Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200511plCC 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: 05/11/2020 Document dates: 4/22/2020 – 4/29/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, April 23, 2020 4:05 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; beachrides; bballpod; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; Daniel Zack; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; Raymond Rivas; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Pam Kelly; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mark Standriff; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; nick yovino; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; Joel Stiner; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: FYI 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: Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:08 PM  Subject: Re: FYI  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>           Thursday, April 23, 2020               To all‐          Here is an important story from Dr. Linda Halderman re the antibody tests. Even having had the common cold in the  past can make you test positive on one particular antibody test‐ a test of dubious value from China.  But there are  different antibody tests around, and maybe some tests can pick up antibodies unique to the Covid‐19 virus?????  Big  queston‐ Can they?? Ask Stanford about their test. What is generating questions about their test is that they used it in  Santa Clara Co. Calif. and it showed 50‐80 times as many people with antibodies as one would have expected. SO, the  antibody tests are murky at this point. Check with the researchers at Stanford to see what they claim for their test.                       This was sent to me by Doug Vagim:              https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10216848340545761&id=1381544360#               LH    On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:17 PM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:03 PM  2 Subject: Fwd: FYI  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:44 PM  Subject: Fwd: FYI  To: <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:08 PM  Subject: Fwd: FYI  To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Wednesday, April 22, 2020              Doug‐  Thanks.  I recall an earlier mail from you about V. D. Hansen repeatedly riding in the elevator up Hoover  Tower packed with people who just flew in from Wohan (It's a small elevator).  Re the antibody test, I've sent you  several emails in which Fauci and the researchers at Stanford all say that to test + for the antibodies does NOT prove  that you have immunity. We do not know that yet. I just listened to Gov. Newsom from noon to 1 PM and he knows  that. Our emphasis will be on the PCM test, the diagnostic test.  You should view and listen to that news conference.  Probably on YouTube by now. His and Cuomo's and of course Trump's are all there.            Here is the Newsom press conference of today.  1:12  One hour and 12 minutes:                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USps_5m4ngY               Here is the Trump press briefing of today:                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehkJ9NZy0VE                        Newsom did say that the results of the antibody test are controversial, and they are. Apparently, if you get  sick with the virus, or even are asymptomatic, and you test positive on the diagnostic test‐ the PCM test in that time  period‐ and then you recover and test negative on the diagnostic test, you are no longer contagious. But to get sick,  recover and just test positive for the serology test, the antibody test, does not prove that you are no longer  contagious.  I even heard one expert say that after you are no longer contagious, you can still test positive for a while  on the diagnostic test.  But you cannot read immunity into a positive antibody test. Not yet, anyway.                 There is even a question at this point as to whether you can get infected and sick with the Covid‐19 virus more  than once.                 Stanford is now saying they found 80,000 people in Santa Clara Co. with the antibodies, and some are saying it  cannot be right.    3       Newsom said he talked to Trump today. Of the 251 testing sites in Calif. over 50% said they need swabs. Trump told  Newsom today Calif. will get 150,000 swabs this week and 250,000 next week. (Newsom said on Thurs. April 23, 2020  that we have now received 90,000 of the 150,000 swabs).  Calif.  will now vastly increase the number of test sites,  especially in underserved rural and urban areas‐ city centers with large black and hispanic pops. 16,000 tests per day  now, 25,000 tests per day in California by the end of April, and then 60,000 80,000 tests per day in California later. Hear  the numbers in the Newsom press conference above.                            KCBS said this AM that "David Kennedy", former Pres. of Stanford has died of Covid‐19 at his Redwood City  home. Pres. from 1980 to 1992. Big gun Biologist. My mind reeled‐ who the hell is David Kennedy? I tried to think of  some Pres. of Stanf. named David Kennedy and got no where.They got it wrong. It's Donald Kennedy!! He was big shot  in Bio when I was there. He and Paul Ehrlich came to Stanford as young Biologists about the same time. Kennedy had 3  degrees from Harvard. His father was the Burser or Bursur there, whatever that is, so that no doubt helped. I had him  for Bio 1, 2, 3. when I first got there. They gave those lectures in Memorial Auditorium. Remember the "scandal" about  the yacht where Stanford cheated the Navy, and thus the American taxpayers, out of countless hundreds of millions of  dollars, or maybe even countless billions of dollars, to have the yacht? It was a little boat with one mast. A morning  talk‐show host from New York yelled and bellyached about that for years. He went to an Ivy League school, and  Stanford was making the Ivy League look really insignificant by then.  Finally, Stanford reached a settlement with the  Navy and paid a couple of million dollars. With an endowment of‐ now‐ $23 billion, they could afford it. All that while  Donald Kennedy was Pres.                Ironic that a big‐gun Biologist would catch the virus and die of it. He was living in an assisted living facility,  apparently. Santa Clara Co. has been a huge hot spot for the virus. It is the worst county in the Bay Area for Covid 19.  Redwood City is north just over the county line in San Mateo Co.               Try to hear or see the Newsom press conference for today. Pretty good. Not a switch, a dimmer. Huge  information about the testing effort in California.                  I don't know what Fresno Mayor Brand is talking about re opening up. He'll open up when Newsom tells him he  can. I'll shoot Brand a mail reminding him of that.                Important:   See on YouTube last night's PBS News Hour.  They had doctors on who see a lot of kidney damage in  Covid pt. Some wind up on dialysis, maybe for life. In some, the kidneys heal. Protestors should hold up signs saying "I  don't need my kidneys! Open up!  That development should be widely reported and brought up at Trump's press  briefings. I hope that KCBS, et. al., will start reporting it.                   BTW. Viente dos Abril will be part of Guadalajara, Mexico history forever. 1992. The day Pemex gasoline got  into the storm sewers and ran for miles. When somebody tossed a match, it all exploded. Miles of street just  eviscerated. 1,000 killed. I was there the day it happened, having breakfast at my hotel. It sounded like scaffolding fell.  Not near enough to me to do any damage. The Governor of Jalisco State fled to Spain in his private jet. They closed my  hotel so I walked west for a couple miles on crowded sidewalks to the U.S. consulate out there. El Consulado de Los  Estados Unidos. The big U.S. consulate is in downtown in Guad. and they have a smaller one to the west, or north. After  I said I'd sleep in the lobby on their  floor, they directed me to a nice hotel nearby. I was hyped. I feared that in the  chaos, and that is what there was, that bandits would enter Guad. to prey on people. I guess two nights there until my  hotel in the center re‐opened.  Lots of Luz Roja vehicles on the streets, buses full of cops. Buses so full of cops that  some were standing.                 Important:    Trump touts hydroxychloroquine for Covid‐19.  Here is the Mayo Clinic warning about that. There is  a test which a cardiologist can give re the pt's heart first to determine if the drug could cause sudden cardiac arrest in  that pt.: If they can clear you of that risk with a test of the heart, and the drug helps, maybe this is a real benefit: Trump  should hear about the heart test they can give to see if you might be a safe candidate for hydroxychloroquine.     4       https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald‐trump/mayo‐clinic‐cardiologist‐inexcusable‐ignore‐hydroxychloroquine‐ side‐effects‐n1178776                        BTW, Governor Newsom said today, Thursday, April 23, 2020 that 115 people died in California in the past 24  hours of Covid‐19, the highest one day total so far.                  KCBS reported this AM, April 23, 2020, that Google is contributing 25,000 face shields to Valley Medical Center in  San Jose and its satellites, and that other cos. in the Silicon Valley Leadership Group have done similar things.                                   L. William Harding            Fresno                       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>  Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:55 AM  Subject: FYI  To: Harding, Loran <loran.harding@alumni.stanford.edu>    https://www.facebook.com/1622144886/posts/10219990949997053/     Did you hear the podcast I previously sent you of Victor Davis Hanson. Where he recalled he and Chinese tourist's  straight from Wuhan would fill the elevators of the Hoover Tower as he was going to work and they would continue to  the observation deck. This would happen almost every day last Nov, Dec & Jan.    He said he got the worst and strangest flu type illness he ever had. Got through it but was never tested because it  predated any public awareness of Covid‐19.     USC Medical is doing widespread testing for the antivirus in blood samples and have discovered to‐date nearly 1/2  million people in LA Co. have had the C‐19 virus with or without synthetic issues.    That's compared to the actual confirmed C‐19 to‐date case count of 15,140 in LA Co.     I think we've already achieved what's called, "Herd Immunity," here in California. At least to this first strain of the virus,  it's already starting it's mutation phase ‐ uh oh...    Best to you,  Doug  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 24, 2020 2:20 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City Subject:May 4 Council Meeting Attachments:200423 Covid 19 Unequal Impact and Psychology CalMatters April 23 2020.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I know that City Staff and Council are responding to multiple priorities and I acknowledge you are successfully managing our health and safety basics. I make two comments with considerable forethought. It is human nature for everyone to be distracted with immediate and shorter-term issues. I see city staff and Council being driven by pre-virus thinking. Please rethink how you prioritize issues and provide decision-friendly context. #1 I have prepared hundreds of agendas for public meetings. I understand the artform. Nevertheless, I think it is mistake to put the city budget scenarios at the end of the meeting when council and public effectiveness will be at low ebb. This is outdated Palo Alto management tradition and does not help anyone prepare for very difficult decisions ahead. The real work will begin May 11 and the Council can easily devote an intense, time-limited 75-minute discussion a week in advance. Now is the time to break from traditions and be creative. Please move this agenda item to the front of the Council meeting. #2 Bureaucracies such as our city government must follow the dictates of outside mandates. I assume that SB743 does not give staff or Council many options to evaluate concepts which may be outdated by mid-term market forces and eventually by the legislature itself. If it is absolutely necessary "to study" such serious policies as VMT and LOS, then proceed. If urgency is not necessary, table this agenda item so that common sense and sense of community can reset themselves. Attached is yesterday's column by Dan Walters. He is writing on what 90% of Californians are thinking. Legislation such as SB743 is, in my opinion, been rendered secondary by powerful, new market forces for housing and public transportation. Rider psychology for public transit will be uncertain for many months. Financing for service levels is very unstable. Private sector response for substitute modes should be surveyed as soon as possible. Please move this agenda item to the end of the Council meeting. Please consider these two excerpts from Walters' column. This context is missing in the staff report. "The COVID-19 pandemic is a horrible human tragedy.....The numbers change minute-by- minute but suggest that in America your chances of being infected may depend on where you stand on the economic ladder, how closely you live and work in the company of others, and how diligently you and your neighbors take precautions." 2 "That study indicates that the pandemic potentially has a long way to run and that Los Angeles will continue to be its California epicenter. The data also imply that we shouldn’t be eagerly pushing Californians to live in high-density housing, give up their cars and ride transit." Neilson Buchanan Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Redacted 412412020 Commentary: COVID-19's very unequal toll I CelMatters Take, for example, the startling contrast between what's been happening in New York and its neighboring states versus what's been happening, or not happening, in California. As of Tuesday, according to the New York Times, the nation had counted 37,818 COVID-19 deaths, but New York alone had 14,347 or 38% of the national total, and adding New Jersey (4,377), Pennsylvania (1,366) and Connecticut (1,331) brought the region's share to nearly 57%. Three-thousand miles away in California, with twice the population of New York, COVID-19 had claimed just 1,225 lives -tragic for those Californians' families, of course, but a blessing for the state as a whole. In fact, at just 3 deaths per 100,000 of population, California has had one of the nation's lowest mortality rates to date while New York's 74per100,000 is 25 times as high. Why the huge difference? Someday we'll have a complete scientific answer, but clearly the high densities of living, working and traveling (often on crowded subway trains and buses) in New York City and environs have contributed to the heavy human toll, as did New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's footdragging on imposing precautions. Most Californians, meanwhile, live in low-density neighborhoods, either in single-family homes or small rental complexes. Californians are often mocked for preferring cars to mass transit, but it's probably saved thousands of lives. California also instituted some of the nation's earliest shelter-at-home measures to limit person- to-person contact and Californians, most of us anyway, have been diligent about adhering to them. Within the state, too, one finds very disparate conditions. California's hot spot is Los Angeles County, which has a quarter of the state's population but has accounted for more than half of its COVI D-19 deaths. While California's death rate is 3 per 100,000 Los Angeles County's is twice as high at 6, by far the state's highest. Why Los Angeles County? Most Angelenos, unlike New Yorkers, live in low-rise homes and apartments. However, past studies have told us that because of poverty and a chronic lack of affordable housing, two or even three families may live in one housing unit and that auxiliary units, such as illegally converted garages, https:/fcalmatters.orglcommentarylcovid-19-califomia-new-york-death-rate/ 216 412412020 Commentary: COVID-19's very unequal toll I CelMatters are common in poor neighborhoods. It's difficult to practice social distancing in such crowded circumstances, making infection more likely. Moreover, Los Angeles County has the state's highest rate of poverty, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, with at least 40% of its population rated as poor or near-poor. The pandemic-induced recession has hit Los Angeles County particularly hard, with an estimated 50% of its jobs at least temporarily erased. On Monday, Los Angeles County health officials released preliminary results of a study suggesting that roughly 4.1% of the county's adult population has already had the coronavirus, which translates to between 221,000 and 442,000 people, many times the number of confirmed cases. That study indicates that the pandemic potentially has a long way to run and that Los Angeles will continue to be its California epicenter. The data also imply that we shouldn't be eagerly pushing Californians to live in high-density housing, give up their cars and ride transit. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU Want to submit a guest commentary or reaction to an article we wrote? You can find our submission guidelines here. Please contact Gary Reed with any commentary questions: gary@calmatters.org, (916) 234-3081. SUBSCRIBE TO WHAT MATTERS FOLLOW THE LATEST ON THE CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK. SIGN UP FOR OUR FREE NEWSLETTER. https:/fcalmatters.orglcommentarylcovid-19-califomia-new-york-death-rate/ 316 4/2412020 Commentary: COVID-19's very unequal toll I CalMatters READ NEXT Californians complying, but for how long? READ ARTICLE ~ LATEST IN COMMENTARY COMMENTARY COMMENTARY What parents are saying Remember the benefits of about California's California's initiative process https://calmattars.org/commentary/covid-19-califomia-new-york-death-rata/ 4/6 Commentary: COVID-19'9 very unequal !all I CalMallanl coronavirus-related school closures COMMENTARY California farmworkers need protection during coronavirus crisis; here's a relief package to help COMMENTARY It's time to take a hard look at tax reform for California's future h .. :/fcelmatters.org/commentary/COllid-19-califomia-new-york-cleath-ratlrl and the right for citizens to make laws directly COMMENTARY Opportunities are plentiful to sustain California agriculture in the face of water supply uncertainties COMMENTARY Celebrating Earth Day and the power of conservation partnerships 518 412412020 Commentary: COVID-19's very unequal toll I CelMatters © 2020 Cal Matters Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Submission Guidelines Support Cal Matters and Independent Journalism Sign up for CalMatters Powered by https:/fcalmatters.orglcommentarylcovid-19-califomia-new-york-death-rate/ 616 1 Baumb, Nelly From:margaret spak <pegspak@sonic.net> Sent:Friday, April 24, 2020 3:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Follow Milpitas CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,  I live just over the border with Santa Clara County in Menlo Park.  I generally do my grocery shopping in Palo Alto, thereby  contributing to your local economy.  I have noticed that compliance with Santa Clara Health Dept guidelines to wear a face covering in public especially in confined  spaces such as super markets is lacking.  Because Santa Clara Co does NOT REQUIRE face coverings in public spaces, super markets  do not make it mandatory for customers to wear them in order to shop.  This means that there are shoppers running around super markets that could be infected with Covid‐19 without the appropriate face  coverings. And it is near impossible to social distance at 6 feet in super markets, especially ones as small as Whole Foods and  Country Sun in Palo Alto.  This creates a situation that is unsafe for both shoppers and employees.  I URGE the City Council to pass an ordinance, as soon as possible, requiring face coverings in public areas such as the one recently  passed in the City of Milpitas.  Please do the right thing to protect the residents of Palo Alto and those of us who would like to shop  in Palo Alto.  Thank you for your consideration of this request.  Sincerely,  Margaret Spak   ‐‐   Menlo Park, CA 94025 650 325-1442 (land line) 650 208-2578 (cell) Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Guillaume Bienaime <guillaumebienaime@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Outdoor dining CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello everyone,     I wanted to acknowledge the effort you've been putting in to help out local businesses. Thank you.     I also wanted to proposed the idea of allowing parklets in Palo Alto as Menlo Park and San Carlos have done.    With restrictions on restaurant seating almost certain in the near to medium future, this would be a great way for  restaurants to add seating while maintaining social distancing.     I believe we are going to see a radical change in consumer habits for the next couple of years. And we should have  radical responses in order to maintain small business and a vibrant community.    Thank you for your consideration.    Guillaume      ‐‐   Guillaume Bienaimé  Proprietor  Zola  zolapa.com  barzolapa.com        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:46 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:dentist CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I would like for the Council to pass a resolution to have dentists and periodontists declared essential businesses. To have this resolution sent to the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors and the Governor. Having teeth and gums taken care of is essential. This is a medical necessity. I have a gum problem which will get worse without cleaning of my teeth. I'm in danger of losing teeth! I have been told this by my dentist and periodontist many times. There have to be millions of people who need dental care urgently. I cannot understand why dental care was not considered essential. Natalie Fisher  Palo Alto   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kevin Stevenson <kevin@app-render.us> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 3:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Coronavirus and Summer Heat/Fire Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello,    I’m a Palo Alto resident and worried about the increasing heat in the Bay Area paired with coronavirus restrictions.    As heat increases my house becomes incredibly hot, and it’s not fit for generally being outfit with AC, it’s pretty poorly  insulated, as are many houses in the Bay.    I’m wondering what our plan or process as a community is for what to do in extreme heat, coronavirus, and potential  forest fire and PG&E power outages. I think there’s a potential for real and lasting damage to many people, and choosing  between heat stroke, infection, or lung damage from fire smoke is not ideal.    I’d love to hear any information you have, or tips on how to best prepare for the upcoming months.    Regards,  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Marcus Wood <mcwood196@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 4:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Reopening the city CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I would like to suggest that we use the summer and good weather to provide outdoor seating (and social distancing) for  all restaurants.  We could do this by eliminating parking in front of the restaurants.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:davidlovepianos@comcast.net Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 4:58 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian Subject:Piano Tuning and Repair Services and COVID-19 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to encourage you to include piano repair services as a trade that can go back to operating sooner than  later.  As a group we are collectively concerned with the safety of both ourselves and our customers but the demand is  increasing with the shelter in place as many people turn to both playing more music at home and teachers use Zoom  services and customer’s home pianos for their lessons.    Our trade has put into place several protocols to protect everyone involved and those practices are outlined on my  website (see below).  Typically we work alone or with a substantial amount of distancing, we can wear masks and have a  disinfecting protocol in place both before we start and after we leave.  With our interactions with customers, even in  their homes, it is easy to maintain safe distances and get paid electronically to minimize any contact.     I realize we are not a big group of tradespeople but I hope you consider us as essential workers in the same way you  have included appliance repair or auto repair.  Our ability to distance is certainly easier than either of those two trades.     Thanks    David Love  www.davidlovepianos.com  415 407 8320  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:37 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; dallen1212 @gmail.com; Daniel Zack; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; Raymond Rivas; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; Jason Tarvin; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; Mayor; nick yovino; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all. 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 26, 2020 at 9:25 PM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 9:01 PM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:47 PM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:43 PM  2 Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:32 PM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:28 PM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:23 PM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:58 AM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:48 AM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>,  Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, <dallen1212@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>,  David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>      3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:42 AM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:41 AM  Subject: Fwd: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:24 AM  Subject: 28 min. interview of Fauci, Thurs. April 24, 2020. Recommend to all.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Sunday, April 26, 2020            Doug‐   I strongly recommend this Fauci interview. Here you get the truth, instead of B.S. from Wall St. Don.  It helps  to take this in two sittings.             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvezKf7ML3E               I liked how Trump was saying Thurs. that "little up‐croppings of the virus might happen in the fall and we'll stamp  them out". Even that "It might not come back in the fall". THEN Fauci got up and said, at a higher Db than usual,   "The  virus will be with us in the fall!".     Right in front of Trump. He said there "because of its global nature",  among o. things.  He used the word "global".  Well, yeah!  Somebody said that there are countries in Africa and Asia that have almost NO  HC systems! The virus will be devastating there, and those places will be huge reservoirs of the virus. That is why the  former head of the CDC said weeks ago that we will have to spend money in other countries. We could say "Let 'em  hang", but with millions infected in those places, they will keep re‐infecting us. Apparently it is nearly impossible to raise  the draw bridges and keep a big country like the U.S. sealed off. You'd have to halt all diplomatic, military, scientific  travel into and out of the U.S. People would come in in shipping containers and swim the Rio Grande, if nothing else.                     I hope that Mayor Brand and his new task force to re‐open Fresno will each watch this  ‐the Fauci interview,  above‐ more than once.  They don't want blood on their hands if they have any sense at all. They'll each get sued and  prosecuted if they screw this up. That's a promise from me.                 Now two more excellent vids, must‐viewing for any public officials tasked with re‐opening.  Fresno Mayor Brand's  task force should watch these more than once and take notes. They are full of information on how New York State will  try to re‐open.  I also hope that Gov. Newsom's people will watch them:   These are press conferences by Gov. Cuomo  on Friday, April 24, 2020 and on Sunday, April 26, 2020.                     Gov. Cuomo on Friday, April 24, 2020:    4                   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK59TLpOELU                In that vid. Gov. Cuomo details what could happen if the region is opened too quickly.  A rapid surge, a rebound,  worse than the initial epidemic.That should scare anyone about re‐opening too fast.                                   And here is Gov. Cuomo on Sunday, April 26, 2020: This is full of information about their plan to try to re‐ open:  Notice especially here his discussion  of the  R‐nought      measurement at 13:17. A critical measurement of how  fast the virus is spreading.   It should be between .8 and 1.2.    This measures how many other people an infected person  is infecting. If that measure reaches 1.2, you have to pull back on your easing of restrictions:   See his discussion about  this again starting at 32:00. He says that if people don't follow the guidelines, you could blow through  .8 to 1.2  like  wind in the rushes.                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgQbRHaX3K4               In these two vids by Gov. Cuomo, one sees the plan of New York State to try to re‐open. I wish the teams in Albany  and Sacramento could compare the two plans. They both might see things they want to add to their plan.             And finally, here is Gov. Newsom on Friday, April 24, 2020.  He talks a lot here about the new program to provide 3  meals a day delivered to the elderly with underlying health conditions. Restaurants will supply the meals, the State and  FEMA will pay for all but 25% of the 25% the municipality must bear. And they will recover that part in sales taxes.  I  have yet to hear on local TV news in Fresno by Sunday night, April 26, 2020 one word about this. It will be a big deal: Big  business for local restaurants. I hope Fresno officials are aware of it.              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUsnYiD3DK8                           As of Saturday, April 25, 2020,                 Fresno Co. had 458 cases and 7 deaths.                                 Tulare Co. had 491 cases and 32 deaths.               As of Sunday, April 26, 2020,                Fresno Co. had 458 cases and 7 deaths.                                 Tulare Co. had 504 cases and 32 deaths.                   As we ramp up testing, the number of cases reported will increase a lot.                                               L. William Harding                     Fresno                        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 11:32 AM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Council, City Cc:Emily Mibach; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Dave Price; local@bayareanewsgroup.com; Nico Savidge; Zachary Clark Subject:Fwd: Business Insider: Novel coronavirus can live for 72 hours on bus and subway surfaces - Business Insider CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To all:    Fyi re Caltrain and the implications of Covid 19 for mass transit in general:    Business Insider: Novel coronavirus can live for 72 hours on bus and subway surfaces ‐ Business Insider.  https://www.businessinsider.com/novel‐coronavirus‐can‐live‐on‐bus‐and‐subway‐surfaces‐2020‐4      Gov. Cuomo says novel coronavirus can live on bus and subway surfaces for 72 hours, posing an ongoing concern for transit employees and riders  According to researchers live coronavirus particles can survive anywhere from three hours to seven days on surfaces, depending on the material.    New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo emphasized the lifespan of the novel coronavirus in the air and on surfaces while describing the challenges facing the city's massive public transport system during the novel coronavirus pandemic.   "The virus can live up to 72 hours on plastic surfaces and stainless-steel surfaces," Cuomo said in a press conference Friday. "Just think about this from a transit point of view or from your car point of view. It can live on a pole in a bus or on a seat in a bus for up to 72 hours."  Cuomo's statements about the virus' lifespan, sources for which the governor hadn't referenced, echoed reports that live coronavirus particles, which typically spread via droplets from an infected person's coughs or sneezes, can survive for anywhere from three hours to seven days on surfaces, depending on the material — and are particularly significant for commonly touched surfaces on like those on the city's highly trafficked trains and buses, infecting passengers and workers alike.  In addition to surfaces, Cuomo said the virus spreading through the air also remains a concern.    Re Caltrain, a few other data points:  It bears remembering that Caltrain's ridership dropped in two of three years prior to the pandemic    2 "Caltrain’s average weekday ridership grew rapidly over a six-year span, from 34,120 boardings in 2010 to 62,416 in 2016, increasing roughly 10% a year. But the growth stopped abruptly after that, with boardings staying relatively flat in 2017, rising 1.5% in 2018, and dropping 2.3% this year."  https://padailypost.com/2019/07/23/caltrain-annual-ridership-numbers-fall/  Although Caltrain ridership showed declines in both 2017 and 2019, Caltrain's business plan projected tripling ridership by 2040.  Caltrain's new vision calls for tripling ridership by 2040  Staff recommends scenario that would accommodate about 180,000 riders, require more than $22B in investment https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/07/23/caltrains-new-vision-calls-for-tripling-ridership-by-2040   While Caltrain's business plan projecting tripling ridership seemed quite optimistic then, given its ridership history, how  realistic are these projections now, given what Gov. Cuomo discussed?      "The virus can live up to 72 hours on plastic surfaces and stainless‐steel surfaces," Cuomo said in a press  conference Friday. "Just think about this from a transit point of view or from your car point of view. It can live on  a pole in a bus or on a seat in a bus for up to 72 hours."    Perhaps once an effective Covid 19 vaccine is produced, or when herd immunity to the virus is achieved, Caltrain  ridership will eventually rebound to its prior levels.  For now, Caltrain ridership has declined by 90% and service has been  cut by more than half.     Caltrain to slash weekday service by more than half starting next week  As with the Bay Area's other public transit entities, Caltrain ridership has plummeted as the coronavirus outbreak has worsened. Sales of one-way and day pass train fares have fallen 86% from their levels prior to the outbreak, while daily ticket sales fell 95% on the first day of the Bay Area's shelter-in-place order.  https://almanacnews.com/news/2020/03/26/caltrain-to-slash-weekday-service-by-more-than-half- starting-next-week    As for predictions about the future regarding Covid 19 and its impacts on Caltrain and other services:     “We anticipate that this pandemic is going to be going on for a very, very, very long time. We know that we do  not have immunity in the population. Nor do we have a vaccine,” Cody said. “So any time that we let up on our  mitigation measures, we are going to expect to see a spike in cases, hospitalizations and deaths. That is certain.”  https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020‐04‐24/bay‐area‐likely‐to‐extend‐stay‐at‐home‐order‐san‐ francisco‐mayor‐says    White House coronavirus task force coordinator Deborah Birx on Sunday said social distancing will continue through the summer, as confirmed cases in the United States near one million.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/26/coronavirus‐latest‐news/     Nicholas A. Christakis MD, PhD, MPH, is the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science, Internal Medicine and Biomedical Engineering and directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University.    3 “In the fall, I think there is at least a 75% chance it will come back with a second wave as it did in 1918 and 1957 pandemics,” he said.” I don’t know that it will be deadlier, but there will be a second wave and we will have to prepare ourselves for it.”   However, even the brief respite is still months away, he said. “We are just at the beginning of this first wave” and there is still much damage to come.   https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-s-ahead-covid-19-expert-offers-forecast- summer-fall  Caltrain's previously optimistic projections prompted the City to discuss grade separation proposals. Those projections  are no longer valid, if they were previously.   Further, given the prevalence of telecommuting during this crisis, new work  patterns may affect any new projections.    Thanks for listening.     Best,    Kathy Jordan    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 12:24 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Fw: dentist CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I just read an article in today's Post that reported the SC County counsel said that dental offices are considered essential and can remain open. Some choose to close, however. Both my dentist and periodontist chose to close their offices and only do emergency work! Natalie   From: Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>  Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 12:45 PM  To: Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; city council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: dentist      I would like for the Council to pass a resolution to have dentists and periodontists declared essential businesses. To have this resolution sent to the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors and the Governor. Having teeth and gums taken care of is essential. This is a medical necessity. I have a gum problem which will get worse without cleaning of my teeth. I'm in danger of losing teeth! I have been told this by my dentist and periodontist many times. There have to be millions of people who need dental care urgently. I cannot understand why dental care was not considered essential. Natalie Fisher  Palo Alto   1 Baumb, Nelly From:carol knight <chetanacarol@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 11:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re:face masks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,     Face masks in public places are suggested but not required. Some groceries require them to be able to shop in their  stores. Being in the elderly vulnerable group, I appreciate that.     I would like the city of Palo Alto to make it mandatory for everyone in any essential store, both customers and  employees, to wear face coverings. In smaller stores, where social distancing is harder, this would give extra protection.   Thank you.    Carol Knight, MD.    Palo Alto, CA 94306      Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:dental care CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This is from the SC County website, FAQ I run a dental facility – should I continue to provide cleanings and non-urgent dental services to patients? No. As recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), dental facilities should postpone elective procedures, surgeries, and non-urgent dental visits, and prioritize urgent and emergency visits.  You should contact your dentist to inquire about whether a dental service is urgent or should be deferred. Dentists should refer to guidance that is available on the CDC website at: www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/statement- COVID.html. This is terrible! There are many non-urgent needs of patients for dental care. All dental care is essential. To postpone indefinitely surgeries and dental cleaning is dangerous to patients. Even regular cleaning is needed for people with gum problems. I would ask the Council to send a resolution to open up dental practices for all procedures tp the County Board of Supervisors and the Governor. The CDC recommends the restrictions; they are not mandatory. Natalie Fisher Palo Alto   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Gardners CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,  Question for all of  you.  I see all the city gardeners still doing their job and traveling in one car, so fair to say  not social distancing, maybe wearing a mask. I also see city workers in trenches no masks and not 6ft  apart.  Why is it okay for the city workers to continue to garden and not the residences.  Maybe the argument  is they are "essential" but I would say so are regular gardeners for the people who have the space for their  families to go outside and play.  If one is used to always having gardeners they don't have the equipment to  upkeep their own lawns.  I would say most of the gardeners are driving themselves or with other family  members and aren't inside peoples home and maintaining their yards.  It will cost people more to try to get  their lawns back into shape.  I also have been over to Stanford and they don't have any of their gardeners  working.  So I ask the question why do the city gardeners get to work but no one elses and they don't follow  the rules of 6ft.  Inquiring minds would like to know.  Time to get some people back to work if they can  amy    Amy Keohane  650‐346‐5306  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Mohammad <moe_176@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 24, 2020 4:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:proposed Tobacco Retail Permit Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Thanks for giving the time and effort to structure the ordinance , and that makes a total sense to keep only the 21+  stores (smoke shops ) to sell vape liquid and flavored Tobacco ,I think that’s very smart.  Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:holdonbestrong@riseup.net Sent:Saturday, April 25, 2020 12:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Flavored Vaping Products CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear city council,                     i was under the impression the sale of flavored tobacco products were banned . I am concerned local. every  time i'm downtown there are teenagers in the alley adjacent to Macs smoke shop asking passerby's if i could buy them  flavored vape pens. If they were banned, when does the ban go into effect or is it not being enforced? thank you very  much.      sincerely  Angela  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lori Khoury <khoury7eleven@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 11:29 AM To:Council, City Cc:Weiss, Julie; Bobel, Phil Subject:Fw: From Mac's Smoke Shop re: Amendment to Tobacco Retail Ordinance - request to adopt as written CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, We are the owner's of Mac's Smoke Shop located at 534 Emerson Street, Palo Alto. I am writing to you for two reasons: 1) I respectfully request your support to adopt the new Tobacco Ordinance as written in the Staff Report to be presented on May 4, 2020. As a responsible adult-only store, the ordinance as written would all us to continue business without the threat of having to close our doors by year-end. 2) As you can well imagine, the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated our business over these past several weeks. The pandemic, coupled with not allowing us to continue to sell products responsibly as an adult only-store will literally cripple us and our livelihood. I would like to remind you that Mac's is a Palo Alto institution and has been around for over 80 years. We love our business and love Palo Alto. We hope to be around for many years to come. We have always maintained our impeccable record of being in compliance with all rules and regulations and will continue to do so with the utmost care. Sincerely, Neil and Lori Khoury Mac's Smoke Shop 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cost reductions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council - In City Manager Shikada's memo to defer projects and reduce costs, he recommends, under Planning and Infrastructure, to make changes to the City's Municipal Code regarding applications associated with wireless communication facilities. On page 7 of his letter, he says the City should: "explore amendments to the City's municipal code to scale back on application processing requirements associated with wireless communication facilities. Explore other amendments to reduce the number of applications requiring review by the architectural review board and elimination of the individual review program to free up resources that support the Council's long- range planning policy interests." We are all aware of the urgent need to reign in costs given the reduced revenues, but this suggestions does not do that because the ARB reviews are funded by the wireless communication companies. I view this as a stealth effort to gut a protection in the Municipal Code that many residents supported. If Mr. Shikada is sincere and serious about cost reductions in this critical time, and I am sure he is, then I would think he - and other senior City Staff- might agree to a temporary reduction in their salaries, as has Stanford University has done. I suggest that the Council take this suggestion under advisement. Arthur Liberman 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 6:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:Kathy Jordan; sara@padailypost.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; local@bayareanewsgroup.com; Aldo Toledo; Emily Mibach Subject:Cities raising pay as economic recession begins | Palo Alto Daily Post CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://padailypost.com/2020/04/28/cities‐raising‐pay‐as‐economic‐recession‐begins/amp/      Fyi ‐ given the pandemic, you may not have seen this...  Thanks.  KJ      Time to get serious The cities in the mid-Peninsula have got to come to grips with how bad this recession will become. They ought to expect their sales tax and hotel tax revenues will drop dramatically, and a year from now, property tax revenues will crash too. To keep operating, cities will have to follow the lead of Stanford Health Care, which cut pay 20% across the board. Our cities have to look at pay cuts and layoffs. Real layoffs, not laying off an employee who stays on the payroll by taking an unfilled but budgeted position. It’s time for our cities to face up to the fact that this recession will be brutal, and this isn’t the time for raises and business as usual. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 22, 2020 4:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Small business grant suggestion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    As you consider who should receive part of the $500k matching grant, I would put Antonio’s Nut House on the list of  potential recipients.  That place is Palo Alto’s LAST dive bar (since Old Pro and Oasis in MP have since closed to much  dismay).    The place is loved by many, especially the younger, diverse population we all presumably value.  And it’s almost always  packed on evenings.    I see an ownership change on their window, and a mention that the Mexican food restaurant inside will be open.  I hope  it stays the same soulful place.  I know they are struggling like everyone.   This place is a Palo Alto mainstay and highly  valued by our community.    I’m sure you’ve seen the news about Shake Shack getting $10 million of PPP.  Let’s not make the same mistake by given  grant money to an easily substituted vanilla establishment or chain.    Tough decisions ahead given our fiscal challenges.  Your thoughtful decisions are much appreciated.    Chris Robell    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Larry Yang <lyang8888@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:58 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Support for city-led small business relief fund CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I'm happy to see the City moving to establish a small business relief fund.     I agree that the fund should be administered by an organization experienced in collecting donations and disbursing grant  money, such as one of our local community foundations.    I also agree that this fund must include contributions from the community, and not just consist of city funds. I am ready  to donate thousands of dollars towards small business relief; I just need a vehicle that I have confidence will get the  money to the businesses who need it. The City should use its "bully pulpit" to rally others in the community to this  cause.    I've lived in Palo Alto for 30 years, and I can remember when University Ave, California Ave, Edgewater Plaza and Town  and Country were ghost towns. Through many hard‐fought years of city planning, they are now vibrant community  gathering places. I shudder to think how quickly those places will revert to the ghost towns of the past.    Thank you.    == Larry Yang  Ramona St  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Doug Minkler, Artist <dminkler@dminkler.com> Sent:Thursday, April 23, 2020 12:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Still vertical and on the job Attachments:ATT00001; ATT00002; ATT00003; ATT00004; ATT00005; ATT00006; ATT00007 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Still vertical and on the job   Dear Family, Friends and Fellow Artists, Just reaching out to let you know that I am still vertical and on the job. Our adversaries do not seem to be giving up, so neither can we. Below is a collection of recent works for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure). Click any image to view a larger version. Community support begins with an individual, usually someone in the line of fire. Because we are now all in the line of fire, please attach any of these posters to email or social media platforms you think may be relevant. My website is still floating around in space, but the lack of recent web activity or linkage is making the site invisible – So S.O.S. Special thanks to Adam Abrams, actor and master web captain, for getting this message safely launched and Willa Madden who put in many hrs designing the dminkler.com website. Also Gail Wiley, who created the text on many of the current works and deserves a lot of credit. It takes a village, Doug 4 6 8 To unsubscribe to this list, just click here. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Asian Americans Rising <asianamrising@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 24, 2020 10:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Requesting your support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Member,    We respectfully request your support on behalf of the faith community as represented by the enclosed signatories.        https://www.aarising.org/call‐to‐action.html    Sincerely,  Asian Americans Rising          1 Baumb, Nelly From:ANNIE BEDICHEK <abedichek@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please look at the science of how cell towers work.  The further away from the cell phones they are, the higher the  frequency they and the phones need to use to connect, and the higher exposure to users.  You want them closer to  places like schools, not farther away.  There are a lot of people with incorrect information and full of fears, like our PTSA  council.  Please do not listen to them on this important scientific issue.  They are incorrect and endangering people with  their incorrect information.  Cell phone towers are not dangerous, or cancer rates would have risen.  They have fallen.    We need good cell coverage, and with social distancing needed for the foreseeable future, we need it more than ever.    Thank you,  Annie Bedichek  PTA member, Palo Alto resident    Sent from my iPad  1 Baumb, Nelly From:wolfi99 <wolfi99@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 5:29 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Say NO to "scaling back on application processing requirements” for cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you NOT to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Wolfgang Himmelbauer, a concerned Palo Alto resident 1 Baumb, Nelly From:sumitra <ncfnorcalrep@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 6:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org Subject:Cell Tower Application Process CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, the city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements Mr. Shikada is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful setting and design criteria the City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019 Wireless Resolution---a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, the City Council.    I am also writing to urge the Council—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto--- most specifically as it applies to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.   2    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Sumitra Joy   College Terrace Neighborhood      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Di-Ann Eisnor <diann@eisnor.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 6:17 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers and City Manager Fees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. 2 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Di-Ann Eisnor nd Family 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Alex Ivashchenko <alex@ivashchenko.name> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 6:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Letter for City Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Alex Ivashchenko -- A.I. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sharleen Fiddaman <sf@sharleenfiddaman.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 6:54 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:budget cuts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.   I walk around my block and find the buzzing noise from cell tower installation very distressing! I walk my neighborhood and see many code violations. When reported I was told the city would hire more personnel to track and correct these. I am appalled at the enormous financial awards to Mr. Shikada .He does not have Palo Alto interests, just his own! For cost-cutting, I would fire him! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 2 Sharleen Fiddaman     Virus-free. www.avast.com   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Luce, Gwen <GLuce@cbnorcal.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:58 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Re: Cell Tower Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, In the interests of cost-cutting, I believe City Manager, Edward Shikada is recommending that Palo Alto’s municipal code be amended to “scale back” on the cell tower application processing to include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I believe this step is unwise - it fails to save money for Palo Alto - rather, it benefits the companies file applications to install the cell towers.   Mr. Shikada’s recommendation will cancel the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on the City Council unanimously approved just four months ago—ignoring them and making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes!   Like many cities, Palo Alto PTAs have joined the PAUSD School Board requesting greater setbacks for cell towers. The school community has clearly requested that you update our City wireless standards to be1500 ft. setbacks of cell towers from schools. This same location standard and setbacks needs to be applied to all cell towers, including macro towers.  It is alarming to me that the City Manager’s recommendation ignores the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution - the culmination of three years of community and City Council efforts. 2 Also, I strongly ask that you don’t reduce the number of code enforcement employees, also recommended by Mr. Shikada —a this reduction in code enforcement and compliance personnel would threaten the safety and well-being of all Palo Altans, especially regarding the installation of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.   Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely, Gwen Luce , Palo Alto 94306       *Wire Fraud is Real*.  Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to  confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a  real estate contract via written or verbal communication.  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Samuel W Brain PhD <samb@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Do not amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing, please. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    Samuel W Brain, Ph.D.    ‐‐  Sam Brain, Ph.D., Stanford Cancer Center, , Stanford, CA 94305-5847.   Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kelly Chang <kellyc319@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:21 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Colby Subject:DO NOT eliminate the ARB review process - KEEP CELL TOWERS AWAY! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. This is very concerning, especially during these times when our family's health is already at risk from the corona-virus pandemic. Are you telling us that not only will we be stuck in our homes 24/7, but now the city manager is going to put us at risk while we shelter-in-place by trying to relax 5G installation restrictions? Our home is pretty much our only place of sanctuary during this unprecedented time. People are already suffering emotionally, mentally, financially, and some physically. We should not also have to worry about whether we will be confronted with an ugly, noisy, and possibly dangerous cell towers right next to our homes at this point. Do the right thing here. Your residents are doing their best and are staying home for the greater good, let us be able to at least enjoy our homes without worry.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.  2   I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.     Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    Kelly and Colby Ranger  Resident of t          Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Alice Holmes <AHolmes@renault-handley.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; 'board@pausd.org'; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower Application Processing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale-back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three-year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of 2 hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Alice Holmes Resident of Palo Alto since 1986 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Agata Barczynska <agata.maslanka@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:42 PM To:Council, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      2 Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Agata Barczynska   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Eugene Spevakov <spevakov@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:12 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Maintain current cell tower standards and application process CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. 2 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eugene Spevakov Palo Alto, CA 94306 Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:33 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.   2    Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Annette Evans Fazzino  650.799.7414  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Celia Boyle <swcie@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed; board@pausd.org Subject:Fwd: Please do not scale back on cell tower application processing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Lydia Kou and Tanaka,      City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing— a scale-back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step first because its just bad policy to circumvent the processing you unanimously approved only four months ago, and also because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. As you know, it is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three-year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Celia Boyle and Jay Hopkins    Palo Alto   Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Leo Povolotsky <leopovolhoa@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 5:51 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Jeanne Fleming Subject:NO to safety CUTS by city manager! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,  I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.   I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.   Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.   The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.  I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.   Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  2 Leo Povolotsky For United Neighbors   Palo Alto resident of 28 years  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Francesca Kautz <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 8:39 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Please do not scale back on cell tower application processing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.     And lastly, as Palo Alto strains to cut its budget, there might be some room for cost-cutting in Mr. Shikada’s compensation, and room, as well, for some cost-cutting in the compensation of other, similarly generously-paid senior city staff. (As a point of comparison, senior Stanford administrators are taking pay cuts ranging from five to 20 percent.)      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Francesca Kautz  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 9:34 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:"Scaling-back" cell tower application processing doesn't save money and is bad policy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.   Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Lum <outrageouslums@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 9:49 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org Cc:Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City Subject:No new cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. This is called busy work. Creating work, for the sake of having something to do. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will save money.    Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Robert Lum  Barron Park  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Leonard Schwarz <lschwarz@right-thing.net> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 10:11 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:"Scaling-back" cell tower application processing doesn't save money and is bad policy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.   Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Leonard Schwarz lschwarz@right-thing.net       1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lisa Jones <lijo61@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 11:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Please reject recommendation from City Manager Ed Shikada CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Resending with correct city council email. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Lisa Jones <lijo61@yahoo.com> To: City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.or <city.council@cityofpaloalto.or> Cc: Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; ARB@cityofpaloalto.org <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org <board@pausd.org>; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020, 11:09:55 AM PDT Subject: Please reject recommendation from City Manager Ed Shikada Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, It is my understanding that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost- cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale-back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. The companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, “scaling back” application processing requirements saves money for the applicants - not the city. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. 2 I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lisa Jones (Palo Alto resident) 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Krassimira Harwell <krassuna@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 12:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.     Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    Krassimira Harwell          1 Baumb, Nelly From:Willy Lai <willyhlai@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 12:33 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Please do not scale back on cell tower application processing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. 2 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Willy Lai 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Melody Song <shanghaimelody@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 2:52 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:amendment to the municipal code to “scale back on application processing requirements" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Jing Song      1 Baumb, Nelly From:James VanHorne <james_vanhorne@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 3:21 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Cell tower oversight relaxation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members     As a long time Palo Alto resident I believe it is inappropriate to reduce application requirements for cell equipment on  city telephone poles, as proposed by the City Manager.  This involves eliminating oversight by the Archectural Review  Board in the approval process and the reduced oversight of municipal code enforcement of equipment once  installed.  Both are inappropriate and inconsistent with your previously approved procedures.  Verizon employs a 5G  technology that is limited in distance.  As a result, it will try to blanket the city with hundreds of installations of  equipment.    I urge you to reject these moves as unwise when it comes to the quality of life, and perhaps safety, of Palo Alto  residents.  Thank you for your consideration.    James C. Van Horne, , P.A.      Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Rahn <annetterahn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 3:45 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,      I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale-back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three-year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel 2 may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Annette Rahn  Palo Alto              1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathleen Martin <kvmartin@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 4:48 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; The Palo Alto School Board Subject:Opposition to City Manager Ed Shikada's recommendations relating to cost cutting in cell phone tower application, installation and operation. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka: I oppose the recommendations of City Manager Ed Shidada to : 1.) scale back the cell tower application process 2.) reduce the number of code enforcement employees involved in the installation and ongoing operation of cell towers. Thank you, Kathleen Martin 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 5:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:please keep wireless standards in place CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I hope you are all well in this challenging time. I sincerely appreciate the hard work you are doing for our city. There are tough decisions required and yet this is not the time to scale back on things you worked so hard together on, including the cell tower application process most recently updated in the Dec 2019 wireless resolution.    City Council unanimously approved these new wireless standards only four months ago and there is no need to undermine these now, which would simply make it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. Wireless providers are paying for all the staff time required. If needed, this could instead be a time when the city could actually pause the review of any applications due to the current situation.     Please keep measures in place to ensure code enforcement and compliance to preserve the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto.     Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Tina Chow  Barron Park  Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 5:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.or Subject:Standing against high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice‐Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,      I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost‐cutting, you amend Palo  Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale‐back which would include eliminating  the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step.  Why?  Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto.  It is the  companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these  applications.  In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the  applicants will.      Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy.  The reduced cell tower application processing  requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council  unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies  to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.      The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill‐informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the  December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three‐year‐long effort by our community and  a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you  reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance  personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well‐being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect  to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high‐voltage, radiation‐emitting equipment near  residents’ homes.       Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,         Ardan Michael Blum    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 6:35 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back that would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end-run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. This is unacceptable!!!     Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    Barbara Kelly  Washington Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 9401    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Lai <annwanglai@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 6:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Opposing Mr. Shikada's recommendation to scale back cell tower processing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. 2 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ann Lai 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 8:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell tower applications CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step.     Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.     Thank you for your consideration.  2   Sincerely,  Ann Protter  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:34 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org Subject:cell towers in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    We understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     We are writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    We are also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Richard and Carol Heermance  .  Palo Alto, CA 94301  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Architectural Review Board Subject:Think again about what to cut in PA's city budget CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,    I’m concerned that, as part of finding ways to save money in the looming budget crisis, the City Manager is recommending that Palo Alto amend its municipal code to eliminate the ARB from its role in the review process for cell phone tower applications. This makes no sense, since it will NOT save any money for the City. The cost of processing such cell phone tower applications is supposed to be fully borne by the applicants. By eliminating the ARB’s role, the only entity that will save money is the telecom industry applicant, not the City. (If, in actuality, the permit fees charged to an applicant are not fully covering the City’s costs, then the city should look more carefully at its fee structure, and raise those fees accordingly.)    The aesthetic standards of these installations are one of the major points of citizen concern, so eliminating the ARB’s role is not only fiscally imprudent, it’s also a denial of our community’s right to determine what constitutes an attractive cityscape. Only four months ago, Councill members spent some thoughtful time to determine siting and design criteria for such cell tower installations, and the City Manager’s ill-advised recommendation to remove the ARB’s role undermines the Council’s efforts to maintain our city’s attractiveness. The December 2019, Wireless Resolution was the result of a three-year-long collaborative process between Council and community members, and it would be poor public policy to abandon this significant community decision.     Moreover, the City Manager is also recommending to eliminate the Code Enforcement position whose responsibility is to ensure that once installed, such cell phone towers are no closer than 20 feet from residents’ homes. Without oversight from the City's enforcement staff, residents are vulnerable to high voltage and heavy equipment toppling onto their roofs in case of an earthquake or high velocity wind storm — and moreover, residents are not technically capable of determining whether the telecom equipment has exceeded permissible levels of radio frequency emissions.    Unfortunately, Palo Alto — and communities all across the nation — are heading into a serious financial recession. Finding ways to save money will certainly be important. Here is an opportunity for the Council and senior City management to exercise true leadership. It’s noteworthy, for example, that Stanford administrators and even their medical staff — are taking pay cuts ranging from 5 to 20%. Rather than the City cutting important community service jobs such as school crossing guards and community police patrols — or charging residents for repairing City infrastructure such as sidewalks — I think the Council ought to follow Stanford’s leadership in looking at management salaries. While we residents apprecitate the work of all our city staff, it seems appropriate that the burden of budget cuts — which will be felt by nearly all our citizens — should also be shared throughout our City staff, especially those who are among the most highly paid.  2   Thank you for your ongoing role in guiding our community through these difficult times.    Sincerley,    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:Tali Hardonag <thardonag@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell 2 towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,  Tali Hardonag    ‐‐     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Re: cell tower application processing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice‐Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I have come to understand that City Manager Ed Shikada recommends that, in the interests of cost‐cutting, you amend  Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale‐back which would include  eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.    Given that it fails to save money for Palo Alto as the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto,  that pay for staff time spent on these applications. It serves no purpose with regard to the intent of saving Palo Alto  money.    I feel Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is poor, if not bad, public policy.  I for one appreciate the thoughtful siting and  design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago! His recommendation will at best  undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. It  is important to acknowledge the Wireless Resolution, a resolution that was the result of a three‐year‐long effort by our  community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    Also urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the  number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel  may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well‐being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the  installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high‐voltage, radiation‐emitting equipment near  residents’ homes.    As always thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  ‐Phil Coulson  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Melinda McGee <melinda_mcgee@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower City Manager Attempts to bypass the concerns of Palo Alto Taxpayers = Disaster Capitalism to benefit Telecom companies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,     I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will.     Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.     The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.    I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes.      Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Melinda McGee  .  Palo Alto, CA 94306  650‐704‐6236  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Tower application processing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Fine, Vice-Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale- back which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the applicants will. Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies to install cell towers next to residents’ homes. The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill-informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three- year-long effort by our community and a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council. I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting equipment near residents’ homes. 2 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jyotsna Nimkar 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jaewoo Jung <planet9@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:requesting greater setbacks for cell towers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Consistent with many cities, PTAC joins our PAUSD School Board in requesting greater setbacks for cell towers. In particular, please update our City wireless standards to be consistent with the standards advocated for by the Palo Alto PTA Council and PAUSD School Board for 1500 ft. setbacks of cell towers from schools. Please apply that same location standard and setbacks to ALL cell towers, including macro towers.     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Heidi Yauman <heidi.yauman@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 22, 2020 12:45 PM To:laura.hall@eahhousing.org Cc:Scott Largent; heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com Subject:EAH Housing - Markham Plaza Apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Visit me online at http://HeidiYauman.com  2 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, April 23, 2020 3:22 AM To:Rich Constantine Cc:supreme.court@jud.ca.gov Subject:Re: Fines & Fees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Mr. Constantine,    I appear to have been mistaken regarding Loma Clara  Senior Living Center.   This does not appear to be operated by EAH  Housing, yet somehow appeared on some lists associating it with EAH.  (Still waiting for clarification on this)     Bella Tera however,  is managed by EAH Housing and located in Morgan Hill at 235 E. Dunne Avenue.    Thank you,  Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408‐318‐1105          On Apr 22, 2020, at 6:41 PM, Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote:  Dear Mr. .Constantine,     You understand that we can not do that as this is matter of public interest to the residents of Morgan  Hill.      Please make sure this email is retained on public record.    Additionally,  Loma Clara Senior Living Center is located in Morgan Hill,  and this pertains to a homicide  by EAH Housing which manages Loma Clara.  The homicide of Markham Plaza resident Robert Moss was  concealed from Civil Grand Jury investigation into the Santa Clara County Public Guardian.    Google Markham Plaza Attacks      Respectfully,  Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408‐318‐1105    Sent from my iPhone      On Apr 22, 2020, at 5:19 PM, Rich Constantine <Rich.Constantine@morganhill.ca.gov>  wrote:     2 To Whom it May Concern:    Please remove my email from this thread as soon as possible.    Thank you.      From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 3:07 PM  To: Brian McComas <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>  Cc: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov <sixth.district@jud.ca.gov>; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov  <supreme.court@jud.ca.gov>  Subject: Re: Fines & Fees      That is bullshit Brian and you know it.  This is substantial right. You are a liar and a  disgrace to the legal profession.  I do not waive oral argument and I am not appealing  the fines and fees.     The “caption of ship” argument you use citing carpenter does not apply to incompetent  legal counsel such as yourself .      Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.  Not infrequently, an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant on appeal  concludes that an appeal would be frivolous and requests that the appellate court allow  him to withdraw or that the court dispose of the case without the filing of merits briefs.  In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we held that, in order to protect indigent  defendants’ constitutional right to appellate counsel, courts must safeguard against the  risk of granting such requests in cases where the appeal is not actually frivolous. We  found inadequate California’s procedure–which permitted appellate counsel to  withdraw upon filing a conclusory letter stating that the appeal had “no merit” and  permitted the appellate court to affirm the conviction upon reaching the same  conclusion following a review of the record. We went on to set forth an acceptable  procedure. California has since adopted a new procedure, which departs in some  respects from the one that we delineated in Anders. The question is whether that  departure is fatal. We hold that it is not. The procedure we sketched in Anders is a  prophylactic one; the States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as those  procedures adequately safeguard a defendant’s right to appellate counsel.    Sent from my iPhone      On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Brian McComas  <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com> wrote:     Cary,    We have already gone over this several times, most recently in my email  to you on March 27:  3   "As you know, tactical decisions about the case are made by appointed  counsel.  You can abandon the appeal using the Notice of Abandonment  form we sent previously.  You can also substitute in new counsel using  the Substitution Form we also sent previously.  Otherwise, we are  proceeding as is without abandonment of any issues.  (See People v.  Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 376 ["Counsel is 'captain of the  ship'"].)"    Additionally, Mr. Robinson has already informed you that he will be  deferring all communications to me, so there is no reason to insist that  he respond to your emails.  In any event, given our prior  communications, we will not be responding to emails concerning this  issue further unless you are requesting to substitute counsel, abandon  appeal, or proceed pro per.    Brian C. McComas, Esq.  Law Office of B.C. McComas, LLP  PMB 1605, 77 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 101 San Francisco, CA 94102  Cell: 208-320-0383  Fax: 415‐520‐2310    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail is legally privileged and protected  by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‐2521.  If  the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the  employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended  recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or  copying of the communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have  received this e‐mail in error, please notify me immediately at (208) 320‐ 0383 and by return e‐mail, and delete all copies of this message. Thank  you.       On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:00 AM Cary Andrew Crittenden  <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote:  Make sure that Mr. McConas understands that I am not appealing the  fines and fees.    Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408‐318‐1105     WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Heidi Yauman <heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com> Sent:Thursday, April 23, 2020 11:44 AM To:Rich.Constantine@morganhill.ca.gov Cc:markhamplazata@gmail.com; news.room@bayareabusiness.news; scottlargent38@gmail.com; rua@uglyjudge.com; larry.carr@morganhill.ca.gov; yvonne.martinezbeltran@morganhill.ca.gov; rene.spring@morganhill.ca.gov; john.mckay@morganhill.ca.gov Subject:Richard Costantine - Morgan Hill Mayor ( Bella Terra Apartments ) Attachments:Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil Grand Jury Public Guardian.pdf; PublicGuardian.pdf; santa_clara_county_courts_covering_up_murders.jpg Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mr. Constantine, These people at are criminals and instead of censoring emails you need to make sure the residents of your Morgan Hill. specifically those living at Bella Tera are safe. It would be terrible thing if more lives are lost and you had the power to act, and protect people and didn't. Please do the right thing and protect the people in your city. This is what they did to me: https://heidiyauman.com/heidi-yauman-before-and-after/ (Before and after the Markham Plaza attacks) Heidi Yauman HeidiYauman.com 2 On 2020-04-23 06:22, Cary Andrew Crittenden wrote: Hello Mr. Constantine, I appear to have been mistaken regarding Loma Clara Senior Living Center. This does not appear to be operated by EAH Housing, yet somehow appeared on some lists associating it with EAH. (Still waiting for clarification on this) Bella Tera however, is managed by EAH Housing and located in Morgan Hill at 235 E. Dunne Avenue. Thank you, Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408-318-1105 On Apr 22, 2020, at 6:41 PM, Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote: Dear Mr. .Constantine, You understand that we can not do that as this is matter of public interest to the residents of Morgan Hill. Please make sure this email is retained on public record. Additionally, Loma Clara Senior Living Center is located in Morgan Hill, and this pertains to a homicide by EAH Housing which manages Loma Clara. The homicide of Markham Plaza resident Robert Moss was concealed from Civil Grand Jury investigation into the Santa Clara County Public Guardian. Google Markham Plaza Attacks Respectfully, Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408-318-1105 3 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 22, 2020, at 5:19 PM, Rich Constantine <Rich.Constantine@morganhill.ca.gov> wrote: To Whom it May Concern:     Please remove my email from this thread as soon as possible.     Thank you.     From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 3:07 PM  To: Brian McComas <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>  Cc: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov <sixth.district@jud.ca.gov>; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov <supreme.court@jud.ca.gov>  Subject: Re: Fines & Fees That is bullshit Brian and you know it. This is substantial right. You are a liar and a disgrace to the legal profession. I do not waive oral argument and I am not appealing the fines and fees. The "caption of ship" argument you use citing carpenter does not apply to incompetent legal counsel such as yourself . Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Not infrequently, an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant on appeal concludes that an appeal would be frivolous and requests that the appellate court allow him to withdraw or that the court dispose of the case without the filing of merits briefs. In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we held that, in order to protect indigent defendants' constitutional right to appellate counsel, courts must safeguard against the risk of granting such requests in cases where the appeal is not actually frivolous. We found inadequate California's procedure–which permitted appellate counsel to withdraw upon filing a conclusory letter stating that the appeal had "no merit" and permitted the appellate court to affirm the conviction upon reaching the same conclusion following a review of the record. We went on to set forth an acceptable procedure. California has since adopted a new procedure, which departs in some respects from the one that we delineated in Anders. The question is whether that departure is fatal. We hold that it is not. The procedure we sketched in Anders is a prophylactic one; the States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant's right to appellate counsel. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Brian McComas <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com> wrote: Cary, We have already gone over this several times, most recently in my email to you on March 27: "As you know, tactical decisions about the case are made by appointed counsel. You can abandon the appeal using the Notice of Abandonment form we sent previously. You can also substitute in new counsel using the Substitution Form we also sent previously. Otherwise, we are proceeding as is without abandonment of any issues. (See People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 376 ["Counsel is 'captain of the ship'"].)" 4 Additionally, Mr. Robinson has already informed you that he will be deferring all communications to me, so there is no reason to insist that he respond to your emails. In any event, given our prior communications, we will not be responding to emails concerning this issue further unless you are requesting to substitute counsel, abandon appeal, or proceed pro per. Brian C. McComas, Esq. Law Office of B.C. McComas, LLP PMB 1605, 77 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 101 San Francisco, CA 94102 Cell: 208-320-0383 Fax: 415-520-2310 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is legally privileged and protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately at (208) 320-0383 and by return e-mail, and delete all copies of this message. Thank you. On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:00 AM Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote: Make sure that Mr. McConas understands that I am not appealing the fines and fees. Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408-318-1105 WARNING: This message is from an external user. Confidential information such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank routing numbers, gift card numbers, wire transfer information and other personally identifiable information should not be transmitted to this user. For question, please contact the Morgan Hill IT Department by opening a new helpdesk request online or call 408-909-0055. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Michele Lew <michele_lew@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 24, 2020 9:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Honoring Dr. Sara Cody CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Fine and Members of the City Council,    I hope the Palo Alto City Council will consider honoring Dr. Sara Cody sometime this year.  As you may know, she is a  PAUSD grad (Walter Hays, Jordan, Paly), as well as a current Palo Alto resident and parent.  Dr. Cody has demonstrated  inspirational leadership, courage, and integrity throughout the pandemic so far.    While Dr. Cody is not one to seek acknowledgment, we as a community should publicly recognize and thank her for  saving lives ‐ in Palo Alto and beyond.    If I can assist with drafting a resolution in her honor, please don’t hesitate to let me know.  Thank you for your  consideration.    Sincerely,    Michele Lew  Palo Alto resident  650‐291‐5008  Michele_lew@yahoo.com  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 6:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:Mike Bechler; IMOGENE AND ROCHARD HILBERS Subject:City employees do not need more raises. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City employees do not need more raises.  They haven’t for years.  they don’t pay almost anything into their pensions.   The police do not enforce traffic calming at all.   The firefighters lied about an ambulance costing over  $2200. By omission.  City employees make over 20 and $30,000 a month  with benefits.  Few return calls.    They   have 13 Mondays off a year. They have every other Friday off.   Police only work four days a week maximum.  Our streets need Quality paving.     THE REASON FOR unions was to see that people could get enough to eat and feed their families.    This “let them eat cake”  attitude is nearly unethical.    Thank you for writing once again   About this.    2 Geri Mcgilvray   Palo Alto   Everyday safety and walkability   Geriart.net    Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, April 25, 2020 10:34 AM To:Council, City Cc:Parks Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Now that my spouse is working at home, every now and then he can drive me to and then pick me up from Foothills  Park so I can hike. He did this yesterday evening. To my surprise, I encountered quite a few people on the trails as well  as three male youths skateboarding on the roads.  Turns out, more than a few of these people were accessing the park  via the Charlie Brown fire road, as in they had walked or run onto the property from their residences in Los Altos Hills.    Not only do non‐residents access Foothills Park all along Page Mill Road, Portola Valley (los Trancos Woods) residents  walk or run into the park from use trails that connect to Los Trancos trail on the far side of the park.  I wish Parks and  Rec would do something about this, but now more than ever.  If Palo Alto residents can’t use their parks, why do Los  Altos Hills and Portola Valley residents get to do so?    Deb Goldeen,  94306, (650)321‐7375 Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Friday, April 24, 2020 8:24 AM To:Perla Simmons; Rachel Joy Simmons; Camille Lachica; Carol Macannico; Tom & Beth Simmons; Joanne Casey; Andres Lorraine; biotica@aol.com; Dennis Tiernan; Philip Hussa; Steve Kormondy; Lou Basile; drmeiswinkle@aol.com; Frank Agamennon; ezrider67@verizon.net; mkormondy@yahoo.com; zeke@verizon.net; Richard Gage; Rachel Simmons; mon.tp.coalition@gmail.com; Nancy Brais; Messina Mary; janet darcey; Frank Agamennon; Craig Simmons; Patty LaPlaca; Mark Schleck; Jackie Andres Schnell; Cassandra Khneiger; senator_menendez@menendez.senate.gov; "Dick" Saslaw; Loretta Weinberg; Nia Gill; Robert Menendez; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; Rekha Jaggernauth; Jeff Jaggernauth Cc:Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School Subject:Fwd: New Gun Laws Are SO Bad Hitler Would Be Jealous CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  It's later than you think. The KommieKrats and other assorted TYRANTS hate your 2A freedoms and want Mom & Pop  and all the law abiding persons disarmed. Meanwhile, the foreign drug gangs and assorted criminals and terrorrists that  they invited into their Sanctuary Cities with promises of  free everything, are arming up with full auto weapons.  Bringing  an AR‐15 "assault weapon" to a gunfight with them, against their full auto weapon, would be like bringing a knife to a  gunfight. In the 1900's, the Kommies and other assorted TYRANTS killed between 165 million and 250 million of their  2 own citizens, AFTER FIRST DISARMING THEM !   They are using the very same incremental tactics in the USA Today  !!!!!    Now they are trying to attaché their Draconian Laws as riders onto other necessary legislation.  Make no mistake  about it. Their laws are not meant to target the gangs, criminals and terrorrists, they are meant to target the law abiding  citizens and their God Given Rights of self defense. Why these TRAITORS are not being charged with TREASON,  FELONIOUS PERJURY, and CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW  is beyond me. Our Esteemed Founders would have them swinging from trees a long time ago.  Contact your  representatives and demand that they do something to rectify this situation immediately, before a civil war is sparked by  these pusillanimous finks with their TRAITOROUS DESIGNS !!!  And always remember that any law that does not  conform to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is NULL & VOID from inception, and absolutely no one has a right or  duty to OBEY or ENFORCE it. That comes straight from the SUPREMECY CLAUSE, found in ARTICLE SIX of the US  Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land.     Best Regards, Stay Healthy, & Arm Up !!!   And insist that they take their illegal, UnConstitutional laws and cram them  where the sun don't shine.  RJS    Begin forwarded message:  From: 50 Cal <support@50calgiveaway.com>  Date: April 24, 2020 at 08:46:55 EDT  To: pc77user@aol.com  Subject: New Gun Laws Are SO Bad Hitler Would Be Jealous  Reply‐To: support@50calgiveaway.com    Hitler would be proud of how evil American lawmakers have snuck through some of the worst gun laws imaginable. As Americans watched their businesses shut down, and as the economy began to falter… Crooked politicians buried some of the worst gun-control in history into the stimulus package. And barely anyone has noticed… If these laws pass soon it will turn the 2nd amendment into an ash pile! As of April 24th, 2020 these laws are yet to be passed… but they are part of the stimulus package and could be approved at any time If they’re approved here’s what happens: 3  30% tax on all firearms sold also included in this bill  50% tax on ammunition  You will need a federal license to buy a gun or ammo.  Includes a mandate to keep track of gun owners and firearms they buy (a national registry)  No more "gun-show-loop-hole"  No private person to person gun sales  Federal 7-day mandatory waiting period  Red flag laws are built into this bill as well  No one under the age of 21 can purchase any firearms  1 gun a month policy  Safe storage requirements  An "assault" weapons ban  Ban on private builds And dozens of other laws. This Could Become Law At Any Second! And while I know these laws might make you nervous… You don’t have to be too concerned. That’s because on the next page you’ll see a Free guide that shows you newly-designed ways to bypass many of these unconstitutional laws. This guide shows you just because a state passes a “scary” gun law doesn’t mean it applies to you. But you’ve got to know the exact way to get around these laws… And that’s getting harder and harder as more laws are passed. Fortunately when you click here you’ll be given the chance to get this new guide for Free. It shows you how to sidestep many of these new gun laws. Inside you’ll find:  4 new loopholes that keep your guns safe while your neighbors’ guns are seized. 4  The ATF-backed law that lets you turn a “piece of art” into a semi-automatic weapon.  On page 29 you’ll discover the exact steps to legally acquire firearms without any paperwork! And quite a few other newly-implemented workarounds that help you avoid anti-gunners’ attempts at robbing you of your freedom. WARNING: The publisher only has 1,000 Free copies available. (You can also buy them on his website if you prefer.) To get yours click here now. This is the most up-to-date guide around and will help you get around many of the new laws being passed. Claim yours before it’s too late. :: 50 Cal Giveaway :: You opted in to receive these emails when you requested information or purchased one of 50CalGiveaway.com products. You can Manage Subscription here if you do not want to receive these emails any longer. To help make sure we make it into your inbox, add support@50calgiveaway.com to your address book. This email was sent to pc77user@aol.com by support@50calgiveaway.com. © 50CalGiveaway.com - 1712 Pioneer Ave., Ste. 2035 Cheyenne, WY 82001, USA   1 Baumb, Nelly From:RAS <fogz9000-1@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 8:25 AM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; jeff@levinsky.org Subject:Edgewood Shopping Center gas powered leaf blowers creating huge dust storm even before 8AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City Council, Here we are Monday morning, 4/27/20, and we have a huge dust storm being blown up by a large gas powered leaf blower at the Edgewood Shopping Center starting at 7:50AM. The entire area on both the Channing side and the St. Francis side had dust up to 30 to 40 feet high. The entire area here was clouded with dust and a very large and loud gas powered leaf blower noise. I report this to the 311 line just about every Monday morning and nothing changes. Why is this allowed to continue, especially during the stay at home orders? And why are gas powered blowers allowed at all right next to residential areas when these same adjacent residents are not allowed to use gas blowers? How does any of this make any sense at all? And this same lawn crew keeps starting earlier and earlier and now they're starting again before 8AM. Please do something about this, please. Thank you. ~~~R. Skalsky, longtime resident PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication! This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/or confidential information. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 2:16 AM To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; Mayor; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mark Standriff; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Steve Wayte; bballpod; beachrides; Irv Weissman; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; dallen1212@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; Chris Field; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Bredefeld and Crazy Bernie 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 29, 2020 at 1:59 AM  Subject: Fwd: Bredefeld and Crazy Bernie  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                     Late on Tues. April 28, 2020                    Doug‐  Thanks. I was kidding you. I didn't really think you were a rabid Bredefeld supporter.              It wouldn't be that he is influenced by rich Republican business owners living north of Herndon (with their trophy  wives) would it be? I cannot believe these guys. I'll leave it there.              I just watched both PBS News Hour and some of Amanpour and Co.  News Hour interviewed Sen. Schumer. He is  calling for hearings in which the medical experts would testify before Congress about the pandemic. He mentioned Dr.  Fauci and Dr. Birx.   I suggested that in an email when Trump said he had sole authority to re‐open the country, and I  suggested there that if he did that that the first article of impeachment should charge Trump with murder. So thanks,  Sen. Schumer, for your original idea of subpoenaing Fauci and Birx about a month after I suggested it.                  Amanpour interviewed, in the first 17 minutes, the editor of Lancet. She also ran tape of Boris Johnson speaking  today outside of No. 10. He was feisty about the need to maintain the lockdown in England. He does indeed look like a  changed man, having nearly died of the virus. "Put away your impatience" he said. Amanpour reminded viewers that  Johnson was somewhat dismissive of the virus in the early days. "If we let up now, the whole thing can come roaring  back" he said today.   words to that effect.                 In the interview with the editor of Lancet, the editor said that this is a very dangerous virus. He said that the  WHO warned the world on Jan. 30, 2020  to  "get ready".  The UK ignored that warning, as did the U.S., he said.  Asked  why Germany has fared very much better than the U.K. and the U.S., he said that the Germans took the warning  seriously, had massive testing, contact tracing, isolation and quarantine right at the outset. The G. Health Minister said  all of that a week ago and that they had lots of ICU beds and ventilators too.  2             Then the editor of Lancet said that the approach in the U.K. was to "let the virus tear through the population, we'll  all get immunity, and the problem will be over". "That might work with some flu virus, he said, but not with a deadly  virus like this.                  I recommend those first 17 min. of Amanpour and Co. for today, 4‐28‐2020.                    Please scroll down. Most of you are seeing that for the first time. Click on the California Health Line link.                LH                                                               ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>  Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:08 PM  Subject: Re: Bredefeld and Crazy Bernie  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    Thanks Loran, great info site.     As to Bredefeld, I don't know him...    On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 4:03 PM Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM  Subject: Fwd: Bredefeld and Crazy Bernie  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:48 PM  Subject: Fwd: Bredefeld and Crazy Bernie  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:36 PM  Subject: Bredefeld and Crazy Bernie  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  3             Tues. April 28, 2020       Doug‐  Here is Fresno, Ca. City Council member Gary Bredefeld yelling about the constitution:               https://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/article242328881.html               Hope you're proud of him.              Here is an information‐rich website, probably updated daily. Toss this into favorites maybe.  See the article there  about how Covid19 pts can suffer heart, lung, kidney, brain damage.                           https://californiahealthline.org/morning‐briefing/tuesday‐april‐28‐2020/                                 Also see the article, especially, about the Newsom website that shows where the PPE has been shipped by the  State of California, by county.  Really interesting.  Click on the link to the website within the article. You can go county  by county.                          Compare Fresno Co. with Santa Clara Co. on population (SC is about 2X Fresno Co.) and then the number of  N95 masks to each and the number of face shields going to each county.  S.C. County has gotten 17X the number of  N95s that Fresno Co. has gotten, and 8X the number of face shields.  S.C. Co. has had 4X the number of cases,  2104 v.  504. Santa Clara Co. has been the worst county in the Bay Area for the epidemic.                L. William Harding             Fresno  1 Baumb, Nelly From:gmahany@aol.com Sent:Wednesday, April 22, 2020 1:19 PM To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Council, City Cc:rebsanders@gmail.com Subject:hoping for something beter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello NVCAP I sent my NVCAP2 survey early this month and was not pleased with the survey as it was a repeat of the meeting at Gunn. I've read the letter NVCAP Letter Final 20200416 and I am glad someone (Pan) did a critical detailed review as the survey sure needed one. This survey and the meeting at Gunn brings up the question are these consultants/city planing department lacking vision of alternatives to standard developments and existing P.A. city zoning. Gary Mahany 1 Baumb, Nelly From:christopher jette <christopherjette@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:56 AM To:Council, City; North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Cc:Rebecca Sanders Subject:NVCAP online survey CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members: I wish to protest the NVCAP online survey as none of the proposals reflect what the community wants and would negatively impact the people already living in Ventura. The community must have the opportunity to review the proposals of the working group, which have not been included in this survey, rather than being forced to choose between the three flawed proposals prepared by the city’s consultants. Thank you for your time and efforts, Christopher Jette 1 Baumb, Nelly From:DANIEL COLLINS <obalzun@hgt-emden.de> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 7:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:DANIEL COLLINS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council      https://bit.ly/2VPm5Wm  DANIEL              Add the ground beef and pork to the bread, mixing thoroughly by hand. Add the garlic, parsley, and onion and mix again.  Add four of the eggs and knead the mixture further. Add the pecorino, salt, pepper, and about a third of the panko.  Knead that mixture. Add the remaining eggs, another third of the panko and the walnut pieces. Continue to knead,  shaking in the remaining panko and ensure the mixture doesn’t get too dry.                  Beth: This is probably not ideal, but I keep a to‐do list in my email drafts so I can access and edit it from anywhere.  uxqdkb dreadnought labrosaurid downheartedness      jiqplater byproducts metastases thruways  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Fischer <robfischer@mac.com> Sent:Saturday, April 25, 2020 11:28 AM To:Greg St.Claire Cc:Dan Gordon; Council, City; Peter Katz; Steve Sinchek; Tim Stannard; Craig Stoll; Howard Bulka 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.  Hi Greg,    You are spot on. The City of Palo Alto is asleep at the wheel. What will Palo Alto be like when we all close up   our restaurants? What will Palo Alto look like without restaurants? Having three locations here, I am feeling the pain big  time. None of us will be able to sustain the economic impact the city is imposing on us. Yet,  there was an article in the local paper stating city employees will still be getting their raises while the small businesses  are all slowly going bankrupt. Let's see how the city fares when all the tax dollars disappear. Then and only then, will  they feel the pain they are inflicting on small businesses. We need business people on the council who can understand  how business works and how to make the city prosperous. This needs to be a partnership not a dictatorship.    We need relief dollars, parking for employees, tip credits for front of the house employees and a city council that  actually listens to us.     Palo Alto used to be a great place for people to come and enjoy and businesses to thrive. It was vibrant, interesting and  fun. Now we are all working for the city. This is not what I signed up for.    Rob Fischer  Palo Alto Creamery  Reposado  Gravity  415.519.3141    On April 25, 2020 at 9:47 AM, "Greg St.Claire" <greg@avenir‐rg.com> wrote:  Palo Alto City Council and Mayor,   I am not sure what if anything was accomplished from the zoom meeting yesterday as I had to hop off  the call to execute a food give away for a 1000 starving families. Prior to the zoom meeting I met my  General Contractor at Nola. We parked on the opposite side of the street and met in the middle of  Ramona street. We stood and talked for almost a half hour (in the middle of the street) and suddenly  realized that not a single car had past in either direction nor many going up or down University. This was  Friday! Coupa Cafe had a total of 2 customers during this and the next half hour comapred to what  would have been 200.      You need to start focusing your meetings on the disaster at your doorstep and not green energy (which I  am a huge proponent of) or the shuttle bus!!! The very quaint town of Palo Alto that makes residents  want to live near is on the verge of death. You drove out the street musicians, you militantly have made  curbside dining difficult if not impossible and you have no parklet program in place. Only Delfina (which I  love!) has any quality outdoor dining in your entire downtown. Any quality City Planner would tell you  that this is the exact opposite of what you design to create and keep a vibrant community. You stiff arm  the proprietors and workers making parking difficult and costly. Redwood City is literally kicking Palo  2 Alto's ass in recent years because they listened to intelligent consultants. You are no longer sitting on a  Golden Goose. You have allowed tech giants to smother your City with 'City Campuses' of their own  keeping their workforce inside their campus compounds with free food, free coffee, free dry cleaning,  free massages, free medical care and free on and on. No small business near this can compete with the  scraps left from Companies like Facebook, Google and Apple. They have been printing cash with insane  bottom line profits yet you seem to be missing this. Instead you turn back to the very businesses that  provide the small pleasures in life. You impose wage increases that mathematically don't work ignoring  the black and white economics of our business and taking into account tip credits. The last tax proposal  was so outrageous that most of us starting to planning exits from Palo Alto prior to Covid 19. You have  created a business reputation worse than SF. Like San Carlos and many others you need to start to think  outside the box and get some creative plans going. Palo Alto needs to strongly consider closing some  streets that are prime restaurant hubs and retail hubs. You need to get parklets going and fast. That is  where the grant money should be going. Menlo Park, Redwood City, Los Gatos and many other Cities  started to realize this need and slowly arrogant Palo Alto has been left behind. Below is what I sent to  the San Carlos Council this morning. This entire council will respond ‐ guaranteed. A meeting will happen  with business owners like me. Will any of you respond beyond Greg who seems to be the only Council  member grasping the economic reality we are facing?    Dear Mayor and Council Members,   I am sure you are all keenly aware of the completed devastation of the restaurant and retail sector.  There is not a big City nor small Town in our state that has not been affected by this. We were the first  to impose Shelter in Place and we will most likely be the last to remove it. The fear and mental fatigue  will last long after any lifting of shelter in place. The current proposals are being floated are financial  suicide for retail and restaurants. Howard Schulze finally voiced this on Nightline last night saying if this  was imposed on Starbucks in the earlier years of his company would not have survived. None of the  businesses on Laurel can possibly reopen with servers in face masks and gloves. No business model  would allow a business to survive with 25% of their tables. Over the years many have only been using  25% of their tables and those are the ones that have closed, flipped and closed again. The ones that  have kept their doors open are the ones cheating and stealing and abusing our City.     If we truly want to save our quaint downtown and the many businesses that we all love to go to it's time  to finally take some action on ideas that have been advocated for years. Let's start with finally closing  the 600‐800 blocks of Laurel and let the restaurants and shop owners spill out onto Laurel so that they  can properly distance themselves and have our residents in San Carlos be outside in the fresh air. Going  into a clothing store or a restaurant is going to bring a level of fear that some have when flying and  worrying about people around with a cold. Take down the onerous barriers and expense of the parklet I  built at an expense of over $350,000 and allow for a temp solution. Let Salt Box, Cuisinett, Pazzo and any  other restaurant outside these blocks have a parklet. Perhaps look to grant them an interest free loan to  kick start this. This is not a time to study this any longer and ask for any more public opinion. The City  has been closing the street not for years for the farmers market hurting our local market and generating  zero in way of revenue for our City. Keep the cross streets open like we do on the Farmers Markets. I am  telling you the situation is getting dire. I am going to open Town up this week for takeout but most likely  if the future looks the same through the end of the year we would most likely close and go dark. I think  every City Council needs to start thinking outside the box and putting their full focus of the Council  Meetings on this. Would be happy to organize a zoom meeting but let's get something going and fast or  this downtown is going to be gutted.  Best,  Greg  Greg St Claire  Owner  Avenir Restaurant Group  www.avenir‐rg.com  3 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,     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.   4    Sincerely,     Dan Gordon   32 years of Palo Alto restaurant business     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Guillaume Bienaime <guillaumebienaime@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 10:22 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Thank you CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello all,    Thank you so much for creating the platform for ideas to be shared. It truly moves me to see all of us come together as  we strengthen our community. I look forward to creating solutions and finding a way forward.     Guillaume          ‐‐   Guillaume Bienaimé  Proprietor  Zola  zolapa.com  barzolapa.com        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 22, 2020 12:34 PM To:David Gahary; Patty LaPlaca; Craig Simmons; janet darcey; Joanne Casey; Tom & Beth Simmons; Carol Macannico; Rachel Joy Simmons; Andres Lorraine; Perla Simmons; Camille Lachica; Jeff Jaggernauth; Rekha Jaggernauth; Ed Durfee; secretary@njoathkeepers.org; Keepers Oath; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; Cheryl H.; Deanna; Joanne Singerman; Judith Buruk; Kathy Wood; Kristina Martinelli; Paula Dassbach; Kupniewski Arlene; Lanny Thompson; Martine Schroeter; Pam David; Pat Gotschalk; Patrick Martin; Patty Sotirin; Rosita Eckl; Sharon Busch; Steve Hendershot; Thomas Kulessa; Tommy Elixir; Valerie Troesch; Willie & Gloria Melton; Nia Gill; Loretta Weinberg; senator_menendez@menendez.senate.gov; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org; SENATORS @NJLeg.Org Cc:Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; mbeach1964@hotmail.com; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School Subject:MUST SEE On CV: COVID Action Platform - 'TELL ALL' Site Re: NWO--Their Plan For a Global Feudal System. Very Large Program Details !!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Holy Mackeral !   They had this whole thing planned going back 50 years, or more !   Check out this whole blueprint of  theirs, with rabbit holes leading all over the place, with layers 200 layers deep, seen with just the click of a mouse.   2 These people are diabolical in their plans to enslave us in their one world feudal system.  It must have taken years, if not  decades, to create their computer program that details all of their plans !!!!!  This is the proof positive of the "plot to  enslave us all" that JFK promised to expose shortly before they publicly executed him.  COVID19 is only the smokescreen  that allows them to roll in their Network of Global Corporate Control, and dispose of the "Useless Eaters" as THEY like to  refer to us as.  As they destroy our sovereignty and our US Constitution.    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JbyeV‐_5Lo&feature=youtu.be      Best Regards, & Give Up No Liberties !!!!!  If you give up one, you give up them all !!!  RJS  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Korn <makompk@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, April 25, 2020 4:13 PM To:fred@fredalanwolf.com Cc:Council, City; cityleaders@fcgov.com Subject:Elite Technocratic Incompetence CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Read the last portion of this devastating commentary from New York Magazine, starting about halfway down the page.  A devastating indictment of the entire federal government for the incompetent coronavirus response. Apparently there  are some 20 fully budgeted federal agencies that have been charged with planning for pandemic response and not one  of them has made a meaningful contribution to the current crisis.  As embarrassing as President Trump is, he is only reflecting the frustration that so many Americans feel about the  technocratic elites who swallow endless sums of money and do nothing to benefit society:  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/andrew‐sullivan‐we‐cant‐go‐on‐like‐this‐much‐longer.html  Failure Is Much Bigger Than Trump  In the middle of this pandemic, I can’t get out of my mind that the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention last year was $7.2 billion. This year, it will set a record of $7.9 billion — an all‐time record. That’s an  incredible sum. The FDA, the other critical agency for controlling disease, has a comparable $5.7 billion budget. The  WHO is funded by the U.S. to the tune of $453 million, by far the biggest contributor....  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 6:11 PM To:Frank Agamemnon Subject:? Q or perhaps ANOTHER FACTION? that has NOTHING to do with Q? Does it matter? AS LONG AS IT'S HAPPENING CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  2 3 ? PERHAPS THIS IS THE ANSWER TO THAT https://l.messenger.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dwl5C3ggMYKc%26feature%3 Dshare&h=AT3Crh0-qUFIjP4yzDbyXInaQwr8kG3moAaVZcrv6HRnU9SqxZzm3_Ce27I8NGL-- DQgyHVilcP0ZbSHPea5w8uP1Kfgp8EbjjXVn9XT7dFhhmnLGL0EcPGahi18zYR7