HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200622plCC12701-32
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 12 of 12
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:shuchi sarkar <shuchisarkar2004@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 6:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of University and Cal Ave Proposal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I support the closure of University Ave and Cal Ave and keeping cross roads open so businesses can start getting safe
spaces and come back to health and we can practice social distancing while eating out
Shuchi Sarkar
Resident of Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Open Streets/Safe Streets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council Study Session: Open Streets. 6/8/20
Good evening Mayor Fine and Palo Alto Council Members,
My name is Gail Price, Board President of Palo Alto Forward
We support the implementation of Open Streets/Safe Streets. We support restaurants and retail and an
energized economy.
During and post Covid‐19, it is important to expand outdoor retail and dining spaces while supporting
economic activities and vitality of all types of businesses.
By enhancing economic recovery, you can combine safe distancing and public health benefits by promoting
more walkable areas in various areas, including University and California Avenues.
This is not a radical concept; many other communities have adopted these programs, including the use of
parklets.
In fact, several years ago, Palo Alto Forward created two demonstration parklets, including one on University
Avenue. It had furniture and seating areas, moveable greenery in pots, and some shade. Many people enjoyed
its novelty and function. It was attractive and illustrated how easily more active walkable and livable
communities can be created.
Cities are organic and re‐invent themselves. The City should reflect changing conditions and embrace this
concept. It merges flexibility, safety, business, and new outcomes. Thank you.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Maria Jenson <maria@jenson.org>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please close the streets as a way to support restaurants and businesses
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Maria Jenson
612‐669‐0732
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Govinda Rajan <kngrajan@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing blocks on Univ. Avenue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi
I strongly support the proposal of closing blocks on University Ave and California Ave to cars (while still keeping cross
streets open, so as to minimize the impact on traffic). This will allow restaurants to offer more outdoor dining, and allow
pedestrians more space to walk around safely as well.
Govinda Rajan
Kenneth Drive
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Eric Nordman <eric.nordman12@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Temporary closing streets for restaurant use is a good idea
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
City Council:
I hope you will support the proposal to close streets temporarily to provide outdoor space for restaurants. This will not
only help the restaurants, it will help minimize the spread by allowing more generous spacing of tables.
Sincerely,
Eric and Kathy Nordman
2150 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Steven Chanin <steven_chanin@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of "Parklets" and Street Closure's for restaurants
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Councilpeople,
My neighbor, Don Jackson, wrote a very detailed and clear letter in support of "Parklets" and Street Closure’s (copy
below). I support the ideas he endorses, so rather than copy and paste and create work for you, please treat me email as
a “+1” for Don’s suggestions.
Thanks,
Steven Chanin
857 Waverley St
Palo Alto, CA 94301
========
Honorable Councilpeople,
I’ve previously written emails regarding my support for actions to facilitate outdoor dining on our streets (appended
below),
and I am pleased to see the Council/Staff study session on this topic at the 2020‐06‐08 meeting.
After further conversations with restaurant owners,
I have refined and focused my earlier thoughts,
and I now propose and support the following specific actions:
Authorize a parklet program.
Enable restaurant/business owners to apply to construct parklets in front of their establishments,
with as streamlined and expedited approval as soon as possible.
Parklets help restaurants in any location in Palo Alto, not just those on University or California Avenues.
Specifics to include:
Entitle parklet permit holders with exclusive use of the parket.
Waive any/all fees for these permits
Yearly renewal of permits is reasonable
Expedited support for relocation of any “short duration only” parking spot eliminated by a parklet to a nearby
parking spot.
Restaurant owners have shared their concern that if their parklet would remove a drop‐off/short‐duration
parking spot
that is important to a neighboring business, that the City to provide a streamlined procedure to have any such
parking space
relocated to minimize the impact on their neighbors.
2
Authorize public consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a meal outdoors within parklets and at
sidewalk tables.
This authorization should be coupled with the parklet/sidewalk permit,
in the (unlikely) event of repeated/ongoing compliance violations,
it would then provide a targeted and focused tool to motivate resolution.
Do NOT require a new/additional permit to serve alcohol in a parklet or the sidewalk
The Staff reports mentions the following concerns:
Parklet installation expense:
I understand and sympathize that some restaurant owners may find the expense of creating a parklet beyond
their current means.
It is unfortunate that in the current fiscal climate, Palo Alto is not in a position to provide a cost‐sharing
program to parklet creators,
as our neighbor Menlo Park did a couple years ago…but to paraphrase Voltaire, “let us not make perfection the
enemy of the good”,
authorizing/enabling our restaurant owners who are so able to create parklets is clearly in the best interest of the
City and residents/diners.
I believe the above two actions are the of the highest priority, and I urge Council to direct Staff to implement them
ASAP.
Other actions identified in the Staff report:
Authorize "Sidewalk Dining", and "Conversion of Private Parking for Outdoor Dining or Retail Display”
I support both these actions, but they are appropriate/applicable to a smaller number of businesses, so of lower priority
than the above.
Street Closures
This proposal does not help restaurant owners not located on University or California Avenues, a significant limitation.
What are we going to do for: Evvia, Taverna, Bird Dog, Tacolicious, Delfina, Reposado, Zola, Bistro Elan, Osteria Toscana,
and others?
The Staff report provided a good analysis of the differences between California and University Avenues.
For restaurants on University and California, my concern is that temporary street closures will not enable
restaurant owners to set up tables on a long term basis,
they’d need to remove/store/replace outdoor seating constantly.
They’d be better off with parklets and sidewalk dining!
Combined with the street‐closure impact on non‐restaurant businesses,
this seems to be a far less effective solution, with much higher adminstrative/logistical “costs”.
I feel that the parklet, sidewalk dining, and private‐parking‐lot proposals are more effective, less complex,
and have far fewer negative consequences, and are appropriate for ALL restaurant/business locations.
Given the limited capacity/bandwidth of Staff time for these proposals, I don’t want Street Closures consideration
to delay the other proposals.
Respectfully,
3
Don Jackson
Thanks,
Steve
_____________________
Steven Chanin
steven_chanin@alum.mit.edu
(415) 377-7503
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Carol J Kersten <chavet@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:100% supportive of street closures to help restaurants and retailers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council,
I was thrilled to learn that Palo Alto is considering temporary closures of California Avenue and University Avenue to
allow restaurants to spread out their outdoor tables and pedestrians to stroll with more space and opportunity for social
distancing.
We want to be as supportive as possible to our local restaurants and businesses. And now is an excellent time to try this,
given much lower levels of traffic.
In addition, pedestrian zones in many historic cities in Europe has been very successful and have resulted in a much
more humanized and enjoyable experience for local residents. I have loved strolling through pedestrian streets, often
closed just in the evenings, sometimes all the time, in several places in Europe.
I think this is a wonderful idea and strongly urged you to implement that this. Thank you for your thoughtful
consideration.
Carol
Carol Kersten
910 California Ave.,
Palo Alto, CA 94306
ckersten@Stanford.edu
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:support for idea of closing blocks to allow restaurants and pedestrians more room
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I am writing in support of the idea of closing some blocks of University and Calif Ave's to allow restaurants to
expand their serving space allowing for physical distancing, while also making it possible for pedestrians to
have their distancing. Since on Calif Ave both sides of the street have alleys or parking behind them, people
could still access the stores from their cars for pickups. I'm not sure how that would work on University ‐ to be
worked out. But the basic idea is excellent. Keep Lytton and Hamilton as "thru‐ways", and Cambridge for Calif
Ave.
Virginia Smedberg
441 Washington Ave
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support outdoor dinning on University Ave and Cal Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please support the closure of University Ave and Cal Ave to promote outdoor dinning to help bring back our downtown
areas.
There is support for this from the merchants, the Chamber of Commerce and the community as well. A pilot program
would be a great way to start this. It is also a great way to support a more livable, walkable and sustainable business
district while reducing SOV, and GHGs while promoting a more healthy life style. This is a great alinement of Palo Alto
values and priorities that should be implemented ASAP!
Sincerely,
David Coale
Barron Park
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John McDowell <john@mcdowell.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Monday night: Temporarily close blocks of University Ave for dining and retail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council:
I've personally talked to hundreds of residents and businesses who feel it's important‐‐ if not necessary‐‐ to close blocks
of University Ave for outdoor retail and dining. We ask you to please hear and support us.
This is obviously a critical time to support our restaurants and retailers. The future of our downtown is at stake.
At least on University Avenue this summer, parklets or sidewalk tables alone WON'T be a sufficient solution to address
the table space shortage due to COVID‐19.
With 6 foot spacing, parklets alone represent perhaps 10‐15% of former restaurant table space. Without a wide
pedestrian walkway, parklets and sidewalk tables also impede 6‐foot spacing of tables from pedestrians and order‐
pickup areas. It's far from the best solution, at least for the restaurants on University Ave.
We ask you to:
Open University Ave to pedestrians, retail, and dining tables.
Put a wide bidirectional walking path down the center of the street.
o This keeps pedestrians away from tables, servers, and order pickup traffic.
Make this change 24/7.
o A partial‐week schedule limits options and investment in the right experience.
Keep cross streets open to cars.
o There could be dedicated order‐pickup and handicap parking places on the side streets. Restaurants on
side streets can use parklets as the best available solution.
Schedule this plan through this summer.
o To mitigate below concerns, commit to not making it permanent without continued support from
businesses and those concerned about parking and traffic.
Minor concerns expressed in my poll, as an FYI:
1. A few residents: Long‐term parking and traffic when COVID‐19 ends (assuming employees don't continue to
work from home)
2. A few businesses: I'd be okay with trying it if I weren't concerned that it would likely become permanent
Mitigation: Let's focus now on this solution as a COVID‐19 mitigation during the summer. After we try it, we'll have so
much more data.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Steve Wehrend <steve@wehrend.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing University & Cal Ave to traffic
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi,
I was born and raised in Palo Alto and am very much in support of closing both these streets to car traffic. I’ve seen it
work well in Boulder (where I lived for many years before returning to Palo Alto) and believe it’ll also work well in Palo
Alto. And, given Covid‐19, being able to dramatically increase the amount of outdoor restaurant seating seems both
wise and good for business. Additionally, the removal of traffic will make for a much more pleasant and healthy
retail/dining experience. Please seriously consider doing this.
Thanks,
Steve Wehrend
746 Greer Rd
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Caroline Peres <cperes@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Temporarily closing Palo Alto streets for restaurants
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello
Our family has been Palo Alto residents for 17 years. We are strongly in support of closing some
streets temporarily to allow retails and restaurants to spread out in the streets and support more
diners. It serves two purposes: 1. allow families to go out and see the world after being cooped up for
3 months. 2. allow restaurants and retails to survive this crisis.
Growing up in Europe, I really enjoyed dining outside. This is the perfect opportunity to get more of
that. Let's turn this crisis in an opportunity.
Thank you
Caroline Peres
1863 Channing Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:14 PM
To:Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject:June 8, 2020 Council Meeting, Item #8: Restaurant Seating on City Property
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
June 7, 2020
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JUNE 8, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #8
RESTAURANT SEATING ON CITY PROPERTY
Dear City Council:
If the City of Palo Alto allows restaurants to use City property to seat
the restaurants' customers, then the ultimate beneficiary of that action
is the restaurants' landlords who capture the rent for that use by
calculating a restaurant's rent based on the number of seated customers as
a surrogate for the rent per square foot of leased space.
The City should allow a restaurant to seat its customers on City property
only if the restaurant's landlord agrees to pay the City the City's pro
rata share of the rent paid to the landlord based on the relative number
of seats in the landlord's property and the City's property.
The original idea of permitting eating and drinking establishments to use
City property for their businesses was to move some of the establishment's
seating from inside the restaurant to outside the restaurant during warm
weather. If the total number of seats inside and outside the leased
premises was more than the number permitted by the Zoning Ordinance inside
the establishment, then the establishment would be obligated to pay the
City an in-lieu parking fee for the additional seating based on one
parking space for each four additional seats.
The permission to use the City right-of-way required a permit that was
discretionary. I am not aware that staff ever made an effort to determine
2
when the total seating increased for any establishment to enable staff to
charge and collect the required in-lieu parking fee.
Then the City Manager issued a staff report at the beginning a long City
Council summer vacation that used a staff interpretation to remove the
discretionary aspect of the permit, and said all establishments were
entitled to use City property. No mention was made of the requirement for
an in-lieu parking fee in that staff report.
Now, the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce would like the City to use its
sidewalks, streets, and parking lots for restaurant seating to enable
landlords to continue to collect rent from restaurants for seating that
the City would be providing under the guise that the purpose of using City
property in this way is to help the restaurants and the public when the
true purpose is to create windfall profits for property owners.
Consistent with past practice of the Chamber of Commerce for all
development projects, the proposal completely ignores the effect that
using the City's streets and parking lots for seated customers would have
on traffic and parking, including the effect on the Downtown Residential
Preference Parking Program.
Also missing is any summary of the past closure of University Avenue to
channel all traffic to Hamilton Avenue and Lytton Avenue that was reversed
after a short trial that created a negative impact on retail businesses at
a time when the amount of traffic and parking in the Downtown commercial
area was a fraction of the current levels.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:JOHN HERB <john@herbpartners.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Street Closure on University Ave and California Ave.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I’m writing to support the closure of sections of University and California Avenues in order to facilitate safe pedestrian
traffic in these areas while enabling restaurants and other businesses to expand customer service onto the sidewalk and
street areas. The City needs to do all it can to help restart economic life in the service industry while maintaining safe
practices to prevent COVID‐19 transmission. The street closures seem like an obvious step towards that end. I’m sure
there will be much whining about the inconvenience caused but we can all accept some inconvenience to help people
restart their livelihoods.
Sincerely,
John A. Herb, Ph.D.
2625 Middlefield Rd., #593
Palo Alto, CA 94306
john@herbpartners.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Maria Lines <lines.maria@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:46 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Maria Lines
Subject:Support for Closing university and cal ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear PA City Council,
I have lived in Palo Alto for 32 years and have always lived within walking distance of university ave. One of the reasons I
live so close to University is the great accessibility to services such as delicious food at many restaurants. Before I moved
to Palo Alto, I grew up in Burlington, Vermont where my Dad owned a diner. You may know that Burlington has a street
running through downtown called church street. It has been a pedestrian only street for 44 years. Initially it was very
controversial among many of the small businesses that lined church street and the cross streets. Once implemented it’s
become a model across the country for how to have such a wonderful community asset. It attracts tourists from all over
the northeast who love to sit outside to dine, stroll the few blocks with friends, listen to different live music acts or hang
out while eating their Ben and Jerry’s ice cream cone.
In summary, I fully support closing both University Avenue and California Avenue to traffic. I belive doing this will create
an inviting atmosphere for people to dine outdoors and thus help our restaurants stay in business during a very
challenging time.
Thanks for your consideration,
Maria Lines
173 Waverley St
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Nancy Panayides <nancyp01@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing downtown streets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
This email is to serve as my support for the closing off parts of University, Emerson, and California Ave to allow outdoor
dining in the streets. This allows us to observe social distancing while allowing restaurants to have enough patrons to
help profitability.
Nancy Panayides
974 Elsinore Court
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dianne E. Jenett <djenett@serpentina.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please shut University Avenue to help restaurants
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dianne Jenett, Ph.D.
330 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
djenett@serpentina.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Patricia L Devaney <devaney@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of closing CA Ave &University for restaurants
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
This is a great idea! I’m all for it. Just a suggestion: close Birch St too just between Cambridge and halfway between
California Ave and Sherman. That would allow four more restaurants to have street dining, including my favorite Pro
Bono!
Way to go, folks!
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jean Kirsch <psyki346@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:closing University and California Aves to cars
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I support the move!! We can do it, for certain blocks, during specified hours or permanently. Let's try it for summer
dining! It will bring new life to our downtown restaurants and retail stores, who need our support!
Jean Kiirsch
1748 Fulton St
94303
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Hilary Glann <hglann@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:27 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Please Close University and Cal Ave to cars to support local businesses
Attachments:nextdoor feedback on road closures.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Ed and City Council Members:
I wanted to voice my strong support for proposals to allow restaurants to take advantage of the street to provide safe
places for people to eat in our City. Al fresco will be the only way for me to eat in public in the foreseeable future as it
will be the only public place I’ll be comfortable without a mask. Palo Alto has some of the best weather in the world, and
that puts us in a great position to move dining outdoors for as many months as we can during this pandemic.
We love how Cal Ave has been transformed to a destination location over the years due to the Farmer’s Market street
closure, and will be delighted to see that extended to more days of the week, as well as to University.
In case you missed it, I captured screen shots from Nextdoor of a discussion thread about these street closures. Most of
the comments are positive and there are a few neutral and some negative ones. There is one resident who is
vehemently against the idea, and she weighs in about 10 times in the thread.
Thank you,
Hilary Glann
hglann@gmail.com
Nextdoor “Survey”
• • Britt Richards. South of Midtown v
How do you feel if streets like University Ave, California and other
streets were shut down so that restaurants could use these areas
(and parking lots) to serve their customers?
We have so many restaurants that are struggling. They are a great reason why this
area is unique -they are part of our community. Even if they can open. it means that
they can't serve people at t he bar and many ta bles will need to be taken out. They
need to be able to serve the same number of people to remain profitable. but in a
safe. socially distanced manner. What better way t han to use our parki ng lots and
our streets for the seating. We accommodate the orange cones and the street
shutdown to pave -why not do it to save our restaurants? Many other cities are
doing this.
Yes -This is a great idea. Dinner al fresco!
No -I don't care if the restaurants close.
886votes
28 May · 41 neighborhoods in General
Q Thank CJ Comment v •• 19 Q 70
B
II
Sophia Christel, Barron Park v
I've been saying for years that University should be closed permanently to car
t raffic! It's so lovely when they turn it into a promenade during World Music
Day every year. And driving on University is a pa in anyway!
29 May Thank Reply .. ·1 8
Judith Wasserman, Leland Manor v
Actually. that was done years ago and the street began to die. Maybe times
have changed -who knows?
29 May Thank Reply 3
II Judith Wasserman, Leland Manor v
Hard to know -I think people wanted to park in front of the stores they
were going into. It was so long ago that no one in the Planning Dept was
here then. We have lost our institutional memory.
29 May Thank Reply .•• 2
El Sophia Smith, Ventura v
Perhaps times have changed in a way that now we have more gourmet
places with meals and coffees and desserts and cocktails available so
perhaps people want to sit around outside and linger and enjoy outdoors
29 May Thank Reply . . 1
II Judith Wasserman, Leland Manor v
Yes, I agree. I think the t imes HAVE changed. In the past retai l really
meant stores with things to buy, so people went in, came out and left in
t heir cars. Stanford Shopping Center was new and big competition. Now,
as Soph ia and Laura say, it's restaurants and cafes. I also voted yes.
Last time they closed University, they made Hamilton and Lytton one way
in opposite directions. I think t hat served to bypass University altogether.
No one is talking about doing that now.
30 May Thank Reply . . 1
Add a reply ...
Laura Eager, College Terrace v
I vote yes because I love to support local restaurants as much as possible.
Being a small business owner isn't easy, especially during a pandemic. As long
as t here are protocols in place to keep staff and customers safe. we should find
ways to keep restaurants open.
30 May Thank Reply " 4
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
We can all park in front of your house, then? We will leave around 10 or
10:30 at night, talk loudly to our fri ends or on our cell phones (after all,
we have been drinking), and slam our doors as we roar out.
30 May Thank Reply .,
(iJ Anne Keller, South of Midtown v
I voted yes but I think parking lots should stay open.
30 May Thank Reply •• 2
a Sophia Smith, Ventura v
Anne Keller -I'm sure the original poster meant outdoor parking slots
such as the ones inside California Ave
Edited 30 May Thank Reply
IJ Judith Wasserman, Leland Manor v
:
I think she meant only the surface parking lots would be used for eating.
Not much fun sipping wine in a garage!
30 May Thank Reply • 1 1
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
I think the idea is to use t he sidewalks and the parking spaces in front of
restaurants for dining ... cars would have go park in garages, lots, or in
t he residential areas.
30 May Thank Reply
Britt Richards, South of Midtown
Carol Scott The thought was to use both the street and some surface
parking lots (across from the Patio and Ew ia) in and around University
Ave (by Thaiphoon and Scotty's) so that they had the same seating
capacity but spread out. Using only sidewalk seating ca n"t work but
having a few blocks with no cars would be worth it. I understand that it
will create additional parking nightmares for the surrounding area.
30 May Thank Reply
. . 1
v
a Sophia Smith, Ventura v
It reminds me: when traveling in Italy or Greece, the waiters from
restaurants carrying trays and plates would cross a street. sometimes even
street with cars driving through, to get to t heir restaurant's outdoor
seating area on the other side of the street ...
30 May Thank Reply . . 1
•
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
Yes. Britt it will. Tha nk you for acknowledging it. Can we park at your
house??? Cars from dining leave late at night. People do not leave
quietly. but talk loudly especially when they have been drinking or on
t heir cell phones. They slam car doors. They roar off. rewing their
engines. The people in the home in front of which they parked cannot
sleep. I know --I live on Park Blvd just across from Stanford. and on
evenings where Stanford has had an event, it is loud even when windows
are shut. It is lovely to support restaurants --I agree --but the City has to
have a plan to keep people in the neighborhood who are already
innudated with worker parking during the day protected from intrusions
even at night. Add t he constant traffic at night with the airplane noise
overhead. and it becomes intolerable. Demand t hat residents get some
consideration from t he City and the rest of us who only drop in for
entertainment.
Edited 30 May Thank Reply • • 1
Add a reply ...
Perry Randall, California ave Easy v
If you look at Santa Monica for exam pie. the third street promenade has always
been a gem of the retail world.
Their model relies on making ample parking available adj acent to major
entrances to the promenade, using one way streets around the promenade,
and making it accessible by effective public transportation.
I think this is something we should pursue permanently with University Ave.
How ca n we bring this to the city's attention?
30 May Thank Reply
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park
.. 3
v
Exactly. The City of Santa Monica has provided parking and not dumped
everything onto t he neighborhoods surrounding it. They acknowledge
t hat people bring cars and plan for it. Palo Alto insists that no one drives
and ignores the issue.
30 May Thank Reply . . 1
II Judith Wasserman, Leland Manor v
I am not at all familiar with Santa Monica, but University Avenue in Palo Alto is
a freeway off-ramp and direct connection to Stanford (it's not called
"University" Avenue for nothing!), so t he amount of t hrough traffic is
something to be considered. I don't mean it should be the primary concern,
but it is a factor.
Edited 30 May Thank Reply
Perry Randall, California ave Easy
That's a great point.
-1
v
I have seen Palo Alto take measures in the recent past to restrict the flow
of traffic to promote neighborhood quality (narrowing of middlefield).
That might be the compromise we make here to ensure our favorite local
businesses can flourish in t he age of distancing.
Do we have any open city data on traffic flow?
30 May Thank Reply
'+ See 6 more replies
Michelle Shabtai, Green Acres II v
Great idea! If we could bring the farmers market there too it would be nice.
And music in the summer evenings. Opening up this space will hopefully bring
community together. while keeping mindfully safe.
30 May Thank Reply
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
Lovely. We'll all park at your house. We will leave late at night after the
your kids and you have gone to bed. We will talk loudly as we come back
to our car either to our friends or on our cell phone, we will slam multiple
doors as we get into our cards, and roar off as we depart. I'm sure you
will enjoy the experience. Nice idea, but the City has no plans for any
useful public transportation and no plans to protect the neighborhoods.
Demand that protection, and I'm all for it.
Edited 30 May Thank Reply
:
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
Lovely. We'll all park at your house. We will leave late at nig ht after the
your kids and you have gone to bed. We will talk loudly as we come back
to our car either to our friends or on our cell phone, we will slam multiple
doors as we get into our cards, and roar off as we d epart. I'm sure you
will enjoy the experi ence. Nice idea, but the City has no plans for any
useful public transportation and no plans to protect the neighborhoods.
Demand that protection. and I'm all for it.
Edited 30 May Thank Reply
Britt Richards, South of Midtown v
Carol Scott there is plenty of parking on University ave away from the
restaurants. There is parking on the backside of the police station. There
are spaces t hat are still commercial and residential and have parking. That
is what I'm speaking about. Most of Ham ilton has parking and is non-
residential and has few restaurants on it. That would be ok to park there.
It's for a limited t ime -not a permanent change.
30 May Thank Reply
,f.:t:. l">c~ Cynthia Hamilton, Evergreen Park v
I think this would be great. As for the parking situat ion, there are plenty
of spaces in the garages and non residential sid e streets to accommodate
locals. This would be a temporary solution for the restaurants during the
pandemic. There won't be hoards of out of town-ers coming down for
brunch, dinner. and bar hopping.
The only doubt would be the fact that it is a main artery to and from
Stanford/101. Though that could easily be diverted to Embarcadero
(which is also a traffic nightmare on a regular day. but basically all of Pa lo
Alto is ... On a regular day.)
6 days ago Thank Reply
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park
Britt Richards I hope you are right. Every time I have been downtown, I
have had a very hard time finding a place to park. Everyone is always
eager to volunteer someone else's neighborhood.
Edited 6 days ago Thank Reply
v
m
m
•
: Britt Richards, South of Midtown v
Carol Scott I understand NIMBY for new housing developments and other
things (I lived in SF and had a homeless shelter put in the parking lot
across from my apartment!) Supporting and ensu ring the survival of small
businesses increases the value of the community as it keeps the vibrancy.
The surrounding streets and some parking space towers and other streets
can take the burden. People just won't be able to 'pa rk directly in front'
of the business for awhile. Sma ll price to pay for ensuring livelihoods and
keeping Pa lo Alto a good place to live. Walking a few blocks more doesn't
seem to be too much to ask for a limited t ime.
6 days ago Thank Reply
Add a reply ...
Elsie Garetto, Triple Eljleland Manor
Yes, great idea!
30 May Thank Reply
Hilary Glann, Barron Park
v
v
Yes! It's safer for everyone if we can eat outside AND it helps local businesses
6 days ago Thank Reply .,
Hayat Saba, Midtown v
Excellent idea.
6 days ago Thank Reply
Maureen Roddy, Midtown v
Thank you for trying to help local businesses! I know Zombie Runner on
California Ave d eclined offers of people to do a Go-Fund-Me for them because
they didn't want to distract donations from food kitchens and other essential
charities -but I'm sure they need support too. I am buying their beans and hot
drinks on Wed. & Sun. 10-1 when they are open.
6 days ago Thank Reply
Emily Young, South of Midtown v
Great Idea!!!!!!!
6 daysaqo Thank Reply
•• 2
Andy Daniel, Fairmeadow v
First of all. I find the two choices you are offering loaded. I would enjoy dinner
al fresco and I do care if the restaurants close. But closing a main street like
University would cut off streets behind it create a bunch of cul-d e-sacs making
the trarrfic situation worse. and it would be harmful for those business that are
doing ta ke-out or that are not restaurants. It would also be more difficult for
people who depend on handicapped spaces.
California Avenue is closed using t he weekly Farmer's Market and it does fine,
and with the Caltrain tracks it's already not a through street. so it might work
better t here.
6 days ago Thank Reply .. ·1 •• 5
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
Not really. There are people trying to live their lives there, too.
6 days ago Thank Reply
m Danny Epstein, Green Acres II
Agreed about t he survey being biased but I think closing some core
streets is a good idea. University Ave isn't a good street to drive on
anyway.
Edited 3 days ago Thank Reply
Glenn Story, Greenmeadow
v
• 1 1
v
I agree with you: t he question as asked is highly biased. Whether you
t hink closing University is a good idea or not, a poll with an answer "No I
don't care about restaurants" is not going to garner many no votes.
3 days ago Thank Reply .. ·1 2
Iii Pattie Rotondo Rotondo, Monroe Park v
Glenn Story It is pretty classic "push" poll wording. Hence, my concern
t hat the poll will later be used to justify the permanent closing of streets,
excluding a significant portion of the community from ready access to
businesses on those streets.
3 days ago Thank Reply .. ·1 2
Add a reply ...
B
Katie Kamnetz, Ventura v
Is it possible t hat people are more inclined to walk or bike to these streets
now? Bicycles are on back-order around t he country and more people are
looking for ways to get exercise since gyms are closed. On the days that Cal
Ave has a farmers market. there is a huge increase in bikes in the racks. I really
don't know if it is enough to make a difference on university. but it might be a
factor to consider.
5 days ago Thank Reply
Eleanor Lin, Greenmeadow v
It might be wise to add additional handicap parking on adjacent streets and/or
parking for business employees. I am happy to walk or bike in.
5 days ago Thank Reply
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
And where would you like to put these additional parking places? Over
150 permits for employees are already sold in Evergreen Park and 150 in
Mayfield (south of California Ave.). My neighborhood should not be
t reated like a parking lot for t he rest of Palo Alto.
4 days ago Thank Reply
Annemarie Lekkerkerker, Evergreen Park
It's a shame they didn't close down Cal Ave for cars when they were
restructuring a couple years ago. Blew my mind back t hen. such a great
opportunity to have a European style promenade, works over there, why
wouldn't it work here.
People need to get rid of that attachment to t heir car. a little stroll won't hurt
you.
v
5 days ago Thank Reply ..• 3
Iii Pattie Rotondo Rotondo, Monroe Park v
That's easy to say if you don't have mobility issues.
5 days ago Thank Reply
Annemarie Lekkerkerker, Evergreen Park
But do you than always need a car or are there other means to get
around even with mobility issues?
It definitely creates a more safe environment for all people .
v
a Pattie Rotondo Rotondo, Monroe Park v
Annemarie Lekkerkerker Perhaps it is safer without cars, but that
excludes people who are less mobile from using t hese businesses.
Actually. depending on the rules, some of these "no car" zones feel less
safe to me because bicycles weave in and out of the area and are both
more difficult to see due to size and moving faster than a car would in t he
same area.
I just hope t hat people consider t hat not everybody is able to do the
same things. I often see comments when these sorts of posts come up to
t he effect of "We shou ld ban cars there and people can walk or bike in."
I'm j ust saying t hat not everybody can do t hat. Many older people can't
just hop on a bike and rid e into the area and many can't walk multiple
blocks from their cars to get into an area where cars aren't allowed.
And having disabled parking nearby isn't helpful to everyone. Some older
people aren't technically disabled -they just find it more difficult to walk
longer distances. I am hoping that people consider t he abilities of
everyone when they talk about making things more difficult to do.
Maybe it isn't a big deal for me to walk 5 blocks to get to a restaurant.
but that doesn't mean my 80 year old cousin feels the same.
5 days ago Thank Reply
Add a reply ...
Luis Carreno, Barron Park v
I support this idea, hope they do it soon
5 days ago Thank Reply .,
Carol Scott. Evergreen Park
Great. Then can we all park in front of your house over the weekend,
coming and going at all hours, maki ng noise, and leaving trash?
5 days ago Thank Reply
v
a
• •
Tom Knotts, Duveneck -St. Francis v
I don't want to die an agonizing death of Covid-19. But I can live without
restaurants. The choice for me is an easy one. Stay away and be safe. I feel bad
for businesses t hat are suffering but this virus was t hrust upon us and we have
no choice but to adjust to t he new reality. Instead of focusing our efforts on
opening restaurants in parking lots we should be focusing our efforts on
preventing the wet markets in China for reopening. Otherwise we might all
have to go through this yet again.
5 days ago Thank Reply
Britt Richards, South of Midtown v
The restaurants will open and life will go on in a modifi ed manner. It will be
important to support ways where we can bot h have businesses and restaurants
open and do it safely. I think for a certain part of the population staying away
from everyone is critical to staying safe. The wet markets -good luck
petitioning China. Maybe after the investigation into the virus' origin is
determined to be from there, we may see some changes. No country
(Democratic or communist) will submit to a change of traditions. We too would
give a stiff middle finger if someone told us no more BBQ after t he swine flu
epidemic. No chance of us quitting pigs especially at a foreign government's
request/demand. Stay safe!
5 days ago Thank Reply
8 Tom Knotts, Duveneck -St. Francis v
Good point about the swine flu.
5 days ago Thank Reply
Henry Heller, Leland Manor
The options could've been worded a bit better.. you're shaming ppl into
choosing the first option. Closing the streets where the restaurants ca n
(keyword CAN) prevent ppl like the elderly or handicapped from otherwise
having a short clear path into the establishment.
Edited 4 days ago Thank Reply
.• 2
v
• • 1
• • Britt Richards, South of Midtown v
Sadly, for many restaurants, there are no options. It will be either open the
street or they will close the restaurant. It's not meant to shame. We have had a
number of views that said disturbing neighborhoods or, as you mentioned, a
handicap person can't easily get there are critical issues to consider. Both valid
reasons for you to say don't open the streets because there are issues for the
community that outweigh the benefit of opening the restaurants-6% feel this
way. Many people often vote and then not realize the downstream
consequences! :) My intent wasn't to shame but ensure a clear decision would
be made. For you, handicap accessibility to park right in front of the restaurant
> keeping a restaurant open.
4 days ago Thank Reply
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
The point is not whether or not to open the streets, but whether t he a
City has a plan that consider these issues. My point is that the City has a
t remendous outreach to businesses, but NONE to residents or to people
in the community that would surface these issues. The City should have
consulted ALL 'stakeholders' as they like to call us and made a better plan.
Maybe it has such a plan, but if it does, I have heard not hing about it.
Edited 4 days ago Thank Reply
Iii Pattie Rotondo Rotondo, Monroe Park v
I think my greatest concern is that people will, should this plan be
implemented, resist returning t he street to its current usage after the
need for outdoor dining. They will only think of how much they
personally like it without regard for the large percentage of the
community that will be excluded from using those businesses. I don't
object to temporary changes to deal with the cu rrent situation. I object
to using t he current situation to make a permanent change that excludes
people.
4 days ago Thank Reply
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park
Once t his is done. it is going to be extremely hard if not impossible to
change it back.
4 days ago Thank Reply
.. 2
v
•
II
Andrew Lum, Midtown
kinda biased poll
4 days ago Thank
v
Reply ..• ·1 3
Janice Bruner, Fairmeadow v
I think it's an absolutely lovely idea. I remember being entranced with Verona.
Italy for the streets closed to traffic at night. Restaurants ca rried tables and
chairs outside to serve dinner late into t he night. Elderly men carried their
chairs out to t he sidewalk to sit and chat with neighbors t hey had probably
known t heir entire lifetime.
Suddenly, the little city belonged to the people, their families. friends and lives.
The cars were relegated to an indifferent spot. quiet out of the way taking their
raucous foul smelling exhaust with them.
I say let the cities belong to the people!
3 days ago Thank Reply ... 3
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park
And where is that quiet indifferent spot for cars? I would love it if t he
City would tell me where that is.
3 days ago Thank Reply
v
IJ Janice Bruner, Fairmeadow v
Carol Scott I don't know Ca rol, but their cities are built of stone and
have been around for hundreds of years so restructuring would be a bit
more difficult than here. However, they did and got to enjoy their
neighbors rather than their cars.
Seems like a wort hwh ile exchange to me.
2 days ago Thank Reply .• 2
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park
The City should belong to all of its residents. Pitting one resident's
enjoyment against anot her resident's ability to sleep is not a good
solution. The City has a responsibility to provide the t ransportation.
v
t raffic control. and parking that will protect resid ents negatively affected.
I support trying to help restaurants and other retailers. I do not support
t he City maki ng plans based solely on input from the business community
with no known plans not to j ust dump all of the negative consequences
on adjacent neighborhoods.
El Sophia Smith, Ventura v
Carol Scott It is impossible to please everyone. When i go visit my
cousin, there is a noisy bar nearby, soi sleep with earplugs. Makes huge
difference!
2 days ago Thank Reply
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park v
Sophia Smith This is about the most insensitive comment I have ever
read. You go to a noisy area by choice. I did not move to a
neighborhood that was used as a parking lot. There were no problems
until the City decided to building large office buildings with no parking. If
the City wishes to decide now to make California Ave, then it has a
responsibility not to destroy homes. You live in Ventura. You should be
aware of the problems that are caused when the City doesn't not consider
the vi ews of its residents. Wow. Telling people that they have to sleep
with ear plugs in their own homes so someone else can use their
neighborhood as a pa rking lot for their own pleasure is pretty rich.
2 days ago Thank Reply
El Sophia Smith, Ventura
Carol Scott You totally took it wrong way! I was j ust trying to help and
suggest a solution --in case the streets do get closed and people w ill
park near your house.
Edited 2 days ago Thank Reply
Add a reply ...
Erika Enos, College Terrace
• • 1
v
•• 2
v
Why not try to close the street 1 night a week (like Mtn Vw does w/Castro st on
t hurs nights) & see if it's workable-even for a single night or a couple nights a
week. Much easier to put 1 toe in the water t han j ump in from the diving board
-erika enos
22 hr ago Thank Reply
El Sophia Smith, Ventura
Erika: The current plan is "The pilot closures would initially run from
Thursday mornings through Sunday evenings"
Edited 22 hr ago Thank Reply
.. 3
v
•• 2
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Catherine Fitzgerald <cathy@fitzgroup.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Close University and California Ave's!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi City Council,
What a great idea given our times: close traffic on University and California Ave’s, and turn the streets over to
restaurants and pedestrians! This will support the small businesses to get back into business and provide citizens a
lasting sample of one of the good things Covid gave us: walking on our peaceful streets!
Please VOTE YES on this! Increase the quality of life in Palo Alto.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Catherine Fitzgerald
765 University
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Christopher Gaines <chris@performancegaines.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:50 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Nick Weiss
Subject:Re: Pilot Shared Streets for California Avenue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Ed and Palo Alto City Council,
I hope this message finds you all safe and healthy. An email was forwarded to me regarding the upcoming
discussion on street closures for University and California Avenue streets. While I cannot speak for the
businesses on University Avenue, as a co-owner of PerformanceGaines on California Avenue, the idea to
close California Avenue to traffic sounds like a good one. I would also suggest that Birch remain open as it's a
common thoroughfare that many people use to access California Avenue from Oregon Expressway.
Please let me know if there is anything further I can do to help with this pilot.
In Health,
Chris
When you change how you move, you change how you live.
Christopher Gaines, Founder/Director of Programming, PerformanceGaines
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. www.ccgaines.com
Direct: 650.387.5400
Time is precious. We require 24 hours notice if you wish to cancel an appointment.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dave Armstrong <DArmstrong@sakata.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Outdoor dining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I would respectfully urge the council to approve measures to allow the set up of sidewalk and street dining on California
Ave and University Ave during the COVID pandemic.
Sincerely
Dave Armstrong
President‐CEO
Sakata America Holding Inc
1920 Bryant St
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:James Stoyell <jamesstoyell@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting closing streets for dining and retail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I wanted to voice my strong support for closing sections of University Ave and Californiaave streets 7 days a week for
dining retail. I think the economic and health benefits of having the additional space far outweighs the costs, and it
encourages eco friendly forms of transport.
Thank you,
James Stoyell
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:brian@bulkowski.org
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:please close University and California Ave for dining and retail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council ‐‐‐
Please close off a section of University and California avenue during our COVID epidemic.
First, these two streets have pedestrians right now, and those pedestrians are not social distancing, and mostly not
wearing masks. If those two streets were closed, people could walk in the center, and be safer – and be safer while
enjoying vibrant downtown districts.
Second, the restaurants should have the ability to add more tables, and more tables with space between. Without, we
will either have a poor recovery, or we have the potential of increased cases – a “double dip” creating far more
economic damage than today.
Third, the area around both University and California does not need car traffic in the center. There are delivery alleys in
the back. There is minimal parking on those streets already, today. There is certainly very little traffic.
Would I like Palo Alto to consider this pattern for the long term? You bet! It’s never seemed clear why we need those
streets. But I won’t insist on keeping this pattern longer than needed. I suggest doing this pattern just for the next few
months; see how it goes.
I’m a resident of Menlo Park ( the willows ). I attended PALY in the mid‐eighties. My office is on California Ave ( on
Cambridge across from the post office ). I’ve lived in the bay area for 30 years, lived in Palo Alto for one of those, and
Menlo Park for a decade.
This appears a “no brainer”. Please just do it.
Thanks,
Brian Bulkowski
950 Arnold Way
Menlo Park
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Elizabeth Whalley <ewhalleyus@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I whole-heartedly support the closing of California Avenue and University Avenue.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council of Palo Alto,
This would help business and would make those streets more visually appealing.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Whalley
2111 Bowdoin Street
Palo Alto, Ca 94306-1213
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Anna Jaklitsch <annajak14@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:support for temporary dining on California Ave and University Ave, Downtown.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Since safety is more important now than ever--
It's important that we (1) provide sufficient, safe table space (2) provide safe access to pick up takeout
orders without congregating near tables, AND (3) maintain safe pedestrian space.
City Council is discussing a proposal that many retailers, restaurants, and residents have advocated for —
closing blocks on University Ave and California Ave to cars (while still keeping cross streets open, so as to
minimize the impact on traffic). This will allow restaurants to offer more outdoor dining, and allow
pedestrians more space to walk around safely as well.
I add my voice to the recommendation for the temporary street closure.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Anna Jaklitsch
1850 Hamilton Ave.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Christine Boehm <cboehm@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:51 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed
Subject:support for pedestrianizing roads
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council Members,
I am a long‐time Palo Alto resident.
I understand that you’re considering a proposal to make University Ave and California Ave fully available to pedestrians,
cyclists, and diners by closing them to cars.
I support this plan. I also support making additional roads fully available to pedestrians, cyclists, and diners.
Best,
Christine
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Melanie Grondel <mel.grondel@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 11:13 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Melanie Grondel
Subject:Temporaty closing of California Ave. and University Ave. to allow for outdoor space for restaurants
and foot traffic.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
It would be a great benefit to the businesses, residents and guests of Palo Alto to have the heart of town come to life
again by being able to stroll and stop by our warmly appreciated restaurants for food and refreshments.
It is very important that we preserve the spirit of our town both at University Avenue and California Avenue by having
the street open as a pedestrian zone with space for outdoor seating and walking by in comfort and safety. The entire
street activity will benefit business all around.
This support is what we can do for our businessstaffs and entrepreneurs who are putting on an all out effort to survive
and in doing so, keep our Palo Alto alive is we know and love it.
This trial period will be our best ticket out of the pandemic depression.
With hope for a positive decision from your side,
Melanie Grondel
Yale Street
Palo Alto, Ca.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Peeyush Ranjan <peeyushr@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 11:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re closing Univ/California Avenue for evening dining/retail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi, I am a Palo Alto resident and I support this move. Please consider making this even permanent if possible, walkability
will increase the attraction, and hopefully ample parking can be made available on the nearby streets/structures.
Thanks.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Sam Jackson <sam@samjackson.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:01 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Anna Ershova
Subject:Shared Streets - Let's do it for our community!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Palo Alto officials: a quick note in support of the push to take back our key commercial streets from cars and give
them to people. I live one block from California avenue, and see the restaurants excited to reopen. I also see people
eager to keep their distance. Yet, still, we give huge amounts of free real estate to cars ‐‐ both parking or cruising.
Let's close or reduce the key streets to traffic and make it possible for people to enjoy them ‐ for exercise, for strolling,
for eating. There is huge amounts of parking just blocks away, should people really need it, but more biking or other
means of transport could be encouraged.
We've gone daily since shelter in place began to check on the businesses that make our neighborhood dynamic. They
need our help, and the public needs space to stay safe. Other cities are seeing great success. Can't we give a try?
Thanks,
Sam Jackson
Anna Ershova
Residents at Grant Ave Palo Alto CA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Alexandra Konings <agkonings@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:19 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed
Subject:Support for closing Cal Ave to cars
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councillors and Manager Shikada,
I am a Palo Alto resident writing to strongly urge you to adopt the plan to close California avenue to cars. My family and I
regularly shop and eat in the district ‐ it is one of our favorite features of living in Palo Alto. We are very worried that
many of our favorite restaurants will have to close their doors because of the COVID‐19 crisis, and many of the
restaurant employees and owners of Cal Ave restaurants have told us they are excited about the plan and think it will
help them to be able to set out more (socially distanced) tables. This is consistent with the survey and press release from
the Palo Alto chamber of commerce. Closing California Avenue to cars will not only bring joy to us and the many other
families that can then enjoy the restaurants, it will also bring more sales tax dollars to the city (both in the near‐term
and especially in the long‐term, by preventing these restaurants from going out of business), which is particularly
valuable given the city's large budget shortfall.
Although we are able to walk to Cal Ave easily from College Terrace, I have heard of some opposition to this plan based
on the fact that it would lead to a reduction in parking availability. However, the overwhelming majority of parking for
Cal Ave is accessible from side streets and would not be affected by the closure of Cal Ave itself. Indeed, the popularity
of the farmer's market every Sunday suggests that this is not a problem.
I urge you to adopt the plan to close Cal Ave to cars. Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Konings
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Barry M Katz <bkatz@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Street closure: University and California Avenues
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the City Council:
I would like to add my voice in support of the closing of University Avenue and California Avenues to vehicular traffic. In
the short term, I believe that this measure will provide vital assistance to restaurants and other businesses that have
suffered terribly during the past three months. But please consider the long term as well: I urge you to treat street
closure as an experiment which, if successful, should be made permanent.
In the rush to return to business as usual, we risk squandering a once‐in‐a‐lifetime opportunity to think deeply and
boldly about how we want to live. It would only compound the tragedy of the corona pandemic if we narrowed our
thinking to the quick fixes and short‐term solutions.
It has been reported that greenhouse gas emissions are down 17% globally; that Mt. Everest is visible from the
Kathmandu Valley for the first time in living memory; that fish can be seen swimming in the once‐polluted waters of the
Yangtze that run through Wuhan. Locally, pedestrians in the congested parking lot known as University Avenue have
enjoyed some relief, and it is possible to stroll along California Avenue without our conversation being drowned out by
automobiles and our lungs filled with the exhaust of delivery trucks.
Big ideas are never easily realized: Returning our streets to the people will require that we protect surrounding
neighborhoods and provide transportation facilities that are both sensible and sustainable, and much more. Risky? Sure.
But the alternatives—doing nothing—are riskier still.
BK
Barry Katz
233 Margarita Avenue
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
bkatz@stanford.edu
m: 650.644-8697
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Friederike Buelow <ikebuelow@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 4:47 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:PedestrianZones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council,
Our whole family supports the idea of using this time to test a European style, car‐free pedestrian zone! Works great in
other places.
Best,
Friederike Bülow
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Marie-Jo Fremont <mariejofremont1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes to parklets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please allow restaurants outdoor dining space.
These are extraordinary times that require getting out of "business as usual".
Parking is plentiful around University and California avenues. In addition, the number of parking spots that would no
longer be available is quite small.
If you want to support local businesses, this is the simplest action you can take is to allow parklets.
Please act swiftly. Please act now.
Thank you for considering my input.
mjf
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:John Cala <johnjcala@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of street closures
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council,
I am writing to you to express my support and that of my wife for the prospective closing of University Avenue and
California Avenue to allow for outdoor dining. There are many potential benefits to such a plan and it is an idea that is
appropriate for the time and place that we find ourselves in from a public health stand point.
Please take the necessary actions to allow for this idea to be put into effect.
Regards,
John Cala
Susan Cala
1420 Parkinson Ave
Palo Alto, 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:David Chan <dmchan@cs.stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 7:12 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:University and California open to pedestrians and bikes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I’m a long time Palo Alto resident. I’ve been living near University Ave for 14 years and a Stanford
student for 4 years before that.
I understand that you’re considering a proposal to make University Ave and California Ave fully
available to pedestrians, cyclists, and diners by closing them to cars.
I strongly support this plan. The vibrancy of downtowns is critically supported by accessible
retail like restaurants, art stores, toy stores, music stores, bakeries, and the like.
Portions of University Ave have always been nearly impossible to drive down in normal times
except in the early morning or late at night anyway. Residents already know that you have to
drive to a side street to make it across downtown in a reasonable amount of time.
Besides giving downtown restaurants a life line during the COVID‐19 crisis, this proposal would
make University Ave even more pleasant and enlivening as a public space in normal times as
well.
Thanks,
Dave
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Evan Johnson <evanj517@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 8:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:University and California Street Closures
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
I’m writing to express my support for the 7 days per week closure of University and California avenues to cars and
parking. Great idea to help the restaurants and retailers and will revitalize the city. Pearl Street in Boulder is a great
example.
Thank you,
Evan Johnson
2275 Ramona Street
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 8:08 AM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Fwd: Please close University and California Ave to help restaurants expand into streets and recover
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor, City Council and City Manager
I am forwarding this letter I wrote previously since the subject of closing California and University Streets may be
discussed in tonight’s City Council Meeting.
To add to that, I have recently seen the success blocking off some parking spaces at Town and Country for restaurants
such as Mayfield Bakery and Gott’s Roadside to place more tables. I see a sucessful return of customers to those
restaurants.
Thank you,
Kimberley Wong
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
Date: May 25, 2020 at 3:57:13 PM PDT
To: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Please close University and California Ave to help restaurants expand into streets and recover
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members,
I’d like to support closing off University and California Ave at least temporarily at least until the flagging restaurant
business can get back on their feet again while adhering to social distancing of tables and customers during this
financially strained period!
Thank you for your consideration! Menlo Park and other cities are doing this. We should follow suit. The shelter in place
has reduced traffic on these roads considerably so I believe this is the opportune time to put these measures in place to
test out the new normal and help one of our most viable and profitable sectors to recover from shutdown.
Thank you!
Kimberley Wong,
Longtime resident of Palo Alto and granddaughter of owner of City Cafe, established on University in 1905
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:shelly <sheldon.kay@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 8:47 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pedestrian Mall on University Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Even before the Virus, I thought this would be a great idea.
A city I visited many times did it and never looked back. Boulder CO.
You make Lytton and Hamilton 1 way streets, and 2 cross streets on either side of the pedestrian mall 1 way.
The mall would only be between Emerson and Cowper. The traffic lights remain on University Ave.
The traffic lights might even be removed from Lytton and Hamilton with dedicated merge lanes for cars.
Pedestrians can cross those streets under or over (with construction), or leave the lights for pedestrians only
with a long delay between activation.
Traffic will flow better than it does now, even without the light removal.
Sheldon Kay
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:melissa <melissa@kirvenbrooks.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 8:54 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closure of University and California Avenues
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members:
I am a member of the First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto and the Cool Planet Working Group at First Pres. I
am writing to urge you to close University Avenue and California Avenue to cars, to benefit businesses, our
community and our environment. This will allow maximum physical distancing and build community while
experimenting with a culture that relies less on cars. Imagine a boulevard where we can dine, shop, stay
physically distant and enjoy our beautiful commercial areas without the smell and noise of cars
Let’s seize this opportunity to pilot a program and help businesses, our environment, and our community gain
strength and health.
Melissa Kirven‐Brooks
690 Wildwood Lane
Palo Alto
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ed Sterbenc <ed@sterbenc.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 9:15 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Ed Sterbenc
Subject:Close University and California Ave's!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
>
> Hi City Council,
> What a great idea given our times: close traffic on University and California Ave’s, and turn the streets over to
restaurants and pedestrians! This will support the small businesses to get back into business and provide citizens a
lasting sample of one of the good things Covid gave us: walking on our peaceful streets!
>
> Please VOTE YES on this! Increase the quality of life in Palo Alto.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sincerely,
> Ed Sterbenc
> 765 University Avenue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Lisa Rayle <lrayle@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 9:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support dedicating University and California Ave to people
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To council members:
As a resident of Palo Alto, I would like to voice my support for the proposal to dedicate blocks of University Ave and
California Ave for pedestrians, and close them to cars. The measure will allow people to move around safely and for
restaurants to offer outdoor dining, with minimal impact to traffic. This is an opportunity to show we care about the
safety of our community and the health of local businesses.
Thank you,
Lisa
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gail Thompson <Gail.thompson2018@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 10:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closure of University and CA avenues to vehicle traffic
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I support the closure to support restaurants and other businesses and also for the environment and our health.
Thank you.
Gail Thompson RN
Palo Alto resident,
Member of the Cool Planet committee at the First Presbyterian Church of PA
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Steve Pierce <pierce@zanemac.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 10:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing Univ and Cal Av
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
I fully support the program to close streets to allow businesses and pedestrians to expand into the street. There are a
number of reasons why this is a good idea, Covid or not.
I am a downtown PA resident and would welcome the pedestrian friendly environment that would result. Good time to
test out a program that could be adopted in the post Covid world.
Steve
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Zane
STEVE PIERCE
Real Estate Advisor & Broker ZANE MACGREGOR
Real Estate Advisors & Brokers 621 High Street Palo Alto CA 94301
cell 650 533 7006 main 650 324 9900 fax 650 323 5431 zanemac.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Zachary Bogue <zackbogue@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 10:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Monday night: Please temporarily close blocks of University Ave for dining and retail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
As a longtime Palo Alto resident, I’m writing in strong support of converting University Avenue to orient it around
pedestrians and retail, per the list of items below.
This is the prevailing view among a large group of my neighbors and the handful of restauranteurs I know. We ask you to
please hear and support us.
My company leases an ~10,000 s.f. office on University Ave, and the situation looks dire with many of my neighboring
retailers (just on my block) fleeing downtown: Joseph A. Banks, Walgreens (@ Bryant), La Strata, etc. These are just the
ones I know of.
As our councilmembers, it is your imperative duty to ameliorate this. I realize it maybe counterintuitive, but eliminating
cars and parking spaces actually has been shown to increase foot‐traffic to support our retailers.
The future of our downtown is at stake.
At least on University Avenue this summer, parklets or sidewalk tables alone WON'T be a sufficient solution to address
the table space shortage due to COVID‐19.
With 6 foot spacing, parklets alone represent perhaps 10‐15% of former restaurant table space. Without a wide
pedestrian walkway, parklets and sidewalk tables also impede 6‐foot spacing of tables from pedestrians and order‐
pickup areas. It's far from the best solution, at least for the restaurants on University Ave.
We ask you to:
Open University Ave to pedestrians, retail, and dining tables.
Put a wide bidirectional walking path down the center of the street.
o This keeps pedestrians away from tables, servers, and order pickup traffic.
Make this change 24/7.
o A partial‐week schedule limits options and investment in the right experience.
Keep cross streets open to cars.
o There could be dedicated order‐pickup and handicap parking places on the side streets. Restaurants on
side streets can use parklets as the best available solution.
Schedule this plan through this summer.
o To mitigate below concerns, commit to not making it permanent without continued support from
businesses and those concerned about parking and traffic.
Best regards,
Zachary Bogue
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Harriet Stern <jacobeatrice@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 10:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing California Ave and University Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Please vote to create pedestrian areas of California Ave and University Ave so that local restaurants and businesses can
increase their ability to serve guests while maintaining safe distancing due to the Covid virus. What I have observed thus
far in current outdoor seating, is that there is no way for most restaurants to serve meals safely in a capacity which
makes it fiscally viable to be open.
Even if temporary, please implement this enterprise zone immediately in order to save our important independent small
businesses.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Harriet Stern
Middlefield Road
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Irina Beylin <irina.beylin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 10:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:support for closing traffic on University and California Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members,
We support to allow restaurants to use the streets. It is a great idea.
Irina and Boris Beylin
771 Ames Ave Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Shirley Eglington <shirleyeglington@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 11:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:closing University Ave. and California Ave. to cars
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 close University Avenue and California Avenue to cars to benefit businesses, our community and
our environment. This will allow maximum physical distancing while experimenting with a culture that relies
less on cars. I look forward to avenues where we can dine, shop, stay physically distant and enjoy our beautiful
commercial areas without the negative effects of cars. My daughter and family live in Burlington VT where the
main shopping street, Church Street, has been closed to cars for years. It is a joy to dine and shop in that car-
free space.
Let’s seize this opportunity in Palo Alto to pilot a program to help businesses, our environment, and our
community.
Sincerely,
Shirley Eglington
Chair, Cool Planet Working Group
First Presbyterian Church Palo Alto
1140 Cowper Street
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Farzi R. <seflog@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:supporting Street closing - University ave, Cal ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council members,
I am in support of “temporary” closing of both avenues to offer space for restaurant to be able to seat enough people on
the sidewalks that would allow for their business to survive. Having a handful of tables while adhering to social
distancing guidelines really doesn’t help the bottom line. With the current WFH approach that is in place in all tech
related jobs, the adverse traffic effects on the neighboring streets would be minimal at this point. I also worry about the
restaurants on Hamilton and Lytton. So we need to start an experiment and then expand it after a few weeks.
Thank you.
Best,
Farzi Rau
1820 Channing
Sent from my iPad
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Rachel Schuh <schuhr@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 11:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for proposal to close University Ave. to Cars
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I am writing in support of the proposal to close sections of University Avenue and California Avenue to car traffic to
allow restaurants more space for socially distanced outdoor dining. This seems like an excellent way to allow more
businesses to open safely and promote the local economy. I imagine it could be done on a trial basis at specific days or
times to test the traffic effects.
Best,
Rachel Schuh
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Sally Nordlund <sbn764@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 11:53 AM
To:Council, City
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members:
I am writing to urge you to close University Avenue and California Avenue to cars, to benefit businesses, our
community and our environment. This will allow maximum physical distancing and build community while
experimenting with a culture that relies less on cars. Imagine a boulevard where we can dine, shop, stay
physically distant and enjoy our beautiful commercial areas without the smell and noise of cars
Let’s seize this opportunity to pilot a program and help businesses, our environment, and our community gain
strength and health.
Sally Nordlund
764 Garland Drive, Palo Alto
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Mary Jo Ricci <mjmricci@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 11:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:California Ave Pedestrian Proposal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
To my City Council:
Hello, I am a midtown Palo Alto resident who frequents the California Ave area probably more than any other shopping
district within Palo Alto! I’ve just learned of the proposal to close Cal Ave, and possibly University Ave, to motorized
traffic. It’s a wonderful idea! In my home town, I have seen the vitality that comes from the HUGE draw of designating
such a pedestrian area. I do not see any major drawbacks, and access TO CalTrain will still be easy and access FROM
CalTrain to Cal Ave would be great too!
We go to Cal Ave for many different reasons on many different days. I think it should be consistently 7days/week for us
to not have to wonder if it’s an open or closed day; I’m sure the prep businesses and restaurants would be minimized
too. It’s in everyone’s best interest.
I would love to see tables from the restaurants and displays from the businesses outside. It’s California weather!!!! That
draw in to the stores and other establishments would be lovely.
Everything is so in flux these days, I want to give this at least 1 month for a routine to be established so we can form an
opinion whether the street closure is successful or not. I am SO grateful that the pause that the pandemic imposed on us
might allow us to reopen our stellar small businesses in an even better format than before.
Thanks so much for supporting us,
Mary Jo Ricci
3556 Ramona St
PA, Ca 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Sunita de Tourreil <sunita@chocolatedividends.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:OPEN UNIVERSITY AVE AND CAL AVE Streets to local businesses.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Here is the perfect moment to support local business, build community and keep people safe.
Please consider making UNIVERSITY Ave and CALIFORNIA Ave closed off pedestrian streets, so local businesses can re‐
open at a more reasonable operating capacity, while keeping patrons and staff safe.
Thank you,
Sunita
Sunita de Tourreil, Founder
The Chocolate Garage® and Happy Chocolate® Experiences
708 Ramona St Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cell: +1 650.796.5287
Check out our first three episodes on Happy Chocolate® in Cuba and Nicaragua, Hawaii... or our latest release visiting the land of
chocolate: Switzerland!
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gayle Laakmann McDowell <g@gayle.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting closure of University Ave for dining and retail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I wanted to voice my enthusiastic support for closing down University Ave (and California Ave) to traffic, 7 days per week
‐‐ while still allowing cross‐through traffic on the intersecting streets.
I would love to have a safe dining option, for outdoor dining. Closing university ave will allow restaurants to significantly
increase capacity — to something close to being sustainable for them — and keep pedestrians and diners more
physically distant from each other.
Moreover, offering this 7 days per week will offer consistency to pedestrians and drivers, and allow restaurants to invest
in creating a good outdoor dining experience.
I would also love to see retail shops, and the Downtown Palo Alto farmers market, able to take advantage of this extra
space too.
Thank you,
Gayle
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Leora Tanjuatco <leora.tanjuatco@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:25 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:BLM and Open Streets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto city council,
Thank you for your leadership during this chaotic time.
I am writing to express my support for:
‐ the Black Lives Matter resolution, and
‐ closing Cal Ave and University Ave to cars and opening up the streets for restaurants. It will be great for the local
economy and safer! Last weekend, I went to a restaurant that was socially distancing patrons and it was great. It
would've been better and more enjoyable if there had been more space between the patrons and a more open air
setting. People (myself included) love going out to eat, and places are opening up again, so the safest thing to do is make
sure that we can go to restaurants in a hygienic way.
Thank you all!
Leora
215 El Verano Ave.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Emilee Chapman <emileebooth@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 12:57 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Expressing Support for Cal Ave Shared Streets Pilot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
I am a resident of Palo Alto and wish to write in support of the Shared Streets Pilot for California Avenue. Pre Covid, my
family has been a frequent patron of Cal Ave restaurants, and we would welcome the opportunity to enjoy outdoor
dining without having to worry about crowded sidewalks!
Thank you,
Emilee Chapman
(2500 Columbia St., Unit 106)
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ken Thom <kenthom@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 1:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes vote on closing University and CA Avenues for restaurants
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi ‐ please vote to close the commercial sections of University and California Avenue so restaurants can use the space
for seating.
Thanks!
‐‐
Ken Thom
180 Santa Rita Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
kenthom@gmail.com
650‐224‐4344
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Alexei Andreev <andreev.alexei@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Strongly in favor of closing University and California Ave. Time to bring a proven European city
planning solution to US.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Sincerely,
Alexei Andreev, PhD, MBA
559 Everett Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:James F. Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:38 PM
To:Cook, James F.
Subject:Seeking your support to close California Avenue to vehicle traffic to allow restaurants and businesses
to use road space to accommodate social distancing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear friends and neighbors,
You can help by:
1. Express your support by email to the city.council@cityofpaloalto.org - they will be discussing this
tonight
2. Join the nearly 500 folks have signed the petition
3. Participate in the City Council meeting tonight, Monday 6/8/20 around 8:30pm (see details below)
I’ve cribbed most of this language from posts on Nextdoor.
Save Palo Alto retail and restaurants - Support temporarily closing streets to auto traffic for dining and
retail. This Monday evening, our City Council will be discussing proposals to support outdoor retail
and dining in the University Ave and California Ave business areas. We need to find ways to keep
customers safe while supporting our shops and restaurants.
We need your support with City Council: please email city.council@cityofpaloalto.org with your
support. If you feel particularly passionate, please join the city council meeting. This agenda item is
scheduled for 8:45-10:00pm Monday evening, but may start as early as 8:30pm, Zoom ID: 362 027
238.
Another way to express your support is to sign this petition:
Sign the Petition
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Sign the Petition
2
Now is the time! Help Cal. and University Avenue
businesses get back on their feet!
Right now, restaurants are using their existing (limited) outdoor table space, with physical distancing
between the tables. Under this system, many restaurants only have space for three or four tables.
And, to make matters worse, now pedestrians are forced to walk near diners. This isn’t good for
anyone!
Safety is more important now than ever. It's important that we
(1) provide sufficient, safe table space
(2) provide safe access to pick up takeout orders without congregating near tables, AND
(3) maintain safe pedestrian space.
City Council is discussing a proposal that many retailers, restaurants, and residents have advocated
for — closing blocks on University Ave and California Ave to cars (while still keeping cross streets
open, so as to minimize the impact on traffic). This will allow restaurants to offer more outdoor dining,
and allow pedestrians more space to walk around safely as well.
We already close California Ave to auto traffic on Sundays for the farmers market.
Now is the time to try what places from Santa Monica, CA to many places in Africa, Asia and Europe,
walkable feel for the commercial cores. If there's a tiny silver lining to the circumstances, it's that
traffic and parking issues are way down, so it's an excellent time to temporarily close streets.
For California Ave, a pedestrian area is likely to happen at least Thursday-Sunday.
Additional support is needed to make it 7 days / week, which would allow for restaurants and retailers to
better optimize the space and invest more in the experience. For University Ave there’s been less
leadership. A single landlord on University has complained that his business went down during the super
unwelcoming sewer-line replacement, and he’s worried that the same would happen here, and that it
would be made permanent without further discussion. This has led to people saying that maybe parklets
are “good enough” for University Ave. While they may be the best solution for restaurants like Zola off the
strip, they just aren’t the right path for University. There’s not enough safe space for pedestrians and
sufficient tables with parklets alone. It’s something like 10-15% of former table space can be reopened in a
parklet. We need a great deal more advocacy to get a pedestrian walkway down the center of University,
with tables extending well into the street.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:tiffany ann <tclute@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Close university ave to cars
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hello City Council Members,
I am in support of the subject heading amendment. We need to support the businesses during the COVID outbreak.
When walking my baby through downtown yesterday I was not pleased to come near diners eating outside the
restaurant. We need more space to SD and support the businesses.
Maybe we can designate times to accommodate rush hour, to serve as a happy medium?
Thank you for your support.
Best wishes,
Tiffany Stensager
764 Bryant Street
Palo Alto
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gray Clossman <gray.clossman@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:please try closing streets in business districts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
This is a great time to try closing California and University Avenues to cars to let pedestrians walk at a comfortable
distance and restaurants to serve dispersed tables.
‐‐ Gray Clossman
1664 California Ave.
Palo Alto, 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Valerie Sarma <vsarma@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:California Ave.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Good Afternoon,
I would like to express my support for closing California Ave to vehicle traffic in order to accommodate more alfresco
dining for the restaurants.
Kindly,
Valerie Sarma
2125 Wellesley St.
Palo Alto CA 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Ross Mayfield <goobox@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Open street dining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I’m a Palo Alto native and the founder of the Silicon Valley Chapter of FrontlineFoods.org — a 100% volunteer
organization that applies 100% of donations to save local restaurants and their jobs, while feeding the frontline of the
crisis.
We have 7 Palo Alto restaurants in our program (we cover Burlingame to Gilroy) and I surveyed them. They are all in
support of closing streets to enable outdoor dining.
The Restaurant Industry is the largest employer behind the Pentagon. 25% of the currently unemployed are from the
industry. In Palo Alto, most had to lay off 90% of their staff.
While Palo Alto only has one Black owned restaurant, Coconuts, the industry employs more minority managers than any
other. 9/10 managers had their first job in the industry.
Outdoor dining within safety guidelines can have a meaningful impact on saving local small businesses and their jobs. I
urge you to act with swift prudence,
Ross
‐‐
‐‐
Ross Mayfield
goobox@gmail.com
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Richard Such <wrichardsuch@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:55 PM
To:Council, City; Cook, James F.
Subject:Closing Cal. Ave.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
We support closing Cal. Ave. long enough to save restaurants and
businesses.
Richard and Jane Such
College Ave.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Fernando Cabildo <fernando.cabildo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:California Avenue - support for closing to vehicle traffic
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council:
I fully support closing California Avenue to vehicle traffic to allow restaurants and other businesses to use the road space
to accommodate physical distancing during the COVID 19 pandemic.
Thank you,
Fernando Cabildo.
Resident of California Avenue in College Terrace
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Glenn Fisher <glennafisher@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Restaurant street closures
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi,
We strongly support 24x7 closure of Calfornia Ave. for restaurants. There’s plenty of access and parking without
California open. Alternatively, California could have one lane for one‐way traffic left open and thee rest dedicated to
outdoor seating for restaurants. It’s not feasible for restaurants to have to set up and take down their outdoor seating
weekly, it’s another staffing and cost burden when they’re already pushed to the wire.
Glenn Fisher
Adobe Meadow
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kristofer Biorn <krisbiorn@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 8:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Street closures for dining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council: I write in support of strategic closures of California Ave and University Ave to allow restaurants to
expand their outdoor dining options. It is already evident that many restaurants are not willing to re‐open with the
minimal outdoor dining available to them. Providing as robust dining and retail experience as possible will be essential
to allowing residents and neighbors socialize and is also essential to support and keep/maintain the businesses
necessary to providing our great “Palo Alto Experience.”
I have lived in Palo Alto for most of my 55 years, own an office building downtown and have worked here for the past 25
years (and my law firm has supported Palo Altans since 1927, long before I was born). My father, sister, kids and I all
attended Palo Alto High School. I have a vested interest in supporting Palo Alto business and helping to make our City
thrive.
I trust you will find a way to “make this work” and avoid the historical “Palo Alto process” than can cause unnecessary
delays. Thank you.
‐ Kristofer Biorn
1460 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ross Mayfield <goobox@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Open street dining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I just saw the slides for tonight’s meeting.
The staff recommendation for downtown is disappointing. There is no reason to not apply a full street closure every day.
Cal Ave in effect piloted this with farmers market. Town and Country is in effect piloting it. What does “Piloting it” for
University teach us that we already don’t know?
Is it fear of foreign invaders that gave use the bad and perhaps illegal decision to curfew? There is no logical difference
for health. Drive in pickup business is nominal. Parking can’t be an issue when we don’t have commuters. Why?
If you want to save downtown local businesses and jobs, you have to act beyond the staff recommendation.
Ross
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:54 PM Ross Mayfield <goobox@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m a Palo Alto native and the founder of the Silicon Valley Chapter of FrontlineFoods.org — a 100% volunteer
organization that applies 100% of donations to save local restaurants and their jobs, while feeding the frontline of the
crisis.
We have 7 Palo Alto restaurants in our program (we cover Burlingame to Gilroy) and I surveyed them. They are all in
support of closing streets to enable outdoor dining.
The Restaurant Industry is the largest employer behind the Pentagon. 25% of the currently unemployed are from the
industry. In Palo Alto, most had to lay off 90% of their staff.
While Palo Alto only has one Black owned restaurant, Coconuts, the industry employs more minority managers than
any other. 9/10 managers had their first job in the industry.
Outdoor dining within safety guidelines can have a meaningful impact on saving local small businesses and their jobs. I
urge you to act with swift prudence,
Ross
‐‐
‐‐
Ross Mayfield
goobox@gmail.com
‐‐
‐‐
Ross Mayfield
goobox@gmail.com
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:steve frankel <leknarfs@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Street closing for outdoor social distancing and dining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi,
My name is Steve Frankel and have lived on Bryant Court in Palo Alto since 1987.
I am very much in favor of the closing of parts of University Avenue and California Avenue as pedestrian promenades.
Both University and California are closed regularly for different events. California Ave is partially closed every Sunday for
the Farmers Market. University is partially closed for the May Fete parade, the World Music day in June and the Art and
Wine weekend in August.
Especially during World Music day in June, the ability of cafes and restaurants to expand dining al fresco into a
wonderful car‐free experience.
With the concern about the coronavirus still with us and like so for many months, the most important change will be
avoiding enclosed dining. People rarely stay 1 for inside a retail store, but dining for an hour is quite the norm. Enclosed
spaces like restaurants greatly increase exposure, as was reported by the New York Times in an April 20, 2020 article.
I am very much in favor of seeing University Avenue closed to cars for about 5 blocks, from Webster to High. Some
cross streets should remain open for bike and traffic flow. My choice would be a 7 day‐a‐week closure to cars, making a
new University Promenade. This is my experience with the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, CA. Santa Monica
has lowering barricades for maintenance and emergency vehicles but no car traffic along 3rd street. The dining,
shopping and event experience is wonderful when cars are removed.
California Avenue could use the same closure for the Sunday Farmers Market to all 7 days of the week.
I do understand cars get people to University, and the City has done well with the multistory parking garages and
parking lots in the downtown district. At California, the city has ample parking in garages and parking lots just off
Cambridge Avenue and Sherman Avenue.
Please move this effort forward towards at least a trial during the summer months. We do not know what will happen
with coronavirus, bu we do know that getting people back inside restaurants will not be easy while the fear for their
health.
Sincerely,
Steve Frankel
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:David Greenlaw <dcgreenlaw@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 8:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:University Ave and Bryant St closures - support
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi City Council,
I know you are debating whether to proceed with an experiment to close part of University Ave on the weekends. I
think it would be a great idea to try this and see how it goes.
Also, I recently moved to Bryant St and see every day how people drive faster than they really should. The ‘roundabout’
at the intersection with Addison Ave seems to only make them want to go faster. There are many kids playing near
these streets, riding their bikes and skateboards. We either need better speed limit enforcement or speed bumps or
‘traffic breaker’ barriers like at Bryant and Lowell in Old PA. The temporary barriers installed over the last weeks have
made a noticeable improvement and i think you should make those barriers permanent. Bring some serenity to the
Bryant St bike path!
thank you for your consideration.
David Greenlaw
281 Addison Avenue
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:John Shenk <John@thoitsbros.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Support University Avenue Retail/Restaurants
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Fine and Council Members,
I am writing to you to convey our very strong support of the parklet solution for expanded outdoor dining space for our
restaurants. Closing University Avenue is a very bad idea and one that has lost any support it may have once had as our
City led meetings have shown. Our retailers and restaurants have told the City that +70% of their sales have come from
the daytime office workers. It is a truly symbiotic relationship that we must foster and protect. One will not exist
without the other.
When council members and the City Manager listened to the retailers they expressed support and Mr Shikada took
action to permit the first parklets to be built. We were honored and happy to respond as we know what is needed to
keep downtown above water. We stand ready to build another on University Avenue and are fielding questions from
others who are asking for help and guidance.
Mr Shikada and Mr Eggelston have been out front and responsive to the needs of the community. Please thank them.
I will quickly address each of Staff’s discussion points here:
Sidewalk Dining:
Please approve and (1) not require the identification of existing utilities as most are underground and do not
effect the few tables and chairs we are trying to facilitate; and (2) not require detailed architectural plans as they
are time consuming and costly. A simple description of the area that is permitted and that all seating must
adhere to the County guidelines for spacing is sufficient.
Street Closures:
Please do NOT do this for University Avenue. We have a small % of total space as retail and the others all need
regular access to their entrances. Staying open creates a feel of vibrancy that is needed at this time. Sadly, due
to years of the downtown retail struggling under the zoning restrictions and hampered office uses we do not have
a vibrant set of retailers that would actually capitalize on a closed street as some think may happen based on
looking at very different environments in other cities in other economic times.
Even a limited closure is NOT wanted. It is a waste of time and resources with unknown risks and
impacts. Sidewalks and parklets and public land (parks and parking lots) are the solution.
Parklets:
Continue to allow parklets to be built in a similar way as the pilot ones have been. Every restaurant that wants to
reopen (not all do!) needs the additional seating area ASAP. Days matter.
They will add immediate vibrancy and will continue to do so for the future. We are late to this parade and these
are wonderful transformations to a downtown. See Menlo Park and Redwood City for great examples.
7
Please do not burden these with additional City processes and fees that delay and add costs as we all need the
positive impact these parkets provide yesterday.
Private parking Lots
Staff’s recommendation is sound.
Outdoor Retail and Sales:
Approve the “temporary” solution as expediency is paramount.
Alcohol Consumption:
It is critical for restaurants that already have a liquor license be allowed to expand their service area to wherever
they are allowed to serve customer ‐ sidewalks, parklets, etc.
Thank you for listening.
Best, John
John R. Shenk
C.E.O.
Thoits Bros., Inc.
629 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Redacted
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:Elisabeth Rubinfien <erubinfien@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:47 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:dsneider@stanford.edu dsneider@stanford.edu; Ben Sneider
Subject:OPENING UNIVERSITY AVENUE to PEDESTRIANS
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
As the controls of SIP begin to ease, it becomes ever more important to increase the space for pedestrian traffic in order
for businesses to reopen without endangering customers and passersby.
The other day, I went to have my computer repaired at Apple on University Ave. The store was doing all it could ‐‐ a
"symptoms" question stop, a temperature‐taking stop, lines marked out at 6‐foot distances, hand sanitizer stations, etc
etc etc. But as customers stood in line in their carefully marked spots, passersby had to squeeze between the line and
the check‐in stations, reducing the "distance" to a negligible foot or two at most. So, we could be six feet apart on the X
axis, but were forced to be just 18 inches apart on the Y axis.
At first I felt annoyed at the pedestrians, who I thought should have "walked around". But then I saw that there was a
steady flow of cars on the street, so they couldn't walk around safely. There was no alternative.
This could be fixed by closing the downtown part of University to auto traffic and detouring those drivers to parallel
streets.
Furthermore, for the sake of restaurants, they could have more space to put out tables, even using some of the street
space beyond the sidewalk. In fact, that would make real sense for some of the cross streets, like Bryant, Ramona and
Emerson, between at least Hamilton and University (if not Forest). Again, the cars could use alternate cross
streets. There's no need for everyone to travel on the same main roads they usually use.
Thank you for considering this sensible proposal.
Best regards,
Elisabeth Rubinfien
803 Cowper Street, Palo Alto
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rob Nielsen <crobertn@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Outdoor dining on tonight's agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
I support Item 8 on tonight's agenda, Outdoor dining on California and University Ave.
I live in Midtown about a 25-minute walk from California Ave. I have been increasing my use of dining
facilities there since the shelter-in-place began. These businesses need your help, and I support
opening the street so that diners can maintain safe distance.
Such a move will also encourage more people to walk during our nice summer weather--which is
good for people's health, for transportation, and for the environment.
Sincerely yours,
Rob Nielsen
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:Nicole Zoeller <nicole.zoeller@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:11 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Arnout Boelens
Subject:Support for Opening California & University Avenue to Pedestrians
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
We would like to express our support for the plan to close California and University avenues to vehicle traffic, opening
up space for citizens to enjoy and support local businesses at this critical time.
Benefits to Citizens
*People are eager to get out of their homes and *safely* enjoy dining and shopping experiences again. With more space
to walk Cal and Uni avenues, citizens will be more comfortable venturing out and less likely to contract COVID‐19 in
open‐air environments.
*People will be encouraged to walk or cycle to these destinations, which is much healthier for them (and the
environment) than driving their vehicle. They may also find it more convenient not to worry about parking.
*People want to support their local businesses and not give part of those contributions to delivery apps. This will allow
more citizens to participate in the local economy in‐person v. through technology.
Benefits to Businesses
*This will help businesses not only survive but hopefully thrive. This, in turn, will help bolster tax revenues that the city
can reinvest in these businesses and the community.
*Businesses may find they prefer a pedestrian‐only street. Many business owners can be hesitant about this transition,
so a temporary solution to the COVID‐19 crisis may give them the confidence needed to consider a more permanent
transition in the future. This will also reduce demands from businesses for increased parking infrastructure ‐ saving the
city millions.
As a personal anecdote, I'll add that I lived in Santa Monica for several years and enjoyed the pedestrian‐only 3rd street
promenade. Not only were the businesses on this thoroughfare thriving but it gave the city a place for gathering and
community.
We'd love to see Palo Alto implement this low‐risk, high reward plan and join communities like Sunnyvale and Mountain
View in opening their busiest streets to people!
Kind regards,
Nicole, Arnout, and Ava Zoeller Boelens
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Open University Ave and California Ave to bicycles and pedestrians only
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
By not allowing cars on University and California avenues, you would be OPENING the streets to
bikes and pedestrians.
Cal Ave has a massive new parking garage. No need to have cars on Cal Ave. It would become
much more popular to residents and others.
This seems like a slam dunk!
Regards,
Jim Poppy
Melville Avenue
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:James F. Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Shut down vehicular traffic to Cal Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I support shutting down vehicular traffic on Cal Ave to allow restaurants to accommodate proper
social distancing and more capacity to serve customers safely.
Cal Ave goes no where - and is well served by parking on parallel streets and is successfully and
popularly shut down for vehicular traffic already once a week, for the farmers market.
Thanks!
James
13
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jerry Scott <jerryscott@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 4:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for proposal to close streets for dining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I wanted to register my support for the proposal to close portions of University and California Avenues to allow
for more outside dining and room for walking.
There are very few tables available in the sideway space for dining and almost impossible to maintain social distancing
without also having people walking in the streets. Closing of these streets to create more pedestrian‐friendly downtown
areas would be a great way to support local businesses.
While this proposal is for temporary closures, Before the streets are re‐opened there should be additional discussion
and consideration for making them permanent.
Thank you for your consideration
Gerald Scott
181 Waverley St, Palo Alto, CA 94301
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Dr. Nancy E. Wang <ewen@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 4:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:California Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I am writing to voice my support to close streets to auto traffic for dining and retail.
We should do whatever we can do to support our local businesses in these times
Thank you
Nancy Wang
790 College Ave,
Palo Alto CA 94306
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kristi McMichael <kmcmichael_ucla@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for University/Cal Ave 7 day a week street closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
I strongly supporting closing University and Cal Ave to cars 7 days a week while keeping cross streets open. We need to
support our local restaurants at this critical time.
A street closure will give the restaurants more space so that they can offer enough safe outdoor dining to continue
operations. A small amount of outdoor space is not enough room for enough tables to bring in enough revenue. I also
believe street closures will bring a better feel to downtown, without all the congestion and traffic cars bring.
A 7 day a week street closure allows them to set up more permanent eating arrangements that will be better liked by
customers and the restaurant also doesn't have to waste valuable work hours setting up and breaking down the
arrangement twice a week.
I appreciate your consideration on this critical issue in these unprecedented times.
(As a side note, I would be happy to make the street closure permanent but now is not the time to debate that. Let's focus
on the critical need and get this done right now. And then we can later evaluate how it went and whether it makes sense
to continue it for longer.)
Regards,
Kristi McMichael
1715 Waverley Street
Palo Alto
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:Malcolm Slaney <malcolmslaney@gmail.com> on behalf of Malcolm Slaney <malcolm@slaney.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Open California Avenue to Dining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council.
These are trying times.
I urge you to close California Avenue to cars and let our local restaurants use the space for dining. California Avenue is
empty because of the virus. Not enough pedestrians, and little need for cars. We live in a great environment for eating
outside.
Perhaps you leave the cross streets open, so nobody needs to walk too far. This should be temporary, perhaps just the
summer.
But letting us eat outside will be a big boon to us residents, and to the restaurants. I hope this is successful.
I’d love to see the street closed 24x7, but even just Friday, Saturday and Sunday would be great.
Thank you for your service to our community.
‐ Malcolm Slaney
College Terrace
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:Eileen Stolee <estolee@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please close University and California Ave.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I'm asking that you close both University and California Ave.
Closing these streets can help create a beautiful walking area where people can eat and talk at a safe distance. It can be
beautiful with lights, flower boxes and
benches.
Sincerely,
Eileen Stolee
984 California Ave.
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:Danny Shader <shaderdanny@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:05 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lissa Dutton
Subject:Opening restaurants on the streets
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi there
I just wanted to voice my support and that if my wife, Lissa Dutton, copied here, for allowing restaurants on California
avenue and University avenue and around those areas to enable us to dine in socially distanced tables on the streets,
even if that means closing those streets.
It would be great for the businesses, it would be great for us as residents, it would create a lovely ambiance, and the
incremental inconvenience at least for us would be small.
I hope the City can make that happen.
Thank you
Danny Shader
461 Washington Ave
19
Baumb, Nelly
From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CALIFORNIA AVE
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members ‐
Thanks for considering the idea of closing Cal Ave so the local restaurants can do “outdoor dining” in the street.
The street doesn’t actually go anywhere so we can all live without it for the time being if it allows our local businesses to
thrive.
This is important as a way to restart our local restaurants.
Many thanks,
Pria Graves
2130 Yale
20
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gray Clossman <gray.clossman@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 2:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:please try closing streets in business districts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
This is a great time to try closing California and University Avenues to cars to let pedestrians walk at a comfortable
distance and restaurants to serve dispersed tables.
‐‐ Gray Clossman
1664 California Ave.
Palo Alto, 94306
21
Baumb, Nelly
From:carl van wey <carl.vanwey@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:32 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:carl.vanwey@gmail.com; carl.vanwey@comcast.net
Subject:close University Ave.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I urge you to follow through with your plans to close University ave downtown. It will enhance
the quality of life for many, including non‐resteurant businesses. A great example is Pearl Street
in Boulder, Colorado.
thanks,
Carl Van Wey
University ave.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Greg M. Bell <gxbell@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council: As you decide on closing University Ave to car traffic...
Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.tiff
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
This is being done in many cities in the world. Here’s an example of Covid‐safe outdoor seating from the Netherlands.
I am completely in favor of more outdoor restaurant space.
Vote yes to the closure.
2
——
I type less and talk more by phone.
Greg M. Bell
Home Energy Saving Tips
——
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Brittan Heller <brittan.heller@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for open-air retail and restaurants on University Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I wanted to voice my support for the proposal to shut University and California Avenues down to traffic in order to make
safer and more walkable retail and dining spaces. I think this is an excellent idea and long overdue. It will make me feel
safer with Covid‐19 and still be able to support our local community establishments.
Thank you,
Brittan Heller
‐‐
______________________________________________________________
Brittan Heller
Technology + Human Rights Fellow
Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
bheller@hks.harvard.edu
Book a meeting: https://go.oncehub.com/BrittanHeller
Redacted
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Robin Mullery <robin@cloudmail.us>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comment on Closing University
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council,
I do not support closing University Avenue before 5pm due to the likely negative impact to retail businesses.
I think parklets in front of restaurants, like downtown Menlo Park and Mountain View have done could be a good middle
road to support restaurants and retail.
I would also hope that any decision made during these pandemic times is automatically expired in less than one year.
Thank you,
Robin (please keep my comments anonymous)
Sent from my iPhone
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:susan chamberlain <suschamberlain@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closure of University Ave and California ave to cars to benefit business community
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
We are writing to ask you to please take action to close University and California Avenues to cars so that the
business community can begin to build again. Please have Staff return to us expeditiously with ways to make
this happen.
These are difficult times as we struggle collectively with budgetary constraints, our health, and our many failing
businesses, standing in solidarity with our black brothers and sisters, and grappling with longstanding social
justice issues. But the time for bold action is NOW.
It is also a unique time that compels us to take actions that perhaps were not possible in the past because of
the infamous “Palo Alto Process”.
350SV PA Climate Team is a group of environmentalists who want to see a better world as we emerge from
this time of COVID-19 pandemic.
We would like to offer our support for our City, businesses, community, and our environment by encouraging
you to close off both California and University Avenues to cars. Imagine two boulevards where we can
dine, shop, stay physically distant and enjoy our beautiful commercial areas with reduced fears of contagion
and without the smell and noise of cars. Creating these people-focused boulevards will help build community
while encouraging people to enjoy our city on bike and foot.
It’s time to try something new! We can adjust plans as various data points become clear. Let’s seize this
opportunity to pilot a program and help businesses, our environment, and our community gain strength and
health. This is not a time for the Palo Alto Process to stop us in our tracks. .
Sincerely,
Susan Chamberlain, Debbie Mytels, Sandra Slater, Hilary Glann
for
350SV Palo Alto Climate Action Team
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Open up California and University Avenues
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Fine & Council Members,
I am writing to ask that you grant the opening of California Avenue and University Avenue so restaurants can follow the
necessary guidelines to keep us safe by providing alfresco dining.
I have never encountered any opposition from my neighbors in the College Terrace neighborhood to the opening up of
the avenues. Your allowing the closure of these avenues will stimulate the businesses and bring some pleasure back to
the community.
Thank you for your consideration of this timely matter.
Sincerely,
Ann Lafargue Balin
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Judy Kleinberg <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:10 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Minor, Beth
Subject:STREET CLOSURE SURVEYS
Attachments:University Ave Street Closure Survey Data_All.pdf; Cal Ave Street Closure Survey Data_All.pdf
Importance:High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members,
Please find attached the anonymous surveys conducted by the Chamber of Commerce regarding the City's
proposal to create temporary shared streets for businesses on University and California Avenues.
We shared and reviewed these surveys with the City Manager and city staff a couple of weeks ago. They
weren't included in your packets for the study session tonight, so we're sending them for your information as
part of the data you will be considering.
Since the Chamber couldn't access a complete list of downtown businesses, the University Ave survey was
sent out by the Downtown Association to the BID email list ‐ with a reminder notice just prior to the deadline
for responses.
The Cal Ave survey was sent by the Chamber to CAABA/MOCA business members and other area business
owners. This survey had a very strong response. Someone apparently shared the survey invitation beyond
those it was sent to, so a small number of respondents were not Cal Ave area businesses.
We did not specifically ask about parklets, though many respondents expressed support in their comments,
because our focus was on the City's proposal to temporarily create pedestrian‐only streets. It's clear that the
idea of parklets is very popular and we enthusiastically support this approach as a partial solution to the
restaurant dining limitations imposed by the County Health Department.
Sincerely,
Judy Kleinberg, President
Charlie Weidanz, CEO
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
355 Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Tel:
www.paloaltochamber.com
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:alan gianotti <gianotti@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Full support for Cal Ave Pedestrian Only!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
We are local homeowners and spend our money locally. We are in full support of this change!
Alan Gianotti & Valerie Sarma
2125 Wellesley St
Palo Alto, Ca. 94306
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:cindyreed@cynmark.com
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposal to close California Ave to vehicle traffic
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I support the proposal to close California Avenue to vehicle traffics, andmake that section into a beautiful pedestrian
only outdoor plaza, and O supper that being done permanently, not just temporarily during Covid‐19.
Cindy Reed
Palo Alto resident, Sutter Ave
Get Outlook for Android
Redacted
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Stephen Rock <ser84@caa.columbia.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Open air eating
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Folks,
I commend you in your efforts to encourage outdoor eating at restaurants.
However, you should take measures to prevent restaurants from installing outdoor heating. Many restaurants used
outdoor heaters (often gas) to burn their patrons. This is a horrible waste of energy and CO2 producer. You have many
strict insulation rules. Having outdoor heating violates them all.
Socially conscious eating places provide blankets for their patrons.
‐Steve
‐‐
Stephen Rock
3872 Nathan Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Star-Lack, Sylvia
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:21 AM
To:Ellson, Penny; Council, City; Kamhi, Philip; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Phillips, Peter; Pflasterer, Jim
Subject:RE: VMT and LOS and MMLOS and CEQA and SB743
Hi Penny,
The staff report for June 15th includes a discussion of MMLOS. See page 6.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=65453.84&BlobID=77026
We had high hopes for MMLOS, but it is problematic and not widely used.
Thanks!
‐Sylvia
Sylvia Star‐Lack | Transportation Manager
Office of Transportation | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2546 |E: Sylvia.star‐lack@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request.
From: pellson@pacbell.net <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 11:50 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Star‐Lack, Sylvia
<Sylvia.Star‐Lack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Phillips, Peter <pkphillips@gmail.com>; Pflasterer, Jim <jimpf@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: VMT and LOS and MMLOS and CEQA and SB743
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
I just got this notice from city staff this evening.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/trn/senate_bill_743.asp
Reading the study session staff report from Council’s May 18 meeting on this subject, I notice an omission. The
Comprehensive Plan (Program T2.3.1) requires staff to “…explore desired standards for MMLOS, which includes motor
2
vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections.” The Study Session report made no mention of MMLOS. I hope MMLOS will be
explored before any decisions are made.
For rail corridor projects, I think this will be especially important, as all of the crossings currently being worked on are
school commute routes.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Penny Ellson
Virus-free. www.avg.com
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 8:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In favor: Level of Service (LOS) standards for conducting local-level transportation analyses
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council,
I am writing in favor of LOS standards. The comp plan provides for VMT and LOS standards.
VMT standards detect congestion outside of Palo Alto, while LOS standards affect traffic inside of Palo Alto.
We should adopt the LOS standards that have been used by Menlo Park in the Stanford GUP process because they
indicated more intersections and at further distances were affected then our own LOS standards.
Best regards,
Arthur Keller
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Hyunkyu Lee <psykyu@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:59 AM
To:Council, City; Transportation
Cc:Kwangmoo Koh
Subject:Concern related to the New Churchill Partial Underpass option
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I am Kyu, a resident of Palo Alto.
First of all, I would like to thank you for your effort to make Palo Alto a better place.
Related to the "new Churchill underpass option", I would like to raise some concerns as a resident of Kellogg
Avenue. It would be great if you consider those in your decision making.
I concern that the pedestrian/bike ramp on Kellogg will cause a lot of issues for the residents on the block. With
the ramp extended to 2-3 houses on Kellogg, cars around the ramp might have a hard time to get out or into
the driveway. There might not be enough space for garbage bins for their pick-up. Given there are many flag
lots on Kellogg relying on street-parking, this change might cause a serious parking issue. According to the
rendered image, Kellogg is one way street for those houses around the ramp, which limits the residents'
access to Alma or to the east of Palo Alto.
I was wondering if you have considered those issues and have any plans to resolve them.
I really appreciated your hard work, and it would be great if you could answer the above concerns.
Best regards,
Kyu
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Stinson Valerie <stinsonvalerie37@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:stinsonvalerie37@gmail.com
Subject:Support for underpass at Charleston and E Meadow
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Council members,
I support the underpass under Charleston and E Meadow as the preferred priority. It will impact fewer neighborhoods,
fewer people both visually and audibly.
Also, the noise analysis rating system in the recent Noise Amaylsis is a farce, since it doesn’t take into account how many
fewer residents will be impacted by contraction noise by doing the underpass, both because of the focus in a smaller
area, and because it will take less time to complete. I feel the noise ratings should include factors for number of people‐
days affected by construction noise. If this were added, I believe the Underpass option would be the most highly rated.
Thank you,
Valerie Stinson
Greenmeadow Way
Palo Alto
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:31 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Nicole Zoeller Boelens
Subject:Current rail grade separation plans severely lacking from ped/bike perspective
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear members of the City Council,
Instead of designing complete streets, taking different modes of transportation into consideration from the start, the
design process for the rail grade separation project seems to have taken a vehicle‐first approach. In the designs, it's
evident that the infrastructure for cars was completed with pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure pieces added as an
afterthought. This has resulted in a seriously flawed design that will not be well received by the community and may be
very hard to fix in the future. To prevent this outcome, we would like for PABAC to review the complete bike/ped
facilities before they are presented to the public in community meetings.
At the most basic level, the problems with the design come down to this: if the City of Palo Alto wants to be a pedestrian
and bike‐friendly city, and reach its policy goal of 10% of trips taking place by bike, the city needs to hire traffic engineers
and consultants with a proven track record of designing complete streets. Receiving poorly conceived and incomplete
designs from engineers places an enormous burden on the committees that look to steward solutions that will be best
for our community, as is the case with this project.
We care about projects like this that will affect the safety and well‐being of our community for decades to come, and
that's why, even with a newborn at home, we've taken the time to outline the issues we see with the current concepts
and hope you'll take this feedback into strong consideration:
* Bicycle tunnels have the same serious design flaws as the Homer tunnel. i.e. no clear line of sight through the tunnel
due to sharp blind corners. These would create a dangerous situation when hundreds of kids are biking through, and
are very difficult to navigate for young children, elderly people, and cargo bikes.
* The proposed bicycle/pedestrian underpasses at Meadow and Charleston are bi‐directional. This by itself is fine, but
there is no proposal on how these underpasses will be connected to the existing bicycle lanes, which are one‐directional,
and how pedestrians and cyclists can cross the street quickly and safely.
* The Meadow and Charleston underpasses cut through Park Boulevard with no clear proposal on how to fix and
reconnect this important cycling route.
* The proposed update for the Embarcadero underpass does not include a safe, bi‐directional bicycle path from Kingsley
Ave to Town & Country. In addition, some of the proposed changes around High Street seem to encourage even
higher and more dangerous vehicle speeds than the current situation (which is already dangerous for pedestrians and
cyclists).
If serious revisions aren't made to these plans, the city council will be allowing Palo Alto to feel more like a freeway and
less like the pedestrian/cycling friendly community we know it can be. To help avoid this, we urge you to allow PABAC to
receive updated plans with complete bike/ped facilities for review. In addition to the 3D artistic renderings, which are
very difficult to interpret, this would include
good quality 2D technical drawings.
7
Last but not least, we would like to see that PABAC is given the opportunity to review and make recommendations to
the XCAP committee and City Council on all of the different alternatives that XCAP plans to put forward.
Kind regards,
Nicole, Arnout, & Ava Zoeller Boelens
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Seamans, Dora <SeamansD@samtrans.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 2:34 PM
To:CouncilMembers@brisbaneca.org; kkinser@brisbaneca.org; council@ssf.net; BPAC@ssf.net;
dwoltering@sanbruno.ca.gov; council@burlingame.org; awong@burlingame.org;
seatkinson@cityofsanmateo.org; CityCouncil@belmont.gov; PRComm@belmont.gov;
council@redwoodcity.org; Manzi, Jessica; council@ci.atherton.ca.us/; akockler@ci.atherton.ca.us;
city.council@menlopark.org; kchen@menlopark.org; Council, City; Transportation;
citycouncil@mountainview.gov; bpac@mountainview.gov; BPAC@sunnyvale.ca.gov;
mayorandcouncil@santaclaraca.gov; DNg@santaclaraca.gov; john.brazil@sanjoseca.gov;
julie.behzad@morganhill.ca.gov; AllCouncilMembers@ci.gilroy.ca.us; Zachary.Hilton@ci.gilroy.ca.us
Cc:CLK-Pamela Aguilar; CLK-Meaghan Hassel-Shearer; Anthony Suber; Terri Cook; Gabriel Rodriguez;
Herren, Judi A; Rosa Acosta
Subject:FW: Emailing - Approved_BAC Chair Letter_Caltrain Corridor Slow Streets (004).pdf
Attachments:Approved_BAC Chair Letter_Caltrain Corridor Slow Streets (004).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayors, City Council Members, Committee Members and Commissioners,
Please find the attached correspondence received from the Caltrain Bicycle Advisory Committee addressed to the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and Caltrain Citizens Advisory Committee with a copy to each of you.
Kind regards,
Dora
Dora Seamans, MPA, CMC
Executive Officer/District Secretary
SamTrans, Executive Administration
1250 San Carlos Ave
San Carlos, CA 94070
Tel:
Seamansd@samtrans.com
Redacted
May 21, 2020
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
Caltrain Citizens Advisory Committee
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070
A Proposal for “Slow Streets” for Bicycling and Walking Along the Caltrain Corridor
Dear Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and Caltrain Citizens Advisory Committee,
As you are aware Caltrain has seen a precipitous drop in ridership since our local county shelter
in place orders went into effect in March, with ticket sales dropping by 95%. While we hope that
our collective success in flattening the curve will lead to a rebound over the course of the
summer and fall there is still much uncertainty in how soon riders will return to Caltrain and
other public transit.
Ordinarily we would reach out to local jurisdictions to encourage improving connections for
biking to and from individual Caltrain stations. This work is still important and we hope to see it
continue. Right now the need is even greater to facilitate bicycle trips between destinations
along the corridor that might normally be taken by train. As businesses reopen and residents
gradually return to work and other destinations it’s crucial that viable alternatives to driving be
made available. Given that the estimated average (mean) trip was 22.9 miles in 2019 it’s likely
that a substantial number of trips could be substituted on a bicycle or e-bike, particularly during
the dry summer months. Routes like Old County Road in Belmont and San Carlos and Evelyn
Avenue in Mountain View and Sunnyvale could be made more enticing so that typical train
commuters feel safe riding a bike instead of driving.
We applaud the jurisdictions along the Caltrain Corridor who have already begun some sort of
“slow streets” program to enable more people to safely walk and bike. But we would like to see
this taken a step further - jurisdictions must work with their neighboring cities and counties to
make sure that there are safe bike routes up and down the Peninsula and through the South
Bay.
Sincerely,
The Caltrain Bicycle Advisory Committee
Cc: San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Municipal Transportation Agency,
Mayor London Breed, BAC
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, County BPAC, CCAG BPAC
Brisbane City Council and Complete Streets Committee
South San Francisco City Council and BPAC
San Bruno City Council and BPAC
Millbrae City Council and Parks and Recreation Committee
Burlingame City Council and Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
San Mateo City Council and Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission
Belmont City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission
San Carlos City Council and Transportation & Circulation Committee
Redwood City Council and Complete Streets Committee
Atherton City Council and BPAC
Menlo Park City Council and Complete Streets Commission
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Palo Alto City Council and BPAC
Mountain View City Council and BPAC
Sunnyvale City Council and BPAC
Santa Clara City Council and BPAC
San Jose City Council and BPAC
Morgan Hill City Council and BPAC
Gilroy City Council and BPAC
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeremy Erman <jeremy_erman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 11:15 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; City Mgr; Administrative Services; CSD
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Problems with Cubberley proposal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Manager Ed Shikada, Administrative Services, Community Services, and City Council,
The City wants to keep all of the athletic properties at Cubberley intact, but casually propose breaking up the music and
theatre facilities.
However, groups usually do not rent the Theatre alone, but in conjunction with one or more of the M rooms. Maps of
Cubberley incorrectly show the Theatre and M rooms as forming three different buildings, but they are in fact one
building and form one performing arts facility. Separating them makes no more sense than retaining the gyms without
their locker rooms, and will cause long‐time users to stop renting the Theatre.
The Theatre's inventory list for prospective renters lists M2, M3, and M4 as dressing rooms, along with the 4‐person
M11, and catalogues the amenities they provide, such as costume rack space, makeup‐stations with lights, temporary
changing facilities, closed‐circuit audio and visual support, chairs, couches, etc. M‐2 and M‐4 also contain the Theatre's
grand pianos for rehearsals and performances.
You can view the inventory list at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/17339
Here is an expanded version of my comments to the City Council tonight. Please read!!
In October, City Council directed City staff to form a new 5‐year lease with the school district to keep Cubberley whole
through 2024. This didn't happen. In April, City staff proposed pulling out of the school district's portion of Cubberley
altogether. Then in May, City staff suggested keeping some parts of Cubberley and not others.
On May 13, City staff sent Council a memo about Cubberley's tenants and finances. Unfortunately, this arrived without
enough time for Council to thoroughly read it before voting to end discussion on Cubberley. Even worse, this memo has
inaccuracies and incomplete information, such as wrongly listing the Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra as a "short‐term
tenant," even though they have been there for decades. Even stranger, their office, which is shaded yellow on the map
to indicate a long‐term tenant, is missing from the attached list of City properties, even though virtually all of the so‐
called "long‐term tenants" of Cubberley are listed.
Bizarrely, this lease calls for the City to retain the Cubberley Theatre's lobby and auditorium, but gives the backstage
dressing rooms to the school district, even though these rooms are on the Theatre's inventory list for groups to rent.
This means most groups who use the Theatre will be unable to do so, and existing contracts for 2021 will probably have
to be scrapped.
2
In addition, the lease conveniently allows groups who also rent space on the City's side of Cubberley to continue using
space on the school district's side. I believe there is also a building listed as going to both the school district and the City,
under different names.
In the face of such confusion, how can Council have an honest discussion about Cubberley next week, especially when
you are seeing the lease only after City staff pushed the school board to vote on it, and sent eviction notices to the
affected tenants? This is not appropriate.
I urge Council to reject this lease, which will remain in effect through 2024, likely long after most cuts due to COVID‐19
have ended. If you are reluctant to financially commit through 2024, why not sign a lease to keep Cubberley whole
through 2021? This will give everyone a chance to calm down and work together during this crisis to plan the future of
Cubberley.
I believe this can be payed for by deferring replacing seats in the Lucie Stern Theatre and resurfacing the Magical Bridge
Playground, facilities that have been closed for months, as well as scaling back or deferring multimillion‐dollar
renovations at Rinconada Park. Thank you.
‐Jeremy Erman
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sustainability Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
The Utilities department likes to talk about the electricity portfolio has very little GHG. The truth is in California, ½ of the
electricity is generated using natural gas. But Palo Alto says, that they buy so much solar energy supplied electricity that
it uses very little natural gas generated electricity. But that is not the way things work, when the sun goes down, the
electricity comes from the grid and thus lots of natural gas generated electricity. One thing about natural gas generated
electricity, the process is only 40% efficient. That means that when the electric clothes dryer is used, more GHG are
generated compared to using a natural gas clothes dryer. Is this what you really want?
Take Care,
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
Check Out Possible Grade Separation Solution at Churchill or
Copy and Paste http://www.paloaltoenergy.org/churchill/
Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Listen to Radio Around the World
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
Redacted
2
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
Amos Tversky
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sustainability Plan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Regarding the Sustainability Plan ahead of you, I suggest you remove any thoughts of removing old natural gas lines and
not replacing with new plastic ones. Some of us love our gas stoves and gas ranges. Our restaurants require gas stoves.
Heat pump water heaters are expensive and have lots of moving parts. For large families they will be very expensive to
operate. Gas clothes dryers will be hugely expensive.
One item that is missing from the plan and not addressed is wood burning fireplaces. One can see and smell the
pollution. You have to address this. Suggest an incentive plan to get residents to convert their wood burning fireplaces
to use a gas burning insert. They will still look nice and set a nice mood and with the added feature of putting out more
heat into the room.
Take Care,
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
Check Out Possible Grade Separation Solution at Churchill or
Copy and Paste http://www.paloaltoenergy.org/churchill/
Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Listen to Radio Around the World
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
Redacted
4
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
Amos Tversky
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Phil Metz <philmetz@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 11:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:S/CAP Inputs
Attachments:Recommendations for Improving Palo Alto's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Phil Metz
4-9-20.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Folks, with respect for all the hard work that has been done, I believe that the Palo Alto S/CAP is
fundamentally off base. The proposed Plan will decrease already low energy resilience and reduce
the City’s ability to operate in an emergency. And it is far from optimal in addressing climate change
and energy.
Per my April recommendations (attached) we need to:
Develop a holistic plan that addresses GHG reduction, increased resilience, and enhanced
emergency response in a unified way
Place far more emphasis on energy efficiency and local energy generation
Recent research funded by the California Energy Commission demonstrates that all of this is feasible
and will lead to a far superior energy solution that addresses climate change, while improving
resilience and enhancing emergency response:
https://smartblocks.org/
Palo Alto is heading down a fundamentally wrong path and we need to correct it.
Sincerely,
Phil Metz
Phil Metz
philmetz@gmail.com
R
e
d
a
c
t
e
d
Improving Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Phil Metz, 3201 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 philmetz@gmail.com
I would like to offer three recommendations for improving Palo Alto’s Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan, as described in the March 31, 2020 SCAP Presentation:
1. Greatly enhance community involvement and input in the planning
process.
2. Develop a holistic Plan that simultaneously addresses GHG reduction,
increased resilience, and enhanced emergency response.
3. Close the gaps in transportation and Scope 3 emissions.
Greatly enhance community involvement and input in the planning process. The
process for developing the SCAP output reflects minimal community involvement and
input. I have participated in 2 Utility Advisory Commission Resilience Workshops and
see little in the SCAP reflecting those discussions. And we must address GHG
reduction and resilience / emergency response together in a holistic way (see
recommendation below).
To that end I recommend that we:
• Undertake an intensive GHG reduction planning process that actively involves
community members in developing a holistic plan. An initiative that we might
emulate is the “Amsterdam City Donut Process”.
• Delay SCAP in this time of pandemic until active community involvement in such
a holistic planning process is feasible.
Develop a holistic Plan that simultaneously addresses GHG reduction, increased
resilience, and enhanced emergency response. Addressing GHG reduction without
considering resilience and emergency response could literally be disastrous for the City
of Palo Alto. The City needs a holistic and integrated strategy that:
• Enhances climate change mitigation
• Improves resilience vs. energy / water supply disruption
• Ensures a minimum level of habitability during an emergency so that residents
can shelter in place in their own neighborhoods for an extended period.
Renewable electricity RECs and natural gas offsets should NOT be part of the Palo Alto
sustainability plan. Claiming that RECs and offsets “reduce” Palo Alto GHG emissions
– as the SCAP presentation indicates – is dubious at best. These financial instruments
for energy delivered at another place and another time do not really reduce Palo Alto
GHG emissions, and should not be the core of Palo Alto’s SCAP.
Instead, the #1 thing Palo Alto can do to mitigate building-related climate change is
“negawatts” – dramatically increasing building energy efficiency. That will also stretch
resources in a supply disruption or emergency. Local renewable energy production is
Improving Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Phil Metz, 3201 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 philmetz@gmail.com
the #2 priority for reducing both building and transportation GHG emissions. Could Palo
Alto become a “laboratory” for local climate change innovation by harnessing local
renewable distributed energy resources (DER), such as PV electricity and EV storage?
These are the difficult challenges we need to undertake.
It is essential that we address electricity supply resilience in our plan to reduce GHG
emissions – especially if we are contemplating a shift from natural gas to all electric
buildings, as the SCAP proposes: With a single grid interconnect – through PG&E –
Palo Alto is deeply vulnerable to disruption. A partial solution would be to add a second
interconnect, so that we are not vulnerable to a single point failure. And CPAU dispatch
of enhanced local resources could provide grid support in an emergency. Perhaps, too,
there are opportunities to partner with Stanford, with its innovative energy system. Until
we address electricity supply resilience, it would be highly risky to mandate all-electric
buildings as our approach to in-building GHG emission reduction, as SCAP proposes.
As a Palo Alto emergency services volunteer (BPC and CERT), I have learned that in
an earthquake or other emergency, even minimal local energy production could stabilize
our neighborhoods, enabling residents to shelter in place, and not evacuate. I propose
the goal that 1 house in 10 (proportionately for other buildings) have the energy to
power a refrigerator, water pump, and emergency communications. Let’s also explore
partnering with Tesla to pilot approaches for using the considerable amount of electricity
stored in EVs during supply disruptions or natural emergencies.
Close the gaps in transportation and Scope 3 emissions. The SCAP presentation
has two large GHG emissions gaps that we need to close:
• Transportation, by far Palo Alto’s #1 GHG source according to the SCAP Plan, if
we accept the use of electricity RECs and natural gas offsets to reduce building-
related GHG emissions.
• Scope 3 emissions which are not addressed at all in the SCAP.
The Mobility and Electric Vehicle sections of the Plan are pretty thin, and mostly boil
down to developing by 2022 a plan to encourage EVs. I think we need to accelerate
this. Similar to the recommendation above: Might we partner with Tesla to find ways to
accelerate EV penetration? And how will we address electricity supply resilience as we
put even more “eggs in the electricity basket”?
As far as I can tell, the SCAP does not even mention Scope 3 emissions – GHG
emissions beyond direct local emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from the
electricity we purchase (Scope 2). In an affluent community such as Palo Alto, Scope 3
GHG emissions are likely to be greater than Scopes 1 and 2. So, it is essential that we
address Scope 3 emissions in our Sustainability and Climate Action Plan.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Connie Stillinger <stillinger@protonmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for reconsidering the curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you for hearing us and taking a second look at the risks, and then repealing the curfew in Palo Alto.
That was a tough decision to make. Flexibility is key to leadership, which we will remember.
Thank you,
Constance Stillinger, PhD, OSCP, CISSP, PMP
stillinger@protonmail.com
Palo Alto
Redacted
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Phyllis Munsey <pmuns@thegrid.net>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto Summer Outdoor Dining -- URGENT!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE DISASTER THAT IS ABOUT TO BEFALL PALO ALTO.
Please read letter below to Robert George from Greg St Claire, owner of Nola Restaurant who has occupied a large
portion of my building on Ramona Street for the past 20+ years. I don’t see where Greg has copied the city council (so I
am). I want to make sure you are alerted to and wake up to the extreme urgency of this need for saving our city. The
many addressees on this email below have been organizing and trying to get action that can save their businesses, and it
looks like the city just 'doesn’t get it’ !! You need to listen to need and act FAST!…..and lose the bureaucratic need to
complicate and create burdens instead of expeditious, innovative solutions.
Following Greg’s letter is another letter from yet another frustrated business owner. …and of course there are many
more such letters…..
A very concerned property owner.
Phyllis Munsey
deLemos Properties
520 and 535 Ramona Stret
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Greg St.Claire" <greg@avenir-rg.com>
Subject: Re: Palo Alto Summer Outdoor Dining
Date: June 4, 2020 at 7:43:23 PM PDT
To: "George, Robert" <Robert.George@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: "Eggleston, Brad" <Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>, Elena Kadvany
<ekadvany@embarcaderopublishing.com>, Emily Perry Wilson <emily@birddogpa.com>,
Guillaume Bienaime <guillaumebienaime@gmail.com>, "Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan"
<Meghan.Horrigan-Taylor@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Joyhome_ca@hotmail.com"
<Joyhome_ca@hotmail.com>, "Kleinberg, Judy" <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>, Sprout Cafe
<sproutcafe@gmail.com>, "Tanner, Rachael" <Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org>,
"akiko@yayoi-us.com" <akiko@yayoi-us.com>, "alisi@oldpropa.com" <alisi@oldpropa.com>,
"blake@thepawineroom.com" <blake@thepawineroom.com>, "cafevenetia@gmail.com"
<cafevenetia@gmail.com>, "carrubba@gmail.com" <carrubba@gmail.com>,
"ciao@gelataio.us" <ciao@gelataio.us>, "currypizzahouse@gmail.com"
<currypizzahouse@gmail.com>, "douglas@onigilly.com" <douglas@onigilly.com>,
"eat@bevri.com" <eat@bevri.com>, "estherwg1951@gmail.com" <estherwg1951@gmail.com>,
"evvia@evvia.com" <evvia@evvia.com>, "faith@bellsbooks.com" <faith@bellsbooks.com>,
3
"francisco@pizzamyheart.com" <francisco@pizzamyheart.com>, "frankattpg@aol.com"
<frankattpg@aol.com>, "hello@dangordons.com" <hello@dangordons.com>,
"hello@oldpropa.com" <hello@oldpropa.com>, "human@saltandstraw.com"
<human@saltandstraw.com>, "info@burmaruby.com" <info@burmaruby.com>,
"info@curryupnow.com" <info@curryupnow.com>, "info@gong-cha-usa.com" <info@gong-cha-
usa.com>, "info@joyarestaurant.com" <info@joyarestaurant.com>, "info@roohpaloalto.com"
<info@roohpaloalto.com>, "info@steampaloalto.com" <info@steampaloalto.com>,
"info@tacolicious.com" <info@tacolicious.com>, "info@taipanpaloalto.com"
<info@taipanpaloalto.com>, "info@tubapaloalto.com" <info@tubapaloalto.com>,
"info@vinolocale.com" <info@vinolocale.com>, "info@wbnorcal.com" <info@wbnorcal.com>,
"jselzer@paloaltobicycles.com" <jselzer@paloaltobicycles.com>, justin wong
<justinwilliamw@gmail.com>, "justinyoungyun@gmail.com" <justinyoungyun@gmail.com>,
"kiana.bueler@saltandstraw.com" <kiana.bueler@saltandstraw.com>,
"kiana.bueller@saltandstraw.com" <kiana.bueller@saltandstraw.com>,
"kristinegamble@philzcoffee.com" <kristinegamble@philzcoffee.com>,
"mazen@crepevine.com" <mazen@crepevine.com>, "mike@thepawineroom.com"
<mike@thepawineroom.com>, "mk@maumgroup.com" <mk@maumgroup.com>,
"nancy@coupacafe.com" <nancy@coupacafe.com>, "nasaraejohnson@vervecoffee.com"
<nasaraejohnson@vervecoffee.com>, "neeraj@sliderbarusa.com" <neeraj@sliderbarusa.com>,
"paloalto@noburestaurants.com" <paloalto@noburestaurants.com>,
"paloalto@pizzeriadelfina.com" <paloalto@pizzeriadelfina.com>, "paloaltothai@gmail.com"
<paloaltothai@gmail.com>, "peter@sushirrito.com" <peter@sushirrito.com>,
"quob@hotmail.com" <quob@hotmail.com>, "ramona@coupacafe.com"
<ramona@coupacafe.com>, "robfischer@mac.com" <robfischer@mac.com>,
"roussell@orenshummus.com" <roussell@orenshummus.com>,
"saundra.nguyen@sweetgreen.com" <saundra.nguyen@sweetgreen.com>,
"scoopyoulater@gmail.com" <scoopyoulater@gmail.com>, "son.vo@comcast.net"
<son.vo@comcast.net>, "ssinchek1@gmail.com" <ssinchek1@gmail.com>,
"ssinchek@gmail.com" <ssinchek@gmail.com>, "tanya@tamarinegroup.com"
<tanya@tamarinegroup.com>, "thelowdown@birddog.com" <thelowdown@birddog.com>,
"thepatio@gmail.com" <thepatio@gmail.com>, "thetaproompa@gmail.com"
<thetaproompa@gmail.com>, "ty@sushirrito.com" <ty@sushirrito.com>,
"wafa@creamnation.com" <wafa@creamnation.com>, "whitney@fivetengifts.com"
<whitney@fivetengifts.com>, TUBA PALO ALTO <tubapaloalto@gmail.com>, "Zareen's
Restaurant" <zareensrestaurant@gmail.com>, Peter Katz <pkatz@thecounternorcal.com>,
"rjett@starbucks.com" <rjett@starbucks.com>, "jp.takhar@lemonadela.com"
<jp.takhar@lemonadela.com>, "Apple, Kara" <kara.apple@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Boyd, Holly"
<Holly.Boyd@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Dauler, Heather" <Heather.Dauler@cityofpaloalto.org>,
Peter Coughlan <petercoughlan@gmail.com>, Phyllis Munsey <pmuns@thegrid.net>
Rob,
Can you please clarify the comment on parklets. "There is a parklet section (please disregard for now,
we are in the pilot phase at this time)" What does this mean? I don't want to waste any more
time/money on Parklet designs/Palo Alto if this is not part of the program for this summer. There are a
TON of businesses not on University/California that won't make it if the plan is just to close these two
sections/streets. Sidewalk dining in Palo Alto given the militant stay off the streets approach is an absurd
option. That is a pathetic revenue source. Some common sense on math needs to wash over the
decision makers on the council and City staffers.
There is a large exitus happening in prime office leases happening. VC firms are looking to leave. Palantir
eyeing Colorado. Work from home is taking hold. Is the City staff not grasping what is happening?
Pension debt is insane and we could blow away the 40‐50m budget shortfall! We are already a day late
and a dollar short on reacting to this and Palo Alto was in decline pre covid 19. I don't mean to come
across as rude but for god sake this snail pace is going to have long lasting impacts on this City. Now is
the time for bold quick thinking actions or this council and city staff are going to be the poster people
4
who did not see the call to action. We are getting destroyed as an industry and we are the very fabric of
what makes Palo Alto/Cities great.
Parklets, outdoor dining take time, money and lead time for ordering. 4‐8 weeks to get anything. You
can't magically make this happen. Some direction and clarification is needed now more than ever.
Best,
Greg
Greg St Claire
Owner
Avenir Restaurant Group
www.avenir‐rg.com
www.townsc.com
www.nolas.com
www.milagrosrc.com
www.ranchoalena.com
www.alpineinnpv.com
Hi Rob:
I was planning to apply for the sidewalk dining permits but the regulations are heavy handed to the point of being
utterly bizarre: occupied chair to be 8 feet away from any obstruction like trees or lamp post etc and 6 feet away from
pedestrian paths. Not only is it inexplicable but also eliminates any chance of a meaningful outdoor seating capacity
given that lamp post, trees, bike racks are all around the sidewalks. And occupied chair definition is draconian too, it
should be at most one foot from the table, not two. In EU, the recommended social distance guideline is 4.5 feet. In US
we are already over cautious ‐ choosing the extreme limit of WHO guidelines of 3‐6 feet.
While I appreciate City’s intention in helping restaurants, it’s not of value to a business like mine.
In health,
Zareen Khan
CEO/Chef
www.zareensrestaurant.com
Join us on
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:56 PM George, Robert <Robert.George@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Good Afternoon Palo Alto Businesses,
In preparation for the next phase of the Santa Clara County order allowing outside dining for restaurants
starting tomorrow, June 5 (link below), the City has created the Summer Streets Permit Program. This
will allow you to move into the next phase safely and with the support of the City of Palo. Please fill out
Redacted
5
the attached application and return it to the City today (or as soon as possible). Here are a few details of
this simple application process:
There is no fee
City Staff is dedicated to expedite the applications in as soon as one business day
This for sidewalk and parking lot dining
There is a parklet section (please disregard for now, we are in the pilot phase at this time)
All State and County guidance must be followed in addition to this permit (links below)
This is a temporary permit and may be changed, modified or cancelled as we move through the
upcoming phases of reopening
Please complete the attached application and return it to Public Works Engineering at
pwecips@cityofpaloalto.org
Resources: Reference Section 14
ABC Order: https://www.abc.ca.gov/fourth-notice-of-regulatory-relief/
Restaurants who want to serve on sidewalks/streets should complete this temporary
authorization application. You also must submit a Form ABC 253 (diagram) and pay the $100
fee.
County Order: Reference Section 7
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Documents/Appendix-C1-Additional-Businesses-06-05-20.pdf
City Lifts June 2nd the curfew order
https://mailchi.mp/e8f32620e12b/news-release-palo-alto-curfew-ends?e=b125363688
6
Rob George
Senior Management Analyst
(650) 329‐2363 | Rob.George@CityofPaloAlto.org
www.cityofpaloalto.org
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:rogersac@aol.com
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council
As a resident who lives far from Stanford Shopping Centre, California Avenue and University Avenue, I am very much
distressed at the curfew you have imposed for 10 days. Whereas I can see that perhaps a curfew for a few evenings at
dusk until dawn around those areas may deter crime, I can see absolutely no reason why people in the residential
neighbourhoods are now unable to go for an evening stroll when it cools down, watch the sunset, take a dog for a walk, or
chat outside to neighbours socially distanced.
Yes we do want to prevent crime and looting, but turning every resident of Palo Alto into an assumed criminal is not the
way to do it.
I trust you will amend this to at least the high risk neighbourhoods and remove the curfew from the rest of Palo Alto as
soon as possible.
Thank you.
Carol Rogers
3395 Stockton Place.
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:Smith, Elizabeth D <esmith41@tulane.edu>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
These have been difficult times for all of us and I appreciate that we are living through
unprecedented circumstances. I am writing, however, to urge you to reconsider your
imposition of a blanket curfew. I believe it represents significant overreach and
potentially violates our civil liberties - the bedrock of democracy.
Even if there were legitimate concerns about property damage, the city could have
limited the geographic scope of the curfew to commercial areas or strategically utilized
law enforcement resources to protect stores. Instead, the city imposed a blanket
curfew, limiting our freedom of movement and assembly.
I urge you to please reconsider.
Sincerely,
Daley Smith
College student
Laguna Ave Palo Alto
GMS middle school graduate
Sacred Heart HS graduate
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kevin GUIBARA <kevinguibara@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
As a business owner, I support and appreciate the pro active curfew. Palo Alto has the most retail on the San Francisco
Peninsula and should take exceptional steps to protect it.
The curfew has only marginal impacts on the residents because there is already a shelter in place order in effect and
most businesses are closed in the evenings. The curfew is a very effective way to prevent looting without preventing the
ability for people to protest peacefully during the day.
The ACLU is a politically motivated organization and has remained silent about the shelter in place order violating
freedoms of American Citizens. Thus, it is surprising that now they are against curfews that are actually directly
preventing violence, protecting safety and relatively short.
Thank you for your hard work and decision making during this difficult time.
Sincerely,
Kevin Guibara
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barry Hart <hartb88@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 day curfew - Too long and too broad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council -
Our freedom is a fundamental right in this country - taking that away is a serious action.
I support the curfew in a time and space limited fashion - but not 10 days.
What is the purpose of having a curfew west or El Camino? why 10 days and not 3 days? add days if
needed.
This is a serious action - please revisit and revise.
Barry Hart
Palo Alto Ave
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Steve Casale <scasebiz@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:20 AM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Thoughts on a 10-day curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To Mayor Adrian Fine, City Manager Ed Shikada, and the City Council,
I hope you are all doing well as you continue to manage the city through uncertainty. Thank you for your service.
I'm writing as a resident of Palo Alto to strongly encourage the city to reconsider the length of its recently imposed
curfew through June 11 – an incongruous length of time in relation to other municipal and county curfews across the
Bay Area, which are being reconsidered daily.
I support the right of people to assemble in protest and the efforts of law enforcement to safeguard people and
property from harm. And I appreciate initiatives that aim to strike a balance between the two, including conditional
curfews.
The outcome of this citywide curfew, however, is mostly frustration. I would think that Palo Alto has received credible
threats that are similar to those of other Bay Area urban centers.
While city manager Shikada and others have provided more details to support the extent of this curfew, it seems to be
more an effort to safeguard the very elite few – those of interstellar wealth who live in this city – at a cost to the
community at large. At its worst, it criminalizes the residents of Palo Alto.
In this sense, the curfew is more harmful than good, as businesses emerge from almost three months of a lockdown, as
children finish school, and families figure out how to emerge from isolation to reengage with their peers and friends
under evolving protocols.
The city can do better to be more thoughtful in its approach. Right now, it looks like it's making decisions based on fear.
Please reconsider the length of this curfew, or make it a conditional curfew subject to daily assessment.
Thank you for listening.
Steve Casale
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:Michael Fertik <michael@fertik.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Follow up in re Ten Day Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council,
I have received a reply from Mayor Fine and thank him for that. In it, he indicates that he has disagreed with the
decision to announce a ten day curfew from its inception. He also says the decision was the City Manager’s in Palo Alto’s
“weak mayor” system (my phrasing, not a quotation). He can furnish you with the full text of his reply if he wishes.
Thank you for responding. That is a good sign. However, the substance of the letter doesn’t answer the crisis of
leadership I think we are now seeing but instead reaffirms it.
If the City Council are not responsible for the decision and disagree with it, you should publicly and clearly (even if
politely) disclaim it and disagree with it. This is not the moment for passive or private disagreement. Even if you must
work with a City Manager routinely and therefore understandably prefer to maintain a positive working relationship,
this is a rare moment for public distancing from such a decision. It is certainly not a time for hiding behind phrases like
“my understanding is.”
If you really don’t like the policy, perhaps you could threaten to resign in protest. That would be a very strong message.
Either you own the decision or you don’t. Either you lead in opposition to it publicly and clearly, or you don’t.
Also, if this was, in fact, the City Manager’s decision, and if the City Council and Mayor were not adequately consulted
on it, you should publicly and overtly demand an accounting of the decision. You should, at least, demand to know what
other municipalities have declared TEN DAY curfews anywhere in California or the United States. There may be such a
list. I can’t find one. If the City Manager can’t provide one because he or she has not done the proper basic research, you
should consider replacing him or her. As of now, Palo Alto may have the longest declared curfew in America. That would
be a remarkable achievement under this mayorship. You should demand an accounting from the City Manager or
perhaps demand his or her resignation.
The Mayor has still not furnished ANY evidence that he or the city council have done ANY research on this topic in search
for comparable cities and decisions before taking or approving or allowing the policy. He has not yet demonstrated that
he has demanded the same of the City Manager etc. That is fundamental to the job and to the oversight with which you
are entrusted. Nothing is more fundamental.
A curfew is one of the strongest and heaviest moves a city government can take to curtail freedoms of its citizens. It is
unclear the Mayor has done his job in its most basic form. Publish your research or demand the same of the City
Manager. If it doesn’t exist or isn’t available, admit that it doesn’t, rescind or reshape the policy, disclaim the way it was
made, and challenge it publicly.
I urge you to turn this example of poor leadership around immediately. We shall all applaud it if you do. I understand the
curfew may be revised and / or shortened soon. That would be great. We also understand it may need to continue if
safety demands it. If the curfew is to continue for reasons of safety, then you must explain publicly what the city has
13
done to show that a declared ten day citywide curfew has useful precedents in the current moment or similar moments
in American municipal history.
Michael
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aisha Piracha-Zakariya <aishapz2016@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:02 PM
To:Fine, Adrian
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Re: Curfew Justification?
Mayor Fine,
I appreciate your response and understand the constraints you may have as an elected official with regards to following
the provisions in the Brown Act. As a member of the public, and for continued openness and transparency, I share and
voice my message to the City Council. I have also added the City Manager in this email response.
I am still searching for the legitimacy and justifications behind the 10‐day curfew imposed by the City of Palo Alto ‐ your
replies below have not included any of that information, and as a resident of this city, I would like to know the legal
explanations for this pre‐emptive and unsubstantiated 10‐day curfew.
Regards,
Aisha
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:48 PM Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Aisha,
I have to respond to you individually because a conversation among all of the council could be a brown act
issue.
I should have been more clear that 1) we are obligated by law to protect property (it is our job), 2) any
vandalism or violence downtown/cal ave is also a threat to our residents or workers. This is *not* about
protecting an empty stanford mall, for instance. Apologies for not mentioning. (On another note, businesses
in town absolutely pay taxes to the city, and they fund many services)
The curfew was issued by the City Manager, acting in his capacity as the director of emergency services. Our
municipal code and state regulations allow this. The council has to review the order within 7 days, and we will
do so this weekend and next Monday. I still agree that 10 days is far too long.
Finally, I agree with you that the curfew sends a chilling message that could deter legitimate and important
protests. I really regret that, but as a government, we have a foundational obligation to protect people, and
that's what this is about. I understand you disagree.
Kind regards,
Adrian
From: Aisha Piracha‐Zakariya <aishapz2016@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:45 AM
15
To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Re: Curfew Justification?
Dear Mayor Fine,
Thank you for your response. In the interest of openness and transparency, I would like for City Council members to be
part of my follow up reply to the email you sent to me last evening.
I continue to struggle with the grossly disproportional response to a threat of potential looting in our commercial areas
with a 10‐day, full on, night‐time curfew on our peaceful residents. Again, the curfew is not a commensurate response
to the threat of looting or vandalism. Curfews are imposed IN RESPONSE to actual violence and live incidents that pose
a direct danger to the well‐being and safety of the people of the community first and foremost, not businesses, and not
as simply a preventative measure.
I am frankly quite astonished at how, by your own admittance in your reply below, you say your actions are 'really
about keeping our businesses safe'. You must be keenly aware of the criticism building in Palo Alto of this extreme
action and how you are putting the needs of big business ahead of the residents ‐ businesses who don't even pay taxes
to the city, in our deficit‐laden city budget. Instead, you are unnecessarily curtailing the rights and movements of Palo
Alto residents who pay extremely high taxes: your constituents.
By your own admittance, you say that, "I also think 10 days is way too long. Do 2‐3 days and then re‐evaluate". So why
didn't we start this way, like our neighboring cities in San Mateo County have done, who claim to be under similar
threats? Again, the casual use of a curfew is very deeply concerning when there IS NO VIOLENCE OR RIOTS in our
streets. It should be a response, but not a preemptive tool. This is a position taken in unfounded fear. This is
government overreach, as even the ACLU points out.
If private businesses need protection, then they can hire private security to police their assets ‐ it is not the job of our
city to provide that service. If the so‐called threats include gangs of cars coming to loot, how would the Palo Alto Police
respond even under curfew? They would still need to police, patrol and respond just like any regular day, where
potential organized criminal activity could occur. Is your solution to serve and protect our city by putting Palo Altans
under nightly lock down instead of providing a surge police presence in the evenings in the said targeted commercial
areas if you have such 'tips'? Is that not what law enforcement does? Can you please come out and openly explain to
the people of Palo Alto, the exact nature of the threats beyond what's been splashed on unsourced social media
feeds?
Unless there is any actual mayhem and looting and violence, I don't think the City should be protecting businesses over
the rights and freedoms of the people living in Palo Alto. The first amendment grants us the freedom to assemble and
violating that right comes with a heavy burden on authorities and governments to show that there is direct danger to
the people that is equal or greater to our constitutional rights.
The curfew also sends a chilling effect on those in our community who want to assemble, protest and exercise their
First Amendment rights during this tumultuous time in race relations in our nation's history ‐ especially to those of us
who are people of color in Palo Alto. I will repeat what I stated earlier: This kind of action will only further place our
community and its residents under greater police scrutiny, mistrust and undue criminalization. The reasons provided by
the City of Palo Alto are insufficient, unfounded and lack transparency. The City should also share how much the 10‐day
curfew will cost Palo Alto tax payers for the overtime Palo Alto police will be getting.
I am confident that our fine, well‐trained, well‐funded Police in Palo Alto can handle criminal activities that arise at any
time ‐ be it during civil upheaval or any regular day or night. What I am not sure about is whether a stringent curfew
like this one deters anyone from breaking the law. It certainly is only curtailing the movements of people in our
beautiful city.
16
I strongly urge you, our Mayor, the City Manager and City Council members to reverse this governmental overreach
and unfounded justification for a curfew immediately.
Peace,
Aisha Piracha
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:38 PM Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Aisha,
Thanks for the message. I am also extremely disappointed we have to take this step. A couple of notes:
1) we have credible and serious threats from criminal gangs about looting and damage in our commercial
areas (downtown, cal ave, the mall)
2) those gangs are said to be 40‐50 vehicles of criminals... so limited patrols would not be able to prevent
them
3) I also think 10 days is way too long. Do 2‐3 days, then re‐evaluate
This curfew is targeted at preventing damage and looting at our commercial establishments. I understand it
could be seen as inflaming tensions or extending law and order. But it's really about keeping our businesses
safe with regards to a real threat.
I hope this helps a bit. Stay safe, and my regards,
Adrian
From: Aisha Piracha‐Zakariya <aishapz2016@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Curfew Justification?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council of Palo Alto:
As a resident of Palo Alto, I am failing to comprehend the legitimacy of the reasons to impose a curfew from 8:30pm ‐
5:00am for the next 10 days in our city.
I want our community and businesses to remain safe from harm, but I want to know why, without any violent
protests, rioters on our streets or any widespread looting, this over‐reaction to curb the movement of residents of the
City of Palo Alto is being imposed without any real‐time justification? The Bay Area the protests have been
overwhelmingly peaceful. I am very concerned about our local government's willingness to impose these curfews
without a legitimate justification. What is the legal basis for this curfew? Is there a legal memo from the City
Attorney’s office on this issue? The ACLU of Northern California feels the same way, in this local news report from
today.
17
https://www.ktvu.com/video/690609?fbclid=IwAR3b9sFCVI7ihbAFpCEdUkkgFTj7f‐
yB1Q4c0F16RDuCiUtAtlzMRehrqM8
A broad‐brushed lockdown of the entire citizenry of Palo Alto forcing everyone to stay in their homes is an over‐
response. Just saying that "Bay Area cities and towns, groups of individuals...have planned and executed criminal acts,
including property damage and theft, focused in central retail areas during nighttime hours", is no justification to lock
down Palo Alto.
Curfews are imposed under extreme conditions and should be a tool wielded most cautiously by governments. There
are some cities that have had looting or criminal activity that require public safety response with law enforcement.
What I am not comprehending is why an extreme lockdown is happening where there has not been any kind of
violence or criminal activity as a result of the protests in Palo Alto. This kind of pre‐emptive action is concerning and
very troubling. We must gauge what the actual extent of the problem is and what a proportional response looks like.
This kind of action will only further place our community and its residents under greater police scrutiny, mistrust and
undue criminalization for merely walking in our streets at night. This is not what I believe Palo Alto stands for.
Aisha Piracha
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:jeff reese <urovmc@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 9:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council:
I watched this past Monday night as a procession of demonstrators drove/walked down Newell Road past my house.
Although it was noisy, there was no violence. I supported your putting in place a curfew for a few days, however, I do
not support a curfew until June 11. Suppressing potential violent and destructive behavior is reasonable. The length of
your curfew order, to my mind, now suppresses legitimate constitutionally guaranteed demonstrations and I have a big
problem with that. I doubt any of the council can justify the length of the curfew and therefore I would request that it be
stopped by Friday night at the latest. To do otherwise is to support the very systemic racism that started the protests to
begin with.
Sincerley,
Jeff Reese
565 Newell Road
19
Baumb, Nelly
From:Smith, Sode <sosmith@davidson.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 9:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mandatory Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to reconsider your imposition of a blanket curfew. This seems
unfair, unjust, and unnecessary. I believe the curfew represents significant overreach
and potentially violates our civil liberties. The First Amendment guarantees all citizen's
right to assembly and the curfew is blatantly disregarding these constitutional rights.
Even if there were legitimate concerns about property damage, the city could have
limited the geographic scope of the curfew to commercial areas or strategically utilized
law enforcement resources to protect stores. Instead, the city imposed a curfew,
limiting our freedom of movement and assembly. Constitutionally, this curfew is a
violation of basic rights in a democracy and I demand freedom of the people. This is an
overt step away from our Constitutional foundations
I urge you to reconsider. As a constituent, I believe the city should be acting based on
trust and not fear. Our freedoms have been taken away and our rights violated. I
demand our constitutional right to assembly and freedom of speech. This curfew
blatantly violates these rights. I demand that the city reconsiders this curfew and
thinks about how it harms our constitutional foundation and trust in the laws of the
land.
Sode Smith,
A resident of 3505 Laguna Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306
20
Baumb, Nelly
From:Elizabeth Arndorfer <earndorfer@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 8:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
These have been difficult times for all of us and I appreciate that we are living through
unprecedented circumstances. I am writing, however, to urge you to reconsider your
imposition of a blanket curfew. I believe it represents significant overreach and
potentially violates our civil liberties - the bedrock of democracy.
I assume that the City Manager acted in good faith and was responding to credible
threats. Even if there were legitimate concerns about property damage, the city could
have limited the geographic scope of the curfew to commercial areas or strategically
utilized law enforcement resources to protect stores. Instead, the city imposed a
blanket curfew, limiting our freedom of movement and assembly.
I urge you to reconsider. During these unsettling times, we need our leaders to act
thoughtfully, not from a place of fear.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Arndorfer
3505 Laguna Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Sent from my iPhone
‐‐
Elizabeth Arndorfer
21
Baumb, Nelly
From:Michael Fertik <michael@fertik.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 8:08 PM
To:CV19 Call Center; Council, City
Cc:City Mgr
Subject:Re: Ten day curfew
Thank you. Your form response is at least civil. But we should be hearing from Mayor Fine. This decision — apparently by
him — should be reviewed formally, as it seems to have been made haplessly.
I don’t doubt the intent of the curfew and do not believe this was designed to stifle legitimate protest. You can stop
saying that. It is not needed to capture the mantle of righteousness. No one suspects otherwise.
However: the City of Palo Alto and our mayor have not yet pointed to a SINGLE other curfew of TEN DAYS anywhere in
California or the United States. If the mayor can point to other examples or can furnish the research he either did or
commissioned before authorizing this ten day curfew, he should. In fact, I believe, he must.
I am sorry our Mayor has put you in the ridiculous position of having to answer for what appears, as of now, to be his
poor leadership. He seems to be hiding behind city staff. What a regrettable example of poor leadership from a fellow
who seems perhaps better suited to middle management. What other type of leader seeks to hide behind phrases like
“my understanding is”?
If the mayor has done even basic research on other cities and precedents before instituting a policy as heavy as a
citywide ten day curfew, he should supply it publicly.
If he has not done basic research, he should admit as much publicly and rescind the policy and perhaps consider
resigning and allowing conscientious adults who do such research to lead the city government.
Michael
> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:59 PM, CV19 Call Center <CV19CallCenter@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> Thank you for your email message about the current curfew. Your sentiment and those of the community have been
heard, and the City Manager and Chief of Police will be evaluating the curfew tomorrow, June 4th, and hope to remove
the curfew that day if circumstances warrant it. The City is posting details about this decision here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4910
>
> The imposed curfew is to strike a balance between ensuring peaceful and lawful protests, while safeguarding against
the unlawful actions and organized criminal activity seen. Our City has a long proud history of supporting all kinds of
demonstrations and allowing people to legally and safely assemble to express their opinions peacefully and respectfully.
This curfew does not impact these protests from continuing. We fully support the rights of those who are peacefully
protesting and honoring the memory of George Floyd and others.
>
> In recent days in many Bay Area cities and towns, groups of individuals, not in any way engaged in legitimate first
amendment activity, have planned and executed criminal acts, including property damage and theft, focused in central
retail areas during nighttime hours. The curfew is a tool for our police officers to act quickly to protect the community
22
from harm. With that said, police officers will focus on public education whenever possible. As they do today, during the
Shelter in Place period imposed by the County of Santa Clara.
>
> We are also not acting alone in our efforts to limit this criminal activity seen throughout the Bay Area. In fact, San
Mateo County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County have all imposed countywide curfews and several cities
including San Jose, Danville, Walnut Creek and more have enacted their own curfews in response to harm or threats to
their businesses, communities, and central shopping areas. Santa Clara County is currently exploring a curfew.
>
> The curfew timing was set based on current issues seen in the Bay Area. The initial duration of the curfew was
established based on the possibility of civil unrest that could bring with it criminal activity (to include the looting,
vandalism, and acts of violence frequently seen in other cities) occurring into next week. Please note that civil unrest
that could result in criminal activity is entirely separate and distinct from the many peaceful demonstrations that have
already occurred in Palo Alto, and that are planned to occur in Palo Alto in the upcoming days. All currently‐scheduled
peaceful demonstrations in Palo Alto that we are aware of are scheduled to occur during the day, and are anticipated to
conclude long before the curfew begins at 8:30 p.m.
>
> If the curfew is removed tomorrow, news will be shared in the Daily updates and the site linked above.
>
> Thanks again for your input. Stay safe.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Melody Tehrani
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
> From: Michael Fertik <michael@fertik.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:03 AM
> To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
> Subject: Ten day curfew
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
> ________________________________
>
> Dear City Council of Palo Alto,
>
> I am a resident in the Greenmeadow neighborhood. I have lived in Palo Alto for more than ten years.
>
> Surely you are dealing with many professional and personal challenges, as we all are. I thank you for your service.
>
> I read with surprise Mayor Fine’s announcement of a ten day curfew. In my research, I have not been able to locate
any other city or county in the United States that has announced a ten day curfew. Perhaps there are many. I have
invited, via Twitter, the mayor and other city council members to point to any examples. I have not yet received a single
response.
>
> In all my years living in Palo Alto, I have never, to my memory, sought any response to any question from the City
Council. It is on this occasion that I am submitting my first such request.
>
> Mayor Fine’s tweeted messages on the topic are disappointing. In response to some other Tweeters’ questions about
the scope of the curfew, he seems to be using responsibility‐ducking phrases like “my understanding is.” He is either the
mayor, or he isn’t. He should own 100% responsibility for the decision‐making. “My understanding” is the kind of vague
phrase a middle manager uses to avoid accountability for a decision that someone on his or her team has
recommended. It is deplorable in middle management. It is far worse here. In this case, he is in the office of mayor and
23
has declared a prohibition on neighborhood freedom and enjoyment for ten continuous days — during family‐friendly
evening walk and neighborhood hours — on a citywide basis, when the threat (such as it may exist) would surely be to
the tiny number of shopping blocks in our fair town. Why not announce a shorter curfew? Why not have it begin at 930
pm, insofar as it may be compatible with countywide policy? Or why not limit it to shopping streets, which can more
understandably be fully cordoned off for a period of time?
>
> We are left wondering if Mayor Fine did _any_ homework on this question or whether he accepted the police
department’s first draft recommendation? What evidence is there of this due diligence and research in this policy
making field? Surely a good mayor would have done some basic homework and made some intelligent requests of his
advisors (or spent some time Googling) before announcing a curfew that far exceeds those of major cities where there is
widespread unrest. As a first instance, did he ask how many other cities of any size in the California or elsewhere have
announced ten day curfews? If so, he can easily produce a list.
>
> I am disappointed that there has been no public and fulsome explanation of the reasoning of this policy and of the
comparable policies in comparable (or not comparable) municipalities. (I am also further disappointed to have received
no response on Twitter. I am trying here so that I may get some intelligible response if he does not wish to answer
further questions like this on a social media platform, despite having announced the policy on the platform.)
>
> If there is indeed research behind this move, it should be easy to furnish it. If it is just hapless leadership, then let it be
acknowledged as such and let the policy be wisely and swiftly revised.
>
> Michael Fertik
24
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rajiv Parikh <rajiv@position2.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 7:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 Day Curfew Objection
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Council Members,
I have enjoyed my 23 years in Palo Alto. This evening, I was in tears as we drove around the city as our residents
celebrated our graduating Class of 2020. It was beautiful. Then I read about a 10 day curfew. Have you lost your minds?
Whatever the threat is, I'm sure that you can concentrate City resources on commercial districts, but 10 days where we
can't walk down our own streets? It's the craziest thing I've ever heard of. You have to change the power dynamic with
the City Manager and Chief of Police. They are well‐intentioned, but we are not in New York City or downtown LA. You
should know better.
After dutifully following the 2+ month Public Health Order, I can tell you that I do not intend to sit quietly on this one.
Respectfully,
Rajiv Parikh
‐‐
Rajiv Parikh
CEO
25
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kevin Rennie <kmrennie@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 7:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi Palo Alto City council,
I am writing to express my concerns against the length of the in acted 10‐day curfew. I feel thee Ed 10‐day curfew is a
gross over reach and an abuse of power. With my strongest conviction I urge council to tailor the length of the curfew
to meet the actual day to day reality and not just a long term blanketed approach.
Sincerely,
Kevin Rennie
26
Baumb, Nelly
From:Elizabeth Ratner <elizabeth.ratner@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 day curfew should be rescinded
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,
We are residents of Palo Alto. For the all reasons stated in the attached letter from
Prof. Sivas, we agree that the city manager's declaration of a 10 day curfew was
unauthorized by municipal law and should be rescinded immediately.
Very truly yours,
Lisa Ratner
James Fox
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members:
For the first time in more than two months, I went into my office today – properly
masked, socially distanced, and health-checked – for a practice session with one of
my students in preparation for an upcoming court hearing via Zoom. We were
interrupted in our preparation by a blaring Stanford public alert notifying us that
Palo Alto had implemented a 10-day nighttime curfew, commencing in three
hours. When I arrived home, my family and my neighbors were abuzz with the
news. After nearly three months of compliant “shelter in place” conduct, we
(including our two college students forced home to shelter with us and largely
deprived of social interactions since March) are just starting, ever-so-slowly, to
transition into such carefully distanced and masked activities as tennis, hiking, and
the dentist. I offer this prelude to my comments below to assure you that our family
and my like-minded neighbors are responsible, evidence-based and data-driven
individuals who just sadly shake our heads in dismay at the gun-toting “Liberate
Michigan” types who stand shoulder-to-should spitting venom and screaming for
their “right” to go mask-less.
That said, we read the City Manager’s “Declaration . . . Imposing a Curfew” with
great consternation and dread for our democracy. Three aspects of this Declaration
are particularly troubling.
27
First and foremost, the Municipal Code section on which the City Manager
explicitly relies does not appear to give him the legal authority to impose a unilateral
curfew. The City Manager may “Request the city council to proclaim the existence
or threatened existence of a ‘local emergency’ if the city council is in session, or to
issue such proclamation if the city council is not in session, subject to ratification by
the city council within seven days thereafter or the proclamation shall have no
further force or effect.” Palo Alto Mun. Code section 2.12.050(c)(1). “’Local
emergency’ means the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of
extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of the
city of Palo Alto caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm,
epidemic, riot, or earthquake or other conditions, other than conditions resulting
from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control
of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the city of Palo Alto and
require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat.” Palo Alto
Mun. Code section 2.12.020(a)(3).
According to the City’s website, the Council was in session both yesterday, June 1,
and today, June 2, but did not agendize the potential declaration of a “local
emergency” for either day. Under these circumstances, the Code does not empower
the City Manager to simply declare an emergency on his own without the assent of
the Council. Under Code section 2.12.050, he is required to seek the Council’s
proclamation of a “local emergency” as a precondition to imposing any
curfew. Given the frequency with which the Council is meeting via teleconference
these days, I suspect a court would find the City’s Manager’s unilateral declaration to
be dubious, at best, and likely ultra vires (beyond his legal authority). I urge the
Council to take this matter up immediately and suspend the City Manager’s
Declaration until the City adheres to proper legal procedures.
Second, even if a one-night emergency curfew were warranted by actual last-minute
evidence, a 10-day curfew is arbitrary and unsupported by any actual evidence. Why
not 5 days, or 30? The Declaration states that “Palo Alto law enforcement have
observed scouting behavior in Palo Alto, including in and around the Stanford Mall
and downtown retail core; local and regional law enforcement intelligence-gathering
suggests that planning is underway for additional organized criminal activity that
could very quickly threaten harm to persons and property, and that such activity is
imminent.” Whether such vague speculation would be sufficient to obtain a criminal
warrant – a highly questionable proposition – it certainly does not justify a 10-day
curfew. I grew up in Los Angeles County, where some 10 million people reside
today. That diverse county, which saw significant looting and vandalism in the 1965
and 1992 racial justice protests and faces similar challenges today, is implementing
a day-by-day evening curfew in response to many real incidents over the last several
days; its daily decision will presumably be based on evidence that develops each
day. Here, in placid, homogenous – dare I say it, boring -- Palo Alto, there has been
no similar activity. Instead, the mere rumor of “organized criminal activity” or some
“scouting behavior observed” by police officers is apparently enough to send
everyone scurrying inside for the next 10 days. Scouting behavior? Really? You
mean the presence of people of color who don’t “belong” in Palo Alto? As Council
members serving in the present era of Black Lives Matter, police brutality, and
28
ongoing systemic racism, you need to ensure that our local law enforcement does
better – much, much better – than that.
But even assuming that there is some kernel of factual truth to support the police
department’s speculation, why is it that our highly-paid force cannot handle this
matter without locking down 67,000 residents already under the stress of “sheltering
in place”? Before Palo Alto can declare a local emergency justifying a curfew, it must
find that there is evidence of “extreme peril to the safety of persons and property” that is
“likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of
the city of Palo Alto and require the combined forces of other political subdivisions
to combat.” If local law enforcement is truly concerned that ill-intended individuals
are planning to vandalize businesses in Stanford Shopping Center or along
University or California Avenues or elsewhere, the force should increase its presence
in those target areas during the evening and overnight in order to create visible
deterrence. As you know, with most businesses shut down, those commercial
districts are relatively empty at night in any event, making it much easier to identify
anyone who might have bad intentions. If such temporary nighttime surges of police
presence over the next week or so is “beyond” the capability of the Palo Alto force
of roughly 90 officers, as the City would need to conclude in order to lawfully justify
the declaration of a “local emergency” and the imposition of a broad-scale curfew,
then we need a different police force. Palo Alto line officers are very well
compensated (according to the 2021 budget at page 43, the City’s 83 non-
management officers earn, on average, $315,000 per year in salary and benefits,
considerably more than the average local resident, and its police management team
earns a whopping average salary and benefit package of $430,00 per year). During
the week of May 20-27, this significantly-sized and well-paid police force dealt with
nine “violent crimes,” including five domestic/family disputes and four robberies,
according to the Palo Alto Weekly’s Pulse compendium. That leaves a lot of hours
in the work day. As part of the wrenching budget process this year, the Council
agreed to preserve most of the public safety programs. Frankly, if local law
enforcement cannot figure out how to plan for and manage the rumored acts of
potential vandalism without locking down tens of thousands of law-abiding
residents, then the Council needs to take a very long, very hard look at what public
safety value, exactly, we taxpayers are receiving in return for a police department
budget of more than $40 million per year.
Third and perhaps most troubling, please think about the implications of your
silence in the wake of the City Manager’s unprecedented, unsupportable, and likely
unlawful action. What are the consequences for our democracy when an unelected
(but, again, very highly-paid and autonomous) city manager can unilaterally and
single-handedly lock down an entire population and threaten citizens with criminal
charges for taking an evening stroll along the quiet residential streets of this bland
place? I’m not personally concerned because I am not normally out on the streets at
night, but as a nation, we are wading through some extremely treacherous
waters. With the current presidential administration in Washington, D.C., and the
increasing militarization of local law enforcement all across the country, our very
democracy stands on an existential precipice. Do you really want to empower a
single municipal bureaucrat, in collusion with an overly-anxious police chief, to bully
29
and threaten local residents into submission without an ounce of public debate or
process, under the ruse of an “emergency”? Think about it. Read “How
Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Zablatt, if you haven’t. They die
not through bloody military coups, but through the accumulation of incremental and
seemingly “legitimate” deprivations in the name of “law and order,” piled one atop
the other. Death by a thousand cuts.
I urge you: Wake up and look out at what is happening across this nation – indeed,
across the world. Don’t stoke the irrational fears of the hard right with police
crackdowns and municipal curfews. Lead by stepping up and making our public
safety officers do the jobs they are so handsomely paid to do. Don’t sacrifice
democracy for expediency.
Thank you.
Deborah A. Sivas
Luke W. Cole Professor of Environmental Law
30
Baumb, Nelly
From:Judy Decker <judy@judydecker.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I have no idea whose idea it was to impose a 10-day, city-wide curfew, but it really is a ridiculous reaction. If there is
a threat to the downtown and Shopping Center, then by all means increase police presence there and possibly also
impose a curfew. But imposing a city-wide curfew in the absence of a clear and impending danger smacks of the
arrogance city hall has become known for.
After being in lock-down since March 15th, an added curfew is unwarranted (and infuriating). On hot days, I don’t
walk my dog until the temperature has dropped below 80 degrees, so yesterday we didn’t get out at all and it looks
like we won’t get out today either. This might seem trivial to you, but needlessly disrupting residents’ lives is tone
deaf at best.
Sincerely,
Judy Decker
31
Baumb, Nelly
From:Carol Cross <cross0828@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:31 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Debbie Mytels
Cc:dsivas@stanford.edu
Subject:Re: Palo Alto curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
And we all know exactly WHO will be targeted by the enforcement of such a
curfew. Likely not the sweet little white woman of a certain age who is
out on her exercise walk.
What shocks me is that I think of Palo Alto as a progressive city, one
that values reason and fairness. What happened?
Carol Cross
Redwood City, CA
Worried about voter fraud? The Election Law Journal of December 2014 reported that “The
proportion of the population reporting voter impersonation is indistinguishable from that
reporting abduction by extraterrestrials.”
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, 4:26:18 PM PDT, Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com> wrote:
Dear Members of the Council & City Manager Shikada,
As a long-time Palo Alto resident who DOES typically take an evening exercise walk — and especially desires to do so on
a hot summer day like today — I want to add my personal frustration to the more significant points made below by
Stanford law professor Deborah Ann Sivas.
This illegal declaration of a curfew FOR TEN DAYS is an infringement of our civil rights. If the police are concerned about
protecting our commercial district, then they should station themselves there to guard those properties and let the rest of
the community live its normal, law-abiding life. Although I don’t want to see our (probably well-insured) commercial district
being trashed, I join Professor Sivas in questioning whether our city should bow to the fear-mongering rhetoric of the
White House. Unfortunately, the role models we see in Washington DC are imperiling our democracy by a bullying
usurpation of authority and attempts to skirt around legally established procedures.
Palo Alto should do better. I encourage you to read and follow Professor Sivas’s letter in detail.
Sincerely,
Debbie Mytels
2824 Louis Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Begin forwarded message:
32
From: Deborah Ann Sivas <dsivas@stanford.edu>
Hope everyone is well and staying cool. The times seem so out of joint ‐
‐ and yet despairingly, in the words of Talking Heads' David Byrne,
"same as it ever was." When I learned yesterday that Palo Alto had
implemented a 10‐day curfew designed to protect the Apples and
Bloomingdales of the world from the shadow of fear being promoted by
our President, my anger at what is happening boiled over and I dashed
off the following letter to the City. Whatever your views on the issues
of the day, I encourage everyone to voice their opinion.
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members:
For the first time in more than two months, I went into my office
today – properly masked, socially distanced, and health-checked – for
a practice session with one of my students in preparation for an
upcoming court hearing via Zoom. We were interrupted in our
preparation by a blaring Stanford public alert notifying us that Palo
Alto had implemented a 10-day nighttime curfew, commencing in
three hours. When I arrived home, my family and my neighbors
were abuzz with the news. After nearly three months of compliant
“shelter in place” conduct, we (including our two college students
forced home to shelter with us and largely deprived of social
interactions since March) are just starting, ever-so-slowly, to
transition into such carefully distanced and masked activities as
tennis, hiking, and the dentist. I offer this prelude to my comments
below to assure you that our family and my like-minded neighbors
are responsible, evidence-based and data-driven individuals who just
sadly shake our heads in dismay at the gun-toting “Liberate
Michigan” types who stand shoulder-to-should spitting venom and
screaming for their “right” to go mask-less.
That said, we read the City Manager’s “Declaration . . . Imposing a
Curfew” with great consternation and dread for our
democracy. Three aspects of this Declaration are particularly
troubling.
First and foremost, the Municipal Code section on which the City
Manager explicitly relies does not appear to give him the legal
authority to impose a unilateral curfew. The City Manager
may “Request the city council to proclaim the existence or
threatened existence of a ‘local emergency’ if the city council is in
session, or to issue such proclamation if the city council is not in
session, subject to ratification by the city council within seven days
thereafter or the proclamation shall have no further force or
effect.” Palo Alto Mun. Code section 2.12.050(c)(1). “’Local
emergency’ means the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of
disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property
within the territorial limits of the city of Palo Alto caused by such
conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, or
earthquake or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from
33
a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond
the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the
city of Palo Alto and require the combined forces of other political
subdivisions to combat.” Palo Alto Mun. Code section
2.12.020(a)(3).
According to the City’s website, the Council was in session both
yesterday, June 1, and today, June 2, but did not agendize the
potential declaration of a “local emergency” for either day. Under
these circumstances, the Code does not empower the City Manager
to simply declare an emergency on his own without the assent of the
Council. Under Code section 2.12.050, he is required to seek the
Council’s proclamation of a “local emergency” as a precondition to
imposing any curfew. Given the frequency with which the Council is
meeting via teleconference these days, I suspect a court would find
the City’s Manager’s unilateral declaration to be dubious, at best, and
likely ultra vires (beyond his legal authority). I urge the Council to
take this matter up immediately and suspend the City Manager’s
Declaration until the City adheres to proper legal procedures.
Second, even if a one-night emergency curfew were warranted by
actual last-minute evidence, a 10-day curfew is arbitrary and
unsupported by any actual evidence. Why not 5 days, or 30? The
Declaration states that “Palo Alto law enforcement have observed
scouting behavior in Palo Alto, including in and around the Stanford
Mall and downtown retail core; local and regional law enforcement
intelligence-gathering suggests that planning is underway for
additional organized criminal activity that could very quickly threaten
harm to persons and property, and that such activity is
imminent.” Whether such vague speculation would be sufficient to
obtain a criminal warrant – a highly questionable proposition – it
certainly does not justify a 10-day curfew. I grew up in Los Angeles
County, where some 10 million people reside today. That diverse
county, which saw significant looting and vandalism in the 1965 and
1992 racial justice protests and faces similar challenges today, is
implementing a day-by-day evening curfew in response to many real
incidents over the last several days; its daily decision will presumably
be based on evidence that develops each day. Here, in placid,
homogenous – dare I say it, boring -- Palo Alto, there has been no
similar activity. Instead, the mere rumor of “organized criminal
activity” or some “scouting behavior observed” by police officers is
apparently enough to send everyone scurrying inside for the next 10
days. Scouting behavior? Really? You mean the presence of people
of color who don’t “belong” in Palo Alto? As Council members
serving in the present era of Black Lives Matter, police brutality, and
ongoing systemic racism, you need to ensure that our local law
enforcement does better – much, much better – than that.
But even assuming that there is some kernel of factual truth to
support the police department’s speculation, why is it that our highly-
paid force cannot handle this matter without locking down 67,000
residents already under the stress of “sheltering in place”? Before
34
Palo Alto can declare a local emergency justifying a curfew, it must
find that there is evidence of “extreme peril to the safety of persons and
property” that is “likely to be beyond the control of the services,
personnel, equipment, and facilities of the city of Palo Alto and
require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to
combat.” If local law enforcement is truly concerned that ill-
intended individuals are planning to vandalize businesses in Stanford
Shopping Center or along University or California Avenues or
elsewhere, the force should increase its presence in those target areas
during the evening and overnight in order to create visible
deterrence. As you know, with most businesses shut down, those
commercial districts are relatively empty at night in any event, making
it much easier to identify anyone who might have bad intentions. If
such temporary nighttime surges of police presence over the next
week or so is “beyond” the capability of the Palo Alto force of
roughly 90 officers, as the City would need to conclude in order to
lawfully justify the declaration of a “local emergency” and the
imposition of a broad-scale curfew, then we need a different police
force. Palo Alto line officers are very well compensated (according to
the 2021 budget at page 43, the City’s 83 non-management officers
earn, on average, $315,000 per year in salary and benefits,
considerably more than the average local resident, and its police
management team earns a whopping average salary and benefit
package of $430,00 per year). During the week of May 20-27, this
significantly-sized and well-paid police force dealt with nine “violent
crimes,” including five domestic/family disputes and four robberies,
according to the Palo Alto Weekly’s Pulse compendium. That leaves
a lot of hours in the work day. As part of the wrenching budget
process this year, the Council agreed to preserve most of the public
safety programs. Frankly, if local law enforcement cannot figure out
how to plan for and manage the rumored acts of potential vandalism
without locking down tens of thousands of law-abiding residents,
then the Council needs to take a very long, very hard look at what
public safety value, exactly, we taxpayers are receiving in return for a
police department budget of more than $40 million per year.
Third and perhaps most troubling, please think about the
implications of your silence in the wake of the City Manager’s
unprecedented, unsupportable, and likely unlawful action. What are
the consequences for our democracy when an unelected (but, again,
very highly-paid and autonomous) city manager can unilaterally and
single-handedly lock down an entire population and threaten citizens
with criminal charges for taking an evening stroll along the quiet
residential streets of this bland place? I’m not personally concerned
because I am not normally out on the streets at night, but as a nation,
we are wading through some extremely treacherous waters. With the
current presidential administration in Washington, D.C., and the
increasing militarization of local law enforcement all across the
country, our very democracy stands on an existential precipice. Do
you really want to empower a single municipal bureaucrat, in
collusion with an overly-anxious police chief, to bully and threaten
local residents into submission without an ounce of public debate or
35
process, under the ruse of an “emergency”? Think about it. Read
“How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Zablatt, if
you haven’t. They die not through bloody military coups, but
through the accumulation of incremental and seemingly “legitimate”
deprivations in the name of “law and order,” piled one atop the
other. Death by a thousand cuts.
I urge you: Wake up and look out at what is happening across this
nation – indeed, across the world. Don’t stoke the irrational fears of
the hard right with police crackdowns and municipal curfews. Lead
by stepping up and making our public safety officers do the jobs they
are so handsomely paid to do. Don’t sacrifice democracy for
expediency.
Thank you.
Deborah A. Sivas
Luke W. Cole Professor of Environmental Law
Director, Environmental Law Clinic
Director, Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, California 94305
Telephone: ( (office)
( (cell and primary until June 1)
Facsimile: (
Debbie Mytels
2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA 94303
dmytels@batnet.com
"Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
36
Baumb, Nelly
From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:26 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:dsivas@stanford.edu
Subject:Palo Alto curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the Council & City Manager Shikada,
As a long‐time Palo Alto resident who DOES typically take an evening exercise walk — and especially desires to do so on
a hot summer day like today — I want to add my personal frustration to the more significant points made below by
Stanford law professor Deborah Ann Sivas.
This illegal declaration of a curfew FOR TEN DAYS is an infringement of our civil rights. If the police are concerned about
protecting our commercial district, then they should station themselves there to guard those properties and let the rest
of the community live its normal, law‐abiding life. Although I don’t want to see our (probably well‐insured) commercial
district being trashed, I join Professor Sivas in questioning whether our city should bow to the fear‐mongering rhetoric of
the White House. Unfortunately, the role models we see in Washington DC are imperiling our democracy by a bullying
usurpation of authority and attempts to skirt around legally established procedures.
Palo Alto should do better. I encourage you to read and follow Professor Sivas’s letter in detail.
Sincerely,
Debbie Mytels
2824 Louis Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Begin forwarded message:
From: Deborah Ann Sivas <dsivas@stanford.edu>
Hope everyone is well and staying cool. The times seem so out of joint ‐
‐ and yet despairingly, in the words of Talking Heads' David Byrne,
"same as it ever was." When I learned yesterday that Palo Alto had
implemented a 10‐day curfew designed to protect the Apples and
Bloomingdales of the world from the shadow of fear being promoted by
our President, my anger at what is happening boiled over and I dashed
off the following letter to the City. Whatever your views on the issues
of the day, I encourage everyone to voice their opinion.
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members:
For the first time in more than two months, I went into my office
today – properly masked, socially distanced, and health-checked – for
37
a practice session with one of my students in preparation for an
upcoming court hearing via Zoom. We were interrupted in our
preparation by a blaring Stanford public alert notifying us that Palo
Alto had implemented a 10-day nighttime curfew, commencing in
three hours. When I arrived home, my family and my neighbors
were abuzz with the news. After nearly three months of compliant
“shelter in place” conduct, we (including our two college students
forced home to shelter with us and largely deprived of social
interactions since March) are just starting, ever-so-slowly, to
transition into such carefully distanced and masked activities as
tennis, hiking, and the dentist. I offer this prelude to my comments
below to assure you that our family and my like-minded neighbors
are responsible, evidence-based and data-driven individuals who just
sadly shake our heads in dismay at the gun-toting “Liberate
Michigan” types who stand shoulder-to-should spitting venom and
screaming for their “right” to go mask-less.
That said, we read the City Manager’s “Declaration . . . Imposing a
Curfew” with great consternation and dread for our
democracy. Three aspects of this Declaration are particularly
troubling.
First and foremost, the Municipal Code section on which the City
Manager explicitly relies does not appear to give him the legal
authority to impose a unilateral curfew. The City Manager
may “Request the city council to proclaim the existence or
threatened existence of a ‘local emergency’ if the city council is in
session, or to issue such proclamation if the city council is not in
session, subject to ratification by the city council within seven days
thereafter or the proclamation shall have no further force or
effect.” Palo Alto Mun. Code section 2.12.050(c)(1). “’Local
emergency’ means the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of
disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property
within the territorial limits of the city of Palo Alto caused by such
conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, or
earthquake or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from
a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond
the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the
city of Palo Alto and require the combined forces of other political
subdivisions to combat.” Palo Alto Mun. Code section
2.12.020(a)(3).
According to the City’s website, the Council was in session both
yesterday, June 1, and today, June 2, but did not agendize the
potential declaration of a “local emergency” for either day. Under
these circumstances, the Code does not empower the City Manager
to simply declare an emergency on his own without the assent of the
Council. Under Code section 2.12.050, he is required to seek the
Council’s proclamation of a “local emergency” as a precondition to
imposing any curfew. Given the frequency with which the Council is
meeting via teleconference these days, I suspect a court would find
the City’s Manager’s unilateral declaration to be dubious, at best, and
38
likely ultra vires (beyond his legal authority). I urge the Council to
take this matter up immediately and suspend the City Manager’s
Declaration until the City adheres to proper legal procedures.
Second, even if a one-night emergency curfew were warranted by
actual last-minute evidence, a 10-day curfew is arbitrary and
unsupported by any actual evidence. Why not 5 days, or 30? The
Declaration states that “Palo Alto law enforcement have observed
scouting behavior in Palo Alto, including in and around the Stanford
Mall and downtown retail core; local and regional law enforcement
intelligence-gathering suggests that planning is underway for
additional organized criminal activity that could very quickly threaten
harm to persons and property, and that such activity is
imminent.” Whether such vague speculation would be sufficient to
obtain a criminal warrant – a highly questionable proposition – it
certainly does not justify a 10-day curfew. I grew up in Los Angeles
County, where some 10 million people reside today. That diverse
county, which saw significant looting and vandalism in the 1965 and
1992 racial justice protests and faces similar challenges today, is
implementing a day-by-day evening curfew in response to many real
incidents over the last several days; its daily decision will presumably
be based on evidence that develops each day. Here, in placid,
homogenous – dare I say it, boring -- Palo Alto, there has been no
similar activity. Instead, the mere rumor of “organized criminal
activity” or some “scouting behavior observed” by police officers is
apparently enough to send everyone scurrying inside for the next 10
days. Scouting behavior? Really? You mean the presence of people
of color who don’t “belong” in Palo Alto? As Council members
serving in the present era of Black Lives Matter, police brutality, and
ongoing systemic racism, you need to ensure that our local law
enforcement does better – much, much better – than that.
But even assuming that there is some kernel of factual truth to
support the police department’s speculation, why is it that our highly-
paid force cannot handle this matter without locking down 67,000
residents already under the stress of “sheltering in place”? Before
Palo Alto can declare a local emergency justifying a curfew, it must
find that there is evidence of “extreme peril to the safety of persons and
property” that is “likely to be beyond the control of the services,
personnel, equipment, and facilities of the city of Palo Alto and
require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to
combat.” If local law enforcement is truly concerned that ill-
intended individuals are planning to vandalize businesses in Stanford
Shopping Center or along University or California Avenues or
elsewhere, the force should increase its presence in those target areas
during the evening and overnight in order to create visible
deterrence. As you know, with most businesses shut down, those
commercial districts are relatively empty at night in any event, making
it much easier to identify anyone who might have bad intentions. If
such temporary nighttime surges of police presence over the next
week or so is “beyond” the capability of the Palo Alto force of
roughly 90 officers, as the City would need to conclude in order to
39
lawfully justify the declaration of a “local emergency” and the
imposition of a broad-scale curfew, then we need a different police
force. Palo Alto line officers are very well compensated (according to
the 2021 budget at page 43, the City’s 83 non-management officers
earn, on average, $315,000 per year in salary and benefits,
considerably more than the average local resident, and its police
management team earns a whopping average salary and benefit
package of $430,00 per year). During the week of May 20-27, this
significantly-sized and well-paid police force dealt with nine “violent
crimes,” including five domestic/family disputes and four robberies,
according to the Palo Alto Weekly’s Pulse compendium. That leaves
a lot of hours in the work day. As part of the wrenching budget
process this year, the Council agreed to preserve most of the public
safety programs. Frankly, if local law enforcement cannot figure out
how to plan for and manage the rumored acts of potential vandalism
without locking down tens of thousands of law-abiding residents,
then the Council needs to take a very long, very hard look at what
public safety value, exactly, we taxpayers are receiving in return for a
police department budget of more than $40 million per year.
Third and perhaps most troubling, please think about the
implications of your silence in the wake of the City Manager’s
unprecedented, unsupportable, and likely unlawful action. What are
the consequences for our democracy when an unelected (but, again,
very highly-paid and autonomous) city manager can unilaterally and
single-handedly lock down an entire population and threaten citizens
with criminal charges for taking an evening stroll along the quiet
residential streets of this bland place? I’m not personally concerned
because I am not normally out on the streets at night, but as a nation,
we are wading through some extremely treacherous waters. With the
current presidential administration in Washington, D.C., and the
increasing militarization of local law enforcement all across the
country, our very democracy stands on an existential precipice. Do
you really want to empower a single municipal bureaucrat, in
collusion with an overly-anxious police chief, to bully and threaten
local residents into submission without an ounce of public debate or
process, under the ruse of an “emergency”? Think about it. Read
“How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Zablatt, if
you haven’t. They die not through bloody military coups, but
through the accumulation of incremental and seemingly “legitimate”
deprivations in the name of “law and order,” piled one atop the
other. Death by a thousand cuts.
I urge you: Wake up and look out at what is happening across this
nation – indeed, across the world. Don’t stoke the irrational fears of
the hard right with police crackdowns and municipal curfews. Lead
by stepping up and making our public safety officers do the jobs they
are so handsomely paid to do. Don’t sacrifice democracy for
expediency.
Thank you.
40
Deborah A. Sivas
Luke W. Cole Professor of Environmental Law
Director, Environmental Law Clinic
Director, Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, California 94305
Telephone: (office)
(cell and primary until June 1)
Facsimile: (
Debbie Mytels
2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA 94303
(
dmytels@batnet.com
"Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
41
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bernard <rbernardc@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Suspend The Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Having lived in and around Palo Alto since 1973, having attended Stanford University, having served this community in
many leadership volunteer roles (Chair of the Board and other leadership roles for Palo Alto Family YMCA, leadership
roles on the Palo Alto Art Center, Coach and President of Palo Alto Bobby Sox Softball, Commissioner and long time
coach of SAY/Don Bartell Youth Basketball, Coach in Little League and CYA Youth Soccer), having contributed nearly 30
years of service to this community as a member of The Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto, having graduated from Leadership Palo
Alto/MidPeninsula and served for many years as Chair of the Alumni Association and finally having worked tirelessly
behind the scenes on issues of this community’s civility, I am appalled at the preemptive act of imposing the just
enacted citywide curfew. The message is inappropriate, divisive and without greater transparency unmerited. This
community deserves better. This provocative order will only serve to incite a heightened response just focused on the
curfew order. Please rescind this order and consult with our vast array of experienced and diverse community leaders
in a town hall format. This would be understandable if there is an emergency. This is a grave civil liberties restriction to
be used to quell, not preempt unlawful behavior during a protest or civic uprising. Thank you for your concern, but this is
overreaching.
‐R. Bernard Coley
3375 Louis Road
42
Baumb, Nelly
From:Harvey Alcabes <harvey@alcabes.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:12 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:Ellen Stromberg
Subject:Re: Palo Alto Curfew.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Also, if we do need a curfew around retail stores to prevent looting, can the curfew be limited to the retail
areas. Residents would very much like to be legally permitted to walk in their neighborhoods after 8:30 PM (especially
on hot days).
Thanks again.
--Harvey
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:18 PM Harvey Alcabes <harvey@alcabes.com> wrote:
City Manager Shikada, Palo Alto Council Members,
I understand that Palo Alto just started a 10 day curfew. Meanwhile, I've heard that San Francisco, San Jose, and San
Mateo County are all ending their curfews this Thursday morning. Is there a reason that Palo Alto needs to continue
it's curfew longer than those municipalities?
I've seen a report on social media that there was an alleged “looting schedule” supposedly to be used to systematically
loot businesses in several communities including ours but that Menlo Park police confirmed that it was fake. (The
poster was a fake account set up by the white nationalist group Identity Evropa to sow fear and confusion and maybe a
riot.)
Was that fake report the reason for the curfew? If so, now that it's been debunked, will the curfew be cancelled?
Thank you.
--Harvey Alcabes
3766 Cass Way
Palo Alto, CA
43
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bonnie Packer <bbpacker@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:32 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Alison Cormack; Liz Kniss
Subject:Undo the curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members,
The letter below from a Stanford law professor was sent to you recently. It was shared with me and others by a
common friend.
I urge you to read the letter carefully and consider the important issues she raises.
It is in your power to undo the unilateral action of our City Manager. This curfew is a totally unnecessary
overreaction. Act now to rescind it.
Bonnie Packer
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members:
For the first time in more than two months, I went into my office today – properly masked, socially
distanced, and health-checked – for a practice session with one of my students in preparation for an
upcoming court hearing via Zoom. We were interrupted in our preparation by a blaring Stanford
public alert notifying us that Palo Alto had implemented a 10-day nighttime curfew, commencing in
three hours. When I arrived home, my family and my neighbors were abuzz with the news. After
nearly three months of compliant “shelter in place” conduct, we (including our two college students
forced home to shelter with us and largely deprived of social interactions since March) are just
starting, ever-so-slowly, to transition into such carefully distanced and masked activities as tennis,
hiking, and the dentist. I offer this prelude to my comments below to assure you that our family and
my like-minded neighbors are responsible, evidence-based and data-driven individuals who just sadly
shake our heads in dismay at the gun-toting “Liberate Michigan” types who stand shoulder-to-
should spitting venom and screaming for their “right” to go mask-less.
That said, we read the City Manager’s “Declaration . . . Imposing a Curfew” with great consternation
and dread for our democracy. Three aspects of this Declaration are particularly troubling.
First and foremost, the Municipal Code section on which the City Manager explicitly relies does
not appear to give him the legal authority to impose a unilateral curfew. The City Manager
may “Request the city council to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a ‘local
emergency’ if the city council is in session, or to issue such proclamation if the city council is not in
session, subject to ratification by the city council within seven days thereafter or the proclamation
shall have no further force or effect.” Palo Alto Mun. Code section 2.12.050(c)(1). “’Local
emergency’ means the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the
safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of the city of Palo Alto caused by such
conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, or earthquake or other conditions, other
44
than conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond
the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the city of Palo Alto and require
the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat.” Palo Alto Mun. Code section
2.12.020(a)(3).
According to the City’s website, the Council was in session both yesterday, June 1, and today, June 2,
but did not agendize the potential declaration of a “local emergency” for either day. Under these
circumstances, the Code does not empower the City Manager to simply declare an emergency on his
own without the assent of the Council. Under Code section 2.12.050, he is required to seek the
Council’s proclamation of a “local emergency” as a precondition to imposing any curfew. Given the
frequency with which the Council is meeting via teleconference these days, I suspect a court would
find the City’s Manager’s unilateral declaration to be dubious, at best, and likely ultra vires (beyond
his legal authority). I urge the Council to take this matter up immediately and suspend the City
Manager’s Declaration until the City adheres to proper legal procedures.
Second, even if a one-night emergency curfew were warranted by actual last-minute evidence, a 10-
day curfew is arbitrary and unsupported by any actual evidence. Why not 5 days, or 30? The
Declaration states that “Palo Alto law enforcement have observed scouting behavior in Palo Alto,
including in and around the Stanford Mall and downtown retail core; local and regional law
enforcement intelligence-gathering suggests that planning is underway for additional organized
criminal activity that could very quickly threaten harm to persons and property, and that such
activity is imminent.” Whether such vague speculation would be sufficient to obtain a criminal
warrant – a highly questionable proposition – it certainly does not justify a 10-day curfew. I grew up
in Los Angeles County, where some 10 million people reside today. That diverse county, which saw
significant looting and vandalism in the 1965 and 1992 racial justice protests and faces similar
challenges today, is implementing a day-by-day evening curfew in response to many real incidents over
the last several days; its daily decision will presumably be based on evidence that develops each
day. Here, in placid, homogenous – dare I say it, boring -- Palo Alto, there has been no similar
activity. Instead, the mere rumor of “organized criminal activity” or some “scouting behavior
observed” by police officers is apparently enough to send everyone scurrying inside for the next 10
days. Scouting behavior? Really? You mean the presence of people of color who don’t “belong” in
Palo Alto? As Council members serving in the present era of Black Lives Matter, police brutality,
and ongoing systemic racism, you need to ensure that our local law enforcement does better – much,
much better – than that.
But even assuming that there is some kernel of factual truth to support the police department’s
speculation, why is it that our highly-paid force cannot handle this matter without locking down
67,000 residents already under the stress of “sheltering in place”? Before Palo Alto can declare a
local emergency justifying a curfew, it must find that there is evidence of “extreme peril to the safety
of persons and property” that is “likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment,
and facilities of the city of Palo Alto and require the combined forces of other political subdivisions
to combat.” If local law enforcement is truly concerned that ill-intended individuals are planning to
vandalize businesses in Stanford Shopping Center or along University or California Avenues or
elsewhere, the force should increase its presence in those target areas during the evening and
overnight in order to create visible deterrence. As you know, with most businesses shut down,
those commercial districts are relatively empty at night in any event, making it much easier to
identify anyone who might have bad intentions. If such temporary nighttime surges of police
presence over the next week or so is “beyond” the capability of the Palo Alto force of roughly 90
officers, as the City would need to conclude in order to lawfully justify the declaration of a “local
emergency” and the imposition of a broad-scale curfew, then we need a different police force. Palo
Alto line officers are very well compensated (according to the 2021 budget at page 43, the City’s 83
non-management officers earn, on average, $315,000 per year in salary and benefits, considerably
45
more than the average local resident, and its police management team earns a whopping average
salary and benefit package of $430,00 per year). During the week of May 20-27, this significantly-
sized and well-paid police force dealt with nine “violent crimes,” including five domestic/family
disputes and four robberies, according to the Palo Alto Weekly’s Pulse compendium. That leaves a
lot of hours in the work day. As part of the wrenching budget process this year, the Council agreed
to preserve most of the public safety programs. Frankly, if local law enforcement cannot figure out
how to plan for and manage the rumored acts of potential vandalism without locking down tens of
thousands of law-abiding residents, then the Council needs to take a very long, very hard look at
what public safety value, exactly, we taxpayers are receiving in return for a police department budget
of more than $40 million per year.
Third and perhaps most troubling, please think about the implications of your silence in the wake
of the City Manager’s unprecedented, unsupportable, and likely unlawful action. What are the
consequences for our democracy when an unelected (but, again, very highly-paid and autonomous)
city manager can unilaterally and single-handedly lock down an entire population and threaten
citizens with criminal charges for taking an evening stroll along the quiet residential streets of this
bland place? I’m not personally concerned because I am not normally out on the streets at night,
but as a nation, we are wading through some extremely treacherous waters. With the current
presidential administration in Washington, D.C., and the increasing militarization of local law
enforcement all across the country, our very democracy stands on an existential precipice. Do you
really want to empower a single municipal bureaucrat, in collusion with an overly-anxious police
chief, to bully and threaten local residents into submission without an ounce of public debate or
process, under the ruse of an “emergency”? Think about it. Read “How Democracies Die” by
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Zablatt, if you haven’t. They die not through bloody military coups, but
through the accumulation of incremental and seemingly “legitimate” deprivations in the name of
“law and order,” piled one atop the other. Death by a thousand cuts.
I urge you: Wake up and look out at what is happening across this nation – indeed, across the
world. Don’t stoke the irrational fears of the hard right with police crackdowns and municipal
curfews. Lead by stepping up and making our public safety officers do the jobs they are so
handsomely paid to do. Don’t sacrifice democracy for expediency.
Thank you.
Deborah A. Sivas
Luke W. Cole Professor of Environmental Law
Director, Environmental Law Clinic
Director, Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, California 94305
Telephone: ( (office)
( (cell and primary until June 1)
Facsimile: (
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
46
Baumb, Nelly
From:Robert Konrad <rkkonrad@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto curfew is ridiculous
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
My name is Robert Konrad and I am a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood in Palo Alto. I am
extremely disappointed in the curfew imposed on the city of Palo Alto. You claim to be doing this to prevent criminals
from "taking advantage of current events as cover for their crimes" (Ed Shikada's email to business owners). You are the
ones taking advantage of the situation. There are no protests scheduled in the city of Palo Alto. There should be no
problem discerning between peaceful protestors/civilians and those involved in criminal activity. I'd like to think that the
Palo Alto PD is capable enough to protect this community in such a clear cut scenario. If not, then maybe we have a
larger problem on our hands and we need some rational city management. Get rid of the curfew and focus your efforts
on the areas you care clearly about (retail stores).
Best,
Robert Konrad
47
Baumb, Nelly
From:Solly Malchin <solly@moxiemethod.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I would like to express my dismay and disapproval of the 10 day(!) curfew.
The cited municipal code states that the city manager say: “make and issue rules and regulations on matters
reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency.” The state of
emergency was issued due to COVID-19. How can you say that the risks stemming from these unrelated
protests are affected by the COVID-19 emergency?
This seems like just an easy way to arrest minorities exercising their first amendment rights.
A 10 day city-wide preventative curfew issued solely on the basis of potential criminal activity taking place,
makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We need a new chief of police if the current one is not capable of
getting their job done without forcing residents to stay indoors.
Very disappointing,
Solly Malchin
515 Santa Rita Avenue Palo Alto
‐‐
Solly Malchin Redact
ed
48
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jacqueline Raine <jaqraine@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I was shocked to hear that Palo Alto has imposed a 10 day curfew on the city. What were the reasons for doing this?
What was the evidence that a curfew was necessary? How was the decision made? What criminal elements are you
referring to? Were you racial profiling? Without the answers to these questions it seems as though our City is
overreacting and buying and escalating an already tense situation. Is this curfew even legal?
Sent from my iPad
49
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bill Bauriedel <bill.bauriedel@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:24 PM
To:Marilyn
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: The length of the curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Just to add to what Marilyn has said.
Do we really want a few bad apples to hijack an entire city? Maybe shut off University Ave at 8pm plus maybe California
Ave. and maybe the Stanford Shopping Center for a few days.
Were any residents of Palo Alto consulted about this curfew? If not, why not? So far it sounds like the City bureaucrats
who mostly don't live here make decisions for those of us who do. It should be the other way around.
Bill Bauriedel
South Court; Palo Alto
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:04 PM Marilyn <babamarilyn@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Fine and Members of the Council:
I think the length of the overnight curfew, (9) days, imposed as a “preventative” measure on the entire city during a
serious heat wave is overly severe. I would call it punitive. It certainly seems to this long‐time resident that 9 days is
disproportionate to any acts of vandalism or other property crimes happening in the wake of peaceful demonstrations
we have experienced. We have not heard reports of any such destructive acts taking place in our city. Most of us live
far from the commercial areas that you believe will be targeted. Our dogs need to be walked during the evening and
sometimes during the night.
Other Bay Area cities that have experienced acts of violence by members of the public in this tumultuous time have
chosen much shorter curfews if they have put into place curfews at all. Some with longer curfews are now
reconsidering the duration.
With no air conditioning in most homes and many of us trying to get cool on walks after the temperature goes down, it
is very stressful to have to be back inside the house so early on these hot days. I am in the highly vulnerable group for
severe cases of Covid‐19 because of my age. I try to go out later when fewer people are strolling or bicycling.
Please reconsider and shorten the curfew. The troubles with demonstrators and opportunists seem to be subsiding
around the country. In my opinion, we don’t need another 8 nights of the curfew.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Bauriedel
South Court, Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
50
Baumb, Nelly
From:Harvey Alcabes <harvey@alcabes.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:19 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:Ellen Stromberg; Alcabes, Harvey
Subject:Palo Alto Curfew.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Manager Shikada, Palo Alto Council Members,
I understand that Palo Alto just started a 10 day curfew. Meanwhile, I've heard that San Francisco, San Jose, and San
Mateo County are all ending their curfews this Thursday morning. Is there a reason that Palo Alto needs to continue it's
curfew longer than those municipalities?
I've seen a report on social media that there was an alleged “looting schedule” supposedly to be used to systematically
loot businesses in several communities including ours but that Menlo Park police confirmed that it was fake. (The poster
was a fake account set up by the white nationalist group Identity Evropa to sow fear and confusion and maybe a riot.)
Was that fake report the reason for the curfew? If so, now that it's been debunked, will the curfew be cancelled?
Thank you.
--Harvey Alcabes
3766 Cass Way
Palo Alto, CA
51
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kevin Boyle <kboyle76@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cowardly curfew order imposed by City of Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I'm a resident of Palo Alto, and a business owner here at that, and I'm extremely disappointed to see the gross
overreaction of the curfew order. Our area and even neighboring communities have seen only peaceful protests in
response to the senseless killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and with low turn outs anyways.
What grounds are there for curtailing the freedoms of local residents when there is no real threat of looting or violence
here? How can the city justify a curfew order when Santa Clara County has no need for such an overwhelming
emergency response? How can the city justify 10 days of curfew when we have yet to see any criminal behavior in the
city?
I would like a response.
Kevin Boyle
52
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bill Gargiulo <bill_gargiulo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 day curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear council members,
I am one of the many residents that is very concerned by the extended restrictions being placed
on our city that is causing irreparable damage to our business community. There seems to be very
little communication from our elected officials these days defining how and why recent decisions are
being made. After several months of extended SIP where we are only hearing from the SCC health
administrator, a rather long 10 day curfew really requires more explanation to get the support of the
residents. A video post, email, voice message, etc.. by our mayor defining the rational and offering to
answer questions would help clarify the confusion and help ease the unrest.
Bill Gargiulo
1730 Middlefield
Redacted
53
Baumb, Nelly
From:Marilyn <babamarilyn@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:The length of the curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Fine and Members of the Council:
I think the length of the overnight curfew, (9) days, imposed as a “preventative” measure on the entire city during a
serious heat wave is overly severe. I would call it punitive. It certainly seems to this long‐time resident that 9 days is
disproportionate to any acts of vandalism or other property crimes happening in the wake of peaceful demonstrations
we have experienced. We have not heard reports of any such destructive acts taking place in our city. Most of us live far
from the commercial areas that you believe will be targeted. Our dogs need to be walked during the evening and
sometimes during the night.
Other Bay Area cities that have experienced acts of violence by members of the public in this tumultuous time have
chosen much shorter curfews if they have put into place curfews at all. Some with longer curfews are now reconsidering
the duration.
With no air conditioning in most homes and many of us trying to get cool on walks after the temperature goes down, it
is very stressful to have to be back inside the house so early on these hot days. I am in the highly vulnerable group for
severe cases of Covid‐19 because of my age. I try to go out later when fewer people are strolling or bicycling.
Please reconsider and shorten the curfew. The troubles with demonstrators and opportunists seem to be subsiding
around the country. In my opinion, we don’t need another 8 nights of the curfew.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Bauriedel
South Court, Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
54
Baumb, Nelly
From:Joan Zwiep <joan@hosterfamily.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 1:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ten day curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council Members,
You have overstepped your bounds. We do not need a ten day curfew. End it now and reinstate it, if there is a need.
Stop toying with our Constitutional liberties.
Joan Zwiep
2345 Byron Street
PA 94301
55
Baumb, Nelly
From:Robert Dyro <robert.dyro@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:42 PM
To:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Justification for the curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council, Mayor, City Manger,
My name is Robert Dyro and I live at 726 Homer Avenue here in Palo Alto.
I think there's a lot wrong with imposing the curfew on the City of Palo Alto for several reasons.
The police intelligence justification for the curfew is insufficient. The "DECLARATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IMPOSING A CURFEW" cites police intelligence about planned and imminent
criminal activity, but neglects to mention the potential targets of these plans. The only thing stated is that the police
observed planning for criminal activity ("scouting") in Stanford Mall, the retail core and plausibly somewhere else in Palo
Alto.
If the information from the police is to justify the city‐wide curfew, it must be explicitly stated that the police believe
that criminal activity is planned in so many places around the city that it is impossible to protect them all by normal
means. Otherwise, if it is only the Stanford Mall and the retail core, then a justification is missing as to why the police
can't simply patrol these areas. The "City of Palo Alto Issues a Curfew Order Effective Tonight" news release itself
confusingly says that curfew is only one of the tools and does not state that it is necessary (which the Declaration does).
A curfew is a heavy‐handed tool and if the information the police has justifies it, then the information should be made
public. Not now when it might still interfere with any investigations, but as early as possible. The city should make
provisions to collect the justifying information now and be ready to make it part of public record.
Director of Emergency Service does not appear have the right to impose the curfew under The Palo Alto Municipal Code
2. 12.060, which is what is stated in the "DECLARATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES OF THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO IMPOSING A CURFEW". This is because a curfew must be a response to events "as affected by such
emergency" (paragraph (1)). The current state of emergency is declared in response to the Covid‐19 pandemic, but the
city order clearly establishes that the curfew is a response to looting indirectly enabled by protests against racial
injustice which are not dangers "affected by such emergency". They are an event separate to the emergency. The code
also requires that the city council confirm the curfew at the "earliest practicable time", which could perhaps be done on
June 8th (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp) during the next council meeting. The
Director of Emergency Service does have the right to declare the curfew only under California Government Code section
8634. The "DECLARATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IMPOSING A
CURFEW" is thus misleading.
Lastly, the curfew reasonably interferes with the right to protest, especially during late Spring when the temperatures
make it harder to be outside before sunset. This is particularly important during the time of increased civic participation
sparked by the killing of George Floyd on May 25th. As I've written above, I believe the curfew seems poorly justified
even during a normal time, but during this time it looks like gross unintentional attack on the civic rights to protest. In
the news release, the Director of Emergency Service is quoted as saying that "[the] imposed curfew is to strike a balance
[between] protests [and] criminal activity". Even assuming the danger of criminal activity is reasonably established and
the curfew is a necessary tool, I believe this is a very poor balance, biased against civic participation.
56
I'd greatly appreciate a response of any sort to this email.
Sincerely,
Robert Dyro
57
Baumb, Nelly
From:egas1044@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:06 PM
To:Council, City; Ed.Skikada@cityofpaloto.org; Fine, Adrian; Police; Fire
Subject:10 Day Curfew
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I urge you to reconsider your blanket, one size fits all 10 day curfew. While it is vital to prevent criminal activity and
protect citizen safety, a 10 day curfew is overkill. You can always extend a shorter curfew if circumstances and credible
intelligence require it. It will show you know how to govern appropriately with understanding, nuance and delicacy.
Your current curfew period reeks of fear, uncertainty and doubt which has led to our country walking towards fascism. It
certainly doesn't foster a strong belief in your ability to negotiate and govern with measures that are appropriate to
individual and possibly unique situations, characteristics which I will pay close attention to during the next city election.
I was proud to send my relatives a video of the Monday evening protest walk that was calmly escorted by the police
department. We need more of this level of response as we work to improve the situations that have led to our citizens
needing to protest injustice and racism in this city and country.
SIncerely,
Eileen Skrabutenas
1044 Hamilton Avenue
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 6:07 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Rachel and Tom Kellerman
Subject:Letter regarding Recent Palo Alto Curfew
Attachments:PA City Council Letter June 2020.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please see attached letter.
Thomas W. Kellerman
1129 Emerson St. | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Direct: 0 | Mobile: +1 l Fax: +
thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com
DISCLAIMER
This e‐mail message is intended only for the personal use
of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
attorney‐client communication and as such privileged and
confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,
copy or distribute this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
e‐mail and delete the original message.
Redacted Redacted Redacted
1
Thomas W. and Rachel H. Kellerman
1129 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
June 4, 2020
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto, California
Re: Recent Curfew Procedures
Dear Honorable Council Members:
We are writing with respect to the recent curfew imposed on the City of Palo Alto.
First of all, we are happy to see that the decision was made today to lift the curfew, at least for
the time being. We fully recognize the challenges we are all living under and the need to make
quick decisions for the protection of the community. We appreciate that City staff and Council
members are striving to act in the best interests of the entire City and all of its constituents.
We also recognize that the Council has received many comments regarding the process by
which this curfew was imposed.
Nonetheless, we feel compelled to express our disappointment as to several aspects of this
recent action. As you are certainly aware, the imposition of a City-wide curfew is a matter of
extreme seriousness, to be undertaken judiciously. Many interests need to be balanced when
imposing limitations on the civil liberties of all residents, as well as anyone else who wishes to
be part of our community. More importantly, actions such as this curfew send a message to the
broader community of what Palo Alto stands for. It creates a symbol that affects all of us. This
factor should not be taken lightly, particularly under the circumstances in which we now exist.
The initial imposition of a ten-day curfew, far longer than any of our surrounding jurisdictions,
sends a message about how we view Palo Alto relative to the broader community. It clearly
suggests a level of protectionism and isolationism that is antithetical to the culture of inclusivity
that we believe is more consistent with the views of most Palo Alto residents. Our
understanding from social media postings is that the City of East Palo Alto was not consulted or
even informed of this action. Given the relationship with adjoining cities, particularly East Palo
Alto, this seems inexcusable.
In addition, while apparently this action was able to be taken without consultation or approval
of the City Council, it is hard to imagine that the Council would not want to weigh-in on this
decision as quickly as possible. To the extent that the authority to impose a ten-day curfew
stems from the current COVID-19 crisis, this decision seems far afield from the intended scope
of actions contemplated by that grant of authority. While the Council members are all very
2
busy people who devote an enormous amount of time to their duties, if ever an action called
out for an emergency session, this was it. We rely on the Council to exercise their best
judgment in a crisis but it does not appear that you were able to provide guidance and
deliberation in this instance. This is unfortunate to say the least.
While this immediate crisis has passed, at least for the moment, surely there will be many more
decisions to be made as we all work to create a more equal and just society at our local level.
We look to the City Council to lead in these matters and to set a standard and tone of which we
can be proud. We are happy to lend our assistance in whatever way possible.
Thank you for your service and attention to these important issues.
Sincerely,
Tom Kellerman
Rachel Kellerman
cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Greg Welch <welgreg@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:59 PM
To:Council, City; Lydia Kou; Sue Dremann
Subject:Shame!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Minneapolis does not have a 10‐day curfew. Neither does SF, nor LA, nor NYC.....nor any other city in the region large or
small.
Governments lose their legitimacy when their exercise of power tramples on the rights of their citizens out of all
proportion to the threat posed. To wit: the killing of an unarmed, handcuffed man for allegedly passing a fake
$20 bill. Or the use of martial law tactics against the entire citizenry for days on end in response to a supposed
"threat" against a very small part of the city.
If you have evidence that such a drastic curtailing of civil liberties is merited, make your case the way Public Health
officials did with the SIP order (which we parents were able to explain to our kids), or the way Colin Powell did to the UN
before Gulf War 2 (oh wait...). Look at the public comments on Palo Alto On‐line or the Daily and it is very clear that you
have not made the case to the majority of voters that actions so out of step with the rest of the area, region, country are
in any way justified. If the order is not reversed or adequately explained, rest assured it will be used by challengers in
the next election.
Greg Welch
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Clint Smith <clintnsmith@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 9:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:You have abdicated your responsibility
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I vote in every local location, follow city politics, but have never before found reason to weigh in on a matter before the
Council.
But I am reaching out tonight because of yesterday’s 10‐day curfew declaration. This was a deeply troubling imposition
on our civil liberties without adequate factual findings or explanation from our city manager and elected officials.
I acknowledge that we are facing situations for which we are not well prepared and lack perfect information . But in such
times we must act based on our core values and first principles. The city council and city manager, rather than aligning
to freedom and citizen trust, instead chose to protect property in response to fear.
We can do better. Remove the curfew and restore the trust of our citizens.
Clint Smith
Laguna Avenue
Palo Alto
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Stephen Rock <ser84@caa.columbia.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:letter from Deborah A. Sivas
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council,
I support the letter by Deborah A. Sivas questioning the need for a 10 day curfew based on undisclosed rumor.
‐Steve
‐‐
Stephen Rock
3872 Nathan Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Karen Ambrose Hickey <kahickey@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PLEASE allow library books to be checked out
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
OK, you haven't actually biked down Newell to see what traffic is like (we lost on the smaller, yet still
flood-capable bridge). BUT, PLEASE let the libraries give out books. My teen daughter does NOT like
eBooks. Our shelves are filled with real books. She doesn't want us to buy her books. One of her joys
is the library. She knows what books she wants to read. Oh right.....there are no camps for teens;
she's a gymnast and gyms are closed; summer school was pushed out to July 6. And no one is hiring,
not that I really want her around the public. Instead of exercising her brain, having to also be ready for
SAT tests (that were postponed, leading to more readjusting), she is on a screen watching movies.
So PLEASE allow the community to take out books. It's easy to let them sit for 5 days before having
them ready to go out again. The CDC is saying that you don't even have to spray mail or groceries,
but a couple days wait is a safety precaution.
You are willing to put us on a curfew, and fortunately have opened up the streets for restaurants.
Please give access to a few more things.
Best,
Karen Hickey
Newell Road
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Leigh Rowe <leighrowe@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Curfew the real reason
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Barry Addington <baraddington@gmail.com>
Subject: Curfew the real reason
Date: June 7, 2020 at 1:55:43 PM PDT
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, agilbert@aclunc.org, sagarwal@aclunc.org
The true reason why a curfew was implemented was not to stop looting but an opportunity arose for a
power grab. Decade after decade the city leaders have always stood with civil right activists, just like
now, but they do the exact opposite of what they say which is why law enforcement reform this time
either.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/chief‐jonsen.html
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/06/28/antelope_findings_6‐28‐13.pdf
3
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/benitez.html
DA Jeff Rosen refuses to prosecute Officer Wayne Benitez even though the evidence
is beyond a reasonable doubt:
https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/proof‐of‐violation.html
4
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/civil‐rights‐lawsuit‐against‐palo‐alto‐police‐department‐raises‐
more‐questions‐about‐use‐of‐force‐and‐transparency/2201254/
What do you call a person or group of persons who falsely assert something to be true when in fact it is
false in order to mislead those being deceived to act on that false information to their own harm and
the benefit of the deceivers?
Palo Alto City Council
The Palo Alto City Leadership including City Manager Ed shikada and Police Chief Robert Jonsen put out
a statement on Monday June 1, 2020 that states that they condemn the actions and inaction of the
police officers in Minnesota, the George Floyd incident, and that they will not tolerate or condone that
type of behavior in Palo Alto at any level.
And then on June 2, 2020 enacted an all night curfew that was to last 10 days in order to suppress the
5
1st Amendment Rights of Citizens protesting police brutality and misconduct.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/06/02/palo‐alto‐leaders‐condemn‐police‐brutality‐vow‐to‐protect‐demonstrators‐as‐protests‐
spread
http://cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4909
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/06/04/it‐was‐not‐the‐right‐decision‐palo‐alto‐abruptly‐ends‐curfew
https://padailypost.com/2019/05/22/cops‐use‐of‐n‐word‐led‐to‐investigation‐that‐never‐became‐
public/
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/perron.html
6
https://almanacnews.com/news/2017/02/21/cover‐story‐people‐of‐color‐speak‐up‐about‐personal‐impact‐of‐police‐stops
http://libertyless.weebly.com/
7
The City of Palo Alto continues to employee and even promote officers Wagner and Afanasiev even though they
conspired with their fellow officers to falsify a crime scene; to destroy and falsify evidence including audio video
recordings in order to conceal their colleagues' crimes while using those falsified videos and evidence to wrongly
incriminate a citizen of a crime.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/afanasiev.html
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/powers.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/wagner.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/case‐study.html
https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/
A History of Missing Videos
There have been a minimum of 8 separate incidents between the Palo Alto Police and citizens in which
14 recording devices used by the Palo Alto Police failed to record those interactions.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing‐videos.html
Teen who did not resist or run when detained by Palo Alto Police is attacked by
a police dog taking a chunk out of his leg according to his attorney ‐‐ (It appears like
times in the past allegations of police misconduct that the video of the incident is lost)
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/dog‐attack.html
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/systemic‐flaws.html
8
Update: https://chiefburns.weebly.com/murray‐dog‐attack.html
Tyler Harney Case ‐ two MAV systems malfunction simultaneously and therefore do
not record the beating and permanent damage done to Harney's shoulder.
http://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/harney.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_26242251/man‐sues‐palo‐alto‐police‐over‐alleged‐civil
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/02/17/palo‐alto‐settles‐suit‐after‐allegations‐of‐excessive‐force
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district‐courts/california/candce/5:2014cv03415/279439/76
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2014cv03415/279439
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/07/29/man‐sues‐palo‐alto‐police‐over‐alleged‐civil‐rights‐violations/
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/02/17/palo‐alto‐settles‐suit‐after‐allegations‐of‐excessive‐force
The Cover Up of Albert Hopkins by Dennis Burns:
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/hopkins‐2.html
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2005/2005_06_08.officers08mb.shtml
Ofc. Fino was involved in an incident in 2015 in which a person was beaten suffering a
broken eye socket and charged with resisting arrest. The two officers who were supposed to be
recording the incident, Philip and Fino, did not record the incident. The DA decided not to press charges
against the citizen due to contradictory stories.
Read Story Here: https://padailypost.com/2019/04/11/newly‐released‐police‐records‐detail‐violent‐
takedown‐of‐shoplifting‐suspect/
Palo Alto Police, Lt. April Wagner, conspire with local business to help frame community
activist Chris Lund on behalf of the business:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/10/20/palo‐alto‐officer‐taped‐released‐private‐call
Palo Alto Police Retaliate against one of their own:
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/ryan.html
Palo Alto Police with the aid of the DA attempt to frame a man, Galbraith, for murdering his wife
‐‐ Family spends $800,000 to clear his name while only recouping $400,000, a net $400,000 loss
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2008/04/29/who‐is‐sgt‐michael‐yore
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/palo‐alto‐daily‐news/T1PSOJK5CSE5JIQ9J
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695276204/Theres‐more‐to‐story‐than‐cold‐hard‐cash.html?pg=all
http://truthinjustice.org/galbraith.htm
9
Palo Alto Police Officer allegedly instigates altercation with citizen at gym to create bogus
criminal charges
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/adrienne‐moore.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/sop.html
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/1899
Police Auditor Finds Numerous Missing Videos
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing‐videos.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/police‐auditor.html
Sgt. Powers and the Jorge Hernandez case using false evidence to induce a false
confession:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a‐true‐confession/
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_11_20.questioning20.html
Palo Alto Police retaliate against police watchdog for exposing their corruption and for destroying
exculpatory evidence and editing and falsifying audio/video recordings:
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐5.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐7.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐8.html
Sgt. Michael Yore Children’s theater case
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2008/04/29/who‐is‐sgt‐michael‐yore
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/palo‐alto‐daily‐news/T1PSOJK5CSE5JIQ9J
PAPD Changes it's Story in the Killing of Burglary Suspect Pedro Calderon
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/Calderon‐Contradiction.html
PAPD officers attempting to frame Jerold Rob Reed Jr.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/03/24/court‐throws‐out‐case‐due‐to‐police‐error
The false prosecution of David Carlson
10
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Child‐molestation‐charges‐dismissed‐in‐Palo‐Alto‐2878276.php
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_11_20.questioning20.html
Lt. April Wagner caught lying under Penalty of Perjury:
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/wagner.html
Woman suffering from seizure caused by a Brain Tumor is denied Medical Treatment by Palo
Alto Police Officer Adrienne Moore who falsely accused the woman of having a
psychiatric problem and who either failed to record the incident on her body‐worn camera and
Car system or she destroyed the recordings.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/911.html
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/09/20/on‐the‐ground‐and‐suffering‐a‐seizure‐a‐palo‐alto‐woman‐pleaded‐to‐be‐
taken‐to‐the‐hospital‐but‐police‐kept‐paramedics‐from‐helping‐her‐for‐14‐long‐minutes
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/09/20/12‐questions‐the‐city‐wont‐
answer?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/09/20/911‐nightmare‐a‐tug‐of‐war‐for‐
information?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barry Addington <baraddington@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 1:56 PM
To:Council, City; agilbert@aclunc.org; sagarwal@aclunc.org
Subject:Curfew the real reason
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
The true reason why a curfew was implemented was not to stop looting but an opportunity arose for a power
grab. Decade after decade the city leaders have always stood with civil right activists, just like now, but they do the
exact opposite of what they say which is why law enforcement reform this time either.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/chief‐jonsen.html
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/06/28/antelope_findings_6‐28‐13.pdf
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/benitez.html
12
DA Jeff Rosen refuses to prosecute Officer Wayne Benitez even though the evidence is beyond a
reasonable doubt:
https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/proof‐of‐violation.html
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/civil‐rights‐lawsuit‐against‐palo‐alto‐police‐department‐raises‐more‐questions‐
about‐use‐of‐force‐and‐transparency/2201254/
What do you call a person or group of persons who falsely assert something to be true when in fact it is false in order to
mislead those being deceived to act on that false information to their own harm and the benefit of the deceivers?
Palo Alto City Council
The Palo Alto City Leadership including City Manager Ed shikada and Police Chief Robert Jonsen put out a statement on
Monday June 1, 2020 that states that they condemn the actions and inaction of the police officers in Minnesota, the
George Floyd incident, and that they will not tolerate or condone that type of behavior in Palo Alto at any level.
And then on June 2, 2020 enacted an all night curfew that was to last 10 days in order to suppress the 1st Amendment
Rights of Citizens protesting police brutality and misconduct.
13
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/06/02/palo‐alto‐leaders‐condemn‐police‐brutality‐vow‐to‐protect‐demonstrators‐as‐protests‐spread
http://cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4909
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/06/04/it‐was‐not‐the‐right‐decision‐palo‐alto‐abruptly‐ends‐curfew
https://padailypost.com/2019/05/22/cops‐use‐of‐n‐word‐led‐to‐investigation‐that‐never‐became‐public/
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/perron.html
14
https://almanacnews.com/news/2017/02/21/cover‐story‐people‐of‐color‐speak‐up‐about‐personal‐impact‐of‐police‐stops
http://libertyless.weebly.com/
15
The City of Palo Alto continues to employee and even promote officers Wagner and Afanasiev even though they conspired with their
fellow officers to falsify a crime scene; to destroy and falsify evidence including audio video recordings in order to conceal their
colleagues' crimes while using those falsified videos and evidence to wrongly incriminate a citizen of a crime.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/afanasiev.html
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/powers.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/wagner.html
https://chiefburns.weebly.com/
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/case‐study.html
https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/
A History of Missing Videos
There have been a minimum of 8 separate incidents between the Palo Alto Police and citizens in which 14 recording
devices used by the Palo Alto Police failed to record those interactions.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing‐videos.html
Teen who did not resist or run when detained by Palo Alto Police is attacked by a police dog
taking a chunk out of his leg according to his attorney ‐‐ (It appears like times in the past allegations of
police misconduct that the video of the incident is lost)
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/dog‐attack.html
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/systemic‐flaws.html
Update: https://chiefburns.weebly.com/murray‐dog‐attack.html
Tyler Harney Case ‐ two MAV systems malfunction simultaneously and therefore do not record the
beating and permanent damage done to Harney's shoulder.
http://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/harney.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_26242251/man‐sues‐palo‐alto‐police‐over‐alleged‐civil
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/02/17/palo‐alto‐settles‐suit‐after‐allegations‐of‐excessive‐force
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district‐courts/california/candce/5:2014cv03415/279439/76
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2014cv03415/279439
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/07/29/man‐sues‐palo‐alto‐police‐over‐alleged‐civil‐rights‐violations/
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/02/17/palo‐alto‐settles‐suit‐after‐allegations‐of‐excessive‐force
16
The Cover Up of Albert Hopkins by Dennis Burns:
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/hopkins‐2.html
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2005/2005_06_08.officers08mb.shtml
Ofc. Fino was involved in an incident in 2015 in which a person was beaten suffering a broken eye
socket and charged with resisting arrest. The two officers who were supposed to be recording the incident, Philip and
Fino, did not record the incident. The DA decided not to press charges against the citizen due to contradictory stories.
Read Story Here: https://padailypost.com/2019/04/11/newly‐released‐police‐records‐detail‐violent‐takedown‐of‐
shoplifting‐suspect/
Palo Alto Police, Lt. April Wagner, conspire with local business to help frame community activist Chris Lund on
behalf of the business:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/10/20/palo‐alto‐officer‐taped‐released‐private‐call
Palo Alto Police Retaliate against one of their own:
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/ryan.html
Palo Alto Police with the aid of the DA attempt to frame a man, Galbraith, for murdering his wife ‐‐ Family spends
$800,000 to clear his name while only recouping $400,000, a net $400,000 loss
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2008/04/29/who‐is‐sgt‐michael‐yore
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/palo‐alto‐daily‐news/T1PSOJK5CSE5JIQ9J
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695276204/Theres‐more‐to‐story‐than‐cold‐hard‐cash.html?pg=all
http://truthinjustice.org/galbraith.htm
Palo Alto Police Officer allegedly instigates altercation with citizen at gym to create bogus criminal charges
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/adrienne‐moore.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/sop.html
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/1899
Police Auditor Finds Numerous Missing Videos
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing‐videos.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/police‐auditor.html
17
Sgt. Powers and the Jorge Hernandez case using false evidence to induce a false confession:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a‐true‐confession/
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_11_20.questioning20.html
Palo Alto Police retaliate against police watchdog for exposing their corruption and for destroying exculpatory
evidence and editing and falsifying audio/video recordings:
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐5.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐7.html
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐8.html
Sgt. Michael Yore Children’s theater case
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2008/04/29/who‐is‐sgt‐michael‐yore
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/palo‐alto‐daily‐news/T1PSOJK5CSE5JIQ9J
PAPD Changes it's Story in the Killing of Burglary Suspect Pedro Calderon
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/Calderon‐Contradiction.html
PAPD officers attempting to frame Jerold Rob Reed Jr.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/03/24/court‐throws‐out‐case‐due‐to‐police‐error
The false prosecution of David Carlson
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Child‐molestation‐charges‐dismissed‐in‐Palo‐Alto‐2878276.php
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_11_20.questioning20.html
Lt. April Wagner caught lying under Penalty of Perjury:
http://chiefburns.weebly.com/wagner.html
Woman suffering from seizure caused by a Brain Tumor is denied Medical Treatment by Palo Alto Police
Officer Adrienne Moore who falsely accused the woman of having a psychiatric problem and who
either failed to record the incident on her body‐worn camera and Car system or she destroyed the recordings.
https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/911.html
18
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/09/20/on‐the‐ground‐and‐suffering‐a‐seizure‐a‐palo‐alto‐woman‐pleaded‐to‐be‐taken‐to‐the‐
hospital‐but‐police‐kept‐paramedics‐from‐helping‐her‐for‐14‐long‐minutes
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/09/20/12‐questions‐the‐city‐wont‐
answer?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/09/20/911‐nightmare‐a‐tug‐of‐war‐for‐
information?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:leland.levy@wellsfargoadvisors.com
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:15 PM
To:mcdougall.don@gmail.com; Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:Clerk, City; ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com; ladoris@judgecordell.com
Subject:RE: Palo Alto Foothills Park - Call to reform
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Don,
` Well said.
Le
Leland D. Levy
Senior Vice President - Investments
CA Insurance Lic #OA45735
Wells Fargo Advisors / 1950 University Avenue #300/ Palo Alto CA 94303
Leland.Levy@WFAdvisors.com
From: Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 4:45 PM
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org; Ryan McCauley <ryanjoemccauley@gmail.com>; ladoris cordell
<ladoris@judgecordell.com>; Levy, Leland [PCG FINANCIAL ADVISOR] <leland.levy@wellsfargoadvisors.com>
Subject: Palo Alto Foothills Park ‐ Call to reform
Mr. Mayor, Council Members;
Reforming the entrance regulations for Palo Alto Foothills Park has long been a topic of discussion. Once again
the topic will be before City Council on June 23. Citizens, current political and religious leaders, past and
present Council Members and Commissioners agree with our proposal and have agreed to co-sign the attached
letter. We respectfully submit the letter and call for action with full trust and appreciation that you will give
these proposals your full consideration. We urge you to act boldly and approve the recommendations.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Don McDougall
Redacted
2
This email may be an advertisement or solicitation for products and services. Unsubscribe from promotional emails.
Investment and Insurance Products are:
∙ Not Insured by the FDIC or Any Federal Government Agency
∙ Not a Deposit or Other Obligation of, or Guaranteed by, the Bank or Any Bank Affiliate
∙ Subject to Investments Risks, Including Possible Loss of the Principal Amount Invested
Investment products and services are offered through Wells Fargo Clearing Services (WFCS), LLC, Member SIPC, a registered broker-dealer and non-bank
affiliate of Wells Fargo & Company. WFCS uses the trade name Wells Fargo Advisors. 1 North Jefferson, St. Louis, MO 63103.
View our Electronic communications guidelines.
June 7, 2020
Dear City Council and Neighbors:
At this historic time, civic leaders across America are being challenged to reassess the policies
and systems we’ve ensconced in law to find more equitable ways to achieve our communities’
goals and values. Palo Alto’s 50-year-old ban on non-residents at Foothills Park is one such
outdated policy that requires action.
Since the 1960s, Palo Alto has made it a crime punishable by jail time for non-residents to enter
Foothills Park. This policy sends a terrible message to our neighboring communities—
particularly those which do not enjoy the same socioeconomic advantages that Palo Alto does—
and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of thousands of would-be visitors who are prohibited by
uniformed City staff from entering a public park. It is also expensive, costing nearly $90,000 per
year to enforce.
Last year, the Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) undertook an extensive analysis of visitor
and resource data and heard lengthy public input, which led to their recommendation that the
Council reform this policy. We applaud the Council and Staff for taking this issue up this
month. The urgency of reforming this ordinance is more apparent now than ever.
As concerned faith and community leaders, we call on Palo Alto to:
(1) Repeal this ordinance (P.A.M.C. 22.04.150(a)), and
(2) Direct staff and the PRC to craft, within the next 60 days, a 21st Century policy that
demonstrates our City’s commitment to equality, openness and resource protection.
In the past several months, we have seen the admirable speed with which our local governments
can respond to big problems. This Foothills Park ordinance is only a small piece of the much
larger policy choices that we need to consciously reconsider at this time, but it is a long-
simmering issue that we can and should address now. Please meet this moment.
Sincerely,
Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo
Judge LaDoris Cordell, retired Superior Court Judge and former Councilmember
Assemblymember Marc Berman
Rev. Kaloma Smith, Pastor, University AME Zion Church
Rabbi David Booth, Congregation Kol Emeth
Rabbi Sarah Graff, Congregation Kol Emeth
Rabbi Jonathan Prosnit, Congregation Beth Am
Rev. Terry Gleeson, Rector, All Saints Episcopal Church
David Smernoff, Board Chair, Grassroots Ecology
Elliot Wright, Executive Director, Environmental Volunteers
Leland Levy, former Mayor
Pat Burt, former Mayor
Gail Woolley, former Mayor
Dena Mossar, former Mayor
Betsy Bechtel, former Mayor
Vic Ojakian, former Mayor
Peter Drekmeier, former Mayor
Nancy Shepherd, former Mayor
Cory Wolbach, former Councilmember
Gail Price, former Councilmember
Jennifer DiBrienza, PAUSD School Board Trustee
Shounak Dharap, PAUSD School Board Trustee
Don McDougall, former Parks & Rec Commission Chair
Anne Warner Cribbs OLY, Parks & Rec Commission Vice Chair
David Moss, Parks & Rec Commission member
Ryan McCauley, Parks & Rec Commission member
Valerie Stinger, Vice Chair and Past Chair, Human Relations Commission
Steven Lee, Human Relations Commission member
Patti Regehr Human Relations Commission member
AAUW (American Association of University Women) Palo Alto
Larry Magid, CEO, Connect Safely
Sarah Fields, President, on behalf of Peninsula Young Democrats
Dr. Luke Terra, Director of Community Engaged Learning and Research, and Associate
Director, Haas Center for Public Service, Stanford
Dr. Carol McKibben, Lecturer in Urban Studies, Stanford
Dr. Blakey Vermeule, Ph.D.
Munira Almire, President, Associated Students of Stanford University
Vianna Vo, Vice President, Associated Students of Stanford University
Steve Levy, Director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy
Rod Sinks, Cupertino Councilmember and former Mayor
Uriel Hernandez, Vice Chair, East Palo Alto Planning Commission
Paul Lazarow, civil rights lawyer
Charlie Krenz, open space and trails advocate
Peter Fortenbaugh
Will Davis
Sandy Couser, Nursing Instructor, Retired Public Health Nurse Practitioner
Sue Funkey
Dr. Hank Lawson, M.D.
Cynthia Welch Campbell
Shelley Taylor
Jon Lash
Kathleen Denise Podrasky
Heidi Bodding
Geoffrey M Creighton, Esq.
Daniel Spitzer
April Ledgerwood Robinson
Reid Yalom
Mandy Spitzer
Wilson Anderson
Rae Chester Wedel
Mark Culbard Peters
Phil Chabot
Isabel Chou
Kerry Cambio
Tracy Bell Redig
Roselyn Mena
Bonnie L McKinnon
Gary E. Jones
Joseph Fruen, Esq.
Cynthia Welch Campbell
Diane Brenner
Kathleen Denise Podrasky
Sarah Aitken
Vicki Perkins
Maika Horjus
Dr. Enoch Choi, M.D.
Lee family members, all descendants of Foothills Park grantors Dorothy and Russell Lee:
Geoffrey Lee Paulsen, former Foothills Park and National Park Service ranger
Martha Lee, retired executive, National Park Service
Amy Paulsen
Joanie Paulsen
Eric Paulsen
Janine Paulsen
James Chadwick, esq
Patricia Chadwick
Dr. Rich Lee, M.D., Founder and Medical Director, Hometown Healthcare, Palo Alto
Barbie Paulsen
Dr. Catherine Lee, Ph.D.
Margaret Lee
Alison Margo Smaalders
Dr. Phyllis Lee, Ph.D.
Sally Paulsen
Virginia Lee Adi
Graham Lee
Sophie Lee
Amy Pinneo
Additional signatories welcomed.
Titles are for identification purposes only.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Tom Rota <tom@rotanet.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto urged to end nonresidents’ ‘systemic exclusion’ from Foothills Park - SFChronicle.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
ladies and Gentlemen
I am strongly opposed to changing the existing exclusivity of Palo Alto. I use Foothill Park a lot and like that it is not
crowded and is exclusive.
I paid dearly to live in this town because it is exclusive.
If this were to change it should only be done after an affirmative vote of Palo Alto citizens.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Palo‐Alto‐to‐reconsider‐ban‐on‐outsiders‐from‐15328367.php
Tom Rota
2071 Middlefield Rd
Palo Alto 943013
Sent from my iPhone X
Tom
Sent from my iPhone X
Re
da
cte
d
Redacted
Re
da
cte
d
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:John Hannibal <hannibal.john@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Don't Open Foothills Park to Non-Residents
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
As a lifelong resident of Palo Alto, I am writing to request that Foothills Park's resident only status not be changed. It is
one of the few places of peace and quiet in the city that is not over‐crowded like Arastradero Preserve and other parks
that are open to non‐residents.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
John Hannibal
2025 Bryant St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Redacted
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Stuart Hansen <hansensc@att.net>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:20 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:'Hansen'
Subject:Foothills Park Solution
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members—Monday 6/8/20 edition of the Daily Post contained a “Open park to all” letter signed by a long
list of people.
To avoid the clamor, cost and controversy of opening it to all, we feel the time has come to consider selling the park to
Midpen Open Space, or a similar group.
Presumably, any use conditions attached to the original purchase could be upheld by the new owners and the park
would then be maintained and open to all.
We need to close our $40m (COVID) deficit and the proceeds would help a lot. Thank you, Stuart and Carol Hansen, Palo
Alto
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Katherine Causey <katherinecausey@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Foothills Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council,
I am just writing to say I support the ask to repeal ordinance P.A.M.C. 22.04.150(a), and to direct staff and the PRC to
craft, within the next 60 days, a 21st Century policy that demonstrates our City’s commitment to equality, openness and
resource protection.
Thank you for your leadership during these trying times!
Katie Causey
‐‐
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers | 庄可欣//莊可欣
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 6:35 PM
To:kaywg2372@gmail.com; senior.affairs@groupmail.com; markhamplazata@gmail.com; galaxy_454
@yahoo.com; heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com; cindy.alvarez@mail.com;
cindy.chavez@box.sccgov.org; caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com
Subject:Fw: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Attachments:030819_SFPD_POLICE_SEARCH_WARRANT_lancewr12.LP.pdf; 032319_San Francisco Well Check
Calls_EMAIL TO UNA BAILEY SFPD CHIEF.pdf; 050820_SGT. MARTINEZ CELL PHONE Search
Warrant001.pdf; 060619_SGT. MARTINEZ EMAILS POLICE SEARCH WARRANT_1 (2).pdf; 06-17-19
_SFPD_Lancewr12@Gmail - [5-4623000026543] Notification from Google.pdf; 06-19-19_COMPLAINT
OF SGT. Martinez Search Warrant Gmail - Search Warrant.pdf; 071919_SGT. MARTINEZ_EMAILS
SEARCH WARRANT_RORY WILL.pdf; 101719_WANG'S SF CRIMINAL WARRANT.pdf; 101819_750,000
BAIL RECEIPT.pdf; Calif. Judge Axes Drug-Dealing Case After Surveillance Footage Contradicts
Police.pdf; EXHIBIT_00019_FEBRUARY 13, 2019_ALLAN THYGESEN POLICE REPORT 190-112-228.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thomas Iveli , Brian McComas and Robert Sigmund are engaged in a criminal racketerring enterprise
and have corrupt interest in the following San Francisco, California Real Estate Properties. Brian
McComas also attempted to get a military service member killed for his participaton in an investigation
into the family of Will Ligtbourne and the Shower Posse Cartel who were shipping weapons and drugs
between Jamaica, Costa Rica , United Kingdom, Montreal Canada , United States, Cuba, Spain and
Morrocco. New information obtained today indicates there maybe a brivate investigator involved who
was hired by Jeffrey Epstien to screw up the investigation initiated by retired FBI special agent Ted
Gunderson. We are affraid that Brian McComas may try to sexualy molest young children!
* 607 Oak St. San Francisco, Ca. – purchased approximately 2003 by 406-10-12 Realty Corp. & 400
W. 22 St. Corp.
* 994-98 Guerrero St.San Francisco, Ca. – 12/23/2011
* 925 Pierce St.San Francisco, Ca. – 8/17/2009
* 88-98 Castro St.San Francisco, Ca. – 7/17/2007
* 452 Oak St San Francisco, Ca. . – 5/6/2004
* 425 Shrader St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/15/2007
* 390 Page St, San Francisco, Ca. — Property Lien 2/20/2020
* 3901-09 17th St. San Francisco, Ca. – 10/9/2013
* 3700 16th St. San Francisco, Ca. – 11/9/2011
* 350 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, Ca. – 12/9/2005
* 2260 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/28/2012
* 2256-58 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/28/2012
* 201 Waller St.San Francisco, Ca. – 11/27/2013
* 178-180 Church St. – 6/23/2006
* 133-35 Collingwood St. San Francisco, Ca. – 4/5/2004
* 1040 Ashbury St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/16/2011
* 561 Baker Street , San Francisco, Ca. - 11 units (Checks were made payable to Norcal Holdings)
2
CENTERFORJUDICIAl 1'.\\IJ.ens tar Crl/11/n
.._. ___ ....iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .... lliEXiiiCiiElliiENiiCiiiE.OiiiRGilllllllllli ~ JUSTICE
3
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 12:53 AM From: "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
To: kaywg2372@gmail.com
Cc: "super nova" <galaxy_454@yahoo.com>, "Be Judged" <rua@uglyjudge.com>, markhamplazata@gmail.com,
"Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com>, "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>, "Cindy
Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Please call me at so I can better understand what’s going on. I have been flooded with emails over last couple of days which like yours, involve San Francisco.
I have noticed reference in one of your documents to a private investigator hired by Jeffrey Epstein so I am
forwarding to others , some of whom are have expressed fears that Brian McComas may sexually molest children .
Respectfully,
Cary Andrew Crittenden |
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
Date: June 5, 2020 at 4:28:31 PM PDT
To: Julie Del Fava <julie.delfava@bos.sccgov.org> Cc: Be Judged <rua@uglyjudge.com>, Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>, super nova <galaxy_454@yahoo.com>, Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>, Scott Largent
<scottlargent38@gmail.com>, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Hi Julie,
This just came in. More San Francisco stuff. I’m not sure what to make of it.
I’m forwarding it to others in hopes that after being blasted all over the internet, it wiill eventually
get sorted out.
I have not opened any of the attachments yet.
Cary Andrew Crittenden |
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kay Wg <kaywg2372@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Date: June 5, 2020 at 4:18:58 PM PDT
To: caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com
Can you tell me how long you were in prison?
Like did you serve 3.5 years?! I saw the ruling from the Appeals court 45 pages, and confusing. My complaint is similar see attached.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kay Wg <kaywg2372@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 31, 2020 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Hi Chesa
To: Chesa DA Email <chesa@sfgov.org>
Hi Chesa,
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
4
Please don't forward this to Don Dubain, my attorney is going to get really mad, she forwarded Don Dubain's email last-time, and I'm afraid he'll over prosecute in
retaliation but I really have to voice my concerns. Case: 19016407
But my bail is higher than Derek Chauvin's his bail was only $500,000 for Murder.
Mine was @ $750,000, and I have no criminal record.
I'm appalled that this is happening, furthermore Sgt. Michele Martinez #1208 just
issued a Search Warrant after over 7 months of illegally seizing the incorrect phone
and totally misrepresented her Probable Cause Statement this is your office, how is
this happening?
Why am I getting so many Search Warrants, no one is stalking anyone, it's
disgusting that the SFPD and the DA's office will help the Thygesen family, Google
Executives. When are the police going to be held accountable for selective
prosecution? I have the highest bail in history for charges of "Stalking", as in trying to serve the white Menlo park man who abducted my infant son? It's so egregious. I
also live in Utah, why are the SFPD and your DA offices prosecuting out of state
cases, on top of that Walker Stone the fake alleged victim lives in Alabama. I know
there is significant discrimination again blacks and brown [people, but your office
was really prejudicial to me, I am scared for my life, my parents have already
depleted their entire retirement fund, we cannot afford another $750,000 Bail, and
Sgt. Martinez is still going through all my stuff, with NO PROBABLE CAUSE. P.S.
Michele Martinez in CBS article attached shows Michele Martinez has a history in
false probable cause incident reports.
Please have your office not fight too aggressively when we request Sgt. Michele
Martinez's record through a Pitchess Motion.
Thank you for listening.
--
Phone:
--
Phone:
Redacte
d
Redacte
d
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 9:08 PM
To:galaxy_454@yahoo.com
Subject:2013 Advisory
Attachments:030819_SFPD_POLICE_SEARCH_WARRANT_lancewr12.LP.pdf; 032319_San Francisco Well Check
Calls_EMAIL TO UNA BAILEY SFPD CHIEF.pdf; 050820_SGT. MARTINEZ CELL PHONE Search
Warrant001.pdf; 060619_SGT. MARTINEZ EMAILS POLICE SEARCH WARRANT_1 (2).pdf; 06-17-19
_SFPD_Lancewr12@Gmail - [5-4623000026543] Notification from Google.pdf; 06-19-19_COMPLAINT
OF SGT. Martinez Search Warrant Gmail - Search Warrant.pdf; 071919_SGT. MARTINEZ_EMAILS
SEARCH WARRANT_RORY WILL.pdf; 101719_WANG'S SF CRIMINAL WARRANT.pdf; 101819_750,000
BAIL RECEIPT.pdf; Calif. Judge Axes Drug-Dealing Case After Surveillance Footage Contradicts
Police.pdf; EXHIBIT_00019_FEBRUARY 13, 2019_ALLAN THYGESEN POLICE REPORT 190-112-228.pdf;
Mail Attachment.jpeg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Help expose Gary Goodman, Bill Robinson, and that despicable cunt
Molly O'Neal!
Thomas Iveli , Brian McComas and Robert Sigmund are
engaged in a criminal racketerring enterprise and have corrupt
interest in the San Francisco, California Real Estate Properties
listed below. Brian McComas also attempted to get a navy
officer killed for his participaton in an investigation into the
family of Will Ligtbourne and the Shower Posse Cartel who
were shipping weapons and drugs between Jamaica, Costa Rica
, United Kingdom, Montreal Canada , United States, Cuba,
Spain and Morrocco. New information obtained today points
to a private investigator hired by Jeffrey Epstien. This
investigator may have interfered with the investigation
conducted by retired FBI special agent Ted Gunderson into
Dorothy Lightbourne, Robert Lightbourne, Christopher Dudos
Coke and the Shower Posse Cartel.
There is reason to believe that attorney Brian Curtis McComas
is a pedophile who is sexually attracted to little kids!
* 607 Oak St. San Francisco, Ca. - purchased approximately
2003 by 406-10-12 Realty Corp. & 400 W. 22 St. Corp.
2
* 994-98 Guerrero St.San Francisco, Ca. - 12/23/2011
* 925 Pierce St.San Francisco, Ca. - 8/17/2009
* 88-98 Castro St.San Francisco, Ca. - 7/17/2007
* 452 Oak St San Francisco, Ca. . - 5/6/2004
* 425 Shrader St. San Francisco, Ca. - 6/15/2007
* 390 Page St, San Francisco, Ca. - Property Lien 2/20/2020
* 3901-09 17th St. San Francisco, Ca. - 10/9/2013
* 3700 16th St. San Francisco, Ca. - 11/9/2011
* 350 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 12/9/2005
* 2260 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. - 6/28/2012
* 2256-58 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. - 6/28/2012
* 201 Waller St.San Francisco, Ca. - 11/27/2013
* 178-180 Church St. - 6/23/2006
* 133-35 Collingwood St. San Francisco, Ca. - 4/5/2004
* 1040 Ashbury St. San Francisco, Ca. - 6/16/2011
* 561 Baker Street , San Francisco, Ca. - 11 units (Checks were
made payable to Norcal Holdings)
3
4
5
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 1:46 AM
From: "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
To: "Brian McComas" <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>
Cc: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, supreme.court@jud.ca.gov, "Bill Robinson" <bill@sdap.org>, patrick@sdap.org
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Why am I getting all this stuff!!! WTF is going on sir?
6
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Date: June 5, 2020 at 6:35:06 PM PDT
To: kaywg2372@gmail.com, senior.affairs@groupmail.com, markhamplazata@gmail.com,
galaxy_454@yahoo.com, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com, cindy.alvarez@mail.com,
cindy.chavez@box.sccgov.org, caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com
Thomas Iveli , Brian McComas and Robert Sigmund are engaged in a criminal
racketerring enterprise and have corrupt interest in the following San Francisco,
California Real Estate Properties. Brian McComas also attempted to get a military
service member killed for his participaton in an investigation into the family of Will
Ligtbourne and the Shower Posse Cartel who were shipping weapons and drugs between
Jamaica, Costa Rica , United Kingdom, Montreal Canada , United States, Cuba, Spain
and Morrocco. New information obtained today indicates there maybe a brivate
investigator involved who was hired by Jeffrey Epstien to screw up the investigation
initiated by retired FBI special agent Ted Gunderson. We are affraid that Brian
McComas may try to sexualy molest young children!
* 607 Oak St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� purchased approximately 2003 by 406-10-12
Realty Corp. & 400 W. 22 St. Corp.
* 994-98 Guerrero St.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 12/23/2011
* 925 Pierce St.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 8/17/2009
* 88-98 Castro St.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 7/17/2007
* 452 Oak St San Francisco, Ca. . ��� 5/6/2004
* 425 Shrader St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 6/15/2007
* 390 Page St, San Francisco, Ca. ��� Property Lien 2/20/2020
* 3901-09 17th St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 10/9/2013
* 3700 16th St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 11/9/2011
* 350 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 12/9/2005
* 2260 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 6/28/2012
* 2256-58 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 6/28/2012
* 201 Waller St.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 11/27/2013
* 178-180 Church St. ��� 6/23/2006
* 133-35 Collingwood St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 4/5/2004
* 1040 Ashbury St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 6/16/2011
* 561 Baker Street , San Francisco, Ca. - 11 units (Checks were made payable to
Norcal Holdings)
7
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 12:53 AM
From: "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
To: kaywg2372@gmail.com
Cc: "super nova" <galaxy_454@yahoo.com>, "Be Judged" <rua@uglyjudge.com>,
markhamplazata@gmail.com, "Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com>, "Susanne Bentley"
<senior.affairs@groupmail.com>, "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
���Please call me at so I can better understand what���s going on.
I have been flooded with emails over last couple of days which like yours, involve San Francisco.
I have noticed reference in one of your documents to a private investigator hired by Jeffrey
Epstein so I am forwarding to others , some of whom are have expressed fears that Brian McComas may sexually molest children .
Respectfully,
Cary Andrew Crittenden |
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
Date: June 5, 2020 at 4:28:31 PM PDT
To: Julie Del Fava <julie.delfava@bos.sccgov.org>
Cc: Be Judged <rua@uglyjudge.com>, Jeremy Pruitt
<jeremy4justice@activist.com>, super nova <galaxy_454@yahoo.com>,
Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>, Scott Largent <scottlargent38@gmail.com>, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
���Hi Julie,
This just came in. More San Francisco stuff. I���m not sure what to make of
it.
I���m forwarding it to others in hopes that after being blasted all over the
internet, it wiill eventually get sorted out.
I have not opened any of the attachments yet.
Cary Andrew Crittenden |
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kay Wg <kaywg2372@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Date: June 5, 2020 at 4:18:58 PM PDT
To: caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com
Can you tell me how long you were in prison?
Like did you serve 3.5 years?! I saw the ruling from the Appeals
court 45 pages, and confusing. My complaint is similar see
attached.
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
8
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kay Wg <kaywg2372@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 31, 2020 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Hi Chesa
To: Chesa DA Email <chesa@sfgov.org>
Hi Chesa,
Please don't forward this to Don Dubain, my attorney is going to
get really mad, she forwarded Don Dubain's email last-time, and
I'm afraid he'll over prosecute in retaliation but I really have to
voice my concerns. Case: 19016407
But my bail is higher than Derek Chauvin's his bail was only
$500,000 for Murder. Mine was @ $750,000, and I have no
criminal record.
I'm appalled that this is happening, furthermore Sgt. Michele
Martinez #1208 just issued a Search Warrant after over 7
months of illegally seizing the incorrect phone and totally
misrepresented her Probable Cause Statement this is your office,
how is this happening?
Why am I getting so many Search Warrants, no one is stalking
anyone, it's disgusting that the SFPD and the DA's office will help
the Thygesen family, Google Executives. When are the police
going to be held accountable for selective prosecution? I have the
highest bail in history for charges of "Stalking", as in trying to
serve the white Menlo park man who abducted my infant son? It's
so egregious. I also live in Utah, why are the SFPD and your DA
offices prosecuting out of state cases, on top of that Walker Stone
the fake alleged victim lives in Alabama. I know there is significant discrimination again blacks and brown [people, but your office was really prejudicial to me, I am scared for my life,
my parents have already depleted their entire retirement fund,
we cannot afford another $750,000 Bail, and Sgt. Martinez is still
going through all my stuff, with NO PROBABLE CAUSE. P.S.
Michele Martinez in CBS article attached shows Michele Martinez
has a history in false probable cause incident reports.
Please have your office not fight too aggressively when we
request Sgt. Michele Martinez's record through a Pitchess Motion.
Thank you for listening.
--
Phone:
--
Phone:
Redacte
d
Redacte
d
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 11:16 AM
To:Markham Plaza Tenant Association
Cc:heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com; cindy.alvarez@mail.com; contact@tedgunderson.info;
ted@tedgunderson.com; kaywg2372@gmail.com; celliot087@gmail.com;
jeremy4justice@activist.com; super nova; Cary Andrew Crittenden; SOCIALMEDIA1953
@YAHOO.COM
Subject:Housing Violations & Real Estate Fraud
Attachments:030819_SFPD_POLICE_SEARCH_WARRANT_lancewr12.LP.pdf; 032319_San Francisco Well Check
Calls_EMAIL TO UNA BAILEY SFPD CHIEF.pdf; 050820_SGT. MARTINEZ CELL PHONE Search
Warrant001.pdf; 060619_SGT. MARTINEZ EMAILS POLICE SEARCH WARRANT_1 (2).pdf; 06-17-19
_SFPD_Lancewr12@Gmail - [5-4623000026543] Notification from Google.pdf; 06-19-19_COMPLAINT
OF SGT. Martinez Search Warrant Gmail - Search Warrant.pdf; 071919_SGT. MARTINEZ_EMAILS
SEARCH WARRANT_RORY WILL.pdf; 101719_WANG'S SF CRIMINAL WARRANT.pdf; 101819_750,000
BAIL RECEIPT.pdf; Calif. Judge Axes Drug-Dealing Case After Surveillance Footage Contradicts
Police.pdf; EXHIBIT_00019_FEBRUARY 13, 2019_ALLAN THYGESEN POLICE REPORT 190-112-228.pdf;
Mail Attachment.jpeg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
There is alot more information about attorney Brian McComas and his band of criminal thugs. Bobby
Sigmund and Tom Iveli for example, were forced to pay $42,000 in fines and fees for illegally
converting an S.R.O. into apartments as well as for construction without a permit, illegal occupancy
and nuisance violations in the mid-1980's at 334-6 West 22 Street , New York Supreme Court Justice
Bruce Wright wrote, "The various devices, tricks and ploys invoked and invented by the defendants to
avoid judgment are patently transparent efforts to deter, delay and hinder due process."
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 4:33 PM
From: "Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
To: protest@parentsagainstcpscorruption.com
Cc: MichelleChan2019@gmail.com, socialmedia1953@gmail.com, celliot087@gmail.com
Subject: Fw: Cartel Leader coordinated with California State Senotor
The CIA related matters ( see beow ) were inveatgated and verified by
Ronald Kessler , To confirm this, cali 202-456-1111. and ask to speak to
Don. Meanwhile, Kessler's secret brother San Jose attorney Thompson
Sharkey was covertly placed on corresponding court case ( C1493022 ) out
of Santa Clara County California by Santa Clara County Public Defender
Molly O'Neal which involved acts of fraud and perjury by those who worked
under Wil Lighbourns supervision. Public Defender Molly O'Neal railroaded
the innocent and caused several people to get killed. Santa Clara County
Sheriff detective David Carrol was sent out to stalk, harass and threaten
witnesses. Google "Markham Plaza Attacks". Detective Carroll is also
suspected to be involved in the murder of Frank Carpenito.
2
Ronad Kessler and Thompson Sharkey are the sons of Earnest Borek
3
4
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 12:16 PM From: "Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
To: aywg2372@gmail.com, MichelleChan2019@gmail.com, protest@parentsagainstcpscorruption.com
Subject: Cartel Leader coordinated with California State Senotor
Feds intercepted communications between Jamaican Cartel leader and California State
Senator Jim Bealle, who at the time, was affiliated with California Social Services director
Will Lightbourne.
Suppression of audio tapes in New York City federal court case allowed collusion with
senator to go under radar. This occured during same time period that large sum of money
went missing in 2009 from Santa Clara County SSA.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/01/christopher-dudus-coke-us-court
https://ipowerrichmond.com/566561/how-the-cia-created-the-jamaican-shower-posse/
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 5:18 AM
From: "Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com> To: galaxy_454@yahoo.com
Cc: markhamplazata@gmail.com, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com, cindy.alvarez@mail.com,
contact@tedgunderson.info, ted@tedgunderson.com, kaywg2372@gmail.com, celliot087@gmail.com,
senior.affairs@groupmail.net
Subject: Robert Lightbourne - Central Intelegence Agency
Here is photo of Robet Lightboure, the CIA operative who helped to establish the Jamaican Shower Posse
Cartel. He is splitting image of former Social Services director: Will Lightbourne. The Lightbourne family and Shower Posse Cartel were under investigation by Ted Gunderson
https://honorthysanctity.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/2004-03-13-ted-gunderson-speech-to-congressional-
hearing-on-child-protection-town-hall-forum-with-congressman-joe-baca-on-children-protective-services-
reform-mar-13-2004.pdf
Here is Will Lightbourne, California Department of Social Services
5
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 4:07 AM
From: "Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
To: galaxy_454@yahoo.com
Subject: 2013 Advisory
Help expose Gary Goodman, Bill Robinson, and that despicable
cunt Molly O'Neal!
Thomas Iveli , Brian McComas and Robert Sigmund are
engaged in a criminal racketerring enterprise and have
corrupt interest in the San Francisco, California Real
Estate Properties listed below. Brian McComas also
attempted to get a navy officer killed for his participaton
in an investigation into the family of Will Ligtbourne and
the Shower Posse Cartel who were shipping weapons and
drugs between Jamaica, Costa Rica , United Kingdom,
Montreal Canada , United States, Cuba, Spain and
Morrocco. New information obtained today points to
a private investigator hired by Jeffrey Epstien. This
investigator may have interfered with the investigation
conducted by retired FBI special agent Ted Gunderson
into Dorothy Lightbourne, Robert Lightbourne,
Christopher Dudos Coke and the Shower Posse Cartel.
There is reason to believe that attorney Brian Curtis
McComas is a pedophile who is sexually attracted to little
kids!
6
* 607 Oak St. San Francisco, Ca. - purchased
approximately 2003 by 406-10-12 Realty Corp. & 400 W.
22 St. Corp.
* 994-98 Guerrero St.San Francisco, Ca. - 12/23/2011
* 925 Pierce St.San Francisco, Ca. - 8/17/2009
* 88-98 Castro St.San Francisco, Ca. - 7/17/2007
* 452 Oak St San Francisco, Ca. . - 5/6/2004
* 425 Shrader St. San Francisco, Ca. - 6/15/2007
* 390 Page St, San Francisco, Ca. - Property Lien
2/20/2020
* 3901-09 17th St. San Francisco, Ca. - 10/9/2013
* 3700 16th St. San Francisco, Ca. - 11/9/2011
* 350 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, Ca. ���
12/9/2005
* 2260 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. - 6/28/2012
* 2256-58 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. - 6/28/2012
* 201 Waller St.San Francisco, Ca. - 11/27/2013
* 178-180 Church St. - 6/23/2006
* 133-35 Collingwood St. San Francisco, Ca. - 4/5/2004
* 1040 Ashbury St. San Francisco, Ca. - 6/16/2011
* 561 Baker Street , San Francisco, Ca. - 11 units (Checks
were made payable to Norcal Holdings)
7
8
9
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 1:46 AM
From: "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
To: "Brian McComas" <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>
Cc: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, supreme.court@jud.ca.gov, "Bill Robinson" <bill@sdap.org>,
patrick@sdap.org
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Why am I getting all this stuff!!! WTF is going on sir?
10
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
Subject: Fw: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Date: June 5, 2020 at 6:35:06 PM PDT
To: kaywg2372@gmail.com, senior.affairs@groupmail.com, markhamplazata@gmail.com,
galaxy_454@yahoo.com, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com, cindy.alvarez@mail.com,
cindy.chavez@box.sccgov.org, caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com
Thomas Iveli , Brian McComas and Robert Sigmund are engaged in a criminal
racketerring enterprise and have corrupt interest in the following San
Francisco, California Real Estate Properties. Brian McComas also attempted
to get a military service member killed for his participaton in an investigation
into the family of Will Ligtbourne and the Shower Posse Cartel who were
shipping weapons and drugs between Jamaica, Costa Rica , United Kingdom,
Montreal Canada , United States, Cuba, Spain and Morrocco. New information
obtained today indicates there maybe a brivate investigator involved who was
hired by Jeffrey Epstien to screw up the investigation initiated by retired FBI
special agent Ted Gunderson. We are affraid that Brian McComas may try to
sexualy molest young children!
* 607 Oak St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� purchased approximately 2003
by 406-10-12 Realty Corp. & 400 W. 22 St. Corp.
* 994-98 Guerrero St.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 12/23/2011
* 925 Pierce St.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 8/17/2009
* 88-98 Castro St.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 7/17/2007
* 452 Oak St San Francisco, Ca. . ��� 5/6/2004
* 425 Shrader St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 6/15/2007
* 390 Page St, San Francisco, Ca. ��� Property Lien 2/20/2020
* 3901-09 17th St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 10/9/2013
* 3700 16th St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 11/9/2011
* 350 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 12/9/2005
* 2260 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 6/28/2012
* 2256-58 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 6/28/2012
* 201 Waller St.San Francisco, Ca. ��� 11/27/2013
* 178-180 Church St. ��� 6/23/2006
* 133-35 Collingwood St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 4/5/2004
* 1040 Ashbury St. San Francisco, Ca. ��� 6/16/2011
11
* 561 Baker Street , San Francisco, Ca. - 11 units (Checks were made
payable to Norcal Holdings)
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 12:53 AM
From: "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
To: kaywg2372@gmail.com
Cc: "super nova" <galaxy_454@yahoo.com>, "Be Judged" <rua@uglyjudge.com>,
markhamplazata@gmail.com, "Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com>,
"Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>, "Cindy Alvarez"
<cindy.alvarez@mail.com>, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
���Please call me at so I can better understand what���s going
on.
I have been flooded with emails over last couple of days which like yours, involve San
Francisco.
I have noticed reference in one of your documents to a private investigator hired by
Jeffrey Epstein so I am forwarding to others , some of whom are have expressed fears
that Brian McComas may sexually molest children .
Respectfully,
Cary Andrew Crittenden |
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
Date: June 5, 2020 at 4:28:31 PM PDT
To: Julie Del Fava <julie.delfava@bos.sccgov.org>
Cc: Be Judged <rua@uglyjudge.com>, Jeremy Pruitt
<jeremy4justice@activist.com>, super nova
<galaxy_454@yahoo.com>, Susanne Bentley
<senior.affairs@groupmail.com>, Scott Largent
<scottlargent38@gmail.com>, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
���Hi Julie,
This just came in. More San Francisco stuff. I���m not sure what to
make of it.
I���m forwarding it to others in hopes that after being blasted all
over the internet, it wiill eventually get sorted out.
I have not opened any of the attachments yet.
Cary Andrew Crittenden | 4
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kay Wg <kaywg2372@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa
Date: June 5, 2020 at 4:18:58 PM PDT
To: caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com
Can you tell me how long you were in prison?
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
12
Like did you serve 3.5 years?! I saw the ruling from the
Appeals court 45 pages, and confusing. My complaint is
similar see attached.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kay Wg <kaywg2372@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 31, 2020 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Hi Chesa
To: Chesa DA Email <chesa@sfgov.org>
Hi Chesa,
Please don't forward this to Don Dubain, my attorney is
going to get really mad, she forwarded Don Dubain's
email last-time, and I'm afraid he'll over prosecute in
retaliation but I really have to voice my concerns. Case: 19016407
But my bail is higher than Derek Chauvin's his bail was
only $500,000 for Murder. Mine was @ $750,000, and I
have no criminal record.
I'm appalled that this is happening, furthermore Sgt.
Michele Martinez #1208 just issued a Search Warrant
after over 7 months of illegally seizing the incorrect
phone and totally misrepresented her Probable Cause
Statement this is your office, how is this happening?
Why am I getting so many Search Warrants, no one is
stalking anyone, it's disgusting that the SFPD and the
DA's office will help the Thygesen family, Google Executives. When are the police going to be held accountable for selective prosecution? I have the
highest bail in history for charges of "Stalking", as in
trying to serve the white Menlo park man who abducted
my infant son? It's so egregious. I also live in Utah, why
are the SFPD and your DA offices prosecuting out of
state cases, on top of that Walker Stone the fake
alleged victim lives in Alabama. I know there is
significant discrimination again blacks and brown
[people, but your office was really prejudicial to me, I
am scared for my life, my parents have already
depleted their entire retirement fund, we cannot afford
another $750,000 Bail, and Sgt. Martinez is still going
through all my stuff, with NO PROBABLE CAUSE. P.S.
Michele Martinez in CBS article attached shows Michele
Martinez has a history in false probable cause incident reports.
Please have your office not fight too aggressively when
we request Sgt. Michele Martinez's record through a
Pitchess Motion.
Thank you for listening.
--
Phone: 801-645-1060
13
--
Phone:
Redacte
d
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 10:30 AM
To:supreme.court@jud.ca.gov
Cc:bill@sdap.org; galaxy_454@yahoo.com; senior.affairs@groupmail.net
Subject:Fw: Markham Plaza Homicide concealed from Grand Jury
Attachments:April 2018 Palo Alto City Council.pdf; Grand-Jury-Investigation-Public-Guardian-Santa-Clara-
County.pdf; Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil Grand Jury Public Guardian.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Everyone must me made aware that Pruitt-Nassie had
already engaged through the Lawless America Project
prior to September 20th, 2012, 2 weeks prior to the
fraudument eviction of Heidi Yauman in 12cv226958 :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku3HzHTCC-M&t=2s
The video regarding the cover up of Gregory's murder
was about 3 weeks begore Robert Moss was found
dead. Pruitt-Nassie was directly involved with sending
the SJSU students to Markhm Plaza to distribute the
HUD survey. We were also investigation the gun
violence with security guard at Crescent Park which tied
in to Robert Ridgeway's weapon's trafficking at
Markham Plaza.
It is understandable why Deputy Public Guardian Arlene
Peterson assumed that it was Sacred Heart Communty
services who sent the students. Our reps had been in
contact with them & they were to recieve copies of
2
the HUD survey results, but they were not diretly
involved with sending the students.
The investigation into Gregory Johnson's murder was
mentioned in the records to 12cv226958 and Judge
Socrsates Peter Manoukian, whos son had just
died accused Pruitt-Nassie , Sacred Heart Community
Services and the San Jooe State University Students
of plotting a terrorist attack against Markham Plaza
Aoartments in San Jose.
Judge Manoukian also accused the family of Gregory
Johnson and documentary film producer William
Windsor. You can verify these things with Mr. Windsor
and his security team, who were stalked, harassed and
threatened by Santa Clara County Sheriff Detective
David Carroll.
Attorney William Robinson is a lying sack of shit and so
is artorney Brian McComas. These bastards are
responsible for the killing of Frank Carpenito and must
be brought to justice! They must be stopped before
they kill someone else!
It is no wonder why the friends of Frank Carpenito are
reportedly now arming themselves to to kreep safe
from Carroll and the Hogan brothers.
LH&R
3
Jeremy
4
CEmRFOBJUDIClll
'--CEWNCE.OBG___...-
5
CENTERFORJUDICIAl
EXCEllENCE.ORG
6
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 at 9:29 PM
From: "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>
To: bill@sap.org, sixth.sistrict@jud.ca.gv, will@crim-defense.com, schatman@scscourt.org, "Markham Plaza Tenant
Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>, caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com,
aleksandra.ridgeway@sheriff.sccgov.org, jeremy4justice@activist.com, prayerwarrior767@gmail.com,
operation.greylord@protonmail.ch Subject: Markham Plaza Homicide concealed from Grand Jury
Sir a flowchart was prepared for you so you would understand the facts of case c1293022.
https://thefraudcouple.wordpress.com
My records indiate this was assiged to Goldie and Jason Moore and Eugene Wzoreck.
If your records indicate otherwse, then your records are incorrect.
Goldie and Eugence discussed this matter in detail on radio show when Cary was is custody an Jason swent a letter
to the court as he was supposed to do which recieved by judge chatman in dept 39.
You understand the public could not attend dept. 39 trial with judge Manoukian's bailifs blocking the entrance to
the courtroom.
https://www.docdroid.net/ZcIsZoN/declaration-of-facts-in-support-of-petition-for-habeas-corpus-relief.pdf
http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2014/PublicGuardian.pdf
If you would follow up, then I myself and others certainly will that is guarenteed. dont you forgat that.
I will be reminding you.
Cindy - MPTA
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 2:45 PM
To:Cary Andrew Crittenden
Cc:super nova; jeremy4justice@activist.com; markhamplazata@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Brian McComas's Criminal Racketeeering Enterprise - San Francisco , CA.
Attachments:will-robinson-evil.jpg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I don't know for sure but I would assume so.
That is how I recieved it .
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2020 at 12:30 AM
From: "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
To: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
Cc: "super nova" <galaxy_454@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brian McComas's Criminal Racketeeering Enterprise - San Francisco , CA.
Is the 178-180 Church Street address also in San Francisco?
Just want to confirm because I would like to file this & this is only listing that does not specifically say San
Francisco.
Cary Andrew Crittenden
On Jun 3, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> wrote:
Please publish this on your pglogs and email it out everywhere.
Thomas Iveli , Brian McComas and Robert Sigmund are engaged in criminal racketerring
enterprise and have corrupt interest in the following San Francisco, California Real Estate Properties:
* 607 Oak St. San Francisco, Ca. – purchased approximately 2003 by 406-10-12 Realty
Corp. & 400 W. 22 St. Corp.
* 994-98 Guerrero St.San Francisco, Ca. – 12/23/2011
* 925 Pierce St.San Francisco, Ca. – 8/17/2009
* 88-98 Castro St.San Francisco, Ca. – 7/17/2007
* 452 Oak St San Francisco, Ca. . – 5/6/2004
* 425 Shrader St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/15/2007
* 390 Page St, San Francisco, Ca. — Property Lien 2/20/2020
* 3901-09 17th St. San Francisco, Ca. – 10/9/2013
* 3700 16th St. San Francisco, Ca. – 11/9/2011
* 350 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, Ca. – 12/9/2005
* 2260 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/28/2012
* 2256-58 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/28/2012
* 201 Waller St.San Francisco, Ca. – 11/27/2013
* 178-180 Church St. – 6/23/2006 * 133-35 Collingwood St. San Francisco, Ca. – 4/5/2004
8
* 1040 Ashbury St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/16/2011 * 561 Baker Street , San Francisco, Ca. - 11 units (Checks were made payable to Norcal Holdings)
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 at 7:00 PM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: caryandrwcrittenden@yandex.com, "Cary Andrew Crittenden"
<caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
Cc: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, supreme.court@jud.ca.gov, galaxy_454@yahoo.com, mccomas.b.c@gmail.com, bill@sdap.org, "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>, news.room@bayareabusiness.news, patrick@sdap.org Subject: Baychester Shopping Center
Dear Mr. Crittendon,
I just recieved a phhone call informing me that Brian McComas's landlord owned Baychester
Shopping Center in New York city and are closely tied to Donald Trump, Rudolf Guliani and had
ties to Lauri Pegg's father, who was involved in tampering with investigation into the world trade
center.
There is reason to believe that Lauri Pegg's father is associated with Thompson Sharkey's
brother.: Ronald Kesser and they are all friends.
McComas's landlord is also involed in Norcal Ventures & Norcal Holdings, which appear to be tied
to Manoukian and EAH Housing & have done business with Todd Rorthbard.
Regards,
Susanne
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!
9
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/
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?
10
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.
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
11
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCIErv3kS2w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVF62zekVwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5R57jWPb54
Susanne
12
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 best success as Todd Rothbard did approve the
Reasonable Accommodation Request in full.
13
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.
14
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
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
15
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>, "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
16
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
https://www.facebook.com/markhamplaz
ata/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 - 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
Redacted
17
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
<bribery-judge-socrates-peter-manoukian.jpg> <death_of_julie_stewart_san_jose.pdf> <Grand-Jury-Investigation-Public-Guardian-Santa-Clara-County.pdf>
<Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil Grand Jury Public Guardian.pdf>
<judge-excepting-bribes-santa-clara-county-socrates-peter-manoukian-bank-loans.jpg>
<Perjury_and_false_police_report_detective_david_carroll.pdf>
<santa_clara_county_courts_covering_up_murders.jpg>
Redacted
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 8:33 AM
To:bill@sdap.org
Cc:galaxy_454@yahoo.com
Subject:Fw: Re: Death of Francis Carpenito
Attachments:bribery-judge-socrates-peter-manoukian.jpg; crittenden_interview_dr_shawn_spawno.wav; gary-
goodman--public-enemy--deputy-public-defender-fake-court-records.jpg; will-robinson-evil.jpg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Will Robonson
Why wasn't Tedd Scarlett allowed to testify about the
attacks? If he were, and you had followed through with habeas
as you were supposed to, then Frank Carpenito would still be
alive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5R57jWPb54
You killed him
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 8:52 PM From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Cc: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.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>, rua@uglyjudge.com
Subject: Re: Death of Francis Carpenito
If Ted Scarlett were allowed to testify, perhaps Frack Carpenito would still be alive!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5R57jWPb54
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:09 PM
From: "kenneth ditkowsky" <kenditkowsky@yahoo.com>
To: "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>, "Susanne Bentley"
19
<senior.affairs@groupmail.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>, "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.
I trust you are aware that you are writing to a dinosaur. I could not
access the document that you refer to - please forward it to me by a
separate cover. Please also note that I am not authorized to practice
law in California.
That said, lets note some ground rules. The elements of fraud are:
1) a material misrepresentation of fact
2) reliance on that material representation.
3) the right to rely on that material representation (for instance -
if I represent to you that the moon is made of green cheese - your
reliance on that statement is interesting but irrelevant.
4) the reliance let you to do something that was detrimental and
5) you suffered injury or damages as a result thereof.
Wrong or bad judgments, incompetence, or questionable behavior are not
matters that are easily redress able. A management company et al has
the absolute right to be WRONG, make a bad judgment, or even be
incompetent. It has no right to lie about it or to act in derogation
of their contractual duty.
The Homeowners association is in privy with the management company and
all too often shelters the management company. this sheltering can be
voluntary or involuntary - most of the time the sheltering is done by
board members who are allowed to exercise too much control and become
pawns of a predatory management company. For instance, I noticed that
many of the condominium management companies had many familiar names
associated with them. The operators were related to the same real
estate moguls who were active 'slum lords.' I also noticed that they
all gravitated to same attorney associations. (The attorneys were
particularly aggressive and less than accommodating)
How do you deal with such a situation? In one situation I literally
forced the association into a Bankruptcy. In several others
stalemates were initiated and Court proceedings for accountings
filed. The litigation sometimes becomes hostile and protracted - and
always it requires fortitude.
The C19 Virus situation has opened a door. In many situations there
are mortgages that have to paid. The shutdown of commerce is going to
20
create a number of non-conforming mortgages. The Fed is not very nice
to lending institutions that have too many non-conforming
loans. Working with a lender sometimes creates leverage that is not
available under less optimum circumstances. The time to explore the
situation is NOW! Talking to executives like the Chairman, President
at this time - prior to the possible filing of a Chapter 11 et al -
can be very productive.
If elements of fraud, misconduct et al exist the Federal Consumer
Protection Agency. Professional licensing agency, and the State
Attorney General Consumer protection agency are also protective
partners in assisting the minority condominium (or similar type owners)
from facing a non- responsible Homeowners (or similar) Association
and/or its management association. Accounting lawsuits focusing on
questionable expenditures or ventures filed in Chancery also provide
remedies. A (favorable) receiver also provides an interesting
gambit. (just because I did not mention it - Municipal ordinances
sometimes provide interesting 'gifts'
I look forward to seeing a copy of the document that I can access.
Ken Ditkowsky
www.ditkowskylawoffice.com
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020, 12:27:08 PM CDT, Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com> wrote:
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>, "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,
21
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
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 - 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
Redacted
22
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
23
Baumb, Nelly
From:Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4:30 PM
To:galaxy_454@yahoo.com
Cc:mccomas.b.c@gmail.com; mastermind.it.jason@gmail.com
Subject:Brian McComas's Criminal Racketeeering Enterprise - San Francosco , CA.
Attachments:bribery-judge-socrates-peter-manoukian.jpg; death_of_julie_stewart_san_jose.pdf; Grand-Jury-
Investigation-Public-Guardian-Santa-Clara-County.pdf; Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil
Grand Jury Public Guardian.pdf; judge-excepting-bribes-santa-clara-county-socrates-peter-
manoukian-bank-loans.jpg; Perjury_and_false_police_report_detective_david_carroll.pdf;
santa_clara_county_courts_covering_up_murders.jpg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please publish this on your pglogs and email it out everywhere.
Thomas Iveli , Brian McComas and Robert Sigmund are engaged in criminal racketerring enterprise and have corrupt
interest in the following San Francisco, California Real Estate Properties:
* 607 Oak St. San Francisco, Ca. – purchased approximately 2003 by 406-10-12 Realty Corp. & 400 W. 22 St. Corp.
* 994-98 Guerrero St.San Francisco, Ca. – 12/23/2011
* 925 Pierce St.San Francisco, Ca. – 8/17/2009
* 88-98 Castro St.San Francisco, Ca. – 7/17/2007
* 452 Oak St San Francisco, Ca. . – 5/6/2004
* 425 Shrader St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/15/2007 * 390 Page St, San Francisco, Ca. — Property Lien 2/20/2020 * 3901-09 17th St. San Francisco, Ca. – 10/9/2013
* 3700 16th St. San Francisco, Ca. – 11/9/2011
* 350 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, Ca. – 12/9/2005
* 2260 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/28/2012
* 2256-58 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/28/2012
* 201 Waller St.San Francisco, Ca. – 11/27/2013
* 178-180 Church St. – 6/23/2006
* 133-35 Collingwood St. San Francisco, Ca. – 4/5/2004
* 1040 Ashbury St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/16/2011
* 561 Baker Street , San Francisco, Ca. - 11 units (Checks were made payable to Norcal Holdings)
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2020 at 7:00 PM
From: "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
To: caryandrwcrittenden@yandex.com, "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>
Cc: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, supreme.court@jud.ca.gov, galaxy_454@yahoo.com, mccomas.b.c@gmail.com,
bill@sdap.org, "Markham Plaza Tenant Association" <markhamplazata@gmail.com>,
news.room@bayareabusiness.news, patrick@sdap.org
Subject: Baychester Shopping Center
Dear Mr. Crittendon,
I just recieved a phhone call informing me that Brian McComas's landlord owned Baychester Shopping Center in
New York city and are closely tied to Donald Trump, Rudolf Guliani and had ties to Lauri Pegg's father, who was
involved in tampering with investigation into the world trade center.
There is reason to believe that Lauri Pegg's father is associated with Thompson Sharkey's brother.: Ronald Kesser
and they are all friends.
McComas's landlord is also involed in Norcal Ventures & Norcal Holdings, which appear to be tied to Manoukian and
EAH Housing & have done business with Todd Rorthbard.
24
Regards,
Susanne
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
25
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/
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.
26
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.
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
27
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
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
28
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
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
29
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
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"
30
<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>, "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.
31
Jason Smith
Markham Plaza Tenant Association
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
- 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
Redacted
32
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
33
Baumb, Nelly
From:Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:01 PM
To:caryandrwcrittenden@yandex.com; Cary Andrew Crittenden
Cc:sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; galaxy_454@yahoo.com;
mccomas.b.c@gmail.com; bill@sdap.org; Markham Plaza Tenant Association;
news.room@bayareabusiness.news; patrick@sdap.org
Subject:Baychester Shopping Center
Attachments:bribery-judge-socrates-peter-manoukian.jpg; death_of_julie_stewart_san_jose.pdf; Grand-Jury-
Investigation-Public-Guardian-Santa-Clara-County.pdf; Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil
Grand Jury Public Guardian.pdf; judge-excepting-bribes-santa-clara-county-socrates-peter-
manoukian-bank-loans.jpg; Perjury_and_false_police_report_detective_david_carroll.pdf;
santa_clara_county_courts_covering_up_murders.jpg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mr. Crittendon,
I just recieved a phhone call informing me that Brian McComas's landlord owned Baychester Shopping Center in New York city and are closely tied to Donald Trump, Rudolf Guliani and had ties to Lauri Pegg's father, who was involved in
tampering with investigation into the world trade center.
There is reason to believe that Lauri Pegg's father is associated with Thompson Sharkey's brother.: Ronald Kesser and
they are all friends.
McComas's landlord is also involed in Norcal Ventures & Norcal Holdings, which appear to be tied to Manoukian and
EAH Housing & have done business with Todd Rorthbard.
Regards,
Susanne
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.
34
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/
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
35
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.
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
36
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
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-
37
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
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.
38
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
7-27-2016 - cost 500 dollars…
Letter to Smith - 10.4.17 (00…
39
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>,
"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
40
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
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
- 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.
Redacted
41
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
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kacey Yee <yeeri@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:14 PM
To:City Attorney; city.auditor@cityofaploalto.org; Clerk, City; Council, City; PWD; OES; HR
Subject:Fw: A bagpipe tribute to those who are affected by COVID-19
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=‐gcKN3eN7g0
Hi, I am Mrs. Yee, mother of Marissa. We would like to share this with those whose life
have been affected by COVID‐19. Marissa has a YOUTUBE tribute and hope this would
help bring a bit of peace
while the world is going through this pandemic.
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Clark Latterell <clarkl446@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Baylands Golf Course
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Good Morning!
I would like to know why the restrictions that have been placed on Baylands Golf Course are more
strict than with most other courses in California. While there are a handful of local courses that
currently only allow one golfer for each tee time, the majority of golf courses in California allow
multiple players for each tee time.
As an essential worker, I have traveled throughout Northern California over the past several
months. The only golf course that I have played that has only allowed 1 player per tee time is
Baylands. Just yesterday, I played golf at Harding Park in San Francisco. Even they allow 4 players
at a time and require that there is only 1 person per golf cart.
There are strict COVID 19 social distancing guidelines that have been set forth for golf courses to be
open. Baylands is following these guidelines yet, the City of Palo Alto only allows for them to let out 1
golfer at a time.
I imagine that this is a huge financial setback for the golf course. At the same time, it does not allow
any one who goes out and plays golf to be able to post their score. According to the USGA, no golfer
can post their score unless that play with at least one other person since there would not be anyone
to attest to their score.
I do understand that there have been a lot of Coronavirus cases in Santa Clara
County. Nevertheless, the following golf courses are also in Santa Clara County and the cities that
they are in allow for up to 4 golfers per tee time: San Jose Muni, Coyote Creek, Cinnabar, Spring
Valley, Los Lagos, Sunken Gardens, Deep Cliff, and Summitpointe.
I guess that my frustration is that I like the Baylands Golf Course and I like to give my business to
local businesses. As I mentioned, I do understand the current situation that we are in yet, the
restrictions that the City of Palo Alto have placed on Baylands has forced me and many of my friends
to take our business to other cities.
Respectively Yours,
Clark Latterell
1539 Dana Avenue
Palo Alto
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Simon Firth <simonfirth@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:47 AM
To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; board
Cc:Jill Asher
Subject:Please continue to keep the Think Fund active
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members, Commissioners, and Board Members,
I’m writing to add my voice to those asking you to reconsider your withdrawal of support for the Think Fund. Our teens
are hurting right now and we should bedoing everything we can to support them. I know you have hard decisions to
make about financing, but I hope you can find a way to keep this specific finding in place. I’m not sure you have a better
way to secure such positive return to the community on such a small investment.
Sincerely,
Simon
Simon Firth
2131 Harvard St.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org>
Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Please continue to keep the Think Fund active
To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>, <board@pausd.org>
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Human Relations Commissioners and PAUSD School Board
Members,
Many of my Magical Bridge Teen Kindness Ambassadors received a "form letter" from the city letting
them know their volunteer projects will not be funded. I understand that we are living in extraordinary
times and hard decisions need to be made. With that said, these teens were encouraged to apply for
the grant by city leaders and would have supported MANY local nonprofits that have been negatively
affected and hurt during Covid. It would have been a win‐win for our teens, (3) Palo Alto nonprofits, and
our entire community.
Magical Bridge Foundation and our teens spent over 100 hours researching nonprofits, coming up with
impactful ways to help, writing grant applications, submitting grant applications, and having interviews
with the Thinkfund team.
4
The total amount they were looking for was $3K from Thinkfund.
I am saddened and disheartened that the Thinkfund is not being funded ‐‐ especially when this would
have helped SO MANY.
I hope you will reconsider this decision, and fund the Thinkfund Grant ‐‐ and let our Palo Alto teens do
their MAGICAL work!
With gratitude,
Jill Asher and Team Magical Bridge
***
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto Human Relations Commissioners, and Palo Alto School
Board,
We are writing to you on behalf of the Magical Bridge Foundation to plead with city leadership
to reconsider cuts to vital services during this unprecedented time. While we understand and
appreciate that many cuts to the budget need to happen, we want to underscore the urgent
need of our most vulnerable living in Palo Alto and highlight the ways in which our disabled
community in Palo Alto is not being served.
Even prior to the pandemic, children and adults living with visible and invisible disabilities have
been receiving virtually no programs and inadequate support from our city. Children and teens
with significant disabilities have not had any thoughtful educational options provided to them
since the stay-home ordinance took place. And, regarding community options, Palo Alto’s
ENJOY catalog has yet to offer any meaningful recreational options for those living in our town
with disabilities. As a result, families with children and teens who pay property taxes to live in a
community that views “inclusion” are actually living in the reality of being excluded.
After the Magical Bridge playground opened in 2015, Magical Bridge Foundation was formed in
2016 so that families had a place that welcomed their whole family, especially if that included a
disabled child. Thanks to generous donors, we are proud to have been able to serve every
“body” through our on-site play space, intergenerational programming teen activities. With the
ongoing media interest and generous coverage about our playground and companion
programs, the City of Palo Alto has enjoyed recognition as a city that values all its families.
While we want to continue shining a light on Palo Alto’s spirit of generosity, we need the City to
join our efforts to finance and provide recreational programming to include the various abilities
that make up our community.
Inclusion and innovation is part of our organizational DNA, and our response to COVID-19 has
been no different. Since the pandemic erupted mid-March, Magical Bridge Foundation
immediately responded by offering a consistent activity that our community desperately
needed. Since March 21st, Magical Bridge has been hosting daily FREE, family-friendly,
sensory-friendly virtual concerts on our Facebook Page. This has been happening every single
day, and most virtual concerts average 500+ views (some have even reached over 4k
viewers). With no funding or support from the city (we were declined from the Emerging Needs
Fund), we identified a private donor who sponsored the concerts through May 31, 2020. Sadly,
these concerts are coming to an end because we can no longer pay our performers, who have
also lost their livelihood due to the pandemic. We were proud to have been able to offer these
intergenerational concerts, and financial compensation to our local performers, every day, for
almost 3 months.
5
Earlier in the year, several city staff members who appreciated the impact of our Teen
Kindness Ambassador program encouraged our many teens to apply for the Think Fund
grant. We mobilized quickly, partnered with key Palo Alto nonprofits on the front line during the
pandemic -- and thoughtfully applied for grants that would profoundly benefit those in most
need. These grants would empower our Palo Alto teens and future leaders to mobilize the
community and help local nonprofits during these challenging times.
We supported these applications with the encouragement of city leaders, and asked our teens
to create and identify projects, and complete the application, which they did. Despite this early
encouragement, we have no idea where these projects stand. Our teen volunteers are now left
in limbo with little to no communication from the Think Fund grant -- and the inability to move
their leadership projects forward without the small funding needed. Our Kindness
Ambassadors include over 50 middle school and high school local students (most, from Palo
Alto) who come together in a collaborative way to connect and serve this community. Many of
our teen volunteers have disabilities and being in a place where they truly belong as valued
members of this community is real “magic.”
Specifically, our Palo Alto teens applied for a grant to:
Support Life Moves. Our teens would collect toiletries from neighbors and the
community, which would be used at the homeless shelter (showers) at the Opportunity
Center. This would include shampoo, soap, wipes, toothpaste and essential items
needed by our homeless population
Support Palo Alto Jewish and Family and Children’s Services (JFCS) Food
Pantry. Our teens would be working to collect canned food that would be delivered to
Seniors in need of these essential items.
Support Palo Alto’s Abilities United/Gatepath disabled artists and preschool
students. Our teens would work to collect paints, brushes, canvases for the disabled
artists who are no longer able to use the studio --- and collect books and toys for low
income, disabled preschool families who are falling further behind because they are not
in school.
Train Kindness Ambassadors in an innovative new learning program, called
“Active Learning” as a way to serve the most marginalized population in our
community. Since never PAUSD nor the City of Palo Alto have provided thoughtful
solutions for Palo Alto teens on the lowest developmental levels, several state-certified
therapists prepared a specific program for our teens to understand the principles of
Active Learning so that once safe, these teens will apply their training to work with
several families who are eager to work with us.
We understand that these are unprecedented times that require difficult and sometimes painful
decisions for every city government. We also know you value protecting our most vulnerable
citizens. We sincerely hope that at the very minimum, you will continue to fund Think Fund
grant and our four projects, which will make a positive impact on those who are in need in our
beloved community.
Warm regards,
Magical Bridge Foundation
Jill Asher, Olenka Villarreal, Maria Hassid
‐‐
Jill Asher
Executive Director Redact
ed
6
--
My TEDx Talk about Magical Bridge
Connect with Magical Bridge on:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge
Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge
‐‐
Jill Asher
Executive Director
--
My TEDx Talk about Magical Bridge
Connect with Magical Bridge on:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge
Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge
‐‐
Jill Asher
Executive Director
--
My TEDx Talk about Magical Bridge
Connect with Magical Bridge on:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge
Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge
Redact
ed
Redact
ed
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Anthony Wheeler <ppeppc@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 6:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Conduct
8
------- -
u.s. Heroes & Patriots: Peyton Tuesdc
ALWAYS4TUESDAYS
Rapper, Student (Of Thomas Jefferson's
College), Artist, Photographer, Undercover
Law Enforcement Officer, Maryter, Care
giver, and actress is in plain clothes right
now and eliciting information from Law
Enforcement Officers and Deputies from all
over the world, her duties to date have
earned her the United States ~ Of
America Standard Of Officer Conduct Medal
/I-. and will FOREVER be the scale in
which Officers and Deputies of the United
States Of America shall be Judged by.
9
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Sent from my iPhone
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:Claudia Mellen <claudia.mellen@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rinconada Pool: Please Re-Open ASAP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
Rinconada Pool is a wonderful community asset: well‐run, maintained, and offering reasonably priced services to all, in a
beautiful setting.
Swimming is not only one of the best forms of exercise and physical therapy, it supports emotional well being. All
especially vital during these stressful times.
As a long time lap swimmer at Rinconada — since I was a student at Stanford decades ago — I urge you to promptly
approve Team Sheeper‘s very feasible operational plan and re‐open Rinconada Pool immediately.
Thank you,
Claudia
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Library, Pa
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 1:33 PM
To:Orly Liba; Council, City; Kanth, Gayathri
Subject:Re: Open library for curbside pick up / drop off?
Hello Orly,
Thank you for your kind wishes, we truly appreciate that. We're working on curbside pickup logistics behind
the scenes right now. We're still under shelter in place orders by the city, but curbside pickup is likely the first
thing you'll see from us at the library. Furthermore, as a library we have a somewhat complicated situation
that most retail establishments do not, and that's how to safely manage thousands and thousands of items
waiting to be returned.
We know this has been an trying time for the community and we truly appreciate your continued patience
with everything that's been going on since March. We are doing our very best with what we have and we can
assure you that we're diligently working every day to bring back city services as soon as we are able.
Best,
David Sigua
Library Associate
From: Orly Liba <orlyle@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:45 AM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Library, Pa <pa.library@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kanth, Gayathri
<Gayathri.Kanth@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Open library for curbside pick up / drop off?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City team,
Thank you for all your efforts during these challenging times!
Many of Santa Clara County's restrictions will be lifted starting Friday and I was wondering if the libraries can go back to
operation with curb‐side pick up.
Our children love books and being able exchange books would be very valuable to encourage their reading over the
summer.
As a note, we were considering exchanging books with friends and neighbors, but that is limited (less book options than
the library, obviously) and may be discouraged in terms of social distancing.
It would be great if the county and city would consider changing the regulations for libraries, in addition to
recreation and businesses.
Thank you,
12
Orly
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:59 PM Orly Liba <orlyle@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto team,
The kids have read their books over and over again and reading on the screens is not the same as a book you can hold.
Specifically, my curious 9 year old is now asking for books that are not available digitally (what is? book series
http://www.whowasbookseries.com/).
Would it be possible to re‐open the libraries for pick up and drop off?
I read the daily updates, I see that restrictions are lifted on landscaping, tennis etc, but I have not seen anything about
the libraries.
Thank you so much for your consideration and for maintaining such wonderful libraries.
Along with the open spaces, the libraries are a true treasure of Palo Alto.
Best wishes,
Orly
13
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:28 PM
To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; board@pausd.org
Subject:Re: Please continue to keep the Think Fund active
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Human Relations Commissioners and PAUSD School Board Members,
Many of my Magical Bridge Teen Kindness Ambassadors received a "form letter" from the city letting them know their
volunteer projects will not be funded. I understand that we are living in extraordinary times and hard decisions need to
be made. With that said, these teens were encouraged to apply for the grant by city leaders and would have supported
MANY local nonprofits that have been negatively affected and hurt during Covid. It would have been a win‐win for our
teens, (3) Palo Alto nonprofits, and our entire community.
Magical Bridge Foundation and our teens spent over 100 hours researching nonprofits, coming up with impactful ways
to help, writing grant applications, submitting grant applications, and having interviews with the Thinkfund team.
The total amount they were looking for was $3K from Thinkfund.
I am saddened and disheartened that the Thinkfund is not being funded ‐‐ especially when this would have helped SO
MANY.
I hope you will reconsider this decision, and fund the Thinkfund Grant ‐‐ and let our Palo Alto teens do their MAGICAL
work!
With gratitude,
Jill Asher and Team Magical Bridge
***
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:11 PM Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org> wrote:
Dear Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto Human Relations Commissioners, and Palo Alto School Board,
We are writing to you on behalf of the Magical Bridge Foundation to plead with city leadership to reconsider
cuts to vital services during this unprecedented time. While we understand and appreciate that many cuts to
the budget need to happen, we want to underscore the urgent need of our most vulnerable living in Palo Alto
and highlight the ways in which our disabled community in Palo Alto is not being served.
Even prior to the pandemic, children and adults living with visible and invisible disabilities have been receiving
virtually no programs and inadequate support from our city. Children and teens with significant disabilities
have not had any thoughtful educational options provided to them since the stay-home ordinance took place.
And, regarding community options, Palo Alto’s ENJOY catalog has yet to offer any meaningful recreational
options for those living in our town with disabilities. As a result, families with children and teens who pay
property taxes to live in a community that views “inclusion” are actually living in the reality of being excluded.
After the Magical Bridge playground opened in 2015, Magical Bridge Foundation was formed in 2016 so that
families had a place that welcomed their whole family, especially if that included a disabled child. Thanks to
14
generous donors, we are proud to have been able to serve every “body” through our on-site play space,
intergenerational programming teen activities. With the ongoing media interest and generous coverage about
our playground and companion programs, the City of Palo Alto has enjoyed recognition as a city that values
all its families. While we want to continue shining a light on Palo Alto’s spirit of generosity, we need the City to
join our efforts to finance and provide recreational programming to include the various abilities that make up
our community.
Inclusion and innovation is part of our organizational DNA, and our response to COVID-19 has been no
different. Since the pandemic erupted mid-March, Magical Bridge Foundation immediately responded by
offering a consistent activity that our community desperately needed. Since March 21st, Magical Bridge has
been hosting daily FREE, family-friendly, sensory-friendly virtual concerts on our Facebook Page. This has
been happening every single day, and most virtual concerts average 500+ views (some have even reached
over 4k viewers). With no funding or support from the city (we were declined from the Emerging Needs
Fund), we identified a private donor who sponsored the concerts through May 31, 2020. Sadly, these concerts
are coming to an end because we can no longer pay our performers, who have also lost their livelihood due to
the pandemic. We were proud to have been able to offer these intergenerational concerts, and financial
compensation to our local performers, every day, for almost 3 months.
Earlier in the year, several city staff members who appreciated the impact of our Teen Kindness Ambassador
program encouraged our many teens to apply for the Think Fund grant. We mobilized quickly, partnered with
key Palo Alto nonprofits on the front line during the pandemic -- and thoughtfully applied for grants that would
profoundly benefit those in most need. These grants would empower our Palo Alto teens and future leaders
to mobilize the community and help local nonprofits during these challenging times.
We supported these applications with the encouragement of city leaders, and asked our teens to create and
identify projects, and complete the application, which they did. Despite this early encouragement, we have no
idea where these projects stand. Our teen volunteers are now left in limbo with little to no communication from
the Think Fund grant -- and the inability to move their leadership projects forward without the small funding
needed. Our Kindness Ambassadors include over 50 middle school and high school local students (most,
from Palo Alto) who come together in a collaborative way to connect and serve this community. Many of our
teen volunteers have disabilities and being in a place where they truly belong as valued members of this
community is real “magic.”
Specifically, our Palo Alto teens applied for a grant to:
Support Life Moves. Our teens would collect toiletries from neighbors and the community, which
would be used at the homeless shelter (showers) at the Opportunity Center. This would include
shampoo, soap, wipes, toothpaste and essential items needed by our homeless population
Support Palo Alto Jewish and Family and Children’s Services (JFCS) Food Pantry. Our teens
would be working to collect canned food that would be delivered to Seniors in need of these essential
items.
Support Palo Alto’s Abilities United/Gatepath disabled artists and preschool students. Our
teens would work to collect paints, brushes, canvases for the disabled artists who are no longer able
to use the studio --- and collect books and toys for low income, disabled preschool families who are
falling further behind because they are not in school.
Train Kindness Ambassadors in an innovative new learning program, called “Active Learning”
as a way to serve the most marginalized population in our community. Since never PAUSD nor the
City of Palo Alto have provided thoughtful solutions for Palo Alto teens on the lowest developmental
levels, several state-certified therapists prepared a specific program for our teens to understand the
principles of Active Learning so that once safe, these teens will apply their training to work with several
families who are eager to work with us.
We understand that these are unprecedented times that require difficult and sometimes painful decisions for
every city government. We also know you value protecting our most vulnerable citizens. We sincerely hope
that at the very minimum, you will continue to fund Think Fund grant and our four projects, which will make a
positive impact on those who are in need in our beloved community.
15
Warm regards,
Magical Bridge Foundation
Jill Asher, Olenka Villarreal, Maria Hassid
‐‐
Jill Asher
Executive Director
--
My TEDx Talk about Magical Bridge
Connect with Magical Bridge on:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge
Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge
‐‐
Jill Asher
--
My TEDx Talk about Magical Bridge
Connect with Magical Bridge on:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge
Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge
Redact
ed
Redacted
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 5:16 PM
To:info@sforoundtable.org
Cc:9-AWP-noise@faa.gov; Council, City; scscroundtable@gmail.com
Subject:Follow up on FAA offer to address MidPeninsula Night Time Arrivals
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Chair Ortiz,
Thank you for your leadership and yesterday's SFO Roundtable meeting.
During public comment I shared some thoughts and suggestions about the importance of metrics, using objective data,
criteria to help channel regional resources to the various collaborative areas and that I would follow up with more info
about night flights over MidPen.
Below please find the references about the FAA's offer to the Select Committee on night time noise. I urge you and all
SFO Roundtable members to see that this this topic makes a) the Agenda of the SFO Roundtable Arrivals Sub
Committee, and b) as part of the SFO Roundtable's collaborative discussions with FAA other roundtables.
The following is the video replay of the FAA's encouragement to work on a Voluntary program to address night time
flights.
FAA Offer to Select Committee: Offer was made after hundreds of MidPeninsula resident's testimony.
FAA encouraged a “voluntary program” to address night flights
FAA mentioned the effort for a voluntary program as “far less” than the design of a new STAR
A new STAR is also mentioned as an option but just that it would take longer because it’s referred to as an
infrastructure change.
A Voluntary Agreement is described as an agreement with airlines and airports.
The comment is stated as FAA's recommended path
Unfortunately - not all Bay Area regional night time efforts are being treated equal. FAA Administrator reported
in a letter to Congress on January 24, 2020 "recent examples of engagement with communities resulting in
meaningful collaboration to address noise related concerns." As seen on page 10 here - one of the highlights is
that "in the San Francisco Bay Area ‐ SFO and Oakland Airport and their respective airport roundtables, elected officials,
and airlines agreed to complete analysis to determine if it is operationally feasible to require overnight departures out of
SFO to fly over the Bay rather than over the City...."
FAA Administrator Dickson's highlight does not mention which City or cities benefit; which procedure or flights are being
changed ‐ or how the procedures will affect other communities. For example the SUNNE procedure would block use of
the Bay for MidPen communities. Yesterday, we heard further about the FAA team working on night NIITE (a procedure
for San Francisco residents)‐ not to be confused by night time hours.
17
My intent is not to undermine the work to address issues for specific communities but rather that some of the most
affected communities like all MidPen cities ‐ where the bulk of complaints are happening ‐ and who have been trying to
engage for five years are totally ignored. Also, it's not OK to mislead Congress with an appearance of success on noise
mitigation and with zero objective data.
Night noise is one of the most important issues for communities in the seriously affected MidPeninsula and since FAA
has already assembled the teams ‐ airports, airlines, FAA, and roundtables, to address noise for San Francisco and
Oakland residents, I urge leadership to ‐ at the same time ‐ please join to address night time noise for MidPeninsula.
Thank you,
Jennifer
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 8:40 AM
To:Steve Levy
Subject:Be Skeptical of Today's job and UE report
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
There are three reasons to be skeptical
1) BLS acknowledges that the UE rate would have been 3% higher with proper classification
2) Many if not most of the jobs "added" were people receiving paychecks under the PPP but not working
3) the reference date for the BLS data is the 12th of May when very few if any restrictions had been lifted
toward reopening.
I think this is a big headfake and will be revised.
Here is what I know
1) BLS in the release explained that many workers were misclassified as employed and that the UE rate
would have been 3% higher with proper classification. The press release quote is below.
"However, there was also a large number of workers who were classified as employed but absent from
work. As was the case in March and April, household survey interviewers were instructed to classify
employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-related business closures as unemployed on
temporary layoff. However, it is apparent that not all such workers were so classified.
BLS and the Census Bureau are investigating why this misclassification error continues to occur and are
taking additional steps to address the issue. If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent
from work due to “other reasons” (over and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical May)
had been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been
about 3 percentage points higher than reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis). However, according
to usual practice, the data from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data
integrity, no ad hoc actions are taken to reclassify survey responses."
2) The pattern of unemployment by duration is unusual.
Less than 5 weeks -10,408,000
5 to 14 weeks +7,810,000
15 to 26 weeks +245,000
26 weeks +225,000
These data support the idea that most of the "added" jobs were people getting paychecks under the PPP.
Longer term unemployment rose substantially.
19
While the PPP support is good news, it is time limited.
3) I know some construction and manufacturing activities were allowed to reopen or continue as priority
areas so these job numbers may be okay.
But the large job gains in food service and retail are implausible as of May 12th as virtually none of these
establishments had been allowed to reopen.
4) Note also that the job losses in March and April were revised up and I expect today's report will be
revised next month.
Steve
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Attached are remarks I made to Policy & Services Committee mtg on 9 June
Attachments:RemarksToPolicy&ServicesCommittee9June2020.doc
Please see attached.
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Cherrill Spencer <cherrill.m.spencer@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:36 AM
To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Attached are remarks I made to Policy & Services Committee mtg on 9 June
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Clerk
Would you please forward the attached WORD file to the 3 members of the Policy and Services Committee and file it
wherever appropriate?
When I attend such meetings in person I always hand a copy of my speech to the clerk, so as I attended via zoom I am
sending the file to you by email .
Thank‐you.
Regards from
Cherrill Spencer
cherrill.m.spencer@gmail.com
Remarks from Palo Alto resident Cherrill Spencer to the members of the Policy and Services Committee
at their meeting on 9th June 2020 during oral communications.
Good evening Councilors.
This is Cherrill Spencer speaking to you on behalf of the Women’s International League for Peace and
Freedom and a coalition of many groups who support CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
Last night I listened to the City Council meeting and heard you pass a motion that directed city staff to
start dealing with racism and discrimination in Palo Alto, the paragraph (c ) of that motion read “Begin a
diversity and inclusion initiative throughout the city”.
Well, in October 2018 the City Council passed a motion that directed city staff to study options for a city
ordinance endorsing the CEDAW and to bring those options to your Policy and Services Committee.
So for 20 months we have been waiting to see an agenda item that would have you discuss a staff report
laying out the options for a new ordinance based on the CEDAW; but we have not heard or seen
anything about any action on this topic by City staff.
I don’t need to repeat here why we need such an ordinance; you know the reasons full well. I have
submitted information to your current chair and our coalition has cajoled the Council to allocate time,
money and a deadline to staff to work on a report.
I do hope the execution of the framework the Council directed staff to formulate in the next 3 days
regarding diversity and inclusion goes faster than the very slow response to the October 2018 council
motion to address the inequalities that women suffer from in Palo Alto.
Thank-you.
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Melodi Masaniai <melodi@masaniai.org>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 5:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NHPI Outreach for KOVID Testing in Palo Alto
Attachments:June2020_Koronavirus.pdf; June2020_Koronavirus.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
As you communicate through various media, would you please include the attached material
developed specifically for Native Hawai'ian/Pasifik Islander community. We would be grateful for your
help with this heavy lift. Testing facilities outside of Palo Alto are listed, but given the restrictions on
days and times, the testing locations in other areas of the county may be more convenient for
customers.
While I am writing, let me echo what was mentioned in public comment at the Board of Supervisors
meeting last week. It is tedious and time-intensive to put together simple information for our
community. We believe the key to increasing the testing numbers is a single point of entry into the
process from the patient/consumer point of view. Please consider what can be done to give us a
singular on ramp.
Fa'afetai lava for all that you are doing to keep our community well. Tofa soifua,
Melodi Masaniai
Native Hawai'ian/Pasifik Islander Coalition - Santa Clara County
https://www.facebook.com/NHPISantaClaraCounty/
Redacted
San José
WEDNESDAYS 10a - 2p
FAST & FREE
Antioch Baptist Church
268 E Julian St, San José
Pre-register at
www.rootsclinic.org
or call 408-490-4710
Mipitas
Morgan Hill
San José
FAST & FREE
Schedule your test here:
https://www.sccgov.org/
sites/covid19/Pages/
covid19-testing-community
-sites.aspx
East Palo Alto
Redwood City
San José
• PAL Stadium (King & Story)
• Fairgrounds (7th & Tully)
FAST & FREE
Schedule your test here:
www.projectbaseline.com
VETERANS FAST & FREE
Palo Alto VETERANS AFFAIRS HOSPITAL
Schedule your test: 650-493-5000
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Lauren Angelo <lauren.angelo@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 11:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:A JMZ for All
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine,
The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo recognize that these are unprecedented times and that the City of
Palo Alto needs to make difficult decisions about its financial future. Given the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo’s
almost 90‐year history and its beloved role in our community, the Friends are dedicated to securing its future as well.
But we strongly believe that an $18 admission fee will prevent people in our community and beyond from enjoying this
cherished resource.
An $18 admission fee would make the JMZ the highest‐priced experience for a facility of its size and scope in the Bay
Area, and it would undermine our commitment toward inclusivity. The Friends would ask the City Council to consider
the following when analyzing revenue options for the JMZ:
1. The attached chart shows ticket prices for peer institutions and clearly demonstrates that an $18 admission fee
will far exceed our peers.
2. The Friends raised more than $25 million to rebuild the facility, and our goal is to have as many people as
possible enjoy the exciting new museum and zoo.
3. The $18 admission fee is not consistent with expert advice for setting fees.
4. The astronomical admission fee will significantly reduce attendance and quite possibly reduce total revenue,
which would defeat the Council’s cost recovery intentions.
While an entrance fee of this level might seem necessary, it will simply serve to keep people away, undermine the
goodwill of our community, and ultimately put the JMZ's very future in jeopardy. While we acknowledge the Council has
approved its draft budget which includes the exorbitant fee, the Friends would welcome the opportunity to review with
the City its revenue objectives prior to re‐opening in 2021. The Friends believe that this dialogue will balance the need
for revenue with our mutual goal to provide fair access to all.
Table of Bay Area museum entrance fees below:
Child Adult
CuriOdyssey $13 $16
Children's Creativity Museum $15 $15
4
Children's Discovery Museum of San Jose $15 $15
Bay Area Discovery Museum $16 $16
Happy Hollow $17 $17
San Francisco Zoo $17 $23
JMZ $18 $18
Exploratorium $20 $30
The Tech Interactive $20 $25
California Academy of Sciences $27 $37
‐ The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Erin Glanville <erin.glanville@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 10:00 AM
To:city.council@menlopark.org; Council, City; Simone Rick-Kennel; dburbank@seq.org;
klosekoot@seq.org; semmi@seq.org; spriest@seq.org; rcrame@seq.org; Royaltey-Quandt, Valerie;
Grierson, Chris
Cc:Erin Glanville
Subject:Leadership Needed To Provide Facilities To Students -- It is a mental health issue.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Principals of the Sequoia Union High School District and the Palo Alto School District and Menlo Park and Palo Alto
City Councils,
I am writing to you to ask for your leadership in opening high and middle school swim pools this summer for structured,
safe, organized participation in order to help get our youth back to normalcy, exercise, and routine needed for their
mental health. Cities and public schools must work together to open up facilities as quickly as possible for youth who
have already been locked down for over three months; every day that passes makes the situation worse.
Isolation, lack of routine, and lack of exercise are impacting our youth mentally and physically. As a middle school
teacher, I see signs of depression in students, and within my own children. Not only has their academic lives been
completely upended, but their ability to exercise doing the sport they love has been taken from them. As a mother of
two swimmers, including a collegiate athlete and a young age group swimmer, I cannot begin to tell you how
devastating the impact has been to them. A New York Post op‐ed two days ago made the point more succinctly with the
headline: Our leaders ignore the high price kids are paying for coronavirus lockdowns.
The CDC has been clear from the very beginning of this pandemic that chlorinated water is safe. Weeks ago, the CDC
announced that the coronavirus does not spread easily from surfaces at all. Yet our local city and high school pools (in
addition to parks and playgrounds) remain closed to the local swim teams that called them home.
By city representatives and school leaders proactively working together to quickly open these pools, local youth can
begin to have a return to physical and mental health that they have not had in over three months.
I am imploring you‐‐ our community needs your leadership. Our youth, whose needs have been largely ignored, need
you. Safely open school pool facilities and make them available to our community. We talk a lot about the mental and
physical health of our young people. It is time to show leadership in actually finding ways to make it better.
Erin Glanville
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ann and Randy Ryals <ryalshousehold@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:request for clarification of mask-wearing requirements for downtown Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
The current law states that “All members of the public . . . must wear a Face Covering outside their home or other place
they reside in the following situations:
a. When they are inside of, or in line to enter, any Essential Business . . .6. Wearing a Face Covering is recommended
but not required when engaged in outdoor recreation such as walking, hiking, bicycling, or running. But each person . . .
must comply with social distancing requirements . . . to the greatest extent possible.”
Many people are walking on downtown sidewalks, not wearing masks (especially on University Ave.),where it is very
difficult to maintain social distancing.
Maskless people are gathering around entrances to businesses forcing people, who want to enter the building, to pass
very close to them, as they expel droplets with their loud conversations and laughter.
People are walking on the sidewalk often with their masks around their necks or in their pockets.
When I requested a man, who was forcing people to walk around him, wear a mask, he pointed out he was not in line,
and he was not going anywhere.
The Apple Store has set up lines that comply with social distancing for their customers waiting on the sidewalk.
Pedestrians, who need to walk by on the sidewalk are funneled into a passing lane between the customer line and
Apple's tent that does not allow pedestrians to practice social distancing—unless they step out, around parked cars, into
the street.
My request is that you modify the requirement by, at a minimum:
1. removing the phrase “to the greatest extent possible”
and/or
2. by stating that when it is not possible to comply with social distancing outdoors, wearing a Face Covering is required.
and/or
3. by stating that people in downtown Palo Alto must wear Face Coverings
Thank you for considering my request.
Teresa Ann Ryals.
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:38 PM
To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; board@pausd.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; O'Kane,
Kristen; Anderson, Daren
Subject:Kindly join us for the Magical Bridge Teen Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) Teen Board Presentation
-- Wednesday, June 17th at 4PM PST
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Human Relations Commissioners, School Board, City Council Members, and Community/City Leaders from Neighboring
Communities/Cities,
With a generous and forward-thinking grant (The Emerging Needs Grant)
from the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission, the Magical Bridge Foundation created a Teen Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
(DEI) Board. The inaugural cohort of teenagers from our Palo Alto community includes members with diverse abilities and disabilities.
They were charged with choosing a topic to focus on in order to educate and advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion of people with
disabilities in our community.
The Teen Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Board of the Magical Bridge Foundation cordially invite you to attend a virtual
screening of their important work on Wednesday, June 17th at 4:00 PM PST. Registration is required.
Kindly Register Here
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_aBqoxGooSA2uih86LhwqtA
Our first cohort and presenters of this board include:
Morgan O’Malley (Palo Alto High School)
Schauncy Lim (Gunn High School)
Boudewijn van Breeman (Palo Alto High School)
Ava Villareal (Palo Alto High School)
Cheryl Tolomeo (Saint Francis High School)
Anushka (Castilleja High School)
Isabella Koutsoyannis (Palo Alto High School)
Kelvin Jiang (Palo Alto High School)
Elijah de Blank (The Nueva School)
Nicole Smith (Gunn High School)
Isabella Chang (Gunn High School)
Ava Goumas (Saint Francis High School)
Joshua Barkin (Gunn High School)
The topics they will address during this presentation include:
Educating the public on visible and invisible disabilities.
Lifting up the community by reframing the focus to abilities instead of disabilities;
Suggestions for social inclusion across virtual platforms that are necessary during the shelter-in-place
order.
How the community can support individuals with varying abilities by using new and innovative
communication tools.
Feedback for how our local high schools have succeeded and fallen short for our students with differing
abilities.
How the community can support individuals with wide gaps between chronological and cognitive ages.
8
Our Teen Board hopes to inspire everyone in our local community to make a positive difference in Palo Alto, our neighboring
communities, and beyond.
We hope you will be able to join us.
Questions? Kindly email Jill Asher at jill@magicalbridge.org
* Kindly share this invitation with other city and inclusion leaders
With gratitude,
Team Magical Bridge
‐‐
Jill Asher
Executive Director
--
My TEDx Talk about Magical Bridge
Connect with Magical Bridge on:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge
Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge
Redact
ed
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jon Li <jonli@dcn.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:09 AM
To:sscharf@cupertino.org
Cc:dpaul@cupertino.org; rsinks@cupertino.org; liangchao@cupertino.org; jwilley@cupertino.org;
susanl@campbellca.gov; lizg@campbellca.gov; paulr@cityofcampbell.com;
anneb@cityofcampbell.com; richw@campbellca.gov; roland.velasco@cityofgilroy.org;
cat.tucker@cityofgilroy.org; marie.blankley@ci.gilroy.ca.us; dion.bracco@cityofgilroy.org; peter.leroe-
munoz@cityofgilroy.org; fred.tovar@cityofgilroy.org; carol.marques@cityofgilroy.org;
mwu@losaltoshills.ca.gov; ktankha@losaltoshills.ca.gov; cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov;
rspreen@losaltoshills.ca.gov; gtyson@losaltoshills.ca.gov; mjensen@losgatosca.gov;
bspector@losgatosca.gov; rrennie@losgatosca.gov; msayoc@losgatosca.gov;
citycouncil@mountainview.gov; rtran@ci.milpitas.ca.gov; bnunez@ci.milpitas.ca.gov;
kdominguez@ci.milpitas.ca.gov; cmontano@ci.milpitas.ca.gov; aphan@ci.milpitas.ca.gov;
llawler@cityofmontesereno.org; sleuthold@cityofmontesereno.org; jellahie@cityofmontesereno.org;
dlabouve@cityofmontesereno.org; rturner@cityofmontesereno.org;
rich.constantine@morganhill.ca.gov; larry.carr@morganhill.ca.gov;
yvonne.martinezbeltran@morganhill.ca.gov; rene.spring@morganhill.ca.gov;
john.mckay@morganhill.ca.gov; Council, City; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; District1@sanjoseca.gov;
District2@sanjoseca.gov; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov;
district6@sanjoseca.gov; District7@sanjoseca.gov; district8@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov;
District10@sanjoseca.gov; MayorAndCouncil@santaclaraca.gov; hmiller@saratoga.ca.us;
mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us; rkumar@saratoga.ca.us; mcappello@saratoga.ca.us;
yzhao@saratoga.ca.us; kleincouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; smithcouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov;
larssoncouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; hendrickscouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov;
MeltonCouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov; goldmancouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov;
smcentee@cityofmillvalley.org; jmccauley@cityofmillvalley.org; jwickham@cityofmillvalley.org;
ucarmel@cityofmillvalley.org; tossa@cityofmillvalley.org; dathas@novato.org; peklund@novato.org;
elucan@novato.org; apeele@novato.org; swernick@novato.org; sclevelandknowles@sausalito.gov;
rwithy@sausalito.gov; jburns@sausalito.gov; jcox@sausalito.gov; treilly@sausalito.gov;
jhoffman@sausalito.gov; Sandra.Fewer@sfgov.org; Catherine.Stefani@sfgov.org;
Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org; Gordon.Mar@sfgov.org; Dean.Preston@sfgov.org; Matt.Haney@sfgov.org;
Norman.Yee@sfgov.org; MandelmanStaff@sfgov.org; Hillary.Ronen@sfgov.org;
Shamann.Walton@sfgov.org; Ahsha.Safai@sfgov.org
Subject:Understanding local healthcare in the time of Covid-19
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
A Healthcare Forum via Zoom:
“Understanding local healthcare in the time of Covid‐19”:
What has the Covid‐19 crisis unveiled about healthcare access and affordability in Yolo County?
Presented by the League of Women Voters Davis Area Wednesday, June 24th, 6:30 ‐ 8:30 pm.
The keynote speaker is Dr. James Kahn, MD, MPH, Professor Emeritus, University of California, San Francisco,
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, Institute for Global Health
Sciences. Dr. Kahn is an internationally recognized health systems researcher who has published extensively in the
academic and lay press on health care reform, economics and cost analysis.
10
Dr. Kahn will address our current challenges and opportunities for future reform. The Covid‐19 crisis has magnified
notable gaps inherent in the fee‐for‐service health insurance system. Dr. Kahn will consider how current policy and
delivery impact the accessibility and costs of health care. He will identify key elements that must be addressed in order
to provide everyone with health care.
Panel: Health system challenges Yolo County residents and providers have faced both before and during this Covid‐19
pandemic:
Program Moderator: Michelle S. Famula, MD.
‐ Brian Vaughn, MPH, Public Health Director, Community Health Branch, Yolo County Health & Human Services:
community health aspects of the crisis and efforts to support the health needs of populations at highest risk in our
communities;
‐ Melissa Marshall, MD, Chief Executive Officer, CommuniCare Health Centers: the impact this crisis has had on
CommuniCare’s services to the uninsured and underinsured residents;
‐ Jeneba Lahai, Health Programs Manager, Yolo County Children’s Alliance: services for children;
‐ Sandra Sigrist, LCSW, Director, Adult & Aging Branch, Yolo County Health & Human Services: services for those
experiencing mental health issues;
‐ Sheila Allen, RN, PhD, Executive Director, Yolo Healthy Aging Alliance: services for the aging population.
In the past six months, the flaws in the employer‐based fee‐for‐service health insurance have tragically prevented the
current health system from helping people in time of need. With many people losing their jobs, and so losing their
health insurance, the health insurance system is unresponsive and in the way. Only a comprehensive overhaul of our
current US health care financing and delivery model to one ensuring universal access to needed care can address the
growing problems requiring a better health system.
‐ As the former California State Insurance Commissioner, our Congress member, John Garamendi, is one of the most
knowledgeable in the Congress about the medical‐insurance‐pharmaceutical‐nursing home‐industrial‐complex.
Lobbying Garamendi to support HR 1384 (Jayapal): Universal Health Coverage, and HR 5010 (Khanna): State‐Based
Universal Health Care will take an enormous amount of organizational campaigning and pressure, but Garamendi
understands what is at stake. Garamendi is a player. It is only a matter of time before Garamendi will be an advocate
for Universal Health Coverage, because he needs the health system to start working a whole lot better than it can under
Obamacare, plus the so‐called “Public Option” and its additional complications to already administratively expensive
health insurance.
‐ State Senator Bill Dodd is open‐minded about the potential to improve health care. He already recommends TR Reid’s
book, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care.
‐ Cecilia Aguiar‐Curry maintains close relations with the medical society, the hospital association, and the health
insurance industry.
Focusing on Garamendi learning that only universal coverage addresses his concerns will give both Dodd and Cecilia
Aguiar‐Curry the opportunity to help address constituents’s growing concerns for access to affordable care in ways that
Obamacare precludes.
The Zoom capacity is for 300 attendees. Register with eventbrite.
To help speakers best address your concerns, questions and issues, we encourage attendees to please submit them in
advance to komalh@lwvdavisarea.org before June 16.
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kathleen Tarlow <kbrizgys@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 8:57 PM
To:Library, Pa; Council, City
Subject:Please open the libraries
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I grew up in Palo Alto. After living elsewhere, I returned here to raise my family, struggling with the high cost of living
because the city has always supported its critical public institutions; schools, libraries, wonderful community
amenities like pools, gardens, museums and the Art Center. While these are certainly unprecedented times and I don't
expect life to look like it once did, I don't think the city is doing enough to provide critical resources to its citizens.
Why are restaurants and shops open for business, but not the libraries? School has been all but denied my children. In
its absence, what are the children supposed to do to learn to become productive citizens doing meaningful work in our
community? Now it's summer, and even the remote activities that school provided are over. We cannot afford to buy
books. We have borrowed and swapped books from everyone we know.
Why is it considered essential to open shops, but not libraries? Surely some sort of safe book pickup could be devised;
book shops are open and doing it. Books that are returned could be "quarantined" or sanitized. Ample research has
gone into sanitizing PPE at hospitals; surely handling books would pose very little risk with the proper procedures in
place.
We are still paying taxes. We need to see service for these taxes. Coronavirus looks like it will be with us for a long time.
It's time to start making steps in a forward direction. Our democracy depends on it.
Thank you for your time,
Kathleen Tarlow
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 5:16 PM
To:alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; Leodies Buchanan; David Balakian;
beachrides; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis;
Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dallen1212@gmail.com;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein;
francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo;
hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer;
kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; Loran Harding; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; margaret-
sasaki@live.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; nick yovino;
russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; tsheehan; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net
Subject:Fwd: DW In Good Shape - Tackling Ticks- scary as "heck" Pay to have hi grass cut
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 5:03 PM
Subject: Fwd: DW In Good Shape ‐ Tackling Ticks‐ scary as "heck" Pay to have hi grass cut
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 4:53 AM
Subject: DW In Good Shape ‐ Tackling Ticks‐ scary as "heck" Pay to have hi grass cut
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sunday, June 7, 2020
Last night, DW ran this piece about ticks. Geez, scary. You can get Lyme disease and TBE, a form of encephalitis,
from a tick. And a whole lot more. You don't want either. Host here is Dr. Lekutat, an MD in Berlin. He talks with an
expert on ticks and it is well worth listening to what he says. He speaks great English, but not as fluently as Dr.
Lekutat. Notice that it is the nymph that is most dangerous. There are 900 species of ticks. Notice too the poor woman
who got bitten by a tick and got Lyme Disease, but it took 10 years for a test to detect the antibodies showing that she
has it. Now it is too late for antibiotics to help, so she has to live with terrible pain in her joints, and a support group.
In this link, scroll down a little ways and see the "Tackling Ticks" video on the left. The piece is 19:40 long.
https://www.dw.com/en/tv/in‐good‐shape/s‐11938
In March, we got a "March miracle" of rain in Fresno, and my dead lawn shot up to a foot tall. Then it turned
brown. I've been sheltering in place. I've been planning to chop it down with a weed wacker, but this show last night on
13
ticks scared me. At 1 PM today, the door bell rang‐ a Mexican guy. He said they could cut the grass for $35, so I said go
ahead. He and his buddy had a weed wacker, a big mower and a leaf blower. They used my green barrel, which now sits
at the curb really full. I paid them $80. Vast improvement. I told them to be careful of ticks.
LH
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Baq Haidri <baqhaidri@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 3:54 PM
To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Council, City
Cc:Joye, Ken
Subject:Affordable housing in North Ventura
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
My name is Baq Haidri and I am a resident and homeowner in Palo Alto in the Southgate neighborhood. I would like to
be a voice for more affordable housing in Palo Alto and to do what I can to push for the North Ventura site to include as
much below market rate housing as possible.
As you may or may not know that when it comes to civil rights, the history of the city of Palo Alto when it comes to
housing is a shameful one [1], [2]. With all of the attention and energy now being applied to the Black Lives Matter
movement, it's time for Palo Alto to address this history and actively work to rectify it. We've let market forces and the
residentialist voices decide what the city of Palo Alto is for too long and I'd like to bring a different perspective to the
table.
What can I do?
Thanks,
Baq
[1] http://www.paloaltohistory.org/discrimination-in-palo-alto.php [2] https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/10/east-of-palo-
altos-eden/
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:Heidi George <hgeorge@3hc.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 11:02 AM
To:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Rinconada Pool
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City of Palo Alto,
I am writing to you regarding your COVID‐19 reopening guidelines. We are now approaching our 14th week since
closings and initial quarantine began. Rinconada swimming pool has been closed since March 11th. My partner and I
would normally swim from 1.5 ‐ 4 hours daily. We have been awaiting the day for pools to reopen so were exasperated
to learn of Rinconada’s 35 minute (+10 minute in & out buffer) reservation required time limit.
These restriction seems preposterous for a variety of reasons:
1. No decent swimmer can come close to doing a workout in 35 minutes. We are still warming up at 35 minutes.
2. Rinconada pool is outdoors, where transfer of CoV‐SARS‐2 appears to be rare.
3. Pools are chlorinated. Chlorine is extremely effective at killing viruses, and far more effective when dissolved in a
body of water.
4. Swimming longer periods improves cardiorespiratory health, likely the biggest factor in severity of symptoms from
COVID‐19.
5. People who are at risk and feel uncomfortable can easily avoid pools.
On a side note:
If the City of Palo Alto cares so much about the health of swimmers then perhaps they should have put tarps up over the
Rinconada pool which I have written to the city about a couple of times over the past decade. Rinconada pools have
unsafe UV levels beyond early morning and before evening due to the sun. Over 22,000 people die annually due to skin
cancer in the U.S. Over the course of a decade that is more than have died due to Coronavirus.
Resident of Palo Alto,
Heidi George
hgeorge@3hc.com
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kimberly Thacker <kdawnkali@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please reconsider the Children's Theatre cuts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
You have many letters from parents and friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre explaining the deep impact the
Theatre has and can continue to have for our children and our concerns for the impact on staff and programs of the
current cuts. We ask you one more time to please put this on the agenda before the final budget is approved and
consider looking elsewhere for funds to alleviate cuts, especially for staff, and to consider the FOPACT proposal sent to
you.
Thank you for your service and consideration,
Kim Thacker
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 7:56 PM
To:scscroundtable@gmail.com
Cc:Karen.Chapman@mail.house.gov; Council, City
Subject:For your consideration for upcoming SCSC Legislative Committee meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Chair Matichak, SCSC Legislative Committee,
Members of the SCSC Roundtable
As you review a "draft plan for future Legislative Committee Agenda items", per your meeting notice for June
10, 2020 10 AM I would like to offer some suggestions:
1. If you plan to propose federal or state legislation
Please prioritize the items expressed on two important lists. Those identified by the Select Committee on South
Bay Arrivals which can be found in their Final Report on pages 23 - 27 Longer term and Process issues. Also,
provisions in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization. The FAA for example has been erroneously interpreting the law
for Sections 173 (noise standard) and 180 (Ombudsman) and this needs attention or possible re-legislation.
What is the point of new laws when the existing laws are ignored?
ACTION suggestion: Set an Agenda item to see what needs follow up from the two links above. I suggest
inviting some of the speakers from a recent Legislative panel at the recent Aviation Noise and Emissions (their
info is at the bottom of this email) to further inform your deliberations going forward.
An example of something that both the Select Committee and the 2018 Reauthorization stressed are noise
measurements and metrics which are critical for a variety of essential steps in noise management. Per FAA
Administrator Dickson “noise is a shared responsibility” between FAA and industry - yet many Nextgen affected
areas are lacking monitors. Stable funding for noise monitors could be an area for federal or state legislation to
mandate measuring impacts at the main air traffic arteries or where certain levels of traffic have been reached.
Furthermore, as the Select Committee recommended (page 24 SC report), noise measurements should “yield
measurement of all noise instead of only a small fraction of it.” With the current A weightings, the low
frequency noise that affects SCSC cities from Arrivals is not considered and needs attention.
2. If you plan to “monitor” legislation
I suggest monitoring can be assisted by the professional lobbyists or aviation attorneys that some of the SCSC
cities already employ. Some of these professionals already produce regular reports as well.
ACTION suggestion: Ask your member cities to help identify lobbyists qualified for aviation or DOT issues -
see if the lobbyists would be interested in doing a quarterly update, and at what fees or costs.
3. If you plan on developing new ideas for legislation
First please ensure that you are well versed on which FAA policies and practices are presenting the toughest
challenges to citizens. Having an understanding of the FAA's approach to noise management is key for that.
18
ACTION suggestion: Set an Agenda item to review the FAA Briefing to SFO Roundtable October 2019 -
Video replay - FAA briefing SFO RT October 2019 (25 minute briefing) and use this as a starting point to hear
directly from FAA's Chief Scientist on Environmental issues about the various matters.
My feedback to FAA on their briefing in October 2019 was that their environmental vision/goal on Slide 4
“remove environmental constraints on aviation growth” (as opposed to eliminating noise and emissions
pollution) needs review so that their focus is not simply on eliminating public input or voice (which in fact is
happening in their NEPA practices). Also, the way the FAA reports success is misleading or grossly overstated
(see slide 8 about aircraft noise evolution) and some statistics fudge real impacts (see slide 19 aircraft
emissions in perspective) suggesting teeny weenie emissions impacts from aviation which is just not so when
some unlucky community is getting all or most of the teeny weenie impacts. I also expressed the need for
objective criteria and analysis to manage noise (a practice that involves you as well btw).
Given FAA's position on environmental issues, below are some suggestions to take up with Congress and
FAA.
How FAA reports success to Communities and Congress: FAA narrowly defines success as the
reduction in the number of people exposed to the 65 DNL, ignoring the noise that is outside this realm
(all SCSC cities).
How FAA pre-judges mitigation as primarily insulation, and uses that to hide noise in FAA’s NEPA
practices. Legislation or Congressional action to decouple the 65 DNL standard from its relation to
insulation would help, and require the FAA to develop new and improved FAA NEPA practices- better
disclosure to communities and defining new mitigation practices beyond insulation.
How Arrivals noise is very different from Departures and needs specific research and mitigation
options.
How FAA allocates funding and attention to operator noise management ("what and when" see slide
16) and FAA/ATC noise management (where and how). Equipment advances are not expected to yield
quantum or marginal improvements anytime soon; we need more resources to when, where and how.
How the FAA manages nighttime noise, and the lack of airline involvement in developing noise
mitigation plans and monitoring.
How noise and emissions standards around the world are set - what are best practices?
There are many potential areas where the FAA could make significant improvements. Last but not least, I urge
you to work with ideas that will resonate with others around the country and to coordinate with diverse
communities.
Thank you,
Jennifer
https://anesymposium.aqrc.ucdavis.edu/2020-program
Noise and Emissions Legislation: The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act and What Congress and FAA have
been up to since
Chaired By: Veronica Bradley, Airlines for America & Jennifer Landesmann, Sky Posse Palo Alto
19
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act contains over 20 provisions related to aviation noise and emissions. This
Congress has also introduced more than 10 aviation noise bills. This conversation-style session will provide a
discussion on how communities advocate for legislative answers to their noise concerns, how industry
perspectives impact legislative outcomes, and how FAA implements the final law, all using examples from the
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, current pending legislation in Congress, and long-standing FAA research
programs.
Presentation 1
By: Janet McEneaney, Queens Quiet Skies
Presentation 2
By: Melinda Pagliarello, ACI-NA
Presentation 3
By: Donald Scata, Federal Aviation Administration
Presentation 4
By: Craig Wilsey, Program Manager, Boeing Research & Technology
Presentation 5
By: Jose Alonso, Acoustic Specialist, Collins Aerospace
20
Baumb, Nelly
From:Christine Hmelar <skinandbody@me.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 6:13 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); greg@gregtanaka.org
Subject:Small Business Grant Program
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I would like to understand the criteria for this program. As a small business owner for almost 20 years in Palo Alto, I feel I
qualify for this grant.
I have met all the criteria needed to be accepted in this program except that of having employees. I am a sole proprietor.
Why should I be excluded?
Just because I work for myself? My business has been devastated because of this pandemic. I have not been able to
open my business yet because
I fall into the Phase 3 category. This Grant would help me with my business expenses such as rent, for which I am still
needing and expected to pay.
Please explain.
Thank you,
Christine Hmelar
Salon Owner
Skin & Body by Christine
Located in Midtown
21
Baumb, Nelly
From:Judith Schwartz <judith@tothept.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 9:29 AM
To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; ParkRec Commission
Cc:Tim Sheeper; O'Kane, Kristen
Subject:Great job reopening Rinconada Pool for lap swimming
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council, Parks & Rec Commission, City Manager Shikada,
I just returned from my first swim at Rinconada Pool in months and feel energized and elated. Thank you so
much for making the decision to open up the pool in a careful and thoughtful way as soon as the County
restrictions allowed. City staff, Tim, Steve, and the rest of the Palo Alto Swim and Sport crew did a great job
planning for this milestone and should be commended. At first, I didn’t understand why we had to sign up for
a particular lane but the “Southwest Airlines” approach where you wait for your entrance time at your chosen
lane number to be checked in was great and will insure social distancing and reduce stress. I was very
impressed that it was so smooth for a first day.
Even when I encountered a few inevitable glitches trying to figure out the reservation system, the info system
folks (Melissa and Kathy) responded right away and sorted out the difficulties. One could not ask for more
responsive customer service.
The limitations on time and one swim reservation‐a‐day are very reasonable and will make it possible for lots
of swimmers to get back in the water. Once more pools in the area open up the demand can be distributed
and I expect longer workout time slots will become possible. It is more than fair to ask everyone to be patient
and share the resources available.
Kudos to everyone involved. The only negative I could see was that the giant smiles of all the swimmers were
covered up by the masks everyone dutifully wore.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
Judith Schwartz
Palo Alto, CA
22
Baumb, Nelly
From:Tim Flagg <tim.flagg@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 6, 2020 8:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:5G impact
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To: Palo Alto City Council
I urge you to have no exceptions to the WCF regulations, limit the noise and keep as many 5G cells out of the city as
possible.
Thank you.
Tim Flagg
804 Boyce Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
23
Baumb, Nelly
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 7:19 PM
To:David I Epstein
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Monday council meeting 8-Jun
Hi Mr. Epstein,
At this due to holding meetings virtually we are not allowing pictures, videos, or PowerPoints due to the potential
of zoom bombing. You are more than welcome to email them to the council and then they will be placed in the public
documents that the viewable by any member of the public.
Beth Minor
City Clerk.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 4, 2020, at 4:04 PM, David I Epstein <davee@stanford.edu> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious
of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi –
I would like to make a public comment on Monday 8‐Jun with some slides to share on Zoom. Will I be
enabled to do that? If not, how can I get some PowerPoint slides presented?
Thanks
‐David Epstein
24
Baumb, Nelly
From:Amanda Brown <brown.amanda@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto History Museum
Attachments:Brown_Amanda_PAHMLetter.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a born and raised Palo Altan and an established museum is what this city needs. We need to support the stories
that have made this great city.
I hope you read my letter.
Thank you
‐‐
Amanda
Dear Mayor Adrian Fine,
We went to high school together. We have had drinks at NOLA on Ramona Street years
back with some of our classmates and sat at Pizza My Heart after. We both have reaped the
advantages that this city has just based on the zip code. You have chosen to enter into politics and
become our city mayor. As a politician and citizen of this town, you have a responsibility to
preserve the town's history in the historic Roth building.
My family is not one of those long term Palo Alto family names. We do not own property
or have names on buildings; in the 1940s, my grandparents moved to Palo Alto to raise their
family. We saw the fall of the orchards and the rise of the tech giants. To keep my family here in
Palo Alto, we moved into the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, where we stayed for over ten
years to ensure my education was a good one.
We are now a diverse community that needs to have their voices heard, their experiences
explained, and their stories recorded. Many new citizens moved here from all over the world to
create, work, and raise their own families because they know the area and the possibilities that
come from it. We are also a tourist spot that has several people coming here every year to visit
Stanford, the town, and shop in our local small businesses.
I hope that you and the City Council will revise your thoughts on the Roth building and
the future of this much needed local history museum. Local history reflects the people and the
time in which they live. It is time that this city has an actual museum that will reflect their stories
and our experiences here in Palo Alto.
Sincerely
Amanda Brown; Gunn ‘04
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 3:33 PM
To:Shikada, Ed
Cc:Kamhi, Philip; Council, City; Paul Machado; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Carol Scott; David
Schrom; Irene Au; Tim Mealiffe; Terry Holzemer; Terry Holzmer; Christian Pease
Subject:Re: BREAKING: Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as officials announce early start to fall
quarter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To City of Palo Alto:
Mr. Shikada,
it seems you are pushing ahead with closing Cal Ave
=> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=65824.82&BlobID=77068 ‐ which ties into point #2
below.
How will the resulting traffic be directed? Incoming traffic for example along Cambridge and outgoing traffic through
Sherman and Grant?
or is the traffic going through all our neighborhood?
our neighborhood is still waiting for a response to this important item and on the other issues cited below as well.
Wolfgang Dueregger
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:36 PM Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com> wrote:
To City of Palo Alto:
Mr. Shikada,
‐ what is the city's action plan when students return to Stanford in fall for the parking situation in Evergreen Park /
Mayfield?
‐ what is the action plan when Cal Ave is closed for dining to avoid traffic congestion and overflow parking into
Evergreen Park / Mayfield?
‐ what is the action plan to get enforcement back on track?
‐ why did the city not respond to our earlier requests and emails on the subjects above?
We are awaiting your response.
thank you
Wolfgang Dueregger
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:32 PM Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> wrote:
2
Dear City Officials,
As you can see from today’s story in The Mercury News, Stanford is planning to welcome back students for the fall
quarter.
As a result, it is very important that the City resume enforcement of the RPP in Evergreen Park. If there is no
enforcement, we will once again be inundated with students and others visiting the campus parking in our
neighborhood. Stanford parking was one of the primary reasons, along with Cal Train and employee parking, that the
RPP was requested in the first place.
Residents are paying for residential permits. Please let us know how you plan to handle enforcement of the two‐hour
limit on parking by those without permits for the RPP. I am aware that the City staff has recommended minimal
enforcement efforts due to budgetary concerns. We have been told that the EVP/Mayfield, downtown and Southgate
RPPs must pay for themselves through permit sales for employees — apparently unlike the RPPs in College Terrace
and Old Palo Alto which do not allow employee parking permits. This disparity cannot stand, and I urge you to provide
the enforcement needed to maintain the integrity of the EVP/Mayfield RPP.
Thank you.
Carol Scott
Evergreen Park
Carol Scott
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: The Mercury News <e‐news@email.bayareanewsgroup.com>
Date: June 3, 2020 at 3:07:35 PM PDT
To: C.scott1@yahoo.com
Subject: BREAKING: Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as officials announce early start to
fall quarter
Reply‐To: newsletter‐reply@bayareanewsgroup.com
Stanford University students will be allowed to return to campus in the fall, but most classes will still remain online as o
substantive glimpse at what the fall…
3
Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as officials announce early
Stanford University students will be allowed to return to campus in the fall, but most classes will still remain online as
substantive glimpse at what the fall…
View article
4
Copyright 2020 Bay Area News Group. All rights reserved.
4 N. Second Street, Suite 800 | San Jose, CA 95113
Unsubscribe
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:37 PM
To:Shikada, Ed
Cc:Kamhi, Philip; Council, City; Paul Machado; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Carol Scott; David
Schrom; Irene Au; Tim Mealiffe; Terry Holzemer; Terry Holzmer
Subject:Re: BREAKING: Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as officials announce early start to fall
quarter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To City of Palo Alto:
Mr. Shikada,
‐ what is the city's action plan when students return to Stanford in fall for the parking situation in Evergreen Park /
Mayfield?
‐ what is the action plan when Cal Ave is closed for dining to avoid traffic congestion and overflow parking into
Evergreen Park / Mayfield?
‐ what is the action plan to get enforcement back on track?
‐ why did the city not respond to our earlier requests and emails on the subjects above?
We are awaiting your response.
thank you
Wolfgang Dueregger
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:32 PM Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> wrote:
Dear City Officials,
As you can see from today’s story in The Mercury News, Stanford is planning to welcome back students for the fall
quarter.
As a result, it is very important that the City resume enforcement of the RPP in Evergreen Park. If there is no
enforcement, we will once again be inundated with students and others visiting the campus parking in our
neighborhood. Stanford parking was one of the primary reasons, along with Cal Train and employee parking, that the
RPP was requested in the first place.
Residents are paying for residential permits. Please let us know how you plan to handle enforcement of the two‐hour
limit on parking by those without permits for the RPP. I am aware that the City staff has recommended minimal
enforcement efforts due to budgetary concerns. We have been told that the EVP/Mayfield, downtown and Southgate
RPPs must pay for themselves through permit sales for employees — apparently unlike the RPPs in College Terrace and
Old Palo Alto which do not allow employee parking permits. This disparity cannot stand, and I urge you to provide the
enforcement needed to maintain the integrity of the EVP/Mayfield RPP.
6
Thank you.
Carol Scott
Evergreen Park
Carol Scott
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: The Mercury News <e‐news@email.bayareanewsgroup.com>
Date: June 3, 2020 at 3:07:35 PM PDT
To: C.scott1@yahoo.com
Subject: BREAKING: Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as officials announce early start to
fall quarter
Reply‐To: newsletter‐reply@bayareanewsgroup.com
Stanford University students will be allowed to return to campus in the fall, but most classes will still remain online as o
substantive glimpse at what the fall…
7
Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as officials announce early
Stanford University students will be allowed to return to campus in the fall, but most classes will still remain online as o
substantive glimpse at what the fall…
View article
8
Copyright 2020 Bay Area News Group. All rights reserved.
4 N. Second Street, Suite 800 | San Jose, CA 95113
Unsubscribe
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:32 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip; Council, City
Cc:Paul Machado; Wolfgang Dueregger; Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin
Subject:Fwd: BREAKING: Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as officials announce early start to fall
quarter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Officials,
As you can see from today’s story in The Mercury News, Stanford is planning to welcome back students for the fall
quarter.
As a result, it is very important that the City resume enforcement of the RPP in Evergreen Park. If there is no
enforcement, we will once again be inundated with students and others visiting the campus parking in our
neighborhood. Stanford parking was one of the primary reasons, along with Cal Train and employee parking, that the
RPP was requested in the first place.
Residents are paying for residential permits. Please let us know how you plan to handle enforcement of the two‐hour
limit on parking by those without permits for the RPP. I am aware that the City staff has recommended minimal
enforcement efforts due to budgetary concerns. We have been told that the EVP/Mayfield, downtown and Southgate
RPPs must pay for themselves through permit sales for employees — apparently unlike the RPPs in College Terrace and
Old Palo Alto which do not allow employee parking permits. This disparity cannot stand, and I urge you to provide the
enforcement needed to maintain the integrity of the EVP/Mayfield RPP.
Thank you.
Carol Scott
Evergreen Park
Carol Scott
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: The Mercury News <e‐news@email.bayareanewsgroup.com>
Date: June 3, 2020 at 3:07:35 PM PDT
To: C.scott1@yahoo.com
Subject: BREAKING: Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as officials announce early start to
fall quarter
Reply‐To: newsletter‐reply@bayareanewsgroup.com
10
Stanford: Online classes, single dorms likely as o
early start to fall quarter
Stanford University students will be allowed to return to campus in the fall, but most classes will s
Wednesday gave the first substantive glimpse at what the fall…
View article
11
Copyright 2020 Bay Area News Group. All rights reserved.
4 N. Second Street, Suite 800 | San Jose, CA 95113
Unsubscribe
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:chas iulio <chasiulio@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Save Mac’s Smoke Shop
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Good Afternoon,
I am emailing you in regards to saving Mac’s Smoke Shop. It is worthy of being around for next generations to come.
Thank you.
Kind Regards,
Chasity
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Garry Wyndham <gwyndham@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Don’t kill Mac’s. Don’t pass flavored tobacco ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council
Think very carefully about the unintended consequences of your proposed ordinance banning sales of flavored tobacco.
Flavored tobaccos may be legally sold to adults. There appear to be controls in place to prevent their sale to minors. So
why change anything?
Banning their sale might destroy the viability of Mac’s Smoke Shop. And that would be a cultural loss to Palo Alto
Garry Wyndham
2607 Bryant St, Palo Alto
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Steve Garcia <garcstv@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 5:18 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.
________________________________
Hi to the City of Palo Alto City Council:
I’m writing this letter to request that Mac’s remained open and is still allowed to sell Cigars and flavored tobacco for
pipes.
There is a big difference between e‐Vapes and flavored tobacco for pipes.
I have been going to Mac’s for well over 30 years to purchase my cigars and flavor tobacco for my pipes.
I believe that they should be provided an exception and still be allowed to run their small business In the City of Palo
Alto. Being in business for well over 85 years speaks highly of their business and to the overall community of Palo Alto.
I believe that they should be able to remain in their Small family owned business that resides in Palo Alto. I believe that
they are an asset to Palo Alto and should be left open to continue to sell its products to the Palo Alto community.
Best regards,
Steven M Garcia
Sent from my iPhone
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mac's
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members:
Please do not ban flavored tobacco. My grandpa always used it in his pipe.
If you’re going to shut down every store in which a few adolescents can get cigarettes or tobacco or alcohol,
you’ll be shutting down a lot more outlets than Mac’s.
This is one nanny law too many.
Thanks,
Pat Marriott Palo Alto property owner
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Robert Tompkins <boylibrarian@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 4:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Now what about Mac's Smoke Shop? That's right, what about Mac's?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear city counselors,
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. No one (other than certain adolescents) wants flavored tobacco
(or any tobacco, for that matter) and e‐cigarettes to be accessible to underage persons. So, you've passed a blanket
ordinance that bans their sale citywide and covers all retail establishments. But wait a moment. What about businesses
that are accessible only to adults — businesses where minors are barred from even entering? That sounds to me like a
place called Mac's Smoke Shop, a downtown landmark for some 86 years. Name me another Palo Alto business that's
been operating continuously for that many years. If there are others, I don't know them, and I've lived in this town for
46 years.
I ask you to reconsider your decision (Liz Kniss, Adrian Fine, and Tom DuBois, you're on the right side and don't need to
read further). It's no secret that teens who want something sold only to adults will find a way to get it. For now, they can
go to Mountain View with an adult to front for them. If Mountain View enacts a ban, they'll find illicit sources elsewhere
and have their products shipped to them.
This is legislated morality, like Prohibition. You know what a success that was. The Volstead Act was widely ignored, and
this ordinance, too, will be flouted. As a result, respect for laws in general will be the victim.
Please show some common sense and exempt adults‐only establishments, like Mac's, from the ordinance.
Sincerely,
Robert Tompkins
518 Everett Avenue, Apt G
Palo Alto 94301
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ernie Tompkins <etompkins@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:05 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.
TO: Palo Alto City Council
FROM: Vicki Wilhite, resident of Palo Alto since 1981
I have been reading about the proposed ordinance banning the sale of flavored tobacco in our city. I am asking
you to carve out an exemption for Mac's Smoke Shop. As you know, Mac's cards everyone, so children will not
be able to buy flavored tobacco products. Please follow the lead of Los Altos. They passed a similar ordinance
while protecting Edward's Tobacco. Mac's Smoke Shop was founded in 1934 — it is an institution here. Like
Liz Kniss, I buy my New York Times there!
Sincerely,
Vicki Wilhite
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jared Newmeyer <jarednewmeyer@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Don’t ban tobacco/support for Mac’s & other fine Tobacco shops for Adults to make their own
Choice
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Don’t ban tobacco/support for Mac’s & other fine Tobacco shops for Adults to make their own Choice.
This is akin to the states that still “don’t sell liquor on Sunday cuz it’s the lords day”...this is a legal choice that is
discriminatory to ban, and hurts fine community businesses that offer some diversity of choice to keep downtown Palo
Alto for “more than just a place to eat”
I was born/grew up in the area, and am back for “quarantine from LA” for the past few months working remotely at our
house just across the creek in Menlo Park. (251 O’Connor st Menlo Park 94025)
2
****
Senfeng Laser Technology Co, Ltd. is a renowned Laser Machine Manufacturer from the Jinan Innovation Zone of
China, and a top‐5 producer to the world’s largest Fiber Laser fabrication market. We make a variety of Fiber Laser
machines for cutting various metals on Flatbed & Rotary for Square/Circular Tube/Pipe, as well as with Fanuc Robot‐
Arm and Fully Automated Production Line build‐outs. In addition, we make machines utilizing Laser for Welding,
Cleaning, & Etching/Marking, as well as CO2 Lasers for cutting & etching nonmetals such as Acrylic, Wood, Ceramic,
and Textiles.
With a worldwide presence and regional offices in over a dozen countries, including an R&D center in Germany, over
200 patents, and a newly opened 1,000,000sq ft 4‐building 800‐employee manufacturing headquarters in Jinan,
Senfeng has strongly expanded our North American presence since opening our US Sales Office in 2014. As of 2019,
we have opened our North American Demo, Training, and Technical Support Center in Los Angeles, with daily‐
available domestic technicians to support everything from free installation & on‐site training, to trouble‐shooting &
technical support.
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Jared Newmeyer 丨Director of North American Sales
SENFENG CNC&LASER TECHNOLOGY USA, INC.
6805 E Gage Ave Commerce Ca 90040, USA
jarednewmeyer@sfcnclaser.com
http://www.senfenglaser.com
Redacted
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Lori Khoury <khoury7eleven@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 2:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Illustration of Vape products vs. flavored tobacco
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
FLAVORED VAPE VS. FLAVORED TOBACCO
Vaping products require the use an electronic delivery system (typically battery powered) that heats a liquid tobacco
product (vapor) to be ingested by the user. These types of products also have the catchy flavors like cotton candy, fruity
pebbles, mango, etc. They are usually in a liquid or cartridge form like shown below.
The products we want to continue to sell like we have throughout our history are loose pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco and
flavored cigars. Again, these have no draw for teens, and that was genesis for amending the ordinance. The products
below bear no resemblance to the products shown above.
Loose pipe tobacco
4
Smokeless chewing tobacco
Flavored cigar
I really hope you will take the time to consider our request for your support to allow an exemption to continue to sell
flavored tobacco products. We would be more than happy to set up a call to discuss this further or have you stop by the
store to get more familiar with the products we are referring to. I really hope you understand how important this exemption
is to us.
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bilal Zuberi <bilal.zuberi@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 7:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto 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. It makes no sense to me
because (a) vaping is a well understood public health problem globally, especially for kids,
(b) all other nearby towns have passed similar laws, and (c) we need Palo Alto to be a leader in good public health vs
leave loopholes in our system where kids can get access to vaping products, and get addicted to them.
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,
Bilal Zuberi
‐‐‐
bilal zuberi | partner | lux capital
| bz@luxcapital.com | twitter.com/bznotes Redacted
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Dike, Michelle A <Michelle.Dike@hmhco.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 9:47 PM
To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka,
Greg
Subject:tobacco retail ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS. No exemption to adult only stores.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Sincerely,
Michelle Dike
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Oli <oli_chen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 8:50 PM
To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka,
Greg
Subject: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 urge you to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS. No exemption to adult only stores.
I am against stores like RAW on California and do not want vaping, tobacco products sold. Please reconsider there
license.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Sincerely, Olivia
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:maryam_mossadeghian@yahoo.com
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 8:05 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.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Sincerely,
~ Maryam Mossadeghian
PAUSD Parent
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Nelly Leong <nleong@sillygoose.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 6:12 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, and please DO NOT compromise the future generations for revenue.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Regards,
Nelly Leong
“If God takes you to it, He will take you through it.”
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:Johanna Sunden <johanna.sunden@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:21 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.
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Sincerely,
Johanna Sundén
Parent of a high school and a middle school student in PAUSD
Sent from my iPhone
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ban the sale of Flavored tobacco and Vapes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council, I urge you to pass the ordinance as written. While I support small businesses, I don't believe we need
to do so at the cost of youth health. The dangers of smoking and vaping are well proven. In the end, tax payers pay
millions of dollars for added health care for smokers and vapers. Thank you for taking action.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold
Parent of Three Teenagers
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:Johanna Sunden <johanna.sunden@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:17 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.
________________________________
Sent from my iPhone
13
Baumb, Nelly
From:monique morrison <moniquemmorrison@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 4:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Vaping
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,
Monique M. Morrison
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Todd Collins <todd@toddcollins.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 4:08 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City; PTAC President; Erwin Morton
Subject:PAUSD Resolution on E-Cigarettes / Vaping
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Honorable Council Members,
I'm told you have on your Consent Calendar for this evening's meeting an ordinance to "Restrict Electronic Cigarette
Products and Flavored Tobacco Products."
I wanted to share with you the attached Resolution, "DECLARING PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY NEEDING ACTION NOW:
EPIDEMIC YOUTH USE OF E‐CIGARETTES." Our PAUSD Board unanimously passed this resolution in November of last
year, directed at other government entities like yours, urging the restriction of manufacturing, marketing, and
distribution of flavored tobacco and e‐cigarette. I've pasted the action item portion of the resolution below.
Your proposed ordinance is in line with the goals of the Resolution. Our Board strongly supports such action, in support
of the health and well‐being of the young people we all seek to serve and develop.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope for a favorable outcome on this item.
Best,
Todd Collins
President, PAUSD Board of Trustees
‐‐
Todd Collins
Want to see how PAUSD is performing? Check out our California School Dashboard, a new tool from
the CA Dept of Education for understanding, monitoring, and comparing school districts!
Redacted
15
NOTE: Messages to/from this account related to PAUSD matters may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:Himanshu Dwivedi <hdwivedi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:59 PM
To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka,
Greg
Subject:Palo Alto Tobacco Control Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello There,
I hope all is well with you all. I'd to kindly ask to pass the Tobacco Control Ordinance AS IS (no exemption to adult
only stores).
Thank you for taking action on behalf of our teens.
Thanks,
Himanshu
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:Andrew Lewis <alewis0812@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:56 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia;
Tanaka, Greg
Subject:Flavored Tobacco Ordinance
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,
I live and work in 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. 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 represent the voice of the community
that is asking you to put our health over profits.
Andrew S. Lewis, ACS Silicon Valley Board Member
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Annie Tegen <ategen@TobaccoFreeKids.org>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 5:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for flavored tobacco ordinance with NO exemptions for certain products or retailers
Attachments:Palo Alto_TFK 6-8-2020_letter of support_flavored tobacco.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,
I urge you to support the flavored tobacco ordinance without exemptions for certain products or retailers. Passing a bill
with exemptions would make Palo Alto one of the weaker local flavor laws in the state.
Please find the letter attached, and thank you for your leadership putting children’s health before tobacco industry
profits.
Sincerely,
Annie Tegen
Annie Tegen, MPH
Advocacy Director, Western U.S.
Campaign for Tobacco‐Free Kids // Tobacco‐Free Kids Action Fund
Mobile: | Email: ategen@tobaccofreekids.org
www.tobaccofreekids.org
Redacted
June 8, 2020
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Fine,
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is pleased to submit this letter in support of efforts in the City of
Palo Alto to reduce tobacco use, particularly among youth. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is the
nation’s largest non-profit, non-governmental advocacy organization solely devoted to reducing
tobacco use and its deadly toll by advocating for public policies that prevent kids from using tobacco,
and help smokers quit. We commend Palo Alto for being a national leader in its commitment to
reducing the death and disease from tobacco use. It is encouraging to see cities and counties in
California continue to take thoughtful, evidenced-based steps to reduce the number of kids who start
using tobacco and help tobacco users quit. While California has made great strides in reducing tobacco
use, tobacco use remains the number one preventable cause of premature death and disease in Palo
Alto and the nation, killing 480,000 Americans annually.
Prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products in all retailers, including menthol cigarettes and all
flavored cigars, is a critical step that will help protect children living in Palo Alto from the
unrelenting efforts by the tobacco industry to hook them to a deadly addiction. Flavored tobacco
products are designed to alter the taste and reduce the harshness of tobacco products so they are
more appealing and easy for beginners, who are almost always kids. These products are pervasive and
are marketed and sold in a variety of kid-friendly flavors. With their colorful packaging and sweet
flavors, flavored tobacco products are often hard to distinguish from the candy displays near which
they are frequently placed in retail outlets. Nationally, eight out of ten of current youth tobacco users
have used a flavored tobacco product in the past month.1
Menthol is the Most Popular Tobacco Flavor Among Youth
Most insidious among the flavors preferred by youth, are mint and menthol. We applaud your decision
not to exempt this particular flavor from your ordinance. Menthol delivers a pleasant minty taste and
imparts a cooling and soothing sensation. These characteristics successfully mask the harshness of
tobacco, making it easier for beginner smokers and kids to tolerate smoking.
Flavored Tobacco Products Are Pervasive
A 2009 federal law, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, prohibited the sale of
cigarettes with characterizing flavors other than menthol or tobacco, including candy and fruit flavors.
While overall cigarette sales have been declining since the 2009 law, the proportion of smokers using
menthol cigarettes (the only remaining flavored cigarette) has been increasing.2 Menthol cigarettes
comprised 36 percent of the market in 2017.3
The Tobacco Control Act’s prohibition on characterizing flavors did not apply to other tobacco products,
and as a result, tobacco companies have significantly stepped up the introduction and marketing of
flavored non-cigarette tobacco products. In fact, the overall market for flavored tobacco products is
actually growing. In recent years, there has been an explosion of sweet-flavored tobacco products,
especially e-cigarettes and cigars. These products are available in a wide assortment of flavors – like
gummy bear, cotton candy, peanut butter cup, cookies ‘n cream and pop rocks for e-cigarettes and
chocolate, watermelon, lemonade and cherry dynamite for cigars. Tobacco companies are making and
marketing deadly and addictive products that look and taste like a new line of flavors from a Ben and
Jerry’s ice cream store. (See Appendix for examples).
As of 2017, researchers had identified more than 15,500 unique e-cigarette flavors available online.4
Flavors are not just a critical part of the product design, but are a key marketing ploy for the industry.
The 2016 Surgeon General Report on e-cigarettes concluded, “E-cigarettes are marketed by promoting
flavors and using a wide variety of media channels and approaches that have been used in the past for
marketing conventional tobacco products to youth and young adults.”5 The 2016 National Youth
Tobacco Survey found that 78.2 percent of middle and high school students—20.5 million youth—had
been exposed to e-cigarette advertisements from at least one source, an increase from 68.9 percent in
2014.6
Sales of flavored cigars, meanwhile, have increased by nearly 50 percent since 2008, and flavored
cigars made up more than half (52.1%) of the U.S. cigar market in 2015. The number of unique cigar
flavor names more than doubled from 2008 to 2015, from 108 to 250.7 The top five most popular cigar
brands among 12- to 17-year olds who have used cigars – Black & Mild, Swisher Sweets, White Owl,
Backwoods, and Dutch Masters – all come in flavor varieties.8 These products are often sold singly or
can be priced as low as 3 or 4 for 99 cents, making them even more appealing to price-sensitive youth.
Note that cigar smoke is composed of the same toxic and carcinogenic constituents found in cigarette
smoke.9
Although tobacco companies claim to be responding to adult tobacco users’ demand for variety, it’s
clear that flavored tobacco products play a key role in enticing new users, particularly kids, to a lifetime
of addiction. This growing market of flavored tobacco products is undermining progress in reducing
youth tobacco use.
Flavored Tobacco Products Are Popular Among Youth
These sweet products have fueled the popularity of e-cigarettes and cigars among youth. A
government study found that 81 percent of kids who have ever used tobacco products started with a
flavored product. Across all tobacco products, the data is clear: flavored tobacco products are
overwhelmingly used by youth as a starter product, and preference for flavors declines with age.
Recently released data from the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey shows that the youth e-cigarette
epidemic continues to grow--27.5% of high school students are current e-cigarette users, a 135%
increase from just two years ago.10 Just like with cigarettes, menthol e-cigarette are popular among
youth. 63.9% of high school e-cigarette users use menthol or mint flavored e-cigarettes, which are
about as popular as fruit-flavored products.11 Another national survey found that 97% of current youth
e-cigarette users have used a flavored e-cigarette in the past month.12 Moreover, youth cite flavors as
a major reason for their current use of non-cigarette tobacco products, with 70.3% say they use e-
cigarettes “because they come in flavors I like.”13
The Surgeon General has concluded that, “The use of products containing nicotine in any form among
youth, including in e-cigarettes, is unsafe.”14 The manufacturer of JUUL, the most popular e-cigarette,
claims that each JUULpod contains as much nicotine as a pack of twenty cigarettes. Youth use of e-
cigarettes also increases the risk for trying more dangerous combustible products. A 2018 report from
the National Academies of Science, Engineering & Medicine found that “There is substantial evidence
that e-cigarette use increases risk of ever using combustible tobacco cigarettes among youth and
young adults.”15 Therefore, it is critical for any policy restricting sales of flavored tobacco products to
include e-cigarettes.
As the only flavored cigarette left on the market, it’s also no surprise that menthol cigarettes are
popular among youth. Menthol cools and numbs the throat, reducing the harshness of cigarette
smoke, thereby making menthol cigarettes more appealing to youth who are initiating smoking. More
than half of youth smokers use menthol cigarettes, including seven out of ten African American youth
smokers.16 The popularity of menthol flavored cigarettes is also evidenced by brand preference among
youth. According to data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, one in five smokers ages
12-17 prefers Newport cigarettes, a heavily marketed menthol cigarette brand. Preference for
Newport is even higher among African-American youth smokers (69.1 percent) because of targeted
marketing by the tobacco industry. 17 As noted previously, young people who initiate using menthol
cigarettes are more likely to become addicted and become long-term daily smokers.18
Tobacco companies have a long history of targeting and marketing flavored tobacco products to
African Americas and youth. Tobacco industry marketing, often targeted at minority communities, has
been instrumental in increasing the use of menthol products and in the disproportionate use of
menthol products by minority groups and youth. TPSAC concluded that menthol cigarettes are
marketed disproportionately to younger smokers and African Americans.19 Dating back to the 1950s,
the tobacco industry has targeted these communities with marketing for menthol cigarettes through
sponsorship of community and music events, targeted magazine advertising, youthful imagery, and
marketing in the retail environment. This targeting continues today: neighborhoods with
predominantly African American residents have more tobacco retailers and Newport cigarettes are
priced cheaper in those neighborhoods.20 As a result of this targeting, 85 percent of African American
smokers smoke menthol cigarettes, compared to 29 percent of white smokers.21
Use of menthol cigarettes leads to a disproportionate health burden for African Americans. The
tobacco industry’s “investment” in the African American community has had a destructive impact. In
2013, the FDA released a report finding that menthol cigarettes lead to increased smoking initiation
among youth and young adults, greater addiction, and decreased success in quitting smoking.22 Lung
cancer is the second most common cancer in both African American men and women, but it kills more
African Americans than any other type of cancer.23 Decreased cessation success due to the popularity
of menthol cigarettes among African Americans likely contributes to this mortality disparity.24 TPSAC
estimated that by 2020, 4,700 excess deaths in the African American community will be attributable to
menthol cigarettes, and over 460,000 African Americans will have started smoking because of menthol
in cigarettes.
The scientific evidence leaves no doubt that menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products
increase the number of people, particularly kids, who try the product, become addicted and die a
premature death as a result. Prohibiting the sale of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco
products is an important step toward protecting our children from the tobacco industry’s aggressive
efforts to hook children to a deadly, addictive product.
This issue is about common sense and protecting our kids and vulnerable populations. By prohibiting
the sale of all flavored tobacco products in all tobacco retail outlets, Palo Alto would join over fifty
cities and counties in California that are already taking action to end the sale of flavored tobacco
products.
We hope that you will pass the comprehensive ordinance approved by city council at the first
reading, without any exemptions for select retailers. It will save lives.
Sincerely,
Annie Tegen, MPH
Director, U.S. Western Region
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
ategen@tobaccofreekids.org
Appendix
A1: Examples of Flavored Tobacco Products
A2: Examples of Menthol Marketing
Source: TrinketsandTrash.org, CounterTobacco.Org
1 Ambrose, BK, et al., “Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-2014,” Journal of the American Medical Association,
published online October 26, 2015. 2 Villanti, A., et al., “Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004–2014,” Tobacco Control, 25(Suppl
2):ii14-ii20, 2016. 3 U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Cigarette Report for 2017, 2019, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-
cigarette-report-2017-federal-trade-commission-smokeless-tobacco-report/ftc_cigarette_report_2017.pdf [data for top 5 manufacturers only]. 4 Zhu, S-H, et al., “Evolution of Electronic Cigarette Brands from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017: Analysis of Brand Websites,” Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 20(3), published online March 12, 2018.
5 HHS, E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Office on Smoking and Health, 2016. 6 Marynak, K., et al., “Exposure to Electronic Cigarette Advertising Among Middle and High School Students—United States, 2014-
2016,” MMWR 67(10): 294-299, March 16, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/pdfs/mm6710a3-H.pdf. 7 Delnevo, CD, et al., “Changes in the mass-merchandise cigar market since the Tobacco Control Act,” Tobacco Regulatory Science, 3(2
Suppl 1): S8-S16, 2017. 8 SAMHSA's public online data analysis system (PDAS). National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2015,
https://pdas.samhsa.gov/#/survey/NSDUH-2015-
DS0001/crosstab/?row=CGR30BR2&column=CATAG2&weight=ANALWT_C&results_received=true. 9 National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cigars: Health Effects and Trends. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 9, 1998,
http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/Brp/tcrb/monographs/9/m9_complete.pdf. Chang, CM, et al., “Systematic review of cigar smoking and all
cause and smoking related mortality,” BMC Public Health, 2015.
10 FDA, “Trump Administration Combating Epidemic of Youth E-Cigarette Use with Plan to Clear Market of Unauthorized, Non-Tobacco-Flavored E-
Cigarette Products,” September 11, 2019, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/trump-administration-combating-epidemic-youth-e-
cigarette-use-plan-clear-market-unauthorized-
non?utm_source=CTPEblast&utm_medium=email&utm_term=stratout&utm_content=pressrelease&utm_campaign=ctp-vaping.
11 FDA, “Trump Administration Combating Epidemic of Youth E-Cigarette Use with Plan to Clear Market of Unauthorized, Non-Tobacco-Flavored E-
Cigarette Products,” September 11, 2019, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/trump-administration-combating-epidemic-youth-e-
cigarette-use-plan-clear-market-unauthorized-non?utm_source=CTPEblast&utm_medium=email&utm_term=stratout&utm_content=pressrelease&utm_campaign=ctp-vaping.
12 FDA, “Modifications to Compliance Policy for Certain Deemed Products: Guidance for Industry, Draft Guidance,” March 13, 2019,
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM633281.pdf.
13 FDA, “Modifications to Compliance Policy for Certain Deemed Products: Guidance for Industry, Draft Guidance,” March 13, 2019,
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM633281.pdf. 14 HHS, E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. 15 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes, 2018,
http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2018/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes.aspx. 16 Villanti, A., et al., “Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004–2014,” Tobacco Control,
published online October 20, 2016. 17 SAMHSA’s public online data analysis system (PDAS), National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2015.
http://pdas.samhsa.gov/#/survey/NSDUH-2015-
DS0001/crosstab/?row=CIG30BR2&column=CATAG3&control=NEWRACE2&weight=ANALWT_C&results_received=true and
https://pdas.samhsa.gov/#/survey/NSDUH-2015-
DS0001/crosstab/?column=CATAG3&results_received=true&row=CIG30BR2&weight=ANALWT_C.
17 FDA, Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes, 2013,
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PeerReviewofScientificInformationandAssessments/UCM361598.pdf. 18 TPSAC, Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, July 21, 2011.
19 TPSAC, Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, July 21, 2011. 20 See e.g.,: Rodriguez, D, et al., “Predictors of tobacco outlet density nationwide: a geographic analysis,” Tobacco Control 22(5):349-55,
2013. Lee, JG, et al., “Inequalities in tobacco outlet density by race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, 2012, USA: results from the
ASPIRE Study,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71(5):487-492, 2017. Henriksen, L, et al., “Targeted Advertising,
Promotion, and Price for Menthol Cigarettes in California High School Neighborhoods,” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 14(1):116-21,
2012. Moreland-Russell, S, et al., “Disparities and Menthol Marketing: Additional Evidence in Support of Point of Sale Policies,”
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10: 4571-4583, 2013. 21 Villanti, A., et al., “Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004–2014,” Tobacco Control,
published online October 20, 2016. 22 FDA, Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes, 2013. 23 American Cancer Society, “Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2016-2018,” 2016,
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-047403.pdf. 24 Alexander, LA, et al., “Why we must continue to investigate menthol’s role in the African American smoking paradox,” Nicotine &
Tobacco Research 18 (Suppl 1):S91-S101, 2016.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kathleen Flynn <kath.flynn1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 3:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I’m emailing To support the ban on E cigarettes and the flavored products, which You are voting on tonight. As a PAUSD
teacher And parent of young adults, I find this targeting of young people to addict them to a substance we know is
poisonous, is reprehensible. And it is not only poisonous to those making the choice to indulge in smoking these
products, it is also poisonous to all of us who share their space.
We are also watching so many of our neighbors Who use these products become sick and die from Covid. Their blood is
on our hands as we have allowed easy access to these toxins. Finally, the flavoring ban includes menthol, which I
understand has historically been used to target African Americans and keep them addicted. Let’s take a stand against
racism in our vote tonight.
While the argument might be made that selling these products to adults allows them to choose their own fate (and I do
believe in choice), I think there’s a lot to be said for young adults and the developing brain. We have research that shows
that children, especially males, are still developing their Brains, and particularly executive functioning skills, well into
their 20s and early 30s. To expose their brains to some thing this addictive and toxic before they are fully developed and
fully appreciate the consequences of their choices is criminal.
I will hope you will vote in favor of the ban against the E‐cigarettes and the Access to/use of these products in our city.
Kathleen Flynn
PAUSD teacher
Lawrence Lane
Sent from my iPhone
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 8, 2020 4:16 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:dshenster@gmail.com
Subject:Please pass the vaping ordinance as written!!!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Distinguished City Councilmembers and Staff,
I have followed the vaping issue for a while now and am shocked at the negative health effects experienced by people
who vape. The effects are much more severe than smoking and in much quicker time frame. No more dying of lung
cancer in many decades, just watch your lungs fill up with the oily substance contained in vapes and then die of not
having your lungs function. And the addictive potential is staggering, given the enhanced amount of nicotine present.
Our children need to be protected from this dangerous habit. We should remove access to these items across the
nation, let alone Palo Alto. There is no need to grandfather in any smoke shops to sell any substance which harms our
children in so little time. Is a little more profit worth the crippling or death of our children and neighbors?
Please pass the vaping ordinance as written and prevent the sale of vaping products across Palo Alto.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
David Shen
Walter Hays Parent
DATE: June 5, 2020
TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S REQUEST TO CHANGE RATES FOR
ITS RECOVERY BOND APPLICATION (A.20-04-023)
Acronyms you need to know
PG&E: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
CPUC: California Public Utilities Commission
Summary
On April 30, 2020, PG&E filed an application proposing to finance $7 .5 billion in recovery bonds after emerging from
bankruptcy. While this proposal would result in a new charge on customer bills, PG&E is also proposing a credit to
customers that will be funded by shareholders. The credit is expected to equal the charge, meaning there would be no
impact to customer bills.
PG&E will file a second application later in 2020 asking the CPUC to approve issuing the recovery bonds.
Background N n ~
The legislature approved Senate Bill 901, authorizing issuance of bonds to fund the costs of certain catastrop~ wildfi~. c.,_ ~
The proposals would expedite PG&E's path back to an investment-grade credit rating. This is important for culi>mera ~
because it will allow PG&E to continue making critical safety and reliability improvements in its electric system pt thEh-o
lowest cost to customers. co ~ ~
-o c.no
How will the proposal affect my electric rate? :JC o;:::: -..,.,~
On their monthly Energy Statement starting in 2021, customers will see a charge for the recovery bonds as w~.ras ~SJ
credit from PG&E in the same amount. The charge and credit would occur simultaneously, meaning customer~re ~~
expected to experience no change in their monthly bill amount as a result of the bonds. More detailed rate information 1s
being sent directly to customers in a bill insert.
Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential customer using 500 kWh per month would increase from
$124.08 to $126.53, or 2.0%. However, as noted above, customers are also expected to see an offsetting credit in the
same amount.
Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution services
from PG&E. On average, these customers would see an increase of 3.9%. However, as noted above, customers are also
expected to see an offsetting credit in the same amount.
Another category of nonbundled customers is Departing Load. These customers do not receive electric generation,
transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or
CPUC decision. These customers will not be impacted by the proposals in this application.
CPUC process
This application will be assigned to a judge, who will consider proposals and evidence presented during the formal
hearing process. The judge will issue a proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's application, modify it or deny it. Any
CPUC Commissioner may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be
discussed and voted upon by the CPUC Commissioners.
The Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates) is currently reviewing this application. Cal Advocates is the independent
consumer advocate within the CPUC with a statutory mandate to represent customers of investor-owned utilities to obtain
the lowest possible rate for service consistent with safe and reliable service and the state's environmental policy goals.
Cal Advocates has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more
information about Cal Advocates, please call 415-703-1584, email PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov, or visit Cal
Advocates' website at PublicAdvocates.cpuc.ca.gov.
1
Where can I get more information?
CONTACT PG&E
If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. Para mas detalles llame al 1-800-
660-6789 • ~tff~3&11t 1-800-893-9555. For TTY, call 1-800-652-4712.
If you would like a copy of the filing and exhibits, please write to the address below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Recovery Bond Charge (A.20-04-023)
P.O. Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
CONTACT CPUC
You may also get information about this proceeding by contacting the CPUC.
• If you would like to make a comment, please visit cpuc.ca.gov/ A2004023Comment to submit a comment on the CPUC
Docket Card. You can also review other public comments related to this rate request.
• If you have questions about CPUC processes, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office at:
Email: Public.Advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mall: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free}
For TTY, call 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free}
Please reference Recovery Bond Charge (A.20-04-023) in any communications you have with the CPUC regarding this
matter.
2
DATE: June 5, 2020
TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S REQUEST TO INCREASE RATES FOR
THE OAKLAND CLEAN ENERGY INITIATIVE (A.20-04-013)
Acronyms you need to know
PG&E: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
CPUC: California Public Utilities Commission
CAISO: California Independent System Operator
Summary
On April 15, 2020, PG&E filed its application for the Oakland Clean Energy Initiative with the CPUC. The initiative is a
series of projects to improve the reliability of the electric grid in the north Oakland area.
PG&E is requesting a total of approximately $21 million for this initiative to be collected in rates beginning in 2022.
Background
Every year the CAISO does an assessment to ensure reliability of the electric system. The 2017-2018 assessment of the
PG&E Greater Bay Area identified areas in north Oakland that will require transmission improvements. In response,
PG&E is proposing an innovative portfolio of projects to ensure reliability in this area, including energy storage projects.
The CAISO's evaluation found PG&E's proposal to be the most cost-effective way of improving electric reliability in the
north Oakland area.
How will the application affect electric rates?
Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation, transmission and
distribution services. Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential customer using 500 kWh per month
would increase from $122.74 to $123.39, or 0.5%.
Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation are unbundled electric service customers who only receive electric
transmission and distribution services from PG&E. On average, these customers would see an increase of 0.001 %.
Departing Load customers do not receive electric generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However,
these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or CPUC decision. These customers will not be impacted by
this application.
Actual impacts will vary depending on usage.
CPUC process
This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge who will determine how to receive evidence and other
related information necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision.
Evidentiary hearings may be held where parties present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other
parties. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate.
After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed
decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an
alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted on at a scheduled
CPUC Voting Meeting that is open to the public.
The Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates) is currently reviewing this application. Cal Advocates is the independent
consumer advocate within the CPUC with a statutory mandate to represent customers of investor-owned utilities to obtain
the lowest possible rate for service consistent with safe and reliable service and the state's environmental policy goals.
Cal Advocates has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more
information about Cal Advocates, please call 415-703-1584, email PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov, or visit Cal
Advocates' website at PublicAdvocates.cpuc.ca.gov.
1
Where can I get more information?
CONTACT PG&E
If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. Para mas detalles llame al 1-800-
660-6789 • ff'.~~fUt 1-800-893-9555. For TTY, call 1-800-652-4712.
If you would like a copy of the filing and exhibits, please write to the address below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Oakland Clean Energy Initiative (A.20-04-013)
P.O. Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
CONTACT CPUC
You may also get information about this proceeding by contacting the CPUC.
•If you would like to make a comment, please visit cpuc.ca.gov/A2004013Comment to submit a comment on the CPUC
Docket Card. You can also review other public comments related to this rate request.
• If you have questions about CPUC processes, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office at:
Email: Public.Advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mail: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free}. For TTY, call 1-866-836-7825.
Please reference Oakland Clean Energy Initiative (A.20-04-013) in any communications you have with the CPUC
regarding this matter.
2