The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-08-03 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: 08/03/2026 Document dates: 7/27/26 – 8/03/26 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Sophia Xu To:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City; Dinh, Joey Subject:Objection to Proposed 4-Story SB 79 Condo Project at 340 Palo Alto Ave Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 10:21:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Planner and City Council, I am writing as a homeowner on Palo Alto Ave to object to the proposed 3 or 4-story SB 79 condominium project at 340 Palo Alto Ave. My concerns are as follows: Flood risk: The site sits adjacent to the creek, and a project of this scale raises serious concerns about exacerbating flood risk for neighboring properties. I ask that the city require a full hydrology and flood-impact study before any approval. Height and orientation: At 4 stories, the building's height and orientation would loom over adjacent homes, creating significant privacy and light/shadow impacts on neighbors. The design should be reviewed for setback and orientation adjustments that reduce this intrusion. Affordability: The project does not appear to deliver meaningful affordable housing, undermining the stated intent of SB 79 to increase access to affordable housing near transit. Thank you for considering my objection. I would appreciate confirmation that this comment has been entered into the public record for this project. Best, Sophia Xu 650-666-5988 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Lynne Sutherland To:Council, City Subject:Proposal @Colorado & High Street Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 10:18:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council, I am writing to you as a resident of Palo Alto, requesting a reconsideration of the project at Colorado and High Street. Before approving the project, I kindly request that a traffic and parking spillover impact study be completed. Additionally, the plan should include an increase in parking spaces. Currently, the proposal provides only two parking spaces for 19 units, which is clearly insufficient. This project has the potential to negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, traffic flow, and safety of our community. Best Regards, Lynne Sutherland Sent from my iPhone From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: Possible employment of myself Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 9:49:13 AM -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Upton <denkafer1@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2026 10:45 AM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Cc: Dennis Upton <denkafer1@yahoo.com> Subject: Possible employment of myself CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern: I proposed possible employment of myself to the City Council in an e-mail just before their summer recess. I regret to inform you, that I am presently unavailable for employment. Therefore, I won’t be attending the city council meeting on August 10th to briefly offer my proposal. Neither will Faith Bell of Bell’s Books, with whom I collaborated on this possibility. Thank you, Dennis Upton Sent from my iPad From:midtown_gary@me.com To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Building; Switzer, Steven Subject:2497 High Street, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 8:34:07 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2026-08-02 at 1.05.58 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i All, I strongly oppose the proposed 2497 High Street project. A six-story apartment building in a neighborhood made up primarily of single-family homes, with only a few two-story buildings, would have significant impacts on the surrounding community. Below are some of our primary concerns: Increased traffic: More residents will mean more vehicles entering and leaving the neighborhood, particularly during morning and evening commute hours. This will increase congestion at nearby intersections and make it more difficult for residents to enter and exit their streets. Traffic is already a concern at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Alma Street. Parking pressure: With only two parking spaces proposed for 19 residential units, it is reasonable to expect that many residents and visitors will rely on street parking. Existing apartment buildings on High Street and Alma Street already occupy much of the available street parking along the first block of Colorado Avenue and on High Street. This development will only worsen the shortage, making it even more difficult for current residents and their guests to find parking. Certainly the City will need to add parking regulations and have restricted overnight, time limit or permits to protect current single family homeowners along Colorado Avenue and Emerson from having their neighborhood turned in to a parking lot by developers. Building scale and neighborhood character: A six-story building would be dramatically out of scale with the surrounding one- and two-story homes. This would significantly alter the visual character and identity of the neighborhood. Privacy concerns: Homes adjacent to the project, as well as those up to a block away and beyond, would experience reduced privacy as upper-floor apartments and rooftop areas overlook neighboring backyards and windows. Shadows and reduced sunlight: A building of this height will cast longer shadows onto nearby homes, yards, and gardens, reducing sunlight during portions of the day and throughout different seasons. Construction and ongoing noise: Construction is likely to last many months if not years, bringing heavy equipment, truck traffic, dust, and noise. After completion, the increased number of residents will naturally lead to higher levels of everyday activity and ambient noise. Having glass balconies and a rooftop deck will add to noise levels and certainly to privacy concerns. Infrastructure demands: Additional residents will place greater demands on local roads, water and sewer systems, electrical, and emergency services. Property value concerns: Many homeowners are rightfully concerned that the proximity of a large apartment building could negatively affect their property values. Environmental Concerns: The proposed development also raises important environmental concerns. The project is located very near the former EPA/Superfund site now monitored by the California State Water Resources Control Board where documented underground groundwater contamination and toxic chemical plumes have been identified. (*See additional information below) There are several small well plates on Colorado Avenue close to Alma that are in place to monitor the toxic plume site. The proximity of the project raises questions about potential impacts during excavation and construction, as well as the long-term safety of future residents and the surrounding neighborhood. We respectfully ask that the City work with the developer to redesign this project so that it is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A six-story building with only two parking spaces is simply not appropriate for this location. We encourage you to support a development that better reflects the scale, character, and infrastructure capacity of this established residential community. Thank you for your time. Sincerely. Gary Holl 200 Colorado Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 *Additional Information around Environmental Impacts: The area around Colorado Avenue, Alma Street, and 2497 High Street is directly impacted by a major localized toxic groundwater plume known as the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume.[1] The California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume What It Is: A significant subsurface plume of chlorinated solvents (primarily tetrachloroethene or PCE) in the groundwater. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Location: It spans across the North Ventura and California Avenue neighborhoods, running directly beneath the areas around Alma Street, Colorado Avenue, and High Street. [1, 2] Source: The contamination originated from historic industrial operations—specifically dry cleaners and electronics manufacturing—along the California Avenue commercial corridor. [1] Oversight: Because it is a local groundwater issue rather than a federal EPA emergency, it is actively monitored and regulated by the California State Water Resources Control Board (GeoTracker) and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. [1, 2, 3] 2497 High Street sits right within the geographical boundaries of the COE plume, any new redevelopment on this block must undergo heavy environmental scrutiny. If a developer digs, for example piers or footings for a foundation they should be required to install advanced vapor mitigation barriers and testing systems to ensure the toxic fumes from the underlying groundwater plume cannot seep upward into the living spaces. [1, 2, 3] The city's official mapping of the COE Plume Boundary confirms it covers this exact neighborhood corridor. [1] Building a housing development on a site affected by a major chemical plume like the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume can add hundreds of thousands of dollars—and This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Developers cannot bypass these expenses because they are legally mandated by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and Palo Alto building codes. [1] The developers should note the specialized requirements around The California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume that will impact the project budget across four main areas: 1. Advanced Vapor Mitigation Systems (VMS) Chemical-resistant barriers: Standard moisture barriers are insufficient for chlorinated solvents like PCE. Premium, multi-layered chemical vapor membranes cost between $3.50 and $5.00+ per square foot for materials and specialized installation. [1, 2] Active extraction systems: The project will likely require a Sub-Slab Depressurization (SSD) system. This includes a network of perforated pipes, vapor collection layers, and specialized commercial ventilation fans. For a multi-family or commercial footprint, installation typically adds $2.00 to $10.00 per square foot. [3] Ventilation designs: If an underground parking garage is built, the city often mandates high-volume, continuous mechanical ventilation systems to ensure fumes do not accumulate. This adds significant mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) engineering costs. [1, 4] 2. Specialized Engineering and Testing Dewatering during construction: Because the COE plume sits in the groundwater, digging deep for a basement, parking garage or foundation footings/piers means the builder must pump water out of the hole. This contaminated water cannot just be dumped down the city storm drain; it must be stored in specialized holding tanks, treated on-site using carbon filtration, and heavily tested before disposal. This process alone can add $50,000 to $200,000+ depending on the depth of the dig. Environmental consulting: Developers must hire specialized environmental firms to conduct regular indoor air sampling, sub-slab vapor testing, and soil matrix testing throughout the construction phase. [3] 3. Legal and Regulatory Overhead Regulatory oversight fees: The developer must pay hourly oversight fees directly to the California State Water Resources Control Board or regional board to review and approve their mitigation plans. Deed restrictions and disclosures: Long-term legal costs include drawing up covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that permanently disclose the environmental hazard to future renters or buyers. 4. Holding Costs and Project Delays Extended approval timelines: Environmental reviews, GeoTracker data updates, and public hearings often delay a project by 12 to 18 months or longer. Carrying costs: For a major housing development, every month of delay adds tens of thousands of dollars in interest on construction loans, property taxes, and architectural overhead. [5] From:Michel Brahic To:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City Subject:340 Palo Alto Ave. Date:Sunday, August 2, 2026 9:25:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I am a resident. I object to the speculative SB79 luxury project at 340 Palo Alto Ave. This project does not create affordable housing. Heavy construction on the edge of the San Fracisquito Creek endangers the entire block during winter floods. The proposed building will loom over the adjacent single family home properties and largely exceed their height. The lot contains several very large, old live oaks which are protected. Michel Brahic This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:Jim Girand To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Lisa Lawson; Laurie Girand; nita and Dan Goggins Subject:August 10 Council Agenda Item #20 Re Report # 2511-5563, Page 342 of Packet Date:Sunday, August 2, 2026 5:19:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Re: August 10 City Council Agenda Item #20, Report # 2511-5563, “Approval to Proceed with Final Design for the Permanent Installation of the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project including a Bulb-out on Southwood Drive and East Crescent Drive”. My name is James Girand, and I have lived at 590 East Crescent Dr. in Palo Alto for 46 years. Prior to that I lived at 361 Tioga Ct for 15 years. Thus, I have been a citizen of Palo Alto 61 years. More than five years ago, city staff installed a “pilot” directly in front of my house, burying over 60 linear feet of my street front. They referred to this installation as a “bulb out” or “curb extension.” However, all other “bulb outs” in Palo Alto do not measure the area they cover in hundreds of square feet. The city indicated that it had engaged in a process with “neighbors” - including many people who never travel on the streets at this intersection - and that my street front was to bear the brunt of the entire solution for all of East Crescent and Southwood. That I had not participated in this earlier process is only relevant because no neighbor would have conjured this solution, which appears to never have occurred before in Palo Alto. In fact, other solutions, including speed bumps and crosswalks, were simply discarded at the time. However, shockingly, given that my home was to lose half of its street front access, the city did not specifically inform me or any of the other three owners of 590 East Crescent. For years, we have had little communication from city staff. For the last ten months, we have had no communication from staff at all. Because when the city removes access to a property, someone from staff should be required speak to one of the owners prior to an installation. Postcards for a change of this magnitude are insufficient. When the pilot was installed, I was recovering from sepsis, with around-the-clock caregivers. As requested multiple times since the pilot went in, staff should have contacted co-owners directly, which also has not happened. Just because the city is operating within its legal rights doesn’t mean it should operate this disrespectfully. I should not have to tell the council that I have mobility issues. In a humiliating situation, I was asked by staff to demonstrate my disability. My challenges do not mean that staff should have been overly focused on the wheelchair ramp (to nowhere) in front of my home, which staff members have. I need access to all of my street front, just as every other homeowner in Palo Alto has, so that vehicles can pull up, and I can cross the parking strip to get into any part of a vehicle. For over five years, I have been unable to do so. Despite my challenges, in 2022, I went from house to house and collected a signed petition of neighbors indicating that close neighbors intensely disliked the pilot and wanted it removed. I submitted it to staff. Staff never showed it to council, nor to PTC. Instead, in presentations to representatives, staff indicated the 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 Crescent Park Traffic Calming project had satisfaction rates that no product or service company ever sees, insinuating that the pilot at East Crescent and Southwood has the same. It does not. In the meantime, even as the traffic in north Palo Alto changed, data has demonstrated that this “pilot” has not altered the speed of traffic on East Crescent. What has slowed traffic on Southwood is the traffic circle pilot at Center, Southwood and Hamilton. The East Crescent pilot has only resulted in cars hitting the pilot curb pieces. Staff have had to come out repeatedly to put them back and have made between two and five alterations to the shape, without notification of anyone, because the design has made the intersection more hazardous, even while, in reports, denying they could alter the shape, saying it would trigger action from the state. I have attended meeting after meeting. I have spoken at many. I have written letters. I have produced a petition. This time, I am unable to be at the August 10 meeting in person; as you are aware, homeowners receive less than a month’s notice for these meetings. Over five years, our city representation has turned over with different elections; every election brings us new representatives I must educate on the issue. I am appreciative that council members George Lu and Keith Reckdahl, as PTC commissioners, attended the 2023 meetings three years ago when the pilot was remanded for consideration of alternatives, which has not happened. We are grateful that Carrie Templeton from PTC, who was also on PTC in 2023, will be attending the council meeting on August 10. I once again respectfully request the Council require the staff to remove the pilot once and for all. No homeowner, particularly any in their eighties, should have to wait more than five years for relief from city staff’s mistake, as if everyone has all the time in the world. Staff could have and should have removed the pilot after one year while it supposedly considered other alternatives. That staff has done neither speaks loudly for why we have representative government. I thank you in advance for introducing accountability into this arduous and wholly unjust situation and ask that you choose option 3. From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City Subject:COMMENTS -- Electric Reliability Data -- UAC"s 08-05-26 meeting, Item 2 Date:Sunday, August 2, 2026 4:10:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Commissioners, I'd like to COMMENT on the staff report for Item 2 of your 08-05-26 agenda. UAC 08-05-26 Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=20116 Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: I look forward to UAC's considering an FTTP item, currently scheduled for 09-02-26. COMMENTS: page 1 1. The title of Item 2, "Calendar Year 2025 Reliability Metric Update and Annual System Reliability Goal Setting; CEQA status: Not A Project, CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5)," doesn't say that it's about ELECTRIC reliability. 2. There's a link to the 03-02-26 staff report to Council, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=822448ca-092b-465b-8859-00ebddae3a2e which is in a different format than the staff report cited by Council's 03-02-26 agenda. (Same data, I think, but different browser controls.) https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=18673 This seems to be a consequence of the fact that the 03-02-26 staff report doesn't have its own URL, which I think is a deficiency of the City's website generally. a. Here's the video for the 03-02-26 meeting (Item 10 was from 4:12:50 to 5:18:16). Item 10 was the last item on the agenda. It finished at 10:44 pm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P26S0WrCNoM 3. I don't know why the staff report talks about the Average System Availability Index (ASAI) at all. It provides the same information as SAIDI. But SAIDI is more commonly used. An ASAI of 99.99% is equivalent to a SAIDI of 52.6 minutes per year. a. Does this goal exclude major event days? 4. The staff report doesn't explain why this particular CAIDI goal (10 percent below the previous three-year average) was chosen. a. Will this goal persist for multiple years? b. Why choose CAIDI specifically? Years ago, staff was saying that with the advent of smart meters, it would be much easier and faster to pinpoint the location of faults, especially in underground infrastructure. Has this potential been reduced to practice? page 2 5. This particular staff report doesn't provide SAIDI, SAIFI, and CAIDI information for time intervals other than one year. (In previous staff reports, information for time intervals other than one year were incorrect.) a. If the data were reported by quarter, it might show some seasonal differences. 6. This 2001 paper from IEEE, "Classification of Major Event Days," discusses a "Beta Method" used to identify major event days. https://cmte.ieee.org/pes-drwg/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2003-01-Major-Events-Classification-v3.pdf But staff seems to be using a different approach. a. The Beta Method identifies a "threshold value," TMED, at the end of each reporting period. What is the City's reporting period? Days that exceed TMED qualify as major event days. b. Normally, TMED will identify 2.3 major event days per year. How many major event days did Palo Alto have over the past year? c. The article points out that major event day data should not be discarded but should be reported and analyzed separately. 7. The staff report says, "Most utilities remove Major Event Days (MED), generally defined as 24-hour periods of severe weather or other outages impacting more than 10% of the utility’s customers, from their outage tracking metrics." a. Were all of CPAU's major even days due to severe weather? b. This is different from IEEE's "Beta Method" (see point 6 above). This presentation (page 7) https://cmte.ieee.org/pes-drwg/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2004-07-NARUC.pdf lists some historical alternatives to the "Beta Method." All identify weather as the cause of the major event. • "Major storms excluded if 15 percent of customers served are interrupted over the duration of the event." • "A Major storm is a period of adverse weather during which service interruptions affect at least 10 percent of the customers in an operating and/or result in customers being without electric service for durations of at least 24 hours." • "It was the result of a major weather event which caused more than 10 percent or a district or total company customers to be without service at a given time." c. In the past, staff has said that one of the utility's challenges is that some (most?) circuits serve a large number of premises, so when a circuit goes down, lots of premises are affected. 8. The American Public Power Association has an RP3 (Reliable Public Power Provider) awards program. https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/2025%20RP3%20Application%20Guide%20FINAL%2005-01-2025_0.pdf a. It points out that in addition to Major Event Days, outages can also occur due to i) momentary interruptions (5 minutes or less) and ii) scheduled interruptions. How does CPAU treat these outages when calculating SAIDI, SAIFI, CAIDI? b. In 2018, Palo Alto received a RP3 award at the Diamond Level (highest level). See my 02-20-21 message to UAC here (search for "RP3"). https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory- commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2020/03-05-2020-special/public-letters-to-uac.pdf (Unfortunately, the URL I cited has been reused and no longer mentions Palo Alto. But here's a version from 08-27-18.) https://web.archive.org/web/20180827214538/https://www.publicpower.org/rp3-designated-utilities page 3 9. A table lists reliability information for PG&E, Alameda, Silicon Valley Power, and an EIA average. page 4 10: Again, is the CAIDI target supposed to decrease each year for a number of years? (See point 4a.) 11. There is no "next steps" section. 12. There is no plan for reporting electric reliability information on a regular schedule. In the old days, it was reported annually in the Utilities Quarterly Update for the 4th quarter. From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Reifschneider, James; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Goodell, Erin; Jensen, Eric; PD Kristina Bell; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Carla Torres; EPA Today; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Gennady Sheyner; Raymond Goins; Brandon Pho; Susan Hayase; Steve Wagstaffe; William Armaline; Gerry Gras; Daniel A. Opoku; Dana St. George; Bill Newell; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Jose Valle; Richard Konda; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Pat M; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Roberta Ahlquist; Roberta Ahlquist; DuJuan Green; Diana Diamond; Emily Mibach; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Ruth Silver Taube; Ted Smith; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Cecilia Taylor; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Human Relations Commission; Braden Cartwright; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Lotus Fong; Friends of Cubberley; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; Preminger, Steve; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Lewis james; Rodriguez, Miguel; Damon Silver; Dave Price; Angel, David; David Piper; GRP-City Council; city.council@gilroy.org; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Perron, Zachary; Zahra Billoo; Michael Ybarra; Yusra Hussain; yolanda; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; board@valleywater.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Bains, Paul; Paul George @ PPJC; Paul George @ PPJC Subject:How rogue officers turned a nationwide camera network into a tool for stalking - The Washington Post Date:Sunday, August 2, 2026 11:59:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. But bad actors have used this massive camera network as a powerful weapon for intimate surveillance. Authorities have charged or accused at least 50 law- enforcement officers of using license-plate readers for unauthorized purposes, including to stalk women without their knowledge or consent, a Post analysis of police and court records found. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/08/02/how-police-officers-used-vast- network-cameras-spy-their-exes/ From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Carla Torres; Mohammed; Richard Konda; Susan Hayase; Supervisor Otto Lee; Pat M Subject:Your event is in 2 days! Thank you for signing up to hear from Mike Gennaco August 4 at 7:00 pm! Date:Sunday, August 2, 2026 10:00:15 AM Attachments:StS-logo-color-outline-600px.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mike Gennaco, Your event is in 2 days! Topic: Sheriff Oversight in Santa Clara County Speaker: Mike Gennaco, Santa Clara County Monitor Date: Tuesday, August 4 Time: 7:00 - 8:00 pm Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/96262876635? pwd=bGNKa3BEWDhDOFVtUk10UzhQR0RmUT09 Thank you for signing up to hear about sheriff oversight in Santa Clara County with independent monitor Mike Gennaco. https://www.oirgroup.com/michael-gennaco. In addition to Santa Clara County, he and the OIR Group also serve as monitor for Santa Cruz County, Palo Alto, and other cities. The Santa Clara County sheriff supports public accountability, which appears to be working well. Here is a statement from the Sheriff's Transparency Portal: "Transparency, accountability, and oversight are fundamental principles for Sheriff Jonsen. Upholding these pillars, he has fostered a collaborative relationship with our oversight body, the Office of Correction and Law Enforcement Monitoring (OCLEM). The Sheriff's Office has partnered with OCLEM to refine practices, policies, and services." Our partner spotlight will be two of our summer interns who will share about the StopTheScandals.org campaign and petition for an inspector general in San Mateo County. All are welcome! Please share the sign up link FixinSMC.org/aug4 Nancy Nancy Goodban Fixin’ SMC www.FixinSMC.org nancy.goodban@gmail.com 650-787-9859 From:Amy Kacher To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; City Mgr Subject:Architecture Date:Sunday, August 2, 2026 6:19:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello board members, As our city continues to develop and tear down old buildings in place of new higher density ones, I ask that the message delivered in this Instagram post be considered. Palo Alto historic nature adds the richness and layer of history that is special. As we think about building new spaces, I think it’s important to think about what they’ll look like at 100 years. Right now the Ramona corridor is the most sought after downtown space. Even the new build in that area is in keeping with the historic nature and makes it a desirable location. As new developments come along near the train stations, etc., I asked that deep consideration, be paid to honoring the interesting character filled roots of our city’s past. https://www.instagram.com/p/DbhQ_H_jmfX/?img_index=12&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ== Sincerely, Amy Kacher hey, we are all just people From:Lin Xie To:Lin Xie Cc:PlannerOnDuty; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Re: FORMAL OBJECTION: SB 79 Preliminary Application for 340 Palo Alto Ave (APN: 119-21-031) Date:Saturday, August 1, 2026 2:32:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Case Planner and City Council, I am writing to formally submit critical supplemental evidence regarding the preliminary SB 79 application for 340 Palo Alto Ave, to be appended to my previous objection letter. City tracking records confirm that the applicant filed this preliminary submission on July 13, 2026—precisely three days prior to the City Council’s July 16, 2026, deadline enacting local interim mitigation ordinances. Immediately following this July 13 filing, the property was listed on the commercial market for an astronomical, speculative price of $6.3 million through Newmark (Agent: Joel Hopman). This chronological alignment constitutes undeniable evidence of land flipping and speculative regulatory arbitrage, rather than a good-faith intent to build affordable housing. Because this July 13 application remains only a preliminary placeholder designed to circumvent local safety and zoning controls for a luxury condo project, I urge the Planning Department to: 1. Deny any "grandfathered" status to this speculative filing. 2. Force the project to comply fully with the strict height, setback, and BMR affordability limits enacted under the July 16, 2026, ordinances. Please ensure this supplemental fact and the exact filing date of July 13 are added immediately to the permanent property and case file for 340 Palo Alto Ave. Thank you, Lin On Aug 1, 2026, at 02:15, Lin Xie <linxie08@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Palo Alto Planning Department and Case Planner, I am writing as a resident and neighbor living near 340 Palo Alto Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. I am submitting this formal letter of objection regarding the preliminary SB 79/SB 330 application filed for this single- family residential (R-1) parcel to construct a multi-family luxury development. As a matter of public record, this property is currently listed for sale at a speculative price of $6.3 million by Newmark (Agent: Joel Hopman). The marketing materials explicitly advertise the parcel’s “rare development potential” under a rushed pre-July 16 SB 79 filing window. This indicates a purely speculative attempt to exploit a temporary statutory gap without the intent of addressing the local housing crisis. I urge the Planning Department to scrutinize and deny this application based on the following objective statutory non-compliance metrics: 1. Violation of SB 79’s Core Intent: Failure to Provide Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Housing The primary statutory purpose of Senate Bill 79 is the creation of affordable and abundant homes near transit. The preliminary proposal for 340 Palo Alto Ave plans to construct up to 6 luxury, large-format condos (approx. 1,500–1,550 sq. ft. each) with a target market value in the multi-million dollar range. A pure market-rate luxury project fails the baseline statutory spirit of SB 79. The City must demand strict, non- waivable compliance with Palo Alto’s BMR housing allocation thresholds and state-mandated affordability metrics. If the developer cannot guarantee the required lower-income or very-low-income units, the application must be deemed ineligible for SB 79 streamlined approval. 2. Objective Health and Safety Risks: San Francisquito Creek Flood Plain & Riparian Corridor SB 79 explicitly allows local jurisdictions to override density bonuses if a project poses unmitigated public health and safety risks. 340 Palo Alto Ave directly faces the San Francisquito Creek, a critical natural watercourse and a known flood hazard zone. Flood Risk: Constructing a massive 3-to-4 story multi-family structure with heavy foundations and 9 at-grade parking spaces on a small 7,200 sq. ft. lot significantly reduces permeable ground cover, creating severe runoff risks. Structural Stability: Intensive subterranean or ground-level structural excavation so close to the creek bank threatens the stability of the local levee infrastructure and increases the vulnerability of the entire street to catastrophic flooding during winter atmospheric rivers. 3. Compliance with Palo Alto’s Post-July 16 Interim Ordinances While the applicant rushed a preliminary placeholder application prior to July 16, 2026, the project has not received final approval or entitlements. I request that the City enforce the maximum allowable structural limits, setback requirements, and density caps established under Palo Alto’s newly enacted local SB 79 implementation ordinances to the fullest extent permitted by the Housing Accountability Act. Conclusion & Request for Public Record Please place this formal objection into the permanent property file for 340 Palo Alto Ave. It is critical that this objection remains on file so that any prospective commercial buyers or institutional funds conducting their due diligence are fully aware of the unresolved environmental, structural, and legal challenges surrounding this parcel. Please notify me of any upcoming public hearings, architectural reviews, or updates regarding the status of this application. Thank you for your time and dedication to protecting our community's safety and regulatory integrity. Sincerely, Lin Owner of 346 Palo Alto Ave, Palo Alto From:Lin Xie To:PlannerOnDuty Cc:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:FORMAL OBJECTION: SB 79 Preliminary Application for 340 Palo Alto Ave (APN: 119-21-031) Date:Saturday, August 1, 2026 2:16:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto Planning Department and Case Planner, I am writing as a resident and neighbor living near 340 Palo Alto Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. I am submitting this formal letter of objection regarding the preliminary SB 79/SB 330 application filed for this single-family residential (R-1) parcel to construct a multi-family luxury development. As a matter of public record, this property is currently listed for sale at a speculative price of $6.3 million by Newmark (Agent: Joel Hopman). The marketing materials explicitly advertise the parcel’s “rare development potential” under a rushed pre-July 16 SB 79 filing window. This indicates a purely speculative attempt to exploit a temporary statutory gap without the intent of addressing the local housing crisis. I urge the Planning Department to scrutinize and deny this application based on the following objective statutory non-compliance metrics: 1. Violation of SB 79’s Core Intent: Failure to Provide Below-Market- Rate (BMR) Housing The primary statutory purpose of Senate Bill 79 is the creation of affordable and abundant homes near transit. The preliminary proposal for 340 Palo Alto Ave plans to construct up to 6 luxury, large-format condos (approx. 1,500–1,550 sq. ft. each) with a target market value in the multi-million dollar range. A pure market- rate luxury project fails the baseline statutory spirit of SB 79. The City must demand strict, non-waivable compliance with Palo Alto’s BMR housing allocation thresholds and state-mandated affordability metrics. If the developer cannot guarantee the required lower-income or very-low-income units, the application must be deemed ineligible for SB 79 streamlined approval. 2. Objective Health and Safety Risks: San Francisquito Creek Flood 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 Plain & Riparian Corridor SB 79 explicitly allows local jurisdictions to override density bonuses if a project poses unmitigated public health and safety risks. 340 Palo Alto Ave directly faces the San Francisquito Creek, a critical natural watercourse and a known flood hazard zone. Flood Risk: Constructing a massive 3-to-4 story multi-family structure with heavy foundations and 9 at-grade parking spaces on a small 7,200 sq. ft. lot significantly reduces permeable ground cover, creating severe runoff risks. Structural Stability: Intensive subterranean or ground-level structural excavation so close to the creek bank threatens the stability of the local levee infrastructure and increases the vulnerability of the entire street to catastrophic flooding during winter atmospheric rivers. 3. Compliance with Palo Alto’s Post-July 16 Interim Ordinances While the applicant rushed a preliminary placeholder application prior to July 16, 2026, the project has not received final approval or entitlements. I request that the City enforce the maximum allowable structural limits, setback requirements, and density caps established under Palo Alto’s newly enacted local SB 79 implementation ordinances to the fullest extent permitted by the Housing Accountability Act. Conclusion & Request for Public Record Please place this formal objection into the permanent property file for 340 Palo Alto Ave. It is critical that this objection remains on file so that any prospective commercial buyers or institutional funds conducting their due diligence are fully aware of the unresolved environmental, structural, and legal challenges surrounding this parcel. Please notify me of any upcoming public hearings, architectural reviews, or updates regarding the status of this application. Thank you for your time and dedication to protecting our community's safety and regulatory integrity. Sincerely, Lin Owner of 346 Palo Alto Ave, Palo Alto From:Gabe Molitor To:Council, City Subject:Dear city council members this is your friend Gabe molitor and the reason for this mobile cell phone email message is because I also think that it’s about the right time that the city of Palo Alto police department start issuing mandatory citations for... Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 10:50:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:sam.liccardo@gmail.com Cc:assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker Subject:https://url.usb.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/OzdVC1VojwSnGk6MtLfkfVk4Ig?domain=m.youtube.com Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 4:46:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Sam Violent flesh-eating police canines must be banned too. Avram Finkelstein https://m.youtube.com/watch?d=n&ra=m&fbclid=IwRlRTSATaEhFwZG9mBWZkaWQWULkUA13gNZccKuSPv7m2BBfkRIPF- From:Andreas Ramos To:Council, City; City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan; 刘刚 Subject:6-Story Development at 2497 High St Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 3:32:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, Regarding the proposal for a six-story apartment building at 2497 High St with 19 units and only two parking spots. That's an irresponsible proposal. 19 units will have 20 or more cars. Residents will compete with neighbors for parking. Please review the proposal in STRICT DETAIL to find something to reject it. You can alway find something! I live in Ventura neighorhood. And we vote. Thank you to Gary for letting us know about this. yrs, andreas andreas.com This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Celeste Johnson To:Council, City Subject:6-story Development Proposed at 2497 High Street Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 1:52:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I am a resident in Midtown Palo Alto at Colorado and Ramona. I oppose the proposed 6 story apartment building at 2497 High St.It will ruin the current residential character of the neighborhood and will definitely adversely impact home values. I would like to request: 1.A comprehensive Traffic and Parking Spillover Impact Study before any further steps are taken. 2. The City strictly audit the developer's application to ensure it was genuinely 100% complete before the July 15 deadline. The proposed 2 parking spaces for this building will result in severe street congestion with unsafe walking routes for the many children, seniors, and pets.in the area. I strongly urge you to help prevent this project from happening. Thank you, Celeste Johnson DRE 02037472 Realtor Keller Williams - Palo Alto Mobile: 650-274-3654 "Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated." Download your free Buyer Guide and Seller Guide This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Chris Steck To:Council, City Subject:Thanks Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 1:34:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Appreciated the council following up on my concerns with 311 issues that either had gone unaddressed or underaddressed. We'll see what happens moving forward. Thanks again, Chris Steck Barron Park resident Sent from my iPad From:Aram James To:Meg Thomas; Julian Garcia; Jasso, Tamara; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; city.council@menlopark.gov; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; city.council@gilroy.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Shikada, Ed; Vicki Veenker; cromero@cityofepa.org Cc:Human Relations Commission; rabrica@cityofepa.org; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Emily Mibach Subject:Preliminary 2.9 magnitude earthquake strikes near Gilroy Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 1:20:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://nbcbayarea.app.link/Ebt74R6me5b From:Matt Schlegel To:Council, City Subject:Ouster LiDAR installation Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 9:58:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I notice that what appears to be an Ouster LiDAR product is now installed on a light pole at the Maybell/El Camino Real intersection. The unit is connected by a cable into the city's traffic system. I can find no mention of this installation on the city website. Would you kindly inform me who installed this LiDAR system and what its purpose is? Also, I would appreciate details on who is storing the collected imaging data and who has access to that data. Here is information about the ominously-named Ouster products: https://ouster.com/ As you may know, Palo Alto residents regularly gather at that intersection to exercise our first amendment right to express our grievances at the authoritarian overthrow of our federal government. I have a concern that data collected by this system may fall into the hands of federal agents in violation of our fourth amendment right of privacy. As such, I would appreciate if the city would remove the LiDAR imaging system immediately. I have brought up a similar concern about the Flock camera that was recently installed at a nearby light pole which is also directed at that intersection. It is very discomforting at this level of surveillance being directed at the location of a first amendment protest. I would very much appreciate if you would instruct Flock to remove that camera, as well. I appreciate your attention to this matter, Matt Schlegel Palo Alto Pictures attached From:Ilya Veygman To:Council, City; City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan Subject:2497 High St: ignore the haters and build, build, build Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 9:10:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi there! I came across a neighbor writing about a proposed development at 2497 High St, Palo Alto to encourage everyone to write in and try to stop the builder from getting this development approved, so I am doing exactly the opposite of this person's request: please ignore the naysayers and allow the build. Palo Alto desperately needs more housing, not NIMBYism. Come election time, I will be prioritizing my vote, donations and activism in favor of pro- density and pro-building candidates Thank you --Ilya, resident of Charleston Meadows This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Burt, Patrick To:dan@mahoney.net; Council, City Subject:Re: Stop the development on High St Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 8:54:34 AM Dan, Sorry that was sent prematurely. Pat Burt Get Outlook for iOS From: Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov> Sent: Friday, 31 July 2026 08:53:49 To: dan@mahoney.net <dan@mahoney.net>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Stop the development on High St SB79 Get Outlook for iOS From: Dan Mahoney <danrmahoney@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 31 July 2026 08:51:27 To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Stop the development on High St CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report You're talking about a 6 story building in the middle of an individual home neighborhood. I moved here to live in Palo Alto, not Manhattan. And the idea that there is no parking to speak of is ridiculous. Where will the cars go? The statement that the people will all commute on CalTrain is also ridiculous. San Francisco and "office-work" is far from being what it used to be. Most people will commute by car and the only way out will be Oregon Expwy which is already overcrowded. So are you going to widen that to 3 lanes now? And what do people do on weekends? they will flood the neighborhood with cars parked on the street. Dan -- Powered by Mimecast dan@mahoney.net From:Burt, Patrick To:dan@mahoney.net; Council, City Subject:Re: Stop the development on High St Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 8:53:56 AM SB79 Get Outlook for iOS From: Dan Mahoney <danrmahoney@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 31 July 2026 08:51:27 To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Stop the development on High St CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report You're talking about a 6 story building in the middle of an individual home neighborhood. I moved here to live in Palo Alto, not Manhattan. And the idea that there is no parking to speak of is ridiculous. Where will the cars go? The statement that the people will all commute on CalTrain is also ridiculous. San Francisco and "office-work" is far from being what it used to be. Most people will commute by car and the only way out will be Oregon Expwy which is already overcrowded. So are you going to widen that to 3 lanes now? And what do people do on weekends? they will flood the neighborhood with cars parked on the street. Dan -- Dan Mahoney dan@mahoney.net Powered by Mimecast From:Dan Mahoney To:Council, City Subject:Stop the development on High St Date:Friday, July 31, 2026 8:52:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i You're talking about a 6 story building in the middle of an individual home neighborhood. I moved here to live in Palo Alto, not Manhattan. And the idea that there is no parking to speak of is ridiculous. Where will the cars go? The statement that the people will all commute on CalTrain is also ridiculous. San Francisco and "office-work" is far from being what it used to be. Most people will commute by car and the only way out will be Oregon Expwy which is already overcrowded. So are you going to widen that to 3 lanes now? And what do people do on weekends? they will flood the neighborhood with cars parked on the street. Dan -- Dan Mahoney dan@mahoney.net This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report From:Paul DeMarinis To:Council, City; City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan Subject:2497 High St Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 8:06:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City officials, It has come to my attention that there is a proposal for a 71 foot tall apartment building to be built at 2497 High St. The word is that while providing 19 new housing units, this monstrosity will only add 2 parking spaces. Given the locale, this seems unworkable. That segment of High St. is a cul-de-sac with few parking spaces available for current residents. Alma St, the largest main artery, doesn't provide any parking spaces around the interchange. That leaves a residential St, Colorado, with many single family dwellings whose driveways break up the available parking. Beside the great height of this building, an esthetic insult to palo alto neighborhoods, the insertion of this building into the location just overtaxes the roads with added vehicles, moving and parked. I think at very least you ought to insist that 100% ( > 20 parking spaces) of underground parking be added as a requirement to the project so as to minimize the effect on the neighborhood and infrastructure. Better yet to can the whole project. best, Paul DeMarinis From:Cory Wolbach To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Re: Please Support 788 San Antonio w/ Low Parking Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 8:05:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i *be allowed. Sorry for the typo. -------------------- Cory Wolbach M: 408-529-7563 On Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 7:33 PM Cory Wolbach <cory.wolbach@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Palo Alto PTC and City Council, My name is Cory Wolbach and I live in the Palo Verde neighborhood. Please vote to advance 788 San Antonio Road, which will bring a range of housing options to the San Antonio Area. I support a lower parking ratio, which reflects the city's vision for the future of housing and multi-modal transportation along the corridor. Nobody who lives on San Antonio needs to have their own car, and developers of desparately needed housing should not he allowed (let alone required) to add excess parking. There are already multiple memorials to people killed by cars on San Antonio. What we (the current residents and future generations of Palo Altans) *need* is for you to add protected bike lanes on San Antonio, and to work with Mountain View and VTA to run bus rapid transit (BRT) on San Antonio. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community. Best, Cory -------------------- Cory Wolbach M: 408-529-7563 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Mark Dinan To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Please Support 788 San Antonio w/ Low Parking Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 7:55:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto PTC and City Council, My name is Mark Dinan and I live in East Palo Alto. Please vote to advance 788 San Antonio Road, which will bring a range of housing options to the San Antonio Area. I support a lower parking ratio, which reflects the city's vision for the future of housing and multi-modal transportation along the corridor. Building housing in Palo Alto relieves pressure on EPA’s housing market. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community, Mark Dinan Dinan & Associates (650) 796 5035 Mobile From:Cory Wolbach To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Please Support 788 San Antonio w/ Low Parking Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 7:34:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto PTC and City Council, My name is Cory Wolbach and I live in the Palo Verde neighborhood. Please vote to advance 788 San Antonio Road, which will bring a range of housing options to the San Antonio Area. I support a lower parking ratio, which reflects the city's vision for the future of housing and multi-modal transportation along the corridor. Nobody who lives on San Antonio needs to have their own car, and developers of desparately needed housing should not he allowed (let alone required) to add excess parking. There are already multiple memorials to people killed by cars on San Antonio. What we (the current residents and future generations of Palo Altans) *need* is for you to add protected bike lanes on San Antonio, and to work with Mountain View and VTA to run bus rapid transit (BRT) on San Antonio. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community. Best, Cory -------------------- Cory Wolbach M: 408-529-7563 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:Joe Flaherty To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Please Support 788 San Antonio w/ Low Parking Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 7:26:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello Palo Alto PTC and City Council, My name is Joe Flaherty and I live in Downtown North. Please vote to advance 788 San Antonio Road, which will bring a range of housing options to the San Antonio Area. I support a lower parking ratio, which reflects the city's vision for the future of housing and multi-modal transportation along the corridor. Lowering parking mandates lowers traffic violence and helps welcomes working class people and young families to the area. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community, Joe Flaherty This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report From:mfquinniii@gmail.com To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Please Support 788 San Antonio w/ Low Parking Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 7:23:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto PTC and City Council, My name is [INSERT NAME] and I live in [INSERT NEIGHBORHOOD]. Please vote to advance 788 San Antonio Road, which will bring a range of housing options to the San Antonio Area. I support a lower parking ratio, which reflects the city's vision for the future of housing and multi-modal transportation along the corridor. [CUSTOMIZE HERE WITH WHY YOU CARE OR DELETE]. Thank you for supporting more homes in our community, [INSERT NAME] Sent from my iPhone From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Raybould, Claire; Switzer, Steven Subject:6th cycle RHNA data Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 2:19:02 PM Attachments:RHNA attainment and detail for 6th cycle.xlsx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Hi all, I am attaching a file I compiled that includes unpublished data for 6/30/2022--1/31/2023 and published data for 2023-25 for Palo Alto and several neighboring cities. I note that the city has approved over 1,500 units for which permits have not yet been applied for. Thank you for working to meet our adopted 6th cycle housing goals. Steve This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report 6th cycle adding 6/30/22-01/31/23 6/30/22-01/31/23 from HCD Table B not publically available 2023-25 6/30/22--01/31/23 % attainment RHNA Permitted Permitted Total Permitted % attainment Palo Alto 10.3%6086 625 76 701 11.5% Mt View 8.3%11135 926 955 1881 16.9% Sunnyvale 9.2%11966 1095 849 1944 16.2% Santa Clara 13.3%11632 1544 2025 3569 30.7% San Jose 12.6%62200 7819 927 8746 14.1% Los Altos 30.9%1958 606 50 656 33.5% Redwood City 25.1%4588 1151 119 1270 27.7% San Mateo 8.0%7015 559 55 614 8.8% Menlo Park 11.8%2946 348 815 1163 39.5% EPA 9.7%829 80 18 98 11.8% Total 12.3%120355 14753 5889 20642 17.2% City/County % attainment RHNA Permitted Above Mod Moderate Low Very Low Total ADU 5+SF attached SF detached 2-4 Total Palo Alto 10.3%6086 625 456 81 47 41 625 391 224 10 0 625 Mt View 8.3%11135 926 502 73 92 259 926 213 478 144 91 0 926 Sunnyvale 9.2%11966 1095 637 173 115 170 1095 239 176 595 85 0 1095 Santa Clara 13.3%11632 1544 1063 137 241 103 1544 249 1265 0 24 6 1544 San Jose 12.6%62200 7819 1719 2184 1945 1971 7819 1530 5983 144 156 6 7819 Los Altos 30.9%1958 606 248 117 142 99 606 260 334 4 8 606 Redwood City 25.1%4588 1151 645 76 232 198 1151 190 923 8 18 12 1151 San Mateo 8.0%7015 559 321 73 80 85 559 243 241 26 42 7 559 Menlo Park 11.8%2946 348 92 63 72 121 348 188 62 0 96 2 348 EPA 9.7%829 80 17 19 19 25 80 72 0 4 4 0 80 Total 12.3%120355 14753 5700 2996 2985 3072 14753 3575 9686 921 530 41 14753 From:prys hughes To:Council, City Subject:Re: Speeding Middlefield red Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 9:02:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 6:09 PM prys hughes <phughescymru123@gmail.com> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: prys hughes <phughescymru123@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 6:06 PM Subject: Speeding Middlefield red To: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org> Good evening, Greer, Since I last wrote to you Regarding the speeding on Middlefield Road, particularly between Loma Verde and East Meadow a Palo Alto officer stated that they would not ticket anyone speeding less than 40 miles an hour! As surprised as I was with the officers reasoning he did put a strong case for the way things stood at present. However, there seems to be no In fraction for those traveling over 40 miles an hour! Today for my observation, at least 1/5 of the drivers were over 40 miles an hour. This is also happening in an area during major construction project around Ashton and Middlefield. In my frustration, I did contact the police who informed me that they were aware of the situation. In closing, I would first like to know is there any chance of Enforcing a 40 mile an hour limit let alone the posted 25? Also, it would be interesting and informative to know how many speeding in fractions have occurred on this stretch of road since the beginning of the year year? Thanks Prys Hughes This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Aram James To:Susan Hayase; Jose Valle; Vicki Veenker; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; Valeros, Gilda B; Gilfix & La Poll Associates; Diana Diamond; Sheree Roth; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Bill Newell; Zelkha, Mila; Raymond Goins; Yolanda Conaway Cc:Richard Konda; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Carla Torres; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Otto Lee; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Sameena Usman; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Raj Jayadev; rabrica@cityofepa.org; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Human Relations Commission; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; Council, City; city.council@gilroy.org; Redwood City City Council; marlo.custodio@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Lotus Fong; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; District5@bos.sccgov.org; Gerry Gras; Anna Griffin; Goodell, Erin; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; Braden Cartwright; EPA Today; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steve Wagstaffe; Emily Mibach; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Nicole Chiu-Wang; Preminger, Steve; DuJuan Green; Dana St. George; Roberta Ahlquist; Robert Handa Subject:San Jose Japantown stages ICE facility protest - San José Spotlight Date:Thursday, July 30, 2026 8:03:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-japantown-stages-ice-facility-protest/ From:prys hughes To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Speeding Middlefield red Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 6:09:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: prys hughes <phughescymru123@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 6:06 PM Subject: Speeding Middlefield red To: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org> Good evening, Greer, Since I last wrote to you Regarding the speeding on Middlefield Road, particularly between Loma Verde and East Meadow a Palo Alto officer stated that they would not ticket anyone speeding less than 40 miles an hour! As surprised as I was with the officers reasoning he did put a strong case for the way things stood at present. However, there seems to be no In fraction for those traveling over 40 miles an hour! Today for my observation, at least 1/5 of the drivers were over 40 miles an hour. This is also happening in an area during major construction project around Ashton and Middlefield. In my frustration, I did contact the police who informed me that they were aware of the situation. In closing, I would first like to know is there any chance of Enforcing a 40 mile an hour limit let alone the posted 25? Also, it would be interesting and informative to know how many speeding in fractions have occurred on this stretch of road since the beginning of the year year? Thanks Prys Hughes This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report   From:UTL-Customer Service To:Rod Lehman; UTL-Customer Service; Council, City Subject:RE: Changes to Credit Card Processing Fees Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 4:34:23 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image006.png Rod, Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback. We understand that the introduction of the credit card convenience fee has been frustrating, and we appreciate you letting us know how you feel. The convenience fee is charged to cover the cost of processing credit card payments and is applied by our payment processing service. Customers who prefer to avoid this fee may choose from other payment options that do not incur a convenience charge, such as ACH/eCheck payments or other accepted payment methods, where available. We value customer feedback and will ensure your comments are shared with the appropriate team for consideration. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Emily Guerra Customer Service Specialist Utilities Customer Service 650-329-2161 Emily.Guerra@paloalto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Rod Lehman <rod_k_lehman@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:31 PM To: UTL-Customer Service <UtilitiesCustomerService@PaloAlto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Fw: Changes to Credit Card Processing Fees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City of PA,This credit card surcharge for paying bills is basically a 2.75% hidden increase on top of the recent increase in utility rates. The fact that the City Council didn't formally review this increase and solicit public feedback is not acceptable. Furthermore, it's clear that whoever n i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Dear City of PA, This credit card surcharge for paying bills is basically a 2.75% hidden increase on top of the recent increase in utility rates. The fact that the City Council didn't formally review this increase and solicit public feedback is not acceptable. Furthermore, it's clear that whoever negotiated the rate got a bad deal for the citizens of Palo Alto. Any small businesses can get a 1.9% credit card charge processing rate through Costco. Even the County of Santa Clara offers people to pay property taxes for just a 2.22% credit card surcharge. The announcement below is disappointing and just serves to further erode the public's confidence in the fiscal responsibility of the City. Accordingly, I'll be voting no on any further tax or bond related proposals on the upcoming election ballots. Best, Rod Lehman Special Offer ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: City of Palo Alto Utilities <utilitiescommunications@paloalto.gov> To: "rod_k_lehman@yahoo.com" <rod_k_lehman@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 at 02:59:16 PM PDT Subject: Changes to Credit Card Processing Fees Changes to Credit Card Payment Processing Fees Powered by Mimecast Beginning September 15, 2026, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) will transition the cost of credit and debit card processing fees for utility bill payments to the cardholder. Like many municipalities and utilities, we are implementing this change so processing costs are paid by those who choose to use card payments. City Council approved of the citywide credit card service fee of 2.75% to maintain cost-effective public services across departments and ensure fairness for all customers. This fee will be added to the total amount charged when a credit or debit card is used and is intended to offset a portion of the costs charged by credit card companies and payment processors. Customers who prefer to avoid the service fee can elect a no-cost payment option. Our goal is to continue providing dependable utility service while managing operating costs responsibly. We offer several alternative payment methods so you can avoid the card processing fees. 1. Go Online to MyCPAU at mycpau.cityofpaloalto.org/portal: Pay using a bank account. 2. By Mail: Send a personal check, cashier’s check, or money order to Palo Alto City Hall, Revenue Collections, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. 3. In Person: Pay by cash, check or money order at the Palo Alto City Hall, Revenue Collections counter. To change your utility bill payment method from a credit or debit card to a bank account, please visit the City of Palo Alto Utilities MyCPAU customer account portal at mycpau.cityofpaloalto.org/portal. After logging in to MyCPAU, select Billing from the top menu, then choose Auto Pay from the menu on the left to update your payment method to a bank account. You may also email us at UtilitiesCustomerService@paloalto.gov or call our billing representatives at (650) 329-2161. Learn More about the Changes to Payment Processing Fees Congratulations to Our Induction Cooktop Drawing Winner! Thank you to everyone who stopped by the City of Palo Alto Utilities booth at the Chili Cook-Off! We enjoyed connecting with the community and sharing the benefits of induction cooking and home electrification. Congratulations to our lucky drawing winner, Rakhee Nishtala. Rakhee recently received a portable induction cooktop and is now ready to enjoy the many benefits of induction cooking, including faster cooking, improved safety, greater energy efficiency, and precise temperature control. If you're inspired to make the switch, the City of Palo Alto offers a $500 rebate for permanent induction cooktops or ranges and a $50 rebate for portable induction cooktops, making it a great option for renters. Higher incentives are available for income-qualified residents. Visit the Rebate Hub Save $500 on a New Heat Pump Water for a Limited Time Now through October 31, 2026, Palo Alto Utilities customers can save an additional $500 when switching to a heat pump water heater. Our installers can get your project completed within 48 hours for as low as $2,100. Learn more and get started at paloalto.gov/WaterHeaterDiscount or call (650) 713-3411. Electrify My Home Manage Your Water Use With WaterSmart WaterSmart shows how much water you’re using and where, helping you reduce utility costs and conserve water with hourly water usage trends, leak alerts, and recommended actions based on your water usage patterns. Use WaterSmart to track your water use, identify possible leaks, and receive personalized efficiency tips and rebate recommendations to help you save water and money. Log in to WaterSmart Catch Up on the Latest Utility Bill Inserts · Residential Utility Rate Changes · Non-Residential Utility Rate Changes · Stay Informed & Safe During Wildfire Season · Oh Rats! Keeping Rodents Out of Your Home · July 2026 Utilities and Community Announcements City of Palo Alto Utilities | 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Constant Contact From:Aram James To:Hoyt, George Cc:Jasso, Tamara Subject:Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 2:35:15 PM Attachments:image006.png image010.png image003.png image001.png image011.png image002.png image005.png image009.png image008.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Great! See you then. Aram On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 2:19 PM Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> wrote: Aram, Yes, I can meet you on August 6th at 2:00 PM. My office is located at on the first floor at 285 Hamilton Avenue. Please check in with the receptionist upon your arrival. See you then. George E. Hoyt, CBO, CASp, CCEO, LEED AP BD+C Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 2:08 PM To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> Cc: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi George, Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. If you have time available this coming Thursday, August 6, in the afternoon, that would be great. Are you available at 2PM? If not, please consider other times in the afternoon, and I will make myself available. Best regards, Aram P.S. I don't ride elevators so prefer to meet on the ground floor or in an office accessible by stairs. On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 1:09 PM Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> wrote: Aram, I would be happy to meet with you sometime next week, Monday through Thursday. If you could provide a couple of dates and times that work for your schedule, we can coordinate from there and find a mutually convenient time. I look forward to meeting with you. George E. Hoyt, CBO, CASp, CCEO, LEED AP BD+C Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 12:58 PM To: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov>; Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>; Friends of Cubberley <friendsofcubberley94303@gmail.com>; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; EPA Today <epatoday@epatoday.org>; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Senator Becker <Senator.Becker@senate.ca.gov>; District5@bos.sccgov.org; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Jeff Rosen <info@jeffrosen.org>; Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org>; Diana Diamond <dianaLdiamond@gmail.com>; Emily Mibach <emibach@padailypost.com>; Braden Cartwright <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; Daniel A. Opoku <daopoku11@gmail.com>; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com <jason.green@bayareanewsgroup.com>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; Lewis james <alphonse9947@gmail.com>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@paloalto.gov>; Brandon Pho <brandon@sanjosespotlight.com>; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council <council@redwoodcity.org>; city.council@gilroy.org; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Bill Newell <billnewell2850@gmail.com>; Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Julian Garcia <jgarcia@spiekercompanies.com> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. July 29, 2026 Hi Fire Marshal Tamara Jasso: Thank you so much for your referral to the Building Department, under the leadership of Mr. George Holt. If you both have time, I would appreciate an in-person meeting where we can put our heads together to potentially solve this very sticky problem. In other words, what other options do we have to strongly encourage Mr. Spieker to conduct a professional seismic inspection of the Southwood Complex? Thanks so much for your time and attention to this critical issue, Aram James 7-29-2026 On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 12:34 PM Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. James, Thank you for your message. I understand your concern. This issue should be referred to the Building Department, as seismic/structural inspections do not fall under Fire Prevention’s authority. I’m not sure there is anything either of us can do to make the owner comply with your request, but the Building Department would be the appropriate place to confirm whether any applicable requirements or options exist. I have added @Hoyt, George, the Chief Building official so that he may weigh in. Regards, Tamara Jasso | Fire Marshal City of Palo Alto Fire Department 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2329 | E: tamara.jasso@paloalto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 2:47 PM To: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 7-20-2026 Hi Fire Marshall Tamara Jasso: As you might guess I am NOT happy with the property owners response ( Southwood Apartments) to my request for a seismic-earthquake inspection. ( See their response below). I would like to set a meeting with you to discuss other options that might encourage the owners to in fact conduct an appropriate seismic inspection. Maybe some of the code sections you referred to would assist or maybe you have other suggestions? You can reach me at (415) 370-5056. I look forward to speaking with you. Best regards, Aram James On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:03 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Meg, 1. When was the last seismic-earthquake inspection completed on the Southwood properties? 2. Has one ever been done on the property at Southwood according to your records? 3. If so, will you forward the seismic report my way? I am glad the most recent fire inspection completed by the Palo Alto Fire Department on July 14, 2026, was satisfactory. However, I think you would agree that a fire inspection is NOT the same as an earthquake/seismic inspection. Given the age of the Southwood complex, approximately 40 years old, I continue to request a full seismic-earthquake inspection be completed in a timely fashion- consistent with best practices. Southwood has approximately 100 units with approximately 250 residences. Given our proximity to major earthquake faults and out of an abundance of caution, please reconsider your refusal to provide a complete seismic inspection ASAP. Best regards , Aram James 415-370-5056 P.S. If it is a matter of money, I am more than happy to contribute a few hundred dollars towards the cost of the seismic inspection. Public safety demands that my request be taken seriously. Please call me at anytime to discuss this matter. On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:33 PM Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com> wrote: Hi Aram, Apologies for the delay in our response. On July 14, 2026 the Palo Alto Fire Department performed their annual inspection of the premises at 2850 Middlefield Road and all safety and health standards that are essential for the well-being of all residents were met and there were no property violations. We are unaware of any earthquake risks to the building, and a seismic inspection does not appear necessary based on the condition of the property and the latest inspection reports received. Please reach out with any specific concerns you may have. Thanks, Meg Thomas On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:44 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 6/25/2026 Hi Julian, Thanks for returning my phone call this morning. As promised, I am sending this note to you in hopes of receiving the most current information on the earthquake/seismic safety of the Southwood Complex. Is there, for example, an annual report/inspection of Southwood to assess the integrity of the complex in the event of a major earthquake? Any information on this critical subject would be most appreciated. Thanks so much. Peace, Aram 415-370-5O56 -- Meg Thomas COO and Regional Property Manager Spieker Companies, Inc. (408) 221-0025 mthomas@spiekercompanies.com From:Hoyt, George To:Aram James Cc:Jasso, Tamara; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:RE: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 2:14:31 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png Aram, Yes, I can meet you on August 6th at 2:00 PM. My office is located at on the first floor at 285 Hamilton Avenue. Please check in with the receptionist upon your arrival. See you then. George E. Hoyt, CBO, CASp, CCEO, LEED AP BD+C Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 2:08 PM To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> Cc: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi George, Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. If you have time available this coming Thursday, August 6, in the afternoon, that would be great. Are you available at 2PM? If not, please consider other times in the afternoon, and I will make myself available. Best regards, Aram P.S. I don't ride elevators so prefer to meet on the ground floor or in an office accessible by stairs. On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 1:09 PM Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> wrote: Aram, I would be happy to meet with you sometime next week, Monday through Thursday. If you could provide a couple of dates and times that work for your schedule, we can coordinate from there and find a mutually convenient time. I look forward to meeting with you. George E. Hoyt, CBO, CASp, CCEO, LEED AP BD+C Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 12:58 PM To: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov>; Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>; Friends of Cubberley <friendsofcubberley94303@gmail.com>; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; EPA Today <epatoday@epatoday.org>; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Senator Becker <Senator.Becker@senate.ca.gov>; District5@bos.sccgov.org; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Jeff Rosen <info@jeffrosen.org>; Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org>; Diana Diamond <dianaLdiamond@gmail.com>; Emily Mibach <emibach@padailypost.com>; Braden Cartwright <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; Daniel A. Opoku <daopoku11@gmail.com>; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com <jason.green@bayareanewsgroup.com>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; Lewis james <alphonse9947@gmail.com>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@paloalto.gov>; Brandon Pho <brandon@sanjosespotlight.com>; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council <council@redwoodcity.org>; city.council@gilroy.org; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Bill Newell <billnewell2850@gmail.com>; Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Julian Garcia <jgarcia@spiekercompanies.com> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. July 29, 2026 Hi Fire Marshal Tamara Jasso: Thank you so much for your referral to the Building Department, under the leadership of Mr. George Holt. If you both have time, I would appreciate an in-person meeting where we can put our heads together to potentially solve this very sticky problem. In other words, what other options do we have to strongly encourage Mr. Spieker to conduct a professional seismic inspection of the Southwood Complex? Thanks so much for your time and attention to this critical issue, Aram James 7-29-2026 On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 12:34 PM Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. James, Thank you for your message. I understand your concern. This issue should be referred to the Building Department, as seismic/structural inspections do not fall under Fire Prevention’s authority. I’m not sure there is anything either of us can do to make the owner comply with your request, but the Building Department would be the appropriate place to confirm whether any applicable requirements or options exist. I have added @Hoyt, George, the Chief Building official so that he may weigh in. Regards, Tamara Jasso | Fire Marshal City of Palo Alto Fire Department 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2329 | E: tamara.jasso@paloalto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 2:47 PM To: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 7-20-2026 Hi Fire Marshall Tamara Jasso: As you might guess I am NOT happy with the property owners response ( Southwood Apartments) to my request for a seismic-earthquake inspection. ( See their response below). I would like to set a meeting with you to discuss other options that might encourage the owners to in fact conduct an appropriate seismic inspection. Maybe some of the code sections you referred to would assist or maybe you have other suggestions? You can reach me at (415) 370-5056. I look forward to speaking with you. Best regards, Aram James On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:03 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Meg, 1. When was the last seismic-earthquake inspection completed on the Southwood properties? 2. Has one ever been done on the property at Southwood according to your records? 3. If so, will you forward the seismic report my way? I am glad the most recent fire inspection completed by the Palo Alto Fire Department on July 14, 2026, was satisfactory. However, I think you would agree that a fire inspection is NOT the same as an earthquake/seismic inspection. Given the age of the Southwood complex, approximately 40 years old, I continue to request a full seismic-earthquake inspection be completed in a timely fashion- consistent with best practices. Southwood has approximately 100 units with approximately 250 residences. Given our proximity to major earthquake faults and out of an abundance of caution, please reconsider your refusal to provide a complete seismic inspection ASAP. Best regards , Aram James 415-370-5056 P.S. If it is a matter of money, I am more than happy to contribute a few hundred dollars towards the cost of the seismic inspection. Public safety demands that my request be taken seriously. Please call me at anytime to discuss this matter. On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:33 PM Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com> wrote: Hi Aram, Apologies for the delay in our response. On July 14, 2026 the Palo Alto Fire Department performed their annual inspection of the premises at 2850 Middlefield Road and all safety and health standards that are essential for the well-being of all residents were met and there were no property violations. We are unaware of any earthquake risks to the building, and a seismic inspection does not appear necessary based on the condition of the property and the latest inspection reports received. Please reach out with any specific concerns you may have. Thanks, Meg Thomas On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:44 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 6/25/2026 Hi Julian, Thanks for returning my phone call this morning. As promised, I am sending this note to you in hopes of receiving the most current information on the earthquake/seismic safety of the Southwood Complex. Is there, for example, an annual report/inspection of Southwood to assess the integrity of the complex in the event of a major earthquake? Any information on this critical subject would be most appreciated. Thanks so much. Peace, Aram 415-370-5O56 -- Meg Thomas COO and Regional Property Manager Spieker Companies, Inc. (408) 221-0025 mthomas@spiekercompanies.com From:Aram James To:Hoyt, George Cc:Jasso, Tamara; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 2:11:35 PM Attachments:image001.png image011.png image005.png image002.png image008.png image009.png image006.png image010.png image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi George, Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. If you have time available this coming Thursday, August 6, in the afternoon, that would be great. Are you available at 2PM? If not, please consider other times in the afternoon, and I will make myself available. Best regards, Aram P.S. I don't ride elevators so prefer to meet on the ground floor or in an office accessible by stairs. On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 1:09 PM Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov> wrote: Aram, I would be happy to meet with you sometime next week, Monday through Thursday. If you could provide a couple of dates and times that work for your schedule, we can coordinate from there and find a mutually convenient time. I look forward to meeting with you. George E. Hoyt, CBO, CASp, CCEO, LEED AP BD+C Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@PaloAlto.gov WWW.PaloAlto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2026 12:58 PM To: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@paloalto.gov>; Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderomedia.org>; Friends of Cubberley <friendsofcubberley94303@gmail.com>; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; EPA Today <epatoday@epatoday.org>; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Senator Becker <Senator.Becker@senate.ca.gov>; District5@bos.sccgov.org; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Jeff Rosen <info@jeffrosen.org>; Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org>; Diana Diamond <dianaLdiamond@gmail.com>; Emily Mibach <emibach@padailypost.com>; Braden Cartwright <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; Daniel A. Opoku <daopoku11@gmail.com>; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com <jason.green@bayareanewsgroup.com>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; Lewis james <alphonse9947@gmail.com>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@paloalto.gov>; Brandon Pho <brandon@sanjosespotlight.com>; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council <council@redwoodcity.org>; city.council@gilroy.org; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Bill Newell <billnewell2850@gmail.com>; Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Julian Garcia <jgarcia@spiekercompanies.com> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. July 29, 2026 Hi Fire Marshal Tamara Jasso: Thank you so much for your referral to the Building Department, under the leadership of Mr. George Holt. If you both have time, I would appreciate an in-person meeting where we can put our heads together to potentially solve this very sticky problem. In other words, what other options do we have to strongly encourage Mr. Spieker to conduct a professional seismic inspection of the Southwood Complex? Thanks so much for your time and attention to this critical issue, Aram James 7-29-2026 On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 12:34 PM Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. James, Thank you for your message. I understand your concern. This issue should be referred to the Building Department, as seismic/structural inspections do not fall under Fire Prevention’s authority. I’m not sure there is anything either of us can do to make the owner comply with your request, but the Building Department would be the appropriate place to confirm whether any applicable requirements or options exist. I have added @Hoyt, George, the Chief Building official so that he may weigh in. Regards, Tamara Jasso | Fire Marshal City of Palo Alto Fire Department 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2329 | E: tamara.jasso@paloalto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 2:47 PM To: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 7-20-2026 Hi Fire Marshall Tamara Jasso: As you might guess I am NOT happy with the property owners response ( Southwood Apartments) to my request for a seismic-earthquake inspection. ( See their response below). I would like to set a meeting with you to discuss other options that might encourage the owners to in fact conduct an appropriate seismic inspection. Maybe some of the code sections you referred to would assist or maybe you have other suggestions? You can reach me at (415) 370-5056. I look forward to speaking with you. Best regards, Aram James On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:03 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Meg, 1. When was the last seismic-earthquake inspection completed on the Southwood properties? 2. Has one ever been done on the property at Southwood according to your records? 3. If so, will you forward the seismic report my way? I am glad the most recent fire inspection completed by the Palo Alto Fire Department on July 14, 2026, was satisfactory. However, I think you would agree that a fire inspection is NOT the same as an earthquake/seismic inspection. Given the age of the Southwood complex, approximately 40 years old, I continue to request a full seismic-earthquake inspection be completed in a timely fashion-consistent with best practices. Southwood has approximately 100 units with approximately 250 residences. Given our proximity to major earthquake faults and out of an abundance of caution, please reconsider your refusal to provide a complete seismic inspection ASAP. Best regards , Aram James 415-370-5056 P.S. If it is a matter of money, I am more than happy to contribute a few hundred dollars towards the cost of the seismic inspection. Public safety demands that my request be taken seriously. Please call me at anytime to discuss this matter. On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:33 PM Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com> wrote: Hi Aram, Apologies for the delay in our response. On July 14, 2026 the Palo Alto Fire Department performed their annual inspection of the premises at 2850 Middlefield Road and all safety and health standards that are essential for the well-being of all residents were met and there were no property violations. We are unaware of any earthquake risks to the building, and a seismic inspection does not appear necessary based on the condition of the property and the latest inspection reports received. Please reach out with any specific concerns you may have. Thanks, Meg Thomas On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:44 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 6/25/2026 Hi Julian, Thanks for returning my phone call this morning. As promised, I am sending this note to you in hopes of receiving the most current information on the earthquake/seismic safety of the Southwood Complex. Is there, for example, an annual report/inspection of Southwood to assess the integrity of the complex in the event of a major earthquake? Any information on this critical subject would be most appreciated. Thanks so much. Peace, Aram 415-370-5O56 -- Meg Thomas COO and Regional Property Manager Spieker Companies, Inc. mthomas@spiekercompanies.com From:dgoldeen@icloud.com To:Bates, Amanda Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; rajivb@losaltoshills.ca.gov; ceinfalt@losaltoshills.ca.gov; info@sccfd.org; lindaswan@losaltoshills.ca.gov; john.reynolds@fire.ca.gov; transporation@paloalto.gov; Lindsey, Stephen; info@woodsidefire.gov Subject:Fire Hazards/Patrolling Page Mill Rd. Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 1:59:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear (Police) Chief Reifschneider, An MRSOD ranger told me that PAPD has, as of this year, stopped patrolling Page Mill Rd. (Page Mill Rd., as in the road itself, from Arastradero to Montebello Open Space, is City of Palo Alto.) Budget cuts are affecting every department. I assume Page Mill patrols got the axe and that patrols will not be resumed anytime soon. I do, however, feel obliged to make sure that there is a record of the potential consequences of this decision. I live on Page Mill Rd at one of the thirty-five properties just below Monte Bello Open Space that are part of the City of Palo Alto. If we are going to get a raging, out of control, fire, up here, it will be started by lighting, arson, a driver losing control of their car and careening off the road into one of the dry, brush filled ravines or an arsonist pushing a car that is on fire off the road and into one of the ravines. Worst case scenario, a fire like that would not only end up incinerating these thiry-five properties, but probably also large swaths of unincorporated Santa Clara County, Los Altos Hills, and Portola Valley. Since moving up here in April, I have found piles of half smoked cigarettes in turn outs and, every weekend and some weekday evenings, the “No Stopping Any Time” turn outs have cars parked in them. I’ve found the youth who came up in the cars, twenty or thirty feet down hill, surrounded by waist high dry grass, smoking cannabis. I have seen one speeding car that lost control and ended up suspended on and straddling a guard rail - missing falling down a hill by a few inches. In May, a speeding Mercedes lost control and ended up upside down (on its roof) in a turn out. In June, a Tesla drove over an embankment and down a hillside. These are only things that I have witnessed. There have been no Page Mill incidents that I know of in July, but, this month, there was a car being driven at speeds up to 100mph up (or down?) Hwy 9 that flew off the road and killed all inside it. There was, I was told by neighbor, also a speeding car that spun out at the Skyline Vista Point and, when it hit the wall at the overlook, burst into flames. A quick thinking local used his tow rope to pull the car into the center of the parking area before it was completely engulfed. I have not verified this last incident, but I can personally speak to the fact that three or four times a week, often late at night, someone tries to drive down Page Mill at break neck speeds. I inevitably hear the squeal of rubber burning on the road as the driver hits one of the tight turns too fast and has to hit the brakes hard. Swerving skid marks on the road the next morning leave tell tale signs of the turn where the driver narrowly missed flying off the road into a ravine. Last weekend we only got one speed crazed, late night driver, so maybe the problem is not as bad it presently appears to me to be. Maybe the promised increased CHP patrols on Hwy 9 (and I hope also Hwy 35) will put a damper on this problem. But people parked in the no parking turn outs is constant, as is also the threat of arson. I suspect these factors were not considered when the decision was made to cut patrols. As you can see I have copied our fire chief, Cal Fire, SCC fire, mayor of Los Altos Hills, and a few others. G-d forbid a car flying off of Page Mill or a thoughtlessly cast aside cigarette from a car illegally parked on Page Mill ignites a disastrous fire. But should that happen I expect my laptop to survive and there will be a record that this potential hazard was brought to the attention of those in authority. As for the budget woes, I have watched council decisions closely for the past fifteen years. They should have seen the budget shortfall coming. I did. City Councils could have taken steps to prevent the shortfall. In my perfect world, the councilors who made the short sighted, cowardly decisions that led to this budget crunch could be held accountable. Of course, in my perfect world, nobody would speed on rural Page Mill Road either. Sincerely, Deborah Goldeen, Palo Alto From:Aram James To:Jasso, Tamara Cc:Shikada, Ed; Hoyt, George; Sean Allen; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Friends of Cubberley; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; EPA Today; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; Senator Becker; District5@bos.sccgov.org; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Diana Diamond; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Daniel A. Opoku; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Stone, Greer; Lewis james; Reifschneider, James; Brandon Pho; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; city.council@gilroy.org; Council, City; Bill Newell; Meg Thomas; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Julian Garcia Subject:Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 12:58:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. July 29, 2026 Hi Fire Marshal Tamara Jasso: Thank you so much for your referral to the Building Department, under the leadership of Mr. George Holt. If you both have time, I would appreciate an in-person meeting where we can put our heads together to potentially solve this very sticky problem. In other words, what other options do we have to strongly encourage Mr. Spieker to conduct a professional seismic inspection of the Southwood Complex? Thanks so much for your time and attention to this critical issue, Aram James 7-29-2026 On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 12:34 PM Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov> wrote: Mr. James, Thank you for your message. I understand your concern. This issue should be referred to the Building Department, as seismic/structural inspections do not fall under Fire Prevention’s authority. I’m not sure there is anything either of us can do to make the owner comply with your request, but the Building Department would be the appropriate place to confirm whether any applicable requirements or options exist. I have added @Hoyt, George, the Chief Building official so that he may weigh in. Regards, Tamara Jasso | Fire Marshal City of Palo Alto Fire Department 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2329 | E: tamara.jasso@paloalto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 2:47 PM To: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 7-20-2026 Hi Fire Marshall Tamara Jasso: As you might guess I am NOT happy with the property owners response ( Southwood Apartments) to my request for a seismic-earthquake inspection. ( See their response below). I would like to set a meeting with you to discuss other options that might encourage the owners to in fact conduct an appropriate seismic inspection. Maybe some of the code sections you referred to would assist or maybe you have other suggestions? You can reach me at (415) 370-5056. I look forward to speaking with you. Best regards, Aram James On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:03 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Meg, 1. When was the last seismic-earthquake inspection completed on the Southwood properties? 2. Has one ever been done on the property at Southwood according to your records? 3. If so, will you forward the seismic report my way? I am glad the most recent fire inspection completed by the Palo Alto Fire Department on July 14, 2026, was satisfactory. However, I think you would agree that a fire inspection is NOT the same as an earthquake/seismic inspection. Given the age of the Southwood complex, approximately 40 years old, I continue to request a full seismic-earthquake inspection be completed in a timely fashion-consistent with best practices. Southwood has approximately 100 units with approximately 250 residences. Given our proximity to major earthquake faults and out of an abundance of caution, please reconsider your refusal to provide a complete seismic inspection ASAP. Best regards , Aram James 415-370-5056 P.S. If it is a matter of money, I am more than happy to contribute a few hundred dollars towards the cost of the seismic inspection. Public safety demands that my request be taken seriously. Please call me at anytime to discuss this matter. On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:33 PM Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com> wrote: Hi Aram, Apologies for the delay in our response. On July 14, 2026 the Palo Alto Fire Department performed their annual inspection of the premises at 2850 Middlefield Road and all safety and health standards that are essential for the well-being of all residents were met and there were no property violations. We are unaware of any earthquake risks to the building, and a seismic inspection does not appear necessary based on the condition of the property and the latest inspection reports received. Please reach out with any specific concerns you may have. Thanks, Meg Thomas On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:44 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 6/25/2026 Hi Julian, Thanks for returning my phone call this morning. As promised, I am sending this note to you in hopes of receiving the most current information on the earthquake/seismic safety of the Southwood Complex. Is there, for example, an annual report/inspection of Southwood to assess the integrity of the complex in the event of a major earthquake? Any information on this critical subject would be most appreciated. Thanks so much. Peace, Aram 415-370-5O56 -- Meg Thomas COO and Regional Property Manager Spieker Companies, Inc. (408) 221-0025 mthomas@spiekercompanies.com From:Jasso, Tamara To:Aram James; Shikada, Ed; Hoyt, George Cc:Sean Allen; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City Subject:RE: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 12:34:22 PM Mr. James, Thank you for your message. I understand your concern. This issue should be referred to the Building Department, as seismic/structural inspections do not fall under Fire Prevention’s authority. I’m not sure there is anything either of us can do to make the owner comply with your request, but the Building Department would be the appropriate place to confirm whether any applicable requirements or options exist. I have added @Hoyt, George, the Chief Building official so that he may weigh in. Regards, Tamara Jasso | Fire Marshal City of Palo Alto Fire Department 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2329 | E: tamara.jasso@paloalto.gov From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 2:47 PM To: Jasso, Tamara <Tamara.Jasso@paloalto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Cc: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 7-20-2026 Hi Fire Marshall Tamara Jasso: As you might guess I am NOT happy with the property owners response ( Southwood Apartments) to my request for a seismic-earthquake inspection. ( See their response below). I would like to set a meeting with you to discuss other options that might encourage the owners to in fact conduct an appropriate seismic inspection. Maybe some of the code sections you referred to would assist or maybe you have other suggestions? You can reach me at (415) 370-5056. I look forward to speaking with you. Best regards, Aram James On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:03 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Meg, 1. When was the last seismic-earthquake inspection completed on the Southwood properties? 2. Has one ever been done on the property at Southwood according to your records? 3. If so, will you forward the seismic report my way? I am glad the most recent fire inspection completed by the Palo Alto Fire Department on July 14, 2026, was satisfactory. However, I think you would agree that a fire inspection is NOT the same as an earthquake/seismic inspection. Given the age of the Southwood complex, approximately 40 years old, I continue to request a full seismic-earthquake inspection be completed in a timely fashion- consistent with best practices. Southwood has approximately 100 units with approximately 250 residences. Given our proximity to major earthquake faults and out of an abundance of caution, please reconsider your refusal to provide a complete seismic inspection ASAP. Best regards , Aram James 415-370-5056 P.S. If it is a matter of money, I am more than happy to contribute a few hundred dollars towards the cost of the seismic inspection. Public safety demands that my request be taken seriously. Please call me at anytime to discuss this matter. On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:33 PM Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com> wrote: Hi Aram, Apologies for the delay in our response. On July 14, 2026 the Palo Alto Fire Department performed their annual inspection of the premises at 2850 Middlefield Road and all safety and health standards that are essential for the well-being of all residents were met and there were no property violations. We are unaware of any earthquake risks to the building, and a seismic inspection does not appear necessary based on the condition of the property and the latest inspection reports received. Please reach out with any specific concerns you may have. Thanks, Meg Thomas On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:44 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 6/25/2026 Hi Julian, Thanks for returning my phone call this morning. As promised, I am sending this note to you in hopes of receiving the most current information on the earthquake/seismic safety of the Southwood Complex. Is there, for example, an annual report/inspection of Southwood to assess the integrity of the complex in the event of a major earthquake? Any information on this critical subject would be most appreciated. Thanks so much. Peace, Aram 415-370-5O56 -- Meg Thomas COO and Regional Property Manager Spieker Companies, Inc. (408) 221-0025 mthomas@spiekercompanies.com From:Aram James To:Jasso, Tamara; Meg Thomas; Julian Garcia; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; EPA Today; Patrice Ventresca; Diana Diamond; Josh Becker; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Shikada, Ed Subject:7.1 earthquake hits Japan Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 11:27:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be interested. 7.1 magnitude quake hits Japan, with dozens injured or missing https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=3c299a8c-ff31- 49b8-9f38-5b77c80a7db7&appcode=SAN252&eguid=044a4423-c6b1-4d83-a7cd- 5f0d698728b0&pnum=2# For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here: From:Green Mentor To:Council, City; ADA Subject:Registration Deadline Ends July 31, 2026 – Few Seats Left! Secure Your Place at the 10th NYC Green School Conference 2026 Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2026 5:18:36 AM Attachments:Brochure_10 NYC_GSC_2026.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Colleague, The registration deadline is fast approaching! With only a few seats remaining, we invite you to secure your place at the 10th NYC Green School Conference 2026 before July 31, 2026. Join a global community of educators, university leaders, policymakers, researchers, youth leaders, UN agencies, governments, businesses, and sustainability innovators during Climate Week NYC and alongside the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 81). September 23–24, 2026 | SUNY Global Center, New York City Theme Regenerating Futures: AI, Greening Education for a Thriving Planet This landmark conference will explore the future of education through: Green Schools and Climate-Resilient Campuses Sustainable Universities and Higher Education Artificial Intelligence for Sustainability Climate Leadership and Environmental Education Circular Economy and Regenerative Development Green Skills, Green Jobs, and Future Workforce Sustainability Research, Innovation, and Global Partnerships Meet and learn from distinguished international speakers, participate in keynote sessions, leadership dialogues, innovation showcases, networking events, research presentations, and the prestigious Global Green Awards. Why Attend? This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Connect with global leaders in education and sustainability. Build partnerships with universities, schools, governments, UN agencies, and industry. Discover innovative solutions shaping the future of education. Gain practical insights to accelerate sustainability in your institution. Become part of a worldwide movement transforming education for a thriving planet. Global Reach. Meaningful Connections. Lasting Impact. As an official Climate Week NYC event, the conference offers unparalleled international visibility and networking opportunities. 100,000+ Climate Week NYC participants 1,000+ Climate Week NYC events 20,000+ universities within Green Mentors' global education network 100,000+ K–12 schools committed to sustainability, health, and wellbeing 6 Billion-plus estimated global media impressions during Climate Week NYC Register Today — Before July 31, 2026 Seats are filling quickly, and registration will close once capacity is reached. Register Now: https://www.nycgreenschoolconference.world/register View the Distinguished Speaker Lineup: https://www.nycgreenschoolconference.world/speakers Download Conference Brochure Attend. Connect. Inspire. Lead. Be Recognized. We look forward to welcoming you to New York for this milestone global conference. Warm regards, Passion for the Planet. Prosperity for You. From:Aram James To:Meg Thomas; Julian Garcia; Shikada, Ed; Jasso, Tamara; EPA Today; Dave Price; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Brandon Pho; Gennady Sheyner; city.council@menlopark.gov; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@gilroy.org; CityCouncil; GRP-City Council; Diana Diamond; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission Cc:assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; sam.liccardo@gmail.com; Josh Becker; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Supervisor Betty Duong; district1@bos.sccgov.org; District5@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Palo Alto Renters" Association; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Sean Allen; Seanjames143@yahoo.com; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Lewis james; james pitkin; Reifschneider, James; Goodell, Erin; Jensen, Eric; Goodell, Erin; Vicki Veenker; editor@paweekly.com; Lauing, Ed; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Steve Wagstaffe Subject:Re: Please reconsider your unwillingness to conduct a seismic-earthquake inspection at the Southwood Apartment Complex here in Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:55:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. See 7/28/2026 Hi Meg, It should NOT fall on tenants to have to do visual inspections on a 40 year old 100 unit multi story apartment complex for evidence of potential seismic/earthquake issues. The owner of the Southwood Complex and your employer is Mr. Todd Spieker: Here is a bit of information about Mr. Spieker’s real-estate holdings: On publicly available information, Richard Todd Spieker owns and operates approximately 2,900 apartment units in California, primarily through Spieker Companies. Most of these properties are located in Santa Clara County and San Mateo County (Silicon Valley). Some additional details: A UCLA biography states that Tod Spieker wholly owns and operates about 2,900 multifamily units, with a focus on acquisition, rehabilitation, and management. A 2016 City of Mountain View planning document said the Spiekers owned approximately 2,000 apartment units in the Mountain View/Sunnyvale area at that time, indicating the portfolio has since grown. In 2024, Spieker Companies acquired a 201-unit apartment portfolio in San Mateo for approximately $76 million, helping bring the portfolio to its current size. Using the available public information, it’s possible to make a rough estimate, but it requires assumptions because the amount of debt on the properties is not public. If the apartment portfolio is worth approximately $1.1–$1.7 billion, here are illustrative equity scenarios: Loan-to-Value (Debt)Estimated Portfolio Value Estimated Equity 60% debt $1.1–$1.7 billion $440–$680 million 50% debt $1.1–$1.7 billion $550–$850 million 40% debt $1.1–$1.7 billion $660 million–$1.02 billion A few additional factors could increase net worth beyond the apartment portfolio: Commercial real estate holdings. Development projects and land. Other investments and business interests. Appreciation from properties purchased many years ago in Silicon Valley, where values have increased substantially. Based solely on publicly available information, a reasonable estimate of Tod Spieker’s real estate equity is roughly $600 million to $1 billion, with a midpoint around $750–800 million. That estimate is inherently uncertain because it depends on property-level debt, ownership structure, and any partners or investors that may share ownership. Meg, clearly Mr. Spieker has the funds to afford earthquake inspections on his properties, including the Southwood Complex, before we have a catastrophic earthquake in the area. I implore you to take this issue more seriously. You have still failed to answer my questions 1. When was the last seismic-earthquake inspection completed on the Southwood properties? 2. Has one ever been done on the property at Southwood according to your records? 3. If so, will you forward the seismic report my way? Research re a proper seismic evaluation For a 40-year-old apartment complex, a good seismic inspection is much more than a quick visual walk-through. It should evaluate how the building is likely to perform in an earthquake, identify the most significant structural vulnerabilities, and provide practical retrofit recommendations if needed. A thorough seismic inspection typically includes: 1. Document review Original structural drawings and calculations (if available) Records of renovations or additions Previous structural or seismic evaluations Local building code history and any retrofit requirements 2. Site and foundation assessment Evidence of settlement or differential movement Foundation cracking Soil conditions if they may affect seismic performance Drainage issues that could weaken soils over time 3. Structural system evaluation The engineer should identify how the building resists earthquake forces, including: Foundation Load-bearing walls Columns and beams Floor and roof diaphragms Lateral force-resisting systems (shear walls, braced frames, or moment frames) 4. Critical seismic vulnerabilities A 40-year-old apartment building may have common deficiencies such as: Soft-story or weak-story conditions (especially buildings with parking on the ground floor) Inadequate anchorage of the building to the foundation Weak cripple walls Poorly connected floors and roofs Unreinforced or weak masonry components Short columns Torsional irregularities caused by uneven layouts Corrosion or deterioration of structural elements 5. Connections Many earthquake failures occur at connections rather than major structural members. The inspection should examine: Beam-to-column connections Roof-to-wall connections Floor-to-wall connections Hold-downs and anchor bolts Steel welds and bolted connections where accessible 6. Nonstructural components Damage to nonstructural elements can be expensive and hazardous. These include: Chimneys Parapets Exterior cladding Suspended ceilings Mechanical equipment Water heaters Fire sprinkler systems Gas piping Elevator equipment 7. Visible signs of distress The engineer should document: Cracks Rot Water damage Corrosion Previous earthquake repairs Deformations or sagging 8. Limited intrusive investigation (if needed) Many critical structural elements are concealed. A quality inspection may recommend: Opening small sections of drywall Removing finishes at selected locations Examining anchor bolts Confirming reinforcing steel or framing details Material testing where necessary 9. Engineering analysis For a building of this age, a visual inspection alone is often insufficient. The engineer may perform: Structural calculations Computer modeling Evaluation using current seismic standards Comparison with current code performance objectives 10. Written report A useful report should include: Description of the structural system Identified deficiencies Photographs Risk assessment Prioritized retrofit recommendations Estimated level of urgency Possible retrofit approaches Discussion of limitations of the inspection Who should perform it? A seismic inspection should be performed by a licensed structural engineer with experience in seismic evaluation of existing multifamily buildings, not just a general building inspector. Existing buildings often require judgment based on older construction practices and current seismic standards. Typical scope and cost For a typical apartment complex, the scope can range from: A screening-level assessment, which is primarily visual and identifies obvious concerns. A detailed seismic evaluation, involving calculations, limited destructive investigation, and a comprehensive engineering report. This is the level generally needed if you’re considering a retrofit, purchasing the property, or addressing. The cost depends primarily on the size and complexity of the apartment complex, the level of detail required, and local labor rates. In the U.S., these are reasonable ballpark estimates: Scope Typical Cost Screening-level visual seismic assessment $2,000–$7,500 Detailed seismic evaluation with engineering calculations $7,500–$25,000+ Evaluation requiring limited destructive testing (opening walls, exposing connections, etc.)$15,000–$50,000+ Full retrofit design (if deficiencies are found)$20,000–$100,000+(design only, not construction) For a typical 40-year-old apartment complex (say, 20–100 units), a comprehensive seismic evaluation by a structural engineering firm often falls in the $10,000–$30,000 range if no extensive testing is required. Several factors can increase the cost: Multiple buildings on the property Concrete or masonry construction rather than wood framing Missing original structural drawings Need for material testing or scanning Limited destructive investigation to verify hidden structural details Computer modeling or performance-based analysis If you’re obtaining proposals, ask whether the fee includes: A site visit by a licensed structural engineer Review of available plans and records Structural calculations A written report with photographs Retrofit recommendations and rough cost estimates A meeting to discuss the findings These items are not always included in the base price. If your property is in a high-seismic region such as California, expect fees to be toward the higher end of these ranges because the evaluations are often more detailed and must address local seismic hazards and regulations. Meg, As you can see from the above it is at a minimum impractical-if not absurd- to ask the tenants to conduct a seismic inspection of the type that is necessary to ensure seismic safety for Mr. Spieker’s tenants. I am most certain Mr. Spieker would NOT want to have on his conscience serious injuries or the loss of lives at his apartment units because he failed to use due care in properly managing his apartments —including proper seismic upkeep of his units. Please reach out to me at your earliest convenience to discuss this critical issue. Sincerely, Aram 415-370-5056 P.S. Please let Mr. Spiker know that the cost of the seismic inspections is a tax write-off. It’s time Mr. Spieker - Do The Right Thing!! On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 8:51 AM Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com> wrote:Aram - We appreciate your concern. However, as noted previously, we are not aware of any identifiable earthquake risks, nor have any such risks been brought to our attention. Based on the condition of the property, a seismic inspection does not appear to be necessary. Consequently, we have elected not to proceed with an inspection. If you have observed a specific concern at the property that you would like to bring to our attention, we will evaluate it to determine whether repairs are needed. Thanks, Meg  PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Meg, 1. When was the last seismic-earthquake inspection completed on the Southwood properties? 2. Has one ever been done on the property at Southwood according to your records? 3. If so, will you forward the seismic report my way? I am glad the most recent fire inspection completed by the Palo Alto Fire Department on July 14, 2026, was satisfactory. However, I think you would agree that a fire inspection is NOT the same as an earthquake/seismic inspection. Given the age of the Southwood complex, approximately 40 years old, I continue to request a full seismic-earthquake inspection be completed in a timely fashion-consistent with best practices. Southwood has approximately 100 units with approximately 250 residences. Given our proximity to major earthquake faults and out of an abundance of caution, please reconsider your refusal to provide a complete seismic inspection ASAP. Best regards , Aram James 415-370-5056 P.S. If it is a matter of money, I am more than happy to contribute a few hundred dollars towards the cost of the seismic inspection. Public safety demands that my request be taken seriously. Please call me at anytime to discuss this matter. On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:33 PM Meg Thomas <mthomas@spiekercompanies.com> wrote: Hi Aram, Apologies for the delay in our response. On July 14, 2026 the Palo Alto Fire Department performed their annual inspection of the premises at 2850 Middlefield Road and all safety and health standards that are essential for the well-being of all residents were met and there were no property violations. We are unaware of any earthquake risks to the building, and a seismic inspection does not appear necessary based on the condition of the property and the latest inspection reports received. Please reach out with any specific concerns you may have. Thanks, Meg Thomas On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:44 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 6/25/2026 Hi Julian, Thanks for returning my phone call this morning. As promised, I am sending this note to you in hopes of receiving the most current information on the earthquake/seismic safety of the Southwood Complex. Is there, for example, an annual report/inspection of Southwood to assess the integrity of the complex in the event of a major earthquake? Any information on this critical subject would be most appreciated. Thanks so much. Peace, Aram 415-370-5O56 -- Meg Thomas COO and Regional Property Manager Spieker Companies, Inc. (408) 221-0025 mthomas@spiekercompanies.com -- Meg Thomas COO and Regional Property Manager Spieker Companies, Inc. (408) 221-0025 mthomas@spiekercompanies.com From:Serena Ma To:Council, City Subject:Questions for boy scout merit badge Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2026 9:16:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi, Hope you're having a great week so far! My name is Serena and I'm a boy scout in Troop 4057 in Palo Alto. I'm currently working on a merit badge that requires me to look into an important issue in the community and interview someone in the branch of government responsible for this issue. One important issue I found in the Palo Alto community is the high cost of housing. I was wondering if you could answer these two questions: 1. What is being done about this issue? 2. How can young people help? Thank you so much for your time! Serena This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report From:Rod Lehman To:UTL-Customer Service; Council, City Subject:Fw: Changes to Credit Card Processing Fees Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2026 4:34:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. i Dear City of PA, This credit card surcharge for paying bills is basically a 2.75% hidden increase on top of the recent increase in utility rates. The fact that the City Council didn't formally review this increase and solicit public feedback is not acceptable. Furthermore, it's clear that whoever negotiated the rate got a bad deal for the citizens of Palo Alto. Any small businesses can get a 1.9% credit card charge processing rate through Costco. Even the County of Santa Clara offers people to pay property taxes for just a 2.22% credit card surcharge. The announcement below is disappointing and just serves to further erode the public's confidence in the fiscal responsibility of the City. Accordingly, I'll be voting no on any further tax or bond related proposals on the upcoming election ballots. Best, Rod Lehman ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: City of Palo Alto Utilities <utilitiescommunications@paloalto.gov> To: "rod_k_lehman@yahoo.com" <rod_k_lehman@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 at 02:59:16 PM PDT This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Special Offer Subject: Changes to Credit Card Processing Fees Changes to Credit Card Payment Processing Fees Beginning September 15, 2026, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) will transition the cost of credit and debit card processing fees for utility bill payments to the cardholder. Like many municipalities and utilities, we are implementing this change so processing costs are paid by those who choose to use card payments. City Council approved of the citywide credit card service fee of 2.75% to maintain cost- effective public services across departments and ensure fairness for all customers. This fee will be added to the total amount charged when a credit or debit card is used and is intended to offset a portion of the costs charged by credit card companies and payment processors. Customers who prefer to avoid the service fee can elect a no-cost payment option. Our goal is to continue providing dependable utility service while managing operating costs responsibly. We offer several alternative payment methods so you can avoid the card processing fees. 1. Go Online to MyCPAU at mycpau.cityofpaloalto.org/portal: Pay using a bank account. 2. By Mail: Send a personal check, cashier’s check, or money order to Palo Alto City Hall, Revenue Collections, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. 3. In Person: Pay by cash, check or money order at the Palo Alto City Hall, Revenue Collections counter. To change your utility bill payment method from a credit or debit card to a bank account, please visit the City of Palo Alto Utilities MyCPAU customer account portal at mycpau.cityofpaloalto.org/portal. After logging in to MyCPAU, select Billing from the top menu, then choose Auto Pay from the menu on the left to update your payment method to a bank account. You may also email us at UtilitiesCustomerService@paloalto.gov or call our billing representatives at (650) 329-2161. Learn More about the Changes to Payment Processing Fees Congratulations to Our Induction Cooktop Drawing Winner! Thank you to everyone who stopped by the City of Palo Alto Utilities booth at the Chili Cook-Off! We enjoyed connecting with the community and sharing the benefits of induction cooking and home electrification. Congratulations to our lucky drawing winner, Rakhee Nishtala. Rakhee recently received a portable induction cooktop and is now ready to enjoy the many benefits of induction cooking, including faster cooking, improved safety, greater energy efficiency, and precise temperature control. If you're inspired to make the switch, the City of Palo Alto offers a $500 rebate for permanent induction cooktops or ranges and a $50 rebate for portable induction cooktops, making it a great option for renters. Higher incentives are available for income-qualified residents. Visit the Rebate Hub Save $500 on a New Heat Pump Water for a Limited Time Now through October 31, 2026, Palo Alto Utilities customers can save an additional $500 when switching to a heat pump water heater. Our installers can get your project completed within 48 hours for as low as $2,100. Learn more and get started at paloalto.gov/WaterHeaterDiscount or call (650) 713-3411. Electrify My Home Manage Your Water Use With WaterSmart WaterSmart shows how much water you’re using and where, helping you reduce utility costs and conserve water with hourly water usage trends, leak alerts, and recommended actions based on your water usage patterns. Use WaterSmart to track your water use, identify possible leaks, and receive personalized efficiency tips and rebate recommendations to help you save water and money. Log in to WaterSmart Catch Up on the Latest Utility Bill Inserts Residential Utility Rate Changes Non-Residential Utility Rate Changes Stay Informed & Safe During Wildfire Season Oh Rats! Keeping Rodents Out of Your Home July 2026 Utilities and Community Announcements City of Palo Alto Utilities | 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Constant Contact View in browser The New York Times From:Aram James To:Jasso, Tamara Cc:Meg Thomas; Julian Garcia; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Friends of Cubberley Subject:Breaking news: People feared trapped in mall collapse after Japan earthquake, officials say Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2026 10:06:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. July 28, 2026, 10:05 a.m. ET BREAKING NEWS Kyodo, via Reuters Many Feared Trapped in Mall Collapse After Japan Earthquake, Officials Say A powerful 6.8-magnitude earthquake hit southwest Japan, igniting fires near its epicenter, damaging buildings and highways, and injuring dozens. Fire officials are racing to rescue people at a shopping mall after its second floor collapsed. Follow live updates More Top Stories Dr. Anthony Fauci, in his private diary, reflected on Covid’s origins and his own fame. → There’s a way to prevent ovarian cancer. Few know about it. → A hiker trekked 10 miles to safety after impaling himself on a pole. → Sign up for Your Places: Extreme Weather. Get notified about extreme weather before it happens with custom alerts for places in the U.S. you choose. Get it in your inbox. If you received this newsletter from someone else, subscribe here. Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for Breaking News from The New York Times. To stop receiving Breaking News, unsubscribe. To opt out of other promotional emails from The Times, including those regarding The Athletic, manage your email settings. Subscribe to The Times Connect with us on: Change Your Email Privacy Policy Contact Us California Notices Zeta Logo The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 From:Mark Paskin To:Council, City Subject:Grateful for Rinconada Pool Date:Monday, July 27, 2026 3:14:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello City Council members, I just wanted to send you a short note to express my gratitude for the Rinconada Pool. It's such a great facility, with a staff that do a wonderful job. It's one of the main reasons I feel lucky to be a Palo Altan. Best, Mark Paskin This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report July 2026 Updates & Invites FREE EVENT!SATURDAY, AUGUST 8, 2026, 4-6PM @ Congregation Etz Chayim, Social Hall | 4161 Alma, Palo Alto The fight for the right to vote continues. DOCUMENTARY & DISCUSSION: From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:Join us on August 8 to Unite & Rise for Voting Rights! Date:Monday, July 27, 2026 2:41:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Join us to watch the award-winning documentary, After Selma, about the fight for voting rights, followed by a facilitated discussion including what YOU can do today to stop voter suppression. After the film, meet historian, educator, playwright and author DR. CLAYBORNE CARSON, in conversation with LISA RATNER, attorney and LWVPA president, who will speak to the Voter ID initiative (Prop39) on the upcoming California ballot, and hosting a neighborhood “What’s On Your Ballot” gathering in September. Facilitated by ILLY PEETE, MBA. DR. CLAYBORNE CARSON is a founder of Stanford’s MLK Research and Education Institute, where he directed the King Papers Project at Coretta Scott King’s request since 1985. His works include In Struggle and The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., and he has advised on award-winning documentaries such as Eyes on the Prize. DOCUMENTARY: AFTER SELMA: The march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday galvanized a nation and forced the country to create the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Now, everyone could vote. What has happened since, and what tactics are being used today to suppress voting rights? Civil rights veteran Joanne Blackmon Bland, Emmy-winning filmmaker Loki Mulholland (“The Uncomfortable Truth”) and New York Times bestselling author, Carol Anderson, (White Rage: the Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide) dive into the history of voter suppression, and the need for us to challenge it, in order to preserve our democracy and equality for all. A COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP: Brought to you by the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto & Rho Delta Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha, Sorority, Inc. in partnership with, and gratitude to: AME Zion Church | The Joan Trumpauer Mulholland Foundation | Catalyze & Cultivate Consulting | Spark/Etz Racial Justice Impact Coalition (SERJIC) | Latina Coalition of Silicon Valley | Registration through our Google Form is optional, but it will help us put out enough chairs - thank you! Join Us In a National Day of Action on Voting Rights! Light refreshments will be provided. Members: Join us for coffee and conversation! Join us to talk about what's up in the League, what's next on our agenda, prepping for the election - and more. August 14 | 9:30 am | Mary Nemerov's home at 305 Emerson, Palo Alto RSVP to lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Board Retreat & Meeting August 25 | 3:00pm | PCC Raptor Room, at our office in Palo Alto RSVP to lwvpaoffice@gmail.com Recent Activities WE JOINED OUR COLLEAGUES FOR GOOD TROUBLE! Sometimes what you need most is to know you're not alone. We gathered with dozens of other community advocacy groups on July 18 at the “Good Trouble Lives On” event honoring passage of the VRA. Pastor Kaloma Smith of AME Zion Church gave a rousing speech (sermon?) on the legacy of 17-term Georgia Representative John Lewis, who was on the frontlines of the Civil Rights movement. Songs were sung, inspiration was everywhere... and hundreds of postcards were written encouraging voters to exercise their right to vote. It was a shot in the arm for us all, and a chance to renew and make friendships. Special shout out to our own Collaborations Chair, Jennifer Dibrienza, for her leadership role in this event. Coming up! A U G U S T 8: LWVUS - Unite & Rise 8.5 in partnership with Rho Delta Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. 14: LWV PA Members' Coffee - 9:30am 17: LWV Night at the Valkyries Game! 25: Board Retreat & Meeting S E P T E M B E R - TBD: LWV Candidate & Issue Forums N O V E M B E R 3: ELECTION DAY Want to make change for good? Volunteer with the League! Our League is gearing up for the November midterms. Youcan help! Make a difference by volunteering to assist with the candidate forums, join the Pro/Con team to address the many November ballot propositions or our Advocacy Team which will communicate the League’s position on ballot measures through community outreach events. JOIN OUR PRO/CON TEAM! We'll be working with our fellow Leagues on a few of the 14 statewide ballot propositions, plus the local ones still to come. Join our team to analyze all viewpoints to provide a concise, educational summary for voters - a key service the League provides. Team is forming now. (Need to be an active LWVPA member.) Interested? Please contact us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com. Want to put your technical and/or design skills to work to support the League? We would love volunteers to help update our website and help with our online fundraising appeal! Contact Mary Nemerov at mabunem@gmail.com. Come join our fabulous team of volunteers - everyone 16 and up of all genders is welcome! Learn more about our teams and programs on our website. REFLECTIONS: Four of us attended the national convention, two virtually, two in-person. Over 1,000 delegates were registered, and the work was fabulous! Watch this space for our take- aways! MEET OUR NATIONAL BOARD: Civil rights attorney | Brigadier general | JAG officer | Women's rights historian | ICU nurse | Retired from or working for NASA, the Federal Reserve, or in civil service, communications | Corporate, nonprofit and university leaders. Our national board is an amazing group of incredibly committed, award-winning and brilliant women who will lead us for the next two years. Learn more about them at Board of Directors & Trustees | League of Women Voters. - Laura Bajuk, delegate Watch for more convention info in upcoming communications. Use your voice! Contact your Members of Congress and share your thoughts on how they should represent YOU. Reach their offices by phone or email at: FEDERAL: US SENATE: Senator ALEX PADILLA | Senator ADAM SCHIFF US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Representative SAM LICCARDO (16th District) | Find your CA state representative CALIFORNIA: State Assembly District 23 (Palo Alto) - Assemblymember MARC BERMAN State Senate District 13 (Palo Alto) - Senator JOSH BECKER Find Your California Representatives Other Events & Activities LWVC FUNDRAISER: LWV NIGHT AT CHASE CENTER: VALKYRIES vs WINGS Monday, August 17, 2026 at 7:00pm | Chase Center, San Francisco Your $100 ticket includes a $50 tax-deductible donation to the LWV California, preferred seating with fellow League members, opportunity to go courtside, and League messaging on the scoreboard and Jumbotron. Optional: 5pm happy hour at Splash Sports Bar (next to Chase Center). Details & ticket link ICYMI: Video Archive of Past Events 2.24.26: Immigration, Congress and Common Sense - Can Everyday Americans Move Action Forward in These Times 10.4.25: Fall Kick-off speaker, ERIK JENSEN on the Rule of Law 10.2.25: LWVPA Water Symposium 9.9.25: County League forum on Executive Power, with Stanford Law Professor PAMELA KARLAN and Santa Clara University Law Professor DAVID SLOSS. 4.23.2025: Adam Dawes, CEO Embarcadero Media Local - News in Crisis: Does It Have a Future on the Peninsula? Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Facebook Website Instagram Email Email Threads YouTube 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.