential – and it is an international award, having been given to more than 6,500 recipients in over 500 cities and 8 countries. Locally it is awarded by our Chamber of Commerce. Register Online >> ®​ Event Info This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Mark Anderton To:Planning Commission; Council, City; brynachangPTC@gmail.com Subject:Public Comment: Opposition to El Dorado Alternatives Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 8:51:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council and Planning Commission, I'd like to register my firm opposition to all versions of the proposed project at El Dorado and Alma. These versions are disruptive, unnecessary, and expensive. We the local residents were never consulted by the City planners who are force-feeding this misshapen plan to our neighborhood. Please consider the alternative plan proposed by resident David Hung and drop the current project plans. Thank you, Mark Anderton (a 44-year resident) 2904 Ramona St This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Gary Gechlik; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lauing, Ed; Vicki Veenker; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Raj Jayadev; Raymond Goins; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; brianhama@gmail.com; board@pausd.org; Kaloma Smith; Bains, Paul; Human Relations Commission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; steven mcgill; Preminger, Steve; ParkRec Commission; CityCouncil; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; BoardOperations Subject:California’s death penalty could end over claims that it’s racist - The Washington Post Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 8:31:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/08/22/californias-death-penalty- could-end-over-claims-that-its-racist/ From:David Coale To:Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed; Lo, Ria; Transportation; Coles, Charlie Cc:Council, City Subject:South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 8:22:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners I am writing to address the bike and pedestrian crossing of Alma and the train tracks at El Dorado Ave. There clearly needs to be more and better options for this vital crossing. Alternative 1 with a crossing at grade of Alma street is a non-starter as this will endanger anyone crossing Alma. Most crashes happen at intersections and lights and this option is inviting disaster. At a time when Palo Alto is trying to eliminate grade crossing, this option is adding one across a high-speed corridor. Alternative 2 avoids a crossing at grade, but ends up on a very narrow street with lots of opposition from neighbors. It is also interesting that the evaluation criteria, does not include safety or utility to the users, both of which should be at the top of the list. I believe two other alternatives should be considered before finalizing on a design for this crucial crossing. Both of these alternatives use the same access as A1 and A2 from Park Blvd but continue along a path to Matadero Creek where they cross over both the tracks and Alma to join with the right-of-way along Matadero Creek. This right-of-way connects to the Bryant Bike Blvd and does not impact local property owners or parking. Option B1 would be an above-grade crossing going over the tracts and Alma Street. This is similar to the bridge over 101 at Adobe Creek. Moving utility lines maybe required but would be cheaper then moving undergrounded utilities. Option B2 would be a below-grade crossing in the same area. This has the advantage that ramps would be shorter, as the elevation changes for this option are a lot less. See attachment for more details on these options. Using the Matadero right-of-way has been studied previously as a bike/ped route, so there should be some data on this part of these options. Please consider these alternatives (or others) before moving forward with this vital crossing of Alma and the tracks in this area. Sincerely, David Coale From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Lori Meyers; Cait James; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Reckdahl, Keith; Kaloma Smith; Sean Allen; Dave Price; brianhama@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; Braden Cartwright; Carol Brouillet; Sam Liccardo; Liz Kniss; Gardener, Liz; EPA Today; Anne Cribbs; cromero@cityofepa.org; Emily Mibach; Zelkha, Mila; karen hall; Doug Minkler; board@pausd.org; supervisor.abe- koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; Susan Hayase; Sameena Usman; Salem Ajluni; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Lauing, Ed; Council, City; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; City Attorney; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Raj Jayadev; Raymond Goins; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Vicki Veenker; Julie Lythcott-Haims Subject:Bay Area - CLUBZ Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2026 12:44:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dr. Gary, This is truly scary to this anti-Zionist Jew. Peace, Avram https://clubz.org/locations/bay-area/ From:Helene Grossman To:Law, Jasmine Cc:Safe Routes; Lo, Ria; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; City Attorney Subject:Re: Crossing-guard schedule does not cover Gunn"s arrival time Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 9:34:04 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Jasmine, Please let me know what the police decide about extending the crossing guard. We’ve already been corresponding about this issue for 5 weeks, so I hope there has been enough time to consider it. The additional cost is only about $500 per month -- and only until Caltrans fixes the signal timing -- so I hope we can reach a decision soon, rather than continue having kids caught in the middle of the intersection when cross-traffic begins moving. I also hope Safe Routes regularly reviews its designated routes and crossings to identify issues like this before they become ongoing safety problems. Thank you, Helene On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 4:57 PM Law, Jasmine <Jasmine.Law@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Helene, Thank you for your response and documentation of these repeated issues. We have forwarded your response to Caltrans, who has let us know they will be investigating the signal timing at El Camino and Los Robles. As for your concern with crossing guards, we have forwarded your request for extension of their shifts until 9 a.m. to the Palo Alto Police Department, who manages the current crossing guard contract. Thank you again for your reply and the photographs taken at the intersection. Jasmine Law Associate Transportation Planner (650) 329-2157 From: Helene Grossman <helenegrossman@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2026 1:37 PM To: Law, Jasmine <Jasmine.Law@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Safe Routes <SafeRoutes@PaloAlto.gov>; Lo, Ria <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Crossing-guard schedule does not cover Gunn's arrival time CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Jasmine (cc: City Council and City Attorney Jensen), Thank you for responding. I appreciate the response, but I find it very disappointing. After receiving your email, I went to El Camino and Los Robles during the Gunn morning commute and took videos. What I saw was alarming. If no one presses the pedestrian button, the light turns yellow after about 15 seconds and red after 18 seconds. When the pedestrian button is activated, students get about 45 seconds to cross. (Students cannot press the pedestrian button themselves, since they are surrounded by vehicles on both sides.) Students waiting for the light on El Camino: For cars and e-bikes, 18 seconds may be enough. But it was not enough for groups of students on regular bikes. It takes a little while for a bike to get started, so the first cyclist would enter ~5 seconds after green, while students farther back in line would not enter until ~12 seconds. That left them only ~6 seconds to get across El Camino. They couldn't. I watched students who entered on green still in the middle of El Camino when cross-traffic got a green light. Students in the middle of El Camino when the light turns yellow and then red -- they could not get across in time: This goes directly to the mission of Safe Routes to School, which the City describes as “to reduce risk to students en route to and from school.” The Gunn Walk and Roll map presents this intersection as part of the recommended route and marks a crossing guard there, but does not disclose that the guard leaves before the majority of students arrive. I hope Caltrans can quickly fix the underlying problem, either by extending the signal timing or using bicycle detection to provide additional crossing time -- I have also reached out to Caltrans to emphasize the urgency. But until that happens, there is a simple interim solution: keep the crossing guard there for another 20 minutes. The guard can activate the pedestrian phase and give students 45 seconds instead of 18. The amount of money involved appears tiny. Based on the City's crossing-guard cost figures, extending this shift until 9am for the rest of the year would cost roughly $5k. That is about 0.002% of the City's $312 million General Fund. For another point of scale, it is about 4% of what the City spent on last year's $140k turf study. I'm also troubled by the budget process last spring. Parents came to Council specifically concerned about protecting Gunn students, and Council preserved crossing-guard funding. Parents left that discussion believing those students would be protected -- staff did not make clear that the crossing guards would leave before Gunn students arrived. That was important information for Council and the public to have. Another way to look at this: If the guard already stayed until 9am, would Council really choose to save approximately $5k per year by sending the guard home 20 minutes earlier, after seeing video of students still in the middle of El Camino when cross-traffic gets a green light? I am copying the City Attorney because this is now a documented safety concern involving students on a designated school route. Please reconsider and extend the El Camino/Los Robles crossing-guard shift until 9am, at least until Caltrans fixes the signal -- and please do this urgently, as I have already been raising this issue since August. Thank you, Helene On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 9:00 AM Law, Jasmine <Jasmine.Law@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Helene, Thank you for taking the time to let us know your concerns regarding student crossings near Gunn High School, particularly at El Camino Real and Los Robles. I am responding on behalf of the City Manager. We understand your concerns with students traveling after crossing guard shifts have ended, as well as the difficulty of signal timing in this location and have provided feedback on this issue to the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which operates this signal. In terms of crossing guards, Palo Alto's crossing guard contract is managed by the Police Department and designed to support elementary and middle school access. For this reason, under the existing contract, the crossing guard at El Camino Real and Los Robles is scheduled to be present from 7:55 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. to support Fletcher Middle School students. That coverage is the same as in previous years. We are aware that Gunn’s zero period begins at 7:55 a.m. and first period begins at 9 a.m. Expansion of crossing guard support to cover an expanded schedule would require additional resources that are beyond the current budget allocation for this program. Thank you for sharing your concerns and advocating for student safety. Jasmine Law Associate Transportation Planner Office of Transportation (650) 329-2157 | Jasmine.Law@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Helene Grossman <helenegrossman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 10:37 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Lo, Ria <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov>; Safe Routes <SafeRoutes@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Crossing-guard schedule does not cover Gunn's arrival time CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Council Members, City Manager Shikada, Chief Lo, and Safe Routes, Crossing guards at intersections used by Gunn students are leaving before those students arrive. At El Camino Real and El Camino Way/Los Robles, the guard leaves at 8:40 a.m. – 20 minutes before Gunn starts, just as many students are biking to school. For a month, I have raised this issue to Safe Routes, but no action has been taken. This intersection is particularly concerning because the signal is so short that cyclists who enter on green can struggle to clear El Camino before cross traffic begins moving. When a guard is present, the guard can activate the pedestrian signal and provide enough time to cross. Without a guard, students riding in the roadway cannot safely access the pedestrian button because they have cars on both sides of them. I have reported the signal timing to Caltrans, but there is no timeline for a fix. In the meantime, the crossing guard leaves just as Gunn students are arriving. This is especially concerning because parents and Council believed this protection would be there. At the May 4, 2026 Council meeting, staff proposed eliminating four of the City’s 33 positions, including East Meadow and Alma. The proposed savings were $102,500 – about 0.03% of the City’s $311 million General Fund budget. Gunn parents left work, spent time away from our families, and waited through hours of a Council meeting to advocate for these protections. Council kept the funding in place. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims specifically said: “No crossing guards at Alma & Meadow, which is where all the Gunn kids come across... is really not the right message.” We left believing crossing-guard coverage would be provided for Gunn students. Yet staff did not make clear during the budget discussion that the guards were scheduled to leave before Gunn students arrived. City staff have since told me their understanding is that crossing guards are intended only for elementary and middle-school students – even though Gunn’s Walk and Roll map identifies crossing-guard locations along routes to the school. I respectfully ask the Council to extend morning crossing-guard coverage until 9am at major intersections used by Gunn students, including El Camino Real/El Camino Way and East Meadow/Alma. If the City says it provides crossing guards for students traveling to school, those guards should be present when students are actually making that trip. Thank you, Helene Grossman From:Lori wainen linberg To:Council, City Subject:9/23/26- NO MAIL DELIVERY FOR OVER 3 WEEKS Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 7:04:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear mayor and City Council, Please hear me and help me as I am really desperate. I am on Hospice and incredibly ill in pain and very weak. I do not drive my caregivers. Do not drive me. I cannot stand for more than three minutes. I just received a letter from my apartment manager from the USPS of Palo Alto stating that because someone damaged our boxes mailboxes, we would not have mail starting from September 23 which is already passed for a long time for for at least three weeks last time. It was two months. At last three weeks last time, it was over two months. Kaiser‘s Hospice delivers all of my medication that I need to stay alive, it delivers my oxygen. I need to stay alive. It delivers my medical supplies. I need to stay alive. I have been trying to call and no one is answering any of the numbers, which is what happened last time and I do not have the strength to get myself their paying and absorbing an amount of money and then somehow standing in line for an hour at 4 o’clock every day to see if I can pick up my medicine to stay alive I can’t do it and if you don’t help me, you are basically killing me before my time or rather my little time. My Santa Clara, VTA transit for handicap does not go to the USPS for Palo Alto because it’s in East Palo Alto so I can’t even get a ride there. This will gonna kill me. Can someone please call me or talk to me? I’m extremely upset and concerned not only because of that because of course they also stole all our mail which now means my son who I’m leaving behind and upset enough about is going to have to probably deal with a mess. I understand that it’s a difficulty for the post office and it’s not their fault that people vandalized it but perhaps you need to spend some money and put it in sooner because or find another way for me to get my mail. I will be talking to an attorney because without my mail, I will die because I will not be able to get my medication. Please, please have a heart and help me imagine if it was your mother! Yours, Lori W Linberg (650)283-5053 Sent from my iPhone From:Lori wainen linberg To:Council, City Subject:9/23/26- NO MAIL DELIVERY FOR OVER 3 WEEKS Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 6:55:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear mayor and City Council, Please hear me and help me as I am really desperate. I am on Hospice and incredibly ill in pain and very weak. I do not drive my caregivers. Do not drive me. I cannot stand for more than three minutes. I just received a letter from my apartment manager from the USPS of Palo Alto stating that because someone damaged our boxes mailboxes, we would not have mail starting from September 23 which is already passed for a long time for for at least three weeks last time. It was two months. At last three weeks last time, it was over two months. Kaiser‘s Hospice delivers all of my medication that I need to stay alive, it delivers my oxygen. I need to stay alive. It delivers my medical supplies. I need to stay alive. I have been trying to call and no one is answering any of the numbers, which is what happened last time and I do not have the strength to get myself their paying and absorbing an amount of money and then somehow standing in line for an hour at 4 o’clock every day to see if I can pick up my medicine to stay alive I can’t do it and if you don’t help me, you are basically killing me before my time or rather my little time. Can someone please call me or talk to me? I’m extremely upset and concerned not only because of that because of course they also stole all our mail which now means my son who I’m leaving behind and upset enough about is going to have to probably deal with a mess. I understand that it’s a difficulty for the post office and it’s not their fault that people vandalized it but perhaps you need to spend some money and put it in sooner because or find another way for me to get my mail. I will be talking to an attorney because without my mail, I will die because I will not be able to get my medication. Please, please have a heart and help me imagine if it was your mother! Yours, Lori W Linberg (650)283-5053 Sent from my iPhone From:Juliana Lee To:Council, City; Juliana Lee Subject:Planning & Transportation Commission - best Candidate_ Christopher Kao Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 5:58:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable Members of the City Council, I’m writing in support of Christopher, a finalist for the Planning and Transportation Commission. With the Council interviewing the three finalists tomorrow evening, I wanted to share my strong support for his appointment. I know Christopher and have always found him thoughtful and insightful. His previous experience with the East Palo Alto Planning Commission and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Community Advisory Committee would bring a valuable perspective to the commission. I would be very glad to see him chosen and am happy to share more if helpful. Best Regards, Juliana Lee MBA/LL.B - long time Palo Alto Resident 650-857-1000 WeChat: JulianaLee_MBA_LLB Who is Juliana Lee? Juliana Lee Team 4260 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 broker #02220139, team #70010194 managing broker Pinnacle Realty Advisors This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report &nbsp; From:Law, Jasmine To:Helene Grossman Cc:Safe Routes; Lo, Ria; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; City Attorney Subject:RE: Crossing-guard schedule does not cover Gunn"s arrival time Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 4:57:28 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png Dear Helene, Thank you for your response and documentation of these repeated issues. We have forwarded your response to Caltrans, who has let us know they will be investigating the signal timing at El Camino and Los Robles. As for your concern with crossing guards, we have forwarded your request for extension of their shifts until 9 a.m. to the Palo Alto Police Department, who manages the current crossing guard contract. Thank you again for your reply and the photographs taken at the intersection. Jasmine Law Associate Transportation Planner (650) 329-2157 From: Helene Grossman <helenegrossman@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2026 1:37 PM To: Law, Jasmine <Jasmine.Law@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; City Attorney <city.attorney@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Safe Routes <SafeRoutes@PaloAlto.gov>; Lo, Ria <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Crossing-guard schedule does not cover Gunn's arrival time CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Jasmine (cc: City Council and City Attorney Jensen),Thank you for responding. I appreciate the response, but I find it very disappointing.After receiving your email, I went to El Camino and Los Robles during the Gunn morning commute and took videos. What I saw was alarming.If no one presses the i This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Dear Jasmine (cc: City Council and City Attorney Jensen), Thank you for responding. I appreciate the response, but I find it very disappointing. After receiving your email, I went to El Camino and Los Robles during the Gunn morning commute and took videos. What I saw was alarming. If no one presses the pedestrian button, the light turns yellow after about 15 seconds and red after 18 seconds. When the pedestrian button is activated, students get about 45 seconds to cross. (Students cannot press the pedestrian button themselves, since they are surrounded by vehicles on both sides.) Students waiting for the light on El Camino: For cars and e-bikes, 18 seconds may be enough. But it was not enough for groups of students on regular bikes. It takes a little while for a bike to get started, so the first cyclist would enter ~5 seconds after green, while students farther back in line would not enter until ~12 seconds. That left them only ~6 seconds to get across El Camino. They couldn't. I watched students who entered on green still in the middle of El Camino when cross-traffic got a green light. Students in the middle of El Camino when the light turns yellow and then red -- they could not get across in time: This goes directly to the mission of Safe Routes to School, which the City describes as “to reduce risk to students en route to and from school.” The Gunn Walk and Roll map presents this intersection as part of the recommended route and marks a crossing guard there, but does not disclose that the guard leaves before the majority of students arrive. I hope Caltrans can quickly fix the underlying problem, either by extending the signal timing or using bicycle detection to provide additional crossing time -- I have also reached out to Caltrans to emphasize the urgency. But until that happens, there is a simple interim solution: keep the crossing guard there for another 20 minutes. The guard can activate the pedestrian phase and give students 45 seconds instead of 18. The amount of money involved appears tiny. Based on the City's crossing-guard cost figures, extending this shift until 9am for the rest of the year would cost roughly $5k. That is about 0.002% of the City's $312 million General Fund. For another point of scale, it is about 4% of what the City spent on last year's $140k turf study. I'm also troubled by the budget process last spring. Parents came to Council specifically concerned about protecting Gunn students, and Council preserved crossing-guard funding. Parents left that discussion believing those students would be protected -- staff did not make clear that the crossing guards would leave before Gunn students arrived. That was important information for Council and the public to have. Another way to look at this: If the guard already stayed until 9am, would Council really choose to save approximately $5k per year by sending the guard home 20 minutes earlier, after seeing video of students still in the middle of El Camino when cross- traffic gets a green light? I am copying the City Attorney because this is now a documented safety concern involving students on a designated school route. Please reconsider and extend the El Camino/Los Robles crossing-guard shift until 9am, at least until Caltrans fixes the signal -- and please do this urgently, as I have already been raising this issue since August. Thank you, Helene On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 9:00 AM Law, Jasmine <Jasmine.Law@paloalto.gov> wrote: Dear Helene, Thank you for taking the time to let us know your concerns regarding student crossings near Gunn High School, particularly at El Camino Real and Los Robles. I am responding on behalf of the City Manager. We understand your concerns with students traveling after crossing guard shifts have ended, as well as the difficulty of signal timing in this location and have provided feedback on this issue to the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which operates this signal. In terms of crossing guards, Palo Alto's crossing guard contract is managed by the Police Department and designed to support elementary and middle school access. For this reason, under the existing contract, the crossing guard at El Camino Real and Los Robles is scheduled to be present from 7:55 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. to support Fletcher Middle School students. That coverage is the same as in previous years. We are aware that Gunn’s zero period begins at 7:55 a.m. and first period begins at 9 a.m. Expansion of crossing guard support to cover an expanded schedule would require additional resources that are beyond the current budget allocation for this program. Thank you for sharing your concerns and advocating for student safety. Jasmine Law Associate Transportation Planner Office of Transportation (650) 329-2157 | Jasmine.Law@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Helene Grossman <helenegrossman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 10:37 AM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Lo, Ria <Ria.Lo@paloalto.gov>; Safe Routes <SafeRoutes@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Crossing-guard schedule does not cover Gunn's arrival time CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Veenker, Council Members, City Manager Shikada, Chief Lo, and Safe Routes, Crossing guards at intersections used by Gunn students are leaving before those students arrive. At El Camino Real and El Camino Way/Los Robles, the guard leaves at 8:40 a.m. – 20 minutes before Gunn starts, just as many students are biking to school. For a month, I have raised this issue to Safe Routes, but no action has been taken. This intersection is particularly concerning because the signal is so short that cyclists who enter on green can struggle to clear El Camino before cross traffic begins moving. When a guard is present, the guard can activate the pedestrian signal and provide enough time to cross. Without a guard, students riding in the roadway cannot safely access the pedestrian button because they have cars on both sides of them. I have reported the signal timing to Caltrans, but there is no timeline for a fix. In the meantime, the crossing guard leaves just as Gunn students are arriving. This is especially concerning because parents and Council believed this protection would be there. At the May 4, 2026 Council meeting, staff proposed eliminating four of the City’s 33 positions, including East Meadow and Alma. The proposed savings were $102,500 – about 0.03% of the City’s $311 million General Fund budget. Gunn parents left work, spent time away from our families, and waited through hours of a Council meeting to advocate for these protections. Council kept the funding in place. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims specifically said: “No crossing guards at Alma & Meadow, which is where all the Gunn kids come across... is really not the right message.” We left believing crossing-guard coverage would be provided for Gunn students. Yet staff did not make clear during the budget discussion that the guards were scheduled to leave before Gunn students arrived. City staff have since told me their understanding is that crossing guards are intended only for elementary and middle- school students – even though Gunn’s Walk and Roll map identifies crossing-guard locations along routes to the school. I respectfully ask the Council to extend morning crossing-guard coverage until 9am at major intersections used by Gunn students, including El Camino Real/El Camino Way and East Meadow/Alma. If the City says it provides crossing guards for students traveling to school, those guards should be present when students are actually making that trip. Thank you, Helene Grossman From:Eileen Altman To:Council, City Subject:Ellen Bob for HRC Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 3:36:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings Council members: I am writing in support of Ellen Bob’s application to serve on the Human Relations Commission. I have known Ellen for almost all of the 19 years that I have served in ministry at First Congregational Church of Palo Alto. Ellen’s leadership in the Jewish community is doubtless well known to many of you. But she has also played an important role in bringing together people of many faith traditions to talk together and learn from and with each other. She is an excellent listener, wise, and thoughtful, qualities that will make her an excellent advocate for the diverse needs of our community. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Peace be with you, Eileen The Rev. Dr. Eileen Altman (she/her/hers) Associate Pastor First Congregational Church, UCC 1985 Louis Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-388-9507 (office phone) 831-345-3830 (cell) http://www.fccpa.org/ Friday is my day of rest/respite from email. From:laurie miller To:Council, City Subject:ADUs Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 2:13:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To All: I have just read an article in the Weekly concerning future ADU laws. I believe it might be helpful for you to drive by 3524 Louis Rd, Palo Alto and ask yourselves a few questions: 1. Is this what the Palo Alto council members and candidates characterize as "a gentle and relatively unobtrusive way to increase housing in single-family residential neighborhoods where larger housing projects would seem out of scale."? 2. Who approved this ADU? 3. Lastly, would you want to live next door to it? Thank you for considering visiting this site. It might help in future decision making. Sincerely, Laraine Miller 355 Ely Place Palo Alto, CA From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Raymond Goins; Lauing, Ed; Vicki Veenker; brianhama@gmail.com Cc:Goodell, Erin; eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Kaloma Smith; Sean Allen; William Armaline; Penni Wilson; steven mcgill; Preminger, Steve; Steve Wagstaffe; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Human Relations Commission; ParkRec Commission; Lotus Fong; frances.rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Friends of Cubberley; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Taylor, Cecilia; Nash, Betsy; Riley Cooke; Rick Callender; Roberta Ahlquist; Reckdahl, Keith; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Linda Jolley; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Cait James; Tim James; EPA Today; Anne Cribbs; cromero@cityofepa.org; Lee, Craig; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Matt Schlegel; Mora Oommen; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Nick Tasers SF; CityCouncil; city.council@gilroy.org; City Attorney; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Gennady Sheyner; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; Malinsky, Jason; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Sam Liccardo; Julie Lythcott- Haims; Emily Mibach; Henry Etzkowitz; Enberg, Nicholas; Fernandez, Lisa; Brandon Pho; Brian Good; Templeton, Cari; Carol Brouillet; Doug Minkler; karen hall; tom.cline@cityofgilroy.org; Tom DuBois; mike braxton; Gardener, Liz; patricia.guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Patrice Ventresca; Gerry Gras; David S. Norris; David Piper; william barber; walter wilson; Doug Fort; Bains, Paul; Goodell, Erin; Jensen, Eric; Perron, Zachary; Zahra Billoo; Rodriguez, Miguel; Angel, David; Damon Silver; Susan Hayase; nick.enberg@cityofpaloalto.org; Nious, Kevin (NBCUniversal); Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Richard Konda; sharon jackson; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Shepherd, Nancy; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Three-minute video why deadly police canines must be banned Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 1:03:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 9—29-2026 Hi Palo Alto City Council Candidates et al.: It is very likely a future candidate’s event will raise the question of whether police canines used to attack human beings should be banned. Should the use of police canines be limited to search-and-rescue situations? And for drug searches? There is currently a national conversation re the above police canine issues. WHERE will you stand on the issues when asked? The city of Palo Alto has, in the very recent past, been successfully sued for a brutal canine attack, which you can see below at # 2. Link #1 is a short three-minute video summarizing key facts about the extreme dangers of police canines. Injuries from canines can be very serious or result in death. People of color are much more likely to be attacked by police canines than caucasians. Sincerely, Avram Finkelstein aka Aram James 1. https://youtu.be/cSbEj6RIoDE 2. Source: Palo Alto Online: Palo Alto owes $135K to victim of police dog attack - Palo Alto Online https://share.google/48YsaU8uuURnUeYTt From:Office of Rep. Sam Liccardo To:Council, City Subject:We Have Work to Do. Speaker Johnson Sent Us Home. Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 12:25:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City, Summer is over, kids returned to classes weeks ago—and Washington is on vacation. While families face an affordability crisis, our country remains at war with Iran, and top AI scientists beg Congress for AI safeguards, Speaker Mike Johnson canceled two scheduled weeks of House votes in September— sandwhiched between month-long recesses he announced in August and October. You can’t make this up. Earlier this month, I led 106 of my House Democratic colleagues in demanding that Speaker Johnson cancel the upcoming recess and keep us in Washington until Congress advances meaningful AI safeguards. When three Republicans came forward with the same demands, the Speaker still didn’t budge. So while the House remains out of session, I’ve kept working across the aisle to find a path forward. Last week, I released a bipartisan framework aimed at beginning communication with China on frontier AI safety: to build a shared understanding about standards for testing, evaluation, and most importantly—given our lack of mutual trust—verification. Critics of AI safety proposals often argue that domestic regulation won’t keep Americans safe from the billions of increasingly powerful Chinese AI models that already circulate the internet, and could propel China ahead of the U.S. in the hypercompetitive race to lead global AI development. We need to engage China for our own safety, and for theirs. Chinese leaders increasingly express public concern about AI cybersecurity and misalignment risk, and–just as with the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War—both superpowers have far more to lose by failing to communicate. I discussed that approach—and the legislation I’m developing—with CNN’s Jake Tapper. You can watch the full conversation below. Even with the House out of session, I’ll continue working with Democrats and Republicans on meaningful AI safeguards. Video What’s Your Voting Plan? Election Day is November 3, and now is a good time to make a plan. a ballot beginning in early October. If you haven’t registered yet, the online registration deadline is October 19–click here to register! You can check your registration here. If you plan to vote early, you have options. You can return your ballot by mail, bring it to a vote center, or place it in an official ballot drop box. California recommends mailing ballots well ahead of Election Day to ensure they receive a timely postmark, so an official drop box offers another simple way to return your ballot directly. Drop boxes open beginning October 6–you can locate your nearest drop box here. However you choose to vote, make a plan now —and once you return your ballot, you can use California’s Where’s My Ballot? system to track its status. Join me for Office Hours, Palo Alto! On Saturday, October 3, join Palo Alto Mayor Vicki Veenker and me in Palo Alto for office hours to talk about any issues or concerns you may have. Sign up for a meeting time here. We’ll offer appointments on a first-come, first-served basis, so register now. If you don’t get a spot this round, don’t fret —we hold office hours across our community frequently. Photo Finish Five years ago, San José confronted an ugly chapter in our history and apologized for the discrimination Chinese immigrants and their descendants endured. That apology challenged us not only to acknowledge our past, but to carry its lessons forward. Earlier this month, I joined the Chinese Historical and Cultural Project to mark that anniversary and celebrate 35 years of the Chinese American Historical Museum. Thank you to Gerrye Wong and the generations of community leaders who have kept this history alive. Remembering our shared past means learning from it—and renewing our commitment to do better with every generation. 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:Aram James To:Lori Meyers; Gary Gechlik; Sheree Roth; h.etzko@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; brianhama@gmail.com; Brian Good; Sean Allen; Zahra Billoo; Sam Liccardo; Salem Ajluni; Sameena Usman; Raymond Goins; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Susan Hayase; Preminger, Steve; steven mcgill; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Doug Minkler; Donna Wallach; Kaloma Smith; karen hall; Diana Diamond; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Cait James; Human Relations Commission; Lotus Fong; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Templeton, Cari; Carol Brouillet; Friends of Cubberley; Gerry Gras; Gardener, Liz; Liz Kniss; ladoris cordell; frances.rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Bill Newell; Bil Barber; Penni Wilson; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Lauing, Ed; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Conrad; Jay Boyarsky; Malinsky, Jason; Angel, David; Dana St. George; Dan Okonkwo; Reckdahl, Keith; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; supervisor.abe- koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Seher Awan; Carla Torres; Rick Callender; Riley Cooke; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Braden Cartwright; Council, City; CityCouncil; city.council@gilroy.org; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Yolanda Conaway; Yusra Hussain; Roberta Ahlquist; Board of Directors Subject:Please pass on to everyone you know Date:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 12:11:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ALERT! Transmitted below is a significant HAARETZ/ASSOCIATED PRESS report on recent disclosures relating to the 10/7 events. In light of the perpetual Zionist goal of a Palestine without Palestinians, it is entirely rational to suspect that Netanyahu may well have decided to let a Hamas attack happen, the more destructive the better, so as to provide the justification and opportunity for massive retaliation aimed at advancing that goal (https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/11/27/two-solutions-for- the-question-of-palestine). Indeed, since Netanyahu has admitted to diverting Israeli forces from Gaza's borders to the West Bank in the days immediately prior to October 7, he may even have decided to give a helping hand to the attack which UAE and Egyptian leaders were warning him was imminent. Furthermore, particularly after the recent 25th anniversary of the 9/11 events, it is difficult to ignore a similarity between 9/11 and 10/7 in addition to the widely recognized traumatic impacts of those events on Americans and Israelis, who had until then assumed that they were immune from retaliation for the atrocities which they inflicted upon lesser peoples, impacts which permitted and encouraged their two governments to go berserk in their responses. Unless one believes that it was Al-Qaeda that packed three World Trade Center buildings, including WTC-7, which was not hit by an aircraft, with the explosives that brought all three pancaking down in classic controlled demolitions, it is entirely rational to suspect that certain American "leaders" not only decided to let that day's attacks happen so as to provide the eagerly sought "New Pearl Harbor" justification and opportunity to unleash the sole- superpower American military in the subsequently declared pursuit of full-spectrum global dominance but gave those attacks a critical helping hand. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-09-28/ty-article/netanyahu-asked- uae-leader-to-deny-haaretz-report-on-oct-7-warning/000001a0-e77e-db4b-a7a5-f77eecd60000 Netanyahu Asked UAE Leader to Deny Haaretz Report on Oct. 7 Warning in Secret Visit, Sources Say The UAE's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on reports about the meeting. But it said it maintains 'open and direct lines of communication' with Israel and shares 'all relevant Jack Khoury and The Associated Press September 28, 2026 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed during a secret meeting Sunday to deny Haaretz's report that the Emirati leader had warned him of an impending Hamas attack shortly before October 7, 2023, a person familiar with the matter said. The source corroborated Haaretz's reporting on the topic from Sunday. Sources in the United Arab Emirates told Haaretz that Netanyahu and bin Zayed met at the airport. Netanyahu asked the Emirati president to deny reports of their phone conversation as well as details concerning the events leading up to October 7 that could embarrass him, according to the sources. He also asked bin Zayed for what the source described as "moral support." The Israeli prime minister held an hour-long meeting with the UAE president, according to two people who were briefed on Netanyahu's trip, which was first reported by Israel's Channel 12 News. Netanyahu, Sinwar and bin Zayed Revealed: Netanyahu received an explicit warning days before Oct. 7. He didn't brief Israel's security chiefs Click here to read the extensive investigation into the fateful warning delivered by UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed, which prompted Netanyahu to sent a warning letter ahead of a libel suit against Haaretz. The person who described Netanyahu's request said they had first-hand knowledge of the meeting. That person and a regional official briefed on the meeting spoke on condition of anonymity as the trip was secret. The UAE's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on reports about the meeting, but said it maintains "open and direct lines of communication" with Israel and shares "all relevant intelligence." There was no immediate comment from Netanyahu's office. According to Haaretz's investigation, published earlier this month, the Emirati president called Netanyahu about a week and a half before October 7 and spoke with him for 45 minutes. He explicitly warned Netanyahu that Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar was planning a major operation against Israel. Bin Zayed expressed concern that such an operation would lead to bloodshed and destabilize the region, threatening the Abraham Accords, and urged Netanyahu to take the warning seriously. Haaretz reported that bin Zayed was surprised by Netanyahu's response. The prime minister reportedly reacted relatively calmly, saying he believed Hamas was planning to act in the West Bank and assuring the Emirati president that Israel was prepared for any scenario. Netanyahu did not brief the heads of the security establishment about the conversation. Netanyahu has firmly rejected the report, with his office calling the investigation an "absolute lie," threatening to sue Haaretz and journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval. "Prime Minister Netanyahu didn't speak to the president of the UAE during the period in question and received no warning from him," his office said. Haaretz said in response that it stands by its reporting. On Saturday, two sources, including a person who spoke directly with bin Zayed, confirmed to The New York Times that the Emirati leader warned Netanyahu of a "major attack" by Hamas shortly before October 7. A transcript of a meeting Netanyahu convened with senior security officials in early October 2023, obtained by the media, indicates that he told them an Israeli military operation in Gaza could jeopardize what he believed were imminent prospects for Saudi Arabia to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. Last week, an Emirati official addressed Haaretz's report, saying that heads of state do not discuss such matters at that level, according to the Emirati news site The National. The official did not deny that the two leaders spoke, or directly deny Haaretz's account of the conversation. The reports about the UAE warning have emerged alongside new accounts of repeated warnings from Egypt in the months leading up to the attack. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Egypt's intelligence chief Abbas Kamel called Netanyahu days before Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack to warn him of signs of an impending assault from Gaza, after two earlier Egyptian warnings went unheeded, citing officials in an Arab government. The call was one of several warnings delivered to Israeli officials in the months before the attack. Netanyahu's office and the foreign ministries of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates did not respond to the Journal's requests for comment. Netanyahu on Monday denied the report and said he has instructed to file a libel suit. "In the months preceding October 7, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not meet or speak with Abbas Kamel, who was then head of Egypt's General Intelligence Service, and no Israeli intelligence source conveyed an Egyptian warning to the Prime Minister," he wrote on X. He added that "Netanyahu has never met or spoken with the head of intelligence of a foreign country without their Israeli counterparts." He also accused the media of running "a vile and false campaign" to pin the failures of October 7 on him. According to the Journal, Egypt first warned Israel in June 2023 that the situation in Gaza was volatile and urged it to resume negotiations with Hamas. In September, Kamel traveled to Israel and warned that the situation in Gaza was dire and could "blow up in everyone's faces," according to the report. Israeli officials told him the situation was under control. Kamel then called Netanyahu days before October 7 after the earlier warnings failed to prompt a change in Israeli policy, according to the Journal. Egyptian officials continued to warn Israel until as late as 48 hours before the attack, the report said. None of the warnings contained specific information about the timing or scale of the planned assault. The Journal report came after The Atlantic reported Saturday that Kamel had secretly traveled to Israel on September 26, 2023, 11 days before the attack, to warn Israeli officials that Hamas appeared to be preparing for a major assault. Citing Israeli, Egyptian, Arab, U.S. and European officials briefed on the visit, The Atlantic reported that Kamel recommended economic concessions to Hamas to avert a confrontation. Reports of an Egyptian warning to Israel came as early as October 9, 2023, when the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported that Kamel called Netanyahu days before October 7 and warned him of "something unusual, a terrifying operation," about to be launched by Hamas. According to the report, Netanyahu told Kamel, "In Gaza, we are in the picture, we are in control. Our problem is with the West Bank, and that's where we are also diverting forces." From:The Srinivasans To:brynachangPTC@gmail.com; bgh@matteoni.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com; kevinji2021@gmail.com; Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Drop El Dorado, Let us live in peace and quiet Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 11:42:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To Chair Chang and Planning and Transportation Commissioners I am a resident of the El Dorado neighborhood. I do not support and strongly object to adding bike lanes for speeding traffic on El Dorado to Alma. The El Dorado street is the wrong street, and we are neighborly, block partying, children taking El Dorado to play at Hoover Park, children taking El Dorado to go El Carmelo, Paly schools, and we rely on El Dorado for safe, peaceful passage and would like to keep it that way. Look for other options that are more viable and that will have less resident impacts, and evaluate the tradeoffs: Do you want to upset a bunch of long time residents and voters in the name of solving a problem that most don't feel? I formally request that the City: (1) Remove El Dorado Avenue from consideration and (2) Formally evaluate the Hybrid Plan. Srinivasan Subramanian 2803 Kipling St This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:The Srinivasans To:Planning Commission; brynachangPTC@gmail.com; bgh@matteoni.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com; kevinji2021@gmail.com Cc:Council, City Subject:STOP, Rethink Ruining El Dorado Neighborly atmosphere Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 11:36:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commision, I am concerned that the Transportation staff report does not accurately portray the community view of the El Dorado bike path alternatives. It would effectively place me under house arrest. The speeding electric bikes are a nuisance and a menace, they are motorized vehicles and should be regulated by DMV, tax, title and license along with liability insurance. They go on sidewalks, ped crossings, wrong way, bike lane, want tge whole car lane but don't pay for it. Building a under the railroad so drugs, wanderers can find a safe place and disturb the neighborly peace should never a governing bodies proposal. This nightmare has to be stopped as things have Progressively gotten worse. Srinivasan Kipling St/El Dorado A voting citizen From:Aram James To:Gary Gechlik; Gardener, Liz; Kitic S.; Liz Kniss; Linda Jolley; Sam Liccardo; Fernandez, Lisa; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; supervisor.abe- koga@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; Matt Schlegel; Raymond Goins; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Yusra Hussain; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Senator Becker; Palo Alto Renters" Association; Julie Lythcott-Haims; ladoris cordell; h.etzko@gmail.com; Patrice Ventresca; Vara Ramakrishnan; Roberta Ahlquist; Riley Cooke; Rick Callender; Jeff Rosen; Gennady Sheyner; Shankar Ramamoorthy; Dave Price; Diana Diamond; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; brianhama@gmail.com; Burt, Patrick; Bill Newell; Cait James; Zahra Billoo; Zelkha, Mila; Doug Minkler Subject:Netherlands regrets Israel retaliation in settlements row Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 10:15:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Netherlands regrets Israel retaliation in settlements row Source: AFP https://share.newsbreak.com/jpucj1tb?s=i0 From:Betsy Franco To:brynachangPTC@gmail.com; bgh@matteoni.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com; kevinji2021@gmail.com; Council, City Subject:Fwd: I oppose the El Dorado proposed bike path/II am for the hybrid plan on Loma Verde Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 9:27:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Betsy Franco <franco.betsy@gmail.com> Date: September 28, 2026 at 3:33:19 PM PDT To: planning.commission@paloalto.gov Subject: I oppose the El Dorado proposed bike path/II am for the hybrid plan on Loma Verde  Commision, I strongly oppose the plans for El Dorado, my neighborhood. I oppose a traffic light at El Dorado and Alma. A traffic light at El Dorado would likely cause backups back to Oregon Expressway. For cars exiting Oregon Expressway to travel south on Alma, there likely would be backups back onto Oregon because of the short distance between the Oregon exit and the proposed El Dorado light, especially during peak hours. A traffic light at Loma Verde would make more sense. Loma Verde is further south and would provide a better buffer to absorb a higher volume of cars, especially during peak hours. Previously, there was a perceived need to provide an alternate bike access path across Alma and the train tracks while the East Meadow grade separation was being built. If the East Meadow separation is no longer happening, then there is no need for an alternate bike crossing. Drop the El Dorado bike path This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report project immediately to save costs. Spend wisely elsewhere Please listen to the people you represent. You need to change to Loma Verde. Betsy Franco -- betsyfranco.com Instagram franco.betsy Naked, a novel set in the Rodin Sculpture Garden (Gallery Books/Simon & Schuster), illustrated by Tom Franco Metamorphosis, Junior Year (Candlewick), audiobook James & Dave Franco, illustrated by Tom Franco Counting in Dog Years and Other Sassy Math Poems, illustrated by Priscilla Tey (Candlewick Press), NCTE Notable Book From:Aram James To:Raymond Goins; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; h.etzko@gmail.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Vicki Veenker; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Gary Gechlik; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; Burt, Patrick; Human Relations Commission; Mora Oommen; EPA Today; Dave Price; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Reckdahl, Keith; supervisor.abe-koga@bos.sccgov.org; Robert Salonga; Robert. Jonsen; Senator Becker; assemblymember.ahrens@assembly.ca.gov; Diana Chen; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Malinsky, Jason; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Hayden; Preminger, Steve; JIM MINKLER1; Jim Lawrence; Bill Newell; Braden Cartwright; brianhama@gmail.com; Lotus Fong; Friends of Cubberley; Diana Diamond; Dana St. George; Stone, Greer; Ruben Abrica; Anne Cribbs; Daniel Kottke; Riley Cooke; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Nicole Chiu-Wang; citycouncil@mountainview.gov Subject:Expert says Taser to dangerous to use on human beings Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 8:46:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://ccpulse.org/2015/12/11/expert-stun-guns-far-from-nonlethal-alternative-to-bullets/ From:Aram James To:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Gary Gechlik; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Dave Price; Diana Diamond; Braden Cartwright; brianhama@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Human Relations Commission; Raymond Goins; Sean Allen; Linda Jolley; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Julie Lythcott-Haims; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission Cc:Sam Liccardo; Vicki Veenker; h.etzko@gmail.com; Council, City; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Mora Oommen; steven mcgill; Matt Schlegel; Bill Newell; Zahra Billoo; Sameena Usman; Salem Ajluni; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); EPA Today; Cait James Subject:Re: What about the olive trees? Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 7:51:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 9-28-2028 Hi Ed, ( Ed Lauing a Palo Alto City Council Member) While you talked about your excitement assisting in planting a grove of Trees at Lucy Stern Community Center this last Saturday, along with https://canopy.org/, why have you refused to speak out against the years the vile Israelis, the settlers, the IOF, have all cut down Palestinian’s olive trees-trees that have been relied on for generations for food and to support members of the Palestinian community economically? You are such a Zionist hypocrite. Avram Finkekstein https://www.facebook.com/reel/28945362035061670/ Scale and Impact of Destruction Mass Loss: Estimates indicate that over 800,000 Palestinian olive trees have been destroyed or uprooted by Israeli authorities and settlers over the decades. [1, 2] Economic Toll: Olive farming accounts for a significant portion of agricultural GDP and supports tens of thousands of Palestinian families. The loss of mature trees—which can take a decade or more to bear fruit—causes long-term financial hardship. [1, 2, 3] Cultural Symbolism: Beyond income, olive trees represent deep ancestral roots, resilience, and a historic connection to the land for Palestinians. [1, 2] Causes and Context Settlement Expansion: Human rights groups and Palestinian officials report that tree destruction and land confiscations frequently clear the way for illegal Israeli settlement growth, outposts, and security roads. [1, 2, 3] Harvest Season Violence: Incidents and crop thefts spike heavily ahead of and during the annual October harvest. Farmers regularly face movement restrictions, military permit denials, and localized settler attacks. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Official Stance: Israeli authorities have sometimes cited military necessities or security threats near settlement roads to justify clearing groves, whereas Palestinian and international monitors characterize the actions as systematic displacement and dispossession. [1, 2, 3] You can read a detailed account of recent military clearings from Al Jazeera or review the field context reported by Reuters. [1, 2] Would you like more information on the economic statistics of the olive sector or recent UN reports concerning West Bank land access? From:Shabeen Chollampat To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; bgh@matteoni.com; brynachangPTC@gmail.com; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com; kevinji2021@gmail.com; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Lo, Ria; Shikada, Ed Subject:East Meadow: No Hybrid. Advance Underpass designs. Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 6:58:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Please vote NO on advancing the Hybrid at East Meadow. Please advance Underpass designs to the next stage of engineering (35% design). Thank you for considering my views. [Your name] Sent from my iPhone From:Cindy Ross To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Public Comment: Agenda Item 3. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Opposition to El Dorado location Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 5:58:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Date: 28 September 2026 To: Chair Chang and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission Subject: Public comment: Agenda Item 3. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity El Dorado is the wrong place to put a bike/pedestrian tunnel either under the railroad tracks or under both Alma and the railroad tracks. Why? · <!--[endif]-->El Dorado is the narrowest street intersecting with Alma from Churchill to San Antonio. The road is already unsafe with numerous side swipes and near misses of parked cars, fences, trees, etc as well as often being limited to one-way traffic. Adding cyclists, especially children, into that setting is dangerous. Emergency vehicle access, cut-through traffic, and homeowner access (being able to safely back out of driveways, being able to access/exit cul-de-sacs when traffic is backed up, etc.) are also concerns. If the traffic light option at El Dorado is selected, it will disrupt traffic on the ramp entering Alma southbound and will impact eastbound Oregon Expressway as well as traffic within the neighborhood with an extra burden on the folks living on the cul-de-sacs. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->El Dorado is too close to an existing tunnel as it is 0.5 miles from the California Avenue bike/pedestrian tunnel. The City of Palo Alto was also proposing a bike/pedestrian tunnel at Seale. If both tunnels were constructed, there would be three tunnels in a 0.8-mile stretch of Alma. Loma Verde, another option, is 0.7 miles from the California Avenue bike/pedestrian tunnel. This is still too close to the existing tunnel. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Now that East Meadow is no longer included in the road grade separation study, a bike/pedestrian tunnel will be needed if East Meadow dead ends at the railroad tracks. East Meadow is a better location once that time comes. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->The initial selection of El Dorado was based on the premise that it would only require the “acquisition” of a portion of a commercial parking lot, and no homes west of the tracks would be impacted. Now the plans include taking multiple homes from folks on east side of the tracks. No one should lose their home. · A major utility safety issue has not been addressed. Depending on the design (A1 or A2), This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast digging will be either under or adjacent to PG&E’s gas distribution pipeline 132. This is the samepipeline that devastated San Bruno. If I remember correctly, tunneling under the tracks alone wasestimated at $72 million whereas tunneling under both Alma and the tracks (three times the distance,deeper due to the pipeline, longer ramps) would cost $87 million. With the extra depth, the ramps mustbe longer due to slope limitations. It seems that the additional depth, ramp lengths, and care required todig in the vicinity of this pipeline were not included in the cost estimate. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->The cost is unreasonable for a new tunnel that is so close to an existing tunnel. The cost of taking homes and the cost of tunneling deeper to avoid the pipeline are not included in the construction numbers that were presented, so the true cost is grossly underrepresented. <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->The community was overwhelmingly against the city’s proposals of A1 and A2 based on the response during the Transportation Department Workshop on 8/27/2026 for the many reasons stated in this email. Please put this project in a more appropriate location. At the very least, officially research the hybrid plan (instead of A1 and A2) as it solves most, but not all, of my objections to the El Dorado tunnel proposal. Thank you for your attention. Cindy Ross Palo Alto resident @ Alma Street From:Aram James To:Timothy Gray; Lori Meyers; ladoris cordell; Mora Oommen; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen Cc:Gary Gechlik; Vicki Veenker; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; h.etzko@gmail.com; supervisor.abe- koga@bos.sccgov.org; Josh Becker; Sam Liccardo; Sean Allen; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; frances.rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Templeton, Cari; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Matt Schlegel; brianhama@gmail.com; bryna@changforcitycouncil.com; Braden Cartwright; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Riley Cooke; Rick Callender; Board of Directors; board@pausd.org; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; BoardOperations; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Salem Ajluni; Jennifer Morrow San José Spotlight; Sameena Usman; Zahra Billoo; Zelkha, Mila; james pitkin; yudy4paloalto@gmail.com; Brandon Pho; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Roberta Ahlquist; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Peter Drekmeier; Friends of Cubberley; Council, City; Yolanda Conaway Subject:Re: Palo Alto’s secretive Jewish Alliance Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 5:24:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 9-28-2026 Hi Tim, Just like New York City and many other cities across this country, more and more municipalities, both progressive and not-so-progressive, are demanding that their tax dollars NOT be spent supporting the vile, terrorist, genocidal, apartheid state of Israel. This debate rages over our support for Israel in cities both big and small. Over the years, the Palo Alto City Council has addressed many international issues, including condemning wars like the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Surely a well-informed individual like you, who ran for Palo Alto City Council unsuccessfully several times, knows this. Local governments can both chew gum and discuss pothole issues and dribble a basketball while debating the pros and cons of the Jewish lobby, the right of the citizens to have a debate on a cease-fire resolution, the need to have a day acknowledging not just the holocaust but also the Nakba. My demand that Palo Alto declare support for the Palestinian people and an end to the ongoing holocaust in Palestine has zero to do with me feeling good about myself and is all about this Jew not being complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza & the West Bank. Thanks for reaching out to discuss this most critical issue. Avram “Eliminate The State of Israel Now ” Finkelstein On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 4:41 PM Timothy Gray <timothygray@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Aram, Why are you invoking international politics into a local race where the only criteria should be efficiency in operating our town and assurances that we don’t send rockets over San Francisquito creek to land in Menlo Park. I appreciate your advocacy for international justice, however the local stage might create divisiveness that actually deteriorates your cause. I appreciate that it may feel good to express your feelings of righteousness but it seems you are leading our community one step backward. Do you want to make preogrsss or do you want to feel good about yourself? Timothy Gray Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, September 28, 2026, 10:43 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 9-28-2026 Dr. Gary, Did Lori Meyers of the Jewish Alliance reach out to you to lobby you to join their group? Beyond your promise to call out so-called antisemitism, what other actions did they want you to take? Do you know if the two Zionist members of the current city council, Ed Lauing and Keith Reckdahl, are members of this Zionist lobby group? Would you say the alliance is made up of Jewish supremacists? This is the first time I have heard of this Zionist alliance. What more can you tell me re their Israel First politics? From my research, it appears the group is very litigious and does its best to quash any criticism of Israel in our schools and other institutional settings. Anything you can tell me about this rather secretive alliance would be helpful. I'm hopeful the local press will reach out to interview Lori Meyers re the nature of this group. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Ms. Meyers refuses to talk to the press about this secret society. From my limited research, it appears other local members of the group wish to remain anonymous. I wonder why? Their legal team is named on their website. Any information on this rather secretive organization would be appreciated, Avram Finkelstein P.S. I wonder how happy the alliance is about you exposing this group to potential public scrutiny. Probably delighted lol. On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 10:13 AM Gary Gechlik <garygech@gmail.com> wrote: Avram, Early in the campaign, I was asked by the Palo Alto Jewish Alliance to meet. I was busy at the time and we could not get together. I did promise that I would address Anti-Semitism when it came up. Formally, it was State Department Doctrine under John Kerry to allow criticism of foreign nations and their national policy. So the media you suggested watching, which I watched, and included Roger Waters and the documentary American Doctor, that is well within the doctrine of accepted political speech the State Department should recognize as legitimate criticism despite any of my content concerns, because it is political speech. However, the statement, "I will share with the Zionist, white-supremacy-laden Palo Alto city council and commissions", is open Anti-Semitism and Hate Speech. The speech falls within R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), ["In a 9-to-0 vote, the justices held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses."]. Thus Palo Alto can not pass a law restricting Hate Speech, nor should we formally "condemn" Hate Speech on Council as a follow-up to what happened in January 2025. Therefore, the issue you raise is still legally pertinent to the municipality of Palo Alto in that regard as we have only two choices: we can personally ignore Hate Speech or we can personally call out Hate Speech. ("City Government Council member apologizes for failure to condemn hate speech", Palo Alto On Line, Gennady Sheyner, January 14, 2025). With respect to the content of the speech, I am bound by my relationships growing up attending Temple, the relationships placed upon me by my Jewish father and mother, to simply call out Anti-Semitism when it is obvious. I want to thank you sincerely, because you have done me a favor. By simply allowing me to call out Anti-Semitism, I am literally off the hook for not attending Temple, but I do still have to pray and show faith in God at home. So keep me on the list of readers. I embrace my work as a 'keyboard warrior', I actually read every email, and I enjoy taking the time responding. I never thought I would have the opportunity to respond to municipal Anti- Semitism. But since you brought up Injustice, I will tell you about a greater Injustice that does not involve the need to play Pickle Ball. I was racing the Palo Alto Moonlight Run 10K, and I really raced hard right to the end. I looked at my Apple Watch, and it gave me mile split times all in the range of 8.37 per mile. But when I finished the race and got home, my pace was 9:08 per mile. No question my Apple Watch was wrong because I had to set the watch to low power mode and listen to Wheezer's song 'Say It Ain't So' on repeat for practically the entire race because that is basically all I had downloaded. Not to be dismissive, but the Palo Alto City Council, and the City Manager cannot take official positions on State Department issues. My suggestion, stop the Anti Semitism, play some Pickle Ball and sign up for the Moonlight Run, and vote for Measure J. Dr. Gary P.S. 10K Runs are Formal Public Documents, if you run slow, yes, everyone will know it! From:Gautam Ramanujan To:Council, City Cc:Rinal Shah Subject:Noise Ordinance Violations Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 4:39:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Good Evening, I would wish to bring the matter regarding noise ordinance violations that I had reported by the contractors ( L&D construction) working on the the new Multi-Family development on El Camino and Accacia Ave located at 3001 El Camino Real. The construction company had been violating the noise ordinance law by starting every day at 7 am. I had complained to Kyle Shea with proof ( video and images ) multiple times and and they finally stopped . Today they started work at 6 am and based on Kyle's instruction I called the non-emergency number to the police department. The police officer informed me that a permit was issued to them to start early. I am confused as to why a company that is constantly violating the law gets rewarded . There was no warning or intimiation that we have received about this change to construction hours either from the city or the construction company. I am hoping that the city council addresses this matter as this is causing a lot of stress to our family specially as we have a 12 month old baby who wakes up because of this noise. Regards Gautam R 104 Koa Ct, Palo Alto 669.262.7797 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Lori Godin To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Fwd: Agenda Item 3 - NO NO NO on bike/ped and traffic light at El Dorado and Alma Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 4:20:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i My below email address was bounced back by your server. I'm trying again. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lori Godin <Lori@godinfam.com> Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 4:11 PM Subject: Agenda Item 3 - NO NO NO on bike/ped and traffic light at El Dorado and Alma To: <planning.commission@paloalto.gov> Cc: <city.council@paloalto.gov> Commission members, This proposal was never sent out to the affected residents in the area. I had no idea it was under consideration until some neighbors brought it to my attention. That is totally UNACCEPTABLE. Why weren't we notified and allowed to provide input to any proposed plans? Also, I am unable to find any NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STUDIES. Was this done? Where can I find it? The street is too narrow and too close to the Cal Ave tunnel. (It is a very short walk from Alma and El Dorado to the Cal Ave tunnel. I have done it numerous times taking my grandkids to Bowden Park.) Already, we who live here have trouble driving down El Dorado when another vehicle is coming from the other side of the street. With the additional traffic, this is NOT A SAFE OPTION. Why did you choose the NARROWEST STREET in the area? Loma Verde already accommodates bicycles. Why isn't Loma Verde being strongly considered? One of my neighbors, David Hung, has put a great deal of time and effort into coming up with a solution that should meet all of your criteria with no eminent domain issues and likely less costly as well as safer than the This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report proposed option. PLEASE CONSIDER HIS HYBRID PROPOSAL. You are supposed to be our proponents in our city government. Please take our input and give it the weight it deserves. This proposal will create traffic on El Dorado and likely some of the cross streets from cars and bicycles. I would hate for someone on my street or a bicyclist to be injured, or otherwise, and emergency personnel were either unable to get to us or were too late to make a difference due to the changes you are proposing. A very unhappy resident, Lori Godin 2859 Ramona St. From:The Srinivasans To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Re: STOP, Rethink Ruining El Dorado Neighborly atmosphere Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 3:14:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i resending to correct email address of city council On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 3:05 PM, The Srinivasans <blade_chini@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commision, I am concerned that the Transportation staff report does not accurately portray the community view of the El Dorado bike path alternatives. It would effectively place me under house arrest. The speeding electric bikes are a nuisance and a menace, they are motorized vehicles and should be regulated by DMV, tax, title and license along with liability insurance. They go on sidewalks, ped crossings, wrong way, bike lane, want tge whole car lane but don't pay for it. Building a under the railroad so drugs, wanderers can find a safe place and disturb the neighborly peace should never a governing bodies proposal. This nightmare has to be stopped as things have Progressively gotten worse. Srinivasan Kipling St/El Dorado A voting citizen This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Anjani Sarma To:Council, City Subject:Please do not discontinue the Link service Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 3:07:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I am writing to urge you to reconsider the decision to discontinue the Palo Alto Link service. This program provides an essential transportation lifeline for residents accessing Caltrain stations, VTA connector stops, the Transit Center, PAMF, Stanford, and Paly—particularly in areas where bus alternatives are impractical and biking is not an option. My family will be directly impacted by the discontinuation of the Link service. I have a young adult who, due to health reasons, is unable to drive or bike. To get to their university today, they were forced to take an Uber from Midtown to the California Avenue Caltrain station, costing approximately $20 for a mere 1.3-mile trip. While the VTA Route 21 runs on Middlefield, it is not a feasible option given my child's mobility needs. Furthermore, because they do not qualify for the VTA Access program, Palo Alto Link was their only viable way to get to school efficiently and affordably. For many residents—including the differently abled, seniors, students, and those facing financial hardship—the loss of this service is not a mere inconvenience; it is a significant barrier. Those who lack the privilege of a vehicle or the physical ability to walk or bike are now left with options that are either prohibitively expensive or physically inaccessible. Palo Alto Link is a critical component of an equitable transportation network. Removing it creates a systemic disservice to the most vulnerable members of our community, limiting their access to education, healthcare, and employment. I ask that you please preserve this vital service to ensure Palo Alto remains accessible to all. Thank you for all you do, Sincerely, Anjani Sarma From:Sandy Tushnet To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 3. So. PA Bike/Ped Connectivity Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 3:03:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Burden for City Cost Savings: The current proposals force private property takeovers, eliminate critical street parking on a residential block, and install a dangerous traffic circle into a narrow grid at the intersection of Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue strictly for city cost-saving reasons—completely ignoring the massive secondary costs imposed on our neighborhood's property rights and safety. Critical Hazards to El Carmelo School Route: This intersection and the surrounding blocks serve as a primary neighborhood route for a steady stream of elementary school children walking and biking to and from El Carmelo School (3024 Bryant St) daily. Mixing hurried, shortcut-seeking commuter motorists into this active school zone potentially violates the safety intent of California Vehicle Code Section 22352, may create traffic conflicts, and potentially endangers vulnerable young pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists during peak morning and afternoon drop-off windows. Installing a traffic signal at Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue may likely result in the unintentional consequence of drawing disruptive cut-through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street. It could also trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado to catch the new signal. Obstructing Access to Intersecting Cul-de-Sacs: The resulting extended This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report vehicular queues could disrupt inbound and outbound vehicle and bicycle access, as well as pedestrian street crossings along the adjacent cul-de-sac enclaves of Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, South Court, and Kipling Street. Crucially, these backups may compromise vital emergency vehicle access, leaving fire engines, ambulances, and police responders physically blocked from entering these closed neighborhood blocks during peak commute windows. Loss of Promenade Character & Parking: This influx of cut-through vehicular traffic, combined with the projected heavy volume of regional bicycle traffic, would fundamentally alter the quiet promenade character of El Dorado Avenue and eliminate vital curbside parking. El Dorado residents and their visitors, contractors, caregivers, delivery services, and other service providers rely heavily on this curbside parking for daily access, making its removal a severe and disproportionate burden on the block. Oversized Volume in Narrow Residential Footprint: Ultimately, this structural safety crisis and neighborhood degradation all stem from a fundamentally flawed proposed design that attempts to squeeze an oversized volume of regional transit traffic into a narrow, quiet residential street. Please seriously rethink and consider other alternatives (such as David Hung’s hybrid plan) as a reasonable idea to pursue. Thank you for your attention to this matter which is very concerning to our community!! Sandy Tushnet 2620 Ramona St. From:Rashmi Hunt To:Council, City Subject:Opposing El Dorado/Alma bike project Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 2:26:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Planning Commission I oppose El Dorado/Alma signal+underpass bike project as a midtown resident (Ramona/El Dorado). My reasons are here. My kids bike to Paly and I know none of the Paly and Gunn students from midtown neighborhood are going to take this proposed route. I am active in school community and I know most students in this neighborhood. They will continue to use Cal Ave underpass or Churchill intersection to Paly or East Meadow intersection to Gunn. Since most bikers in Palo Alto are students, if students are not going to use this or this is not going to serve students, we are wasting taxpayer's money on this project where this cost can't be justified. It's better to spend money to other projects in the city like grade separation at Churchill, East Meadow and Charleston. El Dorado is a very narrow street. This project will make the street worse for driving cars, parking cars, putting trash cans, delivery trucks etc. If we add bikers to this mix, there will be many accidents in future on this street near to this intersection. While I still think grade separation at above 3 intersection is better as I mentioned above, if city really needs to spend money on this project, Loma Verde is a better choice for this project. The reasons are 1. This street is wider and will be safer for cars and bikes. 2. Currently, Loma Verde is a through street for cars in midtown connecting all the way from West Bayshore Rd to Alma. This is a better choice for bikers since it will connect This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report as a El Dorado is a very short street where it ends at Cowper and not even connecting to Middlefield Rd. Hope all these above points are considered and an alternate plan will be chosen for this project. Regards Rashmi Hunt (2875 Ramona St) From:Wendie Karel To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 3. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 1:58:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed traffic light and tunnel at El Dorado and Alma. I strongly recommend re-evaluating the location of the pedestrian and bicycle crossing. It would make much more sense to utilize a street in Southern Palo Alto, rather than a location just 2.5 blocks away from the existing California Avenue tunnel. However, if El Dorado is ultimately selected for the tunnel, I ask that you further evaluate David Hung's proposed hybrid model. Sincerely, Wendie Karel 2537 Ramona -- Wendie Karel REALTOR® 1377 El Camino Real , Menlo Park, CA 94025 m: 650.814.3422 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 From:Edgar DeMeo To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Public Comment: Agenda item 3. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 1:43:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To: Chair Chang and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission We are supportive of efforts to improve bike and pedestrian connectivity between Palo Alto locations east and west of the Alma-railroad corridor. Should Palo Alto build such a connection in the region between East Meadow and Oregon Expressway, we would definitely use it. We live at the corner of Emerson Street and El Dorado Avenue. That said, we have major concerns about all options under consideration that propose El Dorado Avenue as the main feeder to the east-west crossing. Others have expressed many of these concerns, which we share; but we will focus here on only one—which to us is an overriding concern. El Dorado is simply too narrow to handle the additional traffic—both bikes and motor vehicles— associated with these options. Adding bike lanes would hamper traffic flow on a street that is already constrained by its narrowness and roadside parking. Forcing all of this onto the narrowest avenue in the area to us is disqualifying. We are encouraged by the hybrid option that a nearby resident has proposed and believe that it has strong potential for meeting connectivity objectives with minimal negative impacts. We ask the PTC to carefully consider this option—along with variations, if any, suggested by engineering considerations—and assess its suitability. Thank you for considering our thoughts! Ed and Linda DeMeo 2791 Emerson Street Palo Alto This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Laura Chiu To:Council, City Subject:East Meadow: No Hybrid. Advance Underpass designs. Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 1:30:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, Please vote NO on advancing the Hybrid at East Meadow. Please advance Underpass designs to the next stage of engineering (35% design). Thank you for considering my views. Laura Chiu 775 Talisman Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94303 **** SAVE PAPER – THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT *** This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:W Y To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Public Comment: Agenda item 3. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: Opposition to El Dorado Alternatives & Concern about Staff report to PTC Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 1:28:19 PM Attachments:Rev6 PETITION TO THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor, Member of the City Council, Office of Transportation, and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, I am a concerned Palo Alto resident regarding the El Dorado bike path proposal in the South Palo Alto Bike/ped Connectivity Project. My concerns Simply put, El Dorado is only 25 feet wide - the narrowest among the various parallel roads between Oregon Expressway and East Meadow Drive. It is simply too narrow to become a main corridor of bike, pedestrians, and vehicles drawn by the proposed traffic light addition. Details below: Because this new traffic light at El Dorado Avenue would be the only operational signal between East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, it may likely act as a magnet for vehicles from the surrounding regional neighborhood, further exacerbating traffic conflicts and safety hazards. Disruptive Cut-Through Traffic: Installing a traffic signal at Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue may likely cause the unintentional consequence of drawing disruptive cut-through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street. It could also trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado to catch the new signal. Obstructing Access to Intersecting Cul-de-Sacs: The resulting extended vehicular queues could disrupt inbound and outbound vehicle and bicycle access, as well as pedestrian street crossings along the adjacent cul-de-sac enclaves of Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, South Court, and Kipling Street. Crucially, these backups may compromise vital emergency vehicle access, leaving fire engines, ambulances, and This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report police responders physically blocked from entering these closed neighborhood blocks during peak commute windows. Dangerous traffic circle in a narrow grid at the intersection of Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue. Critical Hazards to El Carmelo School Route: This intersection and the surrounding blocks serve as a primary neighborhood route for a steady stream of elementary school children walking and biking to and from El Carmelo School (3024 Bryant St) daily. Mixing hurried, shortcut-seeking commuter motorists into this active school zone potentially violates the safety intent of California Vehicle Code Section 22352, may create traffic conflicts, and potentially endangers vulnerable young pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists during peak morning and afternoon drop-off windows. Substantial Impairment of Access under California Law: This traffic circle creates a blind-spot trap for nearby residential driveways, carrying the potential to cause a substantial impairment of access under California law due to forcing continuous-volume traffic into a residential bottleneck. Failed Ross Road Traffic Circle Precedent: This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado repeats the failed Ross Road design flaws, where a similar continuous-flow roundabout caused immediate localized collisions and forced emergency city interventions. We have not seen evaluation of consequences of all the changes proposed. No evaluation of increased accident risk to pedestrians, schoolchildren, and residents entering/exiting driveways due to proposed traffic circle at Bryant and El Dorado. No evaluation of the increased accident risk due to relocated stop signs changing El Dorado Avenue into a bicycle and e-bike speedway. In summary Oversized Volume in Narrow Residential Footprint: This is a fundamentally flawed proposed design that attempts to squeeze an oversized volume of regional transit traffic into a narrow, quiet residential street. Disproportionate Neighborhood Burden for City Cost Savings: The current proposals force private property takeovers, eliminate critical street parking on a residential block, and install a dangerous traffic circle into a narrow grid at the intersection of Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue strictly for city cost-saving reasons—completely ignoring the massive secondary costs imposed on our neighborhood's property rights and safety Loss of Promenade Character & Parking: This influx of cut-through vehicular traffic, combined with the projected heavy volume of regional bicycle traffic, would fundamentally alter the quiet promenade character of El Dorado Avenue and eliminate vital curbside parking. El Dorado residents and their visitors, contractors, caregivers, delivery services, and other service providers rely heavily on this curbside parking for daily access, making its removal a severe and disproportionate burden on the block I support this alternative - Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan Loma Verde is far more effective at moving a larger fraction of the bike and pedestrian population than El Dorado because: 1. At 42 feet wide, it is 15 feet wider than El Dorado and far better able to route more bicycle traffic. 2. It is centrally located midway between Oregon Expressway and East Meadow and far better positioned to pull and distribute bicycle traffic from the greater neighborhood area. In contrast El Dorado is only a quarter of the distance from Oregon Expressway. Bicycles in the neighborhood wanting to cross the train tracks routinely use the Cal Ave crossing because it is close. A bike path at El Dorado would not contribute much utility. 3. Loma Verde avenue provides uninterrupted access from Alma to Middlefield Road and then onto West Bayshore Road, so across the entire east-west expanse of this part of Palo Alto. Furthermore, from the intersection point at West Bayshore, in less than half a mile, bicycles and pedestrians can access the bridge across highway 101 and arrive in the Shoreline office areas or Baylands parks. My request 1. Drop the El Dorado Avenue alternative entirely from all future 15% and 35% conceptual planning phases. 2. Formally model, engineer, and evaluate the Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan (attached), which achieves all regional transit goals cleanly within existing public land boundaries: Please see the attached petition for the alternative Loma Verde-Alma Median Hybrid Plan I support. Thank you very much for your attention. Concerned Palo Alto resident, Wenchi Yeh From:Jim Cowie To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Public Comment: Agenda item 3 - South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity: No on City’s El Dorado Alternatives - Please Consider HYBRID Plan Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 12:15:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. ! Liz Cowie 10:19 AM (1 hour ago) Dear Chair Chang and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission: The two alternatives the City proposes for the South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Crossing are not safe or wise. El Dorado Avenue is extremely narrow, too narrow to safely handle increased bike and car traffic. Adding more bikes on this street would create an unacceptable safety risk. ***Please go back to the planning stage and consider the Hybrid Plan proposed and supported by the vast majority of people who live in the vicinity of El Dorado. The Transportation staff report does not accurately The Hybrid Plan also This message could be suspicious Similar name as someone you've contacted. No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report From:Nehul To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 3. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity -STOP THIS PROJECT NOW. Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 12:10:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed $72 million bike and pedestrian tunnel at El Dorado Avenue. I support making Palo Alto safer and more convenient for people who walk and bike, but I do not believe spending $72 million on this particular project is a responsible use of public funds. I encourage the City to consider less expensive alternatives that can provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access without such a large cost and impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Please reconsider the proposal and study more cost-effective options before moving forward. ONLY BUILD ONE bike path during grad separation done at E. Meadow and call it a day. CALIFORNIA AND US ARE UNDER RECORD DEBIT...Enough with spending money that we don't have in bank accounts. STOP THIS NOW. Disproportionate Neighborhood Burden for City Cost Savings: The current proposals force private property takeovers, eliminate critical street parking on a residential block, and install a dangerous traffic circle into a narrow grid at the intersection of Bryant Street and El Dorado Avenue strictly for city cost-saving reasons—completely ignoring the massive secondary costs imposed on our neighborhood's property rights and safety. Critical Hazards to El Carmelo School Route: This intersection and the surrounding blocks serve as a primary neighborhood route for a steady stream of elementary school children walking and biking to and from El Carmelo School This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast (3024 Bryant St) daily. Mixing hurried, shortcut-seeking commuter motorists into this active school zone potentially violates the safety intent of California Vehicle Code Section 22352, may create traffic conflicts, and potentially endangers vulnerable young pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists during peak morning and afternoon drop-off windows. Failed Ross Road Traffic Circle Precedent: This traffic circle proposal at Bryant and El Dorado repeats the failed Ross Road design flaws, where a similar continuous-flow roundabout caused immediate localized collisions and forced emergency city interventions. Substantial Impairment of Access under California Law: This traffic circle creates an blind-spot trap for nearby residential driveways, carrying the potential to result in a substantial impairment of access under California law due to forcing continuous-volume traffic into a residential bottleneck. Disruptive Cut-Through Traffic: Installing a traffic signal at Alma Street and El Dorado Avenue may likely result in the unintentional consequence of drawing disruptive cut-through traffic from Oregon Expressway to Bryant Street to El Dorado Avenue to Alma Street. It could also trigger a vehicle shortcut routing Highway 101 commuters down Colorado Avenue, across Middlefield Road, and down Cowper Street onto El Dorado to catch the new signal. Inappropriate Regional Traffic Magnet: Because this new traffic light at El Dorado Avenue would be the only operational signal between East Meadow Drive and Churchill Avenue, it may likely act as a magnet for vehicles from the surrounding regional neighborhood, further exacerbating traffic conflicts and safety hazards. Obstructing Access to Intersecting Cul-de-Sacs: The resulting extended vehicular queues could disrupt inbound and outbound vehicle and bicycle access, as well as pedestrian street crossings along the adjacent cul-de-sac enclaves of Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, South Court, and Kipling Street. Crucially, these backups may compromise vital emergency vehicle access, leaving fire engines, ambulances, and police responders physically blocked from entering these closed neighborhood blocks during peak commute windows. Loss of Promenade Character & Parking: This influx of cut-through vehicular traffic, combined with the projected heavy volume of regional bicycle traffic, would fundamentally alter the quiet promenade character of El Dorado Avenue and eliminate vital curbside parking. El Dorado residents and their visitors, contractors, caregivers, delivery services, and other service providers rely heavily on this curbside parking for daily access, making its removal a severe and disproportionate burden on the block. Oversized Volume in Narrow Residential Footprint: Ultimately, this structural safety crisis and neighborhood degradation all stem from a fundamentally flawed proposed design that attempts to squeeze an oversized volume of regional transit traffic into a narrow, quiet residential street. Sincerely, Nehul Palo Alto, CA From:Victoria Holl To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Sept 30 "Agenda Item 3. South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity" Date:Monday, September 28, 2026 12:03:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To: Chair Chang and Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, Our neighborhood is concerned that the Transportation staff report does not accurately portray the community view of the El Dorado bike path alternatives. Reference - Transportation Department report to PTC: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument? meetingTemplateId=20376&compileOutputType=1 1. Report did not mention community voting results from the 8/27 Transportation Department Workshop being overwhelmingly against the city’s proposals. Without this, the report on Alternatives A1 and A2 on p.83 does not accurately reflect community view. As it is, the report can read as if Alternatives A1, A2, and the “other comments” from the community all have equal support. Typically workshop reports state the main community response first. This was not done here. See the inline photos to immediately understand that the community voting was overwhelmingly against city proposals. —------- Alternative A2 Posterboard This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Voting Strongly Against: 48 = 96% Somewhat Support: 1 = 2% Strongly Support: 1 = 2% Total: 50 48/50 = 96% strongly against Alternative A2 —-------- Draft Network Enhancements Posterboard Voting: Strongly Against: 17 = 77% Somewhat support: 1 = 5% Strongly Support: 4 = 18% Total: 22 Result is 77% strongly against network enhancements shown. Posterboard photos are attached. ------------------- As a concerned neighbor , I ask the PTC to review the petition sent by David Hung by email on 9/27, but already sent to city council and Transportation in August. The petition describes the concerns of the community and asks that the city consider the Hybrid Plan described therein. Respectfully, Victoria Holl Midtown Resident