USER ACCOUNT — CORROBORATION PENDING
Exhibit 4 — Swarovski / Hillsdale / police
Period: September–October 2026. Institutions concerned: Swarovski, Hillsdale Shopping Center / Northwood Retail, and San Mateo Police Department. Updated October 19, 2026.
A. DOCUMENTED
The redacted July 27, 2001 accommodation letter and signed acceptance (accessible transcription) and a redacted September 15, 2026 management email extract are available for inspection. An October 18 collaborative proposal and a Swarovski preservation-request draft were also located in private source review; neither is proof of delivery or an institutional response. The existing Legal Record summary gives broader context.
The July 27 letter approved disability-related use in Hillsdale shopping-center common areas subject to seven conditions; Troy signed acceptance dated August 20, 2001. The September 15 email acknowledges the original letter and describes management’s proposed continued conditions. Personal identifiers and signatures are redacted from the public derivatives; the private originals are not published.
Common-area accommodation is distinct from tenant-store access. A Hillsdale common-area arrangement does not automatically establish permission inside every tenant store, including Swarovski.
B. USER ACCOUNT
Troy reports an October 15, 2026 Swarovski store-access dispute involving his disability-related mobility aid, police involvement, and a Swarovski-only trespass-related notice. He reports having explained the aid’s function. These are attributed accounts, not independently established findings. The notice’s exact wording, scope, service and duration have not been verified against the notice itself.
His October 18 proposal seeks a continuing common-area protocol, review of safety concerns, and a clearer process for tenant-specific restrictions. A proposal is not evidence that Northwood agreed to it or that it was delivered.
C. OTHER PARTY POSITION
In the September 15 management message, Regional General Manager Jeremiah Gregory acknowledges the historical arrangement and expresses willingness to continue it while raising reported speed/proximity concerns and operating conditions. Troy’s September 16 reply asks for the underlying incident details; that private reply is not republished. The correspondence records management’s concerns, not independently established incidents. The 2001 letter asks for speed and movement adjusted to other patrons and says to use an elevator whenever possible; the 2026 message specifies a three-mile-per-hour average and says to use only elevators. Those are the documents’ different formulations, not a finding that either condition was breached.
No reviewed Swarovski institutional response or police narrative is linked here. No position is attributed to either institution from Troy’s account alone.
D. REQUESTED / OUTSTANDING RECORDS
- Unredacted private originals and the September 16 reply are not part of the public package; the redacted 2001 letter and September 15 management extract are linked above.
- Trespass notice photograph/scan and police incident report: not located in the reviewed public repository.
- Body-camera material and request/receipt: not located in the reviewed public repository.
- Underlying safety complaints, security observations, and relevant surveillance: not available here.
- Preservation-request draft located; delivery, receipt and any preservation response remain unverified.
- October 18 proposal and any response: no reviewed public attachments; do not infer acceptance or institutional silence from an absent attachment.
E. Primary documents
Inspect the redacted 2001 signed Hillsdale letter (PDF), read its accessible transcription (HTML) and inspect the redacted September 2026 management message (HTML). These establish their own text and scope, not the truth of reported complaints or tenant-store permission.
October police/trespass primary documents: documentation pending. No substitute reconstruction is supplied. Inspect the existing public institutional record and review earlier medical and accommodation sources.
The 2007 FTA determination concerned BART and does not itself determine Swarovski’s obligations. The questions here concern function, actual risk, and reasonable conditions; they are not legal findings.