Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200518plCC 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: 05/18/2020 Document dates: 4/29/2020 – 5/6/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 1:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Emily Mibach; local@bayareanewsgroup.com; Nico Savidge; Aldo Toledo; Zachary Clark Subject:Please reject 'slow streets' proposals which contradict shelter in place order CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council:     Again the news media reports discussion of possibly closing down streets in Palo Alto:    Experts expect some of the "slow streets" projects that cities like Oakland and Denver put in place during the pandemic to give bicyclists and pedestrians adequate room for social distancing to remain in place. Palo Alto has not yet launched such a program, though Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi told the council earlier this month that his staff is preparing to do so soon.    https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/04/29/pandemic-offers-transportation-planners-a-chance-to-rethink-commuting?utm_source=express-2020-04-29&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express    At a recent webinar sponsored by Ride Healthy, a bike-advocacy group, transportation planner Timothy Papandreou pointed to the more than 100 cities around the world that are implementing "slow streets" projects during the pandemic. These projects restrict cars and provide more space for bicyclists and pedestrians, allowing them to practice physical distancing more easily. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/04/29/pandemic-offers-transportation-planners-a-chance-to-rethink-commuting?utm_source=express-2020-04-29&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express    The shelter in place order does not say, 'go walk or bike on streets that have been closed to traffic.' The order says:  Stay home except for essential needs  https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/    Many residents, some with underlying health conditions, use their vehicles to perform essential tasks, which protects them from contact with other people and which protects them from contact with the outside air, in which the coronavirus can travel and live for up to 3 hours, according to experts.   The new coronavirus can remain infectious in the air for up to three hours and last on some surfaces for more than a day, according to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/infection-control/coronavirus-can-remain-in-air-up-to-3-hours-on-surfaces-for-days-study-finds.html    Residents need vehicular access to residential streets and commercial streets to perform these essential tasks.     The City of Palo Alto should not be considering or putting policies into place that contradict the intent of the shelter in  place order and that encourage people to get out and not to stay at home.     2 It seems as though the Covid 19 pandemic is being used by as a pretext to push a separate agenda, to reduce and restrict vehicular traffic, without regard for the the shelter in place order, the implications of the pandemic, or the actual needs of Palo Alto residents.    "You may not end up with 74 miles, but you may end up with 7 miles of slow streets," Raney said. "Some of it would stick." https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/04/29/pandemic-offers-transportation-planners-a-chance-to- rethink-commuting?utm_source=express-2020-04-29&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express    Please reject any proposal to close streets in Palo Alto.     Thank you,    Best,    Kathy Jordan  From: lindsayjoye@gmail.com <lindsayjoye@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 1:14 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Please close Park Blvd. to automobiles during SIP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I would like City Council to take quick action and close Park Blvd. to car traffic for the duration of the Shelter In Place orders. This action would improve the safety of the many pedestrians who are now walking and jogging in the middle of the street to maintain the necessary social distancing. I live on Park Blvd. in the Ventura neighborhood which is narrow and sandwiched between the train right-of-way and El Camino Real. The residents in single family homes and the many multifamily units are limited to using Park Blvd. for exercising in our neighborhood. Each day I see families walking in the middle of the street to avoid our crowded sidewalks and am concerned about their safety. Because Park Blvd. is already a designated Bike Boulevard it is well suited for a temporary closure to cars. Thank you for considering my request. -Lindsay Joye 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 3:08 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; dallen1212 @gmail.com; Daniel Zack; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; 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; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Pam Kelly; newsdesk; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; Mayor; nick yovino; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; margaret-sasaki@live.com Subject:Fwd: Fresno City Council person says extend the shutdown 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 2:23 PM  Subject: Fwd: Fresno City Council person says extend the shutdown  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:09 PM  Subject: Fresno City Council person says extend the shutdown  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>              Wed. April 29, 2020                  To all‐  At least somebody at Fresno City Hall is thinking straight:            https://thebusinessjournal.com/fresno‐council‐member‐calls‐for‐shelter‐order‐to‐be‐ extended/?utm_source=Daily+Update&utm_campaign=a1ae759413‐ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_04_29_04_54&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fb834d017b‐a1ae759413‐ 71619973&mc_cid=a1ae759413&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3             He and Mayor Brand. A deadly virus with high efficiency of transmission that has killed ~50,000 Americans.  NO  vaccine yet, not even therapeutics, although both are being worked on feverishly. And the lower IQ and less educated,  and the richer business owners, want the restrictions lifted. The same people who voted for AH.    2             Last night PBS News Hour showed that a vaccine with real promise has been developed at Oxford University and  testing in humans has begun. Some drug companies, perhaps in China, are preparing to produce it in bulk even before it  is proven effective.              This AM KCBS‐SF, broadcasting the truth into the Republican‐owned Central Valley of California, said that the  program to prepare and deliver three meals per day to persons of low enough income and compromised immune  systems, could be in trouble. Gov. Newsom announced it in detail last week. The money from FEMA will stop on May 10  if the State does not have the program up and running by then, I discerned. The report was somewhat confusing. The  money stops if the program is not up and running by then OR   the money stops then, period, and could be extended.  Anyway, May 10 is the drop‐dead date for the program if certain conditions aren't met.                   Also, KCBS said this AM that UCSF and Stanford will launch a study of 7,500 people who have tested negative for  the virus in the past: 4,000 non‐HC and 3,500 HC workers. They will be tested repeatedly, apparently, from now through  the summer. The object is to see 1) how are infected persons who are asymptomatic spreading the virus and 2) Does  having antibodies provide protection against the virus. The study will continue into the fall when, presumably, schools  will re‐open.  The Stanford website should have information about this study. They took days to get an article up about  their antibody test. Apparently they strive for accuracy.                 KCBS said that many people who have spent a lot of money getting Air B&B facilities ready are now in financial  trouble. Some people have set up 25 of these. I thought you had to live at the place, but apparently not. The huge drop  in travel has dried up the revenue for these but the mortgage payments, property taxes, uts., furniture payments, etc.  keep coming.  Why wouldn't you just rent them out as long‐term rentals?              PBS News Hour had a piece last night on how big publicly traded companies have gotten millions from the PPP  program intended to help small businesses. They apply with their big banks, who have a long‐standing relationship with  them and want to protect that, and get approved for huge money when they are in no way a small business. This is a  scandal which the Trump Admin. should answer for. The Treasury should take those banks to the woodshed.             At the Dow climbed 500 and the Nasdaq climbed 300 this AM, KCBS said that investors are cheered by efforts to re‐ open the economy and are ignoring statements from the Fed today to the effect that 1) we are at the beginning of a  recession and 2) the U.S. economy is in bad shape. If we do go into a bad recession, I'll be glad I've held cash back in  recent weeks. I did, however, feel compelled to buy NVDA (@ $204.38 per share) (It closed at $297.08 on Monday,  making me feel plenty guilty over such easy money), BP, MGM  (@ $7.7738 per share) (It closed at $15.81 on Tuesday),  CAT (@ ~$100 per share), OHI (@$25 per share) ($27.95 on Tuesday), MCD (@ $140 per share), (It closed at $185.93 on  Tuesday),  PRSP (@ $15 per share), PRU (@$ 47.2232 per share), MMM (@ $132.50 per share), FB (@ $161,056 per  share), MSFT (@ $155.25 per share), CCL (@ 14.4753 per share) (it went clear down to $7.97 on April 2, but closed at  $14.46 on Tuesday, April 28, pulling me back from the brink),  AMRN (@ $3.999 per share) (It closed at $7.82 on  Tuesday), MU (@ $ 36.4364 per share) and SQ (@ $57.443 per share). As these have soared in recent weeks, I've felt the  usual guilt about making such easy money in the market. I haven't even checked the results for today, but I'll no doubt  feel even guiltier when I do.                    The cash held back is for if we get a huge double‐dip in the market as the recession takes hold and if we get a  big spike in Covid19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths, as we rush to re‐open. Fauci said "The virus will be here in the  fall. What will be different is that this time we will have testing, contact tracing, isolation and quarantine in place" (to  deal with a jump in cases).  He was contradicting his boss who had just said that maybe it won't come back in the fall at  all. Fauci is only head of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH, so he has at least a passing familiarity wiith  epidemics.                  L. William Harding             Fresno               1 Baumb, Nelly From:Teo Holopainen <teoholopainen@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 8:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Can I ? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    To whoever it may concern,    I understand that these can be confusing times for us all. That is why the residents are forced to rely more on their  elected officials. Clarity would be appreciated.  These are just two of the new unclear guidelines.    Can I play tennis?    That depends. Contra Costa County’s order specifically includes “tennis and pickle ball courts” among outdoor  recreational activities that may resume on Monday. But San Francisco Deputy Health Officer Dr. Susan Philip  contradicted that during a Wednesday press conference, noting that tennis would not be allowed in San Francisco  due  to the sport’s use of shared equipment.    San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, which do not specifically address tennis in their orders, did not immediately  respond to a request for comment.    Will golf courses reopen?    Although the new order allows golf courses to reopen, it is not totally clear whether golf is allowed under the state  shelter‐in‐place order, which remains unchanged. Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams said that between local  and state orders, “the stricter of the two applies.”  Golf is not included in the state’s list of critical workforce sectors, nor is it specifically prohibited. Some jurisdictions —  including Napa and Riverside counties — have taken advantage of that gray area, and allowed golf courses to reopen. In  cases like this, “there’s room for interpretation by the counties,”  How about the cities ???    Br,  Teo Holopainen        Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:44 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Dentists CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As of May 4, this new order is in effective: "For the purposes of this Order, individuals may leave their residence to work for, volunteer at, or obtain services at “Healthcare Operations,” including, without limitation, hospitals, clinics, COVID-19 testing locations, dentists, pharmacies, blood banks and blood drives, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, other healthcare facilities, healthcare suppliers, home healthcare services providers, mental health providers, or any related and/or ancillary healthcare services. “Healthcare Operations” also includes veterinary care and all healthcare services provided to animals. This exemption for Healthcare Operations shall be construed broadly to avoid any interference with the delivery of healthcare, broadly defined. “Healthcare Operations” excludes fitness and exercise gyms and similar facilities." Please check this new order and let me know if dentists can now open their offices for all procedures, including cleanings. Please reply! Natalie Fisher   1 Baumb, Nelly From:teo holopainen <teoholopainen@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  ** Can golf courses reopen under the new Order? Outdoor recreation facilities that are not expressly prohibited by the Order, such as golf courses, skate parks, and athletic fields, are permitted to open only if they comply with any restrictions on access and use that are established by the Health Officer, another government agency, or other entity that manages such area to reduce crowding and risk of transmission of COVID-19. At this time, the California State Public Health Officer is not permitting golf courses to be open. What does this mean????? Really???? Br #2 Teo Holopainen On Thursday, April 30, 2020, 08:04:46 AM PDT, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e-mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329-2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:09 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Coronavirus implementation of county order CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Ed and City Council,    I sincerely hope you will open up the parking lots associated with city parks given the new county orders.    I am 100% in favor of all efforts to minimize deaths and extinction of the virus, but from what I read, there is an  appropriate balance that needs to be struck with careful opening of public spaces.  This seems like it should include  venues such as Foothills Park (including parking).    There is absolutely a way to ensure 6’ separation in a place a wide as this beautiful open space.  The alternative is people  exercise in more confined areas (e.g., crossing Cal Ave tunnel which is an enclosed space 8’ wide with lots of  people…much more dangerous).    Please open up this space and let residents prove they can be trusted to respect the federal and state guidelines.    Thank you,  Chris Robell  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbra Wood <woodbabs@icloud.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 9:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Public Golf Course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello,    I have a question.  Is the Palo Alto Public Golf Course going to reopen on May 4th along with other designated gol  courses?  Thank you for your reply.    Barbra Wood    Menlo Park    Sent from my iPad  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 10:55 AM To:Sara Cody Subject:Feds ignore Natural Options for Virus CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As Drug Failures for COVID Mount, Feds Ignore Natural Options APRIL 30, 2020 CATEGORY: STOP CRONY HEALTHCARE The Alliance for Natural Health ALLIANCE FOR NATURAL HEALTH USA     The Alliance for Natural Health    1.800.230.2762 . . ."natural medicines like zinc, quercetin, and potassium could help, . . but the government refuses to acknowledge these benefits because nutrients aren’t as profitable for drug companies." Many COVID drugs are failing. Natural medicine may hold the key—but can government cronyism be overcome? Action Alert! A large analysis has found that antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine had no benefit for COVID patients, causing more deaths than standard care. Other pharmaceutical treatments are also turning out to be useless. Remdesivir is being touted by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, but this is likely due to pressure to come up with a drug of the moment; some evidence has shown the drug has no benefit. Emerging evidence suggests that natural medicines like zinc, quercetin, and potassium could help, sometimes in conjunction with drugs, but the government refuses to acknowledge these benefits because nutrients aren’t as profitable for drug companies. While hydroxychloroquine may be ineffective on its own, there are trials that have combined the drug with zinc. Zinc inhibits viral activity, but it is difficult to get high levels of zinc into cells. Hydroxychloroquine may help by aiding zinc’s entry into cells. Studies show quercetin may also do what chloroquine does with zinc but without toxic side effects. Some researchers believe that zinc in general is one of the most important   2 things we can take both to avoid Covid-19 infection and treat it. Hydroxychloroquine comes with the usual laundry list of dangerous side effects, while quercetin could help prevent heart damage along with many other benefits. Research indicates that many other natural medicines could help prevent or treat COVID- 19. * It is known that big viruses rapidly exhaust potassium levels, which can be fatal. A Chinese study has confirmed this for Covid-19. * The Chinese used IVC (vitamin C injected into veins) with reported good results and began clinical trials. New York State’s largest hospital system, Northwell Health, also began using IVC but at relatively low doses (4.5 to 6 grams) compared to the doses used in cancer trials. * Vitamin D is a key immune system regulator. People with especially low D are more vulnerable to Covid-19. * Many supplements (curcumin, resveratrol, luteolin etc.) are candidates to help control the cytokine storm that may kill Covid-19 patients but are not being tested for this use. * Other supplements (oregano oil, monolaurin) are candidates to attack the viral capsule but are also unlikely ever to be tested for this use. * Viruses cloak themselves from the immune system using a substance called nagalase. Some supplements, especially probiotics, are candidates to help control nagalase but are also unlikely to be tested for this use. * Silver is acknowledged to be a bacteria killer that has been able to clean up drinking water in the third world. The feds are moving against companies making any medical claims for silver. Under current law, they have the right to do that, but in the process these agencies are stating that silver has no medical role, which is not consistent with the known facts. Silver is definitely effective against bacteria. What is needed is more testing of whether and how silver can be used against viruses. * Other supplements, like the herb Andrographis paniculate, are candidates to interfere with enzymes needed by the virus to reproduce but are also unlikely ever to be tested for this use. More information can be found at our COVID 411 page. There’s a theme here. Low-cost, safe, and effective natural medicines are largely ignored by the government and the medical community, instead focusing on pharmaceutical treatments that can be more easily patented and made profitable for drug companies. People are getting sick and dying. We cannot afford to ignore natural treatments that can save lives during and beyond this pandemic. This is the moment to bring this message to every legislator in America, both in Congress and at the state level. Will you help us do this? If every reader of this message takes action now, we can get legislators’ attention. This is the moment. Please help us. Action Alert! Send a message to your state and federal representatives, telling them that there are vitally important nutritional strategies to deal with COVID. Please send your message immediately. ALLIANCE FOR NATURAL HEALTH USA 1.800.230.2762 Copyright © 2020 Alliance for Natural Health- USA. Permission granted to forward, copy, or reprint with date and attribution (including link to original content) to http://anh- usa.org. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lane Melchor <lane@melchor.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 2:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting Restaurants CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, I wanted to write with a proposal to support our restaurants. As we start to transition out of shelter in place I suspect we will be dealing with various restrictions for at least a few months. Most restaurants operate on thin margins and will have a very hard time surviving if they are required to reduce tables inside to support social distancing. It seems like a perfect solution to block off parking or even entire streets to allow the restaurants to set up tables outside this summer. I am guessing this has already been discussed and I just wanted to voice my support for this concept. In addition to helping our neighborhood restaurants, it will promote healthy transportation choices, increase sales tax revenue and have no impact on parking fees since spaces are not metered. I hope I will be able to enjoy a nice meal soon at a local restaurant on a beautiful sunny day. Thanks and have a great weekend. Regards, Lane -- Lane Melchor Melchor Corporation Palo Alto CA 94301 650.323.0791 650.323.3529 (fax) Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aire Hjelle <AHjelle@thefishmarket.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 2:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Federal WARN Act Notice; California WARN Act Notice - sent on behalf of Dwight Colton CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  May 1, 2020 Mayor Adrian Fine City of Palo Alto Pal Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Federal WARN Act Notice; California WARN Act Notice To Whom It May Concern: This notice is being provided in compliance with the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,29 United States Code section 2102 et seq. (“WARN”), and the California Worker Adjustment and RetrainingNotification Act, California Labor Code section 1400 et seq. (“Cal-WARN”), both of which require official notice to certain government units or officials of a pending plant closure or mass layoff that falls within statutory noticerequirements. The pandemic’s economic impact has caused Fish Market Restaurants, Inc. (“Fish Market”) to incur unforeseeable financial losses. Moreover, Fish Market believes that the issuance of Executive Order N-33-20 ordering California residents to stay home until further notice will cause additional devastating financiallosses. The pandemic’s overwhelming economic impact has been sudden, rapidly escalating, and unforeseeable. This notice is to inform your agency that Fish Market intends to indefinitely furlough employees at the followingCalifornia worksites: 1. The Fish Market Palo Alto, 3150 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 2. The Fish Market Santa Clara, 3775 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95051 3. The Fish Market Del Mar, 640 Via De La Valle, Solana Beach, CA 92075 4. The Fish Market San Mateo, 1855 S Norfolk St. San Mateo, CA 94403 5. The Fish Market San Diego, 750 N Harbor Dr, CA 92101 6. Top of the Market San Diego, 750 N Harbor Dr, CA 92101 7. The Fish Market San Jose, 1007 Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose, CA 95123 8. Farallon Fisheries, 207 S Maple Ave, South San Francisco, CA 94080 9. The Fish Market Office, 1 Tuna Lane, Suite 3, San Diego, CA 92101 2 The furlough will impact 664 employees. Fish Market provided notice to its employees today, but the effectivedate of their furlough is May 4, 2020. Fish Market is providing as much advance notice of the present layoffs as possible under these unprecedentedcircumstances. Unfortunately, 60-days’ notice of the present layoffs was impossible given the sudden onset ofthe coronavirus pandemic and related government orders. Accordingly, Fish Market provides this notice and notice to affected employees in compliance with Governor Gavin Newsom’s March 17, 2020 Executive Order,number N-31-20 as well as the Governor’s reopening plan. None of the affected employees are represented by a union. Attached to this notice is a list of the affected job titles and the number of affected employees in each job classification. For more information regarding the furlough, please feel free to contact me at the address indicated above. My telephone number is (619) 232- 8862 x 313. The information provided herein represents the best informationavailable to Fish Market at the time this notice was issued. Sincerely, Dwight Colton President Fish Market Restaurants, Inc. 3 Job Title # of Affected Employees Accountant 3 Back Oyster Bar Cook 36 Baker 2 Bartender 37 Bookkeeper 7 Busser 60 Cocktail 16 Cook 59 Dishwasher 70 Front Oyster Bar Chef 12 Group Sales Coordinator 1 Host 56 HR Administrator 1 Manager 38 Market Clerk 30 Prep 28 Salad station 22 Seafood Production Worker 6 Server 175 Sushi Chef 2 Fine Dining Chef 3 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 2:23 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Block University & Cal Ave to Cars to Help Reopen Businesses outdoors CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Over the next month or two as we start to reopen businesses who can operate safely outdoors lets help our local small businesses by blocking off University & Cal Ave to cars and allow the local businesses on those streets to expand out into the streets. For example for barbers and hairdresser enabling them to work outside. Restaurants providing safe socially distanced tables outside, shopping racks outside, etc... This does not preclude the need for PPE and social distancing but its clear that COVID-19 spreads much more readily indoors so its much safer to get a haircut or eat outdoors then inside. Hamilton Hitchings 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Barton Wells <bwells@3hc.com> Sent:Saturday, May 2, 2020 8:30 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Reopening lap swimming at Rinconada CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Palo Alto City Council and City Manager:     I would like to work with you to put together a plan to reopen Rinconada pool for lap swim.  While I recognize that  under the current situation it is quite unreasonable to open the pool for recreation swim or lessons, and it is borderline  whether even for a swim club to use, it is quite reasonable to open for lap swimming if certain guidelines are followed.    I propose that Rinconada open for lap swim and allow one household per lane, and only Palo Alto residents (to prevent  any potential contact of people who live at distances to each other).  This should fulfill the 6 feet distance between  people, as the lanes are more than 6 feet wide.  I would propose that for now locker rooms not be allowed to open, and  that while entering and exiting and anytime spent on the pool deck, at least 6 feet social distancing is maintained  between any non‐household people.    Because currently the Palo Alto Masters team that also trains at Rinconada is so small, it is, perhaps, reasonable to allow  them to resume under the same conditions.    Here are a few links of:  1. How Mission Viejo Nadadores (in Orange County) has reponed their swim team, and  2. USA Swimming’s guidelines for reopening facilities    Links:  1. https://swimswam.com/mark‐schubert‐details‐rules‐guidelines‐as‐mission‐viejo‐returns‐to‐practice/  2. https://www.usaswimming.org/utility/community‐quaratine‐ resources  and  https://www.usaswimming.org/docs/default‐source/coaching‐resourcesdocuments/covid‐19‐ team‐resources/facility‐reopening‐plan‐guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=8a533a32_2    I would be happy to help in any efforts to reopen the Rinconada pool to the community as soon as possible, as the  cardiorespiratory health benefits of swimming far, far outweigh the risks… and in fact, reduce the risk of having severe  symptoms if one were to contract the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus.    Sincerely,  Barton Wells  Palo Alto resident for 30 years    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, May 2, 2020 9:26 PM To:Loran Harding; Doug Vagim; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; Mark Kreutzer; newsdesk; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Leodies Buchanan; Mark Standriff; Mayor; margaret- sasaki@live.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; Daniel Zack Subject:Fwd: Covid19 will be back in the fall!! And maybe worse. This C/B a two year deal. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 2, 2020 at 9:08 PM  Subject: Fwd: Covid19 will be back in the fall!! And maybe worse. This C/B a two year deal.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 2, 2020 at 8:15 PM  Subject: Covid19 will be back in the fall!! And maybe worse. This C/B a two year deal.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>          Sat. May 2, 2020             Doug‐  You were saying about the recovered having some immunity? Please read this. It does say that most experts  think the recovered do have some immunity, but they don't know that yet. And immunity can weaken.                 Anyway, this is a "good" article about how the virus will be back (never leaves) in the fall just as flu season hits.  They should be warning people now to get a flu shot in the fall for sure. Having both viruses at the same time could not  be helpful, and there is another reason.                       https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/02/health/coronavirus‐second‐wave‐fall‐season/index.html      2              The other reason is that if we get a repeat of Covid10 next winter, we don't want hospital beds and staff dealing  with serious flu cases, as we have every winter. In a program about ebola in Africa, they said that people were dying of  malaria then because the hospitals were jammed with ebola cases. Those malaria cases would normally survive in a  hospital.            Tonight's CBS network news had this:  DARPA is working to identify the most powerful antibodies to covid19. They  have to determine which three or four antibodies the infected produce which are the most powerful in fighting Covid19,  and then clone them.  They won't grow and produce the antibodies, although the story does show, confusingly, big bio‐ reactors where that can be done.  Instead, they will inject into well people the genetic code‐ the blueprint of the  powerful antibodies‐ and the person's cells will take up the blueprint and produce the antibodies.  Slick if it works. This is  a short stop, a temporary fix until they get a vaccine.                 Sure is related, at least, to how a vaccine works. With a vaccine, you inject a part of the virus, the immune system  sees it and produces antibodies to it. Then when the full blown, intact virus invades, the body has custom made  antibodies to fight it. But it makes a variety of antibodies, some more effective than others. Here, you inject into the  person the blueprint for the antibody, and his cells produce the antibodies.  So you take out the work the body has to do  to indentify which antibodies best will kill the virus. You do that for the body, and just give it the blue prints for the  antibodies that you know will work, and work well, against the virus and the body produces these very effective  antibodies.                    Here is the report, which ran tonight, May 2, 2020, but apparently ran earlier this week on a CBS morning show:                         https://www.cbsnews.com/video/pentagons‐darpa‐races‐to‐find‐temporary‐fix‐to‐covid‐19/#x                       L. William Harding            Fresno                       Let me get one more tiny item off my chest:   The networks keep showing people demonstrating againt the  shut down, out in front of State capitols, e.g.  They say that large numbers of people are demonstrating to re‐open the  country! OK.  So that means that they represent the majority opinion? No. 75% of Americans want the lock down  continued, polls keep showing. Those 75% would not risk their lives demonstrating in front of a govenment building.  They are locked down precisely because they believe that social mixing is a risk to their lives. So that is one part of the  fallacy of the networks' presentation.                  The other part is this:  Even if you were willing to go out to support the lockdown, would you go hold up a sign  saying  "Keep the lockdown. Save lives",  You'd go do that around the perimeter of people yelling and holding automatic  weapons, Nazi flags and Confederate flags? Not unless you didn't mind risking your life or serious injury.                   People who write this junk at the networks either can't think or they want to appeal to the least educated, most  violent and lowest IQ among us.  Of course, the networks are big companies, and their ad revenue must be way down  with so much of business closed down. They have a financial stake in getting the lockdown lifted.                 LH                                       1 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Zent <michael@mzent.com> Sent:Saturday, May 2, 2020 11:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Common sense... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    It is absolutely ridiculous to have so many parks closed!  Seriously, it IS possible to stay 50’ away from people in  Arastradero Preserve.  People need to get out in nature and the arbitrary closure of this park is totally and completely  unnecessary! What happened to common sense??  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Guillaume Bienaime <guillaumebienaime@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 11:15 AM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Viewpoint: We're going to have to get creative to save restaurants, retail - San Francisco Business Times CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2020/05/01/viewpoint‐were‐going‐to‐have‐to‐get‐creative‐to.html      Zola    Palo Alto CA 94025  650‐521‐0651  zolapa.com  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:51 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:dentists CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Does the City require dental offices remain closed except for urgent care as of tomorrow?? No change? I ask because the SC County reports that the offices can reopen for procedures without limitation tomorrow and the CDC RECOMMENDS that they remain closed except for urgent care. So what does the City require? How many cases does Palo Alto report of coronavirus-19? Natalie Fisher  Palo Alto   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 1:11 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Fw: Re:dentists CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Read below. I received no helpful; answer. What does the City say about dental offices? Natalie   From: Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>  Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 12:52 PM  To: SCC Public Questions <publicquestions@eoc.sccgov.org>  Subject: Re:dentists      I went to the link: County of SC Public Health COVID-19 Information again and found this again: For the purposes of this Order, individuals may leave their residence to work for, volunteer at, or obtain services at “Healthcare Operations,” including, without limitation, hospitals, clinics, COVID-19 testing locations, dentists, pharmacies, blood banks and blood drives, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, other healthcare facilities, healthcare suppliers, home healthcare services providers, mental health providers, or any related and/or ancillary healthcare services. “Healthcare Operations” also includes veterinary care and all healthcare services provided to animals. This exemption for Healthcare Operations shall be construed broadly to avoid any interference with the delivery of healthcare, broadly defined. “Healthcare Operations” excludes fitness and exercise gyms and similar facilities. So? Nothing about postponing elective procedures. It says "without limitation". What do you say? Natalie   From: SCC Public Questions <publicquestions@eoc.sccgov.org>  Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 12:03 PM  To: Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>  Subject: RE: Public Concern Received      Thank you for your follow‐up Nat,  2    Dental offices have not been required to close. Elective procedures should be postponed under the guidance of the CDC.  All healthcare facilities have been strongly encouraged to remain open through the enactment of the Order.      For additional resources click on the links below:  County of Santa Clara Public Health COVID‐19 Information  CDC COVID‐19 Information  County of Santa Clara General Information  NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:     The information provided is intended to assist the public to ensure compliance with the Public Health Officer’s Order to  Shelter in Place (issued March 31, 2020).  Please note that the Frequently Asked Questions and individual responses to  inquiries from the public do not, and are not intended to provide binding legal, health care, or financial guidance.  All  liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this site are hereby expressly  disclaimed.  The County does not provide certifications or exemptions of any kind for businesses or residents related to  this Order.  The information provided can help try to clarify certain aspects of the Order and point to language that may  be relevant to a specific situation within the Order or the FAQ.  This correspondence must not be construed as granting  any kind of official exemption.  It is the responsibility of each individual business owner and individual to ensure their  activities are consistent with the Order itself.     From: Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:48 PM  To: SCC Public Questions <publicquestions@eoc.sccgov.org>  Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Public Concern Received     Please let me know if I am reading the new order correctly.    As if May 4, Dental offices can open without limitation. That means cleanings can be done. I wonder if those dental offices which are closed are being informed that they can reopen as of May 4.    Natalie Fisher     From: SCC Public Questions <publicquestions@eoc.sccgov.org>  Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 3:28 PM  To: Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>  Subject: RE: Public Concern Received      Hi Natalie! Our latest Order and more information has been posted here:  https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/order‐health‐officer‐050420.aspx. Hope this helps.      In health,      Jenee Fortier  County of Santa Clara Emergency Operations Center  Website: http://sccgov.org/coronavirus   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sccpublichealth/  Instagram: @scc_publichealth  3 Twitter: @HealthySCC     More information on the Shelter in Place Order can be found here.     NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  The  information provided is intended to assist the public to ensure compliance with the Public  Health Officer’s Order to Shelter in Place (issued March 31, 2020).  Please note that the Frequently Asked Questions and  individual responses to inquiries from the public do not, and are not intended to provide binding legal, health care, or  financial guidance. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this site are hereby  expressly disclaimed.              From: Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:51 PM  To: SCC Public Questions <publicquestions@eoc.sccgov.org>  Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Public Concern Received     Will you let me know of the details mentioned below?    Natalie Fisher  Palo Alto     From: SCC Public Questions <publicquestions@eoc.sccgov.org>  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 2:07 PM  To: sukiroo@hotmail.com <sukiroo@hotmail.com>  Subject: RE: Public Concern Received      Hi Natalie,  Thank you so much for your message and for sharing your concern. We, in conjunction with six other Bay Area  counties, are working hard to revise our current shelter‐in‐place order in a way that balances public safety with public  interest.   Part of this is determining what services are truly essential.  Your concern has been shared.   We are  announcing more details later this week so we ask that you remain patient. We thank you for staying home to stay  safe.     For additional resources click on the links below:  County of Santa Clara Public Health COVID‐19 Information  CDC COVID‐19 Information  County of Santa Clara General Information  NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:     The information provided is intended to assist the public to ensure compliance with the Public Health Officer’s Order to Shelter in  Place (issued March 31, 2020).  Please note that the Frequently Asked Questions and individual responses to inquiries from the  public do not, and are not intended to provide binding legal, health care, or financial guidance.  All liability with respect to actions  taken or not taken based on the contents of this site are hereby expressly disclaimed.  The County does not provide certifications or  exemptions of any kind for businesses or residents related to this Order.  The information provided can help try to clarify certain  aspects of the Order and point to language that may be relevant to a specific situation within the Order or the FAQ.  This  correspondence must not be construed as granting any kind of official exemption.  It is the responsibility of each individual business  owner and individual to ensure their activities are consistent with the Order itself.  4    From: donotreply@isd.sccgov.org <donotreply@isd.sccgov.org>   Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 9:59 PM  To: SCC Public Questions <publicquestions@eoc.sccgov.org>  Subject: Public Concern Received     Email Subject: Ask a question or share a concern has been received!     I Have Read the Question:  Yes  My question is about:  Healthcare  First Name:  Natalie  Last Name:  Fisher  Email:  sukiroo@hotmail.com  Phone Number:  650‐326‐6359  Zip Code:  94303  I have a question about:  Dentists are essential. I can't get my teeth cleaned and they must be cleaned regularly or I'm in  danger of losing teeth! I'm 81 years old and I have a problem with my gums. To avoid worse gum damage and the  possible lost of teeth, they must be cleaned regularly. I don't understand why dental offices are closed. They are an  essential service.     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Andrew Simon-Rooke <simon.174@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 9:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Home Construction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     In March, I wrote to you regarding residential home construction continuing and asking you to take a step beyond the  county order and stop non‐affordable housing residential construction.  Subsequently, the order was revised at the state  level to prevent such construction, but those restrictions have been lifted.    The house next to mine was demolished entirely right before the previous order went into place.  Today, it is again  teeming with activity.  There are 3‐4 trucks, heavy equipment, and many workers that are not wearing masks or  practicing social distancing.  What is the immediate result of this activity? My two small children, 5 and 2, can no longer  play in our yard.  We cannot go to the city's parks, because those have been closed. We cannot go friends or neighbors  homes to play, because that is a public health risk.  In short, our children now don't have an accessible safe place to be  kids outside.  They cannot garden or play with their toys or kiddie pool. We live in 800 sq ft and their last bit of space to  move their bodies was just taken away.      What is being built?  Two multi‐million housing units are being built by a developer.      We have all seen the graphs of what is coming in the second wave.  So, the construction activity is increasing the risk of  future death and illness and making life exceptionally more difficult for those of us trying to do the right thing and stay  home.    I ask that you do the right thing for your residents (not developers) and put an end to residential construction during this  time.    Thank you,    Andrew Simon‐Rooke    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Erwin Morton <erwin@morton.net> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 11:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:URGENT -- Request to PULL VAPING ORDINANCE from CONSENT CALENDAR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council members ‐‐    I hope you and your families are all doing well and staying safe in the extraordinary circumstances in which we find  ourselves.      Thank you all so much for the work you and the city have been doing on both Vaping and COVID‐19.  I'm writing today  about a place where the two topics intersect in dangerous ways.    My urgent request:  at tomorrow's meeting (Mon May 4), PLEASE PULL the ANTI‐VAPING ordinance from the Consent  Calendar, so that there can be further discussion and amendments.      Many of us who have been working on the issue of teen vaping are concerned about details of the proposed ordinance,  such as the exemption for adult‐only stores.    And I'm especially concerned about two other COVID‐related issues:    (1) Fiscal:  The proposed ordinance is not fully aligned with those in Santa Clara County's ordinance.  Alignment allows  the County to do the enforcement for us; without it, the city would have to spend its own money on enforcement.  In  anticipation of revenue reductions resulting from COVID‐19, I believe we should avoid putting this additional strain on  the city's budget.    (2) Health:  There are reports that vaping weakens the lungs, and it may weaken the immune system as well.  Vaping +  COVID are certainly not a good combination, and for some, the combination may be lethal.  (I believe the technical term  is "double whammy.")      As you know, Palo Alto PTA Council (for which I serve as VP for  Advocacy) has been working on vaping issues for quite some time. We developed and submitted a statewide resolution  on the subject, which has been working its way through State PTA's process.  We are absolutely serious about protecting  our kids (by which I mean all of California's  9+ million kids) from the scourges of addiction and ill health.    Thank you again for all your work and your ongoing support for all our community's kids!    Best ‐‐    ‐‐ Erwin Morton  1 Baumb, Nelly From:V.H. Stinger <vhs101@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 7:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tobacco Retail Ordinance, May 4th City Council Agenda Item 5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: Council Members From: Valerie Stinger Subject: Tobacco Retail Ordinance, May 4th City Council Agenda Item 5 Date: May 3, 2020 This is written to call your attention to and request your advocacy for Community Funding to Reduce Vaping (Discussion Item 4, pp. 7-8 in the staff report). I support and hope Council will support the Healthy City Healthy Community (HC/HC) suggestion to increase funding to the ThinkFund to promote youth-led initiatives and peer-to-peer education. While I am Vice-Chair of the Human Relations Commission and their liaison to the HC/HC, I am writing as an individual, concerned about the stress middle and high school students experience and how that is compounded by COVID-19. The suggestion arises from the January breakfast forum and attendee survey. An important take-away from that forum, so well organized by PAMF, was that messaging and media need to reach more middle and high school students. Student-to-student or peer-to-peer influence is expected to be more influential than expert factual presentations, both in prevention (discourage starting to vape) and treatment (help withdraw from vaping.) Student grants could seed innovative messaging. Students took responsibility for a mentorship role: ‘It’s on us. We’ve seen it. It’s on us.’ Student-initiated campaigns were also endorsed by student panelists at the excellent Palo Alto Youth Council Forum on April 30th. Again, student-originated messaging was expected to be more effective in changing behavior. My request is that Council: 2 (1) fund the ThinkFund to allow youth-led initiatives and (2) dedicate fines and permits collected under the Tobacco Retail Ordinance to provide that funding. Regards, Valerie Stinger Valerie Stinger 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder383@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 8:31 PM To:Council, City; Weiss, Julie Subject:Amendment to Tobacco Retail Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Council members, First of all, thanks to the staff for restructuring the tobacco ordinance which is drafted with the small businesses in mind to stay operational. I am the owner of Smokes & More which is Adult only store located in Palo Alto. I have been in business for almost 10 yrs and never was found in non compliance with the tobacco regulations. The proposed ordinance will give the smoke shops a lifeline to keep operating as responsible adult only stores. I also respect and support the three additional requirements for adult only stores to curb youth vaping Sincerely Jaswinder Singh (Smokes & More) 1 Baumb, Nelly From:PTAC President <president@paloaltopta.org> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 9:18 PM To:Council, City; Lydia Kou; Adrian Fine; Greg Tanaka Cc:PTAC Advocacy; PTAC EVP Subject:City of Palo Alto Ordinance on Anti-Vaping - Please make Ordinance the same as County of Santa Clara's Anti-Vaping Ordinance - Palo Alto PTA Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Council Members, Hello Mayor Adrian Fine,     Good evening. I hope this email finds you well.     Allow me first to thank you for all the work you are doing on COVID‐19 response. As a resident of  this City, I have benefited from the information via daily emails and the Friday webinars. I have  actually clicked and used the links for exercises, museums tours, art activities for kids, etc. THANK  YOU!!    We have met with some of you back in Jan/Feb to articulate the concerns of the Palo Alto PTA  Council (PTAC). Nothing has changed.     Please now consider making the City of Palo Alto anti‐vaping ordinance  that is coming before you tomorrow evening, Monday, May 4th, the  same language as the County of Santa Clara's Anti‐Vaping Ordinance. Vote  in a way and only approve an ordinance that will protect our kids and our school families. We  need your help to protect our schools, high schoolers, and middle  schoolers. The ordinance is very important to help a generation of kids of  Palo Alto from becoming hooked on nicotine. Plus, COVID‐19 and vaping  is a disastrous combination especially right now. Both are respiratory  lung invaders that can send kids into the ICU and premature death.  Please help save children's lives now and protect our children from the  addictiveness of nicotine.      Specifically, please kindly have Staff make the following changes re the draft ordinance:     ‐ Section 4.64.030 (i)(4)(i) ‐ exemption for adult‐only stores to sell flavored tobacco  ‐ Section 4.64.030 (l)(i) ‐ exemption for adult‐only stores to sell e‐cigarettes  2 ‐ And references to this section in 4.64.040 (d)(2) and 4.64.040 (e)(2)  ‐ And matching the County's in Section 4.64.120 Prevention of Underage Sales to do checks "at  least twice per 12‐month period" rather than "at least once per‐12 month period"  ‐ Deleting Section 4.64.130 (g).  Revocation for adult only retailers if they sell to youth    Please take good care of yourselves and your families. I look forward to meeting with all of you  soon. Thank you so very much.     Jade      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Dr. Bonnie Halpern-Felsher <bonnieh@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 7:33 AM To:Council, City; Greg Tanaka Cc:Bonnie Halpern-Felsher Subject:May 4th: Flavored tobacco / e-cigarettes Attachments:2. 2018 Data - Percent of Retailers Selling Tobacco to Minors by Store Type.pdf; 3. Letter stating that no stores have closed in SF May 31 2019.pdf; 1. 2019 Study - Underage sales violations higher (50%) in tobacco, vape shops.pdf; e-cig_products_exempt_from_federal_guidance.pdf; Santa Clara County - Nov 5 2019 - California Student Tobacco Survey.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear City Council,     I wanted to follow‐up and provide more details to the email I sent previously, regarding flavored tobacco/e‐cigarette  regulations being discussed tonight, May 4th.    As a professor of pediatrics/adolescent medicine, developmental psychologist, and researcher studying adolescent  tobacco use for over 25 years (https://profiles.stanford.edu/bonnie‐halpern‐felsher), I am deeply concerned about  youth use of and access to flavored tobacco/e‐cigarettes. As such:    First, I urge you to pull item #5 from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Second, I urge you to mirror the Santa Clara  County ordinance without exemptions.    Currently, there is a loophole to exempt "adult only" stores so they can sell flavored tobacco and e‐cigarettes.  Please  remove the sections that pertain to this so the Palo Alto ordinance mirrors the County ordinance and does NOT allow  any retailers to sell flavored tobacco and e‐cigarettes.    Despite hopes and early promises, the federal government and the FDA are NOT banning e‐cigarettes or flavors, or  further restricting access.  Attached are some slides that show an example of the flavored tobacco and e‐cigarettes that  are still allowed on the market even after the Federal restrictions to pod‐based e‐cigarettes that went into effect earlier  this year.  Further, none of these products have FDA authorization to be marketed or sold. The Federal actions do not go  far enough. It is therefore imperative that cities take their own actions, and act now.     We know youth are easily accessing e‐cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products from retail and vape shops. Many  local vape and retail shops are not IDing youth, or don't recognize that the legal age to purchase tobacco in California is  21. Attached is information from the California Department of Health showing vape/smoke shops don't always ID, and  Santa Clara County Public Health Department showing that locally kids are accessing these products from vape/smoke  shops.    I've also heard concern about the vape / smoke shops going out of business.  The concern should be for the greater  public good over the profits of a few shops selling an addictive substance. Moreover, a few of Palo Alto's smoke shops  were in business before flavored tobacco and e‐cigarettes were on the market and they could continue to sell non‐ flavored/non‐ecig tobacco products.  Attached is a letter and study that looked at tobacco retailers across San Francisco  after San Francisco implemented a city/county‐wide ban on flavored tobacco.  None of those stores went out of  business; they adapted.     2 The evidence is clear.  The extraordinarily high levels of nicotine get kids addicted, and flavors including fruit, candy,  mint and menthol, attract and keep kids addicted to tobacco. Adults don't need flavored tobacco or non‐FDA authorized  e‐cigarettes to quit smoking, and we need to restrict youth access to all tobacco products.      Please take action by mirroring the County ordinance without exemptions.    Thank you and best,  Bonnie    Bonnie Halpern‐Felsher, PhD, FSAHM  Professor of Pediatrics  Professor (By courtesy), Health Research & Policy  Director of Fellows’ Scholarship, Department of Pediatrics  Director of Research, Division of Adolescent Medicine  Associate Director, Adolescent Medicine Fellowship Program  Co‐leader, Scholarly Concentrations, Pediatrics Residency Program     Founder and Executive Director, Tobacco Prevention Toolkit and the Cannabis Awareness and Prevention Toolkit.     Division of Adolescent Medicine  Department of Pediatrics  Stanford University  770 Welch Road, Suite 100  Palo Alto, CA 94304  bonnie.halpernfelsher@stanford.edu  650‐724‐1981 (W)  650‐736‐7706 (F)        Pe r c e n t o f R e t a i l e r s S e l l i n g T o b a c c o t o Un d e r a g e Y o u n g A d u l t s , 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 13 . 1 22 . 0 14 . 2 17 . 6 19 . 1 051015202530 20 1 7 20 1 8 Retailer Violation Rate, % El e c t r o n i c S m o k i n g D e v i c e s To b a c c o Ov e r a l l No t e : I n 2 0 1 7 , t h e r e w a s n o o v e r a l l r e t a i l e r v i o l a t i o n r a t e a s t h e Y o u n g A d u l t E - c i g a r e t t e P u r c h a s e S u r v e y a n d t h e Y o u n g A d u l t T o b a c c o P u r c h a s e S u r v e y w e r e tw o s e p a r a t e s u r v e y s . I n 2 0 1 8 , t h e t w o s u r v e y s w e r e c o m b i n e d i n t o o n e Y o u n g A d u l t T o b a c c o P u r c h a s S u r v e y . Y o u n g a d u l t s a r e d e f i n e d a s a g e s 1 8 - 1 9 . So u r c e : C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c H e a l t h , C a l i f o r n i a T o b a c c o C o n t r o l P r o g r a m . Y o u n g A d u l t T o b a c c o P u r c h a s e S u r v e y , 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 1 8 . S a c r a m e n t o , C A : Ca l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c H e a l t h ; O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8 . Pe r c e n t o f R e t a i l e r s S e l l i n g T o b a c c o t o Un d e r a g e Y o u n g A d u l t s b y S t o r e T y p e , 2 0 1 8 36 . 0 30 . 2 25 . 3 24 . 8 22 . 2 14 . 7 12 . 6 12 . 1 6. 9 19 . 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 To b a c c o S t o r e Va p e S h o p Co n v e n i e n c e S t o r e w i t h o u t G a s Sm a l l M a r k e t Ot h e r Co n v e n i e n c e S t o r e w i t h G a s Li q u o r S t o r e Su p e r m a r k e t Dr u g S t o r e s / P h a r m a c i e s ST A T E W I D E Re t a i l e r V i o l a t i o n R a t e , % No t e : T o b a c c o s t o r e s i n c l u d e v a p e s h o p s / l o u n g e s . S t o r e t y p e s w i t h s m a l l s a m p l e s i z e s w e r e g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e “ o t h e r ” c a t e g o r y ( e . g . d e l i s , d i s c o u n t st o r e s , g i f t s t o r e s , h o t e l s , c a r w a s h e s , r e s t a u r a n t s , c a f e s , d o n u t s h o p s ) . Y o u n g a d u l t s a r e d e f i n e d a s 1 8 - 1 9 y e a r s o l d . S o u r c e : C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c He a l t h , C a l i f o r n i a T o b a c c o C o n t r o l P r o g r a m . Y o u n g A d u l t T o b a c c o P u r c h a s e S u r v e y , 2 0 1 8 . S a c r a m e n t o , C A : C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c H e a l t h ; O c t o b e r 20 1 8 . TobaccoFreeKids.org > Devices Sold with Empty, Refillable Pods are Exempt Suorin and Smok can be filled with e-liquids of varying nicotine strengths and thousands of flavors 1 After Juul, Suorin and Smok are the most popular e-cigarette devices among high school students TobaccoFreeKids.org > Disposable Products Are Exempt “An example of products that would not be captured by this definition include completely self-contained, disposable products” 2 TobaccoFreeKids.org >3 Disposable Products Are Exempt “An example of products that would not be captured by this definition include completely self-contained, disposable products” TobaccoFreeKids.org > Guidance Prioritizes Enforcement of Pod Products, Leaving Thousands of Kid-Friendly E-Liquid Flavors on the Market Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors – 11/5/2019 E-CIGARETTE USE AMONG YOUTH UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY © 2015 Santa Clara County Public Health Department Public Health DepartmentCounty of Santa Clara Tobacco use among high school students in Santa Clara County 2 2017‐2018 California Student Tobacco Survey. *Data are statistically unreliable. E-Cigarette use among high school students in Santa Clara County 3 2017‐2018 California Student Tobacco Survey. *Data are statistically unreliable due to small sample size. Youth are using flavored tobacco products 2017‐2018 California Student Tobacco Survey. *Data are statistically unreliable due to small sample size. 5 Where do youth report getting e-cigarettes? 54.6%of high school students report getting e-cigarettes from social sources VS. 45.4% report purchasing their e-cigarettes Vape shops (62.5%) were the most popular store type for purchasing e-cigarettes 2017‐2018 California Student Tobacco Survey. 68.3%of students thought that it would be very easy or somewhat easy to get e-cigarettes or cigarettes. Perceived ease of acquiring tobacco products 6 Susceptibility to future tobacco use Two in five (40.1%) high school students who had never used a tobacco product were susceptible to using at least one tobacco product in the future if offered by a best friend Over one in four (28%) high school students reported being offered a tobacco product in the last 30 days 7 Underage sales violations higher in tobacco, vape shops June 24, 2019 IN THE JOURNALS Roeseler A, et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1571. Nearly half of tobacco and vape shops failed to check identification when underage decoys attempted to purchase vape products, according to a California-based study. To combat the significant increase in vaping among high school students from 2017 to 2018, the FDA announced its intention to limit sales of flavored tobacco products, excluding menthol, to age-restricted locations, such as tobacco and vape shops. “However, the 2017 California tobacco purchase survey reported that tobacco and vape shops had the highest rate of underage sales compared with other types of tobacco retailers,” April Roeseler, BSN, MSPH,from the California Tobacco Control Program, California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Pediatrics. “We investigated whether disparate violations persisted in 2018 and whether the FDA’s intention to limit the sale of flavored tobacco products to age-restricted locations is adequate.” From March to June 2018, the researchers randomly assigned decoys aged 18 to 19 years to purchase cigarettes (n = 1,123) or vape products, such as e-cigarettes and e-liquids (n = 498), as the FDA requires retailers to check identification for all people younger than 27 years. The decoys did not carry ID and were truthful about their age. A trained chaperone observed whether the retailer requested ID and if a sale occurred. Despite the FDA’s regulation, 49.8% of tobacco and vape shops did not check ID for underage decoys when they attempted to purchase vape products. This percentage, the researchers noted, was higher when compared with other types of retailers (P < .05). Results also showed that 44.7% of tobacco and vape ADD TOPIC TO EMAIL ALERTS Page 1 of 2Underage sales violations higher in tobacco, vape shops 8/5/2019https://www.healio.com/pulmonology/smoking-and-tobacco/news/online/%7B8f7428a3-d2... shops sold vape products to underage decoys at a higher rate than other retailers (P < .05), and vape products accounted for more overall sales violations when compared with cigarettes (P < .05). The researchers used data from the 2018 sample (n = 1,746) of the California Tobacco Control Program’s Young Adult Tobacco Purchase Survey drawn from the statewide tobacco retail license list. They defined tobacco and vape shops as those that primarily sell tobacco products. These data, the researchers noted, are not unique to California, with other states, such as North Carolina and Oklahoma, reporting underage sales rates of 20% or higher in tobacco and vape shops in 2019. “Presumably tobacco and vape shops would be the most compliant with age-of- sale laws, particularly in states where license suspension or revocation would jeopardize the business. However, these results suggest that the FDA’s proposal to relegate sales of flavored tobacco products to adult-only facilities are not likely to be effective without age verification requirements and increases in the number and frequency of compliance checks that the FDA conducts,” Roeseler and colleagues wrote. – by Melissa Foster Disclosures: One of the authors reports she received grants from the National Cancer Institute. All other authors report no relevant financial disclosures. ADD TOPIC TO EMAIL ALERTS Page 2 of 2Underage sales violations higher in tobacco, vape shops 8/5/2019https://www.healio.com/pulmonology/smoking-and-tobacco/news/online/%7B8f7428a3-d2... 1 Baumb, Nelly From:david zoumut <dzoumut@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 7:43 AM To:Council, City Cc:Weiss, Julie Subject:Hookah lounge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Good morning  I have sent an email to city council on the 14th of April, urging council not to consider closing all such businesses in Santa  Clara county. I received an email regarding this issue, in the email, city council is considering tightening up the  regulations and rules in operating such businesses.   I totally agree with those proposals, I have been operating as if they already exist.   I hope you consider my request and decide not to close any, but to have us help in curbing the demand of vape  products to our underage kids , and from obtaining or buying such products.  Thank you for your time.  David Zoumut  Hooka nights lounge  Palo Alto      Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Amar Johal <amarjohal@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 9:12 AM To:Fine, Adrian Cc:Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.or; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison Subject:Vaping Ban Feedback - Urgent 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,   As a convenience store owner in our local community of Palo Alto (7-Eleven Waverley), I’m stunned that you are considering an ordinance that would ban the sale of all vapor products at stores like mine and also exclude others.    Honestly first it was the flavor ban, I was fine with it even though it dropped my sales by 15-20%. I was ok due to the health epidemic, BUT if Palo Alto really cared about health they would ban flavor's for everyone and not let 21+ shops sell them just like other cities have done. This is a true sign you care about health.     Same with this ban, quit creating an un-equal playing field, if health is a concern BAN things for every retailer, quit picking and choosing please.     I suggest 2 things, 1) Include every retailer in your bans 2) VERY IMPORTANT: place this on hold until you can include all retailers, currently due to COVID our sales are down 45% we are barely surviving trying to stay open as an essential business.     Thank you,    -Amar Johal  925‐699‐3399    1 Baumb, Nelly From:gmahbox-community@yahoo.com Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 10:23 AM To:Council, City Cc:ptac-no-vaping@groups.io; PTAC EVP; PTAC Health and Wellness; Kimberly Eng Lee; PTAC Advocacy Subject:Please Remove Adult-Only Store Exception from Tobacco Retail Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, With the change from the original Council direction to follow the Santa Clara County ordinance as much as possible, the exception for adult-only stores is worth discussing. I hope the item will be taken off the consent calendar and open for discussion and public comment. The staff report states that five of seven adult-only stores will "likely" close with a ban on all vaping in Palo Alto. I am interested in how the staff came to that conclusion. Is it based on the percentage of e-cigarette revenue for the stores? How long have these stores been selling vaping tobacco products? As vaping is a relatively new addiction, I suspect the stores were not dependent on vaping products when they opened and can adapt to other products, if vaping is banned in Palo Alto for adult-only stores. Entrepreneurs adapt to changing markets and I have confidence that those five adult-only stores will survive. The health costs for addiction by youth and adults are tremendously high. Especially with the high "likelihood" for youth to obtain vaping products from these adult-only stores. The history of tobacco addiction by youth is tragic and does not need to be prevented in Palo Alto, as much as can be controlled. Adherence to County ordinance also results in additional City costs to run its own cost-recovery permit program. With the upcoming economic downturn and anticipated budget cuts, the City's enforcement of vaping-related ordinances will be a very low priority, if not fallen to the wayside. Please direct staff to remove the exception to adult-only stores and ban vaping in Palo Alto. Thank you very much for supporting today's youth, saving lives, and reducing health costs and city budget costs. Grace Mah Santa Clara County School Board Member Gunn PTSA Advocacy Chair 1 Baumb, Nelly From:CarolIne Baker <cbaker8942@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 12:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  May 3, 2020 To the members of the Palo Alto City Council, It has come to my attention that item 5 on your consent calendar that was proposed in December has been amended to weaken protection for the citizens of Palo Alto and neighboring cities. Santa Clara County’s ordinance is stronger and more comprehensive. We would like to request that you remove item 5 from the consent calendar and amend it to mirror the county ordinance, instead of adding loopholes that will have to be addressed again. Thank you, Carol Carol Baker Co-Chair, Tobacco Free Coalition of Santa Clara County Volunteer Ambassador, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lindsey Freitas <lfreitas@TobaccoFreeKids.org> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 1:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 5 Attachments:Palo Alto_TFK letter of support_flavored tobacco 5.4.20.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To Whom it May Concern,     Please find attached a letter from the Campaign for Tobacco‐Free Kids asking for the removal of the adult only store  exemption.     Thank you  Lindsey Freitas    Lindsey Freitas, MPA  Regional Advocacy Director  Campaign for Tobacco‐Free Kids // Tobacco‐Free Kids Action Fund  Phone: (530) 906‐0867 | Email: lfreitas@tobaccofreekids.org   www.tobaccofreekids.org/    Mayor Adrian Fine & Palo Alto Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 4, 2020 Re: Agenda item 5: Tobacco Retail License Dear Mayor Adrian and Council Members, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids asks that Agenda Item 5: Tobacco Retail License be removed from the consent calendar and that it be amended to remove the adult only exemption in the current version. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is the nation’s largest non-profit, non-governmental advocacy organization solely devoted to reducing tobacco use and its deadly toll by advocating for public policies that prevent kids from using tobacco, and help smokers quit. We commend Palo Alto for being a national leader in its commitment to reducing the death and disease from tobacco use. It is encouraging to see cities and counties in California continue to take thoughtful, evidenced-based steps to reduce the number of kids who start using tobacco and help tobacco users quit. While California has made great strides in reducing tobacco use, tobacco use remains the number one preventable cause of premature death and disease in Palo Alto and the nation, killing 480,000 Americans annually. Adult only exempts do not work. We have witnessed in other communities that have adopted adult only exemptions, these exemptions undermine efforts to reduce health disparities. This was clearly evident in Oakland. In 2017, Oakland adopted a tobacco policy that at the time was considered a big win, but once enacted, it was immediately made clear how problematic the adult only exemption was. Since the ordinance went into effect, the number of adult-only tobacco stores has expanded from a couple tobacco stores to 56 stores representing over 14% of the tobacco retailers in the city. These are not new stores; these are existing tobacco retailers that are converting to adult-only tobacco stores in order to continue the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol. These adult-only tobacco stores are disproportionately located in the flatlands of East Oakland where there is a higher burden of poor health outcomes. This means flavored tobacco products, including menthol, are still accessible and prevalent, particularly for low-income communities of color and youth. Additionally, the exemption presents many enforcement challenges for Oakland Police Department and creates an uneven playing field for tobacco retailers in the city. It is clear that this exemption is not one that works. Prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, in all tobacco retailers is a critical step that will help protect children living in Palo Alto from the unrelenting efforts by the tobacco industry to hook them to a deadly addiction. Flavored tobacco products are designed to alter the taste and reduce the harshness of tobacco products so they are more appealing and easy for beginners, who are almost always kids. These products are pervasive and are marketed and sold in a variety of kid-friendly flavors. With their colorful packaging and sweet flavors, flavored tobacco products are often hard to distinguish from the candy displays near which they are frequently placed in retail outlets. Nationally, eight out of ten of current youth tobacco users have used a flavored tobacco product in the past month.1 Menthol is the Most Popular Tobacco Flavor Among Youth Most insidious among the flavors preferred by youth, are mint and menthol, which should not be exempted from any proposed ordinance. Menthol delivers a pleasant minty taste and imparts a cooling and soothing sensation. These characteristics successfully mask the harshness of tobacco, making it easier for beginner smokers and kids to tolerate smoking. The FDA’s Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) has reported that:  Menthol cigarettes increase the number of children who experiment with cigarettes and the number of children who become regular smokers, increasing overall youth smoking.  Young people who initiate using menthol cigarettes are more likely to become addicted and become long-term daily smokers.  The availability of menthol cigarettes reduces smoking cessation, especially among African- Americans, and increases the overall prevalence of smoking among African Americans.  Menthol cigarettes are marketed disproportionately to younger smokers and are disproportionately marketed per capita to African Americans. After a thorough review of the evidence, TPSAC concluded that “Removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States.”2 Flavored Tobacco Products Are Pervasive A 2009 federal law, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, prohibited the sale of cigarettes with characterizing flavors other than menthol or tobacco, including candy and fruit flavors. While overall cigarette sales have been declining since the 2009 law, the proportion of smokers using menthol cigarettes (the only remaining flavored cigarette) has been increasing.3 Menthol cigarettes comprised 36 percent of the market in 2018.4 The Tobacco Control Act’s prohibition on characterizing flavors did not apply to other tobacco products, and as a result, tobacco companies have significantly stepped up the introduction and marketing of flavored non-cigarette tobacco products. In fact, the overall market for flavored tobacco products is actually growing. In recent years, there has been an explosion of sweet-flavored tobacco products, especially e-cigarettes and cigars. These products are available in a wide assortment of flavors – like gummy bear, cotton candy, peanut butter cup, cookies ‘n cream and pop rocks for e-cigarettes and chocolate, watermelon, lemonade and cherry dynamite for cigars. Tobacco companies are making and marketing deadly and addictive products that look and taste like a new line of flavors from a Ben and Jerry’s ice cream store. (See Appendix for examples). As of 2017, researchers had identified more than 15,500 unique e-cigarette flavors available online.5 Flavors are not just a critical part of the product design, but are a key marketing ploy for the industry. The 2016 Surgeon General Report on e-cigarettes concluded, “E-cigarettes are marketed by promoting flavors and using a wide variety of media channels and approaches that have been used in the past for marketing conventional tobacco products to youth and young adults.”6 The 2016 National Youth Tobacco Survey found that 78.2 percent of middle and high school students—20.5 million youth—had been exposed to e-cigarette advertisements from at least one source, an increase from 68.9 percent in 2014.7 Sales of flavored cigars, meanwhile, have increased by nearly 50 percent since 2008, and flavored cigars made up more than half (52.1%) of the U.S. cigar market in 2015. The number of unique cigar flavor names more than doubled from 2008 to 2015, from 108 to 250.8 The top five most popular cigar brands among 12- to 17-year olds who have used cigars – Black & Mild, Swisher Sweets, White Owl, Backwoods, and Dutch Masters – all come in flavor varieties.9 These products are often sold singly or can be priced as low as 3 or 4 for 99 cents, making them even more appealing to price-sensitive youth. Note that cigar smoke is composed of the same toxic and carcinogenic constituents found in cigarette smoke.10 Although tobacco companies claim to be responding to adult tobacco users’ demand for variety, it’s clear that flavored tobacco products play a key role in enticing new users, particularly kids, to a lifetime of addiction. This growing market of flavored tobacco products is undermining progress in reducing youth tobacco use in Palo Alto. Flavored Tobacco Products Are Popular Among Youth These sweet products have fueled the popularity of e-cigarettes and cigars among youth. A government study found that 81 percent of kids who have ever used tobacco products started with a flavored product. Across all tobacco products, the data is clear: flavored tobacco products are overwhelmingly used by youth as a starter product, and preference for flavors declines with age. Recently released data from the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey shows that the youth e-cigarette epidemic continues to grow--27.5% of high school students are current e-cigarette users, a 135% increase from just two years ago.11 Just like with cigarettes, menthol e-cigarette are popular among youth. 57.3% of high school e-cigarette users use menthol or mint flavored e-cigarettes, making these the second most popular flavors, just behind fruit-flavored products.12 Another national survey found that 97% of current youth e-cigarette users have used a flavored e-cigarette in the past month.13 Moreover, youth cite flavors as a major reason for their current use of non-cigarette tobacco products, with 70.3% say they use e-cigarettes “because they come in flavors I like.”14 The Surgeon General has concluded that, “The use of products containing nicotine in any form among youth, including in e-cigarettes, is unsafe.”15 The manufacturer of JUUL, the most popular e-cigarette, claims that each JUULpod contains as much nicotine as a pack of twenty cigarettes. Youth use of e- cigarettes also increases the risk for trying more dangerous combustible products. A 2018 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering & Medicine found that “There is substantial evidence that e-cigarette use increases risk of ever using combustible tobacco cigarettes among youth and young adults.”16 Therefore, it is critical for any policy restricting sales of flavored tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. As the only flavored cigarette left on the market, it’s also no surprise that menthol cigarettes are popular among youth. Menthol cools and numbs the throat, reducing the harshness of cigarette smoke, thereby making menthol cigarettes more appealing to youth who are initiating smoking. More than half of youth smokers use menthol cigarettes, including seven out of ten African American youth smokers.17 The popularity of menthol flavored cigarettes is also evidenced by brand preference among youth. According to data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, one in five smokers ages 12-17 prefers Newport cigarettes, a heavily marketed menthol cigarette brand. Preference for Newport is even higher among African-American youth smokers (69.1 percent) because of targeted marketing by the tobacco industry. 18 As noted previously, young people who initiate using menthol cigarettes are more likely to become addicted and become long-term daily smokers.19 Tobacco companies have a long history of targeting and marketing flavored tobacco products to African Americas and youth. Tobacco industry marketing, often targeted at minority communities, has been instrumental in increasing the use of menthol products and in the disproportionate use of menthol products by minority groups and youth. TPSAC concluded that menthol cigarettes are marketed disproportionately to younger smokers and African Americans.20 Dating back to the 1950s, the tobacco industry has targeted these communities with marketing for menthol cigarettes through sponsorship of community and music events, targeted magazine advertising, youthful imagery, and marketing in the retail environment. This targeting continues today: neighborhoods with predominantly African American residents have more tobacco retailers and Newport cigarettes are priced cheaper in those neighborhoods.21 As a result of this targeting, 85 percent of African American smokers smoke menthol cigarettes, compared to 29 percent of white smokers.22 Use of menthol cigarettes leads to a disproportionate health burden for African Americans. The tobacco industry’s “investment” in the African American community has had a destructive impact. In 2013, the FDA released a report finding that menthol cigarettes lead to increased smoking initiation among youth and young adults, greater addiction, and decreased success in quitting smoking.23 Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in both African American men and women, but it kills more African Americans than any other type of cancer.24 Decreased cessation success due to the popularity of menthol cigarettes among African Americans likely contributes to this mortality disparity.25 TPSAC estimated that by 2020, 4,700 excess deaths in the African American community will be attributable to menthol cigarettes, and over 460,000 African Americans will have started smoking because of menthol in cigarettes. The scientific evidence leaves no doubt that menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products increase the number of people, particularly kids, who try the product, become addicted and die a premature death as a result. Prohibiting the sale of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products is an important step toward protecting our children from the tobacco industry’s aggressive efforts to hook children to a deadly, addictive product. This issue is about common sense and protecting our kids and vulnerable populations. By prohibiting the sale of all flavored tobacco products in all tobacco retail outlets, Palo Alto would join over fifty cities and counties in California that are already taking action to end the sale of flavored tobacco products. We urge you to remove the loophole for adult only stores. Thank you for considering a strong and comprehensive policy without exemptions. It will save lives. Sincerely, Lindsey Freitas, MPA Regional Advocacy Director Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids lfreitas@tobaccofreekids.org Appendix A1: Examples of Flavored Tobacco Products A2: Examples of Menthol Marketing Source: TrinketsandTrash.org, CounterTobacco.Org 1 Ambrose, BK, et al., “Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-2014,” Journal of the American Medical Association, published online October 26, 2015. 2 Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, July 21, 2011 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/TobaccoProductsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM269697.pdf. 3 Villanti, A., et al., “Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004–2014,” Tobacco Control, 25(Suppl 2):ii14-ii20, 2016. 4 U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Cigarette Report for 2018, 2019, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission- cigarette-report-2018-smokeless-tobacco-report-2018/p114508cigarettereport2018.pdf [data for top 5 manufacturers only]. 5 Zhu, S-H, et al., “Evolution of Electronic Cigarette Brands from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017: Analysis of Brand Websites,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(3), published online March 12, 2018. 6 HHS, E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2016. 7 Marynak, K., et al., “Exposure to Electronic Cigarette Advertising Among Middle and High School Students—United States, 2014-2016,” MMWR 67(10): 294-299, March 16, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/pdfs/mm6710a3-H.pdf. 8 Delnevo, CD, et al., “Changes in the mass-merchandise cigar market since the Tobacco Control Act,” Tobacco Regulatory Science, 3(2 Suppl 1): S8-S16, 2017. 9 SAMHSA's public online data analysis system (PDAS). National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2015, https://pdas.samhsa.gov/#/survey/NSDUH-2015-DS0001/crosstab/?row=CGR30BR2&column=CATAG2&weight=ANALWT_C&results_received=true. 10 National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cigars: Health Effects and Trends. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 9, 1998, http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/Brp/tcrb/monographs/9/m9_complete.pdf. Chang, CM, et al., “Systematic review of cigar smoking and all cause and smoking related mortality,” BMC Public Health, 2015. 11 FDA, “Trump Administration Combating Epidemic of Youth E-Cigarette Use with Plan to Clear Market of Unauthorized, Non-Tobacco-Flavored E- Cigarette Products,” September 11, 2019, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/trump-administration-combating-epidemic-youth-e- cigarette-use-plan-clear-market-unauthorized- non?utm_source=CTPEblast&utm_medium=email&utm_term=stratout&utm_content=pressrelease&utm_campaign=ctp-vaping. 12 Cullen, KA, et al., “e-Cigarette Use Among Youth in the United States, 2019”JAMA, published online November 5, 2019. 13 FDA, “Modifications to Compliance Policy for Certain Deemed Products: Guidance for Industry, Draft Guidance,” March 13, 2019, https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM633281.pdf. 14 FDA, “Modifications to Compliance Policy for Certain Deemed Products: Guidance for Industry, Draft Guidance,” March 13, 2019, https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM633281.pdf. 15 HHS, E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. 16 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes, 2018, http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2018/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes.aspx. 17 Villanti, A., et al., “Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004–2014,” Tobacco Control, published online October 20, 2016. 18 SAMHSA’s public online data analysis system (PDAS), National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2015. http://pdas.samhsa.gov/#/survey/NSDUH-2015-DS0001/crosstab/?row=CIG30BR2&column=CATAG3&control=NEWRACE2&weight=ANALWT_C&results_received=true and https://pdas.samhsa.gov/#/survey/NSDUH-2015-DS0001/crosstab/?column=CATAG3&results_received=true&row=CIG30BR2&weight=ANALWT_C. 18 FDA, Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes, 2013, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PeerReviewofScientificInformationandAssessments/UCM361598.pdf. 19 TPSAC, Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, July 21, 2011. 20 TPSAC, Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, July 21, 2011. 21 See e.g.,: Rodriguez, D, et al., “Predictors of tobacco outlet density nationwide: a geographic analysis,” Tobacco Control 22(5):349-55, 2013. Lee, JG, et al., “Inequalities in tobacco outlet density by race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, 2012, USA: results from the ASPIRE Study,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71(5):487-492, 2017. Henriksen, L, et al., “Targeted Advertising, Promotion, and Price for Menthol Cigarettes in California High School Neighborhoods,” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 14(1):116-21, 2012. Moreland-Russell, S, et al., “Disparities and Menthol Marketing: Additional Evidence in Support of Point of Sale Policies,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10: 4571-4583, 2013. 22 Villanti, A., et al., “Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004–2014,” Tobacco Control, published online October 20, 2016. 23 FDA, Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes, 2013. 24 American Cancer Society, “Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2016-2018,” 2016, http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-047403.pdf. 25 Alexander, LA, et al., “Why we must continue to investigate menthol’s role in the African American smoking paradox,” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 18 (Suppl 1):S91-S101, 2016. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jen Grand-Lejano <jen.grandlejano@cancer.org> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 1:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opposing Tobacco Adult Only Store Exemptions on Tonight's Agenda Attachments:Palo Alto consent_tobacco shop exemption_5-4-20 CR.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Councilmembers,     Please see the attached letter urging you to remove the proposed tobacco adult‐only store exemptions from the  ordinance on consent calendar tonight. We support a full end to the sale of flavored tobacco products citywide, and  must oppose any exemption that would let adult only stores, which are notoriously bad actors in selling tobacco to kids,  the exclusive right to sell these flavored tobacco products. Thank you for your work on this important issue. I’m available  if there are any questions.     Thank you,   Jen Grand-Lejano Northern California Government Relations Director  (510) 464.8107 | m: (925) 639.9130  American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Inc. 1001 Marina Village Parkway Suite 300 Alameda, CA 94501 fightcancer.org | 1.800.227.2345   This message (including any attachments) is intended exclusively for the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain proprietary, protected, or confidential information. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.  May 4, 2020 The Honorable Adrian Fine Members of the Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Mayor Fine and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: We are deeply concerned about the epidemic of teenage e-cigarette use fueled by the availability of flavored tobacco products. By moving this issue forward to consent calendar tonight, you have made it clear that you are concerned, too. While most of what is proposed to amend your current tobacco retailer license (TRL) is supported by best practice, the exemption of adult only stores is absolutely not. The consensus of the public health community is that it is flavors that are driving the epidemic of e- cigarette use among teenagers and the best way to address that epidemic is to remove flavors from all retail tobacco sellers with no exemptions. We urge you tonight to remove the proposed exemption for adult only tobacco stores. We support the other pieces of the ordinance to end the sale of flavored tobacco citywide and strengthen enforcement language in the TRL. We’ve learned from experience that exempting adult-only stores is problematic and weakens what could be a strong policy. Exemptions of some retailers complicates enforcement and creates resentment among retailers. Most importantly, if flavored tobacco products remain in the community, they will find their way into the hands of youth. The California Department of Public Health found that “vape” shops and tobacco stores had much higher violation rates for selling to youth when compared to every other category of tobacco retailer—30% and 36% respectively, compared to the state average of 19% for all types of tobacco retailers. All places where tobacco is sold, including adult-only tobacco shops, should be required to have a TRL with the same requirements as other tobacco retailers. We cannot put the profit of a few retailers over the health of our kids. We know through best practice in policies like this across the country, the tobacco industry always finds a way to take advantage of these loopholes. As a national organization working at the local level, we’ve seen exemptions like this go sideways time and time again despite the best intentions of thoughtful policy makers like yourselves, and we’d hate to see this happen in Palo Alto. Making exceptions for some tobacco stores leaves a way for big tobacco to continue to outsmart public health policy and get around the definitions some may believe to be airtight. This loophole leaves flavored products available in the community and sets a bad precedent for other jurisdictions considering similar policy Santa Clara County recently updated their policy to remove adult only store exemptions to strengthen their ordinance, and Oakland is now proposing to remove their exemption as well after it was tried and failed. To keep this exemption in Palo Alto would be to regress and weaken protections for our kids. We urge you to remove adult only store exemptions from the ordinance before you tonight. Sincerely, Jen Grand-Lejano Government Relations Director, Northern California American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Susie Brain <susie_brain@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 2:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please remove the proposed exemption for adult only tobacco stores CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members, As a long-time resident of Palo Alto, a patient advocate with the American Cancer Society (ACS) and a Legislative Ambassador with ACS-Cancer Action Network (CAN), I am very supportive of your efforts to end the sale of flavored tobacco products and e-cigarettes. Unfortunately your proposed legislation doesn't go far enough to protect teenagers. You are probably aware that the consensus of the public health community is that it is the flavors that are driving the epidemic of e-cigarette use among teenagers and the best way to address that epidemic is to remove flavors from ALL retail tobacco sellers with no exemptions. I urge you tonight to remove the proposed exemption for adult only tobacco stores. As a volunteer with a trusted organization such as ACS-CAN, we support the other pieces of the ordinance to end the sale of flavored tobacco citywide and strengthen enforcement language in the tobacco retailer license. Thank you for considering my request. Susie Brain Palo Alto, CA 94306 Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 3:22 PM To:Council, City Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Emily Mibach; local@bayareanewsgroup.com; Aldo Toledo; Dave Price Subject:Agenda item #10 Concern re Potential Financial Scenarios Attachments:Citywide Avg salary + benefitsPage 43 FY 2021 budget (1).png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council and staff:     Regarding upcoming Agenda item #10, Financial Scenarios,   I'm wondering where the supporting detail on the actual known FY 2020 revenue hits and the forecasting for the rest of FY 2020 might be? Comparisons to an outdated and inaccurate FY 2020 budget don't seem very useful. Similarly, where is the supporting detail and assumptions for FY 2021 revenue loss projections?     Agenda item #10's explanation seems to be an attempt to steer and herd the Council into choosing a particular scenario, (B), prior to providing detailed information. One scenario, (A), has been discredited, while another scenario was labeled by City staff as 'too pessimistic,' (C).    In contrast, the City Council of Santa Monica seemed to receive more detailed information to work with:    Finance Department Director Gigi Decavalles-Hughes said projections show a 14% decrease in sales tax revenue next fiscal year and a similar decrease in the current fiscal year. The city’s fiscal years last from July 1 through June 30.  Decavalles-Hughes said hotel taxes are down 21% this fiscal year and are projected to drop 42% next fiscal year.  Parking revenues, including fines, have declined 9% this fiscal year and will fall nearly 22% next fiscal year. During the coronavirus shutdowns, the city has been taking in about 5% to 10% of typical parking revenues, Decavalles-Hughes said.  https://www.smdp.com/santa-monica-layoffs-budget-cuts/190393 As City of Palo Alto staff admits, the scenarios presented don't include all known cost impacts, including from licenses and fees --- well, why not? Yet to be discussed are ramifications from Calpers investment losses. And projected reduced property tax collections, though Assessor Larry Stone predicts it.    Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone said he expects downward assessments to rival the Great Recession that began in 2009, when his office proactively reduced assessed value on 136,000 properties—almost a quarter of properties in the county—by a total of $27 billion.  “We’re going to see that kind of reduction,” he said.  Stone said he is also expecting the volume of assessment appeals in the Silicon Valley county to match the recession, when they tripled to 12,000 a year.  https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-state/california-counties-brace-for-post-virus-property-tax-crunch  2   As for Calpers investment losses:  The pot of invested money used to pay for hundreds of thousands of California public employee pensions has shrunk by $69 billion as coronavirus has squeezed global markets.  The California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s fund balance stood about $335 billion Thursday, down from a record high of $404 billion one month ago, according to CalPERS officials.  https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article241391841.html    Unfortunately, Agenda Item # 10 provides little information and leaves many questions unanswered:    How does the City propose to absorb anticipated FY 2020 losses? Through reductions to the City's reserves?    Where in the FY 2021 budget scenario planning does it account for replenishing reserves by making comparable FY 2021 cuts to achieve reserve levels prior to FY 2020 losses?  Further, the scenarios don't seem to take into account the predicted second wave of the coronavirus, or that residual consumer reluctance along with staggered phase ins may lead to lengthy periods of lower level tax revenues.   A new report from researchers at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy lays out three scenarios for how the coronavirus pandemic will progress in the coming months.    A group of researchers at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) suggest that the COVID-19 outbreak won't end until 60% to 70% of the human population is immune to the virus, which may take between 18 and 24 months.    The experts laid out three scenarios for how the coronavirus pandemic will progress. The worst-case scenario among these three projections involves a second, larger wave of infections this fall and winter. The report authors suggest this is the most likely outcome, and states need to prepare for it.  https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-pandemic-could-last-2-years-resurge-in-fall-2020-5    Given the paucity of information in Agenda Item #10, it seems either more informative and/or more nuanced scenarios should be produced, or Council members should just look to Scenario C, and ask staff to dial it up further, to create an even worse, worst case scenario, to avoid projected City losses from being lowballed, to avoid the City running out of money, and to avoid raising taxes and/or fees on already hurting residents, taxpayers, and businesses.     As a City taxpayer and resident, I ask that no budget scenario be produced that doesn't replenish reserves used to cover FY 2020 losses, isn't balanced using realistic projections, or that anticipates raising fees or taxes.    As City salaries and benefits represent 80% of City expenditures, any proposed budget reductions must include labor cost reductions. As at other cities, those labor cost reductions could include:    across the board salary cuts of 20% or more   furloughing workers   voluntary separations  3 Compared to other cities, the City of Palo Alto has a large number of City employees/resident. It also has comparatively large unfunded pension liabilities --- which accrue to a very large and very unwelcome amount of market pension debt / Palo Alto resident household. Let's look at some comparisons to other local cities:     Palo Alto Fremont San Jose Palo Alto Citation City Population 66,666 214,089 945,942 https://www.google.com/search?q=city+of+palo+alto+population&oq=city+of+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j698 FTE 1070 887 5929 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=73204.27&BlobID=76157 pg. 4 Actuarial Unfunded pension liability - prior to Covid 19 $414,911,766.00 $368,394,894.00 $8,393,700,603.00 www.pensiontracker.org Market pension debt/household prior to Covid 19 Calpers investment losses $43,849.00 $14,895.00 $26,048.00 www.pensiontracker.org CalPers Covid 19 investment losses/City? ? ? ? https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article241391841.html Ratio Residents to Employees 62 241 159 Residents/#of FTE employees   Palo Alto has many more employees/residents than other local cities, and has much larger market pension debt/ resident household.     Further, average city compensation is quite generous. The average city salary + benefits, stands at a generous proposed $232,000 for FY 2021. (pg 43 http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76264 )         FY 2020 average salary + benefits are approximately $215,760, (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73190),  given FY 2021 average salary + benefits reflects a 6.14% increase vs. the prior year. FY 2020 average compensation is already generous; projected FY 2021 even more so.     Given these compensation levels, it's not surprising the City of Palo Alto has outsized unfunded pension liabilities leading to very large market pension debt /resident taxpayer household levels.     4 Labor cost reductions are a must. Please request and provide them in subsequent financial scenarios or planning.     Thanks for listening.     Best,    Kathy Jordan      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 12:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Emily Mibach Subject:Fwd: Front page of today’s Daily Post Attachments:IMG_1494.jpg; IMG_1495.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To all:    FYI ‐ See attached.    Given sheltering in place, folks may not have had a chance to see the Post's front page story about the high salaries at  the City.   The article is timely and relevant to the discussions about financial scenarios tonight.    Thanks.    Best,    Kathy Jordan                Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Larry Yang <lyang8888@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 4:47 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Support for city-led small business COVID-19 relief fund CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am looking forward to learning how the city will establish a small business COVID‐19 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 with Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois and Council Member Filseth that this fund must include contributions  from the community and not just consist of city funds. I am fortunate enough to be able to donate towards small  business relief. I am confident the City can use its "bully pulpit" to rally others in the community to this important 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:Larry Yang <lyang8888@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 9:13 AM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Re: Support for city-led small business COVID-19 relief fund CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Some ideas on a mechanism for deciding which businesses should receive a grant:  ‐ collect applications before a deadline and consider them all as a batch (to avoid first come first serve)  ‐ a small committee of people who know the city well should select the top N businesses. A diverse committee (eg,  young, old; former/current elected, private/public) can help avoid biases: friends' businesses, favorite/frequented  businesses, geographic bias, etc.  ‐ The application could include a simple "what will I do with the money?" question (pay rent, pay employees, pay off  debt). It might be hard to design a rubric in advance; this is where having humans aligned on the outcome (eg "preserve  the character of our community") comes in handy.    Thanks for doing this!    == Larry    On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Larry Yang <lyang8888@gmail.com> wrote:  I am looking forward to learning how the city will establish a small business COVID‐19 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 with Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois and Council Member Filseth that this fund must include contributions  from the community and not just consist of city funds. I am fortunate enough to be able to donate towards small  business relief. I am confident the City can use its "bully pulpit" to rally others in the community to this important  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:Don Jackson <dcj@clark-communications.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:01 PM To:Council, City Cc:Smith, Loren; UAC; Shikada, Ed; Batchelor, Dean; Abendschein, Jonathan; Perkins, Lena; Stack, James Subject:Transcript of our comments to made to the Finance Committee May 5. 2020, re Agenda Item #3 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Councilmembers Kniss, Tanaka, and DuBois:    Appended below is a transcript of public comments I/we plan to make at the Finance Committee meeting tonight (May  5th, 2020)    ============  My name is Don Jackson, I serve as a commissioner to the Utilities Advisory  Commission, together with fellow commissioner Loren Smith,   we’d like to comment on one aspect of tonight’s Agenda item 3, the FY2021 Electric Financial  Plan.  We emphasize for the record that our comments tonight are personal and not the official  position of the UAC.  Drawing your attention to the 5th bullet point on page 3 of Director Batchelor’s memo:   Reduce the amount of renewable energy purchased by the utility below 100% Carbon  Neutral   This is a significant, urgent, and time‐sensitive opportunity to raise millions of dollars per year,  and the proceeds could be used to offset the impact of deferring electric rate increases, and to  fund important electrification efforts in support of our Strategic Climate Action Plan goals.  Since we joined the UAC last July, these options have been discussed several times at UAC  meetings and with staff.  At the March 2020 UAC meeting (pre‐COVID), staff proposed another of these options,  specifically to utilize unbundled RECs to neutralize any residual emissions caused by the use of  hourly accounting, generating approximately $2 MM annually, with negligible impact to our  Power Content Label (PCL).  The UAC voted to approve this proposal and sent it to Council.   2 In our view, the financial challenges to the City, Utilities, and ratepayers resulting from the  COVID pandemic warrant immediate consideration of additional revenue generating  opportunities via the sale of Renewal Energy Credits (RECs).  These alternatives are quite complex, to simplify and summarize, options exist that could raise  an additional $3 – 4MM annually for multiple years, at the “cost” of lowering the renewable  energy percentage of our PCL.  The two options are outlined below.  We have the opportunity to significantly offset the effects of any near‐term revenue shortfall,  while providing a 0% rate increase this year AND potentially increasing our allocations to a  reserve fund designated for local carbon reduction initiatives.  Our Requests to Council:  1. We urge the Finance Committee and Council to consider these options during the  current budgeting/planning process.    2. We request that Council direct the UAC to review and consider these additional REC‐ based revenue opportunities at the UAC’s May 20th meeting and report its findings back  to Council.  The Two Options:  Option 1:   CPAU currently receives 100% of its power from in‐state renewable and hydroelectric  resources. In‐state renewables (Bucket 1 RECs) are preferred under state law, and  therefore carry a large price premium relative to out‐of‐state renewable  resources (Bucket 3 RECs).   Given our supply of these in‐state resources far exceeds State requirements, the UAC  has discussed the opportunity sell them to other utilities and replace them with lower  cost out‐of‐state renewables (Bucket 3 RECs).   Per discussions with City staff, CPAU could realize about $3 MM per year in additional  revenue over the next two years by temporarily suspending City's Carbon Neutral Plan  requirement for use of in‐state renewable energy    Staff has shared that exchanging Palo Alto’s in‐state for out‐of‐state renewables should  have no net effect on carbon emissions in the West. It would simply involve trading one  existing source of renewable energy for another, a finding which is confirmed by  published EPRI research   3 Option 2:    Reduce the amount of renewable electricity CPAU purchases to the level required  to meet State mandates and generate a net additional revenue to the Electric Utility of  about $4 MM per year for the next two years. This would reduce the City’s RPS level,  but due to the City’s use of hydroelectric power, the City’s electric supplies would  remain roughly 80% carbon neutral.  Considerations:  It is important to note that either of these options would increase the reported carbon  content of CPAU’s power content label, and by similar amounts.   In the case of Option 1, the California state energy “accounting” rules do not treat out‐of‐state  renewables equally to in‐state renewables so our PCL would report an increase in carbon  content, but to reiterate, research indicates this would have no net effect on carbon emissions  in the West.  In the case of Option 2, the higher carbon levels reported would be a true increase.  Conclusion:  We fully appreciate that there may be valid reasons to not pursue either of these options at  this time, but in either case, the decision to pursue them or not should be an explicit choice,  and not due to lack of awareness, inattention, or inaction.   Pre‐COVID, we felt that the additional revenues raised in this manner should be used only to  fund our electrification efforts and SCAP goals.  Given the current fiscal/financial realities, we would now consider allocating a portion of these  revenues to cover reduced or zero rate increases.                     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail McFall <gail.mcfall@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:Jim McFall Subject:Supporting Our Local Restaurants During This Time CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members, We write this in support of the City’s efforts to facilitate the reopening of local small businesses, including local restaurants in response to the coronavirus pandemic. We are fortunate to have a plethora of great local restaurants to enjoy daily. The current crisis makes it clear how important it is to support them now. We have watched as businesses do their best to serve our community under the stay-at-home orders and continue to support them by purchasing meals-to-go. As the community begins to reopen, we hope that the City can find ways to do so safely, including possible options such as: closing off or limiting automobile traffic on streets so that pedestrians and restaurants have adequate space for walking and seating to ensure safety (i.e. adequate social distancing) and allow increased outdoor seating for restaurants in order to support their continued viability. We would encourage such options as a means to support our amazing establishments in Palo Alto. We look forward to the full reopening of our community at the appropriate time. Thank you for your consideration. Gail & Jim McFall Escobita Avenue, Palo Alto Gail & Jim McFall 1 Baumb, Nelly From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:52 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:tele-commute planning and promotion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and City Manager,    I’ve spoken with you at Council meetings during the past few weeks, and have sent letters, asking that you to make permanent something which could dramatically reduce future (lethal) pollution, if you could help influence local businesses to follow your lead. To do so would cost nearly nothing, because you’re already doing it - having as many employees as possible work from home.    While I heard some supportive comments from Council members, no official acts were taken. I’d like to contrast this with what the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors voted in favor of earlier today:    Agenda Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara May 5, 2020 Page 4 of 14 14. Consider recommendations relating to a telecommuting benefits analysis and framework for employees of the region, both public and private, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. (Chavez) (ID# 101266) (COVID-19)  Possible action:  a. Approve referral to Administration to include an analysis and recommendations relating to expanded telecommuting of County employees post-COVID-19.  b. Approve referral to Administration to report to the Board of Supervisors on June 23, 2020 relating to which County departments have been the most successful with telecommuting practices, and a workplan 1) to analyze and expand telecommuting for employees, and 2) to develop revisions to guidelines to track and monitor the benefits, measures of success, and costs of telecommuting.   c. Approve referral to Administration to request the Office of Sustainability report to the Board of Supervisors on June 23, 2020 with a framework to estimate the potential impacts of increased telecommuting on the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other harmful climate impacts.  d. Approve referral to Administration to collaborate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) on a Clean Air Telecommute Challenge for large employers with 50 or more employees, as defined by the BAAQMD Commuter Benefits Program, to help improve the Bay Area's air quality.   e. Approve referral to Administration to collaborate with and support efforts by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Caltrain, other government entities, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) to expand telecommuting options and to help transition public and private employees who are unable to telecommute to return to their respective workplaces with the support of public transportation.    2 I appreciate you each are working many hours trying to keep up with the Covid-19 crisis, as well as the budget/recession. Unfortunately, planning to make tele-commuting permanent, before the shut-down ends, must be done concurrently with these other stressors, or employees will head back to their commute cars.    With gratitude for your forthright deliberations, I’d like to ask again that you implement something similar to that which was approved by the Board of Supervisors.    The Mercury did an article about this, including quotes from Carl Guardino, who spoke at the Board meeting this morning.    Thank you again,   David Page    ps - from today’s news: Unsuitable for 'human life to flourish': Up to 3B will live in extreme heat by 2070, study warns        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Andrea Barnes <andrea.barneshome@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 10:13 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Tennis Court Use CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     I am reaching out to our City Council and Park and Recreation Commissioners in hopes that you can help me resolve a situation that I believe needs a second look.     I have been a Palo Alto resident for many years. For the last seven years, since my husband passed away, I have lived alone. Throughout our shelter in place I have abided by every rule and have done all I can to be someone contributing to flattening the curve. I was very pleased to read last night that the city tennis courts were opening this week. I was even more pleased to walk down to the courts at Dartmouth and College in my neighborhood this afternoon and see that they were already unlocked. Then I read the sign…”Only immediate family residing in the same household” may play. I was heartbroken. This means everyone who, like me, lives alone, is shut out of yet another activity.     I don’t just play tennis. I’ve worked in tennis wearing a variety of hats over many years. I am the Executive Director of the United States Professional Tennis Association, Northern California Division (the preeminent American tennis teaching professional certifying and educational organization). I also serve on National and Northern California committees, and work as a Lead Faculty coach for the United States Tennis Association, the sport’s national governing body. Finally, I am Co-President of the National Women’s Tennis Organization. I was also the Tennis Director at the Stanford Campus Recreation Association on campus for 35 years. In addition, I am a lifelong competitive player, having been a Stanford varsity player back in the 70s and continue to compete in adult regional and national championship events.    Over the course of the pandemic I’ve been involved in many work meetings discussing how to make tennis safe. The USTA, working with the USPTA and others, put together a great set of guidelines.   There are several key points which assure that the virus is not transmitted:  1) Play singles only   2) Maintain social distance between you and your opponent of at least 6 feet   3) Follow this ball handling procedure: Open two cans of tennis balls that do not share the same number on the ball. Take one set of numbered balls, and have your playing partner take a set of balls from the other can. Proceed with play, making sure to pick up your set of numbered balls only. Should a ball with the other number wind up on your side of the court, do not touch the ball with your hands. Use your racquet head or feet to advance the ball to the other side of the court. Adherence to these guidelines allows any two players to play together as they are never touching the same balls.    Their full recommendations are here: https://www.uspta.com/static/ustacovidplayingtennissafely-players.pdf     Note that the USTA guidelines allow playing with others at low risk, not just those in your household.     I urge you to read and adopt these guidelines which would allow people to safely play with those outside of their household.     2 Please consider that there is a real mental health risk in isolating those of us who live alone. Here is a safe opportunity to let us get out and be with our friends, or family members who are not in our household, that is safe and healthy. I look forward to being back on the court, as do many others in my position.     Thanks so much for consideration. I look forward to hearing your perspective on this.     Andrea Barnes     Executive Director, USPTA NorCal andrea.barneshome@gmail.com Palo Alto CA 94306     Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Barry Ulrick <barryulrick@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 12:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:No Mask Required at Parks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This past Sunday there were dozens and dozens of people socializing at Heritage Park and none of them were wearing face coverings. It appeared that groups stuck together so there was no interaction between different households. I highly doubt that the local police will be forcing these people to put on masks if the ordinance is enacted because it’s clear the mask is unnecessary except when entering businesses. Palo Alto City Council grandstanding once again while they look the other way as the city coffers are being drained by their inept governance. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 10:39 AM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City; Kleinberg, Judy; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price Subject:Another shop closes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Edward K. Shikada  Palo Alto City Manager    Dear Ed Shikada:    Downtown Walgreens, 300 University Avenue, closes June 9.  Can't pay the rent.    As a student, I remember, as late as mid‐'70s, I could walk down the middle of University Avenue, 8:00 pm on a Friday or  Saturday night, not seeing a single automobile or person.  The only shops open were Mac's Smoke Shop, Stanford  Theatre, and Walgreens.  In my books, Walgreens has become an historical sight.    Can you reach out to Walgreens' landlord for rent reduction during the pandemic?    Very truly,  ‐Danielle   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com    1 Baumb, Nelly From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 8:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:CDC - Contact Tracing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ncov/php/contact‐tracing/index.html includes COVID‐19 CONTACT TRACING  TRAINING  GUIDANCE AND RESOURCES    Also, some emergency services volunteers might be able to help with contact tracing, if necessary.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 12:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Changes to Downtown parking in-lieu program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone  Begin forwarded message:    On Friday, May 1, 2020, 12:13 PM, Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com> wrote:  I agree that this action is ill conceived. Don't use the COVID situation to slip this resident‐unfriendly  action by the public.   On Friday, May 1, 2020, 12:07:57 PM PDT, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote: Please table any action which eliminates or reduces the parking in-lieu fees. The staff report is inaccurate, incomplete and does not consider impact upon a square mile of residential properties adjacent to the University Avenue commercial core. There is no way that thousands of citizens have had time to change their personal priorities to understand a massive change in development policies. Emergency conditions of the virus threat should not apply to this staff recommendation for Council action. Please table this matter until full public review and understanding can be achieved. This includes re-examination of office market and public transit conditions by the Planning Commission. Reference: Allow the expiration of a 1-year ban on office uses above the ground floor from participating in the City's Downtown parking in-lieu program. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=62107.34&BlobID=7 6464 Neilson Buchanan Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 1:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Changes to Downtown parking in-lieu program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  please excuse this repeat email.  The original email had incomplete email address for you.    Neilson Buchanan  t  Palo Alto, CA  94301     650 329‐0484  650 537‐9611 cell  cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com      ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> To: City Council <city.council@cityofpalo.org> Cc: Jocelyn Dong <jdong@embarcaderopublishing.com>; Gennady <gsheyner@paweekly.com>; Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Planning Commission <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Greg Welch <welgreg@gmail.com>; Sallyann Rudd <sallyannr03@gmail.com>; Malcolm Roy Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu>; Michael Hodos <mehodos@mac.com>; Ray Dempsey <rademps@aol.com>; KJ Chang <kuojungchang@gmail.com>; Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>; Fred Kohler <fkohler@sbcglobal.net>; Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>; Shikada Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tina Peak <tmpeak@yahoo.com>; Lora Smith <myslora@pacbell.net>; Vita Gorbunova <vitago@gmail.com>; Tim Knuth <tknuth00@gmail.com>; Janine Bisharat <janine@karunaadvisors.com>; Jan Merryweather <jan@hamilton.com>; Marion Odell <marionodell7@gmail.com>; Ted Davids <tdavids@sonic.net>; Lauren Burton <lauren@thinkgardens.net>; Leslie Caine <lrgc@sbcglobal.net>; Elaine Meyer <emeyer3@gmail.com>; Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com>; Harris Barton <harris@bartonam.com>; Meg Barton <megbarton@me.com>; David Kwoh <dkwoh@yahoo.com>; Joe Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>; Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>; J T Gusilin <jguislin@gmail.com>; Beth Guislin <beth.guislin@gmail.com>; Jerry Smith <jerry.smith@sonic.net>; Nick and Kristine Peterson <nrpeterson@yahoo.com>; Irv <irvb@pacbell.net>; Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>; Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>; Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com>; Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com>; Holzemer/hernandez <holz@sonic.net>; Peter Rosenthal <pnr21@comcast.net>; Roger Petersen <roger.petersen@gmail.com>; Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>; Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020, 12:04:54 PM PDT Subject: Changes to Downtown parking in-lieu program Please table any action which eliminates or reduces the parking in-lieu fees. The staff report is inaccurate, incomplete and does not consider impact upon a square mile of residential properties adjacent to the University Avenue commercial core. There is no way that thousands of citizens have had time to change their personal priorities to understand a massive change in development policies. Emergency conditions of the virus threat should not apply to this staff recommendation for Council action. Please table this matter until full public review and understanding can be achieved. This includes re-examination of office market and public transit conditions by the Planning Commission. Redacted 2 Reference: Allow the expiration of a 1-year ban on office uses above the ground floor from participating in the City's Downtown parking in-lieu program. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=62107.34&BlobID=76464 Neilson Buchanan Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 3:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Changes to Downtown parking in-lieu program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  fyi     thank you  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com>  Date: Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:30 PM  Subject: Re: Changes to Downtown parking in‐lieu program  To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>  Cc: City Council <city.council@cityofpalo.org>, Jocelyn Dong <jdong@embarcaderopublishing.com>, Gennady  <gsheyner@paweekly.com>, Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>, Planning Commission  <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>, Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>, Greg Welch  <welgreg@gmail.com>, Sallyann Rudd <sallyannr03@gmail.com>, Malcolm Roy Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu>,  Michael Hodos <mehodos@mac.com>, Ray Dempsey <rademps@aol.com>, KJ Chang <kuojungchang@gmail.com>, Fred  Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>, Fred Kohler <fkohler@sbcglobal.net>, Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>, Shikada  Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Tina Peak <tmpeak@yahoo.com>, Lora Smith <myslora@pacbell.net>, Vita  Gorbunova <vitago@gmail.com>, Tim Knuth <tknuth00@gmail.com>, Janine Bisharat <janine@karunaadvisors.com>,  Jan Merryweather <jan@hamilton.com>, Marion Odell <marionodell7@gmail.com>, Ted Davids <tdavids@sonic.net>,  Lauren Burton <lauren@thinkgardens.net>, Leslie Caine <lrgc@sbcglobal.net>, Elaine Meyer <emeyer3@gmail.com>,  Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com>, Harris Barton <harris@bartonam.com>, Meg Barton <megbarton@me.com>,  David Kwoh <dkwoh@yahoo.com>, Joe Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>, Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>, J T  Gusilin <jguislin@gmail.com>, Beth Guislin <beth.guislin@gmail.com>, Jerry Smith <jerry.smith@sonic.net>, Nick and  Kristine Peterson <nrpeterson@yahoo.com>, Irv <irvb@pacbell.net>, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>, Chris Robell  <chris_robell@yahoo.com>, Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com>, Holzemer/hernandez <holz@sonic.net>, Peter  Rosenthal <pnr21@comcast.net>, Roger Petersen <roger.petersen@gmail.com>, Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>,  Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>, Paul & Karen Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>, David Schrom  <david@ecomagic.org>    Dear City Council and City Manager,     ‐1: We all would appreciate more transparency and proper public discussion of issues of this magnitude.    ‐2: I fully support the concerns in below email. Similar consideration must be given to the Evergreen Park /Mayfield RPP  zones as well as other RPPs that are in place.    ‐3: The new garage on Cal Ave will be completed very soon. Will this garage then be used for commercial parking around  Cal Ave so that no more business parking permits will be sold in our neighbor hood streets?      Wolfgang Dueregger  2   On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:07 PM Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:  Please table any action which eliminates or reduces the parking in-lieu fees. The staff report is inaccurate, incomplete and does not consider impact upon a square mile of residential properties adjacent to the University Avenue commercial core. There is no way that thousands of citizens have had time to change their personal priorities to understand a massive change in development policies. Emergency conditions of the virus threat should not apply to this staff recommendation for Council action. Please table this matter until full public review and understanding can be achieved. This includes re-examination of office market and public transit conditions by the Planning Commission. Reference: Allow the expiration of a 1-year ban on office uses above the ground floor from participating in the City's Downtown parking in-lieu program. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=62107.34&BlobID=76464 Neilson Buchanan Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 11:20 AM To:Council, City Cc:Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Kaloma Smith; vhs101@yahoo.com Subject:Non-resident alternative to HRC open seats CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,     Thank you for considering a reduction to the number of members on the Human Relations Commission (HRC)  from 7 to  5.     May I suggest one more idea for your consideration:  To loosen the residency requirement for one of the seats on the  HRC.  In order to do this, one seat could be open to applicants who either live, work, or worship in Palo Alto.      This adjustment would recognize that many of the people who work in small businesses and non‐profits do not live in  Palo Alto, but they are still part of our social fabric.  They could contribute to the HRC.     The change to allow non‐residents to apply has the potential of enlarging the pool of applicants to the HRC and perhaps  getting more interested and qualified individuals to apply for the HRC vacancies.    Thank you for your consideration.      Kaloma Smith, HRC Chair  Valerie Stinger, HRC Vice‐Chair  Daryl Savage, HRC Commissioner      1 Baumb, Nelly From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:41 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:"Nothing is off the table" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     Thank you for your very thoughtful discussion regarding the financial scenarios last evening.      I clearly heard “nothing is off the table” as far as cutting services and programs due to the financial impact of  Covid‐19.  Everyone hopes that doesn’t include their favorite department or service, but I truly hope it doesn’t  include the barebones Office of Emergency Services (OES).      At only 2.5 full time employees, OES does a yeoman’s job during blue sky [non‐disaster] days to build  partnerships with organizations both within and outside our community such as houses of worship, assisted  living facilities, businesses, Stanford, etc. in order to support and strengthen our City's response to  emergencies and disasters.  OES also organizes and prepares other City departments for disasters; it is part of  the safety response for Stanford games and visiting dignitaries; and it oversees the City’s 500+ Emergency  Services Volunteers.  As for its work during disasters, as seen during this pandemic and other smaller crises,  it’s value cannot be overstated.     Experts predict that with climate change we’ll see sea level rise, heavier storms, more heat waves and, yes,  more pandemics.  We’re already seeing more and larger wildfires.  In light of the many expected challenges  ahead, it behooves the City to have as robust an Office of Emergency Services as possible.     Thank you for considering my comments,  Esther Nigenda  Emergency Services Volunteer  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Martin <nancy.martin@mac.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:25 PM To:Luetgens, Michael; Council, City Subject:Please redirect your pilots CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Michael,    Why must every plane that  takes off from Palo Alto fly over our house in Los Altos?  This plane was so loud and low, I  might as well have invited him in for coffee.    I was on the phone, in my office, when it happened and the person on the other end of the line said “Oh my God, what  is that noise?”  It sounded like they were going to land on the roof. And it’s not a short amount of noise, it goes on a full  minute.    This needs to stop. Palo Alto is not at our airport it’s your airport. Unfortunately we get all the noise from YOUR airport  and non of the benefits. We also get air traffic from Moffett and San Carlos, but yours is the worst.    All you have to do is create a sign for your pilots and tell them to fly over PA before going south. Please! These small  planes are just as noisy as the Jets.    It’s Palo Alto‘s decision to continue to have an airport, so it should only impact Palo Alto. I feel bad about that because  I’ve been to your city council meetings regarding the SFO jet noise, which will be back soon enough, but pushing your  private planes into our neighborhood instead of your doesn’t solve the problem. It just creates a new one for us.    Please let me know how this problem is going to be rectified. I will take it up with our city council and we’ll wait for your  reply    Thank you,  Nancy Martin    As I’m writing this, we have a medical helicopter overhead! We have become the freeway in the Sky and It’s maddening.  Don’t add to our noise issues please.    .  2           The one that flew over earlier.   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Shannon Rose <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 3:48 PM To:shuttle; Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:Your shuttle buses are parked and the engines are idling Attachments:Preview attachment IMG_5740.jpgIMG_5740.jpg515 KB.webloc; Preview attachment IMG_ 5738.jpgIMG_5738.jpg548 KB.webloc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Leaders,    I was surprised when I passed by the east side of the Palo Alto train station today at 2 p.m.  Two buses were parked on  Alma and one was parked in the empty train station parking lot.   The one in the parking lot, Lic. plate #79764S2, had its  windows rolled up, the driver was just sitting there, and the motor was running at 2:02 p.m. this afternoon.  The other  two buses nearby were not idling as they sat waiting for their next run.     I’m writing to inquire whether or not Palo Alto requires your bus drivers to turn off their motors when they are not  moving?  Shouldn’t they be required to turn their motors off — whether it is two minutes or fifteen minutes?  All those  minutes of unnecessary air pollution add up.  A driver can always roll down the windows for ventilation or find a shady  spot to sit nearby.  Given how fragile our planet is right now, I find this behavior criminal.  The Palo Alto law against  idling is not enforced, but doesn’t Palo Alto set expectations with your contractors?  I assume TRANSMETRO is  contracted for our shuttle service ‐ this bus said TRANSMETRO and the woman driver said she was waiting until her next  shuttle run.        City contractors and city employees are expected to do the right thing, aren't they?  Is this expectation part of  our contract with providers ‐‐ whether they are constructing building, driving buses, or whatever?    What can we do about this to change the behavior of some of the drivers that don’t pay attention to how  their behavior is negatively impacting our planet?  This is so simple, why isn't it happening?    Sincerely,    Shannon McEntee    650‐704‐4674  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Lum <annelum@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 6:57 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Stop 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,    Anne Lum  Resident and Owner  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 11:18 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:No to recent amendment to PA's municipal code to "scale back" 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.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  Jerry Fan  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City; Charlene Liao 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, We hope you are well, and managing to shelter-in-place without too much stress. 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. As someone who lives across the street from the macro cell tower at Palo Alto Junior League Ballpark, which got hushed in on consent agenda at the last City Council meeting before most of you were sworn in as freshman Council Members, 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. Please also do not reduce the code enforcement on Conditioned Use Permits for already installed cell towers. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Charlene Liao 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Peggy Phelan <pphelan@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Are you kidding? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am SO fed up with the endless process of REJECTING Verizon and other telcoms' attempts to ruin our health,  our neighborhood, and ourn rights as property owners. We have gone back and forth endlessly on these cell  towers. STOP it. The whole thing is ridiculous.  Jenne Fleming says Ed Shikada, cc'd here, wants to udo the whole thing because Palo Alto needs money and  this is a down and dirty way to get it. She also points out that Mr Ed makes over 400k. Talk about crazy  decisions. Do your jobs and stop this insanity. I am disgusted. Among other things: this is a huge waste of labor  and time. All of this has been decided at a glacial pace and now you are thinking of saying "forget it"? The  equipment must ONLY go underground, if it must be here at all.   Professor Phelan  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ronald Chun <ron_chun@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission 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? 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,    Ronald & Cindy Chun , Palo Alto, CA 94306        Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeffrey S. Glenn <jsglenn@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Cell towers in residential neighborhoods 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,    Jeffrey S. Glenn, M.D., Ph.D.    Professor of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology    Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology    Director, Center for Hepatitis and Liver Tissue Engineering    Stanford University School of Medicine    2 CCSR Building, Rm. 3115A        Stanford, CA 94305‐5171    U.S.A.    email:jeffrey.glenn@stanford.edu    tel (office): (650)725‐3373    tel (lab):     (650)498‐7419    fax:            (650)723‐3032    pager:        (650)723‐8222; ID# 23080      Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:32 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org; Clerk, City Subject:Protect Cell Tower Compliance & Code Enforcement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, 1) I urge the City Council not to amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “streamline” processing cell tower applications, including eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process. This does not seem to be warranted as I understand that the companies that file cell tower applications, not Palo Alto, pay for staff time spent on these applications--so this will not save money for Palo Alto.  In addition, the siting and design criteria were recently approved late last year after three years of work by the community and City Council members. The provisions of the Wireless Resolution should not be easily circumvented.  2) I also urge the City Council not to reduce the number of code enforcement or compliance employees. These employees help ensure that the safety and well-being of the Palo Alto residents and visitors are protected. This is especially important when installing hundreds of pounds of high-voltage, radiation-emitting cell tower equipment near residents’ homes.   Sincerely, Mary Dimit  Palo Alto resident  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 9:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:Now is not the time CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Council    City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that you amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing, eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     Mr. Shikada implies such a move would save money but this is not  accurate.  A simple review of the recommendation makes this fact  evident.      The new Wireless resolution, which passed in December of 2019, after  much public input, may now be modified with little public input.  It will be  changed during these trying times when the public is forbidden to engage  the city in a normal fashion.    Thank you for your service in these most unusual and trying times.    Paul Machado  1 Baumb, Nelly From:BWP <brucewphillips@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 12:16 PM To:Council, City Cc:JFLEMING@metricus.net Subject:Architectural Review of cell tower 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 lived next to a cell tower planned near the Waverley and Loma Verde intersection. While I am pleased that our neighborhood may finally receive better cell connection, I am not pleased that this ugly addition will block views when a two-story is built here. I don't like paying for communal benefit without compensation.     Via a neighborhood organizer, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost-cutting, the council amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” cell tower application processing, which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board from the review process.     As I understand it, this fails to save money for Palo Alto. The companies pay for the applications and pay for staff time spent on these applications. Moreover, reduced cell tower application requirements would undermine the siting and design criteria approved, as I am told, by the City Council unanimously four months ago, following a three-year effort.     I am also against reducing code enforcement employees with respect to the installation of the cell towers, and I also wonder abut the wisdom of this in general.     Thank you for your consideration.     Sincerely,    Bruce W. Phillips   Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 12:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Proposal regarding cell tower application requirements and cutting Code Enforcement 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, The proposal being put before you, to decrease the cell tower application requirements, makes absolutely no sense when it's the telecom company applicants themselves who are the ones who cover these costs. Rather than draining the City coffers, the application fees will be adding to them! Such a proposal seems totally counterproductive. It makes one wonder what is the real motive behind such a proposal? And, as for cutting the budget for Code Enforcement, that puts at risk the safety and well being of all Palo Alto's citizens. Clearly under the current situation there needs to be budget cuts but they need to be done wisely and with the best interest of the residents of Palo Alto. Cutting Code Enforcement is definitely not one of them. Such a cut is made particularly egregious when one pauses to look at the enormous salaries and compensation packages some on the senior executive team receive. They have the benefit of the City's largess while the citizens get the shaft? Something feels very, very wrong. A voluntary salary cut of those executives' compensation packages would go a long way toward funding Code Enforcement personnel to protect the citizens of the City they serve. We all have to step up. Are the City's senior executive staff willing to do their part, following the example set by the senior Stanford administrators who are taking pay cuts from 5 to 20%? Please do not approve the proposal to decrease the cell tower application requirements. And for the safety and well being of the citizens of Palo Alto, the people you serve, funding for Code Enforcement can not be cut. Sincerely, Nina Bell Los Palos Ave 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 12:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:wireless 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,    Like the many-headed Hydra, proposals to reduce wireless providers' infrastructure costs at Palo Alto residents' expense are both toxic and difficult to put to rest.    Four months ago, after years of work by you and many others in our community, you unanimously adopted guidelines to protect Palo Altans against those who view us as obstacles to maximizing their private gains. Now in his proposed budget City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that you amend the municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing.     This idea is out-of-place in Palo Alto's budget. Since the communications services providers pay the costs of their applications, the only budgets it affects are theirs. Worse, reduced requirements fly in the face of your unanimously approved guidelines.    While I'm ill-equipped to judge the overall merits of reducing the number of code enforcement employees, another change Mr. Shikada recommends, I am concerned lest such action result in less than scrupulous enforcement of regulations related to wireless communications equipment.     I will feel more secure in my confidence that you are indeed holding the wireless service providers responsible for maintaining health, safety, and aesthetic standards consistent with the desires of Palo Alto residents if you treat these more recent attempts to shirk such responsibility as Heracles treated the heads of the Hydra.     Thank you for considering these views.   2   With appreciation,    David Schrom    ************ Magic, 1979‐2020: forty‐one years of valuescience leadership *************    Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental   ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize  it more fully.     Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one‐time or recurring gifts  at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity.  Contributions are tax‐deductible to the full extent permitted by law.                                                                 THANK YOU!    www.ecomagic.org ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (650) 323‐73‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309  *************************************************************************************************  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 5:32 PM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; health@paloaltopta.org Subject:Invitation to meet with residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mr. Shikada, On behalf of United Neighbors of Palo Alto, I am writing to invite you to meet with a group of residents in order to discuss one of your cost-cutting recommendations to City Council, specifically: that Palo Alto cut costs by reducing cell tower application processing requirements.  I propose that our meeting take place at 5:00 p.m. this coming Wednesday, May 6th, via Zoom. But if you are not available then, please suggest some other times when you are free. I realize that your recommendation to scale back the cell tower application process may be considered at Monday evening’s City Council meeting. But, as you know, residents do not have an opportunity to ask you questions in that forum. Since many of us have spent three years working to put those cell tower requirements in place, we would very much appreciate an opportunity to hear your thinking on the issue and, in particular, to ask you some questions that your proposal has raised. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming For United Neighbors   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sherryl Casella <orioness@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 6:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; board@pausd.org Subject:Re: Verision 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? 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 ESPECIALLY OBJECT TO THEIR PROPOSED EQUIPMENT BOX THAT STANDS 4 1/2 FEET TALL AND 2 1/2 FEET DEEP. THESE BOXES SHOULD BE PLACED UNDERGROUND instead of on the area between the sidewalk and the street in our neighborhoods     Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  2   Sherryl Casella  650-269-5331         1 Baumb, Nelly From:Meredith Einaudi <mweinaudi@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 11:16 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ed.Shikada@cityofpalalto.org; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Cell Tower permitting process:Shikada's recommendations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor Fine;and Councilmembers Cormack,  DuBois, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,    I am writing to urge you to reject both the recommendations  put forth  by Manager Shikada regarding the "scaling back" of the cell tower  application process and the reduction in staffing required to insure that  the wireless companies uphold the siting and design requirements  stipulated in the city's Wireless Resolution Dec. 2019 and to be amended  in the Wireless Ordinance still in the process of finalization.     1.Regarding the scaling back of the application process for cell tower  applications, Shikada's argument that it will save the city money makes  no sense. It is the wireless companies that pay the entire cost of this  application process, not the city. This employment allows the city to  retain faithful staff, not hand the wireless companies a windfall of  savings.  2.The "scaling back" would eliminate the Architectural Review Board  from the review process.The ARB input is especially important for  the  residential neighborhoods with literally billions of dollar of real estate  ,the value of which will be significantly reduced if the wireless companies  are allowed to erect countless new cell towers,requiring noisey cooling  fans and located too close to homes. Palo Alto residents deserve to see  that their best interests are represented by the ARB.  2 3.Shikada's proposals significantly undermine the carefully crafted checks  and balances of the siting and design aspects of the Wireless Resolution  signed Dec. 2019 and the revised Wireless Ordinance still in process of  finalizing. They put the non‐property taxpaying wireless companies in the  driver's seat when it should be the residents whose best interests are  upheld. Who is serving whom?  4.Shikada's idea of reducing the number of code enforcement employees  means lack of adequate inspection of the new and old WCF's, the  numbers of which will dramatically increase in the next few years.Given  that the 5G cell towers require cooling fans whose noise levels will  require monitoring,the inspectors will have more work to do on more  WCF's in order to ensure community safety. If anything we should need  more code enforcers.    Palo Alto is being required to speed up the permitting of cell towers by a  recent FCC ruling which is being challenged by lawsuits and  two bills in  Congress (HR 530 and SB2012)and a regional court case in the Ninth  Circuit Court of Appeals. There is a good chance that this ruling will be  overturned in the next year or two. Our cell tower permits currently run  for ten years. We should adher to the standards and application process  we have established so Palo Alto does not find itself burdened with  hastily approved WCF's signed under an emergency ordinance which has  been overturned. We look to our City Council to reject  Mr. Shikada's  recommendations because they are not in our best interest.    Thank you,     Meredith Einaudi          1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 8:51 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org; health@paloaltopta.org Subject:Tonight's meeting 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: As you know, City Manager Ed Shikada has proposed that the City save money by “scaling back” the cell tower application process, a process that is in fact paid for by the applicants and costs the City next to nothing. I trust from the many dozen emails you have received from residents in the past week you are well aware of how little the people of Palo Alto think of this proposal. I am writing now to let you know that, having made our position clear in these many emails, we are not planning, as a group, to attend this evening’s Council meeting, where we feel we would only be wasting your time and ours by repeating ourselves. (We will, of course, be watching the proceedings remotely.) What we are doing, however, is asking Mr. Shakada to meet with a few of us later this week so that we may better understand his proposal and ask him the questions it has raised regarding saving money for Palo Alto (City Council has been cc’ed on our request).   Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming For United Neighbors   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151       1 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 3:48 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed; Architectural Review Board Subject:5G and Other Issues 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 Totally agree with this Letter. Also for the City Manager to propose a 4.3 percent raise is unconscionable at this time. Stanford is voluntarily cutting their salaries. It is beyond me that this proposal would even be considered, plus I feel our City Staff, the upper management salaries are already too high. This is the time to strongly consider cutting back proportionately to more reasonable pay. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 94306 Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 10:57 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:City Manager Shikada and Cell Tower Review Process CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    On Sunday council member Tanaka held an office hour regarding the City Manager's suggestion to cut back on the cell  tower application review process.  There were a number of us on the call, all of whom expressed disappointment and  dismay at this suggestion.    As I thought about it afterwards I realized how angry I was at the suggestion that we skimp on the cell tower review  process.    This is hardly a big budget item.      We ‐‐ as a community ‐‐ have spent long years coming up with a review process.  To sweep it aside is a clear end run.  I  would wager Mr. Shikada prefers to keep the process out of the public eye.  We residents don't.    All of us reiterated our horror at the thought of cell towers being allowed a mere 20 feet from our bedrooms.  Clearly  this is a contentious issue, one that ought to get its due in the approved process.  To remove that to make someone's  job easier is a travesty.    Lastly, thank you council member Tanaka for allowing us residents an opportunity to speak with you directly.  It was  appreciated.    Ann Protter      1 Baumb, Nelly From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Kamhi, Philip; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Bobel, Phil; Luong, Christine; Tam, Christine Subject:City priorities; traffic, climate change, and the budget CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Council Members,  Here are my comments from the May 4th Council meeting about city priorities, working from home and our climate  change goals, see below.  From today’s San Jose Mercury News:    Coronavirus made telework necessary. Now Santa Clara County wants to explore ways to keep it.  Board of Supervisors to consider “commute‐free commitment”  https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/04/coronavirus‐made‐telework‐necessary‐santa‐clara‐county‐to‐explore‐ ways‐to‐keep‐it/    I am hoping Palo Alto can work with the county and the greater Bay Area to continue the success of working from home.   Also, on the budget, I am very surprised and concerned that the Downtown garage is still in the budget.  The last time  this was before council, the majority was ready to cancel this unnecessary project and this was supported by the  community including the downtown residents.  It would be irresponsible to keep this in the budget and cut other  projects/services.  Please remove this from the budget and save the city $29 million for other needs.    Thanks,    David Coale  ———   I would like to thank you for all your work during these trying times.  I was concerned to read that perhaps the city priorities were “out the window”. While you have a lot on your plates right now, there is also great opportunity. The preliminary response from the SCAP public input is that the community does not want to delay actions on climate change despite the coronavirus pandemic; that the SCAP needs to be more aggressive in reaching our goals with measurable targets and reporting and that electrification of buildings should move forward. The community does not support the use of offsets for natural gas. And that the Shelter In Place has shown that working from home is possible and should be continued as one of our best ways to reduce GHG from the transportation sector. You can check these findings with staff. This input was from over 200 people.  Some quick back of the envelope calculations show that we can get to 10% of our needed GHG reductions with people working from home just two days per week. As we return to “normal”, many companies will not want to have a full compliment at the office anyway for safety, so this is a great opportunity. I think the city should lead the 2 way. The city should see if they can have 25% of the work force that can work from home continue to do so, and invite the larger employers and the Chamber of Commerce to do the same. The experiment has been done and the results are in: less traffic, cleaner air, less parking problems and we are are on the road to the reductions we need for addressing climate change, our next “pandemic” in the making. Climate change is similar to the current pandemic in that following the science and taking early aggressive actions are the keys to success.  Let’s not throw out our priorities now when there are great opportunities to be realized.  We can do better then getting  back to “normal”.  Sincerely,  David  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 5:59 PM To:Bill Robinson Cc:allcouncil@silicon-valley.email Subject:William Robinson ( Re Heidi Yaunan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello Mr. Robinson,    Just a friendly reminder that hundreds of people in the Palo Alto area visit Heidi Yauman’s website every day.    http://HeidiYaunan.con  2 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 6:23 PM To:Bill Robinson Cc:allcouncil@silicon-valley.email Subject:Re: William Robinson ( Re Heidi Yaunan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    http//HeidiYauman.com    Sent from my iPhone    > On May 5, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote:  >  > Hello Mr. Robinson,  >  > Just a friendly reminder that hundreds of people in the Palo Alto area visit Heidi Yauman’s website every day.  >  > http://HeidiYaunan.con  >  > <IMG_0126.JPG>  >  >  >  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Heidi Yauman <heidi.yauman@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:24 AM To:bill@sdap.org Cc:Damon Silver; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; Rhonda Schroeder; hotline@hudoig.gov; Sandy Perry; Jose Salcido Subject:From Heidi Yauman CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi William Robinson    Visit me online at http://HeidiYauman.com            1 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Garber <dan@fg-arch.com> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 8:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Philip Dah; Judy Kleinberg; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew Subject:Encina Ave - Escalating Issues CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members:   The Council needs to make policy that gives the police and other departments direction to act more strongly to make  Encina street cleaner and safer for our employees, our clients, shoppers, and the public in general.       Three years ago the City was helpful getting several trucks off Encina, thank you for that. And I recently brought to your  attention that another RV has been camped out across from our office since the beginning of March.     These issues are not the only issues that our and the other businesses on Encina Avenue have been dealing with. In  November of last year Philip Dah, the Opportunity Center's Director, asked my company, the management of Town and  Country and PAMF to meet with him and the Palo Alto Police to discuss problems we were all having on the street we all  shared ‐ Encina Avenue.      We all have a deep appreciation for the service that the Opportunity Center provides to our community. My business is  just down the street from it. Philip deserves nothing but praise for the work he and the rest of the Lifemoves’ staff does.    In the past year or so problems on the street have been occurring with increasing frequency; people are camping out on  the sidewalks for the day and often many nights as well. One older gentleman was on the street from January to a week  ago literally living and sleeping in a grocery cart.   2 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.     In February another young man was using our driveway as his bedroom. My employees had to walk over to get into our  office. After I asked him to leave he bedded down in our plants in front of our building and when asked to leave again,  me moved to the sidewalk. And again I asked him to leave. Then he took up residence on the sidewalk across the street  for several days:   3 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.     As we learned in November, these are people that either do not want to use the Center or are no longer allowed into  the Center because they refused to follow the Center’s rules.    Consequently, The Opportunity Center and each of the businesses’ on the street are struggling with this growing  population. Many of these people have set up camp on the street along Town and Country’s bushes. PAMF is struggling  with the trespass of their historic house adjacent to the Center and the constant daily cleaning up cups of urine,  hypodermic needles, and other drug paraphernalia. Town and Country is having to constantly clean out the garbage,  clothing, shopping carts, trash and feces that have been strewn and left behind on the sidewalk along Encina.     We are struggling with more bikes being stolen from our carport, people sleeping in our driveway, someone even scaled  the side of our building and broke into our 2nd story window late last year (caught on video, yes the police made out a  report).       The issue isn’t the detritus, it’s the people. The Center’s rules are unequivocal; if you break them you are out. This is not  the case on the street ‐ there is no consequence for them to be there.     The Police have a special team dedicated to Encina and the areas of the City that are struggling with these and similar  issues. They are in the unenviable position of navigating the interests of the community against the rights of these  individuals. So while we and PAMF's security guards call the police to stop the woman who is urinating against the wall  of PAMP beside our driveway, or the guy who undresses and stoops to use the street curb as his toilet, or the people  who camp out for the day and night on the sidewalk smoking pot and drinking and leave a mess behind, we are told that  it is their right to be there ‐ that there is nothing that can be done.  4 We are proud of the State, County, and City’s enlightened and progressive views and law that focus on re‐education and  not incarceration to change these behaviors. But I was startled to listen to the Town and Country Manager’s story having  to face the person that had been thrown out of the Opportunity Center because of his violent tendencies and had  broken into her office with her in it. The Police arrived promptly, but apparently it took her 30 minutes to convince the  Police to arrest the person.     There is a lot that can be done between doing nothing and only acting when the action is so egregious that it will not be  challenged in court. These are not equivocal situations and we do not want Encina Avenue to become Palo Alto's skid  row.     To reiterate: the Council needs to make policy that gives the police and other departments direction to act more  strongly to make Encina street cleaner and safer for our employees, our clients, shoppers and the public in general.      Daniel Garber, FAIA Fergus Garber Architects www.fg-arch.com  Palo Alto CA 94301 o 650.459.3700    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Dan Garber <dan@fg‐arch.com>  Date: Fri, May 1, 2020 at 7:55 PM  Subject: Encina Ave ‐ RV Overnighting Since the begining of March  To: <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Philip Dah <pdah@ivsn.org>, Judy Kleinberg <judykleinberg@gmail.com>, Binder, Andrew  <andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>    Adrian & Ed‐  I hope you both you and your families are well.     Three years ago the City was helpful getting several trucks off Encina (see below).     There is now another RV that has been camped out across from our office since the beginning of March. It arrived right  before we closed our office for all our staff to shelter in place in their homes. It appears that the owner of the RV is  taking advantage of the fewer eyes being on the street during the shelter in place order and ignoring the requirement to  not park overnight on the street.     The RV has remained and we need your help again to get it off the street.     If there is something I can do to help the City with this task, please let me know.     thanks,    ‐dan     Daniel Garber, FAIA Fergus Garber Architects www.fg-arch.com  Palo Alto CA 94301 o 650.459.3700    Redacted Redacted 5     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Daniel Garber <dan@fgy‐arch.com>  Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:28 PM  Subject: Derelict Trucks on Encina ‐ Please Enforce the Parking Rules  To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Philip Dah <pdah@ivsn.org>, Judy Kleinberg <judykleinberg@gmail.com>    Dear City Council Members:    There are two derelict trucks on the street of my business that have been allowed to stay overnight on the street. This is  contrary to what is allowed by the street signs.     I understand that the larger of these trucks (panel van, red & white, license 5RUP238) has received repeated warnings  that it will be towed but that the warnings have been ignored. This truck has been on the street for nearly a year. At one  point in the last several months the fire department visited the truck because it had caught on fire.     We have been told that the police have not towed the truck because, once towed it will not be claimed and will cost the  City too much money to store. In other words it's not worth it to deal with the problem.     6 The second truck (pickup truck, blueish, license 88738L1) is a newcomer to the street in that it has only been around for  the last six weeks, give or take. In the last several days it has been parked in directly in front of my business and presents  a particular threat to us. Not only is the truck a deterrent to my daily business clients, the owner is living in the truck.     I've learned from our friend Philip Dah, Program Director, Peninsula Singles & Family Services of the InnVision  Opportunity Center down the street from us, that the owner of this truck accosted one of his employees and was put  into jail for a few days and is now banned from the Opportunity Center.     More than half my employees and two of my partners are women. My business has multiple visits by clients daily. Many  of us work well into the evening hours and many of us arrive to work between 6 and 7 in the morning. In other words,  times that there are not many people around. While we have experienced no incidents, the history of this truck's  inhabitant is frightening to us.     Please direct our City's police to 1) tow the large truck, 2) enforce the requirement that there is no overnight parking  allowed on the street and 3) if the pickup truck does not vacate the street overnight, to start the process of getting it  towed.     thank you,    ‐dan    Daniel Garber, FAIA  Fergus Garber Young Architects  fgy‐arch.com    Palo Alto CA 94301  o 650.473.0400    Redacted 7 8   9 10     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 10:12 AM To:Sara Cody; Rokhanna Info Subject:GATES--Who benefits from his $$$ CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Excerpts from Dr. Mercola Newsletter week articles. April 22, 2020 1. Bill Gates: Most Dangerous Pilanthropist in Modern History? .2. Dr Fauci endorses then rejects Vit C & D Recommendation 3. Hospitals Finally Embrace Vitamin C for Treating COVID-19 forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com ________________________________ 1. Bill Gates: Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History? Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola , April 21, 2020 Bill Gates Revealed, the Real COVID-19 Agenda He's used his 'charity' to gain political power, but who really benefits from his 'philanthropy?' We're sacrificing the financial stability and sanity of hundreds of millions, when even Dr. Fauci admits the death rate is only on par with the seasonal flu. What's really going on? Read More >> STORY AT A- GLANCE ** Bill Gates’ answers to the problems of the world are consistently focused on building corporate profits through toxic means, be it chemical agriculture and GMOs, or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines * Gates has used “charity” as a way to gain tremendous political power * The true beneficiaries of Gates' philanthropic endeavors tend to be those who are already rich beyond comprehension, including Gates’ own charitable foundation * Over the past 20 years, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given close to $250 million in charitable grants to companies in which the foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds, yet it gets tax breaks for the charitable donations it makes money from * Vaccines are one of Gates’ mainstay “solutions” to most diseases. Gates has gone on record saying the U.S. needs disease surveillance and a national tracking system that could involve vaccine records embedded in our bodies * While philanthropy is considered noble, some philanthropists appear to be doing far more harm than good with their donated millions. Bill Gates, who cofounded Microsoft in 1975, is perhaps one of the most dangerous philanthropists in modern history, having poured billions of dollars into global health initiatives that stand on shaky scientific and moral ground. Gates' answers to the problems of the world are consistently focused on building corporate profits through highly toxic methods, be it chemical agriculture and GMOs, or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.1 Rarely, if ever, do we find Gates promoting clean living or inexpensive holistic health strategies. For longer story see "Bill Gates: Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History? 2 2. Dr Fauci endorses than rejects Vit C & D Recommendation April 22, 2010, Dr Joseph Mercola STORY AT A-GLANCE ***. The largest hospital system in New York state, Northwell Health, has been giving COVID-19 patients admitted into intensive care 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C three to four times a day in conjunction with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin * Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the face of the White House coronavirus response team, says life probably will not go back to normal until we have the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19 * Yet, four years ago, Fauci touted vitamins C and D as good for boosting your immune system and fighting infectious disease * The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing finds vitamin D “plays a critical role in preventing respiratory infections, reducing antibiotic use, and boosting the immune system response to infections” * An April 2020 scientific review presents evidence that vitamin D supplementation could reduce risk of COVID-19 infection and death. Researchers recommend raising your vitamin D level 40-60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L). “For treatment of people who become infected with COVID-19, higher vitamin D3 doses might be useful,” the researchers state As reported in my April 7, 2020, article "Vitamins C and D Finally Adopted as Coronavirus Treatment," the largest hospital system in New York, Northwell Health, has been giving COVID-19 patients admitted into intensive care 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C three to four times a day in conjunction with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, both of which have shown promise in coronavirus treatment.1 According to Dr. Andrew G. Weber, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist affiliated with two Northwell Health facilities on Long Island, "The patients who received vitamin C did significantly better than those who did not get vitamin C. It helps a tremendous amount, but it is not highlighted because it's not a sexy drug."2 Read More >>> 3. Hospitals Finally Embrace Vitamin C for Treating COVID-19 Learning from experimental yet successful treatments with patients in Shanghai, China, New York doctors are finally including intravenous vitamin C in treatment protocols for their seriously ill coronavirus patients. Here's how to get the equivalent amount of vitamin C without the IV for home use. Read More >> STORY AT-A-GLANCE  * Initial predictions called for 2.2 million COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. alone. According to the latest models, an estimated 60,000 Americans may die from COVID-19 complications *. Some doctors are promoting the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin for seriously ill COVID-19 patients. Apparently, many are seeing good results, although not universally. Some Swedish hospitals have stopped using chloroquine due to severe side effects in some patients *. Northwell Health, New York's largest health care provider, is using vitamin C at its hospitals in conjunction with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin * Some doctors have noted their patients’ symptoms have more in common with altitude sickness than pneumonia. In the final analysis, it may turn out that ventilators are inappropriate for a majority of patients. A 3 better alternative may actually be hyperbaric oxygen therapy *. Preventive methods you can use at home include taking vitamin C to bowel tolerance; zinc, vitamin B1 and melatonin supplementation; nebulized hydrogen peroxide; ozone therapy and nitric oxide boosting exercise for full articles see Dr Mercola Newsletter, April 22, 2020 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Megen Vo <megen.vo@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:supporting my local library CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     I am writing this email to voice my support for Palo Alto's libraries during this unprecedented crisis.  My family moved  from San Francisco to Palo Alto three years ago, largely due to the incredible community resources available to our  young family, not the least of which included the wonderful libraries.  We are residents of Downtown Palo Alto, and  prior to the shelter in place order, visited both the Downtown Library and the Children's Library on a daily basis.  If either  of these branches were to close, a large part of what makes living in Palo Alto wonderful would be gone.  As a  pediatrician, I can cite innumerable studies that show that children and families who have access to literacy resources  through libraries as well as family programming, workshops, and a safe, positive space to spend time, have better  health, mental health, and socioeconomic outcomes than children and families who are deprived of these resources.  I  hope you will reconsider shutting any of the library branches in light of the countless benefits they provide the  community.    Thank you,  Megen Vo, MD, FAAP  Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine  Division of Adolescent Medicine  Editorial Board member, American Academy of Pediatrics  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Orly Liba <orlyle@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:00 PM To:Council, City; Library, Pa Subject:Open library for curbside pick up / drop off? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto team,    The kids have read their books over and over again and reading on the screens is not the same as a book you can hold.  Specifically, my curious 9 year old is now asking for books that are not available digitally (what is? book series  http://www.whowasbookseries.com/).     Would it be possible to re‐open the libraries for pick up and drop off?    I read the daily updates, I see that restrictions are lifted on landscaping, tennis etc, but I have not seen anything about  the libraries.    Thank you so much for your consideration and for maintaining such wonderful libraries.  Along with the open spaces, the libraries are a true treasure of Palo Alto.    Best wishes,  Orly  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Roland Pasternack <roland_p@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Importance of city libraries CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear city council, I just wish to state that I believe that the city libraries provide a wealth of services both online and in- person, and that every effort should be made to keep them running and staffed. I give an annual donation to the Friends of the Library. I know that this is not directly related to city funding of the libraries, but this just shows how important I feel that the libraries are. Thank you, Roland Pasternack Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, May 2, 2020 5:20 PM To:Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; beachrides; bballpod; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; dallen1212@gmail.com; dlfranklin0 @outlook.com; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Steve Wayte; Mark Standriff; Joel Stiner; terry; toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; Irv Weissman; nick yovino; margaret-sasaki@live.com Subject:Fwd: How Much You Drive Soon Will Dictate the Price of a New Home CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, May 2, 2020 at 5:07 PM  Subject: Fwd: How Much You Drive Soon Will Dictate the Price of a New Home  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Sat. May 2, 2020                  Doug‐  Thanks.  I think I had this isolated to forward to you.  I sure hope my location causes my home to be  affordable.  It will be your buyer who pays this. If you live far enough out, it could price your house out of the market, I  suppose. I don't intend to sell anytime soon, so probably irrelevant. Of course, if this does make homes further out a lot  more expensive, that would make your more affordable, closer‐in home go up in value. So, maybe a good thing.    Scroll  down to see the link.                 I'm about to put out a mail saying that 2/5 of the PPP applications in Calif. have received money and it is a lot  higher in Kansas, Neb. etc.   KCBS this AM.  The big, rich banks have been approving the loans for their rich,  Republican buddies in the big cos., their best customers. So now the rules are being modified to try to get some of the  money to the suckers, the little people running small businesses.                   Also, that many people have yet to receive their stimulus checks, including me. They have found that a "glitch"  causes millions to go to foreign workers and college students. Mnuchin said two weeks ago Tuesday that the money  "will go out tomorrow", 2 weeks ago last Wednesday.  So now, 17 days late. Trump must love Mnuchin. Lines of cars  miles long waiting to get to food‐banks because they don't have money for food. Wonder how they will vote in Nov. The  PPP and the stimulus plans are now a boondoggle and Trump should take action to get them fixed.                    Also, Mayor of San Jose, Sam Lacardo, says on KCBS that way FEWER  people are coming if for a test than they  can handle.  Reason, the guidelines are too restrictive:  You have to have symptoms or be in a vulnerable group. Gov.  Newsom should talk to mayor of San Jose about that.    2              The goal is to find the infected and infectious.  Many infected are asymptomatic and not in a vulnerable group, of  course, and are spreading the virus.  Those are among the people that the testing is trying to find and isolate.  You don't  exclude them from testing!!!!!!!!!!  Somebody has their head in the wrong place.                Thurs. night, April 30, 2020,  PBS News Hour had a piece about how people with mortgages are asking for relief,  and a new federal law requires mort. servicers to give up to 12 mos. of forbearance. But when that goes  on long enough  and with enough people, we could get BKs of the morg. servicers, banks, etc. and get into another housing crisis like the  one in 2008, they said. So a brewing housing crisis if this goes on long enough. Renters get 90 days forbearance under  that new law before eviction.  You can find stories about this on the web.                KCBS this AM says that a serial rapist who was arrested and convicted a couple years ago in a cold case going back  20 years, caught using DNA where they don't match him but does match his relatives' who ARE in a data base, has been  released in Alameda Co.  due to fear of prisoners getting the virus, and prosecutors are up in arms. Raped one woman in  Union City at knifepoint.  Several such crimes.  Also, they have released 900 from Santa Rita jail in Alameda Co. and 30 of  them have already been re‐arrested. One of them arrested 5 times already. Geez.                      LH  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>  Date: Fri, May 1, 2020 at 12:14 PM  Subject: How Much You Drive Soon Will Dictate the Price of a New Home  To: Harding, Loran <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    Loran, FYI:    https://gvwire.com/2020/04/30/how‐much‐you‐drive‐soon‐will‐dictate‐the‐price‐of‐a‐new‐home/   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 4:41 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; dallen1212 @gmail.com; Daniel Zack; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; lalws4 @gmail.com; leager; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com Subject:Fwd: PBS News Hour- What to do if you can't afford to pay your mortgage 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: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 3:41 PM  Subject: Fwd: PBS News Hour‐ What to do if you can't afford to pay your mortgage  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 3:27 AM  Subject: Fwd: PBS News Hour‐ What to do if you can't afford to pay your mortgage  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:35 AM  Subject: PBS News Hour‐ What to do if you can't afford to pay your mortgage  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Monday, May 4, 2020                 To all‐                  PBS News Hour Thursday, April 30, 2020:  "What to do if you can't afford to pay your mortgage".  7% of  mortgages in the U.S. are now in forbearance. Notice what could happen if  the mortgage payment forbearance goes on  2 long enough‐  bankruptcies of mortgage servicers and even banks, the expert says.  It could develop into a housing crisis  like the one in 2008:  A new federal law requires lenders to give mortgagees 12 months of forbearance, but what  happens after that if they still cannot pay?           https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what‐to‐do‐if‐you‐cant‐afford‐to‐pay‐your‐mortgage‐right‐now                  March 27, 2020.   Bill Gates:  "THIS is the nightmare scenario":  33 minutes.  The Governors and mayors eager to  open up should see this. Who do you believe, Bill Gates or people waving Nazi and Confederate flags in front of  Statehouses?                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHLJ0DaMIIc           And one more cheery video‐  Covid19 could come as a second wave in the fall of 2020 and go into 2021. "What we  will have then could be worse than what we have now" in May, 2020, say the experts.   These experts say the virus will  continue spreading for 18 to 24 months.  The pandemic misery could continue for two more years. So another video that  the governors and mayors being pressured by mobs and loud‐mouthed, scientifically ignorant City Council members and  future mayors to open up should see and take to heart. May 1, 2020 video:                 https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/30/health/report‐covid‐two‐more‐years/index.html                One more tidbit from KCBS‐SF this morning, Sunday, May 3, 2020:  Several states have one week left before their  unemployment funds are gone:  New York, Ohio, Maryland, as I recall. Check it out though.  Then there are more states  that have two weeks or three weeks of unemployment money left. That's sure a relief. After that, either the federal  government comes through with big money for the States, or we look like 1932:  Hoovervilles, people standing six  abreast in soup lines.  Apparently, we are going to have to raise the national debt way above the current $23 trillion as  this pandemic progresses. We have already tacked on ~$3 trillion in the past few weeks, appropriately.  I do not know  how much it would cost to pay all of the unemployment claims for 20 million unemployed for one or two years.  Let's  hope that Trump turns out to be more like FDR than Herbert Hoover (Stanford '95) because the States don't have the  money to pay this.                 KCBS‐SF said this morning, Monday, May 4, 2020 that California has become the first State to borrow money from  the federal government to pay unemployment claims. Better turn those loans into grants, Congress.                Experts at Oxford University are talking about 1.4 million deaths in the next year in low and middle income  countries from Covid19.  All of that will be a giant reservoir of the virus to keep infecting us.                   KCBS said Sunday morning that the Humboldt County, Calif. Public Health Director is urging people with second  homes there not to come there. The fragil HC system there does not need visitors getting sick with Covid19 and  overburdening it.  KCBS said that Sonoma Co. and Napa Co., perhaps, have issued similar pleas.              "60 Minutes" last night, Sunday, May 3, 2020 showed small hospitals in rural areas of Texas on the brink of  bankruptcy.   Also see that program for how part‐OWNERS of farms are getting big federal money intended to go to  farmers. These people have a financial interest in one or more farms. Really interesting. These can be people living on  Manhattan Island who never get their hands dirty. There are rafts of lawyers who do nothing but guide farmers in how  to get federal money, the programs are so convoluted. No issue with the farmers‐ if the food stops we will be in even  worse trouble. All of the big federal money going to help farmers? One‐third of the money has gone to 4% of the farms.  Fair is fair. They interviewed several farmers in danger of losing their farms. The Chinese retaliatory tariffs on the red  States with lots of ag have really hurt them. Soybean tariffs especially, corn too probably.     3              Either the EU or the German government said that they are expecting the worst recession since the Great  Depression.                Discussion on PBS New Hour via Skype the other night, one person defending the WHO and one not defending  WHO regarding WHO and the Chinese being slow in raising the alarm about Covid19. The critic was a man named  Lanhee Chen at Stanford.   "The WHO was more interested in parotting China. They waited 10 weeks between  symptoms and sending a team (to China) to see".                  In a mail sent out about 6 weeks ago, I included a link to a long discussion by a WHO doctor, a Canadian, who was  part of the international team that went to China, had just finished the tour around China, and was reporting, jet‐lagged,  from Beijing.  That team included Americans, Japanese and Germans.                 Still no stimulus money of $1,200 in my bank account 19 days after Mnuchin said the money would go out.                         L. William Harding                Fresno  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:46 PM To:alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; dallen1212@gmail.com; Daniel Zack; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Bought 50 shrs of Themogenesis at $12.15 today. 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: Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:31 PM  Subject: Fwd: Bought 50 shrs of Themogenesis at $12.15 today.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:10 PM  Subject: Bought 50 shrs of Themogenesis at $12.15 today.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Tues. May 5, 2020              Fred‐ You "talked me into" ThemogenesisHoldings, THMO. I B 50 shares at $12.15 today using a limit order. The  low for today was $11.38, so I should have set a lower buy price.                   THMO c. today at $11.56, so I lost $.59  50 times or $29.50. I'll miss very few meals due to that, and I think the  stock will do well. No Div.                 As you know, last Thursday, April 30, 2020, THMO soared 60% because of the 100% accuracy of the reagent for  positive results shown by its antibody test kit for Covid19.                The 52  week low and high for THMO is $1.63‐ $14.18.         https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwHNDBkmZrXFXxSNLNLcnwzbmXv    2               They are going to need a LOT of antibody test kits for Covid19, especially when 3,000 people per day are dying of  it in the U.S. starting June 1, 2020.  I hope I live to spend my gains. That will be 1,095,000 people who will die in the next  year in the U.S. due to the pandemic.               Remember, "The virus will die out in the spring", and "We've done a great job in dealing with the virus".  Good to  know.               We'd better not ship too many of our ventilators to other countries just yet.                    L. William Harding              Fresno               1 Baumb, Nelly From:Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, March 26, 2020 11:45 AM To:Alison Cormack Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Gift baskets or food delivery for staff? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Alison   Wonderful job with great results!   Will send check to your home address‐    Thanks a million!  Liz        On Mar 26, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> wrote:      Thanks Alison  ‐ do you want to send us payment info?  Address for a check or any electronic payment  system you use (Paypal, venmo, etc)?         On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:02 PM Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com> wrote:  ‐ Greg    Hello all,    Operation lunch is complete!  The staff were incredibly appreciative everywhere I went,  especially the Police Department (apparently Piazza's is a favorite, so I chose well!), Utilities  Department (see the email from Dean to the City Council), Public Works (they particularly  appreciated that we delivered to the Municipal Services Center during a hailstorm), Fire (I got  to say hello from a safe distance to firefighters at four of the six stations), and Parks (it was  raining in the Baylands and sunny at Foothills).  There were a few sandwiches and bags of  chips plus one bag of cookies left at the end and I took them to Ed on the 7th floor.  Piazza's  did an extraordinary job assembling all the food and managed to pack it into my car, which  seemed challenging.    We served 225 lunches (sandwich, fruit, chips, and cookies) at a cost of $2,415 ($1,723 for  turkey, roast beef, and avocado sandwiches, $300 for individual bags of assorted chips, $244  for oranges and apples, and $149 for 30 bags of Oreos). If we split it six ways and make it a  round number, that's $400 per person.  Since we didn't agree on a budget beforehand and I  didn't know how many people we needed to feed, please just give whatever feels comfortable  for you and I will be very happy to cover the remainder.    2   Photos attached.    ‐ Alison    <IMG_20200324_204803.jpg>  <IMG_20200325_121929.jpg>  <IMG_20200325_120711.jpg>  <IMG_20200325_113842.jpg>              On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:53 PM Adrian Fine <adrianfine@gmail.com> wrote:  Thank you so much Alison. This is a real nice thing to do and I hope it lifts everyone's spirits.     Onwards,  Adrian    On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:46 PM Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com> wrote:  Update:  Piazza's will make sandwiches tomorrow morning which I will deliver starting  midday to 13 locations throughout the city for 218 employees.  I am also trying to make  some thank you notes to include, but I'm a terrible artist, so don't expect anything  amazing...  =)    Note to Greg:  You have not responded, so I am assuming that you will not contribute.    Thanks,    Alison    On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:39 AM Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com> wrote:  I will organize this starting tomorrow (staff is busy today with the Council meeting).  If you  want to make a contribution, please let me know by 9 am tomorrow, Tuesday.    Thank you,    Alison  cell (650) 796‐8475      On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> wrote:  I agree ordering something for delivery would be good.  Happy to contribute and participate as  well, thought, I think having the food service company do delivery would minimize the number of  hands.   I ordered a birthday cake for delivery last week if we wanted to do deserts or just do a  meal.  Though given people's dietary choices, maybe snacks / desert wold be better way to go.     3     On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 5:15 PM Adrian Fine <adrianfine@gmail.com> wrote:  Thanks Alison and Liz.     Agreed that individually packaged items work best. I will email Beth for a list of locations and  estimated # of personnel.        On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:48 PM Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com> wrote:  Also, here is Elena's list of who is offering takeout and delivering food        On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:45 PM Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com> wrote:  Yes, we should do this and I am happy to contribute.  If Liz will give me some gloves, I am also happy to deliver!  Suggest we choose options like sandwiches and fruit, in individual packages.  I am available to do this tomorrow.    Thank you, Adrian.      On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:36 PM Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> wrote:  very thoughtful idea….it’s how to create and deliver…   glad to contribute.  am sure we could buy on line and have the place where purchased deliver them.  BUT...maybe take‐out food at some lunch time more workable ?    On Mar 18, 2020, at 3:08 PM, Adrian Fine <adrianfine@gmail.com> wrote:      Hi All,     Hope you are doing well. As you're all well aware, the city staff is working  really hard in difficult circumstance on behalf of our community. They have  their own families and friends to worry about as well.    What do you think about ordering/delivering gift baskets or food to city  offices? Right now, most of city hall is empty, but we could get deliveries to  PD, Fire, and the MSC? Pizza? Fruit baskets?    Obviously, there are concerns about food delivery/delivery people ‐ so I'm  open to ideas.    Thoughts?  Adrian    ‐‐   Adrian Fine  4 adrianfine@gmail.com | 650‐468‐6331  https://www.linkedin.com/in/adrianfine/          ‐‐   Adrian Fine  adrianfine@gmail.com | 650‐468‐6331  https://www.linkedin.com/in/adrianfine/        ‐‐   Adrian Fine  adrianfine@gmail.com | 650‐468‐6331  https://www.linkedin.com/in/adrianfine/    1 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 3:59 PM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; RA@alexanderlaw.com Subject:For Mr. Shikada -🔯ban Adrian Fine from "Table Talk" for showing favoritism to Jewish businesses at Palo Alto City meetings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Please forward my email to Adrian.  Do you have a working email address for our mayor?  Neither of his emails  addresses are operational.  Thanks.  ‐Danielle Martell                  mayor@cityofpaloalto.org & Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org           ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>  Date: Sunday, May 3, 2020  Subject: 🔯 ban Adrian Fine from "Table Talk" for showing favoritism to Jewish businesses at Palo Alto City meetings  To: Mayor@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Stump, Molly"  <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org, Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay  Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>            Adrian Fine, Mayor  Palo Alto City Council     Mayor Fine:    You are wrong to be endorsing Judaism during our city‐sponsored weekly "Table Talk" discussions with esteemed City  Manager Edward K. Shikada.  These short broadcast conversations are about the serious CV19 pandemic and new Public  Health Orders.      "Table Talk" is not a platform for hidden agendas, promoting Jewish traditions, profits for our community's Jewish tribe,  or your status within the tribe.  You are brand new to city politics, and lack common knowledge and maturity.  Because  so many previous and current Palo Alto City Council members are Jewish, you need to be practicing sensitivity to the  many residents who feel City Council is powered by Jewish clannishness, showing little care for non‐Jewish perspectives  and little regard for non‐Semite Palo Altans.    2   You may foolishly think you're being clever or cute, waving around a loaf of challah bread in front of cameras, and  gushing loyalty to over‐priced mediocre Jewish restaurants and Jewish‐food delivery services, but your thinly‐veiled  biases are not amusing to non‐Jews. Palo Alto is a diverse, cosmopolitan Stanford community. Yes, we get it.  Enough  already.     During Friday, May 1, live airing of "Table Talk", you used poor judgement, trying to egg on our City Manager into  inappropriately endorsing a local downtown business over other businesses.  Your failed attempt to induce a verbal  trend, to cover‐up your Jewish patronage, was embarrassing.  Oy vey!  Palo Alto deserves a better mayor.    I applaud our dignified City Manager Edward K. Shikada, a skilled professional who represents our entire community,  without flaunting favoritism.   Please follow and learn from his example.      Shalom,    ‐Danielle Martell  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com                              1 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 4:43 PM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; RA@alexanderlaw.com Subject:Re: For Mr. Shikada -🔯ban Adrian Fine from "Table Talk" for showing favoritism to Jewish businesses at Palo Alto City meetings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Mr. Fine's personal email address is working.   [ AdrianFine@gmail.com ]   When you can manage, I'd still like to have a  working email address for him that ends in "@CityofPaloAlto.org".  Thank you.  ‐Danielle Martell         On Sunday, May 3, 2020, D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> wrote:      Please forward my email to Adrian.  Do you have a working email address for our mayor?  Neither of his emails  addresses are operational.  Thanks.  ‐Danielle Martell                  mayor@cityofpaloalto.org & Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org           ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>  Date: Sunday, May 3, 2020  Subject: 🔯 ban Adrian Fine from "Table Talk" for showing favoritism to Jewish businesses at Palo Alto City meetings  To: Mayor@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Stump, Molly"  <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org, Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay  Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>            Adrian Fine, Mayor  Palo Alto City Council     Mayor Fine:    1 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 5:33 PM To:Adrian Fine Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Aram James; Jonsen, Robert; RA@alexanderlaw.com Subject:Adrian Fine is failing as our mayor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Mr. Adrian Fine, in the future, do not address me by my first name alone.    Carefully re‐read my email.  You either totally missed my point, or you are digressing intentionally because your  response lacks both intelligence and maturity.  Don't be silly, no one accused you of not being "happy to support local  business".      On the other hand, I'm accusing you of not doing your job properly and not behaving in a professional manner when  interacting with our City Manager and the public.     To repeat myself, it is wrong (and possibly illegal) for you to promote Judaism at city meetings, including Jewish  traditions, Jewish clannishness, and raising your status within the tribe.       You are holding a very responsible public position, and it deserves someone who knows what he is doing, and someone  worthy of the job.  For leadership, Palo Alto deserves better than you.    ‐Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005              On Sunday, May 3, 2020, Adrian Fine <adrianfine@gmail.com> wrote:  I saw your message, Danielle.    I’m happy to support Palo Alto businesses ‐ Jewish or otherwise.    ‐Adrian       On May 3, 2020, at 16:07, D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> wrote:       1 Baumb, Nelly From:Greg Panos <gregpanos@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:32 PM To:D Martell Cc:Mayor@cityofpaloalto.org; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price Subject:Re: 🔯ban Adrian Fine from "Table Talk" for showing favoritism to Jewish businesses at Palo Alto City meetings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Wow.     On Sun, May 3, 2020, 3:20 PM D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> wrote:        Adrian Fine, Mayor  Palo Alto City Council     Mayor Fine:    You are wrong to be endorsing Judaism during our city‐sponsored weekly "Table Talk" discussions with esteemed City  Manager Edward K. Shikada.  These short broadcast conversations are about the serious CV19 pandemic and new  Public Health Orders.      "Table Talk" is not a platform for hidden agendas, promoting Jewish traditions, profits for our community's Jewish tribe,  or your status within the tribe.  You are brand new to city politics, and lack common knowledge and maturity.  Because  so many previous and current Palo Alto City Council members are Jewish, you need to be practicing sensitivity to the  many residents who feel City Council is powered by Jewish clannishness, showing little care for non‐Jewish perspectives  and little regard for non‐Semite Palo Altans.      You may foolishly think you're being clever or cute, waving around a loaf of challah bread in front of cameras, and  gushing loyalty to over‐priced mediocre Jewish restaurants and Jewish‐food delivery services, but your thinly‐veiled  biases are not amusing to non‐Jews. Palo Alto is a diverse, cosmopolitan Stanford community. Yes, we get it.  Enough  already.     During Friday, May 1, live airing of "Table Talk", you used poor judgement, trying to egg on our City Manager into  inappropriately endorsing a local downtown business over other businesses.  Your failed attempt to induce a verbal  trend, to cover‐up your Jewish patronage, was embarrassing.  Oy vey!  Palo Alto deserves a better mayor.    I applaud our dignified City Manager Edward K. Shikada, a skilled professional who represents our entire community,  without flaunting favoritism.   Please follow and learn from his example.      Shalom,    ‐Danielle Martell  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kirsten Flynn <kir@declan.com> Sent:Saturday, May 2, 2020 4:02 PM To:Police Cc:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Noise problem CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Palo Alto Police, I just called in a noise complaint to the police non-emergency number. The Gas station near my house, Shell at Matadero and El Camino, has a hydrogen pumping station. It intermittently has a very loud grinding pumping sound, amongst other intrusive sounds, but this is the most common. Occasionally there is also a loud venting hiss noise, and an alarm that goes off. I called it in, and asked they to check the noise level. I called at 11:06 am on Saturday May 2nd. I got a phone call back from the officer, at approximately 11:30, and felt completely disregarded and gaslighted. He told me he had driven his car down the alley, and rolled down the window, and that the sound was not loud, so that it was not a violation. This is not a data driven approach to solving this problem, or responding to the issue. Perhaps the pump had stopped by the time your officer arrived. This is why this problem is such a challenge for the neighbors. Even if we call it in every time the pump is whining and grinding (as it is again right now), there is no guarantee that the officer will come past while the noise is occurring. Additionally it is not the highest and best use of police dispatchers or police officers time. As a citizen I would like you to be using your resources for public safety. But the noise from this hydrogen station is loud, intrusive, and alters the way I can live in my house. I have to limit the use of my yard, and keep my windows closed when the pump is going. It is not on a schedule, so it can start or stop at any time. I spoke to a person who was from the pumps vendor, and he said to his knowledge this was the only hydrogen station in California that had ever been permitted in a residential area. There must be an approved process to check if the noise is a violation, even if the noise is intermittent. Would you like me to call the police non-emergency number each time I hear a noise, in hopes that at some point that the noice is still happening when the officer comes out? Is there some kind of sound data collection that could take place? This is both frustrating and stressful, I would like some direction on how to help the city mitigate this issue. Please help. Thank you for your time and attention reading this letter. Best, Kirsten A Flynn 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:A Lot is wrong with this picture CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  What’s wrong with this picture? PA city manager earns more than the president! Uploaded: May 5, 2020 Stanford has cut salaries by 20 percent, plus the excessive retirement benefits they receive. Time to make new budget decisions. Suzanne Keehn 94306 Redacted From: Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 6:12 PM To: scscroundtable@gmail.com Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Public Comment April 29, 2020 Meeting - Agenda Items 4, 5, 6, 7 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear SCSC Roundtable, Since the Legislative Committee meeting, I have learned that FAA posted on their website a response to Congress on the noise metrics provisions in the 2018 Reauthorization that I referred to in my public comments. A report to Congress on Sections 188 and 173 of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act. Posted on the FAA website https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/congress/ and the report is about Day Night Average Sound Levels: https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/congress/media/Day- Night_Average_Sound_Levels_COMPLETED_report_w_letters.pdf. I am appreciative of FAA’s report but there’s needed follow up. Preliminarily, I would say that the Report is helpful as a response to Section 188 (In summary, FAA states that - no single metric can cover all concerns; noise modeling is the only practical method for predictive analysis, and that while DNL is FAA’s decision making metric, “other supplementary metrics can be used to support further disclosure and aid in the public understanding of community noise effects.” ) - but the report is not really adequate to respond to Section 173. FAA explains in their cover letter that the report they wrote to respond to Section 188 fulfills Section 173. Sections 188 and 173 are different questions. Section 188 is about alternative metrics and Section 173 is about the use of the 65 DNL as a standard - which is a peg for far more decision-making items than those stated in the 188 report (DNL's use for NEPA disclosures and aircraft certification). For example, the 65 DNL standard is used for mitigation decisions and limits federal noise mitigation to insulation based on this standard. Most importantly, FAA also uses the 65 DNL standard to measure their performance in noise management. So when FAA reports to Congress they show only the people affected by 65DNL (severe airport noise), leaving out communities with other noise-- like all SCSC cities which are farther away from major airports but still experience heavy air traffic. For your immediate purpose, it is relevant that the metric for aircraft certification cannot be considered sufficient for all concerns (per FAA’s own summary) and rules for new aircraft proposals would need at the minimum supplemental analysis. More broadly- I suggest you set up a meeting to discuss Section 173 because it is not fulfilled by Section 188. Thank you, Jennifer On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 01:21, Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Members of the Legislative Committee - SCSC Roundtable, I am submitting for your consideration three key Recommendations from the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals which pertain to noise measurements, metrics, and noise mitigation processes. The full recommendations can be found on page 24 and page 26 of the SC's final report. FAA nor Congress have responded to communities on these recommendations, and the 2018 FAA Reauthorization noise metrics provisions. It is a flawed process for FAA to have any rule making actions when FAA ignores their noise metric inadequacies - or given that FAA practices have failed to assess or model noise adequately for every Nextgen project launched. If the SCSC Legislative is to be of help to communities, it must please make more NOISE about these problems. Thank you, Jennifer Landesmann FOR LEGISLATIVE FOLLOW UP SELECT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS – 3.3, 4.1, and 4.2 3.3 Noise Measurement Recommendation: The Select Committee recommends that the U.S. Congress require the FAA to adopt supplemental metrics for aircraft noise that characterize the true impact experienced by people on the ground.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain) EXCERPT: More specifically, the use of a Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) alone is ill-suited to assess ground level impacts, particularly from the standpoint of amplitude, duration, time of occurrence, and repetitiveness (concentration of flight paths). In addition, noise analysis at a community level (i.e., over a relatively broad swath) results in a blending of noise that does not reflect more localized impacts. Measuring noise more locally and precisely (e.g., at the census block level) would avoid this “blending” and diluting of noise exposure. The Committee also notes that, on the national level, numerous studies of alternative noise metrics highlight the deficiencies of DNL. Further, the FAA’s metrics rely on A-Weighting to measure sound pressure levels (e.g., the way the ear hears), commonly expressed in dBA. A-Weighting was originally intended only for the measurement of low-level sounds. Yet it is now commonly used for the measurement of environmental and industrial noise, including aircraft noise, as well as when assessing potential hearing damage and other noise health effects at all sound levels. However, because A-Weighting is applicable to only low levels, it tends to devalue the effects of low frequency noise in particular. Other frequency weighting, such as “C-” and “Z-” Weightings are available. Use of these frequency weightings yields measurements of all noise, instead of only a small fraction of it. 4.1 Who Makes Recommendations to Whom Recommendation: Should a similar process be employed here or elsewhere in the country in the future, the Select Committee recommends that, to the greatest degree possible, the FAA be charged with the responsibility for identifying and proposing solutions to mitigate noise concerns, and that community groups and elected officials be consulted for review and comment, and to offer additional suggestions. (Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain) EXCERPT: Simply put, notwithstanding the FAA’s good faith effort to provide technical expertise to the Committee, the Committee’s view is that the process is fundamentally backwards – the FAA should be going to Members of Congress and their affected constituencies with proposals for review and comment, not the other way around. 4.2 Need for Before/After Noise Monitoring Recommendation 1: The Select Committee recommends that the FAA and/or SFO monitor and document noise exposure of any feasible solutions before and after FAA implementation to ensure impacts are verified, and to determine whether results are of a discernible benefit.
(Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain) Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends the implementation of a set of regional noise monitoring stations that will adequately monitor aircraft noise levels at carefully selected points in the San Francisco Bay Area and the three Congressional Districts represented on the Select Committee. Collected data shall be made available to citizens upon request. (Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain) EXCERPT: Looking ahead, the Committee is concerned that if the FAA fails to perform “before and after” noise measurements related to the implementation of Recommendations contained in this Report, there will likewise be an inability to measure, analyze and verify, and document the desired improvements. Accordingly, the Select Committee offers the following Recommendation. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Mitch Johnson <johnsonbimini@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Small business relief CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________      Hello,   I hope you can help.   I just read an article in the Palo Alto Online in regards to the City council approving Grants to small businesses.   How do we apply for the grants?  https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/04/21/palo‐alto‐to‐start‐relief‐fund‐to‐help‐small‐businesses‐during‐ pandemic     Thanks very much,   Mitch Johnson   Palo Alto Upholstery   650 326 6414  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, May 3, 2020 4:13 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Fwd: Summer 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  From a thoughtful resident, thinking ahead.     Begin forwarded message:      From: nancy mcgaraghan <chezmcg@hotmail.com> Subject: Summer 2020 Date: May 3, 2020 at 3:22:52 PM PDT To: Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> Cc: Pat McGaraghan <pat.mcgaraghan@dlapiper.com>    Hi Liz,    Good to talk with you today about some possibilities for Palo Alto this summer.  Here is a bit of follow‐ up.    To begin, the bright side of sheltering‐in‐place has been seeing so many people outside on the sidewalks  and streets.  Moms, dads, little kids, groups of teenagers laughing and having fun, friends visiting and  just good camaraderie among everyone.  It is so much more fun than our quiet neighborhood usually  is.  So it seems like we have a great opportunity to build on this by officially closing some streets and  making some for pedestrians only and others for bikes, scooters, etc.    Needless to say, I have no idea what level of shutdown will be in place this summer so maybe none of  the following will be appropriate but, if needed, here are some ideas:    University Ave and California Ave are the obvious big streets to plan for community uses but closing  some neighborhood streets where there are lots of kids would also be a big help.    Close Bryant Street for cross‐town bike, scooter, etc traffic.     On University and California Ave, vendors could set up carts or operate from their doorways.  This could  be on a revolving basis if there is high demand.    Restaurants and coffee shops could use some kind of reservation system like Apple does, where they  text the person five minutes before the reservation time.  Or they could use the gadget that some  restaurants use already to alert a person when they are ready for them.      Restaurants use limited menu or even have patrons order ahead.    2 Service providers like barbershops and nail salons could set up stations in front of their shops.    Concerts could be held in any number of places.      Games, races, contests sponsored by the PA Recreation Center.    A movie screen could be set up for movies at night. Maybe Stanford Theater would be interested in this.     All of this done at appropriate distances and with plenty of hand sanitizer stations around.    Palo Alto is usually a ghost town in the summer but this year could be much different.  It looks like not  many will be traveling and everyone will be anxious to get out.  What great chance to move life out onto  the streets and sidewalks. It seems like if we give people something, they will be much more willing to  honor the necessary restrictions.    Please let me know if I can be of any help.    Thanks for listening and stay well!    Nancy    P.S.  As an aside, my daughter‐in‐law who lives in Menlo Park is hoping that they can do the same kind  of thing.  This is just by way of saying I think there will be a pretty big demand for organized, safe places  for people of all ages to gather.      1 Baumb, Nelly From:ana@reyes.net Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 4:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tobacco Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am a member of the American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network. It has come to my attention that an amendment to the City Tobacco Ordinance, item 5 on your consent calendar, originally proposed in December, has been changed to weaken protection for the citizens of Palo Alto and neighboring cities. Santa Clara County's ordinance is stronger and more comprehensive. We would like to request that you remove item 5 from the consent calendar and amend it to mirror the county ordinance, instead of adding loopholes that will have to be addressed again. Thank you, Ana -- Ana Reyes www.cervivor.org/ana 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Amar Johal <amarjohal@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 7:52 AM To:Fine, Adrian Cc:Cormack, Alison; Council, City; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanaka, Greg; liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.or Subject:Re: Vaping Ban Feedback - Urgent CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,    What was the final decision?    ‐Amar    On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:12 AM Amar Johal <amarjohal@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,   As a convenience store owner in our local community of Palo Alto (7-Eleven Waverley), I’m stunned that you are considering an ordinance that would ban the sale of all vapor products at stores like mine and also exclude others.    Honestly first it was the flavor ban, I was fine with it even though it dropped my sales by 15-20%. I was ok due to the health epidemic, BUT if Palo Alto really cared about health they would ban flavor's for everyone and not let 21+ shops sell them just like other cities have done. This is a true sign you care about health.     Same with this ban, quit creating an un-equal playing field, if health is a concern BAN things for every retailer, quit picking and choosing please.     I suggest 2 things, 1) Include every retailer in your bans 2) VERY IMPORTANT: place this on hold until you can include all retailers, currently due to COVID our sales are down 45% we are barely surviving trying to stay open as an essential business.     Thank you,    -Amar Johal  925‐699‐3399    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Albert Henning <albertkhenning@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, May 2, 2020 10:25 AM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:How to achieve traffic calming along a residential street? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council members, and City Manager Shikada,    The virus crisis has revealed to us all, new ways of living. Many of those ways have led to substantial enhancements to  quality of life. It would behoove us, therefore, as society emerges from the crisis, to find ways to retain those benefits,  while restoring the workings of society.    One notable enhancement has been the reduction in noise, engine emissions, and risks to cyclists, runners, and walkers,  associated with the dramatic reduction in the number of miles traveled in motor vehicles.    This past week, however, brought an increase in our neighborhood, of both the frequency of traffic, and the speed of  traffic.    We live close to Duveneck Elementary School, about 200 yards, along a main connector between Channing and  Embarcadero. Despite occasional forays by PAPD, to interdict traffic and encourage slower speeds, drivers continue to  propel their vehicles well in excess of the posted 25 MPH limit. Given our new knowledge and expectations, this excess  is no longer acceptable.    Therefore, I would like to learn how our neighborhood can effect either a partial road closure, or implement traffic‐ calming structures, or both. Please let me know the details of the administrative and local/legislative process for doing  so. And, please forward this email to the cognizant City official, who has the authority to act on, and sustain follow‐up  to, this request.    Sincerely,    Albert K Henning  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 2, 2020 1:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gold, Audrey; Ellson, Penny; Durham, KathyF; Pflasterer, Jim; Phillips, Peter Subject:Budget Cuts & Safe Routes to Schools programs Attachments:PaloAltoCityCouncilBudgetcuts.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      May 2, 2020  Honorable City Council Members,  The Palo Alto Council of PTAs will not be able to meet until late May to vote on a position on this matter, so we are writingas individuals.  As you consider potential cuts to the Crossing Guard contract and the PAPD Traffic Safety Team, we ask you to consider these questions and comments. The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) partnership in Palo Alto is founded on the four E’s: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement. The proposed cuts could eliminate the enforcement arm of our Safe Routes to School partnership. They would also have a serious impact on key goals, policies and programs of Palo Alto’s current Comprehensive Plan listed at the end of this message.  The Crossing Guard contract provides 29 Crossing Guards at critical intersections citywide. See a list of crossing guard intersections and schools they serve here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/7298 Many of these are multi-lane intersections that carry traffic volumes exceeding 20-40,000 autos per day with 35mph posted speed limits (in many cases, higher 85th percentile speeds). They provide essential visibility and safer crossings for the students, a key factor allowing parents to feel comfortable about letting their students walk and bike to school.  The PAPD Traffic Team (three dedicated officers) provides regular enforcement and a visible presence on miles of school routes between guarded intersections, particularly on identified trouble spots during school commute times. They provide preventive enforcement on all city streets throughout the day. If the Traffic Team were eliminated, their responsibilities would be redistributed to regular patrol teams whose primary job is to respond to all calls, prioritizing 911 emergency assignments. This will make preventive enforcement on school commute routes a much lower priority. Currently, the Traffic Team regularly fills in for regular patrol when needed. Without the Traffic Team, PAPD will provide no guarantee that they will be available to provide preventive enforcement during school commute times, especially in the morning when foot-powered students converge with rush hour traffic. Without their collaboration, the school commute road environments would be very different.  Chief Jonsen only recently completed the difficult work of recruiting and training a new Traffic Team. We hope the time costs of building the team will be considered as the city contemplates disbanding it.   Why the Traffic Team is important:   The Traffic Team uses motorcycles which are smaller and more maneuverable than patrol cars. This allows officers more flexibility in observation positions in school zones and to quickly respond to violators traveling in either direction on the streets. Members of the Traffic Team are specifically dedicated to enforcing traffic laws, and their presence ensures safer driver as well as student commuter behavior.   Close communication between PAUSD, CoPA Transportation and PTAs with the Traffic Team at the City School Traffic Safety Committee facilitates program effectiveness. Traffic Team partners share information and problem-solve. This 2 relationship has been key in building the Safe Routes to School Partnership and helping reduce vehicle congestion around our schools compared to other cities.   PAPD Traffic Team participates in our education and encouragement classes and events. Their presence conveys the seriousness of our safety programs.  Please help us understand what shape the PAPD’s future role in the Safe Routes to School Partnership might take after these proposed cuts, with special emphasis on how eliminated functions would be managed.   1). How will we achieve timely, appropriate, targeted enforcement response?    Traffic  Team sergeant supervisors frequently make assignments for problem sites based on input from SRTS partners requesting spot enforcement.    Traffic  Team members know the circulation plan and can implement it. How will regular patrol officers learn this?  2). Has the city asked PAUSD to cover some portion of the $550,000 annual cost of the crossing guards? In many cities that have crossing guards, the school districts do this. Palo Alto has more families choosing alternative commutes than most other cities.  3). What will be the new line of communication between the City School Traffic Safety Committee and the PAPD be if we no longer have a PAPD Traffic Team representative? How will collaborations between PTA, PAUSD, Transportation Division and PAPD occur without this representation?  4). Who will manage communications between Crossing Guards and schools? Who will manage the city relationship with the outsourced crossing guard service provider? Continuity and collaboration are important to make sure intersections are managed as planned. (Crossing Guards turn over frequently.)  5). How will PAPD maintain a relationship with schools, administrative staff and the PTA without regular contact and a formal venue that provides structure for problem resolution? These ongoing relationships have been critical to the success of the Safe Routes to School partnership.  6). What message is being sent to PTA partners when the city reduces its support of Safe Routes to School programs while volunteers are simultaneously being asked to do more as bike counts rise? These cuts will undermine volunteer morale and recruiting efforts   Volunteers cannot do enforcement, and public safety is the city’s top priority in the City Charter. Please give careful scrutiny to impacts on mode shift and safety as you consider potential cuts to the PAPD Traffic Team and Crossing Guards.   We understand that the City is facing very difficult budget decisions. We urge you to preserve a program that has been crucial to the wellness and safety of thousands of Palo Alto children and solved some very difficult transportation problems. Further, the documented success of Palo Alto’s Safe Routes to School programs of increasing the percentage of children walking and biking to school saves our city money. Successful trip reduction programs save engineering and construction dollars that might otherwise have to be spent on increasing street capacity and managing higher volumes of auto traffic. They also reduce costs related to crashes by enforcing safe behavior on our vitally important school commute routes. Cutting the PAPD Traffic Safety Team and Crossing Guards may be a false economy.  We value our partnership with PAPD, and it is clear to us that these job responsibilities cannot be distributed to other staff members or volunteers (however capable they may be). Before any change please define PAPD’s future role in the 3 Safe Routes to Partnership with special emphasis on how the eliminated functions will be managed. We ask you to give appropriate heightened review to a budget decision that will have an important effect on the safety of thousands of school-bound children. Please insure there is an alternate plan in place to make Safe Routes to School enforcement efforts work before significant cuts are made.  We send this letter as three generations of Safe Routes to School volunteer leadership. Thank you for considering our questions and comments. We thank you very much for your ongoing participation in Palo Alto’s successful Safe Routes to School partnership.  Sincerely,  Audrey Gold, Jim Pflasterer, Peter Philips, Penny Ellson & Kathy Durham  May 2, 2020 Honorable City Council Members, The Palo Alto Council of PTAs will not be able to meet until late May to vote on a position on this matter, so we are writing as individuals. As you consider potential cuts to the Crossing Guard contract and the PAPD Traffic Safety Team, we ask you to consider these questions and comments. The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) partnership in Palo Alto is founded on the four E’s: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, and ​Enforcement​. The proposed cuts could eliminate the enforcement arm of our Safe Routes to School partnership. They would also have a serious impact on key goals, policies and programs of Palo Alto’s current Comprehensive Plan listed at the end of this message. The Crossing Guard contract provides 29 Crossing Guards at critical intersections citywide.​ See a list of crossing guard intersections and schools they serve here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/7298​ Many of these are multi-lane intersections that carry traffic volumes exceeding 20-40,000 autos per day with 35mph posted speed limits (in many cases, higher 85​th​ percentile speeds). They provide essential visibility and safer crossings for the students, a key factor allowing parents to feel comfortable about letting their students walk and bike to school. The PAPD Traffic Team (three dedicated officers)​ provides regular enforcement and a visible presence on miles of school routes between guarded intersections, particularly on identified trouble spots during school commute times. They provide preventive enforcement on all city streets throughout the day. If the Traffic Team were eliminated, their responsibilities would be redistributed to regular patrol teams whose primary job is to respond to all calls, prioritizing 911 emergency assignments. ​This will make ​preventive enforcement on school commute routes a much lower priority. ​Currently, the Traffic Team regularly fills in for regular patrol when needed. Without the Traffic Team, PAPD will provide no guarantee that they will be available to provide preventive enforcement during school commute times, especially in the morning when foot-powered students converge with rush hour traffic. Without their collaboration, the school commute road environments would be very different. Chief Jonsen only recently completed the difficult work of recruiting and training a new Traffic Team. We hope the time costs of building the team will be considered as the city contemplates disbanding it​. Why the Traffic Team is important: The Traffic Team uses motorcycles which are smaller and more maneuverable than patrol cars. This allows officers more flexibility in observation positions in school zones and to quickly respond to violators traveling in either direction on the streets. Members of the Traffic Team are specifically dedicated to enforcing traffic laws, and their presence ensures safer driver as well as student commuter behavior. Close communication between PAUSD, ​CoPA ​Transportation and PTAs with the Traffic Team at the City School Traffic Safety Committee facilitates program effectiveness. Traffic Team partners share information and problem-solve. This relationship has been key in building the Safe Routes to School Partnership and helping reduce vehicle congestion around our schools compared to other cities. PAPD Traffic Team participates in our education and encouragement classes and events. Their presence conveys the seriousness of our safety programs. Please help us understand what shape the PAPD’s future role in the Safe Routes to School Partnership might take after these proposed cuts, with special emphasis on how eliminated functions would be managed. 1). How will we achieve timely, appropriate, targeted enforcement response? ●Traffic Team sergeant supervisors frequently make assignments for problem sites based on input from SRTS partners requesting spot enforcement. ●Traffic Team members know the circulation plan and can implement it. How will regular patrol officers learn this? 2). Has the city asked PAUSD to cover some portion of the $550,000 annual cost of the crossing guards? In many cities that have crossing guards, the school districts do this. Palo Alto has more families choosing alternative commutes than most other cities. 3). What will be the new line of communication between the City School Traffic Safety Committee and the PAPD be if we no longer have a PAPD Traffic Team representative? How will collaborations between PTA, PAUSD, Transportation Division and PAPD occur without this representation? 4). Who will manage communications between Crossing Guards and schools? Who will manage the city relationship with the outsourced crossing guard service provider? Continuity and collaboration are important to make sure intersections are managed as planned. (Crossing Guards turn over frequently.) 5). How will PAPD maintain a relationship with schools, administrative staff and the PTA without regular contact and a formal venue that provides structure for problem resolution? These ongoing relationships have been critical to the success of the Safe Routes to School partnership. 6). What message is being sent to PTA partners when the city reduces its support of Safe Routes to School programs while volunteers are simultaneously being asked to do more as bike counts rise? These cuts will undermine volunteer morale and recruiting efforts Volunteers cannot do enforcement, and public safety is the city’s top priority in the City Charter. Please give careful scrutiny to impacts on mode shift and safety as you consider potential cuts to the PAPD Traffic Team and Crossing Guards. We understand that the City is facing very difficult budget decisions. We urge you to preserve a program that has been crucial to the wellness and safety of thousands of Palo Alto children and solved some very difficult transportation problems. Further, the documented success of Palo Alto’s Safe Routes to School programs of increasing the percentage of children walking and biking to school saves our city money. Successful trip reduction programs save engineering and construction dollars that might otherwise have to be spent on increasing street capacity and managing higher volumes of auto traffic. They also reduce costs related to crashes by enforcing safe behavior on our vitally important school commute routes. Cutting the PAPD Traffic Safety Team and Crossing Guards may be a false economy. We value our partnership with PAPD, and it is clear to us that these job responsibilities cannot be distributed to other staff members or volunteers (however capable they may be). ​Before any change please define PAPD’s future role in the Safe Routes to Partnership with special emphasis on how the eliminated functions will be managed.​ We ask you to give appropriate heightened review to a budget decision that will have an important effect on the safety of thousands of school-bound children. Please insure there is an alternate plan in place to make Safe Routes to School enforcement efforts work before significant cuts are made. We send this letter as three generations of Safe Routes to School volunteer leadership. Thank you for considering our questions and comments. We thank you very much for your ongoing participation in Palo Alto’s successful Safe Routes to School partnership. Sincerely,  Audrey Gold, Jim Pflasterer, Peter Philips, Penny Ellson & Kathy Durham    Please note the following relevant Comprehensive Plan goals, programs and policies: Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a nix of land uses that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. Goal T-4: Protect streets and adopted school commute corridors that contribute to neighborhood character and provide a range of local transportation options. Goal T-6: Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. Policy T-6.2: Pursue goal of zero severe injuries and roadway fatalities on Palo Alto city streets. Program T6.4.3: In collaboration with PAUSD, provide adult crossing guards at school crossings that meet established warrants. Policy T-6.6: Use engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve safety for all users on city roadways. Policy T-6.8 Vigorously and consistently enforce speed limits and other traffic laws for both motor vehicles and bicycle traffic. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 3:28 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; Daniel Zack; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; Mark Kreutzer; newsdesk; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mark Standriff; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; nick yovino; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com Subject:Fwd: I bought this years ago n now the ignorant discover it 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 30, 2020 at 2:53 PM  Subject: Fwd: I bought this years ago n now the ignorant discover it  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:23 AM  Subject: Fwd: I bought this years ago n now the ignorant discover it  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:09 AM  Subject: Fwd: I bought this years ago n now the ignorant discover it  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  Thurs. April 30, 2020     2            Fred‐  I got my 10 shrs of Gilead  GILD  today at $85.56. I'm glad I didn't pay the full $90 I set as my buy  limit.  GILD  pays a DIV of 3.27%.   If remdesivir continues to pan out, I think the stock will soar.  Your THMO has a  spectacular gain today.                 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwHNCtwvmKHdxCJrnNpKWkvzTDs               GILD closed today, April 30, 2020 at $84, up $0.86.                I thought GILD might soar today with the remdesivir news, but no.  High so far today is only $85.67. That's a  surprise since rem. is about the only therapeutic so far for Covid‐19. Unless one drinks some Lysol, of course.                  Here is the Gilead website. Read there the letter from Chairman and CEO Day. Very good information to know.  Highly recommended. Not very long.                 https://www.gilead.com/                 Notice at paragraph 13 of the letter, this:  "On the supply side, we are working to build a global consortium of  pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers to expand global capacity and production".   I wonder if Trump might want  to help that process along by invoking the DPA with some of those manufacturers.  There are plenty of them just in the  U.S., and why would this effort not qualify for use of the DPA? They now have something that works for pts. with Covid‐ 19. We need a rapid increase of supply!                  L. William Harding               Fresno       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: fred beyerlein <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>  Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:31 AM  Subject: I bought this years ago n now the ignorant discover it  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    3 4 Sent from my iPhone      On Apr 29, 2020, at 9:45 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:39 PM  Subject: Elon Musk re Fascism and good info on the Co.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>           Wed. April 29, 2020        Fred‐  You said one time that you did not understand Tesla co. This article may help you understand it.  It seems to be a tough co. to kill. I read the whole thing. TSLA had a big jump today.     https://www.reuters.com/article/us‐tesla‐results/teslas‐elon‐musk‐calls‐coronavirus‐lockdowns‐fascist‐ as‐profit‐streak‐continues‐ idUSKBN22B35G?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fe ed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FbusinessNews+%28Business+News%29           Stay home, stay safe. Groceries, gas, bank, WM, that is about it for me. I sure do need a haircut at  this point.                Great news about Remdesivir. I'll put out a mail tonight about it. They got a VERY early indication  in the U.S. that it helped, but that sort of went unheralded.  Gilead Sciences‐ Foster City, Calif.                 What early indication?   This is important:  About three weeks ago, in early April, the PBS News  Hour had a piece about what was thought at the time to be the first Covid‐19 pt. in the United  States.  He may well have been the first such pt. in the Seattle area. That was a piece about remdesivir,  and it referenced a patient's treatment with the drug probably in February, 2020. Last night on the PBS  News Hour, Judy Woodruff said that "remdesivir was used on the first Covid‐19 pt."  She flew right  through that. I'm not sure she remembered the piece on her program about the pt. in Seattle, or  understood the significance of the treatment of that pt. with remdesivir.  Try to see the piece on PBS  News Hour two or three weeks ago. They interviewed the doctor there as well as the recovered pt. He  said that he started feeling better as soon as they administered remdesivir.                 I say that he was "what was thought at the time to be the first Covid‐19 pt. in the U.S."  I recent  days, they have found by autopsy that a pt. died of Covid‐19 in Santa Clara County, Calif. around Feb. 7,  2020. That would make him the new title‐holder of first pt. in the U.S. with Covid‐19, and probably  before the pt. in Seattle who was given remdesivir.                But note the signifcance of the PBS News Hour piece weeks ago re the Seattle pt. who was given  remdesivir. It seems to have gone unnoticed. The doctor who administered the drug even said in the  piece  "It is a sample of one, so maybe we can't draw many conclusions".  The media certainly did not  pick up on the piece and descend on the doctor and the pt. to find out more. The treatment did not  5 generate questions of Trump at any of his press briefings. He was still going on about  hydroxychloroquine.                You know that Dr. Fauci noticed that treatment in Seattle. By then, his National Institute of Allergy  and Infectious Diseases was well into their trial of remdesivir, but he never mentioned the Seattle pt. in  his comments during the Trump press briefings that I can recall. He may have done.                If I were running the PBS News Hour, I would now re‐run the piece re Seattle that they ran in early  April.  "Look at this about remdesivir having success in February in Seattle. The world paid little  attention to it but we now know that they should have done".                    L. William Harding        Fresno  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 6:30 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Council, City Subject:Churchill Railroad Crossing Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear XCAP members and Council members,     In reviewing https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp‐content/uploads/2020/04/Item4‐REVISEDattachmentA‐4.22.20‐sm.pdf I have several observations.    In summary, I support moving forward with studying the partial Churchill Ave underpass as proposed. I have several  refinements that may make the XCAP‐proposed alternative feasible without impinging on the Caltrain right‐of‐way.    1. Considering that there is only one northbound lane over Embarcadero, it seems logical to me that there could be only  one northbound lane at surface at Churchill.  Eliminating the extra northbound lane could allow the entire structure to  be shifted eastward (away from El Camino Real) by about 10 feet.    2. The northbound shoulder in the underpass could be narrowed.  That might save around 5 feet (to allow a 13 foot area  just in case).  Again that would allow shifting the structure eastward.    3. Although not ideal, the ramp to the underpass under Kellogg could be placed where the bike path is now with  bicyclists and pedestrians going down then up.  Since there is already encroachment, then Caltrain should not object to  continued encroachment.    Finally, these adjustments are suggested for the purpose of demonstrating feasibility in the event that Caltrain does not  allow access to the additional right‐of‐way.  During a later design phase, these issues can be worked out and the  proposal cited above (without these changes) might be adopted instead.  Caltrain does not appear to have sufficient  right‐of‐way to build their four track option in this area without eminent domain.  It makes more sense for Caltrain to  use the sufficient area between the Castro Street (Mountain View) station and Oregon Expressway, where there is  already sufficient right‐of‐way if four tracks are in fact needed in the future.    This is the type of proposal we get from our community when we unleash citizen committees and allow them to drive  the process.  I would like to see a similar citizen‐led and driven process occurring with the NVCAP committee as well.    Respectfully,  Arthur Keller  (not in any official capacity)        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:54 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Letter regarding Connecting Palo Alto Attachments:XCAP Letter May 6 2020.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see attached letter.    Thomas W. Kellerman  | Palo Alto, CA 94304 Direct: +1.650.843.7550 | Mobile: +1.650.283.5023 l Main: +1.650.843.4000 | Fax: +1.650.843.4001 thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com | www.morganlewis.com   DISCLAIMER  This e‐mail message is intended only for the personal use  of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an  attorney‐client communication and as such privileged and  confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.  If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,  copy or distribute this message. If you have received this  communication in error, please notify us immediately by  e‐mail and delete the original message.  Redacted C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\XCAP Letter May 6 2020.docx 1 Thomas W. and Rachel H. Kellerman 1129 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 May 5, 2020 Rail Expanded Community Advisory Panel of Palo Alto Re: Agenda Item #4 for May 6, 2020 Meeting Dear Members: We are writing with respect to the agenda item regarding traffic questions for the upcoming XCAP meeting. First of all, we want to thank Megan Kanne for her service on the CAP and XCAP. During the CAP process, Megan took on the huge task of facilitating rail-crossing communication between city and council leadership to all the neighborhoods north of Embarcadero. She was the only citizen assigned to this large diverse area between two thorny railroad crossings while other areas had multiple people engaged. While serving on the XCAP, she expanded her focus community-wide while continuing to bring our specific neighborhood concerns to the attention of city and civic leaders and design consultants. We wish her all the best as she brings her talent for civic leadership to Washington DC. We will be curious to know if she finds Palo Alto or DC more challenging. This is indeed a very difficult time for all, and we appreciate the service of all the XCAP members, city staff and the consultants as they attend to this specific issue. Given that everyone’s attention is fractured in so many areas and priorities have shifted so dramatically in the last few months, we offer the following brief comments with regard to Action Item 4-traffic questions. 1. The traffic consultant‘s redirection plan drives more traffic to the 1100 block of Emerson. This increased traffic will endanger the students, pedestrians and bicyclists who follow the busy Kingsley/Embarcadero route that runs perpendicular to Emerson Street. We request that XCAP endorse changes to the traffic redirection plan as follows: a. Ensure that any traffic redirection redesign include a Kingsley/Embarcadero bike/pedestrian route that is safe enough to qualify for “safe route to school” designation. Pay special attention to the crossings at Emerson and High Street as these are the most perilous. It is likely that the proposed Kingsley/ Embarcadero light will not be able to accommodate all of the redirected traffic, resulting in increased traffic through Professorville streets. This might require C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\XCAP Letter May 6 2020.docx 2 abolishing the right-hand turn from Emerson to Embarcadero that today functions as a speedy onramp for cars and large trucks traveling south on Emerson and west on Embarcadero. I’m sure that everyone agrees that any rail crossing plan that doesn’t include a safe route to school on both sides of Embarcadero is not in the community’s best interest. b. Study queue-length on Embarcadero. In normal peak-hour traffic times, the traffic on Embarcadero moves glacially, especially through the tunnel. The addition of a light at Kingsley and Embarcadero may not be able to accommodate the required traffic flow without creating gridlock on Embarcadero. These traffic volumes need to be studied and modeled before this measure is presented for approval. Embarcadero is also a residential artery and should be analyzed differently than Oregon Expressway, which is a different roadway category. 2. The definition of mitigation that appears on a slide 5 of the January 8, 2020 traffic presentation is as follows: “Street system changes that would allow additional capacity to accommodate diverted traffic.” We don’t believe that definition of mitigation aligns with the Council ‘s intentions when they required mitigation of traffic in surrounding residential neighborhoods as a condition to approving a closure of the Churchill crossing. The definition proposed by AECom appears to focus exclusively on the volume of vehicular traffic that can be accommodated by an existing street. This definition does not take into account the nature of the street in question (purely residential v. arterial), or the effect on pedestrians and bicyclists. More study and design efforts are required for this area before the Council votes on the options for the Churchill crossing. Thank you for your service and attention to these important issues. Sincerely. Tom Kellerman Rachel Kellerman cc: Palo Alto City Council Ed Shikada, City Manager MARTIN BERNSTEIN ARCHITECT CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 20 APR 35 PH -.: 45 650.387.1 000 martinbernstein617@gmail.com www.martinbernsteinarchitect.com POB 1 261, Palo Alto, CA 94301 30APR2020 Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Honorable Members of the City Council, I am pleased to offer the following comments regarding environmental concerns for your review. Page 1 discusses maintaining Food Safety. Page 2 discusses improving Traffic Management and Air Quality. Best regards, Martin Bernstein FOOD SAFETY Pagel Grocery stores in Italy, France and Austria have implemented a food safety system that helps protect consumers and store workers from viral and bacterial transmissions. This has been in place for at least 20 years.·Here's how it works. A grocery customer approaches a tomato bin, puts on a store-provided over-sized clear plastic glove, selects a tomato, and gently determines if that tomato is acceptable to the customer. If it is not acceptable, the tomato is placed back into the bin, and preferred tomatoes are selected, placed in a store-provided clear plastic bag, and then brought to the clerk for purchase. Here is another step in this buying process that most stores have implemented. The stores also have a weighing scale near the vegetable and fruit bins, where the customer, still wearing the clear plastic glove, pushes on the tomato icon on a touch-screen which lists the tomato's price per kilogram, and an adhesive price tag is produced. The customer attaches the price tag to the clear bag containing the tomatoes, and then brings the package to the clerk for the final transaction. At a minimum, the use of store-provided, over-sized, clear plastic gloves minimizes the chance that any tomato would be touched by a bare hand. Last week I spoke with one of the managers of Whole Foods. She expressed excitement about this idea and commented and suggested that it would require a City of Palo Alto City Council discussion and decision to require local major grocery stores to implement this food safety system. I would like to suggest the City of Palo Alto City Council consider discussing a commendation, incentive or reward program to stores which agree to implement this system, or at least implement a 6-month trial period. Possible commendations or rewards may include publicized Letters of Appreciation or other Public Benefit rewards. I look forward to your thoughts. Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions Best regards, 650.387.1 000