HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200427plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS 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: 04/27/2020
Document dates: 4/8/2020 – 4/15/2020
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Testing for corona virus in Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Honorable Members, Is the City of Palo Alto doing something about the virus spread for instance learn who has the virus. I haven't heard of any city doing any testing except for Hayward and Fremont. If we have tests available now why do I not see any testing being done. I see stay in
place and masks. I urge our local governments to advocate for testing and providing its residents with
the means to be tested so we don't drive across the bay for nothing. Thank you for your time, Ellen Hartog
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Dan Gordon <dgordon@gordonbiersch.com>
Sent:Friday, April 10, 2020 10:20 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Greg St. Claire; Rob Fischer; Peter Katz; Steve Sinchek
Subject:Tossing in the towel for restaurants in Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and City Councilpersons Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Fisleth, Kou and Tanaka,
I wasn’t surprised to see the article today regarding the revenue shortfalls the city is anticipating and the drastic
measures with staff reductions, furloughs and layoffs that are occurring. It looked like close to a 50% reduction. Tragic
and my sympathy and goes out to you and your staff. As you know, restaurants and retailers are much worse off. There
has been close to a 95% reduction in Palo Alto restaurants as the minimal amount of togo business is feasible for just a
few.
I think it would be prudent for you all to look downstream as to how you might be able to jump start downtown and toss
away your sacred cows. As it currently stands, the rents and high minimum wage combined with a sales outlook 50% of
normal volume once the SIP is removed is not promising. The primary cost of running a restaurant is labor. At $15.40
there is no reason to reopen. I think you should survey restaurateurs on their desire to reopen or file Chapter 11 and
get out of leases. It will be a shocking and eye‐opening experience. Vacant storefronts eliminate sales tax revenue,
payroll taxes and property taxes as the property values decline. To add salt on the womb, The Santa Clara County Board
of Supervisors just sent a death blow out last night stating they are considering no large gatherings until late
November. Can you imagine the impact on restaurant sales when people are forced to sit 4 seats apart from each other
and that assumes that they are going to want to risk going out at all. The SBA programs will not come close to covering
reopening costs let alone the future cash flow deficits.
Palo Alto clearly cannot afford to do it’s own “new deal”, but you can make it possible for restaurateurs and retailers to
consider opening again. Mandate rent and property tax forgiveness for closed retail operators for at least 4 months
retro to SIP and set PA minimum wage to state levels (currently at $12/hr) for at least 2 years and no increases more
than the CPI for the next 3 year afterwards. Without these two items you are going to see at least 20% of downtown
businesses shuttered for at least a year and possibly a higher percentage. Restaurants cannot reopen at 50% of their
2019 monthly sales. Self‐mandated and psychologically directed social distancing is going to be the norm until there is a
vaccine. It’s time for some strong civic leadership.
I have no stake in the game anymore and I really loved my 32 years in Palo Alto. I am writing this on behalf of my hard‐
working colleagues in the Palo Alto hospitality industry.
Sincerely,
Dan Gordon
32 years of Palo Alto restaurant business
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Emma Shlaes <emma@bikesiliconvalley.org>
Sent:Friday, April 10, 2020 12:45 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:SVBC safe street recommendations
Attachments:200410 SVBC covid recommendations.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager,
Please see attached for a letter from SVBC with safe street recommendations for the current COVID19 emergency
situation. Please let us know if you have questions.
Thank you,
Emma Shlaes
‐‐
Emma Shlaes
Deputy Director
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
96 N. Third Street, Suite 375 San Jose, CA 95112 Work Cell: 650-703-1191 http://bikesiliconvalley.org
Become a member!
‐‐
Emma Shlaes
Deputy Director
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
96 N. Third Street, Suite 375
San Jose, CA 95112 Work Cell: 650-703-1191 http://bikesiliconvalley.org
Become a member!
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:cusinger@yes2connect.com
Sent:Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:11 PM
To:Kleinberg, Judy; Fehrenbach, Thomas; Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:COVID-19 recovery plans for Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon Mayor Fine, Chamber CEO Kleinberg, Development Director Fehrenbach and City Manager Shikada:
I am writing to you together as community leaders of Palo Alto who face the unenviable job of leading your community
through COVID‐19 and its recovery.
FEMA learned through Hurricane Katrina that disaster preparation and recovery requires the whole community working
together as a team... i.e. FEMA can't do the job alone. COVID‐19 is teaching this lesson again... only this time,
government can't do the job alone.
My home and home business were burned in the 1991 Oakland EastBay firestorm. So I have experienced the frustration
of recovery and the joy of a community coming together to support one another.
I also am a small business expert, and am horrified by the statistics that after a disaster, 40% of businesses never reopen
and 75% of the ones that do reopen, fail within two to three years. Small businesses are too precious to let that happen
in Palo Alto.
After Katrina, I set out to create a community toolkit for disaster preparation and recovery. Until recently, technology
has not been flexible enough to handle actual emergencies ‐ because each disaster and each community is unique in its
needs.
Fortunately, technology has caught up to our needs.
Yes2Connect is the tool Palo Alto needs for whole community recovery.
It is an app/web tool that connects officials, businesses, organizations, families, and employees so they can share
information, resources and needs. It is branded for your community and flexible to add or delete features to fit your
needs.
Yes2Connect is simple to set up and use. It uses the power and influence of organizations, including chambers, civic and
faith organizations, homeowners groups and others.
In many ways, Yes2Connect is my gift to local communities ‐ based on my commitment to small businesses and
community collaboration. It has taken years to create, but I am pricing it as low as $50 a month for the whole
community, with a $350 set‐up fee.
What everyone has learned from disaster recovery is that EVERY DAY matters. The business loss statistics above were
from businesses closed an average of 11 days. COVID‐19 has been much more cruel.
Communities that take 2 to 3 months or longer to implement recovery measures are too late. Yes2Connect uses
experiences and recommendations from FEMA, the National League of Cities, IEDC and more. You will start your
recovery running... not at a standstill trying to figure out how to help.
2
Please check out the demo for businesses/community at http://www.yes2connect.com?id=demo and the administrative
demo at http://www.yes2connect.com?id=admindemo. (For best viewing, reduce your browser to app dimensions.)
Then send me an email or call me at 866.429.1527 to set your community up.
Don't delay. As COVID‐19 has taught us, delays can be fatal.
Carolyn Usinger
Yes2Connect.com
866.429.1527
Carson City, NV 89703
PS: In the next few days, I will be sending you short emails with features to help your community and businesses. If you
do not want to receive these emails, click here to opt‐out.
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sallyann Rudd <sallyann_r@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, April 10, 2020 3:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing streets to enable walking and biking at safe distances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council —
Nextdoor is filling up with walker/ runner/ bicyclist shaming posts, apparently some people are just terrified they may
have to walk close enough to other people to share the same air.
Since Oakland is doing it, could you consider closing some streets so that people have some car‐free boulevards on
which to walk. Our sidewalks are narrow for maintaining 6’ distance. Maybe sections of Bryant St could be closed off,
accessible to residents in cars only.
Thank you
Sally‐Ann Rudd
Palo Alto CA 94301
Redacte
d
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:David Moss <ssow111@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 10:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closure of Cubberley Track consistently violated
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
I would like you to alert the on‐duty police officers to pay attention to possible crowds developing at the Cubberley track
this week‐end, especially Sunday when sunny weather is predicted. While it is posted "closed", and the two tall gates are
locked, the 2 short gates, (easily scalable) are consistently entered. These gates are at the east end of the track, where
there is parking. The tiny 8x10 sign is too tiny to be noticed.
I recommend that temporary tall segments of fence be placed there. This is often done to protect the growing grass in
the adjacent fields. Right now we need to protect PEOPLE from contaminating each other. Those short, 3‐ft tall gates at
the east side of the track are too easily climbed. Social media and plain telephone calls bring too many people there.
Surely the City has access to such pieces of fence. Alternatively, park unused garbage trucks there, as you did when
Bernie Sanders spoke here 4 years ago.
Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
Jane Moss, Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:David Hopkins <dhopkins12@hotmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 2:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closure of access to open space preserves
City Council members,
Have you considered the long‐term effects of maintaining your restrictions on access to Arastradero Preserve and
Foothills Park? This is a time when people need to get outdoors and get exercise. Because of these restrictions, most of
your residents are being literally kept at home, which may lead to other health problems down the road.
I understand that some people were observed to be walking too close together and should know better. But just
because that was observed to occur in the preserves, what is the evidence that they will not find a way to do that
wherever they might be? Meantime, the rest of us can just let them go ahead or pass them by while facing the other
way. Where is the evidence that we are putting ourselves at risk by doing that in the pure open air?
I fear you are denying residents the ability to stay healthy and there is the potential for longer‐term harm to their
physical and mental well‐being. Even if you were to reopen the parking lot for the Arastradero Preserve and allow
limited parking on Arastradero Rd., that would still limit the number of people who could be in the preserve at any one
time. Keeping us away from hiking a 100+‐acre preserve just doesn’t make sense at a time like this.
Respectfully yours,
David Hopkins
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 2:48 PM
To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian;
beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Cathy Lewis;
Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; dallen1212
@gmail.com; Daniel Zack; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; eappel@stanford.edu;
fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; Raymond Rivas;
diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; Jason
Tarvin; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; Kirk Sorensen; newsdesk; leager;
lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; midge@thebarretts.com; Mark Standriff; nick yovino; popoff;
russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; david.valenstein; Mark
Waldrep; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com;
margaret-sasaki@live.com
Subject:Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 2:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 2:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 1:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
2
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 3:59 AM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 3:50 AM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 3:43 AM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 3:28 AM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 2:48 AM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:10 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Saturday, April 11, 2020
3
To all‐ As discussed in the attached, there is much confusion in the media and among politicians about what an
antibody test for Covid19 can tell. I think Stanford would perform a needed service if they said what they think at this
point their test indicates and what it does not indicate. It for sure shows that a person was exposed to the virus if he has
antibodies, but at what point can it establish that he is now immune to the virus, if it ever can. Can it establish that one
is immune to Covid19 from the antibodies he displays?
Note‐ see the article Stanford has now put out about their new antibody test dated yesterday, Friday, April 10,
2020. I give the link to it at the very end of this email.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 10:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 12:30 AM
4
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 12:24 AM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 10:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, dennisbalakian
<dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, <alumnipresident@stanford.edu>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, Irv Weissman
<irv@stanford.edu>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 9:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 4:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Loran Harding
<loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sat. April 4, 2020
David‐ Thanks. I heard about the new Stanford coronavirus antibody test from Newsom as I watched his press
conference today. THAT Stanford test detects only antibodies, not the infection. See the comment someone posted
after the article you sent. He asks "don't you start producing antibodies as soon as you get infected and so won't you
have them as you start to get sick? If so, their presence would not prove you are immune to the virus but that you may
just be starting to get sick".That would not be someone you'd want to send back to work. PERHAPS the Stanford
antibody test can indicate how many antibodies one has, and which ones, and so, if the numbers are small, indicate that
that person has been recently infected and is on the way to getting sick. Whether it can do that would be a good
question to ask the researchers at Stanford. Can it distinguish between someone who is newly infected, has antibodies,
5
and is on the way to getting sick v. someone who is now no longer infectious and may even be immune due to having a
lot of antibodies and the right ones? In that regard, I read somewhere that if they are thinking of using antibodies as a
preventative in another person, they will first have to give the donor of the plasma the standard coronavirus infection
test. If he tests negative, then he can donate his plasma for its antibodies. I'll send this to Stanford and see if they will
discuss these questions.
Here is a Mercury News article which touches on these questions:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/04/coronavirus‐new‐stanford‐research‐reveals‐if‐youve‐been‐
exposed/
What they really want to do with the Stanford test, I think, is "just" determine the scale of the outbreak. A lot of
people who get infected with coronavirus have very mild symptoms, if any at all. They fly under the radar, are never
seen by a doctor, don't get very sick, and so are never recorded as a confirmed case‐ BUT they are infectious until their
immune system destroys the virus! Fresno County, California as of Thursday, April 9, 2020, had ~200 confirmed cases,
but you can be sure that the number of cases is a lot higher for the reason I just gave. That is scary because 200 cases in
a county of 4,000 sq. miles might make one think that the odds of getting infected here are really small, when the actual
number of cases is probably considerably higher.
One beauty of these serology studies, which the antibody test permits, is that you can study an epidemic after it is
over. You can find out just what the scale and distribution of infection in the population really was since many who get
infected with this virus never get sick enough to be counted as a "confirmed case".
Note that antibodies do not persist forever in people who develop them, and they don't have to persist for the
person to have protection. Once a pathogen attacks and the immune system determines which antibodies can disable
the antigen on the virus, killing the virus, white blood cells called "memory cells" stay in the system for years. If the same
pathogen invades in the future, these white blood cells pour out the antibodies that killed the invading pathogen during
its first invasion. So this time the immune system is ready to fight the pathogen and is less likely to be overwhelmed by
it. This is shown in this graphic for laymen about how a vaccine is made and how it works. This appears on the website
for the new Stanford Institute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection, so Stanford does not disagree with what it
shows. It appears on that website when one clicks on "Covid‐19. Why a corona virus vaccine is more that a year away,
despite medical researchers' progress".
https://www.usatoday.com/in‐depth/news/2020/03/09/biotech‐international‐effort‐makes‐big‐push‐for‐
coronavirus‐vaccine/4927298002/
Not so incidentally, here is the website for the new Stanford Institute for Immunity, Transplantation and
Infection. I urge all recipients to read about it there. It is very interesting. I think Dr. Fauci will find it so. He may have had
a hand in its creation. This entity produced the new corona virus antibody test so Stanford's timing was great:
https://iti.stanford.edu/
And all of this is to get a reading on whether someone has antibodies so that we know that he was infected at
some point. If he has a lot of antibodies, and the right ones, he might now be immune (?). MIGHT BE IMMUNE. Ask
Stanford, et.al., about that. We are not sure, at this point, whether the presence of antibodies to coronavirus in any
amount and of any kind can confer immunity to covid19. That is stated in one of the articles to which I give links here.
Antibodies generated in response to common cold viruses don't confirm immunity to them. One can catch cold several
times in a winter. But at a minimum, if someone has antibodies to the coronavirus, we know that he was infected with
the virus at some point. That is valuable information. A whole different ball game is the idea of taking plasma from
6
someone who we know has had the disease and has recovered and giving his plasma full of antibodies to someone who
has tested positive for the virus and is on the way to getting sick and hoping that the antibodies you give him may halt
the progression of the disease. Dr. Fauchi said that that is not a new idea and, in fact, was the start of the field of
immunology.
You noticed too about 10 days ago that Stanford developed a test to detect the INFECTION, a PCR test, and was
providing it to hospitals in the south San Francisco Bay Area. I sent out an email showing a video of the researchers who
developed it. The President of Stanford mentioned it at the end of his recent message to the Stanford family, which I
forwarded out. I wondered in that email why the NIH and CDC were not getting with Stanford to get that test widely
distributed. Then Abbott Labs came out with their test that produces results in 15 minutes. Maybe the Stanford test
took a lot longer to produce results, so the Stanford test was then no longer the best candidate. It sounds like we need
every test we can get, however.
Here is a video of Gov. Newsom speaking on April 4, 2020. He never says here that an antibody test can
determine who is now immune to the Covid‐19 virus. Others have come close to saying that, but that leap of faith seems
to be settling down now on Friday, April 10, 2020, and is heard less and less. Gov. Cuomo of New York got close to saying
that on Tues. April 7, 2020. We don't know if the antibodies the immune system produces in response to the Covid‐19
virus can EVER provide immunity. Maybe they can, and maybe the antibody test can at some point tell which antibodies
are present and how many are present in a person and IF that person is then immune. These are questions that should
be directed to the Stanford scientists who developed the antibody test. But I have yet to hear them or any other experts
say that any antibody test for Covid‐19 can determine that a person is then immune to the infection.
Here is the Newsom video of April 4, 2020. He is for sure totally engaged at this point, engaged and organized.
Task force, hubs, Blue Cross/ Blue Shield involvement. He is showing real leadership:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvYz9SMl_ts
Note a few things stated in this video: At 3:19, "Stanford Medicine is the first in Calif. to developed a serology
test". Gov. Newsom.
At 4:12‐ "The issue now with the serology test is the ability to focus on immunology‐ the issues related to
the immune system and looking at antibodies and proteins beyond just the PCR test" ‐ (the test for the virus).‐ Gov.
Newsom. Notice here that he uses some strange language‐ "The issue now with the serology test is the ability to focus
on immunology". What? To those of us who can use English with precision, that is strange talk. Newsom edges close
here to the idea of immunity to Covid‐19 being determinable from a serology test. He's almost willing it to be so, and
that is not how it works. Even if he is Governor, and he is, he can't cause the antibody test to determine with high
certainty that a person so tested is now immune. The test may turn out to be able to do that, but the people who
developed the test have not yet claimed that for it.
At 32:00‐ Newsom's task force co‐director Dr. Charity Dean speaking‐ "A Stanford lab has developed a
serology test‐ it helps determine who MAY (my emphasis) be immune".
Until that is proven, that word "may" is important‐ LH.
Here is Gov. Cuomo speaking on Tuesday, April 7, 2020. He gets closer to saying that the antibody test can
indicate immunity: He essentially declares it to be a fact! "If you have antibodies it means you had the virus and resolved
the virus. That means you are now no longer contagious and you can't catch the virus because you have the antibodies
which means you get to work, go back to school and can do whatever you want. But you have to have that testing at
scale. 19 million people in New York". Can you believe what you are reading here?
I think Governor Cuomo was poorly advised there or he is just dreaming. I think talk like that when he does not
know what he is talking about is just dangerous. I also think he is fully engaged and doing all he can to deal with this
7
disaster. He is getting results in a horrific situation. "Who will determine who will die? (from a lack of ventilators)" "It is
unbelievable to me that in New York State in the United States of America we can't make these materials" (PPE and
ventilators). Statements like that by Gov. Cuomo have caused Trump to direct resources to the State of New York.
Govenor Cuomo called for outside medical professionals to come to New York and help, and they have done so.
Near the end of the Corona virus task force press briefing on Thursday, April 9, 2020, Vice President Pence said
that the presence of antibodies "may indicate immunity", so the politicians are hearing from the scientists on this,
apparently. The scientists need to get with Gov. Cuomo more on the issue of whether having antibodieos equals
immunity.
Then on the ABC World News on Friday night, April 10, 2020, Gov. Cuomo made his assertion again. Where are
the Stanford reseachers on this? We need to hear from them. Do they know now that their antibody test can determine
if a person is immune to the Covid‐19 virus and is no longer infectious and can resume normal activities without
endangering those with whom he comes in contact?
IMPORTANT: Now we HAVE heard from the Stanford researchers on this point. Here is an article about their test
which is dated Friday, April 10, 2020. It is the first such commentary I have seen on the Stanford website, and I have
been looking there for several days. They hedge their language. Read this carefully and you'll see that. No where do they
say that their antibody test can determine with high precision that someone is now immune to the virus and can return
to normal activities without restrictions. One says that he suspects that their test will play a role in policy decisions
regarding lifting of the sheltering order.
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all‐news/2020/04/stanford‐medicine‐develops‐antibody‐test‐for‐
coronavirus.html
Engineering this antibody test was a major effort and it is a triumph. Wonderful. It is things like this that give
Stanford its towering reputation. But politicians shouldn't make claims for the test that its creators have not yet made.
And then this today from Dr. Anthony Fauci: Antibody tests are coming soon. Note that he too hedges his
language with regard to what such tests can and cannot do. Hedging might not be the word. He is careful in the claims
he makes for such tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O2emFh8WIc
Thanks again, David.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 3:34 PM
Subject: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Harding Loran <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennis balakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>
LH‐ Please read the text you see in this link. Somehow the video content has changed:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics‐government/capitol‐alert/article241774351.html
Sent from my iPhone
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 4:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Housing for those without shelter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members:
At the end of the PA Council meeting in January, to prioritize the most important issues to address for 2020, Mayor Fine
informed me that there are over 200 vacant houses in Palo Alto. That does not include apartments ( i.e. 11 in 3
buildings) like the 565/ 571 Hamilton units, and the two buildings next to it, which has been vacant now for nearly
3years). How many other apartments are sitting vacant during this pandemic? We need to urge the owners to rent,
lease, or sell these houses so that more housing is available. Imagine how many families of city workers might be able to
live in these vacant houses!
Eminent domain has been used for crises. We should consider this or other ways to urge owners to make this housing
accessible during a crisis like the one we are now facing.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist
WILPF Low‐income Housing Committee
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Todd Case <thcase01@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto open space
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please seriously consider completely closing the city Open Space preserves.
Consider the well being of all of the first responders, health care workers, elderly, populations of all the local senior
living facilities.
It just does not make any sense to have these type of crowds congregating. As the weather improves it is only going to
get worse.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 6:23 PM
Subject:How are Buena Vista Mobile Home Park residents are dealing with Covid-19
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Friends of Buena Vista ~ In this time of Covid‐19 I want to let you know how folks at Buena Vista
are doing, and send their good wishes to you as we all cope with it together.
I am happy to report that the President of the residents’ Board, Maria Martinez, says no one at BV has become
ill. Residents are practicing social distancing and the rest – not always easy given how closely they live.
Schools closed and the many students at BV were suddenly home. A number of them participate in the school
food program and continuing getting food to them and other students became a District‐wide concern.
Quickly two women at Barron Park Elementary coordinated with BV for daily meal deliveries outside the
now‐closed Homework Club, filling a critical need. Pick‐ups are well distanced from masked and gloved
resident volunteers, thus filling a critical need. Thank you to the folks at the school, the meal program and BV
volunteers for carrying on. And to Maria for her leadership.
Another concern that arose immediately with shelter‐in‐place was loss of jobs – it has been severe at Buena
Vista. As you know folks there are very hard working – sometimes with multiple jobs. Many were
immediately laid‐off or had hours cut. More jobs have been lost over time. Some residents will be able to get
unemployment and/or the one‐time payments from the federal government, but others will not qualify for
either. A minority still work in essential services ‐ grocery stores, medical offices, etc.
Then came the rent problem – people couldn’t pay as they lost jobs. The Housing Authority (owner) stepped‐
in to defer rent as needed (before the County and City prohibited unpaid rent evictions). Thank you Housing
Authority for your quick response.
More assistance was forthcoming. Supervisor Simitian’s office provided helpful information about specific
community resources for immediate assistance. Barron Park neighbors quickly provided gloves when BV
volunteers ran out of them. Two local pastors bring groceries, and $200 gift cards for gas, medicine and food
are being offered to PAUSD families in need through PA Community Fund, local leaders and Live Moves.
While it’s unknown what the long‐term consequences of the Covid‐19 crisis are, it’s clear that many at BV have
now been dealt a serious blow that disproportionately impacts nearly all low‐income people. The assistance
given so far has been vital and must continue. In the meantime, residents are persevering as always and like
everyone else, doing all they can to keep their kids, their parents and selves healthy.
I hope you and those you love are well. Let’s continue to hold each other close, give aide where we can, and
share happiness where we find it.
Together always, at a distance or soon embracing ‐
2
Winter Dellenbach, Friends of Buena Vista
fobv.org of the Covid‐19
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 7:43 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Bill Johnson
Subject:74 miles of Oakland streets will close to cars to give walkers, bicyclists exercise room during
coronavirus stay-home order - SFChronicle.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council Members,
During the shelter in place , we should consider closing some streets or portions of streets to auto use on California
Avenue and University Avenue corridors.
Oakland has done this.
Thanks
Gail Price
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/74‐miles‐of‐Oakland‐streets‐will‐close‐to‐cars‐to‐15191559.php
Sent from my iPhone
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kim Shimazaki <kimberlyok@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Checking on All
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
As we strive to minimize the spread of the novel coronavirus, I hope you and your families are well and
adapting to this radically different situation.
Do you know if there is an organized effort to volunteer to check on all people living in Palo Alto, as we
socially distance? We hear on Nextdoor, and from our local governments, to check on neighbors, and I
can't help thinking we are missing people in our city of 66,000+.
What would be ideal, in my humble opinion, is if all homes, including houses, RVs and other abodes were
knocked on, called, or other, to see if everyone's OK. For those of us who are, addresses could be crossed
off. For those of us who aren't, people could be connected to resources, or we as a community could
organize to support. As we know from Nextdoor alone, there is a lot of people who would volunteer in this
way, and would do so, if given the opportunity.
Please let me know if such an organized effort is occurring, and if not, if it'd be feasible for the
City of Palo Alto to initiate. This is separate from people opting in to volunteer to run errands for those
who cannot leave their homes. On Nextdoor, we see this, which is encouraging, uplifting, and helpful.
However, I believe many other neighbors may need help, but for one reason or another, have not been
able to use this platform.
Such an effort could be a way to improve our city’s overall culture, one where a greater percentage of
people take action to reach out and support one another - despite differences in age, wealth, race, or
background. We all hope for a more caring and supportive community that will surface and remain, once
the mandate of social distancing has been lifted.
With gratitude for what you and what the city council are already doing for our community,
Kim Shimazaki
Resident of Palo Alto and parent of students at Duveneck, Greene & Paly
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:59 PM
To:Hotline@cco.sccgov.org; Supervisor Simitian; Matt.savage@bos.sccgov.org;
AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Marc.Hershman@sen.ca.gov; Alex Kobayashi;
Elmer.Martinez@sen.ca.gov; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; Bill Johnson; Jay
Thorwaldson; Diana Diamond; Dave Price
Subject:COVID-19 outbreak cover-up by Lytton Gardens Senior Communities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Two weeks ago, it was local front‐page and national news that Lytton Gardens is ground zero for COVID‐19 in Palo Alto.
Since this news broke, HUD‐funded Lytton Gardens has sent out two separate notices to their residents, regarding their
COVID‐19 virus infection‐status within their facility.
Lytton Gardens' March 18th notice states, "There has been a CONFIRMED case of COVID‐19 at Lytton Gardens", which
contradicts their newest April 3rd notice, "We CONTINUE to have NO COVID‐19 among our residents or staff".
You can't have it both ways. ‐You're either pregnant or you're not.‐ Lytton Gardens either does or doesn't have a
history of COVID‐19 in Lytton Gardens facility.
Why the cover‐up?
‐Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 1:05 AM
To:Loran Harding; digitale@stanford.edu; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov;
David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis;
Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; dallen1212
@gmail.com; Daniel Zack; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; eappel@stanford.edu;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein;
Raymond Rivas; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman;
jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; leager; lalws4
@gmail.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Mark Standriff; Mayor; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com;
Steve Wayte; nick yovino; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; margaret-sasaki@live.com
Subject:Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 3:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: <digitale@stanford.edu>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 2:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 2:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: Newsom: Stanford coronavirus immunity test close to approval | The Fresno Bee
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 2:12 PM
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:CHERYL NAFZGAR <marigoldblu@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 10:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Gardeners
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Adrian Fine,
Last Wednesday someone from the Palo Alto Police Department
told our gardener it was illegal for him to be mowing our lawn.
The police told him that it was okay for homeowners to mow their
own lawns.
I think exceptions should be made. Many of our neighbors are
seniors, and some are very disabled. In our case, my husband is 83
years old and has heart disease. Also, I have MS and have had a
stroke, both of which contributed to my being in a wheelchair full
time. Needless to say, we no longer have a lawn mower, and
wouldn’t be able to use it if we did.
I would like you to reconsider this city ordinance.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Nafzgar
Palo Alto, California 94306
Phone number – 650. 493. 3287
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 2:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Nose, Kiely; Guagliardo, Steven; Flaherty, Michelle; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Expect a slow and drawn out local recovery
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and council members,
You are aware of the many health related prerequisites for reopening parts of the economy.
And you are aware that reopening will go slowly.
--some residents will remain at higher risk and under stay at home orders
--shops, offices and restaurants will probably have limited openings with smaller capacity, queues and
some physical distancing.
I urge you to consider some additional factors, particularly the distinction between what the law allows
and how residents, workers and visitors react.
Take air travel, which is important for tourism (here think Stanford Shopping Center, hotels, meetings and
related spending activities.
I suspect foreign travel, key to our tourism, tech deal making, and home sales will not reopen soon or at
full capacity and when it does, many will be hesitant to travel.
The same may be true for domestic travel. We used to go down to see our grand kids every month and
flew. When we can travel, at first we will drive. Every year they fly up and we go to Tahoe. This year they
will drive if we can go.
How many home sales are to out of regions buyers. Even if they can purchase a home without being here,
if they cannot physically move or think where they are is safer, no home sale. And the big sales season is
now in the spring when we are at stay at home orders.
This will mean continued economic pressure for our residents and particularly small businesses.
But it will also mean that city revenues will likely be restricted for a long time. To me that implies that the
council should remain flexible with frequent revenue and budget updates.
We all have friends in tech who are working from home and seem less affected. This is good news but not
a good guide to the overall challenges facing our local economy.
Finally, Palo Alto was experiencing rising vacancy rates and slow or negative job growth before the virus
became widespread. Another risk is that small businesses may not reopen or reopen here.
The city's future economic competitiveness deserves a careful look as the COVID-19 emergencies subside.
2
Stephen Levy
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:David <david@ecomagic.org>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 3:06 PM
To:Council, City; Lee.Butterfield@parks.ca.gov; DaveCortese@davecortese.com; president@stanford.edu;
Holman, Karen (external); dpine@smcgov.org; cgroom@smcgov.org; dhorsley@smcgov.org;
wslocum@smcgov.org; dcanepa@smcgov.org; john.leopold@santacruzcounty.us;
zach.friend@santacruzcounty.us; ryan.coonerty@santacruzcounty.us;
greg.caput@santacruzcounty.us; bruce.mcpherson@santacruzcounty.us;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; kathy.sutherland@bos.sccgov.org; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org;
supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Simitian; marc.hershman@sen.ca.gov;
ncalderon@smcgov.org; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; don.rocha@prk.sccgov.org;
jeff.gaffney@santacruzcounty.us; Yoriko Kishimoto
Subject:Open space and public health
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Good people,
Thank you for all that you’ve done to steward parks and other open spaces, so that I and millions of others may enjoy
them. There is broad scientific consensus and widespread public recognition that contact with nature is conducive to
mental and physical well‐being.
In the extraordinary circumstances of a growing pandemic and our responses to it, access to nature has become
increasingly important. Many of us are leaving home only for necessary provisioning, essential medical care, and physical
exercise. I look forward each day to hiking in a natural setting. Many others by their actions indicate that they, too, relish
such experiences.
Some people have yet to learn to adhere to social distancing guidelines. This is evident in neighborhoods, in “essential”
businesses, and in our open spaces. Our challenge is to find ways to elicit compliance with minimum infringement upon
freedom.
I’ve concern that by increasingly restricting access to public open spaces, we may be worsening public health, even as
we seek to protect it, and limiting freedom without reaping benefit which might warrant this sacrifice.
I can imagine that the endpoint of growing restriction will be complete closure of everything, as has already taken place
in some jurisdictions, with a result that thousands of people are each day denied restorative contact with nature. If we
respond by crowding neighborhood sidewalks, city parks, school grounds, and other public places, we may reduce by
little—or perhaps even increase—disease transmission, and we may adversely impact health in myriad other ways.
We’ve known for a century that drunk drivers exact a terrible toll. Though we’ve devised diverse responses to the threat
they pose, we’ve stopped short of closing the roads, or even some of them, some of the time.
To adapt to pandemic, we’ve radically altered central aspects of our lives. With our collective intelligence and
experience, you who steward our natural open spaces and we whom you serve are capable of shaping teaching‐ and
learning‐based strategies by which we take advantage of current openness to departure from “normal” to secure
responsible public access to our natural open spaces.
2
Please engage with each other and the public to ensure that parks and open spaces remain a source of renewal and
comfort in this difficult time, and that users cooperate to stay and keep each other healthy. I am gladly working
towards these ends, and I know many others are and will.
Thank you again for protecting nature and providing access to it for so many. And thank you for considering these views.
Please contact me if I may assist you in achieving the goals I've outlined.
Gratefully,
David Schrom
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 1:56 PM
To:Supervisor Simitian
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Marc.Hershman@sen.ca.gov;
Alex Kobayashi; Elmer.Martinez@sen.ca.gov; Matt.savage@bos.sccgov.org;
AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Stump, Molly; Drekmeier, Peter; Kleinberg,
Judy; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Diana Diamond; Aram James; Carol@silverlaw.biz
Subject:PERSONAL for SCC Supervisor Joe Simitian -- COVID-19 shown indifference by Lytton Gardens
Senior Communities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
PLEASE DON'T KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
Joseph Simitian
Santa Clara County Supervisor
Dear Joe,
Your Healthcare Policy Aide's response correspondence (below) fails to understand that my email (following his), is NOT
about smoking as a Palo Alto City Ordinance violation, rather it goes to the healthcare issue for vulnerable seniors
residing in an Assisted‐Living building during the COVID pandemic.
Lytton Gardens is ground zero for Palo Alto COVID‐19, and harbors a COVID patient in their facility.
Please advocate for these Assisted‐Living elders by calling Lytton Gardens Senior Communities management:
(650) 617‐7317 ‐‐ Campus Housing Administrator
(650) 617‐7338 ‐‐ Assisted‐Living Manager
Obviously, with the COVID‐19 crisis, exposing the aged and infirmed to Lytton Gardens second‐hand smoke, is even
more dangerous in making one's lungs even more vulnerable to the potentially deadly impact of the disease.
Yesterday's front page news, Palo Alto Daily Post, declared that more than 50% of COVID deaths in our county are folks
over 70 years of age.
We've known each other a long time and have lived our lives in Palo Alto. I have supported you throughout your
political career, since you first ran for Palo Alto City Council and became our Mayor. Please continue to care about the
safety and well‐being of Palo Altans.
PLEASE DON'T KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
2
Very truly yours,
‐Danielle
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Savage, Matt <matt.savage@bos.sccgov.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Subject: COVID‐19 shown indifference by Lytton Gardens Senior Communities
To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Cc: Supervisor Simitian <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>
Danielle,
Thank you for emailing Supervisor Simitian and cc’ing me. It is my understanding that policies regarding smoking in
public are created and enforced by cities. I see that your email was also sent to members of the City Council and the City
Manager, who have jurisdiction.
Take Care,
Matt Savage, Health Care Policy Aide
County Supervisor Joe Simitian, District Five
matthew.savage@bos.sccgov.org
408‐299‐5050
www.supervisorsimitian.com
From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:09 PM
To: HOTLINE, CCO <HOTLINE@cco.sccgov.org>; Supervisor Simitian <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>
Cc: ed.shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Marc.Hershman
3
<Marc.Hershman@sen.ca.gov>; Alex Kobayashi <alex.Kobayashi@sen.ca.gov>; Elmer.Martinez@sen.ca.gov; Stump,
Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>; Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>; Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>;
Diana Diamond <dianaLdiamond@gmail.com>; Peter Drekmeier <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net>; Rev. Bruce Reyes‐Chow
<BReyesChow@fprespa.org>; Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Murray <rev.murray@ymail.com>;
Estanislao.Mikalonis@dsj.org; TPGleeson@gmail.com; Savage, Matt <matt.savage@bos.sccgov.org>;
AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Kleinberg, Judy <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] COVID‐19 shown indifference by Lytton Gardens Senior Communities
Early this afternoon, April 12, my letter below was hand-delivered to Lytton Gardens management, regarding their
derelict smoking policy.
Obviously, with the COVID-19 crisis, smoking is even more dangerous in making one's lungs even more vulnerable to the
potential deadly impact of the disease, particularly on older adults.
-Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
April 12, 2020
P.O. Box 265
Palo Alto, California 94301
4
Mrs. Anahi McKane
Assisted-Living Manager
Lytton Gardens Senior Communities
649 University Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Mrs. McKane:
By advising Palo Alto's Lytton Gardens tenants to smoke in front of Lytton Gardens Assisted-Living building, 649
University Avenue, you have created an illegal, unhealthy and unsafe environment for all occupants of the building,
including workers and visitors.
Contrary to what you promote, the downtown city sidewalk and bench, located directly in front of Lytton Gardens nursing
home, is NOT Lytton Gardens "designated smoking area".
In Palo Alto, it is a crime to smoke tobacco in commercial areas, and punishable by multiple $500 fines.
Enclosed find two items to educate you on the gravity of this issue.
Ordinance No. 5376, which protects the "public health, safety and general welfare by prohibiting smoking in
commercial areas"
Eight photographs, some date-stamped as recently as Easter weekend, of your tenant [Veronica], who
HABITUALLY chain-smokes, in front of the ONLY foot-paths accessing your Assisted-Living building
Many who come and go, from the Assisted-Living building, have allergies or other respiratory issues. Research proves
"second-hand smoke" is more dangerous than smoking, and tobacco addiction is stronger than heroin addiction. You are
legally bound to protect the health, of your non-smoking tenants and workers, from smokers. Please seek counsel from
Lytton Gardens corporate office regarding legal implications with this issue.
5
Obviously, with the COVID-19 crisis, smoking is even more dangerous in making one's lungs even more vulnerable to the
potentially deadly impact of the disease, particularly on older adults.
Very truly,
-Danielle Martell
cc: Doris Lee, Campus Housing Administrator - Lytton Gardens Senior Communities
Enclosures: Ordinance No. 5376: Smoking and Tobacco Regulations
Photographs
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 1:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee paid leave through 6/30
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I understand that you are considering paying all City employees, including those who are 100% non‐productive and not
working, their full salaries through June 30, and the cost to taxpayers is estimated at $2.5 million (per below).
I would request that you please reconsider this extreme decision given the touch choices and self sacrifice that is
obviously needed given the massive budget shortfall and tough times ahead.
Please don’t forget that most employees will get at least one $1200 stimulus check IN ADDITION to their full salary while
they stay at home not working. This seems over‐the‐top (no one should make money from this crisis). [At a minimum, I
would think any stimulus checks received by employees staying at home and getting leave should have their pay
reduced by the amount of federal checks[. Many personal stories I could share if you want to hear them, but suffice it
to say may people not working in government are struggling.
What I also want to ask you is if you DO decide to make employees whole (or actually more than whole given the
stimulus checks), that this economic benefit NOT to the detriment to the residents or small businesses. It would not be
fair to cut important resident programs (such as RPPs). And it would NOT be fair to raise utility rates as I understand is
currently being planned.
I cannot imagine you won’t be faced with tough choices in May as you review the budget and fiscal plans. Thank you for
balancing any sacrifices required evenly across all constituencies: employees, businesses, and residents. And I hope you
view residents as the city’s top “customer”.
Thank you for all your efforts and for keeping us safe.
Chris Robell
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Agendas
To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@cityofpaloalto.org>
Questions on 3A 1) In the report, you write: "as a result of the COVID-19 emergency these costs represent non-productive hours." Can you confirm that the total approximate amount after authorization for the City to spend on employees with 100% non-productive hours under this proposal is $3.4M of
2
taxpayer dollars at a time when many of our residents/businesses are in dire need and while the City faces a revenue shortfall of $15-$20M this fiscal year?
Based on page 4 of your memo (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=73204.27&BlobID=76157), here is my math: $700k per month of employees with 100% non-productive hours (without pensions
contributions) $700k + 40% (pensions) = $980k per month with pensions contributions but not including unfunded pension liabilities
$980k/30 days in a month = $33k per day
105 days with 100% non-productive hours from the shelter order on 3/17 to the consent item authorization end date 6/30 105 days * $33k/day = $3.4M (not including unfunded pension liabilities so the actual amount
is much higher)
Basically, the city has already spent $872k (27 days= 3/17 to 4/12) of taxpayer dollars on employees with 100% non-productive hours and you are asking for Council to spend an additional $2.5M (78 days = 4/13 to 6/30) on employees with 100% non-productive hours?
2) Staff report says: "these totals ($3.4M) are included within the overall preliminary fiscal impact of the Coronavirus emergency for the Fiscal Year 2020", so where would the extra $15M to $20M dollars of cuts/transfers come from to close the revenue shortfall if this is approved? Given that the fiscal year-end is only a few months away I would assume staff has a plan to
handle this gap?
3) If the plan is to make up the shortfall entirely from the Budget Stabilization Reserve which is at $44M, would that mean we could be using 45% ($20M) of the reserve to make it through one quarter of this fiscal year and only have 55% left for the four quarters of the entire FY2021 when
the economy is likely to still be very weak?
4) As part of the initial $2T Federal stimulus program, there were very generous unemployment benefits given to individuals but no funding for city governments. Some of the lower wage employees might find themselves to have little to no loss of income. Rather than Palo Alto
shouldering the entire burden of this Depression, couldn't we harness some of the federal dollars instead? If so, how many employees with 100% non-productive hours would be fully covered by the federal program and what would the average percentage of the wage coverage
be for the average employee with 100% non-productive hours? Also, EDD has a collaborative unemployment program so that you can reduce hours and employees can request unemployment for the difference.
5) Given that our reserves are of finite size and might run out in six months at the current burn
rate ($20M/qtr), are we really protecting employees with 100% non-productive hours by doing this or are we displacing essential employees that we might really need later in the year with employees with 100% non-productive hours that we can't use now? Many of our residents (i.e.
our customers) have experienced personal financial hardships and all residents have suffered from significant service cuts. If we shift the resources, couldn't we provide a better service level for our customers later in the calendar year while providing the same average level of
employment for the calendar year?
6) In order to come up with an estimate of the $15-$20M revenue shortfall this FY staff had to make certain assumptions and projections, can you please share what assumptions were made and what the breakdown is between the different revenue source drops?
3
7) I assume the 267 employees with 100% non-productive hours are not in essential categories (safety, utilities, etc.), so what categories are they in by percentage?
8) Of the 267 employees with 100% non-productive hours what percentages fall in each of the listed situations: " • Quarantined, waiting for test results, or ill from COVID-19; • Assigned to facilities that are closed and could not be immediately redeployed; • Working a reduced or rotational schedule from changes in operations; or • Unable to work due to lack of care for a child or children at home."
9) Does the City have the option of paying for an employees’ health care even if they go on unemployment? We want to make sure our employees stay healthy.
10) Who are the “Council Appointed Officers”? Are you referring to the CAO committee? Does that mean the city manager will only work with these council members? Or is this a term about something else (e.g. Ed, Molly)? The report does not identify or clarify the term and does not use it in the recommendation itself. If it is referring to the CAO committee, does that make sense since this is a finance issue so shouldn’t it be referred to the Finance committee instead?
11) Will staff calculate changes to revenue expectations between now and 6/30/20 at the conclusion of this authorization? This too will affect the budget stabilization reserve going into FY2021.
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
ᐧ
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:34 AM Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Good Morning,
Attached are the following agendas:
April 13 REVISED agenda to add the workforce item that was requested during the 4/6 meeting. It is
Consent Item 3A and attached.
April 16 City School Agenda
April 20, note action item #10, the BID, will be produced next Thursday. Council Members should have
had a package of plans delivered to your home for the 840 Kipling St. consent item. Please let me know
if you did not.
April 21 Finance Committee Agenda
4
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
‐‐
Greg Tanaka | Council Member
Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka’s Office
W: www.GregTanaka.org | D: 415.968.9436 | E: greg@gregtanaka.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are
the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:KENDRA BRONSTEIN <kendrabronstein@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 2:35 PM
To:Council, City
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am opposed to paying City Employees 100% of their salary, pensions, benefits when they are not working at all and
staying home. Many of us in the private sector have lost our jobs and do NOT get made whole in this way. Please just
furlough employees and have them the federal government and state (EDD) pay them during this difficult time.
If you don’t, you are effectively placing even more of a burden on struggling residents and small businesses.
Please think of residents as you manage through this difficult time.
Thank you,
Kendra Bronstein
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:robell <robell999@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 3:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:pay proposal for city employees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I am opposed to having the city pay 100% of city employee their salaries, pensions, and benefits during this
pandemic period when residents, businesses and public servants are all sacrificing. Everyone takes a hit
during this difficult time. To give all to one segment of Palo Alto is unrealistic and an unfair practice.
Furthermore, this is fiscally irresponsible and a very unusual practice (even in the public sector). Suspending
employment or paying at a reduced rate would be a compromise to consider.
If you just have the “city’ (us) pay the non‐working employees, you are effectively placing even more of a
burden on struggling residents (including seniors) and small businesses. Furthermore, It would be unfair to
make employees whole, funded by shrinking city reserves, if later it would result in cuts to resident services
and/or increased costs to us.
Please think of all facets of the Palo Alto community as you manage through this difficult time.
Thank you for dealing with such issues at this time.
Mary Robell
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 4:19 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Emily Mibach; Dave Price
Subject:Concerned, sensible taxpayers object to fully paying city employees through June 30th
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the City Council:
I'm writing to object to a City Council proposal to pay City employees full salary through June, when they aren't currently
working, and while the federal government is offering enhanced unemployment insurance benefits for furloughed
workers. Some city employees may receive a $1200 coronavirus stimulus check to boot.
How can the City justify its employees making more than their full salaries, when taxpayers are unemployed and taking
huge financial hits?
This is an unusual time, and one for shared sacrifices. It is not a time for the City Council to be adding more fees onto
the backs of taxpayers, residents, and struggling businesses, as it is apparently considering.
With the economy at a standstill, and City revenues predicted to take a significant hit, now is the time to consider shared
frugality, as are so many other state, localities and businesses.
Please show respect for and solidarity with those who are expected to finance these City Council decisions, struggling
taxpayers, businesses and residents.
Thank you for listening.
Best,
Kathy Jordan
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Shikada, Ed
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:03 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Executive Leadership Team
Subject:City Council 4-13-20 Consent Agenda Questions
Dear Councilmembers,
Please see below responses to questions from Councilmember Tanaka regarding Agenda Item 3A.
Respectfully,
‐‐Ed
Ed Shikada
City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329‐2280
ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org
Councilmember Tanaka’s questions below appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the way that paid
administrative leave is used. The questions refer multiple times to “employees with 100% non‐productive hours”;
however, that does not apply to the City’s circumstances in this emergency. Of the full‐time employees, the only
individuals that did not work at all are a very small number of employees categorized by the Public Health Order as
“high risk” due to underlying health conditions or age (over age 65). These high‐risk employees were advised to avoid
the workplace and remain at home. It is recommended that these employees remain in their paid status to avoid
cancellation of their medical coverage, which given their risks could be devastating. All other full‐time employees who
used leave hours worked as much as possible but their hours were involuntarily reduced related to the shelter‐in‐
place order. These impacted employees used an average of 17 hours per week to supplement their worked hours.
As discussed at last week’s Council meeting, as we enter the extension of shelter order, we are continuing
redeployments and additional assignments that reduce paid administrative leave through the remainder of the
order. Staff will elaborate on this during Monday’s COVID‐19 update. The recommendation to continue payroll as
currently budgeted must also be weighed against the cost to engage in a furlough or layoff process. As explained at
Monday night’s meeting the City has a unionized workforce, which means furloughs and layoffs are quite different
than in the private sector. A furlough or layoff requires engagement with unions, seniority lists, and “bumping” in
some instances, which would result in unanticipated disruption to essential services during the emergency. In terms
of cost‐savings through layoffs, most represented full‐time employees are covered by union provisions for a 30‐day
paid severance following their last day of employment, which follows the engagement process just described. That
severance is fully‐paid by the City. Another consideration is that the cost and time to hire and train employees after
the emergency would negatively affect recovery efforts.
1) In the report, you write: "as a result of the COVID-19 emergency these costs represent non-productive
hours." Can you confirm that the total approximate amount after authorization for the City to spend on
employees with 100% non-productive hours under this proposal is $3.4M of taxpayer dollars at a time when
2
many of our residents/businesses are in dire need and while the City faces a revenue shortfall of $15-$20M
this fiscal year?
Based on page 4 of your memo
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=73204.27&BlobID=76157), here is my math:
$700k per month of employees with 100% non-productive hours (without pensions contributions)
$700k + 40% (pensions) = $980k per month with pensions contributions but not including unfunded pension
liabilities
$980k/30 days in a month = $33k per day
105 days with 100% non-productive hours from the shelter order on 3/17 to the consent item authorization
end date 6/30
105 days * $33k/day = $3.4M (not including unfunded pension liabilities so the actual amount is much higher)
Basically, the city has already spent $872k (27 days= 3/17 to 4/12) of taxpayer dollars on employees with
100% non-productive hours and you are asking for Council to spend an additional $2.5M (78 days = 4/13 to
6/30) on employees with 100% non-productive hours?
This characterization is inaccurate as it assumes maximum expenditure of authorization, and implies that any hours
used have no value. The term “100% non‐productive” is misleading and inflammatory. As stated in the staff report,
we will continue to ensure that maximum value is provided through staff work, including the continuity of essential
services and other services. Specifically, Administrative Leave is a primary strategy to ensure the availability of staff
to perform essential duties on an emergency and rotational basis, perform disaster service worker duties, and
support the City’s and Palo Alto community’s ability to adjust to changing conditions.
2) Staff report says: "these totals ($3.4M) are included within the overall preliminary fiscal impact of the
Coronavirus emergency for the Fiscal Year 2020", so where would the extra $15M to $20M dollars of
cuts/transfers come from to close the revenue shortfall if this is approved? Given that the fiscal year-end is only
a few months away I would assume staff has a plan to handle this gap?
As reported at the April 6, 2020 City Council meeting, staff recommended a two‐part strategy for managing the costs
associated with COVID‐19: first managing through the state of emergency, and then addressing structural reductions
necessary through the fiscal year 2020‐2021 budget process that will be initiated next week, on April 20. Managing
through the state of emergency has required immediate action on several fronts such as redeploying staff to handle
State of Emergency duties, transitioning and realigning duties to remote work, and rotating week on/week off
essential staff assignments to address social distancing and minimize potential exposure. This will be presented in
more detail during the City Council’s COVID‐19 Update on April 13.
3) If the plan is to make up the shortfall entirely from the Budget Stabilization Reserve which is at $44M, would
that mean we could be using 45% ($20M) of the reserve to make it through one quarter of this fiscal year and
only have 55% left for the four quarters of the entire FY2021 when the economy is likely to still be very weak?
That is not correct. First, the estimated expenses reflect all funds costs, whereas the projected gap in FY 2020 was
specific to General Fund preliminary estimates. A significant portion of expenses related to this authority are related
to enterprise operations (utilities and public works), the related special funds will bear much of the expenses in
addition to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. In addition, the City will continue to seek federal and
state assistance to defray some of the extraordinary costs of the City’s emergency response effort associated with this
pandemic.
4) As part of the initial $2T Federal stimulus program, there were very generous unemployment benefits given
to individuals but no funding for city governments. Some of the lower wage employees might find themselves
to have little to no loss of income. Rather than Palo Alto shouldering the entire burden of this Depression,
3
couldn't we harness some of the federal dollars instead? If so, how many employees with 100% non-
productive hours would be fully covered by the federal program and what would the average percentage of the
wage coverage be for the average employee with 100% non-productive hours? Also, EDD has a collaborative
unemployment program so that you can reduce hours and employees can request unemployment for the
difference.
Staff is pursuing all avenues for federal and state program assistance, while recognizing that initially announced
program expectations may not be met. Please see the above explanation for “100% non‐productive hours” being an
inappropriate term and misleading to the public.
5) Given that our reserves are of finite size and might run out in six months at the current burn rate ($20M/qtr),
are we really protecting employees with 100% non-productive hours by doing this or are we displacing
essential employees that we might really need later in the year with employees with 100% non-productive
hours that we can't use now? Many of our residents (i.e. our customers) have experienced personal financial
hardships and all residents have suffered from significant service cuts. If we shift the resources, couldn't we
provide a better service level for our customers later in the calendar year while providing the same average
level of employment for the calendar year?
The assumption of reserve drawdown is incorrect, as noted above. The fiscal year 2021 budget process beginning next
week (referenced in response to question #2) will enable the City Council to set priorities that reflect a holistic
understanding of choices beyond the current state of emergency. As stated, the term “100% non‐productive hours” is
inappropriate and not accurate as our workforce is delivering essential services during this emergency period and
preparing our recovery effort so the City may quickly build out from this challenging time.
6) In order to come up with an estimate of the $15-$20M revenue shortfall this FY staff had to make certain
assumptions and projections, can you please share what assumptions were made and what the breakdown is
between the different revenue source drops?
This is an overall estimate based on prior economic downturns and staff professional experience. Also, to correct the
mischaracterization above, this is a preliminary estimate of financial implications in the General Fund and not isolated
to revenue loss.
7) I assume the 267 employees with 100% non-productive hours are not in essential categories (safety,
utilities, etc.), so what categories are they in by percentage?
This assumption is incorrect. Please see the above explanation for “100% non‐productive hours” being an
inappropriate term. Please also note that the term “essential” is specifically defined by the goals and directives of the
County of Santa Clara Public Health Order. This definition should not be used to circumvent the Palo Alto
community’s ability to determine its values, nor priorities for services provided by the City in any other context.
8) Of the 267 employees with 100% non-productive hours what percentages fall in each of the listed
situations:
• Quarantined, waiting for test results, or ill from COVID-19; (<5% of hours)
• Assigned to facilities that are closed and could not be immediately redeployed; (~40%)
• Working a reduced or rotational schedule from changes in operations; or (~50%)
• Unable to work due to lack of care for a child or children at home." (<5%)
The assumption of “267 employees with 100% non‐productive hours” is incorrect. We reported 267 employees with
some (0 to 80) hours of Administrative Leave. Rough estimates are annotated above.
4
9) Does the City have the option of paying for an employees’ health care even if they go on unemployment?
We want to make sure our employees stay healthy.
Staff is continuing to evaluate available options and will report to the City Council as this information is available.
10) Who are the “Council Appointed Officers”? Are you referring to the CAO committee? Does that mean the
city manager will only work with these council members? Or is this a term about something else (e.g. Ed,
Molly)? The report does not identify or clarify the term and does not use it in the recommendation itself. If it is
referring to the CAO committee, does that make sense since this is a finance issue so shouldn’t it be referred
to the Finance committee instead?
The term Council Appointed Officers refers to the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Auditor. The
reference to Council Appointed Officers in the staff report was intended to reflect that staff reporting to all Council
Appointed Officers would be covered by council‐approved leave policies. This is typical of all City personnel policies
and is consistent with the language in the City’s Merit System Rules and Regulations.
11) Will staff calculate changes to revenue expectations between now and 6/30/20 at the conclusion of this
authorization? This too will affect the budget stabilization reserve going into FY2021.
Updated revenue estimates will be provided to the City Council as available, in conjunction with the upcoming fiscal
year 2020‐21 budget approval process as discussed during last week’s Council meeting and staff report.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 9:32 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr
Subject:Please enact Item #3A on tonight's meeting agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I write to urge you to enact Item #3A on tonight's meeting agenda: "Council Delegation of Paid Administrative Leave for
COVID-19 to Council Appointed Officers Per Merit."
I understand the high degree of near and midterm financial uncertainty there is for our city government, but I also believe
the retention of city staff with their experience, skills, and collective institutional memory, are vital to our community well-being now and into the future, and especially once the current pandemic crisis subsides.
Thank you for your consideration in this regard,
Christian Pease Evergeen Park
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Paul Heft <paulheft@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sustainability and Climate Action
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members,
I understand that you will be discussing the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP) at the next Council meeting.
Reading the “Building Electrification 2020‐2021 Work Plan”, I’m disappointed by what I see in
“Figure 1: Palo Alto Municipal Operations and Community GHG Emissions”: greenhouse gas
emissions had barely decreased since 2013.
I was hoping that Palo Alto city government had stepped up to a leadership position in the
global campaign for climate action, but that chart shows that the commendable goals have not
been matched by actions.
Can we do better as a city? I hope that the Council can implement plans that actually meet our
goals. Or else, if that’s not possible, let’s be honest about not being able to be a leader on this
critical issue.
Thank you!
Paul Heft
Midtown neighborhood
Palo Alto, CA 94301 Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Phil Metz <philmetz@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 2:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Recommendations for Improving Palo Alto's Sustainability & Climate Action Plan
Attachments:Recommendations for Improving Palo Alto's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Phil Metz
4-9-20.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Folks, I am forwarding my recommendations for improving Palo Alto’s SCAP Plan, as stated in the
March 31 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Community Workshop #1 presentation. Please confirm receipt. Best,
Phil Phil Metz Palo Alto, CA 94306
philmetz@gmail.com +1 (408) 821-8059
Redacted
Improving Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Phil Metz, 3201 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 philmetz@gmail.com
I would like to offer three recommendations for improving Palo Alto’s Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan, as described in the March 31, 2020 SCAP Presentation:
1. Greatly enhance community involvement and input in the planning
process.
2. Develop a holistic Plan that simultaneously addresses GHG reduction,
increased resilience, and enhanced emergency response.
3. Close the gaps in transportation and Scope 3 emissions.
Greatly enhance community involvement and input in the planning process. The
process for developing the SCAP output reflects minimal community involvement and
input. I have participated in 2 Utility Advisory Commission Resilience Workshops and
see little in the SCAP reflecting those discussions. And we must address GHG
reduction and resilience / emergency response together in a holistic way (see
recommendation below).
To that end I recommend that we:
• Undertake an intensive GHG reduction planning process that actively involves
community members in developing a holistic plan. An initiative that we might
emulate is the “Amsterdam City Donut Process”.
• Delay SCAP in this time of pandemic until active community involvement in such
a holistic planning process is feasible.
Develop a holistic Plan that simultaneously addresses GHG reduction, increased
resilience, and enhanced emergency response. Addressing GHG reduction without
considering resilience and emergency response could literally be disastrous for the City
of Palo Alto. The City needs a holistic and integrated strategy that:
• Enhances climate change mitigation
• Improves resilience vs. energy / water supply disruption
• Ensures a minimum level of habitability during an emergency so that residents
can shelter in place in their own neighborhoods for an extended period.
Renewable electricity RECs and natural gas offsets should NOT be part of the Palo Alto
sustainability plan. Claiming that RECs and offsets “reduce” Palo Alto GHG emissions
– as the SCAP presentation indicates – is dubious at best. These financial instruments
for energy delivered at another place and another time do not really reduce Palo Alto
GHG emissions, and should not be the core of Palo Alto’s SCAP.
Instead, the #1 thing Palo Alto can do to mitigate building-related climate change is
“negawatts” – dramatically increasing building energy efficiency. That will also stretch
resources in a supply disruption or emergency. Local renewable energy production is
Improving Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Phil Metz, 3201 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 philmetz@gmail.com
the #2 priority for reducing both building and transportation GHG emissions. Could Palo
Alto become a “laboratory” for local climate change innovation by harnessing local
renewable distributed energy resources (DER), such as PV electricity and EV storage?
These are the difficult challenges we need to undertake.
It is essential that we address electricity supply resilience in our plan to reduce GHG
emissions – especially if we are contemplating a shift from natural gas to all electric
buildings, as the SCAP proposes: With a single grid interconnect – through PG&E –
Palo Alto is deeply vulnerable to disruption. A partial solution would be to add a second
interconnect, so that we are not vulnerable to a single point failure. And CPAU dispatch
of enhanced local resources could provide grid support in an emergency. Perhaps, too,
there are opportunities to partner with Stanford, with its innovative energy system. Until
we address electricity supply resilience, it would be highly risky to mandate all-electric
buildings as our approach to in-building GHG emission reduction, as SCAP proposes.
As a Palo Alto emergency services volunteer (BPC and CERT), I have learned that in
an earthquake or other emergency, even minimal local energy production could stabilize
our neighborhoods, enabling residents to shelter in place, and not evacuate. I propose
the goal that 1 house in 10 (proportionately for other buildings) have the energy to
power a refrigerator, water pump, and emergency communications. Let’s also explore
partnering with Tesla to pilot approaches for using the considerable amount of electricity
stored in EVs during supply disruptions or natural emergencies.
Close the gaps in transportation and Scope 3 emissions. The SCAP presentation
has two large GHG emissions gaps that we need to close:
• Transportation, by far Palo Alto’s #1 GHG source according to the SCAP Plan, if
we accept the use of electricity RECs and natural gas offsets to reduce building-
related GHG emissions.
• Scope 3 emissions which are not addressed at all in the SCAP.
The Mobility and Electric Vehicle sections of the Plan are pretty thin, and mostly boil
down to developing by 2022 a plan to encourage EVs. I think we need to accelerate
this. Similar to the recommendation above: Might we partner with Tesla to find ways to
accelerate EV penetration? And how will we address electricity supply resilience as we
put even more “eggs in the electricity basket”?
As far as I can tell, the SCAP does not even mention Scope 3 emissions – GHG
emissions beyond direct local emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from the
electricity we purchase (Scope 2). In an affluent community such as Palo Alto, Scope 3
GHG emissions are likely to be greater than Scopes 1 and 2. So, it is essential that we
address Scope 3 emissions in our Sustainability and Climate Action Plan.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:37 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hodge, Bruce
Subject:FW: 2020 S/CAP and Workplan Staff Update - April 13 Council Meeting
Attachments:CFPA Comments on S_CAP update and workplan April 2020.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
We recommended in our attached letter that you ask Staff to produce climate action planning and program proposals that credibly align with our established 80/30 climate goals.
To elaborate further by way of example, here is a summary article on Ann Arbor’s climate plan with estimates
for program staffing, funding and timing that also aligns with the IPCC 2030 mandates. It is of course too early to say if this plan can be executed successfully but their community is at least grappling now with the scale and urgency of the problem as should we.
Ann Arbor unveils $1B plan to go carbon-neutral: https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/03/ann-arbor-unveils-1b-plan-to-go-carbon-neutral.html
Please help our city and community to productively engage in an impactful dialogue about addressing the
climate crisis head on.
Carbon Free Palo Alto
From: Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 10:19 PM
To: 'city.council@cityofpaloalto.org' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: 2020 S/CAP and Workplan Staff Update ‐ April 13 Council Meeting
Honorable Council Members,
Please find attached a letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto presenting our comments and recommendations on Staff
report: Review the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update Process and Accept the 2020 ‐2021
Sustainability Work Plan
We understand the report was dated for March 23rd but is now scheduled to be heard on April 13th.
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Carbon Free Palo Alto Comments on Staff Report: “Review the 2020 Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update, Process and Accept the 2020 -2021 Sustainability
Work Plan”
We appreciate the continuing efforts by staff to create a planning process and range of
programs to address climate change and other sustainability opportunities. With limited
directives from council, they have executed well using standard program planning and
budgeting approaches in a challenging staffing environment.
However, we continue to see that our collective efforts and plans are not up to the GHG
reduction task at hand. We would like to make a few observations and simple recommendations
to make the planning process for it more effective and engaging. We also recommend a shift in
program focus to one that has the potential to meet the need for mass adoption of electrification
measures to reduce GHGs.
CFPA’s mission is to help our city address the climate crisis by providing analysis and effective
policy alternatives. Echoing the conclusions of the latest IPCC report, it is clear that we require
programs to reduce fossil fuel use that are rapid, far reaching and unprecedented.
Palo Alto’s 80% by 2030 goal was set in accordance with this mandate with the understanding
that we would have to go beyond standard planning processes and the normal incremental and
voluntary city programs like rebates, incentives and education to reach it. The 2016 S/CAP
clearly identified electrification of buildings (water and space heating) and transportation (EVs
and SOV/VMT reduction) as the primary lines of action required.
There is now a longstanding disconnect between our GHG reduction goal and Palo Alto’s
program results and plans. The graph of emissions below shows that there have been no
significant reductions since 2013. Also, we have seen no discussion of electrification or
transportation programs that could feasibly scale to the 80/30 goal – for example, a program
and plan that could quickly lead to the replacement of thousands of residential gas water
heaters each year. From this perspective, City Staff and Council have collectively made no
substantive progress on implementing our official City climate policy.
1
Moreover, the graph above shows how City reports use carbon offsets to obscure the major
portion of our emissions that come from burning gas in our buildings. Including offsets in City
accounts and reports of local GHG emissions is entirely misleading to the public. As a voter,
why would one support major investments in electrification if the City shows that our building
emissions are already fully neutralized with offsets?
The Utility work-plan recently submitted to the UAC (referenced in the Staff Report) represents a
good start on programs that support gradual electrification, but it falls very short of providing the
complete solution we need to spur broad and immediate adoption.
The work-plan helpfully shows a road-map of voluntary programs for electrification (Figure 3
below), including the kind of complete solution that CFPA has been strongly advocating since
2017 (far right of the chart). This approach offers customers easy-to-buy electrification
measures like water heaters and panel upgrades, directly installed by certified partners and
optionally financed with low interest over long terms. Payments would show up on the
2
customers electric bill - i.e. inclusive on-bill financing. CFPA proposed this kind of program in its
2018 BE Smart white paper and the idea is gaining momentum across CA.
Recommendations to City Council
In order to engage in a realistic and effective dialog about climate action, ask staff to:
●Present goals in meaningful terms that quantify the action required of the city,
residents and businesses on an annualized basis. Staff should provide consensus
estimates of how many fossil fuel devices must be replaced each year in order to meet
the 80/30 goal. CFPA has proposed a model showing this to be approximately:
○2300 gas water heaters per year
○1400 gas HVAC systems per year
○8600 gas vehicles per year
○TBD: Single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel and reduced vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) also offer significant scope for change.
3
●Tie existing programs and proposals to these unit goals so that the stakeholders
can understand and actively engage in program selection and development discussions.
●Present a complete range of program options for consideration including ones that
could meet the 80/30 requirements.
○Include the usual approaches with available/incremental resources.
○Include “80/30” scale options that may require significantly more staff, partners
and funding. This includes exploring the more ambitious options with
stakeholders and 3rd parties to outsource development and implementation
work.
●Omit the use of confusing carbon offsets for natural gas in progress reports and
communications about actual local GHG reductions achieved.
●Continue the focus on a 2-year work planning process with ongoing stakeholder
engagement and annual study sessions with council. The 2016 S/CAP made the
electrification pathway to the 2030 goal clear enough. We only need to follow through on
its fossil fuel reduction directives in time. The proposed 2020-21 work plan should be tied
to annualized device unit goals as mentioned above. This agile planning approach fits
the need for rapid, far reaching and unprecedented action.
●Begin comprehensive study and planning immediately of a scalable program. E.g.
the on-bill financed,direct install solution in the UAC discussion document (Figure 3, p8
of the UAC report). We believe it could be implemented within a year utilizing external
business partners. They could likely provide work-arounds for billing system limitations
mentioned in Figure 3 above, for example.
●Come back to Council within a few months with plans that reflect these
recommendations and incorporate interim feedback from both CFPA and Council.
In conclusion, the 80/30 goal of the City is official policy, but actions by the City are insufficient for
meeting the goal.
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Bret Andersen - bretande@pacbell.net
Bruce Hodge - hodge@tenaya.com
4
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Steve Raney <steve.raney@jointventure.org>
Sent:Friday, April 10, 2020 9:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:April 13 item #4 S/CAP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Palo Alto S/CAP comments
My personal view only. These comments do not represent the views of PATMA.
1. With 2030 coming fast, should Palo Alto subject the S/CAP plan to scrutiny by skeptical experts to validate the credibility/achievability of the 80/30 deliverable? 2. 80/30 big picture: We need multiple “non-incremental” policies that reduce 10% or more. These often require difficult-to-enact legal mandates. Will Palo Alto pursue such mandates? 3. S/CAP Part 4: Electric Vehicles: Ensuring that 50% of residents’ cars are EVs may require a difficult-to-enact legislative mandate. Will Palo Alto pursue such a mandate? 4. S/CAP Part 6: Climate Adaptation: Rather than exposing residents to a vague, unspecified future climate risk, should Palo Alto better quantify and then manage that risk? Does Palo Alto’s fiduciary responsibility include expertly forecasting the likelihood of 1.5℃, 2℃, 3℃, and 4℃ climate change occurring in the year 2100?
1. Credible S/CAP?
Are any cities measuring the credibility/achievability of their plans? Are there any examples of city S/CAPs that develop an enactment and implementation strategy and make high-profile “here’s how we will achieve this S/CAP” presentations in front of an audience of skeptical subject matter experts?
If a city were to develop a credible enactment plan, this would likely require the development of a powerful, comprehensive pro-climate political ecosystem to best the Koch Network. Kochtopus is the world’s most comprehensive, strategic, and effective ecosystem to achieve policy outcomes - an array of hundreds of pro-petrol organizations including large funders, think tanks, astroturf groups, Tea Party, lobbyists, academic centers, PACs, and conservative media. Its tentacles stretch to courts, statehouses, and congress. There is nothing comparable on the pro-climate side.
2. 80/30 big picture: non-incremental 10% policies
1. Are there U.S. or international examples of achieving similar goals? If not, please consider explaining how difficult achieving these goals will be. That could help set expectations. 2. Please consider explaining how non-incremental policies (policies that reduce 10% or more) will be required to achieve 80/30. Please consider labeling incremental and non-incremental policies. This is compatible with Councilmember Filseth’s distinction between “performance-based policy” over “effort-based policy.” 3. Non-incremental policies often require difficult-to-enact legal mandates at city, county, regional, or state levels. Some feebate policies (fee on the bad thing, collect the revenue, rebate to the good thing) are considered Prop 26 qualifying taxes that require 2/3 votes by residents to enact. Presumably, non-incremental policies will require voter education and political viability polling. Robust non-incremental policies have “knobs” to crank the policy up or down each year depending on the previous year’s result, to ensure that the end-year objective is achieved. 4. Please consider dedicating staff time for leadership among nearby cities, the county, and the region to advocate for non-incremental policies. Some policies may be easier to enact by a set of cities in coordination.
2
5. Please consider polling residents on different baskets of policies (with different forecasted 2030 GHG reductions) including Business As Usual as an empty basket with highest GHG.
It might be possible to enact a ranked choice voting process in one election (supermajority because of Prop 26 taxes in some baskets) and then have voters rank policy baskets in a subsequent election (simple majority). Business As Usual is a basket that will likely be defeated by pro-climate baskets. The ranked choice method “outflanks” negative political campaigns because it sunlights the Business As Usual choice as the most disastrous. 6. Please backcast! Backcasting is a planning method that starts with defining a desirable future and then works
backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect that specified future to the present. The fundamental
question of backcasting asks: "if we want to attain a certain goal, what actions must be taken to get there?" While
forecasting involves predicting the future based on current trend analysis, backcasting approaches the challenge of
discussing the future from the opposite direction; it is "a method in which the future desired conditions are envisioned and
steps are then defined to attain those conditions, rather than taking steps that are merely a continuation of present
methods extrapolated into the future"
3. S/CAP Part 4: 50% EV fleet legislative mandate
The important goal of 50% EVs for the entire owned residential fleet by 2030 may be difficult to achieve. A history of failed legislative attempts to bring this about should be provided.
There could also be consideration of how a policy for a wealthy city like Palo Alto can scale to other cities.
It is likely that a state legislative mandate will be necessary to bring this goal to fruition. Should Palo Alto set about making this an achievable goal?
EV policy history and background
Assemblymember Ting writes bills (AB 1184, 1745, etc) intended to increase EV market penetration. These bills have not been enacted. In 2007, Ira Ruskin’s AB 493 Clean Car Discount (A fee on gas guzzlers with revenue rebated to EVs) failed to pass via simple majority by only 1 vote. Per State Legislative Counsel’s Jennifer Baldwin (transportation), with the passage of Prop 26, AB 493 now requires a 2/3 state legislature vote (or a state ballot initiative) because it is a Prop 26 qualifying tax. 2017 California Self-Adjusting California Clean Car Discount bill
In 2017, Assemblymember Quirk requested the development of a “Self-Adjusting California Clean Car Discount - Revenue-neutral GHG-efficiency feebate on new car sales” bill. Because the bill’s feebate is a Prop 26 qualifying tax, the bill requires either a ⅔ vote by the state legislature or a state ballot initiative. Because the bill’s ⅔ vote was not politically viable, Quirk did not introduce the bill. Short URL to the draft bill: http://bit.ly/CleanCarTestBill.
Bill summary: New car revenue-neutral, self-funding GHG-efficiency feebate requiring supermajority state legislature vote or simple majority state ballot initiative. A small fee per each inefficient car provides a large rebate
for GHG-efficient vehicle purchases. Addresses market failure where the private sector is not motivated to
3
increase GHG efficiency as rapidly as the climate needs. The sales accounting of each car-maker is revenue-neutral.
The least-efficient portion of the carmaker’s new car sales, defined as producing more than 219 g/mi CO2 (less than 40 MPG) are assessed a small fee. With that fee revenue, the car-maker provides a large rebate to the most-efficient portion of new car sales, producing 110 or fewer g/mi CO2 (80+ MPGe). Accounting is balanced out every month. In the first year, the fee for a 20 MPG vehicle is $74. In the first year, small fees on a large number of cars will generate a relatively large rebate, on the order of $3,000. Fee levels are adjusted up or down each year to ensure the achievement of GHG-efficient target market share (set by ARB) with the lowest possible fee.
For environmental justice, 15% of fee revenue is carved-out for low-income consumers and poor air quality areas, in the form of higher rebates and gas guzzler retirement. Additional compassionate items from Ruskin’s AB 493 (2007) are included.
Individual car-makers that achieve annual GHG-efficient market share targets will be rewarded with lighter regulation, only needing to fulfill environmental justice objectives.
Based on France’s experience, this bill eliminates 416M tons of GHG over 20 years. 2013 Bay Area PEV Readiness Plan – Background Analysis
expects that a feebate cannot be enacted via regulation, so legislation is required: “In fact, California has come close to implementing a statewide feebate program on multiple occasions through legislative efforts – the first time in the early 1990s and more recently in 2008. In California, feebate programs have been proposed as a legislative initiative (e.g., AB 493 Ruskin in 2007), whereby implementation authority would be delegated to ARB and the State Board of Equalization. Moving forward, MTC will have to engage with ARB and the local air district, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to determine how the program would be implemented. Ultimately, it is conceivable that MTC would need to seek action via the Legislature to approve a regional feebate initiative.” The Governor’s 2018 ZEV Action Plan: https://business.ca.gov/industries/zero-emission-vehicles/zev-action-plan/ Norway’s EV Policy: https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/
The Norwegian success story is first and foremost due to a substantial package of incentives developed to promote zero-emission vehicles into the market. The incentives have been gradually introduced by different
governments and broad coalitions of parties since the early 1990s to speed up the transition. The Norwegian Parliament has decided on a national goal that all new cars sold by 2025 should be zero-emission (electric or
hydrogen). As of May 2018, there are 230,000 registered battery electric cars (BEVs) in Norway. Battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles together hold a 50% market share. The speed of the transition is closely related to policy instruments and a wide range of incentives.
The current Government has decided to keep the incentives for zero-emission cars until the end of 2021. The VAT exemption for zero-emission vehicles in Norway has been approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) until the end of 2020. After 2021 the incentives will be revised and adjusted parallel with the market development.
In 2015, Norway's lower parliament unsuccessfully moved to mandate 100% of 2025 new car sales be EVs (article: http://bit.ly/2aUfKDm). Comment: “Norway is leading the world right now in terms of EV sales per capita. They’ve already exceeded the CA 2025 sales target. Everyone thinks they can do it because they are a rich country. In fact, they can do it because they have a tax on new car sales that is based on the GHG footprint of the car. The bigger and more horsepower and the more GHG’s generated, the bigger the tax. For EV’s the tax gets waived.” See also: https://twitter.com/AssaadRazzouk/status/875235216515792896 Finland’s new car registration fee effectively doubles the price of a 20 mpg vehicle - the upfront equivalent of 10 years of $200/ton carbon tax. France’s successful Bonus-Malus fuel-efficiency Feebate Program. (“good-bad” in Latin)
“The largest and most successful automobile feebate program in the world is the French Bonus-Malus program. The program entered into force in January 2008 with three goals: steering buyers toward vehicles that emit less
CO2, encouraging the development of new low-emissions vehicle technologies, and accelerating retirements of old, inefficient vehicles. The pivot point of the feebate is automatically revised downward (requiring vehicles to be more efficient to avoid the fee) every two years, maintaining revenue-neutrality.
Like most feebates, the Bonus-Malus program provides a rebate for efficient car buyers, maxing out at €6,300 for the most efficient vehicles, and a fee of up to €8,000 on the least efficient vehicles (as of 2016). The bonus cannot exceed 27 percent of the vehicle’s cost, and diesel vehicles are not eligible for a bonus. Although the program uses stair steps, it is roughly equivalent to a rate of $1,554/.01 gpm, a relatively strong rate. Unlike a traditional feebate, an annual penalty of €160 is assessed on owners of highly emitting vehicles, necessary to accomplish the goal of accelerating retirements.
4
The Bonus-Malus program was successful in accelerating the rate of efficiency gains in the French vehicle fleet. If the feebate program had not been enacted, vehicles in 2015 would have emitted roughly 25 percent more CO2 per kilometer.”
4. Climate Adaptation: Forecast 3℃ and 4℃
Proposed is an ongoing Palo Alto process to forecast the likelihood of 1.5℃, 2℃, 3℃, and 4℃ climate change occurring in the year 2100.
Foreseeable 4℃ Forecasting - An ongoing forecasting process for the year 2100
Provided below:
An introduction to 4℃ and the forecasting process
A concrete example of an expert (Kevin Anderson) forecast
A responsible government approach to characterizing and addressing climate risk
Introduction
Humanity is having trouble comprehending and managing unseen future climate risk. Government has a fiduciary responsibility to its citizens, but there is a species-wide proclivity to ignore vague, unspecified climate risk in the future. University students familiar with IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5℃ are pessimistic about humanity’s ability to grapple with climate, with a large majority forecasting 3℃ or 4℃ climate change occurring in the year 2100.
Proposed is an ongoing Palo Alto process to forecast the likelihood of 1.5℃, 2℃, 3℃, and 4℃ climate change occurring in the year 2100. Depending on the chances and projected impacts of 3℃ and 4℃, policymakers should adjust planning and policies accordingly. Some experts indicate a high probability of 4℃, which may be incompatible with organized human civilization. The ongoing process should pool expert forecasts and update them every three years as new information arises. Forecasting can help localities, counties, regions, states, and countries to responsibly quantify and address dangerous climate risk. A starting probability (based on the current state of science, technology, and policy) is chosen and then future high-impact occurrences are identified that will change the probability significantly. These future occurrences help inform forecast updates. 4℃ impacts are predicted to be dire:
Southern Europe becomes unlivable due to extreme heat.
Permanent Dust Bowl conditions over the U.S. Southwest, parts of the Great Plains and many other regions around the globe.
Mass famine.
50% species loss on land and sea.
Climate-impacted developing nations lash out at wealthy nations.
5
An example forecast for the year 2100: Kevin Anderson
Kevin Anderson is a climate expert from the Tyndall Centre who is a contributor to the IPCC. Based on his writings and lectures, we can imply his forecast:
Define 2℃ as IPCC’s representative concentration pathway with “moderate mitigation,” RCP4.5, with 2.3℃ estimated increase by 2100. Define 4℃ as IPCC’s RCP8.5 with 3.9℃ estimated increase by 2100.
Given current science, adopted and enforceable climate policies, technology expectations, and non-achievement of currently pledged COP (UN Conference of the Parties) reductions, Anderson believes we are tracking towards 4℃, forecasting something on the order of:
o 10% likelihood of 2℃ in 2100
o 30% likelihood of 3℃
o 60% likelihood of 4℃. Anderson’s forecast would define high-impact occurrences that would modify his forecast as follows:
Subtract 15% from 4℃ likelihood upon implementation of credible G20 policies to reduce energy demand by 5% per annum starting by 2025, with a commitment to continue until a decarbonized energy supply is in place. Includes implementation of zero-carbon energy “Marshall Plans.”
Subtract 5% upon adoption of the majority of Jay Inslee’s detailed plan (a portion of the Green New Deal concept) by US legislature that survives Supreme Court challenges by 2023.
Subtract 5% upon reduction of worldwide carbon production to 30 Gt/year by 2030 (current is 40 Gt/year).
Subtract 5% upon reduction of worldwide carbon production to 20 Gt/year by 2040
Subtract 10% upon a credible report of cost-effective, scalable negative emission technology (NET) proof-of-concept breakthrough by 2030.
Subtract 10% upon implementation of an actual, large, cost-effective NET project by 2040. “Cost-effective” is
defined as less than $30 cost per ton GHG reduced.
Subtract 2% upon first “Beyond Growth” discussion at G20 Summit by 2030, signaling an insight that addressing the climate threat has higher priority than maintaining Predatory Capitalism’s growth imperative.
Subtract 10% upon implementation of a planned long-term pro-climate economic restructuring by the G20 by 2040
Subtract 10% for G20 adoption of population stabilization policy
Subtract 10% for a global “funding refusal” tipping point, where most major banks, etc will not fund new fossil fuel projects.
Subtract 2% for a global mandate whereby corporations credibly disclose climate risk.
Add 5% upon discovery of new, unforeseen phenomena that significantly accelerate GHG release.
Add 15% upon 2020 re-election of Donald Trump as US president.
Develop a measure of worldwide degradation of democracy, such as climate refugee crises leading to the ascent of more right-wing xenophobes. A 1% increase in this index corresponds to a 1% increase in 4℃ likelihood. States Anderson, “Scientists, policy advisors, and government ministers know the 2℃ target is no longer attainable, and admit the public can't be told this. Our awful predicament is being hidden by official process, deliberate underestimates of
6
known facts, and scientists keeping quiet. No one wants to alarm the herd, and politicians want to win the next election. Corporate board members want the next big quarter's profits, and big investors want their payback. Nobody rock the boat!”
Article and podcast: What They Won’t Tell You About Climate Catastrophe
Youtube: Beyond Dangerous Climate Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rE7v7n4QVc
http://kevinanderson.info/blog/framing-an-energy-transition-for-2c/
See also Tyndall/Anderson’s 2013 Radical Emissions Reductions Conference
An ongoing local, county, regional, and statewide forecast process
As of today, humanity is having trouble comprehending and managing unseen future climate risk. Government has a fiduciary responsibility to its citizens, but there is a species-wide proclivity to ignore vague, unspecified climate risk in the future. Palo Alto should take a responsible approach to characterize and manage this risk, requiring the development of “3℃/4℃ Risk Assessment, Management, and Mitigation Plans.” These plans may be self-standing or could be incorporated into ongoing climate/sustainability planning. The benefits of such plans:
Institutes a reasonable government program to overcome blind/stubborn human resistance to realistically facing and addressing future climate impacts.
Makes vague risks more concrete.
Spurs more immediate mitigation and adaptation. Process implementation:
The government should define an ongoing process that is updated every three years.
Via a Delphic method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method), a government could have a handful of experts develop an expert forecast and also define high-impact future occurrences. (There are also other
methods beyond Delphic.)
The government should respond proportionately to the expert forecast. “If the estimated likelihood of 4℃ is X% or greater, then commit Y% of the budget to address this risk.” Actions should include: a) adopting more rapid and vigorous policies to reduce the 4℃ likelihood, b) developing long-range contingency plans for 4℃, c) initiating a process to envision and respond to 4℃ scenarios (examples include: parts of California become uninhabitable - generating in-state refugees, the worldwide count of refugees increases dramatically, geopolitics become less stable, terrorism flourishes - with technology centers and high-emitting countries targeted, Pakistan takes military action against India when the Ganges River runs dry, etc). Thanks for your consideration, stay safe, - Steve Raney,
Redacte
d
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 11, 2020 4:18 PM
To:Sustainability Team; Council, City
Cc:UAC; Kamhi, Philip; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Flaherty, Michelle
Subject:Feedback on 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Attachments:SCAP input April 13th.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi Staff and city Council,
Here is my feedback on the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. While this is for City Staff, I would like Council
members to please read at least the introduction part as this speaks to the our SCAP goals in general. I have also cc’ed
the UAC here as buildings and natural gas usage will play a large roll in this plan.
Thank you,
David Coale
SCAP input
David Coale
Barron Park
Introduction
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the SCAP virtual community workshop:
(http://cityofpaloalto.org/sustainabilityplan).
As was mentioned in the intro, there are many parallels to the coronavirus and climate change
and opportunities as well. It is worth spending a little time on this. Both are worldwide
problems where local corrective measures need to be in place the world over if we are going to
make headway on this problem. In both cases early actions will be needed if we are going to
really get the problems under control. Without early actions, both these crises can spin out of
control to such an extent that no amount of resources will solve the problems. Where these two
problems differ is that the timeline is longer for climate change such that we perceive the risk to
be less even though climate change has certainly killed more people worldwide to date then the
coronavirus. In the case of climate change, many of the problems could last for centuries. Even
with all the floods, fires, heat waves, and associated loss of life, these horrible events,
exasperated by climate change, have not been motivation enough for real substantial actions and
we find our selves behind the GHG curves in making headway on climate change. The good
news, if you will, about the coronavirus is that is shows that the human race can act quickly for
the common good even though the response has been a little mix across the globe. The good
news about the solutions to climate change is that many are more sustainable then business as
usual (BAU) and actually beneficial financially, economically, and are better for our health as
well. Who thought so many could affectively work from home and traffic could be so light and
our air quality so much better? Making the changes to realize these solutions is the hard part, as
we are not so good with change and the powers that be that don’t want to change in the case of
climate change.
Also, as stated in the intro, Climate Change is urgent, and action is needed now. While Palo Alto
was one of the first with a Climate Action Plan, for the last 7 years the GHG reductions have
been flat, discounting the natural gas offsets, which really does not reduce Palo Alto’s GHG
emissions (see graph below). This, despite a lot of plans, staff time, moneys spent on consultants,
and countless hours of community input. While Palo Alto may be ahead of other cities in GHG
reductions, real reductions are an absolute scale and not relative to what other cities are doing
and we need to address them as such. While the elimination of the gas incinerator is a real
reduction in GHG and is a good thing, this is probably in the category of BAU as this would
have happened anyway for a verity of good reasons. And where it looks like our GHG reduction
goals are 20 years ahead of the state goals, the 80% reduction of GHGs by 2030 is based on the
science of climate change and the modeling of the problem much like the best responses to the
coronavirus has been; based on the best science and models. I am pointing out the above points
to make sure we have good transparency to the climate crises and the problems we have to deal
with so that we can make the best choices/actions to address this crises.
While we do need to have a good baseline to work with, that includes correct accounting for
GHGs from natural gas use and leakage, we also need to know what are the best actions to
promote. Most of these actions were known in the 2016 SCAP/SIP and the city failed to put any
real actions in place. Now, yet another consultant is to update these numbers again, but are not
tasked with the implementation of any programs that will make a real difference to move the
needle on GHG reductions. I point this out to show that where Palo Alto really needs the most
help, and that is in putting real programs in place, not in yet another study. The current plan does
not have any new programs coming on-line for at least another year. That said, I am glad that
the consultant will be working to get better numbers for GHGs from transportation related
emission, including air travel.
Many of the goals listed actually fall short of achieving the 80 by 30 goal. I think this is because
city staff is too timid and bound by what they think the city can do and not stepping up to what is
required. Perhaps this limit is due to staff anticipating what the council might accept, or trying to
avoid push back from the community or industry. Second-guessing these possible external
reactions should be avoided so that we can clearly see what is actually required. From there, the
community and council can decide how to move forward without prejudice on the solutions that
are required.
While the SCAP is comprehensive in including Water, Waste and the Natural Environment, I
think Palo Alto needs to focus on GHG reductions as this is the critical timeline we need to
address and Palo Alto is doing well in the above mentioned areas already.
Energy
Palo Alto needs to have true accounting for natural gas use. The global warming potential for
natural gas should be 86 times that of CO2 (not 20) and natural gas leakage must also be
accounted for including the entire natural gas supply chain and not just within the city
boundaries. Also, Palo Alto should be reducing GHG emissions from natural gas in buildings by
about 70%, not 40% as the 70% reduction is what is required to meet the 80 by 30 goal. Not
sure why the city is aiming low on this.
Same for the Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) adoption rate, this should be 70% not only 25%.
This means that all water heaters on failure, must be required to be replaced with a HPWH when
this can be done. With some homes, this will not be possible due to space requirements. Just to
be clear, this means that about 2300 HPWH needs to be installed each year if Palo Alto really
wants to meet the 80 by 30 goal. The good news is that water heaters have about a 10-year life
span so that no water heaters will have to be replaced prematurely if this program can be put in
place soon.
Since space heating is the next largest natural gas use in the home, there should be a goal of
replacing 70% of natural gas space heaters by 2030. There will need to be a good program for
this as the natural life time of a space heater is more like 20 years so some will have to be
replaced before the end of life to meet the 80 by 30 goal.
Energy Key Actions
2. Explore Electrification of city-owned facilities with the goal of phasing out fossil fuel use in
existing municipal buildings
3. Programs & mandates (includes partnerships and collaborations to support market
transformation). Must include on-bill financing for electrification.
6.- Good for resiliency but does not really reduce GHGs: Explore opportunities to increase
energy resilience (e.g. energy storage, microgrids).
7. Explore the impact of building decarbonization on City’s gas utility and develop mitigation
strategies for the phasing out of the city gas system to the home.
8. Questionable since this does not really reduce Palo Alto’s GHG but is costly. Money should
be spent on electrification instead, especially since the offsets really only cover half of the real
GHG emission from natural gas. Continue to purchase carbon offsets to match natural gas
emissions as a transitional measure. Evaluate potential local offset purchases
On bill financing for HPWH and space heating of homes will be critical in getting electrification
of existing homes to happen. This must be implemented to help leverage community funding of
electrification as the city will not have enough money, rebates or otherwise to make this happen
at scale.
There will also have to be streamlined permitting for electrification to happen at scale. This is an
on-going problem such that even now some contractors will not work in Palo Alto any more due
to the over burdensome permitting process.
Along with an all electric rate for homes, the city should also consider changing the solar net
meter rates to the old net meter program (more favorable) for homes that go all electric as an
incentive to do so.
The city should also look at the possibility of electrifying all homes on a street or cul-de-sac
when considering an update of the natural gas line supplying the street or cul-de-sac. Use the
money that would have gone to the gas line update, to instead, electrify the homes and turn off
the gas all together.
Transportation: Mobility and Electric Vehicles
As stated in the webinar intro and seen in the graph above of Palo Alto’s GHG emissions,
transportation is the lion’s share of emissions for Palo Alto. While there are may good goals and
key actions, there are no specific targets that directly tie these goals and actions to measureable
results that will let us know if we are actually meeting the 80 by 30 target. This is a must if we
are to know if the programs proposed will actually meet the goal.
Mobility
The mobility section looks pretty good. Need to make sure that the work that is done by the
consultants on the base line for transportation is such that regular reporting/progress is easy to
see and that the numbers for this are robust and not too “squishy”, i.e. with a reasonable margin
of error and are repeatable.
-> Increase availability of transit and shared mobility services by increasing to 75% the
proportion of residents within a quarter-mile walkshed of frequent transit by 2030.
Need to check this and see what percentage of the population this comes out to be (1/4 mile of
transit) and adjust if necessary with real GHG reduction numbers so this can be tracked.
New goal: Work from home two days per week for those workers that can work from home,
especially those workers living outside of Palo Alto. The Shelter In Place has shown this to be
very possible in a short timeframe and this would reduce the weekday commuting by as much as
40%. Will have to think about how to promote/incentivize this.
Mobility Key Actions:
1. Fund the Transportation Management Association (TMA) with the goal of reducing Single-
Occupancy Vehicle commute trips to downtown and Cal Ave areas by 30%
2. Make transit investments that significantly enhance coverage, service quality, frequency,
speed and/or access. Have secure bike parking at train stations.
3. Expand and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, connectivity, convenience, and/or
safety in a manner that significantly increases the percentage of trips taken by walking or biking.
Close Churchill and Alma grade crossings and have bike/ped tunnel. Install bike counters
around the city to monitor bike/ped use.
6. Encourage the use of bike and/or scooter sharing, and the provision of required
infrastructure throughout Palo Alto, especially at transit stations and stops, job centers,
community centers, and other destinations. Must increase bike parking for this and understand
the GHGs from these sharing solutions.
7. Enhance traffic signals to improve traffic flow and reduce idling and associated greenhouse
gas emissions. Install cameras for light switching that also do bike and ped counts as well.
8. Increase the number of bike facilities, including bike parking and signalized intersections with
bicycle accommodations (e.g. bicycle signal heads, bicycle detection, colored bicycle lanes).
Palo Alto should be like Denmark in 2030.
There is a great opportunity here, with potentially less overall traffic to close Churchill Ave at
the CalTrain crossing and build a bike/ped tunnel for access at this point. This maybe the only
affordable option here and would still allow local access to Paly H. S. via bike/peds. The same
should be considered for the Alma street grade crossing. This would cause a greater shift to
active transportation modes as outlined in the first goal.
Again, with the potential decrease in traffic after the coronavirus has run its course, there should
be a much greater increase in the bike/ped infrastructure. There is a real opportunity here for a
large mode shift in how Palo Alto gets around. I have seen way more people getting out on bikes
then ever before, and clearly part of this increase are new riders as they feel safer with the
reduction in traffic. Palo Alto should be like Denmark in 2030.
Electric Vehicles
The goals and key actions for EVs are a good starting point but don’t go far enough, and to be
meaningful, there needs to be real numbers for EV adoption each year and how this relates to the
80 by 30 goal. Without this we have no way of knowing if actions will get us there or what our
progress to these goals really are each year. While EVs are zero emission, if we were to wave a
magic wand and turn all gas cars to electric we would still have parking and congestion problems
so we really need to focus on reducing VMT and SOV as well.
Water
While water will be an important resource to manage, since there are no direct GHG reductions
that will result from these goals and actions, I would put other parts of the SCAP at a greater
priority. The goals and key actions look pretty good and the city is already doing a good job at
addressing this.
Goal 3) Reduce the total dissolved solids by 50% compared to 2019 base year. This needs
more explanation. What is the water that you are addressing? Incoming water, wastewater,
recycled water? I would add to the goals, a date certain for the phase out of ground water
pumping for home building. The city should not be supporting this.
On the Priority of the Key Actions, I think the existing listing is OK. Action 4) needs better
description. What is this addressing, recycled water, wastewater, incoming water to the plant?
Is this to be a desal plant? How much energy will this take? In any case where does the salt go?
More verbiage is needed here for people to understand what you are talking about.
Climate Adaption and Sea Level Rise
This is a good start, No input on this part of the plan.
Natural Environment
The goals and actions look OK. When considering plantings of any kind, please make sure these
include native plants and fruit trees where appropriate. Appropriate fruit trees will add resiliency
to the foodshed of our neighborhoods and can be harvested for food banks if not used by the
community. A good example of this is at the corner of Cal Ave and Hanover.
Also, something must be done about the “standard” Mow blow and go “gardening” for homes in
Palo Alto. The leaf blower ban has done almost nothing. New goal: switching away from all
fossil fuel based gardening equipment by 2030. This is not just for CO2 emissions but for air
and noise pollution as well. Leafs should be left on site for mulching to reduce waster use as
well. This needs to be an education for the “industry”.
Zero Waste
I think the City is doing well with the Zero Waste plan and I don’t have anything to add here.
This is my guess at the Key Action priorities but really the city has good data on what the biggest
waste streams are that they need to address:
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1. On the food waste, it would be great to get as much as possible of the edible food
to food banks or other places where it can be used directly instead of composting.
Consider billing of the residential waste pickup by actual pickups. I put my containers out about
once a month. This would be an incentive to reduce waste. Right now there is no incentive for
waste reduction in the home; rates are the same for full containers every week or just once a
month. Also maybe try a good neighbor policy where you put your containers next to your
neighbors. This makes for fewer stops and faster pickups for all.
Thanks again for the opportunity for input to the SCAP. The webinars are a good source of
information and very good to have the slides available. The chat feature for input really does not
work unless you can pause the presentation.
David Coale
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 12, 2020 5:06 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Sustainability Team
Subject:S/CAP comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Happy Easter, and thank you for your work on climate, and for keeping the city safe during this time.
I have a few comments on the S/CAP goals and actions, as presented here. I am no expert on city business, but I know
you are encouraging feedback, so I am giving it a shot. I also sent some feedback to sustainability@, and am cc'ing them
here as well.
1. I'd like to see fewer goals, with simple quantification and aggressive actions to back them up. For example, I would
have a goal around clean water heater adoption, a goal around clean space heater adoption, a goal around EV adoption,
a goal around car reduction, a goal around canopy, and a goal around sea‐level rise. Those seem to me to be the most
important things we can do to reduce our emissions. I like reducing waste and saving water, but I don't think they are as
important. (I might be wrong on water, though.) So maybe 5‐7 really high‐priority goals that will last.
Then we need big (but stretch‐achievable) numbers for each of those, key actions to support them, and aggressive
transparency and follow‐up. If we don't have a big number in mind that we think we can achieve (e.g., for canopy), then
I would remove the goal. We should have only big, impactful goals. And we should make them count.
2. I think we need options that work for lower‐income people, for renters, and for people in multi‐unit housing. To make
a big impact, we need to make sure that everyone who cares can participate in a meaningful way. In this vein, I wonder
why conservation is mentioned for water but not for energy.
3. I think we need to be careful about the reliability of our power (even a perception problem can hurt adoption of
electric water heaters and especially space heaters). Currently we seem to at least have a transparency issue. And I think
we need to be very careful about safety when it comes to bikes, ebikes, and scooters. (And my daughter mentions
theft.) Theft and safety are big issues that will put the kibosh on adoption of these modes of transportation.
4. On the dreaming side of things, I would love if Palo Alto thought long and hard about whether a golf course and/or a
city airport are compatible with our vision of a sustainable city. Those occupy a lot of land, and we could do so much
good with those spaces. We generally have to be much more careful about land use in a warming climate, and it's not
clear we are being good stewards of the space we have.
Thank you for entertaining these thoughts!
‐‐ Sherry Listgarten (resident of Greenmeadow)
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net
Sent:Sunday, April 12, 2020 10:52 PM
To:Sustainability Team; Council, City
Cc:Carol Kiparsky
Subject:Comment on the Palo Alto Sustainability Plan (S/CAP)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the Sustainability team and members of the City Council in Palo Alto:
Palo Alto's S/CAP lays out admirable and indeed essential goals, and outlines steps for achieving 80% reduction in GHG by 2030 (80/30). Unfortunately, the city is not implementing this plan with the speed and determination that is essential to accomplishing the 80/30 reduction. We support Carbon Free Palo Alto's (CFPA) comments on the Staff Report, regarding electrification. In addition we would like to focus on one area that has been neglected by the city plan, specifically transportation. 1. Transportation
We are very concerned with the City’s surprising lack of progress in reducing the number of SOV trips into and around the city. According to the first graph in the CFPA report, road trips account for more that 60% of GHG. All the while we have been painfully aware of the need to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles, but the only method that has received much attention is urging people to switch to EVs. That has accomplished little and clearly will not be enough to achieve overall reductions. We call upon council and staff to develop a plan to reduce this transportation component of GHG. Let's look at congestion pricing, or charging drivers to drive into town. This approach has been implemented and is working in cities such as Singapore, London, Stockholm, Milan, Riga as well as US cities including New York, San
Diego, San Francisco, Miami. The system is under consideration in Washington DC, Seattle and others. Congestion pricing reduces GHG by curbing vehicle fuel emissions, as employees of local companies then choose to travel by public transportation, presumably supplemented by shuttles to accomplish “first and
last mile” travel from transit stops to place of work. The pill is sweetened when employers purchase transit passes for their employees. Surely Palo Alto can be a leader in this area.
Employers that are responsible for employee trips into PA, with the attendant emissions must also shoulder part of the responsibility for reducing GHG and achieving 80/30. Staff should develop a plan for employers to account for employee car trips and to bear responsibility for reducing these. This can be accomplished by
employer documented increase in employee transit ridership. Simply handing out passes is insufficient. Documenting actual use of transit would be required. Both these approaches must Include safeguards for low income people who may have longer commutes and fewer public transit options. 2. Electrification of existing buildings
The CFPA document clearly shows that we have not made progress in reducing natural gas use. They point out that this fact is obscured by including carbon offsets in the accounting. We urge the end of this misleading
practice.
2
Furthermore, we urge you to adopt the solution proposed in CPFA's BE Smart white paper, including on-bill financing to make it practical for homeowners to replace their hot water heaters and other gas systems with
electric ones.
Respectfully yours, Ian Irwin & Carol Kiparsky
Palo Alto
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 12, 2020 11:35 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:please take bold actions for our planet
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
As a resident who recently converted to 100% electric appliances at home, I write to you with a strong request
to make bold, concrete decisions to help Palo Alto actually reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals in time.
The City should measure all fossil fuel reduction programs against meaningful annual targets including water
heaters, space heaters and vehicles that align with 80/30 starting with 2020 and 2021. There is so much more
we can do!
We are faced with an unprecedented situation right now with coronavirus ‐ and an unprecedented
opportunity to be bold and recover from this crisis with plans to both prevent climate change, strengthen our
economy, and strengthen our community.
Please consider this 5‐min video from Prof. Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who nicely frames this
unique opportunity we have now to renew our efforts to support both our planet and human
health: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62IzyebP1_o
Thank you,
Tina Chow
Barron Park, Palo Alto
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 9:04 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Luong, Christine; Sustainability Team
Subject:Comments regarding Sustainability Work Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for reviewing and discussing the S/CAP this evening. Below are my comments on various topics in the S/CAP
Work Plan
Regarding reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
Water-energy nexus: In California water-related energy use consumes around 20 percent of the state’s electricity [1]. Is
natural gas used at any stage of the extraction, treatment, distribution, and use of Palo Alto’s water, or in the collection
and treatment of its wastewater? I hope the answer is no. And I agree with those who claim that greenwashing our use of
natural gas with offsets is not really solving the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
Construction: Cement is the source of about 8% of the world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, according to think tank
Chatham House [2]. There seems to always be a lot of new construction going on in Palo Alto, especially now that we
have several large ongoing infrastructure projects. Why aren’t we requiring the use of CO2 trapping cement? It is already
commercially available and economically feasible according to CNN Business news [3].
Regarding energy
For the City’s potential key action #6 I strongly advocate for transitioning to more distributed energy systems (microgrids)
that support the integration of renewable energy technologies as per the recommendations of researchers [4]. This will
result in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and improve the resiliency of our power system.
Regarding mobility
In reference to key actions #2, #5 and #6 consider: Ride hailing vehicles emit nearly 70 percent more carbon dioxide on
average than the other forms of transportation they displace and increase vehicle travel and congestion [5]. If ride hailing
vehicles are included as part of the mobility plan, please encourage use of electric vehicles, increased pooled trips, and
focus on complementing mass transit.
E-scooters: “When only one-third of e-scooter rides displace automobile travel, then the use of e-scooters likely increases
overall transportation emissions by drawing people away from walking, biking or taking public transit.” [6]. Consider
lifecycle emissions of e-scooters due to manufacture, charging and daily pick-up and delivery for charging.
Regarding electric vehicles
E-bikes are being adopted ingreater numbers than electric cars. Incentivize e-bikes instead of or in addition to electric cars
[7].
Regarding water
2
Proposed key action #1: “Maximize cost-effective water conservation & efficiency”. Too general. Metrics? Who is
going to do this, how will they do it and when will we know it’s been achieved?
Key Action # 3 “Establish quantifiable baseline and targets for implementation of green stormwater infrastructure on
private property, municipal facilities and public rights-of-way by 2024.” Good but, in 4 more years? Atherton has had a
plan since 2013.
Key Action #5 “Develop a "One Water" Portfolio for Palo Alto by 2021”. YES! The sooner, the better. “When we
embrace the belief that water in all its forms has value [including shallow groundwater that is currently pumped into the
storm drain when building underground], the full water life cycle can be optimized to build strong economies, vibrant
communities, and healthy environments.” [8]. All other aspects of water planning fall under the “One Water Portfolio”.
Regarding Sea Level Rise (SLR)
It is now well-recognized that the groundwater level rises as the sea level rises [9]. I strongly support a Sea Level Rise
Plan that includes groundwater level rise for Palo Alto.
Some people think we have more urgent problems. Not so. Buildings and infrastructure are usually designed to last
decades but will have a much shorter lifespan than expected when infiltrated by water. Some structures and infrastructure
that we build TODAY will be impacted by sea level rise and studies show that the areal extent of impact can be doubled
with groundwater level rise.
The State and other organizations have projections for sea level rise which could be used for planning but especially for
the case of rising groundwater, we need to know: Where will groundwater rise in Palo Alto? How far inland? What could
be impacted? How much will structures/infrastructure be impacted? What can we do to mitigate impacts?
FEMA’s studies [10] have shown that the return on investment (ROI) is at least 4:1 for mitigation of impacts vs. no
mitigation/adaptation. We should not be spending millions of dollars on undergrounding utilities, rebuilding Cubberley
Community Center, roads, other structures and infrastructure, etc. unless we know that money won’t literally be, just
money down the drain. We need a Plan with data and modeling studies to guide those building decisions and to protect
life and property.
Thank you for considering my comments,
Esther Nigenda
[1] Innovative Utilities Reducing Water-Energy Nexus Pressures https://www.wateronline.com/doc/innovative-
utilities-reducing-water-energy-nexus-pressures-0001
[2] Climate change: The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-46455844
[3] This concrete (yes, concrete) is going high-tech
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/12/technology/concrete-carboncure/index.html
[4] Uncertain Climate Future Could Disrupt Energy Systems https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2020/04/01/uncertain-climate-
future-could-disrupt-energy-systems/
[5] Ride-Hailing's Climate Risks https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ride-hailing-climate-risks
[6] Electric Scooters Good for the Planet? Only If They Replace Car
Trips https://www.routefifty.com/infrastructure/2019/08/scooters-environment-cars-walking/158916/
[7] Here Come the Electrics. Could E-Bikes Be the Electric Revolution Cities
Need? https://www.routefifty.com/infrastructure/2019/12/e-bikes-cities-infrastructure-changes/162151/
[8] One Water Roadmap http://uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Roadmap%20FINAL.pdf
3
[9] Why Groundwater is Another Sea Level Rise Concern https://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/sea-level-rise-may-
raise-groundwater-levels/
[10] Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves Interim Report https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1528732098546-
c3116b4c12a0167c31b46ba09d02edfa/FEMA_MitSaves-Factsheet_508.pdf
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 9:08 AM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Palo Alto Sustainability plan: accountability and individual footprint reduction
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor, Council members, City Manager, and staff,
Executive Summary:
‐The Palo Alto sustainability plan must be supported by hard numbers and a means of accountability to ensure the city
meets our crucial targets.
‐To truly become a sustainable city, the behaviours of Palo Alto residents must also change to greatly reduce our
individual footprints. Without this, Palo Alto will fail to achieve our sustainability goals. The City can help greatly induce a
cultural shift which will help drive the behavior changes of the residents and businesses.
‐If we change our city culture and behaviors to meet our sustainability targets, a likely benefit will be a significant
improvement in quality of life and sense of community in Palo Alto.
Discussion:
Palo Alto's sustainability plan is admirable in intent. Metrics and means of accountability are required to achieve the
plan. Critically, for Palo Alto to achieve our targets, individual footprints must also change. While our utilities rely on
offsets and electrified infrastructure to claim carbon‐neutral energy, we Palo Altans are still producing harmful emissions
and consuming energy and resources, all at massively unsustainable rates. Sustainability is simply not possible without
reduced consumption of energy and resources.
People drive their cars if they need to go 1/2 mile to get a plastic‐contained Starbucks coffee drink. Many people
consider weekly Tahoe trips, 3‐day ski trips to Wyoming or Canada, or an annual trip to another continent as a normal
thing to do. Kids are transported to their after‐school sports and other activities by SUV rather than by bicycle. For many,
daily meals are still heavily meat‐based. Cleaning one's plate or taking restaurant food home seems to be increasingly
uncommon. People are still building massive houses with energy‐fueled luxury features sprinkled throughout. With
these types of behaviors, Palo Altans can't come close to meeting global sustainability targets. Yet it is our duty, to our
offspring and to those who will follow us, to figure out how to live by means which are truly sustainable on our limited
planet. And.....
If the city can encourage a cultural mindset shift which causes citizens to change some behaviors, we could be reducing
our footprints literally overnight. The citizens have far more power than the city or county government to make mean,
quick, significant reductions to our collective footprint. Conversely, without the actions of the citizens, all the plans of
the city government, as limited, slow and probably tedious as they are to implement, are unlikely to be solely sufficient
to succeed in meeting our targets.
Therefore, please assume the core of this sustainability mission lies not only in infrastructure planning but in inspiring a
new Palo Alto culture which unites and inspires the people in this city to change our behaviors as the necessary path to
become a truly sustainable community.
2
Some of the most beneficial behavior changes for individuals to adopt:
‐cut average car mileage to less than 60 miles‐per‐week per household
‐use air travel rarely and only when there are no other options for getting something done.
‐eliminate food waste as much as possible. Don't throw edible food away.
‐reduce meat consumption to just a few meals per week
‐choose recreation activities in the Bay Area rather than more distant places
‐vacation in our wonderful state and on the west coast rather than in other countries.
The city can continue to build momentum in these directions by:
‐establishing a vigorous, frequent, multi‐faceted city dialogue about our impacts and the tremendous importance and
value of reducing our footprints.
‐continuing to grow city resources such as Coolblocks and other neighborhood and local community programs which
foster interaction and conversation while building our community.
‐providing more online tools and data so households and neighborhoods can understand and track their footprints, and
so they can understand the most effective ways to reduce their impacts.
‐instituting programs with stores to distribute food which reaches expiration date to those in need. Work with
restaurants to offer smaller portion options, and with residents to greatly minimize household food waste.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
As a reference, here (http://living2050.com) is a link to the website my family and I developed to document our 2019
effort to live at projected 2050 sustainable consumption levels. Over the year our household achieved 2030 targets and
now maintains this consumption level. In the process of tracking our consumption, we gained visibility on what
additional reductions would be required to meet 2050 goals. While we've always lived with a very low footprint, it was
tremendously rewarding to change our behaviors and to know our household is operating with a carbon emissions
footprint quite close to global sustainability requirements. (Note: the city infrastructure changes are indeed critically
important as well. We were only tracking the things we as a household could control and so didn't count the footprint of
the city/county/state/national infrastructure ‐ all of which, if included in our individual tracking, would push us massively
over the sustainable per‐capital emissions budget).
What surprised us: from this effort, we realized something we hadn't completely predicted: the positive personal
rewards from our new behaviors and reduced emissions, our shifts in perspective, and our awareness of the positive
global implications of our daily actions far out‐weighed the loss of the things we sacrificed to achieve these goals. The
sense of contentment from living within the sustainable bounds of the Earth's biosphere is a wonderful foundation for
all the other things we do in our daily lives.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
I firmly believe Palo Altans, in the process of uniting behind an aggressive effort, in changing consumption behaviors and
in achieving a much more sustainable way of living, will also feel a revitalization of our city culture, values and common
purpose. This will translate into a great new enthusiasm for living in our city, and for many residents, new joy in many
aspects of our daily lives.
Thanks very much for your efforts sowing the seeds which will define our future.
Regards,
Dan Adams, Star Teachout and family
Redacted
From: Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:25 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: uucpagreen <uucpagreen@googlegroups.com>
Subject: UUCPA-GSC Comments, 2020 S/CAP and Workplan Staff Update - April 13 Council Meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious
of opening attachments and clicking on links.
As attached and as follows:
Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 2020 S/CAP and Workplan Staff Update - April 13 Council Meeting Dear City Council Members and City/Utility Staff, The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, Green Sanctuary Committee (UUCPA-GSC) supports the city’s 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, or the 80/30 climate goal. As presented in the city’s Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Community Workshop deck, we strongly agree that Climate Change is Urgent and that Action is Needed Now[1]. To meet this target, we strongly encourage the city to follow the recommendations of Carbon Free Palo Alto as attached. Further, UUCPA, as a proven “early actor[2],[3]“ volunteers to be a test case or pilot for complete or partial electrification, a community microgrid and electric vehicle (EV) charging hub, or other similar programs[4]. Our members look forward to further participating in this process and to celebrating in 2030 all the work that was done to meet our 80% reduction target. Cordially, Justine Burt and Jeralyn Moran Co-Chairs, UUCPA Green Sanctuary Committee Attachment: Carbon Free Palo Alto Comments on Staff Report: “Review the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update, Process and Accept the 2020 -2021 Sustainability Work Plan” [1]https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=63405.93&BlobID=75994
[2] Walking the talk, UUCPA first installed photovoltaic (PV) panels in 2011; a free public EV charger in 2013, expanded our PV system to cover all of UUCPA’s electrical use in 2016, added an additional 15 KW PV system 2018, allowed Komuna Energy to install a ~0.25 MW PV system as part of the city’s Feed in Tariff Program and has held numerous EV ride and drive events plus hosted multiple years of environmental educational activities from films to presentations to demonstrations. [3] As presented in the Building Electrification 2020-2021 Work Plan, page 7; http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75512 [4] Participation in specific programs may require UUCPA Board approval.
--
Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645
EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie
__________________________________________________
Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones! See:
http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 1:44 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Luong, Christine
Subject:S/CAP Comments - ACTIONIS NEEDED NOW TO MEET OUR 80/30 CLIMATE GOALS
Attachments:200412 PaloAlto SCAP Inital PGH.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
As attached and as follows:
RE: ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO MEET OUR 80/30 CLIMATE GOALS
Dear City Council Members and City Staff,
As the founders of Project Green Home, (PGH) we are commenting on the city’s staff report, “Review the
2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update Process and Accept the 2020 -2021
Sustainability Work Plan.”. In summary:
1) To reduce our emissions, the city must laser focus on replacing our natural gas and
gasoline/diesel use with electric options;
2) We support the Carbon Free Palo Alto’s Letter of Recommendation as attached along with a few
additional suggestions below;
3) Simply, the Time to Act is Now.
Additional Information:
As detailed in the city’s “Discussion of Proposed Building Electrification Work Plan for 2020-2021” report,
it is clear that the majority of our emissions are from natural gas (built environment) and gasoline/diesel
(transportation). Therefore, spending significant efforts to address other sources detracts from these two
elephants while delaying the associated economic, human health and environmental benefits of electrification.
Carbon Free Palo Alto, whose successful efforts in decarbonizing our electricity has done more to reduce
emissions than any other city program, has drafted a series of recommendations of which PGH is in full
support. In addition, from PGH’s electrification and electric vehicle (EV) experience, the city should:
1) Determine the date(s) at which the city will turn off the residential commercial and industrial
natural gas distribution systems, publicize these date(s) now and simultaneously offer electrification
solutions;
2) In coordination with other cities with similar climate goals, be a horsefly in the ears of the
California Air Resources Board in driving them to adopt a more stringent Zero Emission Vehicle
regulation in both increasing the EV numbers and types;
3) Focus on maximizing low power (level 1) EV charging infrastructure in multi-dwelling units
(MDU) versus funding a few token level 2 chargers per MDU and/ or additional public infrastructure);
and
4) Support Bay Area wide EV & electrification related educational and outreach events especially
hands on events such as EV ride and drives and induction cooking demonstrations.
2
Single Family Dwelling Residential Electrification:
For the past 8 years, and until recently[1], we have lived the “all-electric life” in PGH with an induction
stove, heat pump water/ space heater, electric dryer, photovoltaic panels, driving various electric
vehicles and more. In comparing PGH to an equivalent natural gas/ electric (dual fueled) home, it is our
evaluation that the all-electric life is:
a) Safer for us and our children (both for indoor air quality and in reducing the potential for burns);
b) Less expensive than the dual-fueled home (both first and ongoing costs);
c) More resilient during blackouts and earthquakes
d) More convenient and pleasant to use; and
e) Has a much lower carbon and energy footprint than the equivalent dual-fueled home.
In summary, it has been a quadruple win for us plus a big win for the environment.
Given the above benefits, and that we are passing the burden of the climate crisis to our children and
grandchildren it is imperative that we act and act now.
Should City Council Members and or staff wish to tour PGH and experience first-hand the comforts,
convenience and benefits of an all-electric home, please contact Sven at SvenThesen@gmail.com.
Cordially,
Sven Thesen Dr. Kathleen Kramer, MD
Founders, Project Green Home
[1] The Thesen-Kramer family took a sabbatical in Spain from August 2019 to March; at present we are all healthy and
sheltering in place in Cape Cod. PGH remains available for tours.
‐‐
Sven Thesen, 415‐225‐7645
EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie
__________________________________________________
Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones! See:
http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ellyn Dooley <ellynjd@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 2:08 PM
To:Council, City; Sustainability Team
Subject:comments on 2020 C/SAP
Attachments:PastedGraphic-2.tiff
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your work on the 2020 C/SAP! With regard to this plan I’d like to see more accountability so that targets
are directly correlated to measurable actions... like identifying how many heat pump water heaters need to be installed
to reach our gas footprint reduction goals. It is helpful to know what specific actions we can take as well as what
incentives, programs or ordinances could be put in place that would directly impact reaching our goals.
Additionally, we can achieve GHG reductions by doing things like streamlining the electrification permitting process or
lowering the fees for such permits, offering incentives for EV adoption, designate certain areas near public transit as
denser housing zones.
We should find ways to educate our residents as to what personal changes we can make so that we can take
responsibility for helping the city accomplish this plan.
Ellyn
Ellyn Dooley
volunteer
ellynjd@comcast.net
650.208.1549cell
Take action on our climate crisis
Citizens’ Climate Lobby is a national nonprofit dedicated to grassroots efforts to accelerate bipartisan climate solutions at the federal level, including the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 3:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:S/CAP Item tonight
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Thanks for reviewing the S/CAP plan.
Regarding Energy, adopt an ordinance prohibiting construction by neighboring buildings that decreases solar access to
solar panels that existed prior to the construction to protect the investment in solar panels. This includes photovoltaic
panels and solar hot water systems. Regarding the adoption of all‐electric homes by the City Council, note the staff’s
rushed creation of a pre‐application process to allow designers to be exempt from this new requirement. Such a pre‐
application process was not, to my knowledge, authorized by the City Council in its ordinance. I can understand an
application submission prior to the effective date of an ordinance, but I have trouble understanding a pre‐application
process to get around an ordinance.
Regarding Transportation‐related Emissions, per the Comprehensive Plan, there should be both a methodology involving
Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service. Level of Service measures congestion that causes pollution within our
cities. As we build more dense housing along major traffic routes, increased congestion causes increases pollution
affecting sensitive receptions like our children. Adopt Menlo Park’s significance criteria for Level of Service.
Regarding mobility, the Transportation Management Association should be funded through a business license tax. A
Transportation Demand Ordinance should include taking an inventory of existing Transportation Demand Management
plans as part of project approvals and enforcing them, including penalties for failure to perform. All occupants and
businesses of new office buildings that are required to provide for their own parking should not be allowed to purchase
RPP permits. We must not allow scooter sharing to result in the cluttering of our business district sidewalks with
scooters that impede the flow of pedestrians, wheelchair users and parents with baby carriages. Our Palo Alto Shuttle
should use electric buses, and our sanitation vehicles should also be electric.
Regarding electric vehicles, require that all parking spaces have the requisite conduit for EV charging for new
construction in addition to the rules enacted by Palo Alto in 2014. And reconvene the Electric Vehicle Task Force to
develop a proposal for remodels of existing buildings. Advertise and promote the Clean Cars for All Initiative of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District. https://www.baaqmd.gov/funding‐and‐incentives/residents/clean‐cars‐for‐
all/apply Consider electric motorcycles for the Police Department (yes, there are special police versions) when we
purchase new ones.
Regarding Sea Level Rise, collaborate with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and Valley Water in their
work with the Army Corps of Engineers and California State agencies in studying Sea Level Rise adoptions for Palo
Alto. Monitor its progress, including periodic meetings with SFCJPA staff and our Valley Water board member.
Regarding Natural Environment, create a resource list for Integrated Pest Management in contrast to pesticides and
proactively market that material through CPAU bill inserts and by contacting condominium associations. Also include
information on proper disposal of hazardous materials, including pesticides.
Regarding Zero Waste, promote composting by businesses and multifamily housing dwellers within Palo Alto.
2
Best regards,
Arthur Keller
(as a Palo Alto resident, and not in any official capacity)
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:susan chamberlain <suschamberlain@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 6:26 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Sandra Slater; Debbie Mytels; David Page; Hilary Glann
Subject:response to S/CAP from 350 SV Palo Alto City Team
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council members
We are writing on behalf of the 350 Palo Alto City Team, which reflect various local climate organizations in our community. Each member organization is working with their constituents towards greenhouse gas reductions to make our city and planet healthier, safer and more livable for future generations. Our group convened 2 zoom meetings to engage the community and encouraged them to weigh in on the S/CAP webinar posted on the City’s website. We all will be closely following the results of the City’s outreach and subsequent path of this S/CAP because it is critical to the health, safety and future of our community and planet.
We applaud the S/CAPclimate goal of 80% reduction of GHG’s by 2030, as voted on by the Council in 2016, however the current plan would fall far short of reaching these goals! Looking at your own carbon calculations emissions of GHG’s (see below) we note they have been flat since 2013. In addition, the carbon offset “reduction” calculation for our natural gas usage needs to be reckoned with in the calculus of GHG reduction. The offsets are not a reflection of a “reduction” but serve only as a place-holder while we reduce our NG footprint.
Since there has been meagre progress in GHG reduction in the last 6 years, it stands to reason that we need
to be bolder in our remaining 9 years to reach our goal. Each year we delay action will necessitate even more funding, disruption and adaptation later.
There are many policies to help us achieve this, but all of them need to be measurable. We need to have specific targets that directly connect the goals to actions to measurable results. For example, to reduce our
natural gas footprint in line with our goal, we need to know how many heat pump water heaters are required to be installed each year in Palo Alto homes. Similarly if 70% of employees who commute in SOVs would “work from home” at least several days/week, we would need to know how that will impact our GHGs calculations. These measurements would help us see exactly what plans, programs, incentives, fees and ordinances will reduce our GHGs and provide a benchmark to our progress year to year.
Here are a few additional recommendations which would support GHG reductions:
More
robust support for the TMA
Incentivize
EV adoption
2
Zone
for denser housing near transit,
Standardize
building codes with other cities
Streamline
electrification permitting process
Lower
fees for electrification permits
Enact
effective communication programs to educate/motivate residents to adopt ultra-low carbon lifestyles.
We thank you for your time, your thoughtfulness and your hard work on this critical issue of climate sustainability. All living beings depend on it.
Sincerely,
Susan Chamberlain, Debbie Mytels, Sandra Slater, Hilary Glann, David Page On Behalf of 350 Palo Alto City Team
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Carol Lamont <carol@lamont.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 1:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Input on the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Fine and members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to offer my support for the important Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and offer my views on
more essential actions to be taken to protect people and our planet. While some progress has been made, more actions
need to be taken to reach our goal to prevent the destruction that climate change is bringing our way.
I support more actions to reach the electrification and mobility goals. That said, the most important action Palo Alto can
take is to include in the plan specific goals and actions to increase urban infill as the most productive way to reduce
emissions. Specifically, the plan must specify how the City will increase access to housing, including rent/price restricted
housing, housing for those who work here, housing for those who grow up here, and for others who need stable housing,
i.e. seniors and those with disabilities. Greatly reducing the City’s jobs-housing imbalance is essential to reducing
emissions so our City can do its part to prevent destructive climate change while improving the quality of life in Palo
Alto.
Please provide the leadership needed now to protect people and our planet in the future.
Sincerely,
Carol Lamont
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Palo Alto Sunrise Hub Feedback
From: Julia Zeitlin <sunrisemvmntpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 8:53 PM
To: Sustainability Team <Sustainability@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Palo Alto Sunrise Hub Feedback
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
We hope you are doing well. We greatly appreciate the Council putting time and effort into the S/CAP 2020. Here is a
document that has outlined our feedback. We hope you take this information into consideration.
Thank you so much!
Best,
Julia Zeitlin on behalf of the Palo Alto Sunrise Hub
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 11:18 PM
To:Sustainability Team
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Comments of the Proposed Update of Palo Alto's S/CAP
Attachments:DMytels Letter re PA S_CAP April 14 _2020.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Friends,
Please accept my comments on the S/CAP update proposal.
I look forward to reading the staff’s compilation of responses from others in the community. Thank you for your time
and effort in working on this, especially in regard to the difficulty circumstances that we are all in right now due to the
COVID‐19 virus. Your work on the S/CAP will help us all plan ahead and avoid the “last minute” response to an even
greater emergency — climate change — that looms in Earth’s future if we fail to act with urgency and resolve.
With appreciation,
Debbie Mytels
Debbie Mytels
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 759‐0888
dmytels@batnet.com
"Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 9:17 AM
To:Frank Agamemnon
Subject:Update: Notice to Repeal 5G Laws
Attachments:PLAW-116publ129.pdf; PLAW-116publ130.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Les Jamieson <artisan3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020, 11:28:48 AM EDT Subject: Update: Notice to Repeal 5G Laws
Hello all,
In my haste to share my excitement with people of like mind on how we
can object to two 5G laws recently passed, I was a little ahead of myself
and made several misstatements in my last email sent on April 9th. Please
forgive any inconvenience.
This email is to address these issues quickly:
1. To all those who are considering using the Notice I sent in the
last email, please hold up. There is another version with significant
additions that will be made available just before the webinar mentioned
below. I learned that one must understand the elements of the Notice
before using it. This approach is based in Common Law and what’s
known as the Administrative Process, which most of us have little
knowledge of. In addition to understanding the contents of the Notice, it’s
essential to understand the mailing procedure, which is similar to
“serving” a legal document. If you shared the Notice with others, please
let those people know to hold up on using the letter until the amended
version is released before the webinar.
2. My friend goes by the name of “Harold-Ellis,” not “Harold
2
Beale.”
3. The central objective of the Notice to Pres. Trump, William
Barr, and Michael Pompeo is to exercise our right to register our objection
and non-consent to these newly enacted laws. If we stay silent, it is
deemed as consent. The Notice is addressed to them because they finalize
the laws.
4. The webinar will be on join.me, not Zoom.
5. We are planning for an April 18, 2020 webinar date at 1 PM
EST.
6. A lot of time, effort, and care are going into this project, and
everyone will receive significant educational value. To cover some costs,
we’re asking for $15 to attend the webinar. Harold-Ellis is essentially
doing this for us as a community service, as his expenses may not be
covered even if all who receive this email attend the webinar. There is no
profit involved here. For full disclosure, my time and effort in this project
are for free. I just want people to take action to register their objection and
non-consent.
7. There will be additional educational materials provided for free
to participants (including an eye-opening book regarding status, standing,
and jurisdiction) regarding subjects to be discussed for greater
understanding of the elements of the final of the Objection/Non-Consent
letter. These materials were obtained by Harold-Ellis traveling to highly
specialized seminars around the country at great expense.
The final template will be provided to all attending the webinar, which is
due to the complexities of the document and our desire to ensure that
people understand the Administrative Process involved here. Given that
these laws open the floodgates for the 5G infrastructure to move forward
without regard for the safety of all living things on our planet, we hope
3
people will want to gain this knowledge and put it to use with us. Like any
effort to oppose a force as strong as the telecoms and global agenda for
5G, we need to build numbers that translate into political clout.
While we’re at it, it would be very worthwhile to read these laws, which
aren’t too long. See the attachments.
I want to thank everyone in advance for your participation in exercising
our rights, which is arguably an obligation to object to these 5G laws that
were passed while the nation’s attention was distracted entirely on the
coronavirus.
An invitation with further instructions on how to attend the webinar will
be sent within 48 hours from The NonGuru Network, PMA. When you
receive the invitation, please be sure to share the invitation with family
and friends of like mind.
Mini Bio of Harold-Ellis
Harold-Ellis is the founder and primary trustee of The NonGuru Network,
PMA (“TNGN”). TNGN is a private, non-incorporated, membership
association that protects from government interference of the activities of
its Participants’ private affairs. TNGN has been in existence since 2011.
TNGN is not a Sovereign Citizen / Patriot Movement group. Participants
encouraged to seek their remedy, whether in the law or to seek relief via
alternative medical approaches for optimum health, with help from other
TNGN members, if necessary. TNGN often works with other groups, like
now. For now, membership is free. I have been a member of TNGN since
its inception, as I have known Harold-Ellis professionally since about
2009.
Harold-Ellis has been involved with the law since the late 1980s; he is not
a bar attorney. Harold-Ellis has dealt with family law, real estate law,
4
business law, and some criminal law, but his primary focus was real estate
law dealing with foreclosures.
Harold-Ellis teaches/shares with the membership to enable them to do
their own legal work, or he can personally assist in their matters.
Harold-Ellis has been a “behind-the-scenes” helper to teachers across the
country, a presenter of webinars and seminars with or on behalf of various
groups, and he has been a co-moderator on podcasts/group calls besides
his group calls. I know of Harold-Ellis’s assistance with Mickey Poletta of
Pennsylvania, whom we both worked with. Mickey was known for self-
publishing a book on the Federal Reserve System, as well as teaching
many people how to represent themselves in court.
Harold-Ellis was also a real estate investor until about 2007 when he gave
up the profession after learning what mortgages are about, i.e., 100%
fraud. His conscience would not allow him to continue in the real estate
business with the use of mortgages.
Up until that point in about 2007, Harold-Ellis did not charge for his legal
services. His work in the legal field was more of a hobby to help those
who could not effectively help themselves. Harold-Ellis was quite
successful in his hobby and his subsequent vocation, as he now depends
on his vocation to put food on the table and pay the bills.
In 2016, Harold-Ellis noticed that is was getting harder and harder for
those who litigated for themselves to achieve victory in the statutory
courts. From 2016, and the process is ongoing, Harold-Ellis was/is on a
journey to discover other methods to achieve success in legal matters than
those commonly taught. Harold-Ellis learned some devastating truths
along the way that will be shared in the webinar. Who you are, the name,
standing, status, and jurisdiction are at the core of these discoveries, and
most people in this country have not a clue. Harold-Ellis has sacrificed a
lot and put in lots of time to get to this point. I know you will enjoy
5
learning from Harold-Ellis’ personal and indirect experiences to bring
knowledge to your life.
------------------------
Looking forward,
Les Jamieson
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Eddie Gornish <gornish@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 5:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Please consider re-opening the Benjamin Lefkowitz bike/pedestrian undercrossing at Adobe
Creek.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi ‐
I just saw the announcement that the underpass will be temporarily reopened.
I do not know whether or not the city council was involved in this decision; however, two of you were kind enough to
contact me about this issue, so...
Thank You!
Eddie Gornish
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:22 PM Eddie Gornish <gornish@gmail.com> wrote:
Please consider re‐opening the Benjamin Lefkowitz bike/pedestrian undercrossing at Adobe Creek.
My understanding was that this underpass was never going to be re-opened; rather, it would get replaced with a new overpass. That being said:
‐ Clearly, construction on the overpass will be delayed due to COVID‐19
‐ Walking, running and biking (using safe social distancing) is allowed and encouraged duro=ing the shelter‐in‐place.
‐ This would allow greater access to trails on the other side of 101, causing less congestion in Palo Alto streets and
making it easier to social distance safely while exercising.
Thank You
Eddie Gornish
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Greg St.Claire <greg@avenir-rg.com>
Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 5:43 PM
To:Dan Gordon
Cc:Council, City; Rob Fischer; Peter Katz; Steve Sinchek
Subject:Re: Tossing in the towel for restaurants in Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dan,
Thank you for the thoughtful email. We are leaning toward an exit as well and I know a lot are going to be right behind
us.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I would echo most all of Dan's comments. I have been operating in Palo Alto since 1996. Most likely it will come to an
end. Palo Alto has become the worst location for our company to do business in. We are surrounded by Tech companies
that have been financially crushing it and inadvertently ruining our core downtown. The New York Times wrote an
article back in September of 2016 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/technology/how‐tech‐companies‐disrupted‐
silicon‐valleys‐restaurant‐scene.html and everything in this article has gotten exponentially worse. We can't
compete with businesses that offer so many free services and free food. Add in the skyrocketing costs of doing
business and our employees are forced to commute in from long distances only to arrive in a downtown that has made
parking expensive and difficult for them. In our industry the only thing left in Palo Alto might be the QSR concepts. I love
my neighbor Sweet Greens concept but that is not where I want to be celebrating birthdays nor spending my fun night
out. Sit down full service restaurants are the fabric of why people move to a city. We are not the problem nor the
answer to the housing crisis. I hope you listen to Dan on the Zoom call tonight.
Best,
Greg
Greg St Claire
Owner
Avenir Restaurant Group
www.avenir‐rg.com
www.townsc.com
www.nolas.com
www.milagrosrc.com
www.ranchoalena.com
www.alpineinnpv.com
650‐631‐8813
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:20 AM Dan Gordon <dgordon@gordonbiersch.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Fine and City Councilpersons Cormack, DuBois, Kniss, Fisleth, Kou and Tanaka,
2
I wasn’t surprised to see the article today regarding the revenue shortfalls the city is anticipating and the drastic
measures with staff reductions, furloughs and layoffs that are occurring. It looked like close to a 50% reduction. Tragic
and my sympathy and goes out to you and your staff. As you know, restaurants and retailers are much worse
off. There has been close to a 95% reduction in Palo Alto restaurants as the minimal amount of togo business is
feasible for just a few.
I think it would be prudent for you all to look downstream as to how you might be able to jump start downtown and
toss away your sacred cows. As it currently stands, the rents and high minimum wage combined with a sales outlook
50% of normal volume once the SIP is removed is not promising. The primary cost of running a restaurant is labor. At
$15.40 there is no reason to reopen. I think you should survey restaurateurs on their desire to reopen or file Chapter
11 and get out of leases. It will be a shocking and eye‐opening experience. Vacant storefronts eliminate sales tax
revenue, payroll taxes and property taxes as the property values decline. To add salt on the womb, The Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors just sent a death blow out last night stating they are considering no large gatherings until
late November. Can you imagine the impact on restaurant sales when people are forced to sit 4 seats apart from each
other and that assumes that they are going to want to risk going out at all. The SBA programs will not come close to
covering reopening costs let alone the future cash flow deficits.
Palo Alto clearly cannot afford to do it’s own “new deal”, but you can make it possible for restaurateurs and retailers to
consider opening again. Mandate rent and property tax forgiveness for closed retail operators for at least 4 months
retro to SIP and set PA minimum wage to state levels (currently at $12/hr) for at least 2 years and no increases more
than the CPI for the next 3 year afterwards. Without these two items you are going to see at least 20% of downtown
businesses shuttered for at least a year and possibly a higher percentage. Restaurants cannot reopen at 50% of their
2019 monthly sales. Self‐mandated and psychologically directed social distancing is going to be the norm until there is
a vaccine. It’s time for some strong civic leadership.
I have no stake in the game anymore and I really loved my 32 years in Palo Alto. I am writing this on behalf of my hard‐
working colleagues in the Palo Alto hospitality industry.
Sincerely,
Dan Gordon
32 years of Palo Alto restaurant business
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barbara Ross <barbross@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 5:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:An environmental book
Attachments:FWMN TPScover_feb20.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Councilors:
I am just publishing a little book that encourages people of all ages to discuss environmental issues. It’s just coming out
on Amazon
later this week, and I would like to find a way to advertise it on Earth Day as a great way to give Locked Down citizens a
new and creative activity ‐ it’s fun and original. I will send you some pictures to give you a clearer idea of my work. I am
an 88 year old Palo Alto woman, and am thrilled that this book is getting out in the world. Please help me publicize it.
Thank you in advance ‐ I look forward to your reply. Barbara Ross
2
3
Author | Artist | Activist barbross@comcast.net Website: foolingwithmothernature.com
Fooling with
Mother Nature
A Small Book with Big Ideas
Barbara O’Neil Ross
Fo
o
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
M
o
t
h
e
r
N
a
t
u
r
e
Ba
r
b
a
r
a
O
’
N
e
i
l
R
o
s
s
If you love a little whimsy ...
If you love beautiful artwork ...
If you love the environment ...
Then you will rejoice in Barbara Ross’s creativity!
Barbara Ross’s Fooling with Mother Nature delivers a visual delight as you journey from
forests to mountains; from lakes to oceans; and from earth to sky. Her art stimulates
discussion of how nature has been damaged at the hands of mankind and what you can
do to help. Above all, she and her art remind you to be kind to Mother Nature.
Fun, inspiration, and stunning art are in your hands. Discover what happens when a
wine bottle opener creates a snow angel and starts an avalanche; a mysterious wood
working plane flattens a mountain; or why a moon drops into a basketball hoop.
The author challenges the reader with action provoking statements and questions.
• What is the difference between clear cutting and selective harvesting of trees?
• Is it necessary to destroy forests to get building materials?
ART | ENVIRONMENT | INSPIRATIONAL
Fooling with Mother Nature is both whimsical and deadly serious. She displaces the
urban onto the rural. In doing so, a wonderfully surreal image is created that conveys
a very real message about climate change.
—Lesley Dauer, award-winning author of The Fragile City and Carnival Life
For all AgesBarbara O‘Neil Ross is a professional artist who
has taught adults and children for many years.
The Cambridge Arts Council awarded her an
exhibition of the Fooling with Mother Nature
series and a grant to make portable copies of the
images to carry into the public schools to stimulate
conversation about ways man damages nature and
what can be done to counter the damage.
$22
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barbara Ross <barbross@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 6:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
My letter is about something I hope will be included on Earth Day, April 22, so I hope my words will get to them
ASAP. Thanks in advance. Barbara
Author | Artist | Activist barbross@comcast.net
Website: foolingwithmothernature.com
On Apr 14, 2020, at 5:57 PM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council
Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council
packet.
If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call
(650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.
If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an
explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.
We appreciate hearing from you.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:30 PM
To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (external); Fine, Adrian; Greg Tanaka; Kniss, Liz (external);
Kou, Lydia; tomforcouncil@gmail.com
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly
Subject:FW: Creating a Business Support Ad-Hoc Committee
Hi,
Please see below from Mayor Fine
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Adrian Fine <adrianfine@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:30 PM
To: Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (external) <lizkniss@earthlink.net>; Stump, Molly
<Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth
<Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Creating a Business Support Ad‐Hoc Committee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi everyone,
Please consider this my message creating a Business Support Ad‐Hoc Committee of the Council. The ad‐hoc will be
composed of council members Cormack and Kniss, copied here.
The Business Support Ad Hoc Committee will work with staff and represent the city council with stakeholders to receive
feedback from the Palo Alto business community. The ad‐hoc committee will also assist in developing short and mid‐
term recommendations to support the recovery and ongoing resilience of our business community.
I can announce this at next week's meeting, but can we please also message this out to the rest of council and the
public?
2
Let me know if you need anything else from, and thanks to everyone in advance.
Best,
Adrian
‐‐
Adrian Fine
adrianfine@gmail.com | 650‐468‐6331
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adrianfine/
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Elizabeth May <elizabethmay@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 11:04 AM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Closing Streets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council and City Staff,
While I appreciate the effort to slow cars in Palo Alto, please do not spend valuable city resources closing city
streets. Please do work our our traffic safety teams and patrol Embarcadero and other major roads for speeding, which
was a much worse problem before the SIP, but remains a problem today. Frankly, any effort to work with our
community and local businesses to slow traffic would be greatly appreciated. Messaging this when businesses reopen
and we see increased traffic back into Palo Alto seems prudent.
We are out walking, running and biking at all our hours these days. Our dog is phenomenally fit at this point. At no
point have we had an issue with crowding or too many folks on any street.
Thanks,
Elizabeth May
Walter Hays Drive
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 1:23 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Emily Mibach; local@bayareanewsgroup.com
Subject:Proposal to close streets encourages virus spread
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the City Council:
I'm writing to object to a proposal to the City proposing to close down streets in Palo Alto, purportedly to curb drivers speeding on now emptier roads, and enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists out exercising. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/04/14/to-curb-speeding-palo-alto-may-ban-cars-on-some-streets-during-pandemic
Shouldn't curbing the coronavirus be the City's first priority?
If drivers are speeding, couldn't City of Palo Alto traffic enforcement and police officers work to enforce the
traffic laws, including the speed limits?
We have a shelter in place order for the state and Bay Area, which has been extended to May 1, which asks that people stay at home.
https://abc7news.com/covid-19-shelter-in-place-bay-area-travel-order/6019152/ SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Nearly 40 million Californians are now required to stay home and limit social
interaction, except for essential activities, until further notice, thanks to an order announced March 19, by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
That order was extended until May 1: https://abc7news.com/society/bay-area-shelter-in-place-order-to-be-extended-until-may-1/6063267/
Why would the city want to take action that might encourage people to go out? The shelter in place order asks that people stay home, limit social interactions, except for essential activities. Providing wide avenues for exercise might encourage people to go out, rather than stay home.
Many people are using their cars to perform essential activities, which is another form of protection from the virus, as it can be sneezed or coughed out in droplets, then borne on the wind and live for a short period of time, according to news reports:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/doctor‐note‐coronavirus‐spread‐air‐200324075120328.html
When a virus becomes airborne, it is described as an "aerosol". This means the virus remains suspended in the air in very tiny water droplets - smaller than the ones coughed or sneezed - long after larger droplets have fallen to surfaces or been breathed in.
These tiny droplets can remain in the air for hours if the conditions are right - reduced air flow, open space and the right temperature.
Please do not make it easier for the virus to spread, by encouraging people to go out, and harder for people to protect themselves from the virus, through driving.
2
Please reject this proposal.
Thank you.
Best,
Kathy Jordan
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 7:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:San Francisco Chronicle: Palo Alto considers banning cars from some streets during coronavirus
shelter in place
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
San Francisco Chronicle: Palo Alto considers banning cars from some streets during coronavirus shelter in place.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Palo‐Alto‐considers‐banning‐cars‐during‐15200929.php
Fyi ‐ another article about Palo Alto considering banning cars from some streets while we are supposed to shelter in
place.
Thanks.
Kj
Debbie Mytels
2824 Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 759-0888 dmytels@batnet.com
April 14, 2020
To: Christine Luong and Others on the City of Palo Alto Sustainability Staff Thank you for the work put forth in the virtual S/CAP Workshop, and the innovative approach you have taken to get community input despite the challenges of our current COVID-19 emergency. I am sending
these remarks in a letter because it is easier than typing into the webinar format; I will follow the outlined content of the webinar so you can more easily collate my remarks with those of others who are responding. However, I want to add some preliminary comments that also discuss the serious omission of a section that should be created for community education. Preliminary Comments and Suggested Addition of Education as Another S/CAP Area The S/CAP webinar rightly begins with the assumption that "Climate Change is urgent, and action is needed now." This follows the findings of the IPPC and other scientific studies which uniformly conclude that we have 10 years before inflicting irredeemable and disastrous harm upon Earth's climate and ecosystems. We are now a third of the way into the first of those ten years. Time is running out.
The urgency of action should be reiterated on every page. One of the marvelous lessons that we have learned during the COVID crisis this past month is that people can change very fast when they see a clear reason for doing so. During the first week of the
emergency stay-at-home orders, our whole society was inundated with the phrase "Flatten the curve."
This shows the significance of educational programs for motivating behavior change. We should now apply this lesson to the changes our society must make to reduce the impact of climate change. Please make "Education" an eighth area of work under the updated S/CAP. We are unlikely to be successful without this.
A multi-faceted educational campaign should explain to our citizens why we must significantly and rapidly reduce the burning of fossil fuels. The City should stop framing its climate- and sustainability-related programs primarily with "energy efficiency" or "money saving" messages. Instead, don't be
afraid to speak the truth. At considerable personal and financial cost, our citizens have responded to
the scientific facts of COVID-19 -- and the subsequent strong leadership of our state and local governments -- and we can do so in regard to climate change, too. Our City programs must be based on science and data, and not on suppositions about political or
economic concerns. One such educational program would be to utilize the no-cost En-ROADS Climate Solutions simulator developed by MIT and its Sloan School of Business. (See: https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/ ) The City could begin to sponsor regular workshops, run by volunteers and/or staff to educate the population about the broad range of changes that we must make in order to keep temperate rise less down to 1.5°C.
As any teacher can explain, another aspect of a strong educational program is the need for reminders and positive reinforcement to maintain changed behaviors. Reducing the threat of climate change will be a marathon, not a sprint, and we will all need continuous education and signs that we are making progress. To do this, several things are required: 1) we need to have measurable goals; 2) we need to
actually DO the measurements; 3) we need to report those measurements at regular intervals; and
Comments on Palo Alto's S/CAP Update Proposal by Debbie Mytels, April 14, 2020 p. 2
4) the reporting needs to be highly visible and accessible. Currently, the S/CAP has no intermediate goals, just the "80 by 30" end point. That is not acceptable. Reliable data is not being collected on
important components of our GHG emissions; moreover, some of these emissions (such as those from
natural gas use) have been obfuscated by the use of offsets. Furthermore, very few people in this community are even aware of the S/CAP's overall "80 by 30" goal, and even fewer are aware of the City's progress. Putting out reports to the City Council and expecting that the average citizen will read them is unrealistic. Engaging even a couple hundred environmental activists in workshops is also insufficient to create the kind of community solidarity that is needed. To remedy this lack of awareness -- and provide residents with the reminders and positive encouragement required for sustained (and expensive) effort -- we need to employ good marketing and communications techniques. Look to the myriad ways in which people have been promoting the
need to wash hands, keep physical distance, and stay home during the COVID situation. There are many ways in which we can keep the climate change message -- and our progress towards goals -- in the public eye.
Here's one suggestion: Hang a big banner down from City Hall, using a tree outline to signify our
progress towards "80 by 30." Every six months, color in more branches, until our "Palo Alto goal" is filled in completely. Rather than hiring consultants to do the art work, tap into our talented high school students with a contest for designing the banner and a related "80 by 30" logo. This logo should be put on every piece of collateral that is put out by CPAU, by the Planning Department, the Children's
Theater, the City Manager's office, on our City vehicles, etc Everyone should see that climate change is
truly a priority in this community -- and Palo Altans are making progress to curb it! Comments on Specific Action Areas — Energy The City's leadership in switching to renewable electricity is inspiring. Now we need to keep going and
eliminate the GHGs from burning fossil gas, one of the largest sources of Palo Alto's emissions. The general comments above about creating measurable goals, and reporting them also apply here. While we should increase the incentives for individual action to retrofit homes, offices and other buildings, we must also undertake a twenty-year plan for the phase out of all natural gas use and the elimination of
the old and likely leaking gas pipes that are threaded under our streets.
Here are some further ideas for reducing energy-related GHGs: 1) The City should stop purchasing offsets for gas and instead, put the funds used for that into an aggressive retrofit program to switch out gas-burning water- and space heaters, stoves, clothes dryers,
and industrial scale equipment. 2) Standardize PA’s building codes to match those in PG&E’s area. This will reduce retrofit costs for residents who choose to work with a personal contractor. 3) Streamline the permitting process and lower or eliminate fees for retrofit permits. 4) Set up a group buy discount for heat pump water heaters, space-heaters, stove tops and
dryers. The SunShares program can be a good model for how to do this. 5) Make a plan to shut-off of gas lines, starting with older gas pipes that would need to be repaired/replaced in the near future. We should replace one-twentieth of the gas-powered appliances every year for the next twenty years, starting in January 2021. That would double (to 50%) the proposed 25% reduction (p.14) in gas-powered water heaters by 2030 — and likewise increase the
percentage of all-electric homes to 50% by 2030. We need to think "scale" and "urgent." 6) Train CPAU staff to assist residents in planning their retrofits, including measurement of electrical panel capacity and plans for upgrading such panels if needed to accommodate a larger electric load, including not only appliances, but also potential future EV purchases.
Comments on Palo Alto's S/CAP Update Proposal by Debbie Mytels, April 14, 2020 p. 3
7) Train CPAU staff also to install retrofits, on a schedule that matches the planned gas-line shut-offs. This could be part of CPAU's regular customer service workload. (And yes, it will cost some
money -- see 1) above.)
8) Provide on-bill financing, so that the cost of retrofits will become part of the utility bill that is transferable to whoever lives or works in a building (and thus pays the bill). This will make it easier for older residents to see that the cost of a retrofit can be spread out over time, even if they sell the house. The long-term loans that are inherent in on-bill financing are crucial if we are going to hit our S/CAP
goal. CPAU might be able to tap into municipal bonds or utility bond financing to acquire the capital needed to provide such on-bill financing. Comments on Specific Action Areas — Transportation (Mobility & EVs) The bar graph on the S/CAP webinar (p. 6) clearly shows very little progress in reducing GHGs from the
transportation sector. Accordingly, this should be the second main area of work and expenditure in the S/CAP. Again, the City needs to develop measurable objectives, incentives for changed behavior and to publicize our progress widely.
Here are some ideas to include in the updated Plan:
1) Our current experience with the COVID-19 crisis points to the easiest solution: "work from home." This has been a nearly instantaneous change for a large portion of Palo Alto's workforce. The resulting improvement in air quality has surely been equaled by a reduction in GHGs. (We need to get a measurement for this!) The City can easily assign many of its employees to work from home 2-3
days/week; and it can provide incentives to other employers who do so as well. This will also reduce the
growing traffic congestion that has plagued our community for nearly a decade. 2) The City should expand the shuttle bus service so that it runs more frequently and on more routes. The quarter-mile walkshed is a great idea -- AND the service needs to be every 15 minutes! Although the COVID crisis will deter some people from getting into vans for a while, we can install
hand sanitizer stations at each van door; and once a COVID vaccine is available, expand this service significantly. 3) Bicycles are an excellent way to get around flat Palo Alto; however, they don't work for people with packages, nor for elderly people, nor for people with multiple small children. The "complete streets" ideas are helpful: colored bike lanes, physical separation of bicycles and cars, etc.
4) Bicycle counting technology exists. The City could use that to get a better measure of how many people DO bicycle on many major streets and bike paths. 5) More secure bike parking at workplaces, the CalTrain lots, shopping centers, etc would also help encourage cycling. 6) Because EVs charged at home at night generally mean that the energy entering the car has to
be stored somewhere during the day, EV charging at night requires substantial energy storage capacity. Therefore, the City should encourage EV charging during the day when solar energy -- ideally generated by collectors placed on carports -- is most available. This will generally mean that EV chargers should be placed at worksites and in public lots. Therefore, the City should incentivize EV
chargers at workplaces.
7) To support placement of EV chargers at multi-family complexes, the City should explore taking on some portion of the installation costs, either through getting a discount for a "group buy" of EV chargers or through playing for needed trenching or other electrical work. 8) Organize "group buys" of EVs both for the City fleet and for fleets of large employers such as
the PAUSD, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, etc. Make such purchase opportunities available to residents and those who work in Palo Alto as well. Group purchase rates should also be found for EV charging equipment; perhaps some large corporations could put their procurement staff to work on setting up such a plan for several large employers and the City. Here again, we need to think"scale."
Comments on Palo Alto's S/CAP Update Proposal by Debbie Mytels, April 14, 2020 p. 4
9) The stated goal that half the vehicles owned by low income residents would be EVs is a good one; however, a plan needs to be created to make that happen. Purchase incentives for new vehicles are
often not be adequate, since one little-considered issue with purchasing a new vehicle is that insurance
costs are also higher. Perhaps the City could also negotiate a subsidized insurance program for qualifying low income residents (perhaps based on a reliable payment history with CPAU ?). Comments on Specific Action Areas — Water
Palo Alto has been doing a good job on water conservation and management, and the goals and actions outlined are good ones. One area that should be added to this section, however, is groundwater. When groundwater is pumped for construction of residential basements, it causes ground subsidence. As the soil settles, this, in turn, causes cracks to appear in nearby homes, creating potential structural problems and lowering property values. The City should outlaw the pumping of groundwater for the purposes of
residential basement construction. Comments on Specific Action Areas — Sea Level Rise & Climate Adaptation For many residents of South Palo Alto, this is an area of both personal and financial concern. Alongside
the removal of GHGs, proactive planning for Sea Level Rise should be a City priority. With sea level
generally predicted to rise at least 6 feet by 2100, we have concerns. Will our homes withstand a storm surge during a high tide in years to come? Will my family be able to sell a home located in the SLR zone? The City should work with San Mateo County and adjacent cities in Santa Clara County to develop a comprehensive plan that includes regional levees and possible extension of marsh areas to
serve as a water-retaining "sponge."
Comments on Specific Action Areas — Natural Environment While all of the goals in this section are laudable, no specific objectives are outlined, except in regard to increasing city-wide tree canopy 40% by 2030. This is an excellent goal because of the multiple benefits
that trees provide: shade (thus reducing the needs for GHG-causing air conditioning), carbon sequestration within their roots and body mass, habitat for birds and invertebrates, beauty — and even higher property values! Another idea to consider would be a public/private/non-profit incentive (an award?) for native plant and food growing gardens. If funding needs to be prioritized during the time
frame of this S/CAP, the objective for increasing tree canopy should be the highest priority of proposed
actions within this area, in large part because trees have such a beneficial impact on GHG reduction. Comments on Specific Action Areas — Zero Waste Palo Alto's progress in the Zero Waste area is terrific. However, we need to be aware of the strong
possibility of "backsliding" in regard to disposable food containers and shopping bags, due to concerns about viral contamination. We are currently in a situation where grocery stores are not allowing clerks to touch cloth shopping bags -- nor even to put them on the store counter for self-bagging! To follow through on the goals and key actions of this section of the S/CAP, once a COVID vaccine is available we will need to engage in a strong educational campaign to re-educate people -- including Palo Altans! -
- about the importance of reusable containers and food service items. Measurable objectives also need to be designed for the goals and proposed actions in this section of the S/CAP. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the City's S/CAP update proposals.
Debbie Mytels
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Peggy E. Kraft <pkraft@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:56 PM
To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Council, City; Transportation
Subject:Grade Separation Charleston/East Meadow ONE LANE ROUNDABOUT
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Community members,
I have written to you previously with my opinions on the grade separation plans for the Charleston/East Meadow rail
crossings.
There has been discussion about a grade separation idea that would sink Charleston below Alma but leave Alma at
normal grade level. I believe that design engineers are working on this plan and one of the components is to put a
roundabout on East Charleston. I like the idea of a simple drop below the rail line at Charleston and Alma but I have NOT
been in favor of the roundabout for the reasons that I have stated previously of adding so many more cars to this
residential/school/park corridor and taking private property.
IF a roundabout is necessary I would like to suggest a ONE LANE ROUNDABOUT. The two lane roundabout in the early
plan is too large and disruptive and requires the taking of private property. There are examples of this type throughout
Palo Alto. An example is at Everett and Emerson. It serves a two lane residential street and did not require any property
to be taken by eminent domain. East Charleston is a two lane residential street and does not require a two lane
roundabout.
I like the plan to drop Charleston below the rail road track and leave Alma at grade without a roundabout on East
Charleston. As I stated previously I do not want to see all of the northbound traffic on Alma that currently uses the
westbound turn lane be directed onto East Charleston and then through the roundabout to be turned back west. This
would add thousand of cars to our quiet residential street and schools and park corridor. The cars coming from the
south on Alma that want to turn west onto Charleston can use San Antonio Road or Oregon Expressway to go west.
These roads can handle the extra traffic at peak hours and would have this traffic divided between them.
The main reasons for this email is to ask that IF we have to have a roundabout designed into this proposal that it be a
ONE LANE ROUNDABOUT. This allows some of the traffic to use it to turn west but would encourage some drivers to use
other means to go west on Charleston from Alma and not dumb so m any cars onto East Charleston. This is true for East
Meadow as well.
Thank you,
Peggy
Mumford Place
Palo Alto ,CA
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Shalini Kamala <shalini.pk@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 15, 2020 9:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Paycut ?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear council members,
For those staff who are staying home ‐ with work hours reduced (not the essential services providers) ‐ will they take a
pay cut ?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/world/jacinda‐ardern‐pay‐cut‐coronavirus‐intl/index.html
I think New Zealand is setting a good example! We all have to do our part, save cash, in order to prevent job cuts in the
coming months.
‐‐Shalini
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:D Frion <boots2asses_24_7_365@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 11:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pal Alto PD
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
In this video i am sending to you shows an Officer J Salkeld coughing in this person face with the Covid19 going on which starts @ 12 min 35 sec. I certainly hope you all take a look into this video and situation. The young man had every right
to be there, the SCOTUS has ruled 10 ft is sufficient distance from police Sincerely, Dan
Cop says "Maybe I have the coronavirus" after he coughs in my face.
Cop says "Maybe I have the coronavirus" after
he coughs in my face.
Came up on a cop watch in Palo Alto. Everything was fine
until I didn't say hi. Sargeant calls for back up when ...
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 5:23 PM
To:Nat Fisher; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:RE: zoom
Hi Nat,
Hope you are staying safe and healthy. Zoom allows participants to phone in with either a regular phone (landline or
cell) or by smart cell phone. Below are the instructions on how to participate using a phone. There is a number to call
and then when you want to speak you hit *9 and it lets us know you want to speak.
Phone: 1(669)900-6833 Meeting ID: 362-027-238
1. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To
address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play
Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.
2. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an
agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and
last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit
your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thanks and stay healthy.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 12:45 PM
To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: zoom
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
2
People who don't have computers or don't know how to use Zoom cannot speak before the
City Council.
Can't you open up the Council chambers and have people use the microphone there and
Zoom them to the City Council?
Natalie Fisher
Palo Alto
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Friday, April 10, 2020 1:11 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:mwestenberger@gamil.com; 'David Fudenberg'
Subject:670 Los Trancos development impedes park views
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the City Council of Palo Alto
Re: development at 670 Los Trancos,
highly visible from Arastradero Open Space Preserve
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
I am sorry to trouble you about this issue during the pandemic,
and realize this cannot be a high priority for you at this time.
However, the issue is of continuing concern.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
The private home development at 670 Los Trancos, as seen from Arastradero trails,
appears to be contrary to city code, which requires that developments
not rise above the skyline, impeding natural views.
Furthermore, since construction began in 2017, in 3 years no plantings to
screen the development from our open space park are evident.
Below are i‐phone photos taken April 10, 2020, of the project. These photos show
what appears to be a 2‐story structure rising well above the skyline,
greatly impacting park views.
The photos also indicate that no screening plantings have been installed at the project,
as were promised in 2017.
Additionally is provided a photo of an established home just to the north
of 670 Los Trancos, for purposes of comparison,
which is of very low profile, and is well‐screened behind oaks and shrubs.
This home subtly blends in with the hillside and does not disrupt natural park views.
Of special concern: The 670 Los Trancos development looms over a down‐sloped,
open grass meadow, and is therefore highly visible from the park.
Why have no trees been planted to screen this development ?
This is not ok.
Kim Atkinson
Palo Alto 94301
Redacted
2
670 Los Trancos tall beams rising into the sky, seen from park trails,
indicating more than one‐story planned.
No plantings are in place to conceal development from park trails.
This is highly visible, over an open meadow slope.
Until 2017, this was a purely natural view that park‐goers enjoyed.
670 Los Trancos beams into the sky, indicating a tall structure to be built.
Neighboring home to the north (just to the right of 670 Los Trancos as seen from trail),
3
appropriately screened with vegetation, and low profile building.
Does not impede park views much.
This, below, is not ok. It does not conform to city guidelines that protect park views from development.
Where are the screen plantings ? They need to be tall. Trees.
4
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Lori Khoury <khoury7eleven@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, April 8, 2020 3:38 PM
To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc:Weiss, Julie; Bobel, Phil
Subject:I have not heard on email sent March 15, 2020 RESENDING - Impact of tobacco ban to Mac's Smoke
Shop in Palo Alto- would like to meet to discuss
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council members,
I am resending my email of March 15, 2020 as I have not heard back yet from anyone at the City Council. I would really appreciate a call to discuss this issue. I can be reached at (408) 219-0148. Regards,
Lori Khoury Mac's Smoke Shop ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Lori Khoury <khoury7eleven@sbcglobal.net> To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: "adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org" <adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lydia.Kou@cityofpalo.org <lydia.kou@cityofpalo.org>; Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org <alison.cormack@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Weiss <julie.weiss@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020, 1:43:51 PM PDT Subject: Impact of tobacco ban to Mac's Smoke Shop in Palo Alto- would like to meet to discuss Dear Mayor Fine and City Council members, I would like to request an in-person meeting or phone call to discuss the items listed below. We hope that Council will take the time to listen to our concerns and have a rigorous discussion about the
impacts of the tobacco ban and how it may put us out of business.
My contact information:
Lori A. Khoury cell (408) 219-0148 email: khoury7eleven@sbcglobal.net
I am writing as the owner of Mac’s Smoke Shop, one of the oldest retail establishments in the City of Palo Alto. We love the City of Palo Alto and wish to continue doing business in the community for
years to come. We are small business and cater to those only 21 and over. A very large portion of
our sales are generated from the very products you are proposing to prohibit. We are very concerned that this new ordinance will force us to close our doors by year end. From the inception of Mac’s Smoke Shop back in 1934, we have always upheld our impeccable reputation in the community. We are a legacy institution in the City and hear many wonderful stories from customers, Palo Alto
residents and people who know what a great place Mac’s is. With the swipe of your pen our entire
business may be gone.
2
This proposed new tobacco ordinance will cause more harm than good. It threatens the very nature of what we have been doing for over 80 years, selling tobacco products. We will continue to take measures to ensure that no one under 21enters the store. We are moving our registers even closer to
the door so that our sales associates can be hyper vigilant about who enters the store. The ordinance
won’t stop people from buying flavored tobacco and vaping products, and it especially won’t have any impact on teen vaping since teens aren’t our customers.
As an “adult only” store, granted an exemption to sell to only those over 21, there is no plausible reason not to continue to offer Mac’s Smoke Shop an exemption. We are educated about the
products we sell, responsible about who we sell to, and know the consequences if the rules aren’t followed. We aren’t anything like the gas stations and 7-Elevens that have been cited for selling to minors. We have never been cited for any violation, passing the February sting that three merchants failed, but we passed with flying colors and will continue to do so.
The neighboring city of Los Altos recognized the overly harsh consequences of imposing an
ordinance prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products. One retailer, Edward’s Pipe and Tobacco, was threatened with closure without an exemption. The Los Altos Council granted an exemption, but Edward’s must follow regulations to continue selling flavored tobacco. We want the council to recognize the repercussions to Mac’s Shop and grant us an exemption as well.
We need the City to allow us to continue to do business as usual and continue the legacy we have
worked so hard to build. The Council acknowledged in their Colleagues Memo dated December 9, 2019 that “In addition to following the county's lead, the memo recommended that the city support legislation that restricts access of minors to vaping products and provides funding for education efforts on vaping”. Mac’s Smoke Shop already restricts access to minors. Additionally, “Council members agreed that banning sales of vaping products in the city will not do much to curtail the
problem. Even with the ban, Tanaka said, most people won't have trouble buying electronic cigarettes”. Residents of Palo Alto also support a less restrictive approach to curtailing the sale of vaping products “Scott Anderson, a Palo Alto resident who had previously worked in the tobacco industry, supported a more cautious approach. He agreed that the council should focus on protecting the health and wellness of the community, and did not dispute that consuming nicotine through
combustible tobacco is harmful. Wholesale prohibition on vaping is not the right solution, he said".
Please take a look at the photos below that show the history of such a wonderful institution.
Sincerely, Neil and Lori Khoury Owners - Mac's Smoke Shop
3
4
5
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Michael Korn <makompk@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:32 PM
To:cityleaders@fcgov.com; Council, City
Cc:alex.norcia@vice.com; vapetherockies@gmail.com
Subject:RE: Vaping Corona
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/health/coronavirus‐smoking‐vaping‐
risks.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Contrary to what I wrote below encouraging you to allow vape shops to operate, this article in today's New York Times
suggests that vaping makes people much more vulnerable to coronavirus and also increases the risk of spreading it.
On Saturday, March 28, 2020 Michael Korn <makompk@aol.com> wrote:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pke8n7/coronavirus‐has‐closed‐vape‐shops‐but‐left‐cigarettes‐readily‐available
Dear City Council,
A friend who works in a vape shop told me they were forced to close yesterday. We do not understand why vape shops
are being targeted for closure while tobacco marijuana and alcohol are freely being sold during this period.
In my experience going to vape shops, they rarely have more than two customers in them at a time. They are far less
crowded than liquor stores or tobacco stores. I think you are making a very grave mistake in persecuting this important
part of the local economy.
Sincerely, Michael Korn
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:david zoumut <dzoumut@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:06 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Weiss, Julie
Subject:HOOKAH LOUNGE DOWN TOWN PALO ALTO
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To whom it may concern I had a visit earlier this year from Julie Weiss and Phil Bobel, Public Works department, inquiring about my Hookah Lounge operation. I was told about a decision being considered in stopping the sale of vape liquid flavors containing nicotine, as well as flavored tobacco, electric vape pens and electric hookah. Although I do not sell or serve any vape products, neither do I allow it in my establishment. I have been in this business since 2004, and it is what I have been doing since then. I rely on my income to provide for my family, and I have three kids, 18,14 and 6. This profession is the only thing I know how to do. I have not held any other jobs in the sixteen years other than this business, and at sixty one years old it will be hard to find a job. if the city council decides to shut down my operation, and many others as well, it will be very difficult for myself and others as well to find jobs to compensate for our income and support our families. I have been shut down for a month now, and I am already feeling the financial hardship this Covid-19 is causing, not just for myself, but for millions of others who lost their jobs and businesses. Deciding to close down all lounges of this nature will definitely put me and my family in a dire position, and everything worked so hard for is in jeopardy , and the possibility of losing it all. I hope you decide not to close lounges that provide such service, and consider the people relying on it to provide for their loved ones. I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter. Thank You David Zoumut Hookah Nites Lounge Palo Alto. 94301
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:54 AM
To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; dallen1212
@gmail.com; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; Mayor; Mark
Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; terry; Council, City; newsdesk; leager;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov;
bballpod; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; grinellelake@yahoo.com; alumnipresident@stanford.edu;
antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis;
eappel@stanford.edu; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; lalws4@gmail.com; midge@thebarretts.com;
nick yovino; popoff; jerry ruopoli; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; vallesR1969@att.net
Subject:Fwd: Gov. Cuomo reacts to Trump's "I decide when U.S. reopens"-4-14-20
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:24 AM
Subject: Fwd: Gov. Cuomo reacts to Trump's "I decide when U.S. reopens"‐4‐14‐20
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:46 PM
Subject: Gov. Cuomo reacts to Trump's "I decide when U.S. reopens"‐4‐14‐20
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Late on Tues, April 14, 2020
To all‐
Here is Gov. Cuomo on Tuesday morning, April 14, 2020 reacting to Trump's assertion on Monday April 13, 2020 that
he has the sole power to re‐open the country‐ he has the exclusive power to do that, not the Governors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_Gw9etRfk
Then, look at the Trump press briefing in the Rose Garden today, April 14, 2020. Look right at the end of it. He
seems conciliatory to the Governors after the uproar from his statement on Monday." I am not going to make them do
anything", he says. (That surprised me). THEN he says "I don't think they will resist my order to re‐open because the
federal government has the supplies and the money". Words to that effect. Man, that is real thugery. You Governors
will re‐open your States when I tell you to or we will withhold life and death supplies and money from you. Trump likes
2
to be provacative. Getting the economy going again to enrich his rich republican pals in the business sector is that
important to him?
I think that threat, if Trump makes good on it, should be grounds for impeachment. Just breath the word, and he'd
back off, I think.
Here is a good article containing big‐gun legal analyses on the issue of Presidential v. States powers wrt re‐
opening the country:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald‐trump/fact‐check‐trump‐claims‐it‐s‐his‐call‐when‐reopen‐
n1182836
This morning KCBS ‐SF carried 45 minutes of Gov. Newsom's press confence re his 6 step program to re‐open
California. Gradual, not a light switch, a dimmer. We'll feel our way. Gradual lifting of restrictions with their re‐
imposition if necessary. Sounded pretty reasonable. See the vid if you can. Trump refused to say in the Rose Garden
whether Newsom designed that plan in consultation with the feds. What I see is that it will be safe for people to resume
normal activity when there is mass testing‐ the diagnostic test‐ to find people who are infected with Covid‐19 and are
contagious and then to quarantine them!! When we quit finding people who test positive for the diagnostic test, we will
no longer have people in the public who are a threat to others. Remember, many young people may show virtually no
symptoms and be fully infectious. There are 40 million people in Calif. How long will it take to test all of
them? We'll surely need federal help to do it. We'll need millions of the Abbott Labs 5 minute test.
I won't feel safe until we either test every person in Calif. and quarantine those that test positive, or we have an
effective vaccine that has been almost universally administered in California. Of course, the statisticians with their
sampling methods can determine with some level of confidence what the infection number is without testing every
person. You take a school with 20 classes. You test every child in 3 or 4 of those classes. That gives you an idea of how
many children in the entire school are infected, within some confidence intervals.
Fresno County, Calif. now has 251 confirmed cases of Covid‐19 and seven dead. Wherever you see those
numbers, the dead come close to 3% of the cases.
This morning KCBS had a short chat with one of the reserchers at Stanford who developed the antibody test. "It's
a work in progress" he said. He certainly did NOT say that that test can determine with certainty that a person is immune
to the virus. If you do widespread testing and find very few people who are positive on the diagnostic test, and you
quarantine them, and then do contact tracing, and then if you find a very small percentage of people who test positive
for the antibodies, I can see how all of that could inform a re‐opening process. But we have a LOT of testing to do in
Calif. before we can lift restrictions very much. Gov. Newsom can gain confidence from the public for his plan to re‐open
if he arranges massive testing and the testing shows very good results. That is what we will be watching for. Until then, I,
for one, will shelter in place.
Despite Trump's and Newsom's assertions to the contrary, Fresno Co. health officials are still almost begging for
protective gear to be donated here as of Monday, April 13, 2020. Newsom's people should get in touch with the Fresno
Co. public health officials and see what they need.
BTW, will the Gov. please announce where we can buy masks. Since we have hundreds of millions, where can
we get them?
LH
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Friday, April 10, 2020 10:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Stop Deployment of Wireless during Quarantine
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Carol Brouillet <cbrouillet@igc.org>
Date: April 10, 2020 at 9:35:06 PM PDT
To: "Minor, Beth" <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Stop Deployment of Wireless during Quarantine
Reply‐To: Carol Brouillet <cbrouillet@igc.org>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious
of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Ms. Minor,
Dear Mayor & City Council Member,
We ask that you impose a moratorium on “small cells” and other wireless infrastructure permits process
and deployment until the COVID‐19 emergency is over.
The wireless providers are using the COVID‐19 emergency as cover to expand and cement their rapid
and virtually unsupervised deployment of harmful wireless infrastructure. Our local leaders should not
have to dedicate time and resources to policing whether the wireless companies are following local and
state law, they have far more important things to do.
The FCC wireless permit rules allow emergency moratoria. Homeland Security guidelines emphasize that
maintenance of existing communications capability is the priority. New construction is not “essential.”
The COVID‐19 emergency has led to a government shut down of non‐essential activity. Hospitals,
emergency response and local officials are overwhelmed and they must be allowed to focus on what is
indeed “essential”. Now is not the time to be dedicating resources to expanding, rather than just
maintaining, our networks.
The FCC has directly held a local jurisdiction can impose a temporary halt to deployment and permits
during emergencies. In the Matter of Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing
Barriers, FCC 18‐111, 33 FCC Rcd 7705, 7784‐7785, ¶157 (2018) (“We recognize that there may be
limited situations in the case of a natural disaster or other comparable emergency where an express or
de facto moratoria that violates section 253(a) may nonetheless be ‘necessary’ to ‘protect the public
safety and welfare’ or to ‘ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services.’”)
Homeland Security has declared that local government is on the forefront and can take control over
2
determining whether to temporarily halt all non‐essential activity. Homeland Security guidance
documents prioritize maintenance of existing Communications Systems, and do not support “essential”
status for new construction. See Homeland Security Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency,
Identifying Critical Infrastructure During COVID‐19, https://www.cisa.gov/identifying‐critical‐
infrastructure‐during‐covid‐19 (local control); e‐Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Support Annex,
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf‐support‐cikr.pdf (focus on “protection, response,
recovery, and restoration”). Homeland Security, like the FCC, understands that it is essential in an
emergency situations justify focusing on protecting, responding, recovering and restoring of existing
systems, but new communications facilities construction is and should be deemed nonessential, and
subject to lockdown for so long as we are under emergency conditions.
Cities can and should impose a moratorium on deployment in their local area and freeze the permit
process until the COVID‐19 emergency is over.
Sincerely,
Carol Brouillet
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Redacted