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 cautious of 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: Shani Kleinhaus
To: Council, City
Cc: Shikada, Ed; [email protected]
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 cautious of 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
[email protected]