HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200622plCC1701-32
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: 06/22/2020
Document dates: 6/3/2020 – 6/10/2020
Set 1 of 12
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 9:53 AM
To:Wilson, Sarah; Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth; Council, City
Cc:Expanded Community Advisory Panel
Subject:NOTE: Updated XCAP Report for City Council Meeting this Monday
Attachments:Final-Amended- XCAP Update to City Council #5 updated 52820.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
The Council packet is incorrect. The updated report is mentioned but the original May 28th report was
attached. Please find attached the correct XCAP update.
Thanks
Nadia Naik
Chair, XCAP
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: City of Palo Alto <cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:34 PM
Subject: City of Palo Alto City Council Meeting Agendas/Minutes/Reports Update
To: <nadianaik@gmail.com>
You are subscribed to City Council Meeting Agendas/Minutes/Reports for City of Palo Alto. This information has recently
been updated, and is now available.
The link to the Black Lives Matter Resolution to be considered by the City Council on Monday, June 8, 2020 is below as
Agenda Item 4A.
******
City Council & Standing Committee Notices
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N‐29‐20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of
Covid‐19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable
TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center
at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the
beginning and end of each agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15
minutes before the item you wish to speak on.
2
*****
June 8, 2020 ‐ Sp. City Council Meeting REVISED Agenda and Packet
June 8, 2020 ‐ Sp. City Council Meeting REVISED Agenda and Packet with Packet Page Numbers
Added: Agenda Item 1, Grade Separation ‐ Staff Report
Added: Agenda Item 4A, Black Lives Matter ‐ Staff Report
Removed: Agenda Item 6, Climate Action Plan ‐ Moved to 6/22/20
Removed: Agenda Item 7, Pension Discussion ‐ Moved to 6/22/20
Added: Agenda Item 8, Direction on Outdoor Dining ‐ Staff Report
Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page.
You will need to use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please visit
subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.
This service is provided to you at no charge by City of Palo Alto.
This email was sent to nadianaik@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Palo Alto · 250 Hamilton
Ave · Palo Alto, CA 94301 · 650-329-2100
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.GovDelivery logo
To: City Council
From: Nadia Naik, Chair of Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP)
Date: June 4, 2020
Re: Update #5 to City Council
The last in-person update to City Council was on 1/21/20 and the update on 3/16/2020 was
turned into a written informational report due to COVID19.
Before COVID19:
Prior to COVID19, XCAP had an aggressive schedule, meeting weekly for three hours at a time.
XCAP had begun the process of deliberating on existing alternatives while awaiting the updated
analysis for the three new alternatives (Churchill partial underpass, Meadow underpass and
Charleston underpass). A significant development that was omitted in the last update is that on
an interim basis, XCAP voted unanimously to eliminate from further consideration the two South
Palo Alto tunnel options (with and without freight) from our internal deliberations. Between
roughly 2/12/20 – 3/18/20, the XCAP received 40+ emails related to the alternatives, with many
indicating they would be interested in attending XCAP’s meetings.
AFTER COVID19:
Unfortunately, due to COVID, seven meetings between March 4th and April 15th were cancelled
due to shelter-in-place orders from Santa Clara County.
During the Shelter-In-Place order, however, the XCAP Technical Working Group (a subset of 4
XCAP members) met on 3/19/20 by virtual meeting to review work completed to date by
AECOM on the Churchill partial underpass proposal.
The first Virtual XCAP meeting was held via Zoom on 4/22/20. Subsequent Zoom meetings
have been May 6th, May 22nd and June 3rd.
The following tasks have been completed to date:
● Reviewed XCAP schedule (ongoing) – deciding on meetings every 2 weeks and
shortening meetings to 2 hours instead of 3 to accommodate the difficulties of working
from home for XCAP members.
● XCAP agreed to a new deadline for Final Report: August 31, 2020.
● Partial underpass at Churchill: AECOM presented draft drawings and animation of
Churchill partial underpass
● Partial underpass at Meadow/Charleston: Received a presentation by AECOM of first
draft of layout and typical sections for Meadow/Charleston Underpasses and 3D
renderings.
● XCAP revised the outline for the Final Report to include “XCAP Observations” specific
to each alternative regardless of final recommendation
● Received staff responses regarding measurable Criteria
● Received staff responses to outstanding XCAP Questions List
● Received two internal Staff emails with Caltrain (re:4-tracks and shoofly construction)
• Received updated responses to XCAP questions
• Received DRAFT Noise and Vibration Memo from AECOM
XCAP Team Update:
XCAP member Megan Kanne will be relocating to the East Coast and unable to continue
participating after 5/31/20. Pat Lau, who works at Webster House (senior living facility),
announced she will also need to step down from XCAP due to her work schedule as a result of
COVID19. She has agreed to participate as much as possible through June 30,2020, to the extent
her schedule allows, in order to help as much as possible with the written report.
Proposed Schedule Changes and Community Engagement:
The XCAP discussed having meetings every 2 weeks and trying to shorten meetings to two
hours instead of the usual three. To maximize efficiency, Staff has agreed to work to post items
as quickly as possible to allow XCAP members maximum time to be able to read materials ahead
of meetings. There is concern that while Zoom meetings are useful during this crisis, they cannot
replace the importance of in-person meetings, particularly when the goal is collaborative
consensus building towards a final recommendation. However, the XCAP agreed to remain
thoughtful and flexible and continue to try to use new mediums to achieve the goal.
XCAP members expressed concern about the ability to continue to both publicize and receive
iterative feedback on the new alternatives given the pandemic. AECOM and Staff presented
XCAP with some new virtual Town Hall tools that might be useful for achieving this goal. The
potential of having an “extended online” Town Hall which can remain on the internet for several
weeks rather than a one time in-person event offers an interesting opportunity, but it remains to
be seen how much community engagement their might be on this issue given COVID19 and the
difficulty of garnering attention for this topic given the current news cycle.
It should be noted that on average, in-person XCAP meetings usually have around 25 attendees,
but the first virtual XCAP meeting had over 35 attendees, with several people in public comment
acknowledging that this format allows them the flexibility to participate in a way they previously
couldn’t. Since the first Zoom meeting, the number of attendees has remained above 40+
attendees with a maximum of 55 at one point during our last meeting.
Workflow items:
Outstanding XCAP questions – Staff has provided responses to a list of questions that was
finalized by XCAP on 1/29/2020. (Completed)
Measurable Criteria: XCAP had asked Staff to provide any metrics or measurements from
existing plans, such as the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which could provide the basis for
quantitative measurements directly related to the Council adopted criteria (eg.: noise decibels).
Limited information was available in response to the request. Some of the data collected was for
specific projects at a certain point in time. Other information was not applicable to the task of rail
grade separation. The limited information available will be included in the appendices of
XCAP’s Final Report. (Completed)
Noise and Vibration Information: XCAP reviewed a draft of the Noise and Vibration Memo
from AECOM at their 06/03/20 Meeting. XCAP asked the consultants to amend their report with
additional information that based on discussions are within the existing scope of work for the
AECOM contract. The amendments include: analyzing the correct Caltrain equipment (fully
electrified train, not just an electric locomotive), verify with Caltrain the average operating speed
at grade separations, describe the relative benefit of a 6ft sound wall for any at-grade alternatives
and include an explanation of what happens to data with 16 tph per direction instead of the 10
used in the report (no need to re-run the numbers). (Completed)
New Alternatives additional information:
The XCAP continues to receive information from AECOM for the new alternatives with the
ultimate goal to have the same level of analysis for all alternatives so that XCAP can make their
ultimate recommendation. Key updates from AECOM related specifically to bike/pedestrian
movements are expected for the June 17th 2020 XCAP meeting.
Business Community Outreach:
Before COVID19, the XCAP member representing the Chamber of Commerce resigned. The
Chair and Vice Chair were informed that Staff are working on other outreach to the business
community. To date, XCAP has not received any feedback from the business community on
either existing or new alternatives.
PAUSD Outreach:
The Staff is the point of contact for PAUSD since the departure of their representative from
XCAP. On 2/26/20 XCAP received from PAUSD a letter from the Superintendent regarding
impacts from existing alternatives (Churchill viaduct and closure). The district communicated
concerns indicating that a closure of Churchill “may negatively impact student safety related to
bicycle commuters.” It is important to note that the Churchill Closure alternative developed by
AECOM has two different bike/ped underpass alternatives that would allow for continued
bike/ped crossing in the Churchill area.
XCAP assumes that Staff will continue to communicate with PAUSD to ensure it fully
understands both the existing and new alternatives and encourage them to provide additional
feedback before XCAP finalizes deliberations.
Bike/Pedestrian Outreach: XCAP chair was contacted by Palo Alto Bicycle Coalition
(PABAC), at the recommendation of one of its members, to present at their June 2, 2020 meeting
and provide a brief overview of the alternatives that would have significant changes to
bike/pedestrian paths. Before June 2, 2020, PABAC had not discussed any of the grade
separation alternatives with City Staff in any of their regular advisory meetings. They’ve been
encouraged to send all of their feedback to City Staff so it can be incorporated into the design
work, as well as sending it to XCAP to ensure they are aware of the suggestions.
XCAP Chair reiterated to PABAC that their feedback was critical, as several members of XCAP
have repeatedly expressed concerns that the bike/pedestrian paths were not being considered
with the same level of detail and concern as the automobile movements. PABAC, a highly
technically experienced advisory group, said the drawings were “very unclear” and that bike/ped
design considerations seemed to have been “shoe horned” into the work rather than being a focus
from the beginning.
Given the timing of the substantive feedback received from PABAC, and that information
from the Business community and PAUSD is still outstanding, that the August 31st deadline
may be pushed back further. XCAP Chair will work with staff to mitigate any impacts to the
timeline as much as possible.
Website:
The Staff have been able to update the website with the following information:
Meeting Summaries – Meeting summaries are now available for each XCAP meeting that
include any official actions taken by XCAP.
Transcription of key meetings – Verbatim minutes of two key meetings (presentation by
Sebastian Petty of Caltrain and Norm Matteoni (attorney) from Matteoni, O'Laughlin &
Hechtman) have been produced for the website and for inclusion in the appendix of the XCAP
Final Report
Compilations of Public Comment – An email address was developed for XCAP such that
members of the public could email a single address with comments. Previously, emails received
at this address were being made public in City Council packets. Now, public comments are
collated and included in XCAP’s packet (similar to how City Council receives emails) such that
XCAP members have a succinct record of emails received and that the public both easily see the
emails they’ve sent to XCAP and read emails received by XCAP from other members of the
public.
Future Schedule and Work Plan:
XCAP approved that the Chair would assign sections of XCAP’s Final Report to various group
members to begin production of a final deliverable for the City Council. An outline of the report
and the assigned sections can be viewed here: https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/Shared-at-Meeting-Item-4-Memo-re-XCAP-deliberation-Feb-
202020.pdf
The effects of COVID19 have impacted the group’s ability to work on these sections. Some
sections have made progress, others have not. The Chair will continue to engage with XCAP
members regarding their ability to work on these sections given their personal situations. It is
important to note that 9 of the 12 current XCAP members were originally Community Advisory
Panel members, and thus have been volunteering on this issue for almost 2 years. This level of
commitment reflects the incentive to see this final report to fruition, but we want to recognize the
unprecedented burden that many are faced with throughout this crisis.
Caltrain Update: Staff has shared with XCAP a series of emails related to the grade separation
alternatives under consideration that have led to significant questions relating to 4 tracks,
encroachment and alternative construction methodologies that could avoid the need for shoo-fly
tracks. Several XCAP members have asked to invite Caltrain back before deliberations begin to
get a better understanding of the issues raised. XCAP Chair will work with Staff to ensure this
happens soon.
Summary
XCAP will continue to work towards the goal of deliberating over the Spring and into Summer
while we continue to evaluate the schedule based on the ability of XCAP members and the
community to participate in a meaningful way during this difficult time. Our estimated
completion date is August 31 2020, but, as noted above, the timeline could be impacted as
substantive feedback from key stakeholders is still outstanding.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Eileen Fagan <eileenfagan2012@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 5:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: XCAP and Churchill Crossing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
I hope you are all staying well these days during these difficult times. There are a lot of pressing issues to address which
I am sure are taking your time and attention. The issue of eliminating at‐grade crossings for Caltrain while their ridership
is down 97% due to the pandemic may not seem pressing but it is my understanding that there is a need to make some
decisions about this issue now which will have long lasting effects on Palo Alto.
With that in mind, I am writing to ensure that City Council looks for the BEST possible solution for each intersection and
not just the EASIEST. It is clear that there is a very vocal minority that wants to close Churchill because it is to their
personal advantage and not necessarily for the good of Palo Altans overall. Having attended many XCAP meetings and
gotten involved in the issue regarding Churchill, it is also clear that there is an XCAP team member who is biased and has
been writing advocacy emails for others to send to both XCAP and City Council to close Churchill. David Shin should not
be allowed to be on the XCAP Committee if he is going to be a strong advocate of one solution before the others have
even been fully examined. He should be dismissed from XCAP because of his partiality to a solution that benefits him. I
have email proof that he is rallying neighbors to petition the very committee he is on to close Churchill BEFORE
alternative solutions were vetted and discussed although it was in the works. This is called corruption. It is government's
responsibility to ensure that committee members are looking out for the best interests of ALL Palo Altans not just their
own interests..even if they are serving on a committee. If you choose not to dismiss him, any emails that XCAP or City
Council receives in favor of closing Churchill should be disregarded as you should understand their origins.
There is a partial underpass solution that has been proposed by a citizen that is by far a better solution for the majority
of Palo Altans. It allows for separation of bike/pedestrian traffic, still allows most traffic patterns to flow and maintains
the ability of Southgate and other residents to have direct access to the rest of Palo Alto as well as allowing PAUSD to
continue their operations. Please look closely at the letter from PAUSD which advises against closing Churchill for
accessibility of students and parents but also for their operations and buses (which is not mentioned in XCAP's
summary). Any consideration of closing Churchill must consider that our school district has asked that this not be done.
In addition, please look closely at the traffic alternatives that are being proposed if Churchill was to close ‐ sending an
additional 7000 cars down Embarcadero per day will be a nightmare. In addition, the people who assessed the traffic
impact said they did not consider Town and Country traffic which obviously will make that significantly worse...and it is
already a difficult area that will make access to PA High School more dangerous...especially if most traffic will flow into
PAHS from there.
The partial underpass maintains the positive aspects of moving traffic in and around Churchill while making it safer for
children who come to school via bikes. I live on Castilleja Ave which is a designated bike street and there are hundreds
of bicyclists who go to school and other commutes via that street. Any solution must NOT reopen the Park
Blvd/Castilleja Ave closure as it will be quite dangerous to children and others that flow down the bike street...which is
already narrow. That option has been discussed as a mitigation of closing Churchill ‐ that must not happen.
There are no significant obstacles to the partial underpass that cannot be solved with creativity and effort by AECOM
and a joint effort with Caltrain. The notes from the XCAP meeting try to make it sound as if not allowing for 4 tracks at
2
this crossing is a show stopper. To be clear, 4 tracks is not possible at Churchill without taking property and is probably
not possible at any other Palo Alto crossing either for the same reason. That is NOT a reason to not consider this option.
Please invest in the long term best solution for Palo Alto. Please move forward with designing and engineering the
partial underpass option ‐ it is the most consistent with the options being considered for other crossings and we have
the added needs of the PAUSD to consider. The truth is that the vocal minority are solving for themselves, not overall
Palo Alto citizens in the long term. Do not increase traffic on Embarcadero and cut off cross‐ PA access. This is a long
term decision, not a short term easy fix or one where you should yield to a vocal minority.
Thanks,
Eileen Fagan
1651 Castilleja Avenue, PA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:pellson@pacbell.net
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments on Charleston & Meadow Partial Underpass Alternative
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council Members,
Here are four key things I took away from the latest partial underpass concepts review last week:
1. The most recent plans and related analysis seem to prioritize motor vehicle LOS over other concerns. Bike/ped
connectivity in the plans was unclear—even for people who are experienced reading plans. The partial
underpass concepts are not yet ready for community meetings.
2. The planning process should incorporate facilities for all modes from its earliest conceptual phases. Pedestrian
and bicycle facilities should not be afterthoughts that are reverse engineered at the end, as appears to have
been the case with the partial underpass. This is inconsistent with directives in the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and the Evaluation Criteria City Council laid out for XCAP’s work.
3. I hope the partial underpass concepts will go to PABAC for review again when the bike/ped components are
more clear and complete. There should also be consistency between renderings, drawings and reports to
enable useful comment. I hope this will happen before the plans go to the public.
4. I hope PABAC will have an opportunity to review and make recommendations to XCAP and Council on all of the
alternatives that XCAP plans to put forward.
Here (pasted below) is the letter I sent to XCAP on this subject last week.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
From: pellson@pacbell.net <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:05 PM
To: 'XCAP@cityofpaloalto.org' <XCAP@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Comments on Charleston & Meadow Partial Underpass
Dear XCAP Members,
I am going to focus on the East Meadow and Charleston crossings because others have done a good job commenting on
Churchill.
Exhibits and Renderings of Ped/Bike Connections Are Unclear
Ped/bike connections for the partial tunnel are very unclear in the drawings. I am used to reading plans, and I can’t figure
out certain components on both Charleston and Meadow. That does not comply with criteria council laid out at the
beginning of this process for evaluating alternatives. Two Tier One and one Tier Two Adopted by City Council
2
Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives are relevant to bike/ped connectivity and local access. It is not possible to
evaluate ped/bike safety and comfort because the renderings of these facilities are unclear and inconsistent.
Relevant Bike/Ped Tier 1Criteria: Most Important
East-West connectivity: facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation
Ped/Bike circulation: provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking to cross the rail corridor,
separate for automobile traffic
Relevant Bike/Ped Tier 2 Criteria: Also Important
Local access: maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other destinations along the
corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets
Whatever design we pick must have excellent bike/ped connectivity, safety, comfort. Meadow and Charleston are school
commute corridors, a residential arterial, a collector street, connectors from thousands of south Palo Alto homes to public
schools, parks, our only south PA library, a shopping center, community centers as well as private learning and recreation
facilities. Further, these are the only two grade separated crossings south of Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto.
Here are just a few of the questions the renderings raised for me. Motor vehicle access is pretty clear. The analysis and
design work to date seems to prioritize motor vehicle LOS. This is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan goals policies
and programs (See list of these below). Bike connectivity is even less clear than ped connectivity.
1). How will a bicyclist on Alma traveling either direction connect to the ped/bike bridge turn onto East Meadow WB or
Park Blvd? Likewise, how does one turn off these cross streets to get to Alma? (This will matter for people who live on
Alma.)
2). Will there be any signals? Where will they be? What is their purpose? This was another detail that was inconsistent
between renderings, drawings, reports and exhibits.
3). During the morning school commute time, there are often packs of 20 or more student bicyclists who collect behind
traffic stops. Please insure that bike facilities have sufficient capacity and sufficient turning radius to handle this bike
volume as well as two-way ped/bike traffic without creating bike/ped conflicts.
4). Was the design team given Walk & Roll maps to help them understand what the designated school commute routes
are in this area? Students don’t just travel along Charleston and Meadow. They must also cross the roads at multiple
locations. These crossings must be protected. (See Comp Plan goals, programs and policies below). Here are links to the
relevant school site school commute route maps:
Fairmeadow https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72344
Hoover https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72348
JLS Middle School https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72349
Gunn High School https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72347
5). At the meeting, the engineer mentioned that they might be able to take away some of the current designed bike
capacity. Please note that middle school and high school bike counts continue to grow and adult commuters are also
increasing in number. (See secondary school bike counts.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61556.7&BlobID=74257 ) Plan for more
bicyclists. Please clearly separate pedestrian and bike components of the facilities for comfort and safety of all.
The Comp Plan Prioritizes Safety
The auto LOS improvements on Charleston with the two-lane roundabout astonished me. Any grade separation option is
likely to induce traffic, but if a two-lane roundabout significantly increases capacity, it will be critically important to
understand how the design maintains school zone speeds (20mph) on Charleston where so many younger students must
cross to get to:
Hoover Elementary School
JLS Middle School
3
Fairmeadow Elementary School
Challenger School
Mitchell Park CC and library
Cubberley Community Center
Playing fields on both sides of Charleston
6). Ditto for East Meadow.
7). There are bike/ped destinations on both sides of Charleston. The roundabout will disgorge cars roughly 600’ before
the school zone begins, so it must be designed to moderate speeds (of cars coming off Alma Expressway) to 20mph. This
is demanded by the Comprehensive Plan (relevant goals, policies, and programs pasted below) and Muni Code
10.56.035 Twenty miles per hour school zones speed limit.
It is determined and justified pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22358.4(b)(1) that twenty miles per
hour shall be the prima facie speed limit on the road segments shown below at a distance within 500 feet from or
of the school grounds while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the
noon recess period.
8). The roundabout on Charleston is designed with two lanes. I asked the Hexagon consultant about the possibility of
reducing its capacity to one lane He said he had tried it and the experiment resulted in “gridlock.” I see no mention of
this experiment in the reports. Where is the data and information about the assumptions he made when he did the
analysis? I worry that a two-lane roundabout might both induce auto trip increases and increase speeds right near Carlson,
an important school commute crossing/bike/ped route. I want to understand this better. The size of the roundabout also
will have significant visual impacts on the abutting neighborhood area. It also will affect the number of homes that have to
be taken. The decision not to use a single-lane roundabout should be very carefully considered, given Council’s Adopted
Criteria.
9). The existing Bryant Bike Boulevard/Meadow crossing is uncomfortable for peds and bikes. Can this plan provide a
solution to create a gap in traffic for bike/peds there?
10). How does the plan address relevant City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, Programs:
Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix 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-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users.
Policy T-3.2 Enhance connections to, from and between parks, community centers, recreation facilities, libraries, and
schools for all users.
Policy T-3.3 Avoid major increases in single-occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless
needed to remedy severe congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the
needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy T-3.4 Regulate truck movements and large commercial buses in a manner that balances the efficient movement of
trucks and buses while preserving the residential character of Palo Alto’s street system.
Policy T3.5 When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users.
4
Program T3.5.1 Continue to use best practices in roadway design that are consistent with complete streets principles and
the Urban Forest Master Plan, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety and multi-modal uses. Consider opportunities to
incorporate best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials guidelines for urban streets and
bikeways, tailored to the Palo Alto context.
Policy T-3.6 Consider pedestrians, bicyclists, e-bikes, and motorcycles when designing road surfaces, curbs, crossings,
signage, landscaping and sight lines.
Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering
spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, and interesting architectural details.
Policy T-3.8 Add planting pockets with street trees to provide shade, calm traffic and enhance the pedestrian realm.
Policy T-3.15 Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority.
Goal T-4: Protect streets and adopted school commute corridors that contribute to neighborhood character and provide a
range of local transportation options.
Policy T-4.1 Continue to construct traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector streets, and prioritize
calming measures over congestion management.
Policy T-4.4 Maintain the following roadways as residential arterials, treated with landscaping, medians, and other visual
improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to improve safety:
Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)
University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)
Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road)
East and West Charleston Road/|Arastradero Road (between Miranda and Fabian Way)
Policy T-4.5 Minimize the danger of increased commercial ingress/egress adjacent to major intersections, and noticeable
increases in traffic from new development in residential neighborhoods, through traffic mitigations measures.
Goal T-6: Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets.
Policy T-6.1 Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle
and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking.
Program T6.1.1 Follow the principles of the Safe Routes to School program to implement traffic safety measures that
focus on safe routes to work, shopping, downtown, community services, parks and schools including all designated school
commute corridors.
Policy T-6.2: Pursue goal of zero severe injuries and roadway fatalities on Palo Alto city streets.
Policy T-6.6 Use engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve safety for all users on City roadways.
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.
Program T6.6.1 Periodically evaluate safety on roadways and at intersections and enhance conditions through the use of
signal technology and physical changes. Consider the construction of traffic circles for improved intersection safety.
5
Program T.6.6.6 Improve pedestrian crossings by creating protected areas and better pedestrian and traffic visibility. Use
a toolbox including bulbout, small curb radii, high visibility crosswalks and landscaping.
Policy T-6.8 Vigorously and consistently enforce speed limits and other traffic laws for both motor vehicles and bicycle
traffic.
Policy Support regional bicycle and pedestrian plans including development of the Bay Trail, Bay-to-Ridge Trail and the
Santa Clara County County-wide Bicycle System.
Program T8.8.1 Identify and improve bicycle connections to/from neighboring communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo
counties to support local trips that cross city boundaries. Also advocate for reducing barriers to bicycling and walking at
freeway interchanges, expressway intersections and railroad grade crossings.
11). How does the plan take into account the proposed bicycle/pedestrian boulevard network outlined in the CoPA
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan?
Pitch or Pick?
These latest plans are not ready for prime time (community meetings) because the ped/bike components are poorly
developed (there is no way to evaluate something one cannot understand), but that doesn’t mean they should be thrown
out. The latest alternative would keep rail at grade—which, by itself, merits consideration because, without it, the
alternatives we are left with probably will be the hybrid or the viaduct which likely are not politically feasible.
I understand that the box was not been incorporated in these designs. The was a cost-saving feature. Why was it not
included?
These are complicated choices. I realize there won’t be perfect options. However, we can’t pick our evaluate these latest
options if we can’t understand ped/bike safety components. The partial underpass options need work, but I’m not ready to
throw them out. There is potential to make them more attractive. I understand that these are very preliminary designs, but
the ped/bike facilities must be made more clear.
I am still digesting these concepts and will send thoughts later this week about possible ped/bike improvements.
Thank you for your work on this important project and for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preautomatic download of this picture from the Intern
Virus-free. www.avg.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Teri Llach <llachteric@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 1:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Close Churchill
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi
Thank you for reading my email. I go to the meetings but I wanted to write too – we need to close Churchill. It
is the only logical option based on all the analysis.
The data speaks for itself ‐ based on the analysis by AECOM, and all the additional traffic research, it is clear
that the Oregon + Embarcadero mitigation measures with the closure of Churchill is the best and most cost
effective solution for the whole city. Traffic on Churchill is 70% thru traffic that is easily managed on Oregon
and Embarcadero w/ the cost effective mitigation measures.
There is no issue with police and fire to close Churchill.
The data, the expense, the time, the safety – closing Churchill is the only option. We will all get used to
Churchill being closed and soon will not even remember when it was open.
Thank you for your time
Teri
Teri Llach
p: 650-575-6913
w: www.terillach.com
e: llachteric@gmail.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mohamed T. Hadidi <mthadidi@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:23 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; youngjoh; Omar Hadidi; Mohamed Hadidi
Subject:Churchill Grade Separation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Members of Palo Alto City Council,
I'd like to begin by taking a step back and ask that you consider engaging in discussions with the concerned entities on
whether proceeding with grade separation still makes sense in this post‐pandemic world.
However, if it is to proceed, our family strongly support the Churchill Closure proposal with a bike/pedestrian underpass,
mitigations at Embarcadero & Oregon Expressway, and sound screens/parapets at the intersection. We also strongly
oppose the 2 other proposed alternatives, namely the Partial Underpass and the Viaduct.
We support Churchill Closure for the following reasons:
1. It serves as the first part of a phased approach to grade separation at Churchill. If necessary, either of the other
2 options can be implemented in a later phase.
2. It is much less costly, totaling $50‐65M.
3. It is traffic‐friendly, and traffic flow will be better than the current state of things, as confirmed by the Hexagon
analysis of May 5th.
4. It is much safer, incorporating a bike/pedestrian underpass and reducing traffic backups on Churchill.
5. It will significantly reduce noise by eliminating horn noise and installing sound screens/parapets.
We oppose the Partial Underpass for the following reasons:
1. It depends on acquiring CalTrain’s Right‐of‐Way, which is unlikely. Would also require eminent domain seizures.
2. It bears a huge cost of $200‐250M.
3. It would significantly change the character of the neighborhood.
We oppose the Viaduct for the following reasons:
1. It will cost $300‐400M
2. Less traffic‐friendly: Worse level of service than the Churchill Closure solution (see Hexagon analysis).
3. A permanent eyesore to the neighborhood.
Regrettably some Southgate opponents of Churchill Closure have resorted to underhanded devices of illegally placing
placards advocating for their position on public and private properties, including our own front yard. Some have even
encouraged property seizures without empathy for their affected neighbors ‐ and all that just to maintain access to Alma
and shave off a few minutes from their commutes. To address their concerns about feeling cut off if Churchill Ave were
to close, we suggest opening up some of the Southgate streets that are currently blocked off.
We urge you to vote for Churchill Closure as the best alternative for grade separation at the Churchill/Alma intersection,
in the event that grade separation projects in the Bay Area are to proceed.
2
Thank you for your time and consideration!
With our best regards,
Mohamed Hadidi, Young‐Jeh Oh and Omar Hadidi
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Eduardo F. Llach <eduardo@llach.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:XCAP tonight - I'm for Oregon + Embarcadero Mitigations with Churchill Closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi City Council, Thank you for your work at the Palo Alto City Council. It has been tough in the past 3 months and we
appreciate your work.
I would like to urge you to consider, and eventually vote for, the Oregon + Embarcadero Mitigations proposed by XCAP
with the Churchill Closure. It is the best solution for all of Palo Alto to address traffic across a wide area, it is the most
cost effective solution, and the safest for all the kids going to Paly and living in our neighborhood. Closing Churchill will
also reduce the noise on the neighborhood from the train horns and signal warnings by 20 dB which is a factor of 10X
reduction (dB is a logarithmic scale).
I want to thank the XCAP team – the 77 page analysis is impressive.
Given the current reality of impacted city, county and state budgets, we should be looking at the cost benefit
analysis across the whole city.
I live on Churchill and I’ve had 4 kids go to Paly. I’ve seen the danger it presents to our students, kids and
neighbors.
Yet, as a citizen of Palo Alto, I want the best solution for the whole city, north, south, east and west. And based
on the analysis by XCAP, and all the additional traffic research, it is clear that the Oregon + Embarcadero
mitigation measures with the closure of Churchill is the best and most cost effective solution for the whole city.
Page 18’s chart outlines the clear benefits to the city.
Traffic on Churchill is 70% thru traffic that is easily managed on Oregon and Embarcadero w/ the cost effective
mitigation measures outlined in pages 53 to 57 of the analysis.
The through traffic on Churchill has caused accidents and deaths on Churchill. I personally have seen a car hit
by the train, thankfully the guard at the time got everyone off the car seconds before the train hit it and sent it
flying. My neighbor, Aileen, was struck by a speeding car. My triathlon team mate lost her son to a train. We
lost two cats to cars on Churchill, and there have been countless of pets killed on Churchill. All parents are
anxious to have their kids navigate Churchill when going to school.
The noise analysis recently done by XCAP shows that closing Churchill will reduce the noise by 20 dB (from 88 to
68db) which is a factor of 10X+ reduction in sound ( dB is a logarithmic scale). This will make a HUGE difference
to everyone in the Southgate neighborhood.
Thank you for the great work you are doing and for the great work by XCAP, let’s get the best value, the safest solution
and the lower sound pollution solution for all of Palo Alto by closing Churchill and doing the cost effective and traffic
improving mitigation measures for Embarcadero & Oregon.
Thank you, Eduardo
Eduardo F. Llach
36 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto
Cel – 650 678 1406
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Craig Moye <moyecj@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Choose the best solution for Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
I hope you are all staying well these days during these difficult times. There are a lot of pressing issues to address which
I am sure are taking your time and attention. The issue of eliminating at-grade crossings for Caltrain while their ridership
is down 97% due to the pandemic may not seem pressing but it is my understanding that there is a need to make some
decisions about this issue now which will have long lasting effects on Palo Alto.
With that in mind, I am writing to ensure that City Council looks for the BEST possible solution for each intersection and
not just the EASIEST. It is clear that there is a very vocal minority that wants to close Churchill because it is to their
personal advantage and not necessarily for the good of Palo Altans overall. Having attended many XCAP meetings and
gotten involved in the issue regarding Churchill, it is also clear that there is an XCAP team member who is biased and has
been writing advocacy emails for others to send to both XCAP and City Council to close Churchill. David Shin should not
be allowed to be on the XCAP Committee if he is going to be a strong advocate of one solution before the others have
even been fully examined. He should be dismissed from XCAP because of his partiality to a solution that benefits him. I
have email proof that he is rallying neighbors to petition the very committee he is on to close Churchill BEFORE
alternative solutions were vetted and discussed although it was in the works. This is called corruption. It is government's
responsibility to ensure that committee members are looking out for the best interests of ALL Palo Altans not just their
own interests..even if they are serving on a committee. If you choose not to dismiss him, any emails that XCAP or City
Council receives in favor of closing Churchill should be disregarded as you should understand their origins.
There is a partial underpass solution that has been proposed by a citizen that is by far a better solution for the majority of
Palo Altans. It allows for separation of bike/pedestrian traffic, still allows most traffic patterns to flow and maintains the
ability of Southgate and other residents to have direct access to the rest of Palo Alto as well as allowing PAUSD to
continue their operations. Please look closely at the letter from PAUSD which advises against closing Churchill for
accessibility of students and parents but also for their operations and buses (which is not mentioned in XCAP's
summary). Any consideration of closing Churchill must consider that our school district has asked that this not be done.
In addition, please look closely at the traffic alternatives that are being proposed if Churchill was to close - sending an
additional 7000 cars down Embarcadero per day will be a nightmare. In addition, the people who assessed the traffic
impact said they did not consider Town and Country traffic which obviously will make that significantly worse...and it is
already a difficult area that will make access to PA High School more dangerous...especially if most traffic will flow into
PAHS from there.
The partial underpass maintains the positive aspects of moving traffic in and around Churchill while making it safer for
children who come to school via bikes. I live on Castilleja Ave which is a designated bike street and there are hundreds of
bicyclists who go to school and other commutes via that street. Any solution must NOT reopen the Park Blvd/Castilleja
Ave closure as it will be quite dangerous to children and others that flow down the bike street...which is already
narrow. That option has been discussed as a mitigation of closing Churchill - that must not happen.
There are no significant obstacles to the partial underpass that cannot be solved with creativity and effort by AECOM and
a joint effort with Caltrain. The notes from the XCAP meeting try to make it sound as if not allowing for 4 tracks at this
crossing is a show stopper. To be clear, 4 tracks is not possible at Churchill without taking property and is probably not
possible at any other Palo Alto crossing either for the same reason. That is NOT a reason to not consider this option.
Please invest in the long term best solution for Palo Alto. Please move forward with designing and engineering the partial
underpass option - it is the most consistent with the options being considered for other crossings and we have the added
needs of the PAUSD to consider. The truth is that the vocal minority are solving for themselves, not overall Palo Alto
2
citizens in the long term. Do not increase traffic on Embarcadero and cut off cross- PA access. This is a long term
decision, not a short term easy fix or one where you should yield to a vocal minority.
Thanks,
Craig Moye
1595 Mariposa Ave, PA
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeff Egbert <ilnewsman2@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 7:57 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Save Macs
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
As a small business owner, journalist and cigar smoker, I would ask you to please reconsider your recent tobacco
ordinance related to Macs Smoke Shop.
Macs has been a part of the fabric of your community for 85 years and has been on my list of travel destinations to visit.
While I’m sure the flavored tobacco ban was well intentioned, I can’t imagine you intended to damage this historic
tobacconist.
Please save Macs!
Thank you,
Jeff Egbert
Waterloo, Illinois
Sent from my iPhone
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Daniel Ponder <dponder@rivermencigars.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Macs Smoke Shop Letter of Support
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
Here in the Midwest, we recently learned about the pending issue before City Council with Macs Smoke Shop whereby a
decision by Council may result in the closure of this 85 year old institution.
In addition to a smoke shop we understand the neighborhood relies on the store to buy local and national newspapers.
As a small business owner myself, I know how hard it is to make a go at it and look up to businesses such as Macs Smoke
Shop that have been able to find a way to continuously operate for over 8 decades.
During the recent pandemic, I learned that a significant amount of the US work force is employed by small business. It
may be something like 50 percent of those employed work for small business with companies less than 25 people. The
importance of small business is well documented in our countries history.
That is why so many of us feel government working with small business to find solutions to any differences is so very
important. We see evidence of government working with large business almost every day but not as many examples
with small business.
It is our hope that Council and Macs Smoke Shop can resolve any difference and continue to operate successfully in the
future.
Thank you in advance for the opportunity to submit this email in support of Macs Smoke Shop.
With Kind Regards,
Dan
Daniel E Ponder
The Rivermen Cigar Company
dponder@rivermencigars.com
Mobile Redacted
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Peter Newell <blue4racing@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mac's Smoke Shop
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Sir;
With the future of Mac's Smoke Shop in question I would like to recommend and support their business as a touchstone
of Palo Alto history and a needed outlet for print journalism. Three generations of my family have been going to Mac's,
my grandfather Ed Newell, My dad George Newell and myself and I can't imagine downtown Palo Alto without Mac's. It
is a small place with a deep history and with local and out of town newspapers, magazines and pocket books it keeps me
connected to the world in a way that social media can't. Unique small businesses like this are few and with the patina of
age they are irreplaceable if lost.I support the continued operation of Mac's Smoke Shop at 534 Emerson street as a
needed and viable business for Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration.
Peter Newell
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rachel J. Mesia <rmesia@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 6:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Response to City of Palo Alto, Consent Calendar ID# 11372 (06/08/2020)
Attachments:SCI-Letter_PA_ID#11372_06-08-20.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
June 5, 2020
RE: City of Palo Alto, Consent Calendar ID# 11372, 06/08/2020
Dear City Council Members of Palo Alto,
I am writing to you as a representative of the Stanford Cancer Institute and the Bay Area Community Health
Advisory Council. I would like to bring to your attention, some important health and research data relevant to
the community you served. You are likely aware that tobacco use has cumulative, negative health effects1,2,3
and the use of e-cigarettes are exhibiting harmful consequences mirroring those of tobacco.4,5 Many long-term
smokers start when they are teens or young adults.2
There have been many inquiries about the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 with chronic illnesses and behaviors
associated with poor health conditions. One of them is tobacco and nicotine use/exposure. Researchers have
been investigating and learning more about the relationship of the ACE-2 (Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2)
receptor with COVID-19 infection. Preliminary research reveals the following:
In 2004, researchers found evidence suggesting ACE-2 is associated with “hypertension, cardiac function,
heart function and diabetes, and as a receptor of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus.” 6
It has been established that SARS-CoV-2 binds its “spike protein” to the ACE-2 receptor. This is believed
to be a starting pathway for “endothelial dysfunction”, which is when the inner lining of the small arteries
(endothelial layer) become malfunctioning in the regulation of “exchanges between the bloodstream and
surrounding tissues.” 7,8
Growing new evidence is linking cigarette smoke and nicotine to increased ACE-2 receptors, thus
increasing the binding sites for SARS-CoV-2. 9,10,11
Although more research is critical to validate evidence and gain more knowledge applicable to various
populations and factors, the above research information illustrates the implication of how important health
prevention measures are. I hope the knowledge I have provided you will inform your efforts aimed at promoting
better community outcomes. Your leadership and decisions as a City Council can be effective towards
progressing the health and well-being of Palo Alto!
Sincerely,
Rachel J. Mesia, PhD, MPH
Program Director, Community Research & Capacity-Building at the Stanford Cancer Institute
Program Co-Chair, Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council
rmesia@stanford.edu |
Refer to citations in PDF attachment
Redacted
2
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Stanford Cancer Institute | Stanford Profile
We are united for our frontline workers & community!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you
are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of any portion of this message or any attachment is strictly
prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender at the above e-mail address or call 650.723.7119, and
delete this e-mail along with any attachments. Thank you.
cancer.stanford.edu
June 5, 2020
RE: City of Palo Alto, Consent Calendar ID# 11372, 06/08/2020
Dear City Council Members of Palo Alto,
I am writing to you as a representative of the Stanford Cancer Institute and the Bay Area Community
Health Advisory Council. I would like to bring to your attention, some important health and research
data relevant to the community you served. You are likely aware that tobacco use has cumulative,
negative health effects1,2,3 and the use of e-cigarettes are exhibiting harmful consequences mirroring
those of tobacco.4,5 Many long-term smokers start when they are teens or young adults.2
There have been many inquiries about the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 with chronic illnesses and
behaviors associated with poor health conditions. One of them is tobacco and nicotine use/exposure.
Researchers have been investigating and learning more about the relationship of the ACE-2
(Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2) receptor with COVID-19 infection. Preliminary research reveals the
following:
• In 2004, researchers found evidence suggesting ACE-2 is associated with “hypertension, cardiac
function, heart function and diabetes, and as a receptor of the severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus.” 6
• It has been established that SARS-CoV-2 binds its “spike protein” to the ACE-2 receptor. This is
believed to be a starting pathway for “endothelial dysfunction”, which is when the inner lining of the
small arteries (endothelial layer) become malfunctioning in the regulation of “exchanges between the
bloodstream and surrounding tissues.” 7,8
• Growing new evidence is linking cigarette smoke and nicotine to increased ACE-2 receptors, thus
increasing the binding sites for SARS-CoV-2. 9,10,11
Although more research is critical to validate evidence and gain more knowledge applicable to various
populations and factors, the above research information illustrates the implication of how important
health prevention measures are. I hope the knowledge I have provided you will inform your efforts
aimed at promoting better community outcomes. Your leadership and decisions as a City Council can be
effective towards progressing the health and well-being of Palo Alto!
Sincerely,
Rachel J. Mesia, PhD, MPH
Program Director, Community Research & Capacity-Building at the Stanford Cancer Institute
Program Co-Chair, Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council
rmesia@stanford.edu | Redacted
cancer.stanford.edu
Citations
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Health effects of cigarette smoking. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012). Preventing tobacco 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. Retrieved from
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2010). How tobacco smoke causes disease: The biology and
behavioral basis for smoking-attributable disease: 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. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53017/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK53017.pdf
4. Goniewicz, M., et al. (2014) Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes.
Tobacco Control 23(2),133–139. Retrieved from http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/2/133
5. Hua, M., et al. (2013). Health-related effects reported by electronic cigarette users in online forums. Journal
of Medical Internet Research, 15(4), e59. Retrieved from http://www.jmir.org/2013/4/e59/
6. Warner, F. J., Smith, A. I., Hooper, N. M., & Turner, A. J. (2004). 2181601. What’s new in the renin-
angiotensin system?: Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2: a molecular and cellular perspective. Cellular and
molecular life sciences, 61(21), 2704-2713. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00018-004-4240-7.pdf
7. Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2002). Blood vessels and endothelial
cells. In Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition. Garland Science. Retried from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26848/
8. Jain, A., & Doyle, D. J. (2020). Stages or phenotypes? A critical look at COVID-19 pathophysiology.
Intensive Care Medicine, 1. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00134-020-06083-
6.pdf
9. Leung, J. M., Yang, C. X., & Sin, D. D. (2020). COVID-19 and Nicotine as a Mediator of ACE-2. European
Respiratory Journal. Retrieved from https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/early/2020/04/27/13993003.01261-
2020.full.pdf
10. Russo, P., Bonassi, S., Giacconi, R., Malavolta, M., Tomino, C., & Maggi, F. (2020). COVID-19 and
Smoking. Is Nicotine the Hidden Link?. European Respiratory Journal. Retrieved from
https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/early/2020/04/20/13993003.01116-2020.full.pdf
11. McAlinden, K. D., Eapen, M. S., Lu, W., Chia, C., Haug, G., & Sohal, S. S. (2020). COVID-19 and vaping:
risk for increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection?. European Respiratory Journal. Retrieved from
https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/early/2020/05/13/13993003.01645-2020.full.pdf
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Diana Indgjerd <dee@indgjerd.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 6:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mac’s Smoke Shop
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I feel I must put my two cents in on the issue of flavored tobacco being sold within the city limits of Palo Alto. I have a
personal reason for wanting to save this 86 year old business that has been so important and iconic to the city of Palo
Alto and the hundreds of thousands of customers that have loved the store through the years......you see that smiling
man on the historic sign was my grandfather......he and my grandmother started the business 86 years ago and my
father bought it when he returned from World War II.....this is MY FAMILY’S business.....and the current owner loves it
as much as my family did.
As you know, all tobacco is flavored, even the tobacco used in cigarettes. It seems that the exemption enacted in Los
Altos would be a good compromise, especially since the current owner is willing to stop selling all vaping supplies.
Allow the exemption........and please save this historic fixture in Palo Alto.
Diana McManus Indgjerd
Sent from my iPad
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:walter sedriks <sedriks@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 3:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ban on Flavoured Tobacco Sales
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Council Members,
The proposed ban on flavoured Tobacco sales goes too far. It constitutes egregious government overreach and
goes well beyond what we need to protect kids.
The fact that such a ban is likely to shutter Mac’s Smoke shop, one of the few historic gems left in Palo Alto,
adds weight to the arguments against the ban.
Passing such a controversial ordinance during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place mandate is not appropriate. The
issue needs to have far more public exposure and discussion and be revisited by Council.
Walter Sedriks
325 Waverley St
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Amaya Wooding <Amaya@sfcommunityhealth.org>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter on Tobacco Retail Policy from Proudly Against Tobacco Coalition
Attachments:PAT Palo Alto 6-7-20.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council:
Please find attached a letter from the Proudly Against Tobacco coalition concerning tobacco retail policy options to
deter youth tobacco use.
Sincerely,
Amaya Wooding (she/her)
Co‐chair, Proudly Against Tobacco
The Bay Area’s LGBTQ+ Tobacco Control Coalition
730 Polk Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Notice of Confidentiality: **This communication and any of its attachments is intended for the use of the person or
entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential or subject to copyright,
the disclosure of which is governed by applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this message in error,
please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete originals, copies & printouts of this e‐mail. Thank you.**
Proudly Against Tobacco
The Bay Area’s LGBTQ+ Tobacco Control Coalition
- 1 -
June 7, 2020
Re: Tobacco Retail Environment Policy Options for Deterring Youth Tobacco Use
Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Councilmembers:
The Proudly Against Tobacco (PAT) Coalition is a group of LGBTQ health advocates from
around the Greater Bay Area. We aim to educate diverse LGBTQ communities on tobacco-
induced health disparities through culturally-appropriate education, research, and advocacy.
There are a number of policy options available at the local level to reduce the appeal of tobacco
products to young Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) youth in Palo
Alto. These include measures to ban the sale of flavored tobacco, including hookah and menthol
cigarettes, at all retailers without exception.
Most hookah users under 18 start with a flavored product. Almost 4 in 5 hookah smokers under
18 partake because they “like socializing while using them.”1 The type of molasses-soaked
flavored hookah that is now popular was only commercially introduced in the early 1990s.2
Even as a cultural practice, hookah is subject to regulation across the Middle East on the grounds
of deterring youth use and protecting against second-hand smoke; both flavored and unflavored
use is banned in restaurants and cafes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan.3,4,5,6,7 Closer to home, Bay Area cities and counties with flavored tobacco sales bans
extend no special treatment to hookah.
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the world.8 It is implicated
in nearly 40,000 deaths and billions of dollars in healthcare spending each year in California
alone.9,10 We have made progress, but LGBTQ youth and adults in our state continue to use
tobacco at higher rates than their peers.11 At the same time, interviews with LGBTQ Californians
reveal that we turn to tobacco as a coping mechanism for dealing with discrimination, despite
knowing it will have consequences for our health.12
Youth who are lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender start using tobacco earlier than their
peers13,14,15, which increases their odds of becoming addicted for life. Most people who will
become daily smokers start before they are 18 years old16. Most people under 18 years old who
try tobacco will start with a flavored product. When they become addicted, they name flavors as
a key reason they continue to use it.17 Removing the appeal of flavors stops the trajectory of
tobacco use behaviors before they can start.
While Palo Alto has previously moved to limit youth access to tobacco by passing a tobacco
retail license ordinance, 52% of Palo Alto Unified School District juniors believe it is “fairly
easy” or “very easy” to get cigarettes “if they really want them” and 67% believe it is similarly
easy to get e-cigarettes.18
- 2 -
Data supports their impressions. In a statewide survey, 13.4% of vape shops and 30.6% of
tobacco stores or smoke shops sold to underage decoys who attempted to buy products, despite
these stores typically designating themselves as “adult-only”. 1 in 3 decoys who asked for a
cigar, little cigar, cigarillo, or wrap was able to obtain it.19 Again, total removal of appealing
flavored products from Palo Alto retailers addresses both ease of youth access and high retailer
violation rates.
Even in the Bay Area, there is much work to be done to achieve intersectional health equity for
LGBTQ people. Thank you for considering our communities as you weigh the options available
to the City of Palo Alto.
Wishing wisdom and health,
Amaya Wooding (she/her)
Co-Chair
Proudly Against Tobacco
730 Polk St, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
1 Ambrose, B. K., Day, H. R., Rostron, B., Conway, K. P., Borek, N., Hyland, A., & Villanti, A. C. (2015). Flavored Tobacco Product
Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-2014. JAMA, 314(17), 1871–1873. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13802
2 Waterpipe. https://tobaccoatlas.org/topic/waterpipe/
3 Prohibition of Smoking in Enclosed Places and Protection of Non-smokers Health Ordinance, 2002.
https://untobaccocontrol.org/impldb/wp-content/uploads/reports/Pakistan_annex1_ordinance_on_public_smoking2002.pdf
4 Associated Press in Riyadh. (30 Jul, 2012). Saudi Arabia stubs out smoking in public places. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/30/saudi-arabia-stubs-out-smoking
5 Syria bans smoking in public places. (11 Oct, 2009). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-smoking-ban/syria-
bans-smoking-in-public-places-idUSTRE59A22P20091011
6 Akram Khayatzadeh-Mahani, Eric Breton, Arne Ruckert, Ronald Labonté, Banning shisha smoking in public places in Iran: an
advocacy coalition framework perspective on policy process and change, Health Policy and Planning, Volume 32, Issue 6, July
2017, Pages 835–846, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czx015
7 WHO FCTC Secretariat’s Knowledge Hub on Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking. (Jul 2018). An Overview of Global Regulatory
Practices in Controlling Waterpipe Tobacco Use. https://www.who.int/fctc/cop/sessions/cop8/WHO-FCTC-Regulatory-
Practices-on-water-pipes.pdf
8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (15 Nov, 2019) Smoking & Tobacco Use Fast Facts.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm
9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (14 Feb, 2019) Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs
(SAMMEC) - Smoking-Attributable Mortality (SAM). https://chronicdata.cdc.gov/Health-Consequences-and-Costs/Smoking-
Attributable-Mortality-Morbidity-and-Econo/4yyu-3s69
10 Max W, Sung HY, Shi Y, Stark B (2016) The Cost of Smoking in California, Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 May;18(5):1222-9. doi:
10.1093/ntr/ntv123. Epub 2015 Jul 7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26156629
11: Vuong TD, Zhang X, Roeseler A. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public
Health; May 2019. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/
CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigures/CATobaccoFactsandFigures2019.pdf
12 Emile Sanders, Tamar Antin, Geoffrey Hunt & Malisa Young (2020) Is Smoking Queer? Implications of California Tobacco
Denormalization Strategies for Queer Current and Former Smokers, Deviant Behavior, 41:4, 497-
511, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2019.1572095
13 Johnson, S. E., Holder-Hayes, E., Tessman, G. K., King, B. A., Alexander, T., & Zhao, X. (2016). Tobacco Product Use Among
Sexual Minority Adults: Findings From the 2012-2013 National Adult Tobacco Survey. American journal of preventive
medicine, 50(4), e91–e100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.07.041
14 Christopher W. Wheldon, Ryan J. Watson, Jessica N. Fish, and Kristi Gamarel.LGBT Health.Jul 2019.235-
241.http://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2019.0005
- 3 -
15 Day, J. K., Fish, J. N., Perez-Brumer, A., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Russell, S. T. (2017). Transgender Youth Substance Use
Disparities: Results From a Population-Based Sample. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for
Adolescent Medicine, 61(6), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.024
16 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. Preventing
Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (US); 2012. 3, The Epidemiology of Tobacco Use Among Young People in the United States and
Worldwide. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99243/
17 Bridget Ambrose, Hannah Day, Brian Rostron (2015) Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-
2014, JAMA. 2015;314(17):1871-1873. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13802
18 Palo Alto Unified School District. California Healthy Kids Survey, 2017-18: Main Report. San Francisco: WestEd Health &
Human Development Program for the California Department of Education.
https://data.calschls.org/resources/Palo_Alto_Unified_1718_Sec_CHKS.pdf
19California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. (28 Aug, 2019)
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFi
gures/YATPSforCDPHCTCPWebsite_9-26-2019.pdf
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Consent Calendar Mac’s
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members,
I am writing to you to ask that you find some way to save Mac’s Smoke Shop. As I walked around
downtown Palo Alto today, I was saddened by how many stores have signs indicating that they would
not be returning to business. Mac’s is probably the oldest or one of the oldest retail establishments in
the City. It has a funky charm and is part of Palo Alto’s history. It is one of the few places one can
reliably buy print newspapers these days and the only place in downtown that one can buy a New York
Times now that Starbucks no longer sells them. Mac’s was allowed to stay open during the shelter in
place period because the newspapers it provided were for many people the only source of news
available. Please remember that 1 in 5 people in the Bay Area have no internet access. I understand
Council members’ objections regarding concern that Mac's sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products
gives minors access to these items. Mac’s has agreed to eliminate vaping products but wishes to
continue to sell flavored tobacco as a matter of financial sustainability. If you go into the store, you will
see that Mac’s has a very visible sign that states that they do not sell to anyone under 21, a policy it
enforces. I hope you will give the owners a chance to figure out a way to change their business model so
they can stay in business and Palo Alto can retain this relic of the past. I would hate to see Mac’s
become another vacant store front.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lama Rimawi <lrimawi1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of tobacco ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council member,
I am writing to confirm my support of the Palo Alto Retail Tobacco Ordinance and complete ban of all flavored tobacco
products with no exemptions.
I understand that some businesses may need to adjust but they survived before vaping existed and they can survive
once flavored tobacco is banned. It is important to level the playing field and not allow any exemptions.
Thank you for supporting a complete ban. This is vital for the health of our youth.
Best wishes,
Lama Rimawi, MD
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dr. Bonnie Halpern-Felsher <bonnieh@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:53 AM
To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal);
Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg
Cc:Bonnie Halpern-Felsher
Subject:PLEASE pass the ordinance on the consent agenda: mirror the Santa Clara County Department of
Health Tobacco Permit Ordinance, without exemptions
Importance:High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to adopt the Santa Clara County Department of Health Tobacco Permit Ordinance,
which will further restrict sales of flavored tobacco and electronic cigarette products, and to do so without
exemptions.
In particular, I am concerned about the possible exemptions for so‐called “adult only stores.” I actually have
new data, just collected from over 4300 adolescents and young adults across the US, including California,
showing that the majority of underage youth purchase their e‐cigarettes at vape or smoke shops, and over a
third of underage youth did not have their age verified when they purchased e‐cigarettes. We have numerous
cases to back up these data in Palo Alto, where underage youth are easily obtaining tobacco in adult‐only
stores, without having their IDs checked.
We cannot allow these shops to police themselves, and we cannot put anything, including business, above the
health of our youth! We have an epidemic number of youth using and addicted to tobacco, largely through e‐
cigarettes, but also through other products such as hookah (20% of youth are using hookah products).
We continue to see tobacco use putting youth in harm’s way. We have seen numerous youth ill from using e‐
cigarettes, and now we have new data showing that ever‐users of e‐cigarettes are 2‐ 3 times more likely to be
diagnosed with COVID‐19!
Now is the time to act! Please pass the ordinance as written on the consent agenda, and protect our youth!
Thank you.
Bonnie
Bonnie Halpern‐Felsher, PhD, FSAHM
Professor of Pediatrics
Taube Research Faculty Scholar
Professor (By courtesy), Health Research & Policy
Director of Fellows’ Scholarship, Department of Pediatrics
Director of Research, Division of Adolescent Medicine
2
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)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lori Khoury <khoury7eleven@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 7:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mac's Smoke Shop - help clarifying the definition of flavored tobacco for exemption
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council members,
I wanted to share with you the article on the cover of the Daily Post this morning. This is how
important Mac’s is to our community.
I also want to add some more clarity to the distinction between flavored tobacco vs. flavored vaping
products and e-cigarettes. The exemption for flavored tobacco we are requesting is for flavored
cigars, flavored pipe tobacco (excluding any electronic delivery systems which includes all vaping
products), flavored cigarette tobacco (excluding any e-cigarette products) and flavored chewing
tobacco.
2
The products noted and that are the target of this ordinance are more of the mass market ilk. Mac’s
Smoke Shop wants to continue as a specialty tobacco store that caters to a discerning adult clientele.
SPECIALTY PIPE TOBACCO IS FOR ADULTS ONLY
One of our primary concerns with this ordinance is for the specialty pipe patrons of the shop. This is a
representative older demographic, locally, with NONE of the flavor threats being applicable to this
product category.
IT’S ABOUT KEEPING TOBACCO OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN - WE CAN HELP
3
This “public health concern” is and should be about enforcement. Strict card check measures are the
key to prohibiting youth access to not only flavored tobacco, but all tobacco. Mac’s Smoke Shop
conducts strict card check measures on its patrons, whether regular customers or not.
We would be more than happy to work with Council and Staff to narrow down the exemption
language to add clarity to the definition of flavored tobacco so everyone is crystal clear on what can
and can’t be sold under the Retailer Tobacco Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Neil and Lori Khoury
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:CarolIne Baker <cbaker8942@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 10:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Flavored tobacco
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:
The Tobacco Free Coalition of Santa Clara County would like to thank you for placing the
adoption of the Santa Clara County Department of Health Tobacco Permit Ordinance on
the consent calendar. It will further restrict sales of flavored tobacco and electronic
cigarette products removing the biggest enticement to the addiction of youths. There
should be no exemptions to the protection of your young citizens. Again, thank you.
Carol Baker and Vanessa Marvin, CoChairs
Tobacco Free Coalition of Santa Clara County
carol@carolandcharliebaker.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Christina Schmidt <cmschmidt04@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Santa Clara County Department of Health Tobacco Permit Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I urge you to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS. No exemption to adult only stores.
Protecting the health and wellbeing of our children is a moral imperative that reflects the values of our families
and supports our community. You are our trusted representatives elected to protect our community. Please
do not waiver on this critical measure.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Sincerely,
~ Christina Schmidt,
Parent and advocate for my high school children
Member of the Palo Alto PTA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lakshmi Muralidharan <lakshmim@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Anti vaping ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
As a resident of Palo Alto, and as a mother of two currently young children, the tragic stories I have heard regarding
vaping scare me. Middle schoolers and high schoolers getting addicted to vaping, because it is 'cool' is a frightening
reality. The only way to curb this is to curb it at their source, by banning the sale of vaping products in Palo Alto, making
it difficult for these children to get their hands on this new drug of choice.
I hope as responsible representatives and members of this city, you will make the right decision and vote to ban the sale
of vaping products in this city.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lakshmi M
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Amy Boggs <amy@grantsport.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 1:33 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg
Subject:Flavored Tobacco: no exemptions
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,
As a resident of Menlo Park and volunteer with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, I urge you to pass
tonight’s flavored tobacco ordinance as written on the consent calendar, with no exemptions. Flavors are driving the
epidemic of tobacco and 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 for any store or any tobacco product.
Exempting adult‐only stores is problematic and weakens what could be a strong policy. 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. These stores especially should not be given a free pass to lure our kids into a
lifetime addiction to tobacco.
Thank you for taking action tonight to protect the youth of Palo Alto and surrounding areas and represent the voice of
the community that is asking you to put our health over profits.
Amy Boggs, ACS Volunteer, Palo Alto Neighbor
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lanelle Neumann <lanelleneumann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 1:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tobacco Permit Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I urge you to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS. No exemption to adult only stores.
Protecting the health and wellbeing of our children is a moral imperative that reflects the values of our families and
supports our community. You are our trusted representatives elected to protect our community. Please do not waiver
on this critical measure.
Also, given we are in the midst of the COVID‐19 pandemic, anyone who's lungs are compromised are at higher risk of
complications with COVID‐19.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Sincerely,
Lanelle Neumann
Parent and advocate for my children who are 16, 13, 10 and 7
Member of the Palo Alto PTA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Susie Brain <susie_brain@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 1:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Consent calendar item banning flavored tobacco sales - please pass
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council members,
As a resident of Palo Alto and volunteer with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, I
urge you to pass tonight’s flavored tobacco ordinance as written on the consent calendar, with no
exemptions. Flavors are driving the epidemic of tobacco and 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 for any store or any tobacco product.
Exempting adult-only stores is problematic and weakens what could be a strong policy. 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. Our
youth are inhaling flavorants, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and nicotine and when these
components are heated up they can turn into other potentially dangerous chemicals with life-long
health consequences. These stores should not be given a free pass to lure our youth into a lifetime
addiction to tobacco and potentially poor health outcomes.
Thank you for taking action tonight to protect the youth of Palo Alto and represent the voice of the
community that is asking you to put our health over commerce.
Susie Brain
American Cancer Society Volunteer,
Palo Alto resident
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jaime Rojas Jr <jaime@rojascommunications.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:City Council Public Testimony
Attachments:Letter to Palo Alto City Council (June 5 2020).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Please find attached a letter for public testimony on the agenda item # 4 of tonight's City Council meeting. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
We thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Jaime Rojas
‐‐
National Association of Tobacco Outlets
Legislative Consultant
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
18653 Ventura Blvd., Suite 115
Tarzana, CA 91356
Tel: 213.400.8664
www.RCGcommunications.com
17595 Kenwood Trail, Minneapolis, MN 55044 952-683-9270 www.natocentral.org
June 8, 2020
Mayor Adrian Fine
Vice Mayor Tom Dubois
Council Member Alison Cormack
Council Member Eric Filseth
Council Member Liz Kniss
Council Member Lydia Kou
Council Member Greg Tanaka
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Ban on Flavored Tobacco Products at Most Retailers
Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor Dubois and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka:
As the Executive Director of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO), a national retail trade
association that represents more than 60,000 retail stores throughout the country including numerous Palo
Alto retail store members, I am writing to submit our comments and concerns regarding the proposed
amendment to your tobacco retailer ordinance to prohibit the sale of all electronic cigarette products in Palo
Alto except in adult-only stores (Item 4 of the June 8, 2020 virtual teleconference meeting). I previously to
the city council on May 1st regarding the e-cigarette issue, and would refer you to my earlier letter on that
subject. The changes to the ordinance since then do not solve the issues raised in that letter, and we again
note that the State and County Stay-at-Home orders remain in place indefinitely with exceptions, making
meaningful participation by retailers in this virtual meeting impossible.
Additionally, the recent unrest that resulted in curfews to protect the public further put pressure on the small
businesses that are largely the target of the proposed ordinance. Consequently, it remains inappropriate for
government to move forward on significant legislation that would severely restrict the sale of legal products,
especially as the proposals are largely directed at businesses whose employees have been designated by the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security as “essential workers for critical infrastructure” and that both the
State of California and Santa Clara County have designated such stores as “essential businesses
In addition to the e-cigarette ban, the new proposal would restrict flavored products to adult-only stores that
primarily deal in tobacco products, meaning convenience stores, service stations and grocery stores would
not be able to sell flavored tobacco products such as menthol cigarette, flavored smokeless products, and
flavored cigars. An ordinance prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarette products and limiting the sale of
flavored tobacco products is not an essential action item for the Palo Alto City Council to consider now.
17595 Kenwood Trail, Minneapolis, MN 55044 952-683-9270 www.natocentral.org
We respectfully ask that this matter be postponed until the county and state Stay-at-Home restrictions have
been lifted, so that affected retail stakeholders may meaningfully participate in a hearing on an ordinance
that may very well cause some retail stores to close.
With the average convenience store relying on tobacco product sales for approximately 36% of in-store
sales, banning flavored cigarette products in all but age-restricted stores will force retailers out of business
and leave a further void in the public’s need for stores that sell food and beverages. This is particularly
ironic given that these stores have been deemed essential by federal, state and county governments. What
purpose is served to the general public of adopting policies that will likely drive many of these essential
outlets for food, beverages and sundry items out of business?
Our concerns also focus on the following facts:
• Based on data from the California Healthy Kids Survey 2018-2019 of 11th graders in the Palo Alto
Unified School District, traditional flavored tobacco products are not the issue because use rates of
these products are at historic lows. Of Palo Alto 11th graders:
o 95% have never smoked a single cigarette
o 99% have never tried smokeless tobacco
o 99% had not smoked a cigarette in the last 30 days
o 100% had not used any smokeless tobacco in the last 30 days
o 89% had not used an electronic cigarette in the last 30 days
• Palo Alto retailers have a near perfect 95% compliance check passing by not selling tobacco to an
underage minor record according to the outcome of 56 retail tobacco compliance checks conducted
from 2013 to 2018 by the Food and Drug Administration (see accompanying FDA retail compliance
check report).
• With retailers now being prohibited under a new federal law that went into effect in December of
2019 from selling tobacco products to anyone under 21, the new federal age 21 law should be
allowed to work to further reduce underage access to and use of tobacco products.
• With the California legislature considering Senate Bill 793 that would ban flavored tobacco
products statewide, consideration of a local flavored ban needs to be postponed in order to avoid
putting Palo Alto’s retailers at a severe disadvantage to nearby stores.
• NATO and its Palo Alto retail members share everyone’s interest in keeping tobacco products out
of the hands of persons under 21 years old, but the ordinance overreaches because the main concern
should be with the rise in underage vaping as shown by the California Health Kids Survey data.
We urge the Palo Alto City Council not to move forward with any attempt to completely ban electronic
cigarette products or to ban flavored tobacco product sales except in adult-only establishments, and to
certainly not even consider such bans under the existing state of emergency we find ourselves.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Briant
NATO Executive Director
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:lisa d. reed <lisadreed@att.net>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka,
Greg
Subject:Teen tobacco problem in our city
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
'Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS. No exemption to adult only stores.
The tobacco problem in our area is a huge problem. I’ve seen it getting worse over the last several years, as a
mother of three.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Sincerely,
Lisa Reed
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mary Lee <sjmarylee@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:12 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members Fine, Cormack, Dubois, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka:
I urge you to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS. No exemption to adult only stores, please!
As a parent of three Palo Alto students, I feel very strongly about this issue. Thank you for taking action on
behalf of our teens.
Sincerely,
Mary Lee
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Noelle Rudolph <noellerudolph14@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tobacco Retail ordinance - No Exemptions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members:
I urge you to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS. No exemption to adult only stores.
Our children are continually besieged by other students vaping and smoking in the middle school and Paly bathrooms.
They do not feel comfortable using these facilities and have little recourse.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Sincerely,
Noelle
Noelle Rudolph
noellerudolph14@gmail.com
Please pardon inadvertent typographic errors sent from my iPhone.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Shaila Iyer <shaila.iyer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tobacco control ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I urge you to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS. No exemption to adult only stores.
Protecting the health and wellbeing of our children is a moral imperative that reflects the values of our families and
supports our community. You are our trusted representatives elected to protect our community. Please do not waiver
on this critical measure.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 8:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:enact #8 Can't Wait
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
Looking at the egregious examples of out of control police departments across the US,
I hope Palo Alto will lead the way to making sure that the police are here to protect
people, not kill them. If every police department would adopt Campaign Zero's 8 Can't
Wait policies as Reverend Kaloma Smith, pastor of University AME Zion Church urges,
police violence would decrease and we would be on our way to a fairer, more just
society. Too many Blacks have died at the hands of the police. If our police
department adopts these policies, we won't have to worry about the next Black death
happening in Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
Midtown
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:48 AM
To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Jonsen, Robert; Fine, Adrian; Shikada, Ed; Council, City;
citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary; Jeff Rosen; chuck
jagoda; PD Dan Mulholland; Councilmember.tanaka.office@gregtanaka.org; MGR-Melissa Stevenson
Diaz; vramirez@redwoodcity.org; Ian Bain; Stump, Molly; Raj; rubenabrica@gmail.com;
paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Cary Andrew Crittenden; Roberta
Ahlquist; Richard Konda
Subject:NYTimes: Cities Ask if It’s Time to Defund Police and ‘Reimagine’ Public Safety
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
FYI: Yes, we can do this too!!!!
And should we also imagine defunding ( or drastically reducing the budgets) other institutions in our criminal justice that
have a history of being non‐responsive to the needs of African‐Americans, other people of color, the poor? At least we
need to have this discussion with our communities...
Cities Ask if It’s Time to Defund Police and ‘Reimagine’ Public Safety https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/us/defund‐
police‐floyd‐protests.html?referringSource=articleShare
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Nancy <nancykawakita@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 9:49 AM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Take the pledge #8cantwait
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City council and city manager,
I urge you to adopt the #8cantwait police use of force policies. These 8 policies are the most critical to decreasing police
violence based on data. Policy changes directly change behavior and reduce police violence . Palo Alto has 2 of the 8
policies. I support implementing the other 6.
Nancy Kawakita
1419 Hamilton Ave. PA
8 policies to decrease police violence
Bans Chokeholds and Strangleholds
Requires De-escalation
Requires Warning Before Shooting
Requires Exhaust All Alternatives Before Shooting
Duty to Intervene
Ban Shooting at Moving Vehicles
Has Use of Force Continuum
Requires Comprehensive Reporting
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bill Chandler <william_d_chandler@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 6:03 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; City Mgr; Police
Subject:Take a tip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear all,
My name is Bill Chandler and I am a [resident of Palo Alto. I am emailing you today to demand that Palo Alto Police
Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know, DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of
violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez, and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police
Department and the City of Palo Alto is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video
footage from DeStefano's horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their actions. I demand
to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Bill Chandler
Sent from my iPhone
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Lizzie Chun <lizzie.m.chun@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 6:11 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; City Mgr; Police
Subject:Accountability for PAPD officers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear all,
My name is Lizzie Chun, and I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am emailing you today to demand that Palo Alto Police
Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know, DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of
violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez, and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police
Department and the City of Palo Alto are entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video
footage from DeStefano's horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so. Any statements you
release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their actions. I demand to see swift action
taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Lizzie Chun
Palo Alto High School ‘15
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jacqueline Woo <4jacquelinewoo@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 6:05 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; City Mgr; Police
Subject:Fire Thomas Destefano
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear all,
My name is Jacqueline Woo and I am a resident of Palo Alto/Los Altos Hills. I am emailing you today to demand that Palo
Alto Police Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know, DeStefano has a deeply
disturbing history of violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez, and Tyler Haney.
The Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo Alto is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses
to release video footage from DeStefano's horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their actions. I demand
to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Woo
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:William Chandler <cjordanchandler@icloud.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 5:55 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; City Mgr; Police
Subject:Fire Officer DeStefano
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear all,
My name is Carly Chandler and I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am emailing you today to demand that Palo Alto Police
Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know, DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of
violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez, and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police
Department and the City of Palo Alto is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video
footage from DeStefano's horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their actions. I demand
to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely, Carly Chandler
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Julie Chandler <juliechandlerjjc@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 5:50 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; City Mgr; Police
Subject:Fire officer Destefano immediately
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear all,
My name is Julie Chandler and I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am emailing you today to demand that Palo Alto Police
Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know, DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of
violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez, and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police
Department and the City of Palo Alto is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video
footage from DeStefano's horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their actions. I demand
to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Julie Chandler
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal) <michael.bott@nbcuni.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 4:51 PM
To:Stump, Molly; Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal); Shikada, Ed; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; Fine, Adrian;
Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; De La Vega, Janine; Scheff, Lisa
Subject:RE: NBC Bay Area News - Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto
Police Department
Sorry… Ms. Stump!
Typo…
Michael Bott
Investigative Producer
NBC Bay Area
Michael.bott@nbcuni.com
@TweetBottNBC
nbcbayarea.com
From: Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal)
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 4:27 PM
To: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal) <Joshua.Slowiczek@nbcuni.com>;
Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jonsen, Robert
<Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; De La Vega, Janine <Janine.DeLaVega@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Scheff, Lisa
<Lisa.Scheff@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: NBC Bay Area News ‐ Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto Police
Department
Thank you, Mr. Stump.
Have a good weekend
Regards
Michael Bott
Investigative Producer
NBC Bay Area
Michael.bott@nbcuni.com
@TweetBottNBC
nbcbayarea.com
From: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 3:57 PM
To: Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal) <Joshua.Slowiczek@nbcuni.com>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Redacted
Redacted
7
Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian
<Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jonsen, Robert
<Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; De La Vega, Janine <Janine.DeLaVega@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Scheff, Lisa
<Lisa.Scheff@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal) <michael.bott@nbcuni.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: NBC Bay Area News ‐ Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto
Police Department
Mr. Slowiczek and Mr. Bott –
This acknowledges receipt of your email below. We will provide a further response as soon as feasible, likely next week.
Regards,
Molly Stump
MOLLY S. STUMP
City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
(650) 329 ‐ 2171 | Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may
not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in
error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal) <Joshua.Slowiczek@nbcuni.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 4:03 PM
To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian
<Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jonsen, Robert
<Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; De La Vega, Janine <Janine.DeLaVega@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Scheff, Lisa
<Lisa.Scheff@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal) <michael.bott@nbcuni.com>
Subject: NBC Bay Area News ‐ Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto Police Department
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
We’re writing in regards to the release of body‐worn camera video captured by Agent Thomas DeStefano Jr. of
the Palo Alto Police Department during an encounter with city resident Julio Arevalo in the early morning of
July 10, 2019.
The incident (PAPD case # 19‐3674), which was also captured on a nearby surveillance camera, resulted in Mr.
Arevalo being sent to the Emergency Room with a fractured orbital bone and likely concussion.
Under § 6254 of the Government Code, California law requires the release of body‐worn camera video if an
officer fires their weapon or when there is use of force that results in serious bodily injury. Furthermore, as
8
published on page 547 of the Palo Alto Police Department’s Police Manual, records are to be disclosable to the
public when the conduct of an officer results in “serious bodily injury” as established in CA Penal Code §
243(f)(4), which defines it as a “serious impairment of physical condition, including, but not limited to, the
following: loss of consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or impairment of function of any
bodily member or organ; a wound requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement.”
As Mr. Arevalo experienced a loss of consciousness, as documented in the surveillance video, and a bone
fracture in the head/neck region, as documented by medical records, it is hard to argue that neither constitute
the disclosure of records as defined by both the Palo Alto Police Department and the State of California.
NBC Bay Area has made multiple requests for this video since November 2019, all of which have been denied,
deferred or ignored by the department’s custodian of records, Lisa Scheff, and the public information officer,
Janine De La Vega. Our last several efforts, made via email and phone, to receive an update on the status of
our records request, pursuant to our rights under the California Public Records Act, have been met with
silence. The most recent attempt was made via email to Ms. De La Vega less than a month ago on May 15,
2020.
If a law enforcement agency continues to withhold such video, as is the case with Palo Alto PD, state law
requires the agency to provide a specific reason as to why such a release may harm an ongoing investigation.
To date, the Palo Alto Police Department has failed to provide such justification. Simply stating the incident
remains under investigation, which the CA Department of Justice has said, in the past, does not fulfill that
requirement.
The ambiguity of Palo Alto PD’s initial response and deafening absence of communications or updates on the
status of our pending request filed roughly six months ago is in clear violation of Gov’t Code § 6254(f)(4)(A),
which states “During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a
critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or
reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the
recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of
a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall
provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would
substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.”
As we have received no specific basis for non‐disclosure nor updates on the status of the request per the
above statutes, and in consideration of the fact that our multiple requests to the police department’s PIO
have yielded no results or response, we are also involving the Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Attorney,
and City Manager in hopes this issue can be promptly resolved without involving additional legal counsel or
an outside organization, such as the First Amendment Coalition.
In a previous incident, where the specifics of the California Public Records Act seemed to be in dispute with
Ms. De La Vega and Ms. Scheff, our communication with Ms. Stump seemed to clear the matter up quickly. It
is our hope that involving additional public officials with the City of Palo Alto might further facilitate the
resolution of this matter.
Thank you all in advance for your time, consideration and assistance,
Josh Slowiczek | Michael Bott
Redacted
9
Investigative Producers
NBC Bay Area News
Josh Slowiczek
Producer | The Investigative Unit & Press:Here
Cell/Signal:
Redacted
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:Caleb Martin <calebm@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 4:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fire Thomas DeStefano immediately
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Caleb Martin, and I am a Stanford student. I am emailing you today to demand that Palo Alto Police
Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know, DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of
violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police
Department and the City of Palo Alto is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video
footage from DeStefano’s horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their actions. I demand
to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Caleb
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal) <michael.bott@nbcuni.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 4:27 PM
To:Stump, Molly; Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal); Shikada, Ed; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; Fine, Adrian;
Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; De La Vega, Janine; Scheff, Lisa
Subject:RE: NBC Bay Area News - Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto
Police Department
Thank you, Mr. Stump.
Have a good weekend
Regards
Michael Bott
Investigative Producer
NBC Bay Area
(
Michael.bott@nbcuni.com
@TweetBottNBC
nbcbayarea.com
From: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 3:57 PM
To: Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal) <Joshua.Slowiczek@nbcuni.com>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian
<Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jonsen, Robert
<Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; De La Vega, Janine <Janine.DeLaVega@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Scheff, Lisa
<Lisa.Scheff@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal) <michael.bott@nbcuni.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: NBC Bay Area News ‐ Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto
Police Department
Mr. Slowiczek and Mr. Bott –
This acknowledges receipt of your email below. We will provide a further response as soon as feasible, likely next week.
Regards,
Molly Stump
Redacted
12
MOLLY S. STUMP
City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
(650) 329 ‐ 2171 | Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may
not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in
error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal) <Joshua.Slowiczek@nbcuni.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 4:03 PM
To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian
<Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jonsen, Robert
<Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; De La Vega, Janine <Janine.DeLaVega@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Scheff, Lisa
<Lisa.Scheff@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal) <michael.bott@nbcuni.com>
Subject: NBC Bay Area News ‐ Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto Police Department
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
We’re writing in regards to the release of body‐worn camera video captured by Agent Thomas DeStefano Jr. of
the Palo Alto Police Department during an encounter with city resident Julio Arevalo in the early morning of
July 10, 2019.
The incident (PAPD case # 19‐3674), which was also captured on a nearby surveillance camera, resulted in Mr.
Arevalo being sent to the Emergency Room with a fractured orbital bone and likely concussion.
Under § 6254 of the Government Code, California law requires the release of body‐worn camera video if an
officer fires their weapon or when there is use of force that results in serious bodily injury. Furthermore, as
published on page 547 of the Palo Alto Police Department’s Police Manual, records are to be disclosable to the
public when the conduct of an officer results in “serious bodily injury” as established in CA Penal Code §
243(f)(4), which defines it as a “serious impairment of physical condition, including, but not limited to, the
following: loss of consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or impairment of function of any
bodily member or organ; a wound requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement.”
As Mr. Arevalo experienced a loss of consciousness, as documented in the surveillance video, and a bone
fracture in the head/neck region, as documented by medical records, it is hard to argue that neither constitute
the disclosure of records as defined by both the Palo Alto Police Department and the State of California.
NBC Bay Area has made multiple requests for this video since November 2019, all of which have been denied,
deferred or ignored by the department’s custodian of records, Lisa Scheff, and the public information officer,
Janine De La Vega. Our last several efforts, made via email and phone, to receive an update on the status of
our records request, pursuant to our rights under the California Public Records Act, have been met with
13
silence. The most recent attempt was made via email to Ms. De La Vega less than a month ago on May 15,
2020.
If a law enforcement agency continues to withhold such video, as is the case with Palo Alto PD, state law
requires the agency to provide a specific reason as to why such a release may harm an ongoing investigation.
To date, the Palo Alto Police Department has failed to provide such justification. Simply stating the incident
remains under investigation, which the CA Department of Justice has said, in the past, does not fulfill that
requirement.
The ambiguity of Palo Alto PD’s initial response and deafening absence of communications or updates on the
status of our pending request filed roughly six months ago is in clear violation of Gov’t Code § 6254(f)(4)(A),
which states “During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a
critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or
reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the
recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of
a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall
provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would
substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.”
As we have received no specific basis for non‐disclosure nor updates on the status of the request per the
above statutes, and in consideration of the fact that our multiple requests to the police department’s PIO
have yielded no results or response, we are also involving the Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Attorney,
and City Manager in hopes this issue can be promptly resolved without involving additional legal counsel or
an outside organization, such as the First Amendment Coalition.
In a previous incident, where the specifics of the California Public Records Act seemed to be in dispute with
Ms. De La Vega and Ms. Scheff, our communication with Ms. Stump seemed to clear the matter up quickly. It
is our hope that involving additional public officials with the City of Palo Alto might further facilitate the
resolution of this matter.
Thank you all in advance for your time, consideration and assistance,
Josh Slowiczek | Michael Bott
Investigative Producers
NBC Bay Area News
Josh Slowiczek
Producer | The Investigative Unit & Press:Here
Cell/Signal:
Redacted
Redacted
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Stephanie Reading Houck <houck@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 4:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Call for Action: Officer DeStefano
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Stephanie Houck and I am an undergraduate at Stanford. I am emailing you today to
demand that Palo Alto Police Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all
know, DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically
Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo
Alto is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video footage from
DeStefano’s horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their
actions. I demand to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Houck
Stanford University ‘21
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:Stump, Molly
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 3:57 PM
To:Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal); Shikada, Ed; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; Fine, Adrian; Council, City;
Jonsen, Robert; De La Vega, Janine; Scheff, Lisa
Cc:Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal)
Subject:RE: NBC Bay Area News - Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto
Police Department
Mr. Slowiczek and Mr. Bott –
This acknowledges receipt of your email below. We will provide a further response as soon as feasible, likely next week.
Regards,
Molly Stump
MOLLY S. STUMP
City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
(650) 329 ‐ 2171 | Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may
not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in
error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: Slowiczek, Josh (NBCUniversal) <Joshua.Slowiczek@nbcuni.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 4:03 PM
To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Horrigan‐Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan‐Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian
<Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jonsen, Robert
<Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; De La Vega, Janine <Janine.DeLaVega@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Scheff, Lisa
<Lisa.Scheff@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Bott, Michael (NBCUniversal) <michael.bott@nbcuni.com>
Subject: NBC Bay Area News ‐ Regarding an Outstanding Public Records Request with the Palo Alto Police Department
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
We’re writing in regards to the release of body‐worn camera video captured by Agent Thomas DeStefano Jr. of
the Palo Alto Police Department during an encounter with city resident Julio Arevalo in the early morning of
July 10, 2019.
16
The incident (PAPD case # 19‐3674), which was also captured on a nearby surveillance camera, resulted in Mr.
Arevalo being sent to the Emergency Room with a fractured orbital bone and likely concussion.
Under § 6254 of the Government Code, California law requires the release of body‐worn camera video if an
officer fires their weapon or when there is use of force that results in serious bodily injury. Furthermore, as
published on page 547 of the Palo Alto Police Department’s Police Manual, records are to be disclosable to the
public when the conduct of an officer results in “serious bodily injury” as established in CA Penal Code §
243(f)(4), which defines it as a “serious impairment of physical condition, including, but not limited to, the
following: loss of consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or impairment of function of any
bodily member or organ; a wound requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement.”
As Mr. Arevalo experienced a loss of consciousness, as documented in the surveillance video, and a bone
fracture in the head/neck region, as documented by medical records, it is hard to argue that neither constitute
the disclosure of records as defined by both the Palo Alto Police Department and the State of California.
NBC Bay Area has made multiple requests for this video since November 2019, all of which have been denied,
deferred or ignored by the department’s custodian of records, Lisa Scheff, and the public information officer,
Janine De La Vega. Our last several efforts, made via email and phone, to receive an update on the status of
our records request, pursuant to our rights under the California Public Records Act, have been met with
silence. The most recent attempt was made via email to Ms. De La Vega less than a month ago on May 15,
2020.
If a law enforcement agency continues to withhold such video, as is the case with Palo Alto PD, state law
requires the agency to provide a specific reason as to why such a release may harm an ongoing investigation.
To date, the Palo Alto Police Department has failed to provide such justification. Simply stating the incident
remains under investigation, which the CA Department of Justice has said, in the past, does not fulfill that
requirement.
The ambiguity of Palo Alto PD’s initial response and deafening absence of communications or updates on the
status of our pending request filed roughly six months ago is in clear violation of Gov’t Code § 6254(f)(4)(A),
which states “During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a
critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or
reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the
recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of
a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall
provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would
substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.”
As we have received no specific basis for non‐disclosure nor updates on the status of the request per the
above statutes, and in consideration of the fact that our multiple requests to the police department’s PIO
have yielded no results or response, we are also involving the Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Attorney,
and City Manager in hopes this issue can be promptly resolved without involving additional legal counsel or
an outside organization, such as the First Amendment Coalition.
In a previous incident, where the specifics of the California Public Records Act seemed to be in dispute with
Ms. De La Vega and Ms. Scheff, our communication with Ms. Stump seemed to clear the matter up quickly. It
is our hope that involving additional public officials with the City of Palo Alto might further facilitate the
resolution of this matter.
17
Thank you all in advance for your time, consideration and assistance,
Josh Slowiczek | Michael Bott
Investigative Producers
NBC Bay Area News
Josh Slowiczek
Producer | The Investigative Unit & Press:Here
Cell/Signal:
Redacted
Redacted
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:Mia Paulsen <mlpaulsen1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 3:43 PM
To:Police
Cc:City Mgr; Fine, Adrian; Council, City
Subject:Complaint of Thomas DeStefano
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Police Department,
My name is Mia and I am a Stanford student. I am emailing you today to demand that Palo Alto Police
Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know, DeStefano has a deeply
disturbing history of violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez
and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo Alto is entirely complicit in
allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video footage from DeStefano’s horrifying attack on
Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their
actions. I demand to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Mia
19
Baumb, Nelly
From:Dhara Yu <dhara.yu@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 2:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Swift action to remove Thomas DeStefano from PAPD
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Dhara Yu and I am a resident of Palo Alto and Stanford student. I am emailing you today
to demand that Palo Alto Police Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all
know, DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically
Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo
Alto is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video footage from
DeStefano’s horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their
actions. I demand to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
I will not vote for any of you unless you take tangible steps toward this objective.
Sincerely,
Dhara Yu
20
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kaitlin Chiu <kaitlinchiu@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 2:37 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City
Subject:Remove Thomas DeStefano from the Palo Alto Police Department
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine ,
My name is Kaitlin and I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am emailing you today to demand that Palo Alto Police
Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know, DeStefano has a deeply disturbing
history of violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez and Tyler Haney.
The Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo Alto is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as
PAPD refuses to release video footage from DeStefano’s horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated
by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their actions. I
demand to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Kaitlin
21
Baumb, Nelly
From:Mara Zenger <mara.zenger@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgent: Thomas DeStefano
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Mara Zenger and I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am emailing you today to demand that
Palo Alto Police Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know,
DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio
Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo Alto
is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video footage from
DeStefano’s horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their
actions. I demand to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Mara Zenger
22
Baumb, Nelly
From:Julia Wang <juliaewang@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 2:04 PM
To:Fine, Adrian
Subject:Police Reform (8 Can't Wait)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
My name is Julia, and I am a concerned citizen of Palo Alto. I am emailing you to demand change in the Palo Alto Police
Department. Many Palo Alto officials have spoken in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. However, verbal
support is not enough. Palo Alto needs to take tangible steps to promote racial equality and to prevent police brutality.
I am sure you have all seen it by now, but I urge you all to take a look at the 8 Can't Wait campaign by Campaign Zero.
The 8 main demands are to:
1. Ban chokeholds and strangleholds
2. Require de‐escalation.
3. Require warning before shooting.
4. Exhaust all alternatives before shooting.
5. Establish a duty to intervene.
6. Ban shooting at moving vehicles.
7. Establish use of force continuum.
8. Require comprehensive reporting
Palo Alto police currently have 2 of these 8 policies in place (#3 and #5), which is a good start, but it is NOT enough. San
Francisco PD has all 8 of these policies in place and have updated their policies in the past few years. Palo Alto should
look to San Francisco as a good example and follow in their footsteps.
I want to be proud to say I am a citizen of Palo Alto, and right now I do not see much action being taken by our city to do
their part is supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. It goes without saying that racism and police brutality are
completely UNACCEPTABLE in the year 2020. Palo Alto needs to take action now.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the opinions of your citizens,
Julia
23
Baumb, Nelly
From:HEIDI SCHWENK <heidi29@me.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 1:38 PM
To:City Mgr; Council, City
Cc:HEIDI SCHWENK
Subject:Palo Alto's Response to Changing the Systemic Racial Bias Palo Alto has exhibited for decades!?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello City Manager, City Council & City Mayor,
Where is Palo Alto’s POSITIVE Response to support BLACK LIVES MATTER?
Please read this article recently posted in the Palo Alto Weekly Online.
Everyone in Palo Alto knows there is excessive and systemic racism toward Black People, Chinese People, Mexican People,
Jewish People, Muslim People, anyone basically who isn’t WHITE or Christian.
My children and I experienced racism first hand in the Palo Alto School District ‐ Ohlone Elementary School was the only
exception from the other district schools ie. Jordan in 1996 (first child started school) ‐ to its recent name change ‐ Green), and
Palo Alto High School. In our neighborhoods, Elsinore Drive, Greenmeadow, Leland Manor, Old Palo Alto, etc..
Please rally the City Council and Mayor to respond to make change in our City with the Police Department and Fire
Department and within the City to operate more efficiently without bias or racism toward any gender, race, creed or religion.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/06/05/guest‐opinion‐palo‐alto‐needs‐reform‐now
AND, along with Police and Firefighter Reforms copying D.C.s street painting would be widely accepted!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics‐news/d‐c‐mayor‐bowser‐has‐black‐lives‐matter‐painted‐street‐
n1225746?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3wArfaHuXv‐SlDRm0wswMamL4Zy44F_0mK8pEr170ltiCuO8Mo1mmn7o8
Thank you,
Heidi Schwenk (Resident since 1990)
24
760 Northampton Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
25
Baumb, Nelly
From:Emma Casley <elcasley@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 12:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Palo Alto Police Reform
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and Honorable Council Members of Palo Alto,
This is Emma Casley, I am a current resident who was born and raised in Palo Alto. I'm writing in support of the policies
and practices proposed by Reverend Kaloma A Smith in a recent Palo Alto Online Op‐Ed, found here:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2020/06/05/guest‐opinion‐palo‐alto‐needs‐reform‐
now?fbclid=IwAR2sdnU_T06SMnzIvl9dPrwybPUNTOUHOvyCTQDc2v6cnAqGA6M62P2mnTA
Per the comments in the article, it looks as if Palo Alto has already adopted two of the policies:
‐Requiring warning before shooting
‐A duty to intervene
And I'm proud that Palo Alto City Council has already taken active steps to counteract Police violence within our
community. Thank you for adopting these policies.
I think these reforms are an important first step to changing the way that police and law enforcement exist within
our community, in ways that specifically target Black and non‐white people.
I want to also point the City Council in the direction of research done by Critical Resistance
(http://criticalresistance.org/chapters/cr‐oakland/), a nationwide organization founded in Berkeley, CA, advocating for
the elimination of the Prison Industrial Complex:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59ead8f9692ebee25b72f17f/t/5b65cd58758d46d34254f22c/1533398363539/C
R_NoCops_reform_vs_abolition_CRside.pdf
It is not enough to only reform our current policies, it is imperative that we rethink the ways our community can
systematically prevent violence and racism within our police force, in addition to the actions we have already taken.
Thank you so much for your time!
All the best,
Emma
‐‐
Emma Casley
26
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sebastian Alonso Perez-Lopez <sebpl01@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 11:20 AM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal)
Cc:Police; Council, City
Subject:Change is Needed for the Palo Alto Police Department
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
My name is Sebastian Perez-Lopez. I am a resident of St Louis, Missouri and currently a student at Stanford University. As a member
of the Palo Alto community, I am emailing to demand change within our police system.
The horrific inexcusable racist murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many other innocent Americans has put
a national spotlight on the systematic racism intrenched within our nation's police system and society as a whole. This is absolutely
unacceptable and something needs to change.
I demand that you take action by implementing the following requirements within the Palo Alto police department that are proven to
reduce police violence. These requirements are as follows:
1. Require De-escalation
2. Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
3. Ban Shooting at Moving Vehicles
4. Require Comprehensive Reporting
5. Require Exhausting Other Means Before Shooting
6. Develop and Use a Force Continuum
These criteria were developed by the 8 Can't Wait Project started by Campaign Zero, an organization centered around ending police
violence in America. More information can be found at this website: https://8cantwait.org/.
I commend you for already instilling two of the necessary policies (requiring warning before shooting, and mandating a duty to
intervene). However, that is not enough. The police system in our country is broken, and you have a responsibility to implement the six
other requirements in the Palo Alto police department. In addition, I demand that we provide more support for community efforts and
organizations that work to prevent police brutality and violence.
Sincerely,
Sebastian Perez-Lopez
27
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barbara Susco <bsusco@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 9:58 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:21st Century Policing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Attachments available until Jul 5, 2020
Click to Download
Guide for Implementation.pdf
4.1 MB
Click to Download
Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing - final-report-of-the-presidents-task-force-on.pdf
100.5 MB
June 5, 2020
To Whom it May Concern:
Bryan Stevenson, a civil-rights lawyer and the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, recommends an actionable first step
in improving our policing in our country, would be for police departments/cities to implement the President's Task Force
on 21st Century Policing. I hope PAPD has been using this to guide change these past five years and will continue to
delve into it for improvement. Both the document and implementation guide are very readable and laid out in a manner
that any police department could identify areas for improvement. Please consider having all employees read the report and
guide. Next, act and improve.
As a kindergarten teacher for many years in PAUSD, I reflect on my past practices and work to improve my teaching. For
example, learning to read is a social justice issue - especially for people with dyslexia or other reading challenges. I
continue to put effort in learning best practices, implementing the changes and working to encourage my colleagues to
learn and improve.
I want policing in our country to change in a big way. I hope that PAPD is actively participating in that change.
Sincerely,
29
Baumb, Nelly
From:Nathan Szajnberg <nmoshe@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 7:36 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please don't be distracted by non-existing problems in PA (like needing police reform, when we
don't have police violent)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Please address existing issues:
1. cutback in services
2. taxes too high when citizens are out of work 3. schools not functioning.
N. Szajnberg, MD
30
Baumb, Nelly
From:Wesley Woo <wesley.woo97@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 2:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Wesley Woo <wesley.woo97@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 5:46 PM
Subject:
To: <adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org>, <city.council@citofpaloalto.org>, <citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org>,
<pd@cityofpaloalto.org>
To whom it may concedn,
My name is Wesley Woo and I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am emailing you today to demand that
Palo Alto Police Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know,
DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio
Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo Alto
is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video footage from
DeStefano’s horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their
actions. I demand to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
Wesley Woo
31
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sunnie Wang <sunnie.w81@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 4:58 PM
To:Fine, Adrian
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
My name is Sunnie Wang and I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am emailing you today to demand that
Palo Alto Police Department officer Thomas DeStefano is fired immediately. As we all know,
DeStefano has a deeply disturbing history of violence against Palo Alto residents, specifically Julio
Arevelo, Gustavo Alvarez and Tyler Haney. The Palo Alto Police Department and the City of Palo Alto
is entirely complicit in allowing this behavior, as PAPD refuses to release video footage from
DeStefano’s horrifying attack on Arevelo despite being mandated by law to do so.
Any statements you release are empty words until officers in Palo Alto are held accountable for their
actions. I demand to see swift action taken to remove DeStefano from your police force.
Sincerely,
‐‐
Thanks!
Sunnie Wang
32
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:59 PM
To:mcomas.b.c@gmail.com
Cc:celliot087@gmail.com; galaxy_454@yahoo.com; markhamplazata@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Lien on McComas home
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Does this mean that you will be moving soon? Predetors
like yourself should not be any where near young
children!
-- Jeremy
33
34
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 at 6:15 AM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: mccomas.b.c@gmail.com
Cc: jeremy4justice@activist.com, celliot087@gmail.com, joannne@dennisonlaw.com
Subject: Lien on McComas home
Tell me about the notice of lien that was placed on your home on Febuary 20th of this year. What is that all about?
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:29 PM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: Nora.MacDonald@countyofnapa.org
Subject: Fw: Brian McComas attorney
Sending this to you because EAH Housing does business in Naoa County.
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 4:26 PM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: mccomas.b.c@gmail.com
Cc: bill@sdap.org, galaxy_454@yahoo.com, aleksandra.ridgeway@sheriff.sccgov.org, hotline@hudoig.gov,
fairhousing@usdoj.gov, housing@sanjoseca.gov, hud-pihrc@tngusa.net, schatman@scscourt.org,
cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org, celliot087@gmail.com, joanne@denisonlaw.com, emma.loop@buzzfeed.com
Subject: Brian McComas attorney
Your attacks upon the public will not be tolerarted!
https://lreblogger.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-suspicious-death-of-frank-carpentino.html
https://publicguardian.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/common-denominators-to-villa-fontana-and-markham-
plaza-abuse-scandals/
It is obvious that this video is about the guns that Robert Ridgeway brought to Markham Plaza, a primary focus of PSI12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX06c62xlMI
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 7:57 AM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: mccomas.b.c@gmail.com, sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, bill@sdap.org, "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>, galaxy_454@yahoo.com, aleksandra.ridgeway@sheriff.sccgov.org,
supreme.court@jud.ca.gov
Cc: first.district@jud.ca.gov, second.district@jud.ca.gov, third.district@jud.ca.gov,
fourth.district@jud.ca.gov, fifth.district@jud.ca.gov, hotline@hudoig.gov, fairhousing@usdoj.gov,
housing@sanjoseca.gov
Subject: Robert Ridgeway is a Murderer
Robert Ridgeway is a murderer ! He murded Markham Plaza resident Robert Moss though perjury in a fraudulent eviction court case in collusion with the Santa Clara County Public Guardian!! Case 12cv226958 which was concealed from civi grand jury investigation into the Santa Clara County Public Guardian! Robert
Ridgeway also contributed to the death of Julie Stewart!
Please give answer to how thiis could possibly relate to his duties as law enforcement officer when he was
not even a cop at the time ? He had been arrested and lost his job 5 years earlier? ( Case # CC891592
) Should that not have been included in discovery package to C1493022
https://publicguardian.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/common-denominators-to-villa-fontana-and-markham-
plaza-abuse-scandals/
35
Susanne
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 3:18 AM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: supreme.court@jud.ca.gov
Cc: info@whistleblower.org
Subject: Fw: Homicide & Grand Jury Tampering - Witnesses Stalked, Harassed ad Threatened by Santa Clara County Sheriff Department
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 3:02 AM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: mccomas.b.c@gmail.com, "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>,
info@whistlebloweres.org, galaxy_454@yahoo.com, cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org,
district7@sanjoseca.gov
Cc: bill@sdap.org, sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, "Cary Andrew Crittenden"
<caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>, supreme.court@jud.ca.gov
Subject: Hmicide & Grand Jury Tampering - Witnesses Stalked, Harassed ad Threatened by Santa
Clara County Sheriff Department
That is a denial of substantial rights! Why was Mr. Smith not allowed to testiify?
Why was not ANYONE ALOWED TO TESTIFY and wshy was no investigator assigned by the public
defender of IDO Sylvia Perez McDonald?
Where the hell is the discovery material to C1493022 which should reference the whistleblowe
compaint and civil grad jury investigation into the Santa Clara County Public Guardian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5R57jWPb54
Susanne
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 10:49 PM
From: "Jason Smith" <mastermind.it.jason@gmail.com>
To: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
Subject: Re: Markham Plaaza Murder concealed from Civil Grand Jury investigation into Pubic
Guardian
Thank you for the correction as I never testified for Cary Andrew Crittenden in court because I was
assaulted by Shaun Jackson, falsely imprisoned for 21 days, threatened with eviction if I inquired
about the funding of the solar panels and why no Tenant received a dime from all the power
generated from them. I was denied my civil rights and another tenants rights to exercise our rights
to Fair Housing.
The court also put Cary Andrew Crittenden probation restrictions that he could not use the internet
making it extremely difficult for Cary and I to assist each other in exercising our right to advocate for
the civil rights of tenants of Markham Plaza. I would have testified on behalf of Cary Andrew Crittenden on his honesty, character and knowledge
of Fair Housing laws and regulations.
On Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> wrote:
Here is rappers doing song about guns at Markham Plaza supplied by Robert Ridgeway.
36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX06c62xlMI&t=44s
More links asbout Ridgeway and his banshee wife:
http://sanjosebankofthewest.blogspot.com/2018/07/san-jose-bank-of-west-estate-planning.html
https://thefraudcouple.wordpress.com/
https://manslaughtercoverup.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/the-fraud-couple-robert-ridgeway-and-
his-wife-sheriff-deputy-aleksandra-ridgeway/
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 at 5:37 PM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, supreme.court@jud.ca.gov, hotline@hudoig.gov,
heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com, housing@sanjoseca.gov
Cc: cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org, mccomas.b.c@gmail.com, bill@sdap.org,
galaxy_454@yahoo.com, "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>,
"Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
Subject: Murder concealed from Civil Grand Jury investigation
So Jason Smith was not allowed to testify was he? He was harassed, threatened and attacked
like the others!!
Judge Manoukian's bailifs stood outside Judge Chatman's court rooom to prevent the public from
entering the court room.
In December of l2019, another Markham Plaza resident who had participated in the public safety
initiative was driven to suicide with the help of Brian McComas. ( He left behind suicide note (s) )
He had been been in contact with several coaition organizattions via email through his
bootmootin email regarding the Markham Plsza attacks and docuented the events leading up to
his suicide.
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2020 at 5:42 PM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>,
security@heidiyauman.com
Cc: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, jeremy.pruitt@activist.com, mccomas.b.c@gmail.com,
hotline@hudoig.gov, caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com, sylvia.mcdonald@ido.sccgov.org,
heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com, scott.largent@heidiyauman.com,
news.room@sanjosebusiness.news, moneal@pdo.sccgov.org, fairhousing@usdoj.gov Subject: Question for Jason Smith - ( Re: Court Testimony )
Jason,
Thank you for confirming that the Markham Plaza Tenant association was created on January
1st, 2016, 6 days after Mr. Crittenden was arrested, which was 12/25/15.
When you testified in Mr. Crittenden's trial, did you at any time state on the record that the
Markham Plaza Tenant association was formed on 01/01/16 Mr. Brian McComas is claiming that the date is different. Do you believe that the court
transcripts may have been altered to change the date on the trial court records?
Did the correctional officers at the San Jose Main Jail have an issue with the Markham Plaza
Tenant association meeting at Elmwood?
Has anyone accused you of commiting perjury or forgery?
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68966
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67161
37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCIErv3kS2w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVF62zekVwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5R57jWPb54
Susanne
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2020 at 3:49 PM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: mccomas.b.c@gmail.com, socialmedia1953@gmail.com
Cc: bill@sdap.org, "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>,
mastermind.it.jason@gmail.com, sylvia.mcdonald@ido.sccgov.org, celliot087@gmail.com,
james.williams@cco.sccgov.org, william.bennett@scscourt.org, sam.liccardo@sanjoseca.gov,
sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, schatman@scscourt.org, heidi.yauman@icloud.com, hud-
pihrc@tngusa.net
Subject: Jason Smith's Court testimony prior to August 8th attack?
Mr. McComas,
You falsified the record on appeal as tho when the Markham Plaza tenant associoation was
formed and you also claimed that the Markham Plaza Tenant association was blame for Mr.
Crittenden being accused of violating OR.
When Jason Smith testifed in Mr. Crittenden's trial, did he state on the record
that Mr. Criitenden had been assigned to lead the lioson team to U.C. Berkeley
Law School? When was this assignment given and who was the investigator from the
Pruit-Nassie team who Crittenden was assgned to coordinate with on this project? Did this
investigator also coordinate with Team Reyes? If so, to what scope and capacity and what
have you done with the investigative reports?
Did you discuss this issue on January 9th, 2018 with Judge Sharon Chatman?
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68966
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67161
What happened to the discovery package in case c149322? Why is it still missing?
Susanne
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 11:08 PM
From: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>
To: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
Subject: Re: Attorney Brian McComas falsifying records about Markham Plaza Tenant Association & EAH Housing murders
The Markham Plaza Tenant Association was created 1-1-2016 with my first Fair Housing
Advocate work helping a tenant with a reasonable accommodation request to not be
evicted during for more time to find housing which I submitted to EAH Inc’s Housing
Attorney Todd Rothbard on March 30, 2016 by email on her behalf and which was my
38
best success as Todd Rothbard did approve the Reasonable Accommodation Request in full.
He should since he wrote the Reasonable Accommodation template that I asked for and
got from his secretary.
After that it got more difficult as management would either not send it to the attorney or
they would harass the tenants and even forge a tenants Request for verification of
Reasonable Accommodation by writing in 6 weeks instead of 6 months and then saying it
was The Who wrote that in but she came to me right after and I made copies and told her
to have both the modified date by Shelsy Bass and the Blank one Verification form signed
by the health professional. I have samples of both of their hand writings and it’s not even
close it’s definitely Shelsy Bass’s hand writing.
The details are mostly chronicled in the letter from John A. List titled Letter to Smith
attached. Take a look on page 8 where Mr. List claims that they can’t shut off the alarms
do to the Fire Code and The Building Plans. The 80 Decibel alarm of 4 quick blasts that went of 20 to 80 times a day then shut off, offering no identification of a threat to safety.
Then on page 9 he writes that he has just been informed by EAH staff that they did turn
off the alarms do to my and other residents complaints. Which is bull it’s because my
grievance said that the alarms did nothing to help protect the tenants but did interrupt
their right to quiet peaceful enjoyment of their home and that it kept tenants from getting
uninterrupted sleep and that thiruas type of alarms were used in third world countries to
break down prisoners of wars wills and to brain wash them.
John A list either perjured himself or he was finking on his client EAH Inc that was
violating the Fire Code and putting the building and the tenants in jeopardy.
Sometimes they approve a Reasonable Accommodation Request for an apartment change
like the one in file 7-27-2016 - cost 500 dollars... but the approval comes with a tenant
cost of $500 this is what happened to Rhonda Engle who came to me because she could
not afford the $500 and shortly after died on 4-24-2018 because Lester the property supervisor called and offsite meeting and took all staff and 911 was called at 9 am for Rhonda and the EMT’s and Police showed up shortly after but there being no staff on site
they looked and waited over an hour before a maintenance guy was sent back and he
gave them the key but when they opened her apartment it was too later Rhonda Engle
was dead due to gross negligence by Lester Fontecha the property supervisor and though
I complained to HUD, San Jose Housing Department and DFEH nothing was ever done and
Lester still supervises the 19 properties in San Jose owner by Core Developments and
managed by EAH Inc.
I have on good authority that Robert Moss’s Reasonable Accommodation to move to the
first floor for health reasons was approved just like Rhonda Engle that is approved but at
a Tenant cost of $500 shortly before he died in apartment #409 right before Rhonda
Engle moves into apartment #409 and the same thing happens to her.
Yes they violate every possible law and regulation and the City of San Jose and the
County of Santa Clara deny the tenants their 14th amendment right to equal access under the law by not enforcing any law or protection for the tenants including the San Jose Tenant Protection Ordinance and HUD regulations or state affordable housing laws.
Markham plaza is not affordable at a flat rent price of $729 and has never been affordable
as the original rent in 2003 was a flat $500 this is corruption and this project was founded
on corruption the law states that it is all a false claim from day one and al subsidies are to
be paid back in full.
Reasonable Acco LETTER - Copy.pdf
39
7-27-2016 - cost 500 dollars…
Letter to Smith - 10.4.17 (00…
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:51 AM Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
wrote:
Jason,
Attorney Bran McComas claims that you are lying about the date the Markham Plaza
Tenant association wasw formed. Her is falsifying court records saying thatb you had
aleady established the Markham Plaza Tenant association way bac in 2012 when Robert Moss was murdered!!!
Please confirm when Markham Plaza Tenant association was created
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 5:22 PM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>
Cc: "kenneth ditkowsky" <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>, "Jason Smith"
<mastermind.it.jason@gmail.com>, "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@yandex.com>, "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@yandex.ru>, "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>,
"Andrea Nunn" <andrea@creatv.media>, Citylab <pitches@citylab.com>, "Linda
Kincaid" <cedarcalifornia@gmail.com>, compliancereview@hcd.ca.gov, "Joanne
Denison" <joanne@denisonlaw.com>, "Maya Esparza" <district7@sanjoseca.gov>,
"emma loop" <emma.loop@buzzfeed.com>, Fairhousing <fairhousing@usdoj.gov>,
"Madeline Howard" <mhoward@wclp.org>, hotline@hudoig.gov,
housingservices@healthtrust.org, "Justice In Aging" <info@justiceinaging.org>,
jeremy4justice@activist.com, "Joe Litigant" <rua@uglyjudge.com>, "Jennifer
Wadsworth" <jenniferw@metronews.com>, "Kate Walz" <katewalz@povertylaw.org>,
"Scott Largent" <scottlargent38@gmail.com>, "Maura Malone"
<whistleblower@hudoig.gov>, hud-pihrc@tngusa.net,
rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com, "Stivers, Mark" <mark.stivers@treasurer.ca.gov>,
"Jason Smith" <markhamplazarc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DRE CASE NO. 519-1119-001 EAH Inc.
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 6:49 PM
From: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>
To: "kenneth ditkowsky" <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Jason Smith" <mastermind.it.jason@gmail.com>, "Cary Andrew Crittenden"
<caryandrewcrittenden@yandex.com>, "Cary Andrew Crittenden"
<caryandrewcrittenden@yandex.ru>, "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>,
"Andrea Nunn" <andrea@creatv.media>, Citylab <pitches@citylab.com>, "Linda
Kincaid" <cedarcalifornia@gmail.com>, compliancereview@hcd.ca.gov, "Joanne
Denison" <joanne@denisonlaw.com>, "Maya Esparza" <district7@sanjoseca.gov>,
"emma loop" <emma.loop@buzzfeed.com>, Fairhousing <fairhousing@usdoj.gov>,
40
"Madeline Howard" <mhoward@wclp.org>, hotline@hudoig.gov, housingservices@healthtrust.org, "Justice In Aging" <info@justiceinaging.org>,
jeremy4justice@activist.com, "Joe Litigant" <rua@uglyjudge.com>, "Jennifer
Wadsworth" <jenniferw@metronews.com>, "Kate Walz"
<katewalz@povertylaw.org>, "Scott Largent" <scottlargent38@gmail.com>,
"Maura Malone" <whistleblower@hudoig.gov>, hud-pihrc@tngusa.net,
rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com, "Stivers, Mark"
<mark.stivers@treasurer.ca.gov>, Susanne <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>,
"Jason Smith" <markhamplazarc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DRE CASE NO. 519-1119-001 EAH Inc.
Thank you Ken,
The complaint # CASE NO. 519-1119-001 EAH Inc. is
that EAH is an Illegal Property Mangaement company as
the original DRE complaint # H-11882 SF accused and
of 4 properties in San Jose managed by EAH, I
complained that the same was being done at Markham
Plaza and then amended all properties that EAH
Manages.
The EAH illegal Prop Mgmt as no DBA for Sierra PM
which shutdown cause DRE reopen PUPM(3).PDF shows
the details of the illegal Sierra Property Management
which DRE complaint # H-11882 SF required them to
shut down and how it was just reopened as Pacific
Union Property Management with same staff and more
agents shows a lack concern or of California DRE's legal
authority. The illegal property management is to
subvert income taxes and regulatory authority.
This document is highlighted showing the relevant data.
Any further questions do not hesitate to ask.
Jason Smith
Markham Plaza Tenant Association
669-244-3169
https://www.facebook.com/markhamplazata/F
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:43 AM kenneth ditkowsky <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I cannot ascertain from the e-mail exactly what the
complaint is concerning the Real Estate firm;
however, most corporations that deal in Real Estate
41
- i.e. sell, service, finance, et al have to comply
with various State statutes to be licensed. In
addition many of the operators of the corporations
also have to be licensed.
In most states, the licensing bureau has a complaint
section. If you have a grievance, a short
concise and accurate statement of the grievance is
enough to obtain a meeting with an officer of the
complaint section to determine if a violation of the
licensing statute exists. If it does, then an
administrative hearing follows to determine if the
license of the offending corporation (and its
operators) should be continued.
Further, most states take great care to protect
consumers from being defrauded. The consumer fraud
section is usually associated with the Attorney
General's office. Here again the process starts
with a short, clear, concise and accurate letter of
complaint. - Always remember the person reading
your complaint usually has zero knowledge of the
facts, no imagination, and zero tolerance for
strings of unsubstantiated allegations. Thus, you
have to cite facts =without self serving conclusions
- that manifest themselves in a violation of law.
Ken Ditkowsky
www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020, 08:38:21 AM CST, Jason Smith
<markhamplazarc@gmail.com> wrote:
MPTA complaint to DRE about EAH being an Illegal property management firm
--
Jason Smith
Markham Plaza Tenant Association
Fair and Healthy Housing for all
markhamplazata@gmail.com Redacted
42
Baumb, Nelly
From:Elan Music <elanloeb@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 6:30 PM
To:robert.jonson@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject:8 can't wait
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am a resident of Barron Park and I support 8 can't wait. Also create institutions other than the police to handle
nonviolent criminal activity!! The police are deadly. Shift money from policing to housing! As a city, you must state that
black lives matter. #defundthepolice #blacklivesmatter
43
Baumb, Nelly
From:Temina Madon <temina@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 5:02 PM
To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian
Subject:Requests for information related to #Black Lives Matters
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor & City Council members,
I am a registered voter in Palo Alto, and I am writing to ask what you are doing, as our city's leaders, to ensure
that police officers in our community are not abusing their power and are held accountable for their actions.
After witnessing the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police Department, I am left feeling
outraged, frustrated, and hurt. The system has failed yet another black man and we are anxiously waiting to see
if the officers responsible for his death will face consequences.
As a resident of Palo Alto, I want to make sure that my local police department is taking the necessary
preventive measures to ensure that incidents like this will not occur in the future. So I ask:
1) Does the City of Palo Alto collaborate with the City of East Palo Alto, to ensure that officers in both cities
are being trained in de-escalation?
2) Is the City of Palo Alto contributing financially to improving the quality of policing and community
outreach/development in our sister city of East Palo Alto, to ensure that adequate resources are provided in
lower-income neighborhoods? A "community" does not follow arbitrary city borders. The exchange of funds,
capabilities, and expertise seems like an important strategy for keeping us all safe and healthy. City and county-
level taxes shouldn't be allocated strictly on the basis of zip code or jurisdiction, but on need. How have you
explored this issue, and what conclusions have you come to?
3) Are police officers in the Cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto aligned in their policies? For example, are
both police forces forbidden from transporting civilians in uncomfortable positions, and from shooting at
moving vehicles? How are officers held accountable if they fail to intervene when witnessing another officer's
use of excessive force?
4) Are East Palo Alto community members involved in the hiring of police officers in Palo Alto? Likewise, are
Palo Alto community members involved in the hiring of officers in East Palo Alto? If not, this should be
considered and reported on.
5) Is there a joint community advisory board that advises police forces in both cities (ie PA and EPA)? I realize
that they fall in different counties, but again communities are not arbitrarily bound by government designations.
6) In PA, is there an early intervention system enforced to correct officers who use excessive force?
Additionally, can you publish the number of complaints an officer has against them, and define the threshold
required for reprimand and punitive action? More than three complaints are unacceptable.
Statistics have indicated that by implementing policies like those above, there is a decrease in civilian assault by
officers exerting excessive force. If any of the policies are not currently in place, then what is being done to
44
ensure that they are going to be enforced in the near future? What can I do, as a concerned citizen, to set these
policies in motion?
I also want to increase the level of trust between the police department and the community. To establish trust,
there has to be transparency. I would like to see the City of Palo Alto and neighboring jurisdictions collect and
report data on civilian deaths that occurred in custody and as a result of an officer’s use of excessive force. The
data should be broken down by demographics and should showcase the race, gender, sexuality, and religion of
the civilians. Allowing the public access to this information will show us where we, as a community, fall short.
Thank you for your time and I hope that we can work together to protect the Palo Alto community.
Sincerely,
Temina Madon
321 Everett Ave, Palo Alto 94301
Redacted