Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210419plCC701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/19/2021 Document dates: 03/31/2021 – 04/07/2021 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:Comments to City Council members from winter dellenbach - 4-5-21 Council meeting - Item#1 - Police Study Session Date:Sunday, April 4, 2021 9:16:20 AM Attachments:CC PAPD 4-5-21study session .docx 1 To: City Council Members From: Winter Dellenbach Date: 4-5-2021 City Council meeting RE: Item #1, Police Study Session Transparency Encryption My Comments: Our two Palo Alto newspaper publishers wrote four good editorials on the issue of radio scanner encryption - I agree with them. This is a serious issue that was handled as if it were nothing more than a minor software update. The result was a breach of the public trust, the First Amendment and an overreach by the Police Chief. His decision should be reversed given the less onerous option. That option allows keeping person’s private information confidential while letting the bulk of other police scanner information continue to be broadcast as always and is not subject to the DOJ’s rule. Online Police Policies My Comments: There still isn’t full transparency for our police policies posted online. Nine remain redacted as exempt from full disclosure as noted on the second page of the Police Policy Manual. The very same categories of policy are made available to the public in full by the Redwood City Police Department in compliance with the letter and spirit of state transparency law. It seems the difference between partial and full transparency is simply who’s the boss. Administrative Oversight and Accountability Canine Team My Comments: I’m have 3 things to say about this horrible June 25th, 2020 canine “incident”: 1. I’m glad the IPA will have oversight due to an internal affairs investigation being conducted, giving him jurisdiction. And I commend the staff person who decided to release at least some video nearly within the legal deadline after a PRA, though redacted. 2. The many bites to Mr. Alejo’s leg seen in un-redacted video and the mental suffering he lives with are types 2 of injuries that have happened before and will probably happen again to someone else given the record. Can weaponizing a dog be justified because it sometimes makes things easier or safer for police, but can also make it less safe for the rest of us? It’s time to seriously ask that question and decide if we want to continue to use dogs for this purpose. 3. I was shocked no one knew of this incident for six months (city council members, public, press, did the City Manager know?) until the Fourth Estate functioned as it should, found out and told us (why we also need radio scanners). Thank you Palo Alto Daily Post. The PAPD should not be allowed to withhold vital information from elected officials or the public. Doing so is the antithesis of open government, and democracy and must not occur again. The Canine Oxymoron In describing a PAPD canine - “…providing a level of force (less than deadly)…” Then this – Between 2018 and 2020, the Department’s two canine teams completed 248 public relations details in the Palo Alto community. These could be planned community events like National Night Out, block parties, a visit to a class of students, or an impromptu interaction with an interested member of the community. These types of community engagement interactions are a beneficial way to foster trust and understanding between police officers and community members. My Comment: The above quotes are an oxymoron. A police canine provides less than lethal force for the PAPD. That’s why canines are included in Use of Force and Information reports to city council along with such things as Tasers and tear gas. Yet police don’t take Tasers and tear gas launchers to show school children, or to block parties for better PR. I always thought this was a weirdly inappropriate practice, based in denial and carrying a mixed message. I think it should end. Just saying. The City Independent Police Auditor Direction Council gave to Staff on 9-16 -2020 about the IPA For future supplemental memorandums: Direct Staff to include use of force information to the regular Supplemental Report submitted to the City Council as a cover memorandum to each IPA report. 3 The next Use of Force report will be included in the January 2022 Supplemental Report in order to include a full year of data. My Comments: IPA reports are to be delivered to city council twice a year on agreed upon dates per your November 16, 2020 meeting. Yet, it has been decided that council will only get use of force information annually, with the next made available in January 2022. That’s not what council directed, is not as helpful as twice a year and certainly not helpful to delay the next report to 2022. There is no good reason that Use of Information reports shouldn’t be included with the IPA’s twice a year reports as council directed. Most of the report is text narrative, and the bit of data can be adjusted by being halved, then totaled into a full year-end report without being burdensome. Five-year Excerpt from the current Use of Force Information Report Demographic Breakdown of Arrests By Year 2015: White (1,226), Hispanic (918), Black (818), Other (365), Asian (173) 2016: White (879), Hispanic (801), Black (589), Other (290), Asian (84) 2017: White (923), Hispanic (696), Black (597), Other (298), Asian (108) 2018: White (896), Hispanic (772), Black (586), Other (231), Asian (111) 2019: White (706), Hispanic (697), Black (488), Other (219), Asian (91) My Comments: There is no analysis or discussion of the glaring differential in arrests by ethnicity compared to either the demographics of Palo Alto where only 9 more Whites than Hispanics were arrested in 2019. I realize that not everyone arrested resided in Palo Alto, but a lot did, so I offer the following as food for thought. Palo Alto’s ethnicity according to the US Census Bureau, 2019: White 58.9% Hispanic 5.6% Black, 1.8% Asian 32.5% Why the overwhelming number of arrests of Hispanic and Black people compared to White people? Can the number of brown and black people working here or passing through really account for this disparity? This indicates the need for good analysis and interpretation of data to give good informative value from the data. Otherwise, why bother? Renewed and Expanded the Contract with the City’s Independent Police Auditor, 12-2020 
 My Comments: There is no indication of expanded duties of the IPA, only reduction of his services in the 12- 4 16-2019 signed contract which I have a copy from the City Clerk’s office. Perhaps the Chief is counting his Informal Inquiries added much later? Would he specifically tell us what he means by the 2019 and current expanded duties of the IPA’s so council and the public understand what our IPA is doing? This won’t include council directions stemming from its November 16, 2020 meeting that can’t take effect until a new contract is signed with him later this year, nor include his current oversight of the canine bite, as he routinely has purview of all PAPD Internal Affairs investigations, including this one. The reduction of the IPA’s duties was, as you know, the removal of his oversight of sex harassment, race and violence complaints originating internally among officers and staff. I look forward to this oversight and reporting being returned to the IPA. IPA to Review Informal Inquiries My Comment: You have never heard of Informal Inquiries. Me neither until recently. I want to thank the staff member/s who decided to have the IPA provide oversight and reporting on this category of Citizen Complaints created by Chief Jonsen without your knowledge or the publics. I have more to say about this subject but will save it for your meeting with the Independent Police Auditor this summer. Looking Forward The Department is looking forward to launching a new Psychological Emergency Response Team (PERT) in partnership with the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services Department, My Comment: To clarify – At last months Policy and Services meeting, the County PERT staff person attended and made clear that it was uncertain as to when PERT would ever be available to Palo Alto. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 11:29 AM To:Richard Konda Cc:Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Jethroe Moore; William Armaline; Raj Jayadev; Walter Wilson; Derek Grasty; Roxana Marachi; Micael 'mica' Estremera; Elizabeth Kamya; Angelica Cortez; Kyle Dacallos; Virginia Groce-Roberts; Raven Malone; Ray F. Montgomery; Khalid White; Robert Salonga; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; Richard Konda; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Pat Burt; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Curtis Smolar Subject:Charge the Cop, Daily Post, March 31, 2021 by Aram James CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  4  Sent from my iPhone      On Mar 31, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Richard Konda <sccala@pacbell.net> wrote:     Dear District Attorney Rosen: I have been made aware of Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg's use of his dog to bring harm to communities of color. He should be prosecuted for the use of his dog on a sleeping man. His aggressive use of his dog cannot be tolerated. This is not the first instance that Enberg has used his dog to do harm to a Palo Alto resident. We understand the Pastor Jethroe Moore II of the NAACP has requested a meeting with you to further discuss Enberg and we hope that you will honor this request for a meeting. Sincerely, Richard Konda Executive Director Asian Law Alliance On Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 12:22:11 PM PDT, Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> wrote: Good afternoon, request a meeting with you to discuss why you refuse to press charges/fire the Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg, and explain to us how this is not a prosecutable offense when this is the second time this officer has used his K9 to being harm to the communities of color. Regarding below. Currently, there are seven canine-specific cases that mandate giving suspects a warning prior to using a police K-9 as a potential use of force tool. Burrows v. City of Tulsa (10th Circuit), Trammel v. Thomason (11th Circuit), Sorchini v. City of Covina (9th Circuit), and Vathekan v. Prince George's County (MD, 4th Circuit) Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: It is clearly established that it is unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing police dog to seize someone. Furthermore Kuha v. City of Minnetonka (8th Circuit), Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park (MN, 8th Circuit), and Rogers v. City of Kennewick (9th Circuit), Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: The court ruled that there was clearly established case law that failing to give a warning before releasing police dog to bite and hold is unreasonable. Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg failed to announce the use of his dog on a sleeping man is clearly an act of aggression with intent to do harm, shined another light on the systemic failures of policing in Santa Clara County. There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place. 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 10:46 PM To:Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Dave Price; kmartin@padailypost.com; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Jonsen, Robert; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Kaloma Smith; Raj; Jeff Moore; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Joe Simitian; Emily Mibach; DuBois, Tom; Raven Malone; Sunita de Tourreil; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Jeff Rosen; Tanner, Rachael; mark weiss; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Winter Dellenbach; chuck jagoda; Cormack, Alison; Perron, Zachary; David Angel; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Cecilia Taylor; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Lewis james; Josh Becker Subject:Can you point me to the section of your policies and procedures manuel ..700 plus pages where your current interview -interrogation protocol is located ? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Sunday April 4, 2021 start e‐mail at 10:04    Hi Andrew, ( Assistant Palo Alto Police Chief) Hope you are doing well. I was scanning your online policies and  procedures manuel ....and could not locate ...I’m sure it is there —‐current policy on interviews and interrogations of  crime suspects.    Here are a few questions u might be able to answer for me:    1. Do you require all felony interrogations to be taped? Misdemeanor interrogations?      2. Does your department allow or disallow off the camera ....so called softening up interrogations ....that take place off  the camera before a taped interview proceeds?    3. Is your training for interviews and interrogations tactics done in‐house or using the old school tactics taught by InBau  and Reed? ( see in that regard Criminal Interrogation and Confessions ( I have the 4th edition...may be a later ones) by  Fred E. ImBau, John E. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley, Brian C. Jayne    4. Since the Jorge Hernandez case ‐case of alleged coerced confession  by former PAPD officer Natasha Powers —case  settled for $75 000.... has the PAPD changed any interrogation policy or training?    ****side note:  ( Hernandez case was national news at the time and still used as a teaching model re how not to conduct  interrogations. Jorge Hernandez was a Gunn HS student at the time he falsely confessed. Many years later the true  suspect was captured and ultimately plead guilty to the brutal rape of a 94 years woman living at the Palo Alto  Commons at the time of the rape.    5. Unless there is case law I’m not familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court still allows police to lie to crime suspects in order  to obtain confessions. Of course local police agencies can have interrogation policies that prohibit  officers from lying to  suspects during interviews/ interrogations. See question at # 6.    7 6. Can you tell me what the PAPD policy is re officers lying to suspects to obtain confessions? Can lie? Prohibited? Some  gray area in between?    7. Any current cases where the PAPD is being sued for using coercive interrogation tactics?    8. Does the current contract with the IPA include reviewing claims ....complaints that the PAPD engaged in impermissible  interrogation tactics?    9. Any other information you might have that is instructive re the current interview interrogation tactics used by the  PAPD.    Ok, as always I would appreciate discussing this issue with you when you time permits.    Best regards,    Aram James    P.S. I don’t know whether this issue can be discussed at tomorrow’s study session ‐given my late notice re my interest in  the topic....but on the off chance you can address these issue at tomorrow’s study session..... I will CC my e‐mail to the  city council and other potentially interested parties.      8 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 11:56 PM To:Aram James Cc:Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Dave Price; kmartin@padailypost.com; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Jonsen, Robert; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Kaloma Smith; Raj; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Emily Mibach; DuBois, Tom; Raven Malone; Sunita de Tourreil; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Jeff Rosen; Tanner, Rachael; mark weiss; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Winter Dellenbach; chuck jagoda; Cormack, Alison; Perron, Zachary; David Angel; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Cecilia Taylor; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Lewis james; Josh Becker Subject:Re: Can you point me to the section of your policies and procedures manuel ..700 plus pages where your current interview -interrogation protocol is located ? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Aram,    Related to question #4 and for those who would be interested  in what the  PAPD interview / interrogation room looks  like.   BTW first time published photo.       9 10   The PAPD tactics are are very well known and consist of the following:  "In most instances these interrogations, particularly of the suspect, must  be conducted under conditions of privacy and for a reasonable period of  time.   They also frequently require the use of psychological tactics and  techniques that could well be classified as "unethical," if evaluated in  terms of ordinary, everyday social behavior".    Fred E. InBau and John E. Reid sum up the behavior of the PAPD investigation team rather nicely...... Unethical   Another PAPD infamous case, David Carlson   https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Child‐molestation‐charges‐dismissed‐in‐Palo‐Alto‐2878276.php  In this case the PAPD lied saying they has physical proof as evidence.....proving his quilt....  I don’t believe the PAPD has changed any of it’s modus operandi past or current.... I would suspect the tempering of  evidence would go hand in hand with current events as well.....    Best,    Palo Alto Free Press  Sent from my iPad      On Apr 4, 2021, at 10:46 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Sunday April 4, 2021 start e‐mail at 10:04    Hi Andrew, ( Assistant Palo Alto Police Chief)   Hope you are doing well. I was scanning your online policies and procedures manuel ....and could not  locate ...I’m sure it is there —‐current policy on interviews and interrogations of crime suspects.     Here are a few questions u might be able to answer for me:    1. Do you require all felony interrogations to be taped? Misdemeanor interrogations?       2. Does your department allow or disallow off the camera ....so called softening up interrogations ....that  take place off the camera before a taped interview proceeds?     3. Is your training for interviews and interrogations tactics done in‐house or using the old school tactics  taught by InBau and Reed? ( see in that regard Criminal Interrogation and Confessions ( I have the 4th  edition...may be a later ones) by Fred E. ImBau, John E. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley, Brian C. Jayne   11   4. Since the Jorge Hernandez case ‐case of alleged coerced confession  by former PAPD officer Natasha  Powers —case settled for $75 000.... has the PAPD changed any interrogation policy or training?     ****side note:  ( Hernandez case was national news at the time and still used as a teaching model re  how not to conduct interrogations. Jorge Hernandez was a Gunn HS student at the time he falsely  confessed. Many years later the true suspect was captured and ultimately plead guilty to the brutal rape  of a 94 years woman living at the Palo Alto Commons at the time of the rape.     5. Unless there is case law I’m not familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court still allows police to lie to crime  suspects in order to obtain confessions. Of course local police agencies can have interrogation policies  that prohibit  officers from lying to suspects during interviews/ interrogations. See question at # 6.     6. Can you tell me what the PAPD policy is re officers lying to suspects to obtain confessions? Can lie?  Prohibited? Some gray area in between?     7. Any current cases where the PAPD is being sued for using coercive interrogation tactics?     8. Does the current contract with the IPA include reviewing claims ....complaints that the PAPD engaged  in impermissible interrogation tactics?      9. Any other information you might have that is instructive re the current interview interrogation tactics  used by the PAPD.     Ok, as always I would appreciate discussing this issue with you when you time permits.    Best regards,    Aram James    P.S. I don’t know whether this issue can be discussed at tomorrow’s study session ‐given my late notice  re my interest in the topic....but on the off chance you can address these issue at tomorrow’s study  session..... I will CC my e‐mail to the city council and other potentially interested parties.     12 Baumb, Nelly From:Bill Zaumen <bill.zaumen@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 11:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Police radio encryption CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    There seems to be some public interest, particularly on the part of a certain newspaper that likes to print police reports  naming members of the public regardless of guilt or innocence, in the use of encryption with police radios.    The simplest solution is to use encryption for the radios, and mark segments of the data stream to indicate which parts  of the conversation should be private. There are a number of simple ways to do that, but all would require the officer  using the radio to push a button while sending personal information that should be kept private.  At the police station, you would need a server that can remove the parts of the data stream that are marked as sensitive  and use a streaming service to provide public access.  This is not hard: youtube will allow you to "live stream" a  video/audio stream, so the server only has to send the data to youtube and youtube can handle the rest.    An advantage of using a server is that you can put in a time delay so that burglars can't tell where the police are going.   Somewhere around  5 to 15 minutes would probably be sufficient for a delay.    There's a lot of misinformation going around. For instance, an editorial in the Daily Post claimed that the use of police  scanners was important for the civil rights and anti‐war movements. What the editorial failed to mention was that at the  time ‐ the 1950s and 1960s, a radio that would work over a reasonable distance was about the size of a large toaster  oven, and needed a suitable power supply. The easiest ways for the organizers of a large protest to track progress or  determine if there were any problems or slowdowns was to use a police radio scanner. These protests were generally  peaceful, but with people with tight schedules making speeches, you wouldn't want them to have to stand around for an  hour waiting for people to show up when they could be in a nearby hotel room making phone calls or doing whatever  other work was necessary. Today, you can simply use the "push to talk" service cell phone carriers use and have a few  people monitor what is going on, so listening to police scanners is really not necessary.    Regards,            Bill Zaumen          Clara Drive,          Palo Alto      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Ohlmann <bobohlmann@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 12:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:angiebevans@gmail.comhide; Eileen Altman; kelsey@yimbyaction.org; ekeomian@theksp.org; murray@firstpaloalto.com; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; pastor@unilu.church; eratner@pacbell.net; kpweller2@gmail.com; david@highway.org; Christopher H. Kan; breyeschow@fprespa.org; diane.guinta@gmail.com; breyeschow@gmail.com; Kaloma Smith; Matt McDermott; MOVE MV; Riley John; Jake Dodson; pennybarrett@sbcglobal.net; david.bergen@outlook.com; Move Mountain View; kelseybanes@gmail.com; mbt3305@yahoo.com; tpgleeson@asaints.org; alan@stivers.cc Subject:Unhoused members of Palo Alto Community CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thank you for having this topic on your Agenda for the April 5th meeting of the City Council.  I have read the excellent  staff report on this subject and I have a few comments.  The staff report did not recommend to the Council a potential  course of follow‐up actions. I think those actions should include the following:    1. A near‐term staff study to identify other places for safe parking besides religious institution parking lots. For example,  there are many Palo Alto park parking lots not used after sundown, and a selected number could given permission for a  number of Safe Parking client vehicles between sundown and sunup.  Local businesses often have most empty parking  lots at night that could be used for Safe Parking if they were encouraged and provided support by an NGO.  Palo Alto  should provide part of the budget for such an NGO, such as Move Mountain View or other organizations.    2. Staff should develop plans and locations where to build very‐low‐cost subsidized temporary housing for the most  vulnerable unhoused that have very little or no income ‐‐something better than shelters can built such as the prefab  mini‐homes for $9000 apiece with water and electricity supplied. The study should include utilizing a small fraction of  the acreage at Byxbee Park. Funding can be obtained from the State’s Homekey program.  Both the South Lake Tahoe  and Lake Elsinor communities have successfully used those fundings for low‐cost housing.    3. The experience of a few other California cities such as San Diego, Oakland, Berkeley and East Palo Alto should be  gathered and utilized in Palo Alto’s planning.    4. More innovative approaches to long‐term affordable housing, those that require only $1000 to $1500 a month rents  for a 1 bedroom apartment, should be developed that will be improvements over existing programs and give developers  incentive to build such housing.  Such incentives might include some financing from the new Federal stimulus programs.      I’m sure many other innovative approaches will be derived for Council consideration from such a staff study with inputs  from Palo Alto residents.    Thank you,    Robert Ohlmann  372 Creekside Dr.  (Greenmeadow community)  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:151 Individuals and Organizations Sign-on to Support Unhoused Community Members Attachments:April 5th Sign On Letter (3).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council,     The attached letter is on behalf of the 151 individuals and organizations who have signed on to support a more  compassionate discussion on services for unhoused community members, including four guiding principles:   1. The City of Palo Alto should move away from managing vehicle dweller communities through a law enforcement process and move toward viewing it as a social problem that needs to be solved through case work and shared resources.   2. The City of Palo Alto must identify sites and policies to make new deeply affordable homes feasible. 3. Strengthening tenant protections is an important homelessness prevention strategy.   4. Look for fair ways to access more resources for unhoused community members.     Nearly 60% of Americans will experience at least one year of living below the poverty line. Taking these steps to reduce  the harmful impacts of poverty and homelessness, and provide access to safe, stable, affordable housing, can change  more lives than you know. Before you read the full letter, which is attached to this email. Please consider a few of the  resident comments received in this sign‐on letter:  Resident Quote 1‐ "I lived in my van for 3.5 years, no one would have guessed that I was homeless. I was working  for the city of Palo Alto."  Resident Quote 2‐ "Please always remember the homeless and renters when you make council decisions. I have  lived in a one‐bedroom apartment in Palo Alto for close to 40 years. I have never been able to afford a house and  always have to worry about my rent being raised."  Resident Quote 3‐"I'm a Palo Alto teacher, unable to afford housing here and living with parents."    Thank you.   Palo Alto Forward   April 5th, 2021 Re: Agenda Item #2 Discussion of Services for the Unhoused in Palo Alto Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council, The statement of principles below brings together values from Palo Altans in every neighborhood. We come together to support a compassionate approach to services, programs, and interactions with unhoused community members. We urge Palo Alto City Council to make decisions regarding the unhoused community members in Palo Alto with these principles in mind. 1. We must move away from managing vehicle dweller communities through a law enforcement process and move toward viewing it as a social problem that needs to be solved through case work and shared resources. Punitive actions destabilize people and don’t help actually deliver services. They destroy the trust that agencies and case workers have built with families and individuals and make programs and services more difficult to provide. Funding a case worker or local organization to work with vehicle dwellers city-wide would be far more effective and humane than having uniformed police officers deliver "move or tow" notices multiple times per week. 2. The City of Palo Alto must identify sites and policies to make new deeply affordable homes feasible. The only communities that have solved the challenge of homelessness are communities that built housing at all income levels to support our lowest income neighbors. These community members need a place to live and without deeply affordable housing options, there are few safe, stable options. 3. Strengthen tenant protections to provide stability for our community. Over 40% of the unhoused community members interviewed by Downtown Street Teams became unhoused community members after a loss of job or income and over 60% could not find new housing because of the high cost of rent. The City of Palo Alto must pass renter protection policies that keep people in their homes and commit resources to helping tenants re-pay unpaid rent. There is strong evidence that renter protection policies lead to a reduction in homelessness. When the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council reviews these policies later this year, please keep the impact of renter protections in mind. 4. Look for fair ways to access more resources for unhoused community members. The City of Palo Alto has a very limited budget currently but there are City owned lots that could be used for centrally located, service rich safe parking. Further, exploring policies that enable affordable housing on underutilized church lots, signing a "decent housing" pledge, or hosting community meetings to have a deeper dialogue can shift the dynamic in our city without shifting the budget substantially. We have to find ways to promote more compassion among community members and finding solutions to problems can change the dynamic. Thank you so much! List of 151 signers: Organizations Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County CityTeam Community Working Group Crescent Management Co Downtown Streets Team First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, UCC First United Methodist Church Hearts for Homeless If Pigs Could Fly Haiti Jordan International Aid LifeMoves Palo Alto Forward Palo Alto Renters Association Palo Alto Vineyard Church Peninsula for Everyone P St. Mark's Episcopal Church SustainTimes.net Sutter Health University AME Zion Church Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Peninsula branch Individuals Adam Schwartz Adrienne Germain Alex Walker Alexis Crews-Holloway Allie Horevitz Amari Cobb Anat Lotan Angie Evans Anjali Gidwani Ava Lindstrom Audrey DeBruine Benaifer Dastoor Blake Alexander Bret Andersen Carol Lamont Caryn Huberman Yacowitz Catherine Sirois Chris Colohan Chris Saccheri Christopher Kan Dena Mossar Diane Guinta Diane Rolfe Elaine Uang Elana Loeb Ellen Smith Emily Lacroix Enoch Choi Forest Peterson Gabriel Manjarrez Gail Price Gaston Olvera Gina Dalma Gloria Burd Gregory Bell Heidi Schwenk Hillary Thagard Ian Henderson Iris Zhang Iqbal Serang Jamie Hindery Jennifer Gonsalves Jennifer Siddeek Jerry Underdal Jessica Clark Joseph Soultanis Josh Kirmsse Joslyn Leve Joy Sleizer Joyce Beattie Julia Moran Julie Beer Julie Kearney Karen Grove Katherine Weller Kathleen Richter Katie Fantin Kelsey Banes Kemi Oyewole Keri Wagner Kerry Lao Kevin Gallagher Kevin Ma Kristen Podulka Laura Bajuk Lauren Williams Leah Cowan Lenore Delgado Linda Henigin Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Linda Austin Louis Chicoine Marianna Zhang Mark McBride Mary Beth Train Mary Gallagher Mary Nemerov Martha Nieto Matthew McDermott Maura Tarnoff McHale Newport-Berra Michelle Higgins Mohit Mookim Nancy Olson Neil Shea Ozzie Aery Fallick Pamela Federman Pastor Susan Cho Van Riesen Patricia Saffir Patrick Franks Patti Regehr Randy Mont-Reynaud Raven Malone Rebecca Eisenberg Rev. Dr. Eileen Altman Rev. Kaloma A. Smith Reverend Dr. Debra Murray Rob Nielsen Robert Ohlmann Roberta Ahlquist Rohin Ghosh Ryan Pilat Sandra Slater Sandy Perry Saxon Noh Scott Oneil Sean Holman S Sheryl Klein Stefania Pomponi Stephanie Allen Stephanie MacDonald Stephen Levy Sunita de Tourreil Ted Wang Ted Wang Temina Madon Thomas Wasow Tim Clark Tim Persyn Vik Kuttappan Virginia Noh Rachel Liebman Nicole Buccalo Jack Fuller Jessica Menchaca Chelsie Armstrong Robert Smith Kevin Tran Pamela Chesavage Kristine Andarmani Caleb Jones Neighbors from: Barron park California Ave Charleston Meadow College Terrace Community Center Crescent Park Downtown Downtown North Downtown South Duveneck/St. Francis East Palo Alto Evergreen Park Fairmeadow Greenmeadow Leland-Manor Los Arboles Mayfield Meadow Circle Midtown Mitchell Park Old Palo Alto Palo Alto North Palo Verde Portola Valley Professorville Ramos Park SOFA Stanford Triple El University South Ventura Walnut Grove West Charleston +3 former residents who grew up in Palo Alto 1 Baumb, Nelly From:David Hirsch <davidlhirsch@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 3, 2021 6:35 PM To:DuBois, Tom Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Housing Element application Attachments:Housing Element application CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  From:David Hirsch To:DuBois, Tom Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Housing Element application Date:Saturday, April 3, 2021 6:35:26 PM Attachments:Council Ltr. Housing Elementpages.pdf WHY I AM ANXIOUS TO BE SELECTED FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WORKING GROUP David L. Hirsch ARB I have had decades of experience as principal of an architectural firm concentrating on numerous supportive and affordable housing projects and as a developer of for sale housing in transitional neighborhoods in New York City and Peekskill, New York. This work entailed presentations to community groups of proposed housing planning and design projects and listening to community concerns. I recognize the special importance of this year’s Housing Element because, as a realistic assessment of Palo Alto’s statistics and land use, it can provide a meaningful analysis of the opportunities and limitations for the Council to respond to the State’s and the RHNA’s requirement of 6,086 new housing units by 2031. My experience at the ARB, a familiarity with projects which use up-zoning to greater FAR’s utilizing the Housing Incentive Program, the Workforce Housing Program, the planned community and the possible re-introduction of the PC designation will allow me to be especially useful in this report’s analysis of housing potentials. Recognition of the timeliness for new ideas and suggestions for the Council’s consideration will be more significant now than ever, so that Palo Alto is not a laggard in the State’s initiative. But, although this is important, I recognize that any housing planning must be guided by a sensitivity to the very nature of the neighborhood community environment. The important narrative of the Comp Plan and its incorporation in the contextual portions of the zoning resolution ought to be the guide to any new housing, and I am committed to this principle. This past week I was the only ARB member who voted against the proposed Objective Zoning Resolution because it will prohibit important local controls and substitute a binding and limiting overview. While maintaining this principle, I am prepared to work collaboratively with committee members in order to assure the Council that there is a broad consensus committed to this Housing Element Update. April 3, 2021 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, April 2, 2021 4:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing Element Recommended Members CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, When selecting the members of the Housing Element Working Group I would recommend a slightly different prioritization than staff’s emphasis on prioritizing renters over home owners in table 3. Instead focusing on candidates who can most effectively address the city’s future housing need of improving affordable housing opportunities while minimizing the impacts on single family neighborhoods. Having reviewed all the applications, below are folks I know or or know of and would recommend:  Pat Markevitch o Advocate for more affordable housing, PAN, City of Palo Alto IBRIC, Parks and Rec Commission, extensive PAUSD PTA positions  Ed Lauing o PTC and Parks & Rec Commissions, chairs of both extensive work in community with affordable housing and kids sports  Arthur Keller o Co-chair of City of Palo Alto Comp Plan Update, PTC extensive work on various county boards. His brother works in the affordable housing sector so AK knows a lot about that  Keith Reckdahl o Parks and Rec Commission, NVCAP and XCAP o Add housing while considering existing residents. Great to work with.  Melania Grondel o College Terrace. From the Netherlands. Great to work with. Good Neighborhood representative with a keen interest in state housing mandates  Anupa Bajwa o NASA Scientist/PhD, Stanford Graduate School of Business Corporate LEAD certificate o PAUSD Parcel Tax/LCAP. Gunn Foundation o Personal experience in impacts on large commercial project next to her SFH in Ventura  Hamilton Hitchings o I wrote this email so I’m biased by recommending myself :-) o Comp Plan Update Citizen Advisory Committee o PTAC & ESV (CERT & NPC) o Former renter in South Palo Alto and Midtown, current home owner, SFH Palo Alto landlord. Invested in apartment building LLCs. In terms of people I don’t know personally, I believe Stanford representation will be very important. However, during the GUP I found the Stanford land use representatives did not fully represent the interests of many of the stakeholders in the Stanford Community including staff and students. Thus I recommend only appointing one Stanford land use representative and also a Stanford student who is an affordable housing advocate and there is a promising applicant in this regard:  Jessica von Borck o Stanford Director of Land Use o Responsible for Stanford lands outside of the academic campus (e.g. Palo Alto) 3  Robert Chun o First year JD/MBA Stanford student. Also a Stanford undergrad o Renter o Studies focused on affordable housing and land use o Led large public service group called Stanford in Government partnering with local community and government o Worked as a full-time consultant for philanthropic foundations and social service providers working with vulnerable youth and families o Studying affordable housing and land use. Wants to prioritize housing for teachers, first responders & students. Active in local politics. Youngish I also think it would be helpful to have an affordable housing and market rate multi-family developer on the committee and thus I would recommend adding:  Sheryl Klein - COO Alta Housing, PAF Board 2020, JCC  John Hickey - Market Rate Housing Director of Development at Summer Hill Housing - developer, palo alto resident, attorney for 15 years I believe Cara brings a lot of California Housing legal expertise to the table although she is more of a growth advocate than I am:  Cara Silver o Former Senior Assistant City Attorney for Palo Alto and current Portola Valley City Attorney. o Worked on the previous 2 housing elements. Current Palo Alto resident. o Extensive knowledge of the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), proposed SB 50, SB 35, AB 1505 (inclusionary housing “Palmer fix”), State Density Bonus law and recent updates to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law and housing element law o Favors increased density near bus stops Another affordable housing advocate whom I don’t know but liked her profile was:  Dina Bartelo o WeHope (homeless provider) Development Director. Unhoused Stakeholder. o Masters UCLA in Public Policy o Renter These are just my recommendations based on my research and knowledge and I hope you find them as helpful input. 4 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 11:34 AM To:Council, City Cc:Wong, Tim; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Housing working group CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and council members, In a recent PA online thread there were some erroneous comments posted about one applicant (Angie Evans) and one of the organizations we both participate in (Palo Alto Forward). Angie Evans came to work with Palo Alto Forward about 18 months ago as one of her consulting projects around housing and community engagement. Prior to this Angie worked for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County on housing and community engagement issues and was a perfect fit for PAF. Immediately after Angie joined us, PAF successfully (with Angie as the lead) applied for a grant from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to engage with and listen to voices in Palo Alto often left out of housing discussions. This outreach and experience is a perfect match with the Housing Element working group and HCD requirements for a successful adopted Housing Element. Angie's other work for PAF includes organizing events on housing issues and communicating with our members and mailing list about current housing, transportation and environment/sustainability issues in Palo Alto. Our events and mailings are free to all and we welcome anyone interested to check them out. Angie's other qualifications (she is a renter) are listed on her application. Two statements in the online thread are false. The first is that Angie misrepresented her place of residence on a Nextdoor thread. The other claim was that she was a paid lobbyist. Please contact me if you want details. I will speak for myself now. I am a housing advocate and while publicly applauding council for recent actions on specific housing proposals, I disagree with many policy positions of the majority with regard to state housing polices, HCD's and ABAG's work on the RHNA and what I think is at the core of our disagreements--the meaning of local control. Local control means that Palo Alto should decide how best to develop a Housing Element that complies with state law. it does not mean that Palo Alto can disregard state law because it disagrees with the law any more than Palo Alto can allow 10 year olds to drive or buy alcohol. I believe this as a board member of PAF, as a board member of the San Jose SPUR policy board, as a member and donor to SV@Home and as a professional in this field. Let me give you an example to clarify. I support allowing 2-4 unit housing in R-1 neighborhoods with certain safeguards. Many council members do not. We have a policy disagreement. But for the Housing Element the questions is whether these units and the zoning to make them legal is needed to develop 5 enough sites for housing or whether there are better alternatives. Palo Altans should explore and decide this issue. How to comply, not whether to comply makes local control a real concept. I served on advisory committees for HCD and DOF and professionally worked with The Southern California regional planning agency (SCAG) on RHNA and housing element issues. If council wants clarity on how this will play out, review the 50 plus appeals at SCAG and watch their attorneys patiently but firmly remind disputants that not wanting housing, saying you do not have enough land or water, citing the Embarcadero Institute report were NOT grounds for appeal. Council does have legitimate avenues for appeal. I think maybe only Pat was serving back in the last RHNA cycle but I worked with the county staff to have them reallocate a site in PA to be the responsibility of Stanford not the city. So the council has every right to make sure that sites are correctly allocated to PA and there may be other legitimate technical grounds for appeal to ABAG down the line. Finally, I hope that whomever the council chooses to appoint, that they appoint people who are on board with developing a Housing Element that complies with the detailed requirements of the law as set forth clearly by staff in the agenda item staff memo. Many applicants have several relevant activities i their background as dio Angie and I. Stephen Levy 50 year resident of PA board member PAF chair League of Women Voters Housing and Transportation committee' Director Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Anya Bida <anya.bida@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 6:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Introducing Anya Bida - Housing Element Advisory Group Candidate #17 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,     I want to introduce myself ‐ Anya Bida ‐ as Candidate #17 for the Advisory Housing Element Working Group. It's great to  see so much interest by so many candidates.     I am a Palo Alto renter since 2016, am employed in Software Development at Salesforce and have a child progressing  through PAUSD elementary, middle, and high schools. While I don't have experience in city planning, I want to become  active in city participation. I have a stake in this community ‐ it has become my home. I'd like to stay here for the long  term. I am a dedicated saver and one day hope to become a Palo Alto homeowner. Therefore I have a stake in the city  building more residential housing.     As I've talked to people about the Housing Element, I understand in some ways it is a required state process, and one  the city will complete to stay in compliance. What I'd hope for, as a member of the Advisory Group, is that our work will  be meaningful in two ways:            First, that the group's suggested policies and sites will be acceptable to the community and the City Council.             Second, that the group will be effective in supporting the creation of new housing.      I am very curious and want to represent people like myself. I want to learn about the residential housing constraints and  how I can make things better. I'm committed to my city. I'm the problem solving type. I look forward to learning and  working together on this balancing act.     Very Truly Yours,  Anya   ‐‐   Anya T. Bida, PHD   LinkedIn      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 11:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Petition....thank you     Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         From: Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:27 AM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Petition....thank you    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Finance Committee and Councilmembers Cormack, Burt and Filseth,          Please put the following fee changes on your agendafor action before the end of FY21.1. Adopt a lower fee schedule for public parking permits in the commercial cores of University and California Avenue for service workers who have been excluded from core commercial parking.This change will provide equitable use of public parking for those service workers who have served us so well for so many years and during the Covid emergency conditions.2. Increase by 100% the lower fee schedule for comparable non-resident permits to create the parking incentives embraced by the Parking and Transportation Commission on March 31.3. Add $400 to the non-resident fee schedule for high wage worker so that there is an incentive to optimize lower cost public parking in commercial cores 2 instead of residential neighborhood streets.It is our understanding that city staff in the Office of Transportation are in general agreement with these changes. Now is the time to implement equitable incentives for these workers and RPP neighborhood residents.      3 Baumb, Nelly From:Mike Swenson <ms1ca@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 12:19 AM To:Viviana.Becerra@asm.ca.gov; maheen.ahmed@asm.ca.gov Cc:info@aaci.org; info@aacre.org; yapaofficers@gmail.com; aparke@asianlawalliance.org; katherine@asianlawalliance.org; info@sanjosenaacp.org; moore2j@att.net; info@avnaacp.org; naacpla@sbcglobal.net; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; rtran@ci.milpitas.ca.gov; echua@ci.milpitas.ca.gov; kdominguez@ci.milpitas.ca.gov; aphan@ci.milpitas.ca.gov; lstone@scu.edu; esteinman@scu.edu; ncip@scu.edu; ncip-media@scu.edu; marmstrong@scu.edu; pcain@scu.edu; mwflynn@scu.edu; mrussell@scu.edu; DLSloss@scu.edu; Richard.cohen@splcenter.org; Jim.knoepp@splceter.org; alonzobraggs@yahoo.com; david.gomez@sanjoseca.gov; cassidy.kohl@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov; christina.m.ramos@sanjoseca.gov; district4@sanjoseca.gov; Adan.Lupercio@Sanjoseca.gov; Angel.Madero@Sanjoseca.gov; Louansee.Moua@sanjoseca.gov; district7@sanjoseca.gov; nancy.le@sanjoseca.gov; Camryn.Heinkel@sanjoseca.gov; district10@sanjoseca.gov; Human Relations Commission Subject:Fw: DA Rosen proves officer used excessive force but refuses to prosecute CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021, 12:07:14 AM PDT Subject: DA Rosen proves officer used excessive force but refuses to prosecute Rob Bunta California Assemblyman and Attorney General Nominee Mr. Bunta, DA Jeff Rosen has stated that Palo Alto Police Offirer Enberg did not violate the law when Enberg ordered his dog to attack Alejo. California PC states that “Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person,” has violated the law. 4 Yes or No was it a necessity that Officer Enberg order his dog to attack a sleeping suspect in order to apprehend the suspect? Keep in mind the actual suspect was apprehended later without incident, without the use of force https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_oX1W6T4Bc The Dog was waging its tail hovering over the sleeping suspect when Enberg found the suspect and issued the order to bite. Rosen cannot deny this fact. If Rosen says yes everyone will call him a liar. If Rosen says no then he has to prosecute. Rosen attempts to justify the use of force by stating that Alejo kicked the Dog which justified the use of force. Fact One: Alejo was sleeping when Enberg ordered the dog to attack and bite. Alejo did not kick the dog before being attacked before being given an opportunity to follow an order. Fact Two: it is a crime to kick a police dog, PC 600. Fact Three: kicking the dog would be resisting arrest/obstruction a violation of PC 148 5 DA Rosen is obligated to charge and prosecute Alejo for the crimes of battery on a police dog and resisting arrest. Rosen wants it both ways. The Rule of Law does not allow for having it both ways. Either Enberg violated the law or Alejo violated the law. Pursuant to the Rule of Law Rosen must charge one or the other with a crime. An assault and battery took place, this is not an accident. The reason why Rosen will not prosecute Alejo is because everyone knows from the video that Alejo was acting is lawful self-defense. Rosen knows Alejo did not commit a crime and therefore knows that officer Enberg must have committed a crime. The reason why Rosen will not prosecute officer Enberg is because he believes the use of force would have been justified against the actual suspect, hence Rosen does not enforce the Rule of Law or uphold the Constitution because even if it were the actual suspect the use of force would have been excessive. According to DA Rosen's legal logic had George Floyd rolled over and kicked the officers off of him after Ofc. Chauvin kneeled on his neck for 3 minutes Floyd would have been guilty of resisting arrest and battery on a police officer. 6 ==================== AB 886 Criminal Justice Reform Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com>   Sun, Mar 28, 10:07 PM (7 days ago)    to Viviana.Becerra, maheen.ahmed, leandra.mekata, Edwin.Saucedo, Jordan.Panana-Carbajal, Freddie.Quintana, Christine.Aurre, Brandy.Chappell, cynthia.alvarez, Jim.Evans, Jessica.Bartholow, Richard.Stapler, Annie.Chou, Gustavo.Arroyo, Krista.Pfefferkorn, sue.          Rob Bunta California Assemblyman and Attorney General Nominee Mr. Bunta, So long as those entrusted with the most authority to enforce the law allow their personal bias and prejudice to influence their decisions to deny equal protection of the law to some people some of the time, then all criminal justice reform is meaningless. 7 Dog Attack Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_oX1W6T4Bc https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/03/17/video-body-cam-footage-shows-police-k9-attack-mount-view- man-sleeping-on-his-own-property/ Windshield Smash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtuIzpMohyA https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/questions-surround-palo-alto-police-officers-use-of-force/153019/ 8 Santa Clara county district attorney Jeff Rosen has stated he's not going to prosecute the officers who assaulted and battered Joel Domingo Alejo even though Rosen is prosecuting Sergeant Wayne benitez for assaulting and battering Alvarez. DA Rosen stated that former sgt. Benitez violated victim Gustavo Alvarez’s civil rights. If you place the videos of the Alvarez and the Alejo attacks side by side it's clear that the Alejo attack is 10 times more egregious in violating the law and the Constitution than the Alvarez attack. Even if the officers had encountered the actual suspect they were looking for its still excessive force according to the law and according to Rosen's own standard, which is proof that DA Rosen’s judgment is being influenced by his personal bias and prejudice. How does DA Rosen justify not prosecuting the officers in the dog mauling attack? 9 Alejo was not fleeing or resisting when the dog found him, in fact Alejo wasn't even moving and therefore not a threat to the dog or the officers and the dog was wagging his tail in a docile manner until the order to bite was given. 10 Alejo was not given an opportunity to obey any commands by the officer and did not threaten or resist or delay the officer in his official capacity yet the officer decided to attack him with a police dog without ever giving him an opportunity to comply with an order to surrender. If there was no police dog and the officer decided to start hitting the subject with a baton while the subject was still sleeping without giving any opportunity to surrender would you justify the initial strike by the police officer? The cop attacked a man who was sleeping, what is DA Rosen’s legal justification for not prosecuting the officer? At the very least the dog mauling is criminal negligence by attacking and causing harm to an unidentified target, the equivalent of firing a gun into a house hoping to hit a suspect even though there are other people in the house that could be hit who are not the suspect. California PC 149. 11 Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 263. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=149. ARTICLE V EXECUTIVE [SECTION 1 - SEC. 14] ( Article 5 added Nov. 8, 1966, by Prop. 1-a. Res.Ch. 139, 1966 1st Ex. Sess. ) SEC. 13. Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the Attorney General may seem advisable. Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a district attorney. When required by the public interest or directed by the Governor, the Attorney General shall assist any district attorney in the discharge of the duties of that office. (Sec. 13 amended Nov. 5, 1974, by Prop. 11. Res.Ch. 96, 1974.) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.% 2013.&article=V Rosen will not prosecute Benitez https://padailypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/padailypost.com/2020/06/14/da-wont-charge-ex- cop-in-videotaped- beating/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=161610755448 88&amp_ct=1616107565298&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251% 24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fpadailypost.com%2F2020%2F06%2F14%2Fda-wont-charge-ex-cop- in-videotaped-beating%2F Rosen will prosecute Benitez https://padailypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/padailypost.com/2020/10/06/retired-palo-alto- police-sergeant-wayne-benitez-charged-with- 12 assault/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=161610835009 11&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A %2F%2Fpadailypost.com%2F2020%2F10%2F06%2Fretired-palo-alto-police-sergeant-wayne-benitez- charged-with-assault%2F Tony Ciampi 13 Baumb, Nelly From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 2:09 PM To:Jethroe Moore Cc:Rosen, Jeff; William Armaline; Raj Jayadev; EXT.Richard.Konda; <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson; Derek Grasty; Roxana Marachi; Micael 'mica' Estremera; Elizabeth Kamya; Angelica Cortez; Kyle Dacallos; Virginia Groce-Roberts; Raven Malone; revray; Khalid White; Robert Salonga; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; Chavez, Cindy; Simitian, Joe; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; Michael Gennaco; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Curtis Smolar; Blanca Bosquez; Gregorio, Rose Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Happy Easter and Passover to All! Thank you for responding DA Rosen. Thank you for the Peel Principles Rev. Moore. There's a definite trend or obvious pattern to the events so far. Too often in the past and in this case, there appears to be a strongly held belief in the values of obfuscation, hiding, covering up. As we know from Watergate and other political disasters, the cover up can get you in more trouble than what you're covering up. In Palo Alto, police have not been forthcoming about complaints of police abuse of civilians. Two obvious examples: the surveillance camera outside Happy Donuts disagreed quite a bit with the offending officer's initial much less self-incriminating written report. This disagreement would suggest that the officer lied. The second example is in this very case: Officer Enberge clumsily added two "stop resisting" commands to Senor Alejo at the end of his commanding the dog to bite several times. There may be other explanations for those additions, but the obvious interpretation is the officer was trying to paint his attack activities as responses to Senor Aleho's resisting the officers (which there seems to be no evidence of). In other words, with his words, he was trying to immunize himself from actions he recognized as illegal and indefensible. Police know their attacks are wrong, illegal, and indensible In taking so long to admit to the existence of the problem, taking no action to question or respond to the attack actions of Officer Enberg in this instance or the attack on the high school student when he was also the controlling officer, the length of time for the DA to respond, and the decision NOT to prosecute are all consistent with a philosophy of denial, silence, and waiting for it all to go away. That's been the story in this and ALL cases where police have attacked civilians without justifiable cause in the city of Palo Alto. I suggest if any of the slow-to-respond institutions (PAPD, SCCDA) would really like to change their image and the way we all look at them, they need to take remedial and communication actions immediately. Police-- charge officers like Enberg who commit repeated acts of attack. Don't prejudge the futility of prosecution, DA Rosen-- DO your job, bring the charges, and let the court do its job. Thank you, 14 Chuck Jagoda   On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 11:40 AM Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> wrote:  April 4, 2021 Jeff Rosen DA of Santa Clara County West Wing, 70 W Hedding St, San Jose, CA 95110 Re; Meeting Request Dear Mr. Rosen: A letter is not a meeting. The police had a chance to meet with you before your charging decision in the Alejo case. The community only heard about the attack 6-7 months after it occurred and because Mr. Alejo filed a claim for 20 million dollars with the city of Mountain View and the city of Palo Alto and because the Daily Post discovered the complaint and then acted to expose the attack. The Post then filed a California Public Records Request for release of the video footage of the incident from both involved police departments(PAPD and MVPD). Both departments delayed release of the video footage in violation of the CPRA (California Public Records Act). Your office had the opportunity to review the video footage and the law enforcement version of the incident before the public even heard of the canine attack. Your office reviewed the video footage and case without input from community members and your office had already decided Not to file charges long before the community even knew of this incident (all done behind closed doors and with the hope the public would never even know the incident occurred). (As an aside, this secrecy and lack of transparency by your office is counter to your prior promises to be a forwarding thinking and transparent public official. Your apparent complicity with the PAPD in keeping this matter buried is not acceptable and must not be repeated.) We still demand a meeting where we can give you our input in person let you hear how we view the video footage, the stop resisting ploy, the DA’s outrageous claim that Alejo deserved what he got because his first reaction to being awaken by an unknown animal was to try to get the animal off of him. And even if the police can make some plausible argument that a first bite of Mr. Alejo was appropriate certainly the additional bites were unjustified and constitute excessive force. In fact, under People v Sears 62 Cal. 2d 737 (1965) the prosecution is entitled to submit to the court a tailored, to the facts of the case, instruction to the jury, as an example: If you find that the police in this situation were justified in initially releasing the dog on the victim, but subsequently allowed the canine to inflict injury beyond what was necessary to detain Mr. Alejo (the infliction of unnecessary and gratuitous pain and injury) you can still convict officer Enberg with assault & battery, assault & battery under color of authority and other related crimes. Similarly, the jury could be instructed as follows: If you find that Mr. Alejo was not resisting arrest and that the officers on video footage were setting up a defense for their conduct, knowing they were being recorded, by repeatedly saying “stop resisting” “stop resisting “ you can infer that the officer or officers had a consciousness of guilty regarding the conduct they were engaged in and you may consider this evidence in determining whether the officer(s) is guilt of the charge or charges in this matter. 15 We believe you should listen to the community allow us to review the police reports, the video footage, and other evidence and allow us to offer you our input re why a jury of 12 members of our diverse community could in fact return a verdict of guilty in this case. The police earn public support by respecting community principles. Winning public approval requires hard work to build reputation: enforcing the laws impartially, hiring officers who represent and understand the community, and using force only as a last resort. Not the District Attorney, He is voted on by the people and when he fails, he will be voted out by the people. Sincerely, The Nine Principles of Sir Robert Peel Sir Robert Peel was instrumental in having the Act for Improving the Police in and Near the Metropolis (the Metropolitan Police Act) passed in the English Parliament in 1829. Peel had a specific vision as to the principles under which the police should operate. The nine principles that he penned nearly 200 years ago are just as important to proper police operations today as they were in early nineteenth-century London. 1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.  The ability of the police to perform their duties depends on public approval of police actions.  Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.  The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity to use physical force.  Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.  Police use of physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advise and warning is found to be insufficient. 16  Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.  Police should always direct their attention strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.  The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. On Friday, April 2, 2021, 01:38:13 PM PDT, Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org> wrote: Dear Reverend Moore, I hope you and your family are well. I wish you a Happy Easter. Thank you for your email. Attached is my response. Sincerely, 17 Jeffrey F. Rosen District Attorney Santa Clara County Tel. (408) 792-2855 Pronouns: He/Him/His https://outandequal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Pronouns-Guide.pdf From: Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 12:22 PM To: Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Boyarsky, Jay <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org> Cc: William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com>; Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>; EXT.Richard.Konda <sccala@pacbell.net>; <abjpd1@gmail.com> <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson <walterlwilson@hotmail.com>; Derek Grasty <wmdgrasty@gmail.com>; Roxana Marachi <roxana.marachi@gmail.com>; Micael 'mica' Estremera <mr.estremera@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Kamya <ekamya@ifpte21.org>; Angelica Cortez <angelica@leadfilipino.org>; Kyle Dacallos <kyledacallos@gmail.com>; Virginia Groce-Roberts <vgroce_roberts@yahoo.com>; Raven Malone <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com>; revray <revray@pactsj.org>; Khalid White <khalid.white@sjcc.edu>; Robert Salonga <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>; Jeff Moore <moorej@esuhsd.org>; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council <council@redwoodcity.org>; Anna Griffin <griffinam@sbcglobal.net>; robert.jonsen <robert.jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>; Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; ed.shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Eduardo Guilarte <eduardoguilarte@gmail.com>; Cecilia <CTTaylor@menlopark.org>; Donald Mendoza <donald.mendoza@menlo.edu>; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>; Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@gmail.com>; Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>; Planning Cmmission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>; chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>; Charisse 18 Domingo <charisse@siliconvalleydebug.org>; Molly <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>; O'Neal, Molly <Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org>; Bill Johnson <Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>; Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>; Chavez, Cindy <Cindy.Chavez@bos.sccgov.org>; Simitian, Joe <Joe.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; Ellenberg, Supervisor <supervisor.ellenberg@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Sean James <seanchiba650@gmail.com>; Perron, Zachary <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org>; tom.dubois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>; eric.filseth <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>; rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Rodriguez, Miguel <miguel.rodriguez@pdo.sccgov.org>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; mark weiss <Earwopa@yahoo.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Michele <james_michele@hotmail.com>; yolanda <yolanda@rocketmail.com>; Patrice Ventresca <patriceventresca@gmail.com>; Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Curtis Smolar <csmolar@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use Good afternoon, request a meeting with you to discuss why you refuse to press charges/fire the Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg, and explain to us how this is not a prosecutable offense when this is the second time this officer has used his K9 to being harm to the communities of color. Regarding below. Currently, there are seven canine-specific cases that mandate giving suspects a warning prior to using a police K-9 as a potential use of force tool. Burrows v. City of Tulsa (10th Circuit), Trammel v. Thomason (11th Circuit), Sorchini v. City of Covina (9th Circuit), and Vathekan v. Prince George's County (MD, 4th Circuit) Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: It is clearly established that it is unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing police dog to seize someone. Furthermore Kuha v. City of Minnetonka (8th Circuit), Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park (MN, 8th Circuit), and Rogers v. City of Kennewick (9th Circuit), Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: The court ruled that there was clearly established case law that failing to give a warning before releasing police dog to bite and hold is unreasonable. Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg failed to announce the use of his dog on a sleeping man is clearly an act of aggression with intent to do harm, shined another light on the systemic failures of policing in Santa Clara County. There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place.       ‐‐   Chuck  19 Baumb, Nelly From:walter wilson <walterlwilson@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 2, 2021 2:32 PM To:Rosen, Jeff; moore2j Cc:William Armaline; Raj Jayadev; EXT.Richard.Konda; <abjpd1@gmail.com>; Derek Grasty; Roxana Marachi; Micael 'mica' Estremera; Elizabeth Kamya; Angelica Cortez; Kyle Dacallos; Virginia Groce- Roberts; Raven Malone; revray; Khalid White; Robert Salonga; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; Chavez, Cindy; Simitian, Joe; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; Michael Gennaco; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Curtis Smolar Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Sent from Outlook    From: Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>  Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 1:38 PM  To: moore2j <moore2j@att.net>  Cc: William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com>; Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>; EXT.Richard.Konda  <sccala@pacbell.net>; <abjpd1@gmail.com> <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson <walterlwilson@hotmail.com>; Derek  Grasty <wmdgrasty@gmail.com>; Roxana Marachi <roxana.marachi@gmail.com>; Micael 'mica' Estremera  <mr.estremera@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Kamya <ekamya@ifpte21.org>; Angelica Cortez <angelica@leadfilipino.org>;  Kyle Dacallos <kyledacallos@gmail.com>; Virginia Groce‐Roberts <vgroce_roberts@yahoo.com>; Raven Malone  <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com>; revray <revray@pactsj.org>; Khalid White <khalid.white@sjcc.edu>; Robert Salonga  <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>; Roberta  Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>; Jeff Moore <moorej@esuhsd.org>; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org  <rkonda@asianlawalliance.org>; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; citycouncil@mountainview.gov  <citycouncil@mountainview.gov>; city.council@menlopark.org <city.council@menlopark.org>; GRP‐City Council  <council@redwoodcity.org>; Anna Griffin <griffinam@sbcglobal.net>; robert.jonsen  <robert.jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>; Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; ed.shikada  <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Eduardo Guilarte <eduardoguilarte@gmail.com>; Cecilia <CTTaylor@menlopark.org>;  Donald Mendoza <donald.mendoza@menlo.edu>; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>;  Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@gmail.com>; Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kaloma Smith  <pastor@universityamez.com>; Planning Cmmission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; ParkRec Commission  <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; pat@patburt.org <pat@patburt.org>; Josh Becker  <becker.josh@gmail.com>; chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>; Charisse Domingo  <charisse@siliconvalleydebug.org>; Molly <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>; O'Neal, Molly  <Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org>; Bill Johnson <Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com>; Gennady Sheyner  <gsheyner@paweekly.com>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>; Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>; Chavez, Cindy  20 <Cindy.Chavez@bos.sccgov.org>; Simitian, Joe <Joe.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; Ellenberg, Supervisor  <supervisor.ellenberg@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Sean James <seanchiba650@gmail.com>; Perron, Zachary  <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org>; tom.dubois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>; eric.filseth  <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>; rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org <rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org>; Rodriguez,  Miguel <miguel.rodriguez@pdo.sccgov.org>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; mark weiss  <Earwopa@yahoo.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Michele  <james_michele@hotmail.com>; yolanda <yolanda@rocketmail.com>; Patrice Ventresca  <patriceventresca@gmail.com>; Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Curtis Smolar  <csmolar@gmail.com>  Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use      Dear Reverend Moore,     I hope you and your family are well.     I wish you a Happy Easter.     Thank you for your email.       Attached is my response.     Sincerely,                Jeffrey F. Rosen  District Attorney  Santa Clara County  Tel. (408) 792‐2855     Pronouns: He/Him/His  https://outandequal.org/wp‐content/uploads/2020/05/Pronouns‐Guide.pdf     From: Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net>   Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 12:22 PM  To: Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Boyarsky, Jay <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>  Cc: William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com>; Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>; EXT.Richard.Konda  <sccala@pacbell.net>; <abjpd1@gmail.com> <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson <walterlwilson@hotmail.com>; Derek  Grasty <wmdgrasty@gmail.com>; Roxana Marachi <roxana.marachi@gmail.com>; Micael 'mica' Estremera  <mr.estremera@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Kamya <ekamya@ifpte21.org>; Angelica Cortez <angelica@leadfilipino.org>;  Kyle Dacallos <kyledacallos@gmail.com>; Virginia Groce‐Roberts <vgroce_roberts@yahoo.com>; Raven Malone  <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com>; revray <revray@pactsj.org>; Khalid White <khalid.white@sjcc.edu>; Robert Salonga  <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>;  Jeff Moore <moorej@esuhsd.org>; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;  citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP‐City Council <council@redwoodcity.org>; Anna Griffin  <griffinam@sbcglobal.net>; robert.jonsen <robert.jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>; Andrew  <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; ed.shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Eduardo Guilarte  <eduardoguilarte@gmail.com>; Cecilia <CTTaylor@menlopark.org>; Donald Mendoza <donald.mendoza@menlo.edu>;  WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>; Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@gmail.com>; Human  Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>; Planning Cmmission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>;  pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>; chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>; Charisse Domingo  21 <charisse@siliconvalleydebug.org>; Molly <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>; O'Neal, Molly  <Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org>; Bill Johnson <Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com>; Gennady Sheyner  <gsheyner@paweekly.com>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>; Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>; Chavez, Cindy  <Cindy.Chavez@bos.sccgov.org>; Simitian, Joe <Joe.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; Ellenberg, Supervisor  <supervisor.ellenberg@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Sean James <seanchiba650@gmail.com>; Perron, Zachary  <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org>; tom.dubois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>; eric.filseth  <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>; rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Rodriguez, Miguel  <miguel.rodriguez@pdo.sccgov.org>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; mark weiss <Earwopa@yahoo.com>;  Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Michele <james_michele@hotmail.com>; yolanda  <yolanda@rocketmail.com>; Patrice Ventresca <patriceventresca@gmail.com>; Palo Alto Free Press  <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Curtis Smolar <csmolar@gmail.com>  Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use     Good afternoon, request a meeting with you to discuss why you refuse to press charges/fire the Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg, and explain to us how this is not a prosecutable offense when this is the second time this officer has used his K9 to being harm to the communities of color. Regarding below.   Currently, there are seven canine-specific cases that mandate giving suspects a warning prior to using a police K-9 as a potential use of force tool. Burrows v. City of Tulsa (10th Circuit), Trammel v. Thomason (11th Circuit), Sorchini v. City of Covina (9th Circuit), and Vathekan v. Prince George's County (MD, 4th Circuit) Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: It is clearly established that it is unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing police dog to seize someone.  Furthermore Kuha v. City of Minnetonka (8th Circuit), Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park (MN, 8th Circuit), and Rogers v. City of Kennewick (9th Circuit), Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: The court ruled that there was clearly established case law that failing to give a warning before releasing police dog to bite and hold is unreasonable.   Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg failed to announce the use of his dog on a sleeping man is clearly an act of aggression with intent to do harm, shined another light on the systemic failures of policing in Santa Clara County. There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place.    Are the Officers body worn camera video available for the public to view in this case?  Walter Wilson      22 Baumb, Nelly From:Kay Naserc <ash.elieli3@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 2:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Public Corruption/Violence Against Women:Mohammad Reza Moradi Grantee #22194943 Community Facilities District 2013-1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mohammad Reza Moradi DOB:08/18/1962 NCIC#9340 10050 HillCrest Rd. Cupertino CA. 95014 is the Grantee for the Community Facilities District 2013-1. Mohammad Reza Moradi is my abuser; he is using his influence and resources within the Community Facilities District 2013-1 to abuse me through the court system because I refused to renew a sexual relationship with him on February 17, 2019. Mohammad Reza Moradi has brought illegal and false allegations against me in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Criminal Division. Mohammad Reza Moradi has defamed my character and had me unlawfully detained by Santa Clara County Deputy Sheriff's, to have my credibility called to question. I am writing to the City Council Of Palo Alto because the Community Facilities District 2013-1 does not included the area of the City of Palo Alto. I implore the entire City of Palo Alto to advocate for me, Cynthia Kay Nijmeh of Los Gatos to have my cases dismissed. I have been entangled in these illegal proceedings for 3 years. I am innocent and will provide the physical evidence of my innocences to all and any who would like to see it. It also provides proof to the community of Mohammad Reza Moradi's Public Corruption and violence against women. I would be forever grateful for any support or assistance the City Council and the City of Palo Alto is able to give me. At my Pretrial conference on 3/25/2021 the Supervisor for the County of Santa Clara ;Office of the Public Defender told me I better sign the plea bargain. He said if I choose to go trial and prove my innocences I will go to jail because the Office of the Public Defender will be present but will not defend me, Cynthia Kay Nijmeh because of Mohammad Reza Moradi and his influence in the County of Santa Clara. Respectfully Submitted, Cynthia Kay Nijmeh. Photo: Mohammad Reza Moradi 8/18/1962 59 years old. 23 26 Baumb, Nelly From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 8:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:PABAC input regarding Ross & Meadow CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I write to express PABAC (Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee)’s response to the current configuration at Ross Rd & East Meadow Dr.    At our April meeting, PABAC members voted 12-1-1 on this motion:     PABAC finds the current configuration at the intersection of Ross and Meadow to be confusing and dangerous. In  particular, the circular geometry makes the driver think those in the circle have the right of way but absence of  yield signs gives the right of way to those entering the circle from Ross. PABAC urges Council to rescind its  mandate for stop signs and other changes at this location and recommends that the intersection be re‐designed  by a licensed traffic engineer who is familiar with modern roundabout design, traffic patterns at that location and  with California regulatory requirements.    Thank you for considering this input.    Ken Joye 2021 PABAC Chair, representing the   Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee   27 Baumb, Nelly From:Crystal Fischer <crystal@DLIScouncil.org> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 7:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Questions About Palo Alto Website CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi there,    I'd like to submit a suggestion for your Be Prepared: Seniors page:  https://cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/emergency_preparedness/be_prepared_seniors.asp    Is this the correct email to connect with? Or is there someone else I should contact?    Thanks,  Crystal  28 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:36 PM To:Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Richard Konda; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Council, City; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Greer Stone; Joe Simitian; ParkRec Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; DuBois, Tom; Roberta Ahlquist; Binder, Andrew; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; pastor@universityamez.com; Human Relations Commission; Raven Malone; charisse@siliconvalleydebug.org; Tanner, Rachael; mark weiss Subject:Residents outraged over police dog attack and want encryption to end ( Daily Post April 5) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://padailypost.com/2021/04/05/residents‐outraged‐over‐police‐dog‐attack‐and‐they‐want‐encryption‐to‐ end/amp/    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  29 Baumb, Nelly From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:My Comments at Orals Last Night CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Written below, fyi. -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street    ----  Good evening. During discussion of your recent resolution combating racism, council member Tanaka shared his family’s hardship during the U.S. internment of the Japanese. Later, community leader Winter Dellenbach recommended a new book that “humbled" her: "The Eagles of Heart Mountain." Yes, continuing education is part of the solution. Council member Kou cited 19th century federal legislation targeting the Chinese, San Francisco’s newest immigrant group, who after building most of the Central Pacific Railroad, were perceived, she stated, "as an economic, disease-ridden, and heathen threat." And so, in turn, I will add 2 titles. First, for an excellent overview of the topic, go to PBS.org and, watch the 2-hour documentary “The Chinese Exclusion Act,” if you have not done so already. But less well-known is the recent work of Bay Area investigative historian Julia Flynn Siler and the archives of San Francisco Chinatown’s Presbyterian Mission House founded in 1874. Chinese girls and young women risked their lives to come through its doors for refuge. And from within, courageous women traversed the alleyways, staircases, 30 and rooftops to enter premises and rescue others, who were lured, kidnapped, or sold into servitude or prostitution, as part of a corrupt enterprise that included white officials and lawyers. Two women are especially highlighted: Tien Fuh Wu, at 10, brought in during the Exclusion Act as a "paper daughter” i.e., with a false identity, and as a household slave was tortured before her rescue. She would become educated, bilingual and tenacious. And Donaldina Cameron, from Scottish gentry, but fallen on hard times, who at 25 came to the mission house as a sewing teacher, not fully aware of what she was stepping into. But she had a mentor and would soon propel the issue of human trafficking well beyond both the clergy and San Francisco when she refused to let go of a young mission home resident and the two were jailed in Palo Alto, galvanizing the community here and in San Jose. Over four decades Cameron, with Wu her primary aid, and others at the mission house would shelter thousands of mostly Chinese women and expand to a second facility in Oakland. As trafficking decreased they took in women with difficult domestic situations, immigration problems, deportation threats, and children in need of care. It was hard and, quite often, dangerous work. Cameron was continually threatened and vilified by her enemies, who referred to, and portrayed her, as a white devil. She also became the legal guardian to hundreds of the residents, hence the book’s title “The White Devil’s Daughters: The Women who Fought Slavery in San Francisco’s Chinatown." After her retirement, Donaldina Cameron settled in Palo Alto, and later after Tien Fu Wu’s retirement, arranged for her to live in a cottage next door, which she bequeathed to her. Following Cameron's death in 1968 at age 98, the city dedicated a park in her name a few blocks from her home (1020 California Avenue) in College Terrace. Thank you. 32 Baumb, Nelly From:Silicon Valley Community Foundation <info@siliconvalleycf.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:SVCF eNews — Power and how to build it CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org   To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In   To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In        To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Blog | COVID-19 | Racial Justice       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     How can we build power among Silicon Valley residents who don’t have it? The idea of power and how to build it for those who historically have not had it is becoming central to all of Silicon Valley Community Foundation’s grantmaking initiatives.     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   SVCF funds community-based efforts to get COVID tests and vaccines to underserved populations Testing and vaccination are crucial to getting the COVID-19 pandemic under control. But many of the hardest-hit communities face obstacles in getting access to both. Working with donors, corporations, other philanthropic partners and local governments, SVCF raised $64 million across all of its COVID-19 response funds last year.   33   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Webinar featuring Obama Foundation President Valerie Jarrett Join a discussion between SVCF President and CEO Nicole Taylor and The Obama Foundation President Valerie Jarrett on Tuesday, April 20, from 1 to 2 p.m. Pacific time. Also joining the conversation: Shari Davis, The Obama Foundation fellow and executive director of the Participatory Budgeting Project, and Poncho Guevara, executive director of Sacred Heart Community Service. Together we will explore how philanthropy can contribute to the power-building work happening now across the nation.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Nicole Taylor: We grieve for those murdered in Atlanta What happened in Atlanta was tragic, senseless, and unfortunately, not an isolated incident. We recognize that our collective work to eradicate racism and oppression against any marginalized group needs to be intersectional and collaborative.     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Podcast - The ¡Sí Se Puede! Collective builds power in East San Jose SVCF Director of Community-Building Mauricio Palma is joined by three executive directors from the collective. Listen to learn how the local community is transforming power relations in East San Jose.       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     Address 2440 West El Camino Real Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040   About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change.       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     Copyright © 2021 Silicon Valley Community Foundation   View in browser | Unsubscribe         34 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:09 AM To:Binder, Andrew Cc:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; chuckjagoda1 @gmail.com; Planning Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jeff Moore; Kaloma Smith; Greer Stone; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Jonsen, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Raj; Richard Konda Subject:Re: Can you point me to the section of your policies and procedures manuel ..700 plus pages where your current interview -interrogation protocol is located ? Hi Andrew,    Yes I agree yesterday was a very busy day. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I look forward to discussing the  below issues with you when your time permits.     Best regards,    aram         Sent from my iPhone    > On Apr 6, 2021, at 7:55 AM, Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  >   > Mr. James ‐ Yesterday was a busy day preparing for our Council items   > and managing on‐going PD operations. I want to let you know I've   > received your email on Sunday (and your VMs yesterday) and will be   > giving you a call soon about discussing your questions below. Thanks ‐   > andrew  >   > Andrew Binder  > Assistant Police Chief  > Palo Alto Police Department  >   > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  > ________________________________  >   >>   >> FYI: Mike copied this email to 40 or so folks and inadvertently left u off.  >> Aram  >>>   >>> Sunday April 4, 2021 start e‐mail at 10:04  >>>   >>> Hi Andrew, ( Assistant Palo Alto Police Chief) Hope you are doing   >>> well. I was scanning your online policies and procedures manuel ....and could not locate ...I’m sure it is there —‐ current policy on interviews and interrogations of crime suspects.  >>>   35 >>> Here are a few questions u might be able to answer for me:  >>>   >>> 1. Do you require all felony interrogations to be taped? Misdemeanor interrogations?  >>>   >>>   >>> 2. Does your department allow or disallow off the camera ....so called softening up interrogations ....that take place  off the camera before a taped interview proceeds?  >>>   >>> 3. Is your training for interviews and interrogations tactics done   >>> in‐house or using the old school tactics taught by InBau and Reed? (   >>> see in that regard Criminal Interrogation and Confessions ( I have   >>> the 4th edition...may be a later ones) by Fred E. ImBau, John E.  >>> Reid, Joseph P. Buckley, Brian C. Jayne  >>>   >>> 4. Since the Jorge Hernandez case ‐case of alleged coerced confession  by former PAPD officer Natasha Powers — case settled for $75 000.... has the PAPD changed any interrogation policy or training?  >>>   >>> ****side note:  ( Hernandez case was national news at the time and still used as a teaching model re how not to  conduct interrogations. Jorge Hernandez was a Gunn HS student at the time he falsely confessed. Many years later the  true suspect was captured and ultimately plead guilty to the brutal rape of a 94 years woman living at the Palo Alto  Commons at the time of the rape.  >>>   >>> 5. Unless there is case law I’m not familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court still allows police to lie to crime suspects in  order to obtain confessions. Of course local police agencies can have interrogation policies that prohibit  officers from  lying to suspects during interviews/ interrogations. See question at # 6.  >>>   >>> 6. Can you tell me what the PAPD policy is re officers lying to suspects to obtain confessions? Can lie? Prohibited?  Some gray area in between?  >>>   >>> 7. Any current cases where the PAPD is being sued for using coercive interrogation tactics?  >>>   >>> 8. Does the current contract with the IPA include reviewing claims ....complaints that the PAPD engaged in  impermissible interrogation tactics?  >>>   >>> 9. Any other information you might have that is instructive re the current interview interrogation tactics used by the  PAPD.  >>>   >>> Ok, as always I would appreciate discussing this issue with you when you time permits.  >>>   >>> Best regards,  >>>   >>> Aram James  >>>   >>> P.S. I don’t know whether this issue can be discussed at tomorrow’s study session ‐given my late notice re my  interest in the topic....but on the off chance you can address these issue at tomorrow’s study session..... I will CC my e‐ mail to the city council and other potentially interested parties.  >>>   >>>   36 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: New program for staff: home purchase assistance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 37 Dear Colleague, This week, a new program launched to help benefits-eligible staff purchase a home. The affordability data gathering show one solution for some of you considering purchasing a home. The program is a partnership with a personal finance company called Landed, whose co-founders attended Stanford as gemployees in education, government, and health care organizations afford to purchase homes. Their programs are offered time home buyer. Attend an information session to learn more A series of information sessions are being held in April to help you learn more; using the buttons below, sign up for the ses which are structured to give you an overview of the program and allow time for questions. Wednesday, April 7, 12-1 pm Tuesday, April 13, 9-10 am 38 Tuesday, April 13, 4-5 pm Thursday, April 22, 1-2 pm Thursday, April 22, 6-7 pm The Faculty Staff Housing website has an overview of the new program. Share this email: Manage your preferences | Opt out using TrueRemove™ Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails. View this email online. 505 Broadway 5th Floor Redwood City, CA | 94063 United States This email was sent to dstinchf@stanford.edu. To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.   39 Baumb, Nelly From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:26 AM To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Aram James; Council, City; Greer Stone; Dave Price; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Richard Konda; Raj; Jeff Moore; Mark Petersen-Perez; Kaloma Smith; ParkRec Commission; DuBois, Tom; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Binder, Andrew; Sunita de Tourreil; Jonsen, Robert; Jeff Rosen; Tanner, Rachael; Charisse Domingo; mark weiss; Anna Griffin; Kou, Lydia; Greg Tanaka; Stump, Molly; Pat Burt; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Perron, Zachary; Joe Simitian; Cecilia Taylor; David Moss; David Angel; O'Neal, Molly; Josh Becker; dprice@padailypost.com; Angie Evans Subject:Re: Mr. Jonsen's deceptive remarks regarding police radio transmissions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The Expensive Smudging of the Shine of Palo Alto Thank you Rebecca, for your very well taken point. And your most relevant Marshall Project reference, Aram. I only have one question: Why does it seem that on every issue: police communication encryption (you mean they were too easy to understand before?), video tape of canine maulings, responses to officer-attacks, responses to civilian complaints, requests for Brown Act papers-- this shining city on the hill of my imagination takes on several quite noticeable layers of dark, smoky, smudge? Someone isn't getting the meaning of those two contemporary watch words Transparency and Accountability. Sure they're scary but don't forget the Watergate Principle: Cover Ups can be far worse than initial admissions of responsibility. And how much will "the City" with the truth on SLOW have to spend to feel you've covered your asses enough? Protecting white, male privilege to do damage to the bodies of darker- skinned people whenever can be very expensive. It will be interesting to total up how much present issues are costing the tax paying citizens. The spending is not over, not even close. Policing the Palo Alto way is very, very expensive. Subtracting the macho would lower the cost. Over amped officers could learn to meditate and do self care. Rock on! Chuck Jagoda   On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 6:25 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:  All:      I am an attorney who, having spent more than 2 decades at financial technology companies (PayPal, Vouch Financial,  Trulia), has expertise and experience in privacy laws, regulations, policies, and best practices. Additionally, I come from  an immigrant Jewish family that relied on police scanners for protection against police brutality decades ago in mostly‐ minority neighborhoods in Milwaukee. Accordingly, I take the fundamental right of the people and press to access  police radio transmissions very seriously.     40 Mr. Jonsen is misleading the City Council and the community through claiming that there are "no options" other than  encryption of radio communications.    Since the beginning of police radio, there has *never* been a compelling reason to share PII (personally identifiable  information) by radio, which is why such transmission for the most part has not been done. For anyone who has spent  time listening to police radio like I have, it is obvious that specific data like numbers, dates, the reason for that is  obvious: scanners are largely used to send the police to locations, not to give DL numbers and criminal histories, and  there has never been any reason to share PII or criminal histories by radio. It should require no effort to eliminate a  practice that never had reason to exist.    As to the reference to DOJ rules, Jonsen misstates these as well. The DOJ mandates encryption of PII if shared and it  actually recommends the easier solution of **not sharing PII* to the less‐recommended solution of encryption. There is  no requirement of contacting the DOJ to obtain permission if the PAPD goes back to the normal state of never  transmitting personal information by radio.     In these ways (and many others), Jonsen is misstating the law and facts.  Palo Alto deserves transparency and truth.  Jonsen came to the PAPD with a marred history in his previous roles, and since he was hired as the head of the PAPD,  the PAPD has declined in transparency and accountability, while it increased in terms of cases of police brutality and  concealment. Jonsen has moved the PAPD in the wrong direction and continues to do so.    While I greatly appreciate the words of certain members of the City Council ‐ particularly Greer Stone ‐ in pointing out  the inconsistencies and potential problems in the statements made by Jonsen ‐ these words will not matter unless and  until the Palo Alto City Council exercises its right and obligation to take control of the PAPD, demand accountability,  eliminate immunity, and require transparency of its actions to our community and press.     Best,     Rebecca        Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078    On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:05 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:     Back on Feb 22, I sent out an extensive public records act request with approximately 34 questions requests for  documents re the current status of the PAPD canine unit. I have filed numerous CPRA requests over at least a 15 year  period with the PAPD.    2. This is the first time I have failed to receive what I believe is appropriate cooperation with Liz Scheff and the city  powers in obtaining the records I’ve requested so I would have the documents and data to provide, if the information  so established, a counter narrative to the PAPD’s report re the current status of the PAPD’s canine unit.     3. Interestingly enough the memo from the PAPD for tonight’s study session shows the information, at least some of  it, is apparently available. The report notes that over the last 24 months the PAPD canine unit inflicted bites on 5  occasions.     4. My request was for data going back 36 months —similar time frame as my 2005 request, and asked for the number  41 of bites, the extent of the injuries, the cost of hospitalization, and, of course, the race of those bitten by the canine  unit. None of which has been forth coming. And this is just one issue, the data on the dog bites issue,  I requested  ....you will see I’ve asked for much additional info.     5. This is the 1st time I felt compelled to hire an attorney who specializes in public records law. In a subsequent email I  will send you the first correspondence between my attorney and the records department. You are free to share the  information or not with anyone you wish.     6. I have read the Palo Alto canine policy several times .....see Palo Alto canine policy manuel pages 130‐139 ( Policy  318)    7. Similarly I have reviewed the PERF ( Police Executive Research Forum) policy from 2020 pages, approximately 27  pages, several times.     8. I’m for banning canine units altogether, no reason to hide my position, except for search and rescue, bomb  disclosure and other non apprehension reasons. Absolutely should be banned to capture and bite alleged criminals.     9. If the council disagrees I believe the canine policy of the PAPD should be amended to add policies from the PERF  model guidelines to include: point# 20, page 24, of the PERF  report:     “Canine usage data should be published annually, at a minimum. This may be a part of the agency’s use‐of force  report.....Agencies should be transparent with the public by publishing their canine units usage statistics. this should  include all statistics listed in Recommendation # 17 above. At minimum, agencies should publish these statistics  annually in their website.”    10. Finally, I’m hopeful that all members of the Palo Alto City Council, the city manager, and at least all members of the  command staff of the PAPD will review the Marshall  Project ( named afterThurgood Marshall)   2020 .....12 part series re the epidemic of police canine attacks across this country.    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/15/mauled‐when‐police‐dogs‐are‐weapons      Sincerely,    Aram James         ‐‐   Chuck  42 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 3:03 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; midge@thebarretts.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell- Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 2:43 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 2:09 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 12:22 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 12:18 AM  43 Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 3:58 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 3:20 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 2:18 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 2:17 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 1:27 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 1:01 AM  44 Subject: Dr. John Campbell‐ Good Friday overview. Good info. Covid will be with us 4 long time  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                 Very late on Monday, April 5, 2021                To all‐                 Dr. John Campbell in the UK with a Good Friday update:  He quotes a lot from an article by the UK Chief Scientist,  Dr. Chris Whitty‐ see him below at the  PM's press conference‐ man on our left.                   Dr. Campbell here discusses Dr. Whitty's idea that we will have to "tolerate" a certain number of Covid deaths.  (???)  LH‐ WTF does that mean? The lockdowns in the UK will end. They will end in 3 or 4 mos. in Europe (continent)  because of their surge. Same in the U.S. We will come to treat Covid like we treat the flu. A certain number of flu deaths  are tolerated every year and the same will develop for Covid deaths. Seven to nine thousand flu deaths occur each year  in the UK, mostly among the elderly.                  All agree that Covid is going to be with us for a long time. Dr. Campbell in this vid says perhaps for ten years. We  cannot eradicate it. We've  eradicated only smallpox so far. Polio is still around.  LH‐  I hope the major vaccine makers  develop booster shots to deal with the variants as they emerge and that our HC system (especially Medicare) makes  them available every autumn, as they do with the flu vaccine.             Good Friday update ‐ YouTube                 Australia and AZN‐Oxford vaccine:   April 2, 2021: Notice what he says right at the end:  The benefits of the Oxford  vaccine way outweigh the risks.                  Urgent investigation into AstraZeneca vaccine after Melbourne man develops blood clots ‐ YouTube               John Campbell's history:  Brief:  3:44:                         Welcome, new channel intro video ‐ YouTube             Here is what the MHRA, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, in the UK says about the  Oxford‐AZN vaccine and blood clots: Keep using the vaccine. The benefits way outweigh the risks. The UK had injected  18.1 million doses of it by March 23 and they saw 13 cases of blood clots and seven of those died. They do not see a  causal relationship between the Oxford vaccine and blood clots.             AstraZeneca vaccine: Regulator says Oxford COVID‐19 jab is safe after seven UK deaths ‐ YouTube                       Here is Dr. Michael Osterholm, University of Minnesota on April 2, 2021.  We are in another surge in cases. The UK  virus is causing a lot of it. We could get to where we were in January, 2021.   We are in a race between the B.117, the UK  virus,  and the vaccines. Hold out with the restrictions! Don't let down now. The experts are warning us, starting with the  new CDC Director:              Dr. Osterholm: Clearly We Are In Another Surge Of Virus Cases | Morning Joe | MSNBC ‐ YouTube              Here is Dr. David Agus of USC on "Slowing the Surge" :  Frequently contributor on KCBS SF AM 740:                 Slowing the surge: A look at the rise in COVID‐19 cases, vaccines, and more ‐ YouTube  45              This is interesting:  Press conference on Saturday April 3, 2021 or on Sunday by UK PM Boris Johnson. He is flanked  by two scientists, one of whom, Dr. Chris Whitty, Dr. Campbell quotes a lot in his "Good Friday Update" above.  Whitty is  merely the Chief Scientist for the UK.  They talk a lot about the "roadmap" they are following. Don't know what all the  dates are in that, but you hear them discussed. Covid certificates?, continued restricted air travel?  All discussed.  All  good discussion of where they are and where they are going, how they are lifting the extreme lockdown they have  imposed, far more extreme than anything the U.S. gov. has imposed here.   This discussion can only be useful to those  planning to open up the U.S.  Of course, the pattern‐  ages of those vaccinated,  number of shots given initially, are  different in the UK than they are in the U.S.  They gave millions the first shot before they went back and started giving  the second shot.               Watch in full: Boris Johnson holds a news briefing on 'COVID passports' and lifting lockdown ‐ YouTube                 The British are very analytical. We wanted to do the cross‐channel invasion in 1942, and the British talked us out  of it because:                 1) The British were at the Battle of the Somme in 1916 and we weren't and                  2) In 1942, the Germans had 40 divisions in Holland, Belgium and France.  Any little invasion force we threw  together in 1942 would have been massacred. Can you imagine what would have happened with a tiny invasion force  two full years before the actual D‐Day, bloody as it was.  In those two years, the Russians killed a couple of million  Germans and the RAF and the 8th AF bombed Germany day and night AND STILL, they made us pay heavily on D‐Day  and in the months thereafter.                          L. William Harding                  Fresno, Ca.                                                                L. William Harding         Fresno, Ca.                    46 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 11:13 PM To:Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; Council, City Subject:Fwd: ( you are right) ......keep pushing for a broader group to pick from u are absolutely right ...... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    >  >   >>  >> 1. How many African Americans?  >> 2. How many unhoused members?  >> 3. How many renters?  >> 4. How many folks live from pay check to pay check?  >> 5. Income diversity?  >> 6. Stanford Grads?  >> 7. High school students?  >> 8. Those who have had the experience of being evicted.  >> **** if this is an elite crowd the community will be very unhappy .....  >> 9. Need a public hearing on the members or the Brown meetings will turn into chaos in protest.  >> 10. Is Eric placing folks who fit an elite model or a true cross section.  >> 11. I’m worried  about the quick Eric and unknown friend’s process. Need to know a whole lot more before u will gain  community trust.  >>  >> Best regards,  >>  >> Aram  >>  >> Sent from my iPhone  47 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 11:10 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; Pat Burt; Dave Price; Kou, Lydia; Greg Tanaka; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission Subject:Re: This process seems badly tainted —-who are the people on this list —Eric’s stack deck for his way or the Highway CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Lydia u are right. I have a deep feeling this is Eric’s special interest list ....    Sent from my iPhone    > On Apr 5, 2021, at 10:51 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  >  > 1. How many African Americans?  > 2. How many unhoused members?  > 3. How many renters?  > 4. How many folks live from pay check to pay check?  > 5. Income diversity?  > 6. Stanford Grads?  > 7. High school students?  > 8. Those who have had the experience of being evicted.  > **** if this is an elite crowd the community will be very unhappy .....  > 9. Need a public hearing on the members or the Brown meetings will turn into chaos in protest.  > 10. Is Eric placing folks who fit an elite model or a true cross section.  > 11. I’m worried  about the quick Eric and unknown friend’s process. Need to know a whole lot more before u will gain  community trust.  >  > Best regards,  >  > Aram  >  > Sent from my iPhone  48 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 11:07 PM To:Pat Burt; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stump, Molly; Stump, Molly; Dave Price; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Shikada, Ed; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:( you are right) ......keep pushing for a broader group to pick from u are absolutely right ...... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    >  > 1. How many African Americans?  > 2. How many unhoused members?  > 3. How many renters?  > 4. How many folks live from pay check to pay check?  > 5. Income diversity?  > 6. Stanford Grads?  > 7. High school students?  > 8. Those who have had the experience of being evicted.  > **** if this is an elite crowd the community will be very unhappy .....  > 9. Need a public hearing on the members or the Brown meetings will turn into chaos in protest.  > 10. Is Eric placing folks who fit an elite model or a true cross section.  > 11. I’m worried  about the quick Eric and unknown friend’s process. Need to know a whole lot more before u will gain  community trust.  >  > Best regards,  >  > Aram  >  > Sent from my iPhone  49 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 10:52 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; Pat Burt; Dave Price; Kou, Lydia; Greg Tanaka; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission Subject:This process seems badly tainted —-who are the people on this list —Eric’s stack deck for his way or the Highway CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    1. How many African Americans?  2. How many unhoused members?  3. How many renters?  4. How many folks live from pay check to pay check?  5. Income diversity?  6. Stanford Grads?  7. High school students?  8. Those who have had the experience of being evicted.  **** if this is an elite crowd the community will be very unhappy .....  9. Need a public hearing on the members or the Brown meetings will turn into chaos in protest.  10. Is Eric placing folks who fit an elite model or a true cross section.  11. I’m worried  about the quick Eric and unknown friend’s process. Need to know a whole lot more before u will gain  community trust.    Best regards,    Aram    Sent from my iPhone  50 Baumb, Nelly From:Roland Lebrun <ccss@msn.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 9:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:City manager report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois and Council,    Does the City take public comment on the City Manager report?  I can't the slides in the packet but I saw a slide flashing by that gives me concern:  The reopening of libraries for children is extremely welcome news and I did see the requirement for face  masks but what about social distancing?  My grandchildren live in LA and schools are considering re‐opening with 3‐foot social distancing.  I strongly encourage you to continue 6‐foot social distancing for children until the adult population is  vaccinated because 3‐foot distancing was the primary reason for the second COVID wave in London last  October.    51 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 8:46 PM To:Pat Burt Cc:Council, City; Dave Price Subject:Great line of questions re available hotels for those currently unhoused... the 313 folks in Palo Alto — of course if u think safe parking creates push back —be ready to deal with the push back for hotel occupation —-we can do this using the right outre... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Sent from my iPhone  52 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 8:14 PM To:Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com Cc:Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Dave Price Subject:Thanks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi Tom,  Great on the mark comments re the need to more quickly move safe parking programs forward —to include more 24/7  parking lots...    Sent from my iPhone  53 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 6:32 PM To:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Cc:Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Greer Stone; Dave Price; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Richard Konda; Raj; Jeff Moore; Mark Petersen-Perez; Kaloma Smith; ParkRec Commission; DuBois, Tom; Binder, Andrew; Sunita de Tourreil; Jonsen, Robert; Jeff Rosen; Tanner, Rachael; Charisse Domingo; mark weiss; Anna Griffin; Kou, Lydia; Greg Tanaka; Stump, Molly; Pat Burt; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Perron, Zachary; Joe Simitian; Cecilia Taylor; David Moss; David Angel; O'Neal, Molly; Josh Becker Subject:Re: Mr. Jonsen's deceptive remarks regarding police radio transmissions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Rebecca,    Thanks for speaking truth to power! Your comments all on the mark —‐excellent!  Aram        On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 6:25 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:  All:      I am an attorney who, having spent more than 2 decades at financial technology companies (PayPal,  Vouch Financial, Trulia), has expertise and experience in privacy laws, regulations, policies, and best  practices. Additionally, I come from an immigrant Jewish family that relied on police scanners for  protection against police brutality decades ago in mostly‐minority neighborhoods in Milwaukee.  Accordingly, I take the fundamental right of the people and press to access police radio transmissions  very seriously.     Mr. Jonsen is misleading the City Council and the community through claiming that there are "no  options" other than encryption of radio communications.    Since the beginning of police radio, there has *never* been a compelling reason to share PII (personally  identifiable information) by radio, which is why such transmission for the most part has not been done.  For anyone who has spent time listening to police radio like I have, it is obvious that specific data like  numbers, dates, the reason for that is obvious: scanners are largely used to send the police to  locations, not to give DL numbers and criminal histories, and there has never been any reason to share  PII or criminal histories by radio. It should require no effort to eliminate a practice that never had  reason to exist.    As to the reference to DOJ rules, Jonsen misstates these as well. The DOJ mandates encryption of PII if  shared and it actually recommends the easier solution of **not sharing PII* to the less‐recommended  solution of encryption. There is no requirement of contacting the DOJ to obtain permission if the PAPD  goes back to the normal state of never transmitting personal information by radio.     In these ways (and many others), Jonsen is misstating the law and facts.  Palo Alto deserves  transparency and truth. Jonsen came to the PAPD with a marred history in his previous roles, and since  54 he was hired as the head of the PAPD, the PAPD has declined in transparency and accountability, while  it increased in terms of cases of police brutality and concealment. Jonsen has moved the PAPD in the  wrong direction and continues to do so.    While I greatly appreciate the words of certain members of the City Council ‐ particularly Greer Stone ‐  in pointing out the inconsistencies and potential problems in the statements made by Jonsen ‐ these  words will not matter unless and until the Palo Alto City Council exercises its right and obligation to  take control of the PAPD, demand accountability, eliminate immunity, and require transparency of its  actions to our community and press.     Best,     Rebecca        Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078    On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:05 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:     Back on Feb 22, I sent out an extensive public records act request with approximately 34 questions  requests for documents re the current status of the PAPD canine unit. I have filed numerous CPRA  requests over at least a 15 year period with the PAPD.    2. This is the first time I have failed to receive what I believe is appropriate cooperation with Liz Scheff  and the city powers in obtaining the records I’ve requested so I would have the documents and data  to provide, if the information so established, a counter narrative to the PAPD’s report re the current  status of the PAPD’s canine unit.     3. Interestingly enough the memo from the PAPD for tonight’s study session shows the information, at  least some of it, is apparently available. The report notes that over the last 24 months the PAPD  canine unit inflicted bites on 5 occasions.     4. My request was for data going back 36 months —similar time frame as my 2005 request, and asked  for the number of bites, the extent of the injuries, the cost of hospitalization, and, of course, the race  of those bitten by the canine unit. None of which has been forth coming. And this is just one issue, the  data on the dog bites issue,  I requested ....you will see I’ve asked for much additional info.     5. This is the 1st time I felt compelled to hire an attorney who specializes in public records law. In a  subsequent email I will send you the first correspondence between my attorney and the records  department. You are free to share the information or not with anyone you wish.     6. I have read the Palo Alto canine policy several times .....see Palo Alto canine policy manuel pages  130‐139 ( Policy 318)    7. Similarly I have reviewed the PERF ( Police Executive Research Forum) policy from 2020 pages,  approximately 27 pages, several times.     55 8. I’m for banning canine units altogether, no reason to hide my position, except for search and  rescue, bomb disclosure and other non apprehension reasons. Absolutely should be banned to  capture and bite alleged criminals.     9. If the council disagrees I believe the canine policy of the PAPD should be amended to add policies  from the PERF model guidelines to include: point# 20, page 24, of the PERF  report:     “Canine usage data should be published annually, at a minimum. This may be a part of the agency’s  use‐of force report.....Agencies should be transparent with the public by publishing their canine units  usage statistics. this should include all statistics listed in Recommendation # 17 above. At minimum,  agencies should publish these statistics annually in their website.”    10. Finally, I’m hopeful that all members of the Palo Alto City Council, the city manager, and at least all  members of the command staff of the PAPD will review the Marshall  Project ( named afterThurgood Marshall)   2020 .....12 part series re the epidemic of police canine attacks across this country.    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/15/mauled‐when‐police‐dogs‐are‐weapons      Sincerely,    Aram James   56 Baumb, Nelly From:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 6:29 PM To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Aram James; Council, City; Greer Stone; Dave Price; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Richard Konda; Raj; Jeff Moore; Mark Petersen-Perez; Kaloma Smith; ParkRec Commission; DuBois, Tom; Binder, Andrew; Sunita de Tourreil; Jonsen, Robert; Jeff Rosen; Tanner, Rachael; Charisse Domingo; mark weiss; Anna Griffin; Kou, Lydia; Greg Tanaka; Stump, Molly; Pat Burt; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Perron, Zachary; Joe Simitian; Cecilia Taylor; David Moss; David Angel; O'Neal, Molly; Josh Becker Subject:Re: Mr. Jonsen's deceptive remarks regarding police radio transmissions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  excellent comments/responses from Rebecca and Aram!    Judy Adams    On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 6:25 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:  All:      I am an attorney who, having spent more than 2 decades at financial technology companies (PayPal, Vouch Financial,  Trulia), has expertise and experience in privacy laws, regulations, policies, and best practices. Additionally, I come from  an immigrant Jewish family that relied on police scanners for protection against police brutality decades ago in mostly‐ minority neighborhoods in Milwaukee. Accordingly, I take the fundamental right of the people and press to access  police radio transmissions very seriously.     Mr. Jonsen is misleading the City Council and the community through claiming that there are "no options" other than  encryption of radio communications.    Since the beginning of police radio, there has *never* been a compelling reason to share PII (personally identifiable  information) by radio, which is why such transmission for the most part has not been done. For anyone who has spent  time listening to police radio like I have, it is obvious that specific data like numbers, dates, the reason for that is  obvious: scanners are largely used to send the police to locations, not to give DL numbers and criminal histories, and  there has never been any reason to share PII or criminal histories by radio. It should require no effort to eliminate a  practice that never had reason to exist.    As to the reference to DOJ rules, Jonsen misstates these as well. The DOJ mandates encryption of PII if shared and it  actually recommends the easier solution of **not sharing PII* to the less‐recommended solution of encryption. There is  no requirement of contacting the DOJ to obtain permission if the PAPD goes back to the normal state of never  transmitting personal information by radio.     In these ways (and many others), Jonsen is misstating the law and facts.  Palo Alto deserves transparency and truth.  Jonsen came to the PAPD with a marred history in his previous roles, and since he was hired as the head of the PAPD,  the PAPD has declined in transparency and accountability, while it increased in terms of cases of police brutality and  concealment. Jonsen has moved the PAPD in the wrong direction and continues to do so.    57 While I greatly appreciate the words of certain members of the City Council ‐ particularly Greer Stone ‐ in pointing out  the inconsistencies and potential problems in the statements made by Jonsen ‐ these words will not matter unless and  until the Palo Alto City Council exercises its right and obligation to take control of the PAPD, demand accountability,  eliminate immunity, and require transparency of its actions to our community and press.     Best,     Rebecca        Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078    On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:05 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:     Back on Feb 22, I sent out an extensive public records act request with approximately 34 questions requests for  documents re the current status of the PAPD canine unit. I have filed numerous CPRA requests over at least a 15 year  period with the PAPD.    2. This is the first time I have failed to receive what I believe is appropriate cooperation with Liz Scheff and the city  powers in obtaining the records I’ve requested so I would have the documents and data to provide, if the information  so established, a counter narrative to the PAPD’s report re the current status of the PAPD’s canine unit.     3. Interestingly enough the memo from the PAPD for tonight’s study session shows the information, at least some of  it, is apparently available. The report notes that over the last 24 months the PAPD canine unit inflicted bites on 5  occasions.     4. My request was for data going back 36 months —similar time frame as my 2005 request, and asked for the number  of bites, the extent of the injuries, the cost of hospitalization, and, of course, the race of those bitten by the canine  unit. None of which has been forth coming. And this is just one issue, the data on the dog bites issue,  I requested  ....you will see I’ve asked for much additional info.     5. This is the 1st time I felt compelled to hire an attorney who specializes in public records law. In a subsequent email I  will send you the first correspondence between my attorney and the records department. You are free to share the  information or not with anyone you wish.     6. I have read the Palo Alto canine policy several times .....see Palo Alto canine policy manuel pages 130‐139 ( Policy  318)    7. Similarly I have reviewed the PERF ( Police Executive Research Forum) policy from 2020 pages, approximately 27  pages, several times.     8. I’m for banning canine units altogether, no reason to hide my position, except for search and rescue, bomb  disclosure and other non apprehension reasons. Absolutely should be banned to capture and bite alleged criminals.     9. If the council disagrees I believe the canine policy of the PAPD should be amended to add policies from the PERF  model guidelines to include: point# 20, page 24, of the PERF  report:     58 “Canine usage data should be published annually, at a minimum. This may be a part of the agency’s use‐of force  report.....Agencies should be transparent with the public by publishing their canine units usage statistics. this should  include all statistics listed in Recommendation # 17 above. At minimum, agencies should publish these statistics  annually in their website.”    10. Finally, I’m hopeful that all members of the Palo Alto City Council, the city manager, and at least all members of the  command staff of the PAPD will review the Marshall  Project ( named afterThurgood Marshall)   2020 .....12 part series re the epidemic of police canine attacks across this country.    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/15/mauled‐when‐police‐dogs‐are‐weapons      Sincerely,    Aram James   59 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 5:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:Tom DuBois (tom.dubois@gmail.com); Jeff LaMere Subject:Safer Covid-protocols for victory parades and music in the parks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As much as I was thrilled to see the Stanford basketball team in their victory parade drive right pass me at 2:35 today at Lytton Plaza, next time there is a pandemic that kills 500,000 Americans and Stanford’s first national championship in 29 years DO NOT PUBLICIZE the event, even short notice. It’s enough to fete the champions by letting them ride around and let people who happen by be their witnesses. The same thing goes, I tell people, for musicians playing out in parks — document but don’t advertise. I’m a concert promoter but the wife is a nurse. Thanks (Congrats!) Mark Weiss Re: The parade route has been expanded! If you're in the Downtown #PaloAlto area, come help celebrate the @StanfordWBB champs starting in front of City Hall at 2:35 pm or along their route: -Hamilton & Waverley -Waverley & Lytton -Lytton & High -High & University #GoStanford Stanford Athletics 60 @GoStanford ꞏ 6h Welcome the CHAMPS back on campus Join us today at 2 p.m. for a socially-distanced parade around campus to celebrate @StanfordWBB’s NCAA title. All the details 61 Baumb, Nelly From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 4:53 PM To:tomforcouncil@gmail.com; lydiakou@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Filseth, Eric (external); gstone22@gmail.com; patburt11@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Regarding Rebecca Eisenberg's Recent Comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, I have found some comments made by Rebecca Eisenberg to include such a level of confrontation, generalizations, and obnoxiousness driven by her one- sided woke-ness that I find it important to stress that the “regulars” who phone/zoom/message you are not the majority voice in our city. Palo Alto has a large (and growing) CENTER-LEFT leaning crowd. A grouping of people, such as myself, who stand for supporting our outstanding Police Chief in his efforts, in not taxing Tech firms in town, and in showing compassion to the needy (among many other views). Ardan Michael Blum /—/   ADDRESS:  Ardan Michael Blum A. Blum Localization Services 345 Forest Avenue, Suite 204 94301, Palo Alto, California, USA. PHONE/ PGP DETAILS: Office & Signal: +1 (650) 427-9358 Mobile: +1 (650) 531-5689 Home: [not accepting text messages] +1 (650) 847-1810 PGP Key: Request SOCIALLY & WORK ONLINE: Twitter: @ArdanBlum | @Palo_Alto_Seo | @PaloAltoTourist Professional Website: search-engine-optimization-company.com Personal Blog: https://iterate.live 62 NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or may otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachment thereto.   /—/ /—/   63 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 4:10 PM To:Council, City; Jeff Moore; Raj; Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; chuckjagoda1 @gmail.com; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; ParkRec Commission; Kaloma Smith; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Jeff Rosen; Sunita de Tourreil; Fellissa Richard; Joe Simitian; Charisse Domingo; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Dave Price Subject:Aram’s attorney re compliance on the CPRA request for info on the PAPD canine unit CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.              Ms. Scheff,     I hope this finds you well. I am writing on behalf of my client Aram James (cc'd)  regarding his CPRA request W002788‐022221. Please direct future communications  regarding this matter to me.     I have reviewed the agency's 3/18/21 response in which it provided the canine policy  and indicated that it would produce additional responses and records "as they become  available." I'm writing to obtain some clarification.     As you know, the CPRA requires that an agency, within 10 days, provide a determination  of disclosability and estimated date of production. Cal. Gov. Code § 6243(c). That time  can be extended by no more than 14 days under certain statutorily identified "special  circumstances." Id.     I am writing to obtain a determination of disclosability and estimated date of production  with respect to this request. Please confirm which of the 34 items the City intends to  respond to by producing records and/or information, and which of the requests (if any)  the City is denying based on claim of statutory exemption (with identification of the  claimed exemption). Additionally, please provide an estimated date when the City will  be producing records. If the City will be producing records on a rolling basis, please  respond with the multiple production dates the City has in mind.     Please let me know if you need any further information or clarification related to this  request.     Thank you for your ongoing assistance with this matter. I appreciate it.     Best,  Abenicio Cisneros  64 CApublicrecordslaw.com  acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com  (707) 653‐0438     CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this communication may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation  65 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 4:05 PM To:Greer Stone; Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; Dave Price; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Richard Konda; Raj; Jeff Moore; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Kaloma Smith; ParkRec Commission; DuBois, Tom; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; Sunita de Tourreil; Jonsen, Robert; Jeff Rosen; Tanner, Rachael; Charisse Domingo; mark weiss; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Kou, Lydia; Greg Tanaka; Stump, Molly; Pat Burt; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Perron, Zachary; Joe Simitian; Cecilia Taylor; David Moss; David Angel; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Josh Becker Subject:Canine issues for this evening study sessions..... some points to consider CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     Back on Feb 22, I sent out an extensive public records act request with approximately 34 questions requests for  documents re the current status of the PAPD canine unit. I have filed numerous CPRA requests over at least a 15 year  period with the PAPD.    2. This is the first time I have failed to receive what I believe is appropriate cooperation with Liz Scheff and the city  powers in obtaining the records I’ve requested so I would have the documents and data to provide, if the information so  established, a counter narrative to the PAPD’s report re the current status of the PAPD’s canine unit.     3. Interestingly enough the memo from the PAPD for tonight’s study session shows the information, at least some of it,  is apparently available. The report notes that over the last 24 months the PAPD canine unit inflicted bites on 5  occasions.     4. My request was for data going back 36 months —similar time frame as my 2005 request, and asked for the number of  bites, the extent of the injuries, the cost of hospitalization, and, of course, the race of those bitten by the canine unit.  None of which has been forth coming. And this is just one issue, the data on the dog bites issue,  I requested ....you will  see I’ve asked for much additional info.     5. This is the 1st time I felt compelled to hire an attorney who specializes in public records law. In a subsequent email I  will send you the first correspondence between my attorney and the records department. You are free to share the  information or not with anyone you wish.     6. I have read the Palo Alto canine policy several times .....see Palo Alto canine policy manuel pages 130‐139 ( Policy 318)    7. Similarly I have reviewed the PERF ( Police Executive Research Forum) policy from 2020 pages, approximately 27  pages, several times.     8. I’m for banning canine units altogether, no reason to hide my position, except for search and rescue, bomb disclosure  and other non apprehension reasons. Absolutely should be banned to capture and bite alleged criminals.     9. If the council disagrees I believe the canine policy of the PAPD should be amended to add policies from the PERF  model guidelines to include: point# 20, page 24, of the PERF  report:     66 “Canine usage data should be published annually, at a minimum. This may be a part of the agency’s use‐of force  report.....Agencies should be transparent with the public by publishing their canine units usage statistics. this should  include all statistics listed in Recommendation # 17 above. At minimum, agencies should publish these statistics annually  in their website.”    10. Finally, I’m hopeful that all members of the Palo Alto City Council, the city manager, and at least all members of the  command staff of the PAPD will review the Marshall  Project ( named afterThurgood Marshall)   2020 .....12 part series re the epidemic of police canine attacks across this country.    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/15/mauled‐when‐police‐dogs‐are‐weapons      Sincerely,    Aram James   67 Baumb, Nelly From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 12:34 PM To:Sara Cody; cindy chavez Subject:Vaccinated Test Positive at 2 weeks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  1. Hundreds of Vaccinated test Positive for virus in 7 states, many get ill. 2. 15 million J&J COVID Vaccines Thrown Away after Ingredient Mix-Up With AstraZeneca 1. Breaking Through’ States Report Growing Number of COVID Cases Among Fully Vaccinated Hundreds of cases reported by Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota-- all reported breakthrough cases of COVID. By Megan Redshaw The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) announced last Tuesday it is investigating reports of people who tested positive for COVID more than two weeks after being fully vaccinated against the disease. Each case was confirmed with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or a positive antigen test more than two weeks after the person had been fully vaccinated. A majority of people with confirmed vaccine breakthrough experienced mild symptoms. * 3 counties in Florida had 35 cases --Volusa, Sumter and Lake. * In Charleston, SC, the Dept of H &E Control (DHEC) identified 134 cases in fully vaccinated across the state. In the past month, Roper St. Francis Healthcare treated four of 10 cases and MUSC reported seven. * In Wichita Falls, Texas, 7 cases reported from 6 Phizer and 1 Moderna. * As of March 24, Minnesota had 89 cases, some with hospitalizatIon. *. In Long Island, NY a woman tested positive more than a month after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine/ * UCLA instituted an optional testing program on Dec. 26, for asymptomatic healthcare workers using PCR nasal testing in an effort to detect asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination. From Dec. 16 - Feb.9, 2021, a total of 36,659 healthcare workers received the first dose of a vaccine, and 28,184 of these persons (77%) received the second dose. Among those vaccinated, 379 people tested positive for COVID at least one day after vaccination, and the majority (71%) tested positive in the first two weeks after the first dose. After receiving both vaccinations, 37 healthcare workers tested positive. According to the study, the risk of testing positive for COVID after vaccination was between 0.97% and 1.19% –– rates higher than the risks reported in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine trials. One explanation for “breakthrough cases” may be the use of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in mRNA COVID vaccines like Moderna and Pfizer. Studies have found approximately 72% of people may have PEG antibodies. In those people, the antibodies may cause an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine. Or, the antibodies may break down and degrade the PEG-coated mRNA in the vaccine 68 before it gets a chance to get into the cell and start programming the production of spike proteins, resulting in the vaccine being less effective. For the full article see childrenshealthdefense.org or the above title on a website. ----------------------- 2. 15 million J&J COVID Vaccines Thrown Away After Ingredient Mix-Up With AstraZeneca By Megan Redshaw of The Defender, published by childrenshealthdefense.org In Brief: * 15 M J&J vaccines fail quality control, human error in plant * J&J never made a vaccine before, uses incompetent ingredients, one affects the blood-brain barrier * J&J frequently fined for illegal behavior, only 42% effective in elders * FDA found no safety concerns but injuries have been reported to VAERS Fifteen million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J’s) vaccine failed quality control after workers at a Baltimore manufacturing plant negligently combined ingredients from AstraZeneca (not approved bin US) and J&J’s COVID vaccine. The mix-up prompted an investigation by the (FDA). The plant is run by Emergent BioSolutions, a manufacturing partner with J&J and AstraZeneca, who has been cited repeatedly by the FDA for problems such as poorly- trained employees, cracked vials and mold around one of its facilities, according to records obtained by the AP through the Freedom of Information Act. Federal officials said Emergent’s mistake was human error that went undiscovered for days until J&J’s quality control checks uncovered it. By then, up to 15 million doses had been contaminated, reported The Indian Express. The error does not affect any J&J doses now administered in the U.S., as those were produced in the Netherlands where operations were fully approved. As reported by The Defender, J&J has never made a vaccine, but since entering the pharmaceutical market in 1959, the company has made a lot of headlines and has been fined billions of dollars for bad, including some illegal, behavior.. . . According to the FDA, J&J’s vaccine consists of a “replication-incompetent recombinant adenovirus type 26, a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and contains t following inactive ingredients: citric acid monohydrate, trisodium citrate dihydrate, ethanol, 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HBCD), polysorbate 80, sodium chloride, sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. The adenovirus is also grown in the PER.C6® aborted fetal cell line. Polysorbate 80, an ingredient in J&J’s vaccine, is a suspected underlying cause ofanaphylactic COVID vaccine adverse reactions. Studies show that polysorbate 80 disrupts the normally protective blood-brain barrier. As The Defender Reported, the FDA authorized J&J’s single-dose COVID vaccine in late February with a reported overall efficacy rating of 66% for preventing “moderate to severe COVID-19.” The vaccine was only 42.3% effective about a month after getting the shot in people 60 or older who had comorbidities. Although the FDA identified no safety concerns with J&J’s COVID vaccine, suspected vaccine injuries have been reported to VAERS since March 2 . Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health. This article has ben condensed by Arlene Goetze, MA, No Toxins for Children 69 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 12:20 PM To:Honky Subject:You are here: Home / The Great Awakening / How “The Bidan (sic) Show” is saving America (and the world) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://www.martingeddes.com/how-the-bidan-show-is-saving-america-and-the-world/ 70 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 10:01 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; midge@thebarretts.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mark Standriff; Mayor; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Stanford women win NCAA Basketball championship CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 9:52 PM  Subject: Stanford women win NCAA Basketball championship  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>             Sunday, April 4, 2021            To all‐                     In photos: Stanford beats Arizona to win first NCAA women's basketball title in 29 years (yahoo.com)              L. William Harding           Fresno, Ca.  71 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 9:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:Boyd, Holly Subject:2021 Scheduled Paving - Los Trancos Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, In a letter to you 2 weeks ago, I wrote that I did not think the Palo Alto section of Los Trancos Road, North of Foothill Park, really needed maintenance, at least I could not recall noticing this when I have bicycled and driven there this spring. I was surprised it was on the public works road maintenance list. I was wrong, and I particularly want to apologize for implying that city staff was in the wrong for putting this section on the maintenance list. One week ago I returned to that area, and paid attention to the point when you cross the creek to enter Palo Alto on Los Trancos Road, and, indeed, the pavement is worse, there is broken pavement, and there are patches covering broken pavement. It definitely needs attention before it gets worse, either more patching and sealing, or full repaving. Thank you for your service to our city. -- -- Robert Neff Emerson Street near Loma Verde robert@neffs.net 72 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 7:55 PM To:Honky Subject:New broadcast link...we were hacked.... ARISE LAZARUS ARE LIVE!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  ----- LIVE NOW ----- New Broadcast Links - we were hacked as we were going live! PLEASE SHARE, SHARE, SHARE! To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.image EASTER SPECIAL OFFERS... ARISE LAZARUS MEMBERSHIPS ARE LIVE!! https://calendly.com/arise-lazarus Become a NewEarth Arise Lazarus Founding Member These special Easter founding members prices disappear in 5 days. Secure your membership today! Watch Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQSdDgRl6og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55JkulIuQDo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UWujtbZ6Po 73 https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=477358213505185&ref=watch_permalink https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=3734011080050211&ref=watch_permalink https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=1179694339140090&ref=watch_permalink https://www.facebook.com/10158046554262499/videos/10158513266597499   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook: newearthproj To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter: NewEarthProjec1 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.In stagram: newearth_project NewEarth Media New Earth Haven Ubud, Bali 80561 Indonesia  Unsubscribe        74 Baumb, Nelly From:PJ Balin-Watkins <pjbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 11:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thanks for the awesome bike racks at cal ave! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The new parking garage bike racks are great!   75 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 10:40 AM To:Honky Subject:? NO QUESTION Adrenochrome is real BUT this BLACK-EYE club best NOT be real? or WE BE IN A HEAP O TROUBLE LOL CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://beforeitsnews.com/scandals/2021/04/adrenochrome-black-eye-club-finally-exposed-in-detail-2438449.html 76 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, April 3, 2021 9:14 PM To:Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; mark weiss; Roberta Ahlquist; Greer Stone; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Kaloma Smith; DuBois, Tom; Raj; Tanner, Rachael Subject:Rooting out white nationalist from police departments across the country ...pressure grows on police leaders to scrutinize for white nationalist among the ranks of local law enforcement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>  Date: April 3, 2021 at 9:08:25 PM PDT  To: aram james <abjpd1@gmail.com>  Subject: Rooting out white nationalist from police departments across the country ...pressure grows  to  https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/03/former‐utah‐police‐capitol‐ riot/?outputType=amp      Sent from my iPhone  77 Baumb, Nelly From:zzz zzz <sozwawa7@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 2, 2021 4:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Temporary Residence Close to Greer Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council:     I am a resident who lives on Clara Drive that is close to Greer Park.       In the past year, I have been increasingly concerned about the RVs and cars that are parked by the park.  Those  vehicles serve as the temporary residence and increasingly narrowed the road close to the junction of Colorado Ave and  Bayshore.  In the morning and afternoon, residences from those vehicles walking on the road freely and place a threat of  accident to the traffic through the area.     Recently, I believe the city police have acted on those vehicles.  Most of them moved away from the park side. However,  unfortunately, a significant portion of them moved further into the neighborhood and packed the section of Colorado  that is close to Greer Ave.   The problem did not go away, in fact it is now in the traffic that Children go back and forth to  school.     I would like to suggest the city to set dedicated location that is far from the local residence area for those temporary  residences.  It will make the city more easy to manage and safer for the local residences.       I am looking forward to seeing the city the quick action to resolve this issue.     Thanks  Shuo Zhang  78 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, April 2, 2021 3:04 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; midge@thebarretts.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; Dan Richard; russ@topperjewelers.com; Mark Standriff; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:YIKES- LOOK WHO J&J HAS MAKING THEIR VACCINE!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Friday, April 2, 2021                This article is scary as hell.  And J&J is going to keep using them!  Congress should step in and put a halt to that.  J&J should be grilled by Congress as to why they are employing such an outfit!!!!!!!!!! and Congress should put a halt to  it. Where is Congress?              Company producing J&J vaccine had history of violations (apnews.com)                 THEN we have something interesting in the WH Press Secretary. I guess all Washington insiders and all of the  media know not to listen to one word that this person says, ever. They are BS artists put out there to try to save the  President's ass.  I've noticed it before. They will say ANYTHING!!  Casualties and deaths in Viet Nam are manageable, bet  they said all during Lyndon's murderous reign.  The trend in American deaths is upward, but we feel that within a few  years they will level off.                 On Thurs., the current one said, re the 15 million doses that J and J had to discard,  "Those are doses that the U.S.  government has purchased, but we also have plenty of doses from Pfizer and Moderna, regardless."           Regardless of what? Regardless of whether or not she gets fired and her incompetent boss gets impeached?  That  Biden puts somebody out there to lie for him to save his ass tells the American people what we have as a President. It  shows that they have total contempt for the American people. In various countries, that has proved costly.                  What BS. Like she knows anything about the number of doses on hand! Just pure BS. We do not have plenty of  doses!!!! Every State and county in the U.S. says no, they do not, every day.                 Before that BS, she said "The company was on track to deliver 24 million doses in April and 100 million doses by  the end of May".   What company? J and J or this horror show that  J and J hires.                  We have plenty of doses, regardless.  If killer Biden released the 30 million doses of the Oxford AZN vaccine  tomorrow, Friday, thousands of lives would be saved who will die of Covid in April and May without them. She should go  to the funerals and tell the grieving relatives, "regardless".      79             I think the "regardless" was aimed at the Stanford grads with degrees in Biological Sciences from Stanford like me  who keep saying that Biden should be impeached for not releasing the Oxford vaccine. "Regardless of what they say, I  have this rich job at the WH and I can lie like an SOB to save my bosses ass".               If the third reich had held press conferences, they could have said six million Jews are being murdered,  "regardless".                  Just wait till Biden starts another Viet Nam. They'll have her come out and lie about it.  I recommend that they  think that one over first because decisions have consequences.               JUST PURE, mindless BS coming out of the WH. Biden, if he had any value at all as a public official, would rein in  the BS in front of the reporters. That he lets that happen validates his sleeze credentials. Total sleeze. He's a little  sleeze bag. Release the 30 million doses of the Oxford‐AZN vaccine and quit murdering the American people. And think  over that second Viet Nam war very carefully.                 L. William Harding            Fresno, Ca.                         80 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 11:25 PM To:Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; Tony Dixon; Donald Mendoza; Planning Commission; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; ParkRec Commission; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Roberta Ahlquist; DuBois, Tom; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Alison Cormack; Cecilia; mark weiss; Rebecca Eisenberg; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Jeff Moore; city.council@menlopark.org Subject:THE GUARDIAN: Chauvin's supervisor says there was no justification to keep knee on George Floyd’s neck CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Chauvin's supervisor says there was no justification to keep knee on George Floyd’s neck  Sgt David Pleoger tells trial that Chauvin and the other officers should have stopped using force once Floyd stopped  resisting   Read in The Guardian: https://apple.news/A7UjpQMV6QpSXqhXdBMIkrQ    Shared from Apple News    Sent from my iPhone  81 Baumb, Nelly From:Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 1, 2021 8:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: [southbaybirds] South Bay Birds: Santa Clara County Bird Sightings - Digest #420 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The dogs on boardwalk unleashed is unacceptable. Please take corrective action.See below  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: southbaybirds@groups.io <digestnoreply@groups.io>  Date: Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:11 AM  Subject: [southbaybirds] South Bay Birds: Santa Clara County Bird Sightings ‐ Digest #420  To: <alice.smith@gmail.com>      To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Groups.io      This is a digest for South Bay Birds: Santa Clara County Bird Sightings. View all your groups.io groups, and  edit your subscriptions, here.   Do not reply to this email. To reply to a message, click the Reply link under the message.   TOPICS IN THIS DIGEST: .   1.  Re: Grant Ranch   2.  Osprey flyover to Sunnyvale WPCP   3.  Dogs at Palo Alto Baylands (2)   4.  Varied Thrush at Cooley Picnic Area, Stevens Canyon   5.  Re: Sunnyvale WPCP   6.  Re: Two Rodents on the Guadalupe River at Ulistac   7.  Two Rodents on the Guadalupe River at Ulistac ‐ TOPIC CLOSED   8.  Team "Subspecies" logs 120 species   9.  [Advocacy] SCVAS Avocet Update, Introduction, and Group Policy  10. South Bay Birds Monthly Reminder #guidelines‐notice      MESSAGES: .    82 1a. Re: Grant Ranch   From: Jumackinnon@yahoo.com  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 06:48:34 PDT   I saw someone playing bird song for the VEFL at Grant last Friday morning.  I had not seen that before and I was so  disappointed, and distressed for the bird.  I didn’t know how to intervene, so I’m glad to hear what you said to  them, and will try that next time.  Thanks for sharing.  On a side note, I moved on down the trail to get away from  them and later did get a brief but fairly close look at the VEFL with no one else around.     View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        2a. Osprey flyover to Sunnyvale WPCP   From: Dani Christensen  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:59:14 PDT   Hi birders,    I’m currently working near the Sunnyvale WPCP (Water Pollution Control Plant) and watched an Osprey fly north  overhead towards the West & East ponds. It was really movin. Just wanted to share in case someone is nearby  who wants to find it.     If you’re not familiar, here’s a link to the SCVAS Self‐Guided Field Trip page for tips on parking and birding this  spot.   https://scvas.org/self‐guided‐birding/tag/Sunnyvale+Water+Pollution+Control+Plant    Bird on!    Dani Christensen   South San Jose  View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        3a. Dogs at Palo Alto Baylands   From: donganton  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:42:03 PDT   We went out to Palo Alto Baylands today and had a nice walk, except for two unleashed dogs running around the  boardwalk. I mentioned to the owner that this area is home to endangered species. She said she ONLY let's her  dogs off leash on the boardwalk. Even though the dogs can't jump off the boardwalk, I think it could be disruptive  to Clapper and Black Rails. Am I overreacting? I love dogs, but I don't always love dog owners.   View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        3b. Re: Dogs at Palo Alto Baylands   From: Chuq Von Rospach  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:03:53 PDT   83 To quote from dogfriendly.com about the place:    Leashed dogs are allowed, unless posted in special bird nesting areas.    the baylands site also notes owners are expected to clean up after them. She was wrong and violating location  rules. You are not over‐reacting.      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    Chuq Von Rospach http://www.chuq.me  Email: chuqui@mac.com  Twitter: @chuq  Silicon Valley, California  View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        4a. Varied Thrush at Cooley Picnic Area, Stevens Canyon   From: Ginger Langdon‐Lassagne  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:10:01 PDT   Hey birders!     Barry and I were participating in the SCVAS Birdathon this morning, on Matthew Dodder’s “Subspecies” team. (It’s  not too late to make a donation! )    We covered a good stretch of the Cupertino reach of Stevens Creek, from McClellan Ranch through the reservoir  and to the upper reaches of Stevens Creek County Park. The biggest surprise for us was the female VARIED  THRUSH which was bathing in the creek at Cooley Picnic area. Also very exciting were the numerous, vocalizing  WILSON’S and ORANGE‐CROWNED WARBLERS where the Creek Trail crosses Stevens Canyon Road at the bridge.  We had a single TOWNSEND’S WARBLER calling at the top of a bay tree, and numerous singing WARBLING VIREOS  as well. PURPLE FINCHES were helpfully calling in adjacent trees, providing a marvelous compare‐and‐contrast.    The percolation ponds at Bubb Road still held a pair of RING‐NECKED DUCKS and a single female/immature type  COMMON MERGANSER. On the path between McClellan ranch and Blackberry Farm we heard our FOS PACIFIC‐ SLOPE FLYCATCHER.    All in all, a great day out! Hope you all get a chance to get out there soon!    Ginger Langdon‐Lassagne  binzer@me.com  View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        5a. Re: Sunnyvale WPCP   From: Steven Finney  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:22:29 PDT   84 Today the trail to A4 was open; no need to use the detour. However, they were doing construction on the first left  turn to go around the west sewage pond, and that road is currently  closed (so: if you want to go that way, go to  the facilities further up the road and take the left there).   View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        6a. Re: Two Rodents on the Guadalupe River at Ulistac   From: Brooke Miller  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:27:46 PDT   Folks,     This topic is closed.      South Bay Birds [SBB] is a list intended for reporting your birding activity in Santa Clara County.    —Brooke Miller   View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        7a. Two Rodents on the Guadalupe River at Ulistac ‐ TOPIC CLOSED   From: Brooke Miller  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:33:19 PDT   Folks,     This topic is closed.  South Bay Birds [SBB] is a list intended for reporting your birding activity in Santa Clara county.    Brooke Miller    Begin forwarded message:    From: John Harris <johnh@mills.edu>  Subject: Re: [southbaybirds] Two Rodents on the Guadalupe River at Ulistac  Date: March 31, 2021 at 5:02:01 PM PDT To: Vanslagerf@aol.com  Cc: "southbaybirds@groups.io" <southbaybirds@groups.io>    Hi all,   This animal does not look like a Muskrat to me. I'm not an expert on any of these species, but I did  serve as a teaching assistant for the mammalogy lab at UC Davis for four years, so I've seen plenty  of specimens, and more than a few wild sightings too. I would throw a third species into the mix  as far as possible identification: the Nutria, an invasive exotic. Basically, in linear dimensions and  mass, the Muskrat is close to a tree squirrle or ground squirrel, while the Beaver and Nutria are  much larger. If you see the tail, it's an easy ID of course, as the Beaver has the classic flat paddle‐ like tail, but if you don't see the tail, then other features must suffice. One of the key features for  Nutria is white whiskers, and the pale appearance of the nose area made me wonder. Maybe if  85 you have some higher resolution photos that could be determined. If it's a Nutria, it should be  reported to California Department of Fish and Wildlife.   John Harris  Here's some basic size data on the relevant species, from the Peterson Guide to Mammals.   Beaver           Head and body length: 2‐3 feet          Tail length: 1 foot          Weight: 35‐70 pounds     Muskrat          Head and body length: 1 foot          Tail length: 1 foot          Weight: 2.5 pounds     Nutria          Head and body length: about 2 feet          Tail length: about 1 foot          Weight: 10‐24 pounds          Look for white whiskers     Some reference animals:     California Ground Squirrel          Head and body length: 10 inches          Tail length: 7 inches          Weight: 1‐2 pounds     Western Gray Squirrel          Head and body length: about one foot          Tail length: about one foot          Weight: about 1.75 pounds    On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:37 AM Frank Vanslager via groups.io  <Vanslagerf=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:  All: As Pete LaTourrette informed me, the photo I posted on 2/16/2021 of an almost submerged rodent could possibly have been a Beaver. Today's photos were taken from a spot about 150 yards north of the fencing at the pump spillway at Ulistac. The Muskrat/Beaver pair swam off downstream (left) together. 86 Frank Vanslager      View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        8a. Team "Subspecies" logs 120 species   From: Matthew Dodder  Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:02:07 PDT   Our lean-and-mean team of 5 dedicated birders (Barry, Ginger, Louise, Mike, and myself) divided up our huge county for a 4-hour distributed effort. We exceeded our goal of 100 species so we’re pretty happy. There’s still time to support us if you wish—we never turn down sponsors... https://scvas.org/spring-birdathon-2021-teams#subspecies For my part, I covered the South County. I left the house at 6:00 AM to arrive on San Felipe Road off Hwy 152 and began birding at 7:00 AM. The CASSIN’S KINGBIRDS were cooperative. Also found here were LAWRENCE’S GOLDFINCHES. Next was a windy drive up Cañada Road to find BULLOCKS ORIOLES along Jamieson Road. I had hoped to find Lark Sparrows here, but instead found a Bobcat. I was smitten and momentarily distracted from my goal. Parking at Henry Coe State Park (Hunting Hollow entrance) I walked along Gilroy Hot Springs Road and found my target WOOD DUCK as well as COMMON MERGANSER. A quick trip to Coyote Lake Park (dam area) produced BALD EAGLE, CANYON WREN, RUFOUS-CROWNED SPARROW and WHITE-THROATED SWIFT as well as courting Aechmophorus Grebes and a SPOTTED SANDPIPER. I made a final stop at Coyote Lake Park (Mendoza Ranch entrance) where I got better looks at WESTERN KINGBIRD, and had my previously-missed LARK SPARROW and a nice surprise CHIPPING SPARROW. I finished my birding at 11:00 AM with 84 species but was unable to count several extra birds in my own neighborhood like Townsend’s Warbler and Red-breasted Nuthatch…. So it goes. We’ll have a full story of our 120 species adventure on the website soon. Next week: the BIRDCASSOS set out on a totally fun 4-hour Sketch-a-thon effort. Sign-ups and sponsorships accepted here: https://scvas.org/spring-birdathon-2021-teams#birdcassos Matthew Matthew Dodder Executive Director 87 Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 22221 McClellan Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-252-3748 director@scvas.org scvas.org View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        9a. [Advocacy] SCVAS Avocet Update, Introduction, and Group Policy   From: Jim Dehnert  Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:35:34 PDT   It's been quite a while since our last Advocacy post here, and I haven't introduced myself (the new list  administrator).  I have some news from our sponsors (the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society), I'll introduce  myself, and I'll finish up with a description of how I view the group's posting policies, since there have been  several related issues raised recently.  [As is our practice for Advocacy posts, this material is off‐topic for the  list.  If you want to discuss anything further, please direct comments to me, to the administrators' email  southbaybirds+owner@groups.io, or to other responsible parties, not to the list.]     *****  Avocet Update *****    SCVAS sent a notice to members a couple of days ago about the most recent issue of our Avocet Update  newsletter.  It has a number of items of interest to this group, including the spring Birdathon, an upcoming talk,  spring Self‐Guided Birding Field Trips, and new recommendations concerning bird feeders and salmonellosis.  The  last subject came up recently on this list, and is worth reading if you have a local bird feeder.  [Spoiler:  you should  probably take down any seed or suet feeders until Pine Siskins have left the area in a month or two, for the safety  of the birds.]    *****  Introduction  *****    Chuq mentioned a while back that I (Jim Dehnert) have taken over his role as the primary administrator for this  email group (southbaybirds).  I'd like to start by thanking him for all the work he has done developing and  managing this list over the years (since long before I was a subscriber), as well as the associated website (which  you'll find linked at the bottom of every group post).  He's promised that he'll fade away slowly, so I hope to have  his assistance for quite a while.    As for me...  I've been birding in this area for about 3 decades, mostly by myself with just the assistance of field  guides until the past 5 years or so ‐‐ which was about the time I discovered this list, and when I retired.  Since then  I've learned a lot, from Matthew Dodder's advanced birding class, from other local birders, and perhaps  surprisingly from pushing myself to conscientiously use eBird reporting tools.  I'm still not an expert birder, but I'm  less of a beginner. :‐)    As list administrator, I have no plans to make significant changes in how this group is managed.  In particular, I  want it to be a welcoming place for Santa Clara County birders at all levels of experience to get information about  bird sightings in the county.  I'll describe what I think that means in the rest of this message.    *****  Group Posting Policy  *****    Summary    88 Let's start with the summary view.  The fundamental purpose of the group is to help birders find interesting birds  they'd like to see, and/or places where they'd like to bird.  Posts to the group should be:   About sightings of interesting birds, and/or the places where we've found them,   in Santa Clara County,   relatively recently; and   consistent with ethical birding practices.  What follows is elaboration of these points.    [tl;dr]    Purpose    A word about the purpose:  This isn't a chat group about general birding topics.  Like most email groups, most of  our members (about 1200 strong) get the posts as email messages, because they want to be alerted about  sightings that might be of immediate interest.  That rapidly becomes unmanageable if the topic is not reasonably  constrained.    We do, though,  want to be welcoming to birders at all levels.  The beginners of today will be the core  contributors in the future.  So the way I like to think about this is this:  ask yourself whether your report will be  interesting to other birders at your level of experience, to go see the bird for themselves.  If so, great; if not, this  isn't the right forum.  Our Silicon Valley Birding facebook group is intended for more general birding discussions.    We also have a separate list ‐‐ southbaybirds‐events@groups.io ‐‐ for announcements of events like talks, classes,  and our field trips.  Please subscribe if you're interested in that material, and contact us if you have something of  that sort to be posted.    Posting ‐‐ What and Where    Clearly, you should include what you saw, where you saw it, and when.  Please use a subject that provides the  bird[s] of interest and the location (in general terms, e.g., a park).  The message itself can provide more detail  about either, the date, and other context and commentary.  Note that an eBird checklist link is an ideal way to  encapsulate much of this.    Especially for rarer birds, more precise location information may be desirable.  But consider the ethical birding  item below...    Sometimes you'll see posts that are essentially trip reports.  Even without particularly noteworthy birds, these can  help birders decide whether a site is worth a visit at this time.    Santa Clara County    Please restrict reports to the county.  There are other lists for neighboring counties' sightings, for instance  peninsula‐birding@groups.io (San Mateo County Audubon) and ebb‐sightings@groups.io (Alameda/Contra Costa  counties).  I recommend subscribing if you're interested in those areas as well.    Timeliness    89 The most valuable sightings reports of course are those that come before the bird leaves the area.  After several  days, you're drifting away from the list's purpose...    Ethical Birding    Please check out the links on our associated website for more detail, but I'll note several items here:   The welfare of the bird is primary.  We don't allow posting locations of raptor nests, and discourage other  nest location information that may endanger successful nesting.  If in doubt, leave out  details.  (Mentioning a nest in a large area like a park is fine.)  Similarly, think hard about providing precise  locations for threatened species or birds likely to attract enough attention to disrupt their foraging.   If you report birds seen on private or inaccessible property, make that clear.  We don't encourage  trespassing.   Please treat your fellow birders with respect and politeness, on the list and in the field.  If you see others  behaving unethically, you'll need to decide whether talking to them is safe and likely to be helpful, but do  it politely if you do.  Miscellaneous    Photos:  Posting our photography is not the purpose of the list.  If you're posting to share your photo, the  facebook group is the right place.  Photos can be large, which can be an issue for members with limited email  storage capacity.  On the other hand, photos are sometimes useful (a) to let others see what they're looking for  (especially rare birds or unusual variants), or (b) if there's a question about the bird's ID, so others can  help.  Please be sparing in your photo posts (no more than a couple).  If the bird's location is sensitive, strip  GPS/exif data.  Ideally, put the photo in an eBird checklist (where it can be useful to a much larger community) or  another photo website, and just include a  link in your post.    Responses:  Follow‐ups to posts can be helpful, e.g., to track the continued presence of a bird, or to provide  context.  But please send private comments directly to the poster, and let off‐topic threads quietly die.    Problems:  The list moderators are all volunteers, and we don't notice everything that goes by.  If you see a  significant problem, please send us a note at southbaybirds+owner@groups.io .  (We don't worry much about  insignificant problems.)  We do sometimes lock threads drifting off‐topic, or remove problematic threads entirely;  don't attempt to re‐open those subjects.    ***  If you got this far, I hope it's been useful.  Please send any comments to me at the address below.    Happy birding!  Jim Dehnert, list administrator    ‐‐               Jim Dehnert               dehnert@gmail.com             View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Top ^ | New Topic        90 10a. South Bay Birds Monthly Reminder #guidelines‐notice   From: southbaybirds@groups.io  Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 05:31:13 PDT   Thank you for being a member of South Bay Birds [SBB]. This is our monthly reminder sent to the list with  information about the group.      South Bay Birds [SBB] is a list intended for reporting your birding activity in Santa Clara county. We encourage  everyone to share where they bird and what they see. If you use eBird, we encourage you to include a link to the  eBird trip report that you filed.      This list is supported by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (https://scvas.org). Their volunteers and funding  keeps the list running so please consider joining or donating to them. SBB's Lead Admin is Jim Dehnert. Chuq Von  Rospach, Brooke Miller, Matthew Dodder and Barry Langdon‐Lassagne assist Jim. You can contact the  administration team with your questions and concerns at southbaybirds+owner@groups.io.     <wilmot@me.com>      The home site for this list is https://siliconvalleybirding.org and you can find out more about us there.     Available Topic Groups     There are three topic groups available:         South Bay Birds [SBB] https://groups.io/g/southbaybirds/      South Bay Birds (Events) [SBB‐Events] https://groups.io/g/southbaybirds‐events/      Silicon Valley Birders Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/110996713065201/        Trying to find a location mentioned in SBB? Use this Google Map:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w39tnsFxYJeIJqYtf774vtuVk0Gz2F9G&usp=sharing        Ethical Birding     The birds we watch should be our primary concern. As birders we need to be sensitive to their needs and not do  things that put the birds or their habitat at risk.     We believe all birders should act as ethical birders. Your personal year list or that special photograph could put  the bird at risk or cause its nest to fail. Because we expect all birders to act ethically around the birds that bring  them joy, we expect that of the birders who are on our list as well. We have written up some ideas of what it  means to be an ethical birder, and list links to other resources on ethical birding as well. Please read them and act  to put the bird’s needs ahead of your own. If we find out that members of the list are putting birds or their habitat  at risk, those members may lose access to the mailing list and its resources.     We also believe that members of the list should treat each other properly. If a list member is found to be  attacking or harassing other list members, or engaging in activities that violate the ethical birding code it may  affect their future ability to contribute to or subscribe to our lists.     Acceptable Content     91 The primary content for SBB is where you went and what you saw.  The objective is to help other birders  interested in the birds you saw to find them themselves.  Please include the general location (e.g., an eBird  hotspot) and, if appropriate, the bird(s) of interest in the subject line, with any additional detail needed in the  message body.  Please report only Santa Clara County locations ‐‐ other counties have their own mailing lists for  trip reports.     Occasionally the administrator will post an Advocacy digest ‐‐ no more than once a week, and more typically, once  or twice a month. This digest contains topics that are not typically posted to the list but we feel are of interest to  the readers of SBB and are important enough to warrant posting to the wider audience. These messages will be  tagged with the word "Advocacy" in the subject so members who aren't interested can delete or filter them if  they choose. Topics posted as Advocacy messages typically include updates on important Advocacy activities by  Santa Clara Valley Audubon (SCVAS) and SCVAS volunteer activities.      Unacceptable Content     We discourage posting information that identifies the location of nesting birds, to minimize stress on the nesting  birds and the risk of vandalism or abuse. Nesting locations for Owls and Raptors are prohibited and should not be  disclosed.     We discourage general discussion on South Bay Birds, for that we've created a Facebook group (see below).  If you  with to propose a general‐purpose announcement for an Advocacy digest post, please send the proposed text to  the administrator (below).     Please do not post notices of upcoming events to SBB. There is a sister list, South Bay Birds (Events) [SBB‐Events],  that should be used for that purpose. If you are interested in knowing what events are being offered by SCVAS  and other county bird‐oriented organizations, we encourage you to subscribe to this list (see below).     Please do not post carpooling requests for events to SBB. We request that they go to the Facebook discussion  group.      Unsubscribing from South Bay Birds     If you ever need to unsubscribe from this list, an unsubscribe link is at the bottom of every message, or you can go  to https://groups.io/g/southbaybirds/. That's also where you can view the list archives,  set up a vacation hold,  change your email address, or modify your subscription in any way.      South Bay Birds and Birdwatching in Silicon Valley are affiliated with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society  (http://www.scvas.org), which offers classes and outings around the county, so if you're interested in learning  more about birding in the county or joining other birders in going out birding, they can help you find an outing  that matches your interests.      View/Reply Online | Reply To Sender | Reply To Group | Mute Topic | Mute #guidelines‐notice | Top ^ | New  Topic        Please be discreet in disclosing locations of nesting birds. Disclosure of nests for Owls and Raptors is  prohibited.    SBB's Acceptable Use policy and other information: Birdwatching in Silicon Valley:  92 https://siliconvalleybirding.org  Santa Clara County birding events: https://groups.io/g/southbaybirds‐events/  Google Map of popular bird locations:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w39tnsFxYJeIJqYtf774vtuVk0Gz2F9G    South Bay Birds is managed and supported by Santa Clara Valley Audubon (https://scvas.org) and its  volunteers.       To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Groups.io    © 2021 Groups.io       You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to southbaybirds@groups.io via alice.smith@gmail.com. You can  unsubscribe here.       93 Baumb, Nelly From:jonisreid@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 6:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Dog Attack CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council:  This is a quote from today’s Palo Alto on‐line:  “Assistant District Attorney Brian Welch said in a statement that because Alejo did not suffer injuries likely to  result in his death, the incident did not come within the county's Officer‐Involved Incident Protocol, which  governs incidents that involve great bodily injury or fatalities. Welch said the office learned about the incident  after the Palo Alto Police Department provided the office with the incident reports.  "Based on our review of the case materials, we have concluded that Agent Enberg's use of his police dog did not  result in the use of excessive force under the color of authority," Welch said in the statement.”  This is disgraceful. Just because Alejo did not suffer death from the aggressive and deliberate dog bites Enberg’s  dog  inflicted on this man, the PA and MV police departments are free of punishment and the DA’s office will not charge  this police officer. ReallY???? How would all of you like to be attacked by a vicious and well trained dog being which is  being instructed to attack if YOU were asleep in your sister’s shed in her yard. Shame on all of you.  Joan Reid  94 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Konda <sccala@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 2:37 PM To:Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Jethroe Moore Cc:William Armaline; Raj Jayadev; <abjpd1@gmail.com>; Walter Wilson; Derek Grasty; Roxana Marachi; Micael 'mica' Estremera; Elizabeth Kamya; Angelica Cortez; Kyle Dacallos; Virginia Groce-Roberts; Raven Malone; Ray F. Montgomery; Khalid White; Robert Salonga; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; Richard Konda; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Pat Burt; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Curtis Smolar Subject:Re: Meeting Request Regarding K9 use CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear District Attorney Rosen: I have been made aware of Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg's use of his dog to bring harm to communities of color. He should be prosecuted for the use of his dog on a sleeping man. His aggressive use of his dog cannot be tolerated. This is not the first instance that Enberg has used his dog to do harm to a Palo Alto resident. We understand the Pastor Jethroe Moore II of the NAACP has requested a meeting with you to further discuss Enberg and we hope that you will honor this request for a meeting. Sincerely, Richard Konda Executive Director Asian Law Alliance On Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 12:22:11 PM PDT, Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> wrote: Good afternoon, request a meeting with you to discuss why you refuse to press charges/fire the Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg, and explain to us how this is not a prosecutable offense when this is the second time this officer has used his K9 to being harm to the communities of color. Regarding below. Currently, there are seven canine-specific cases that mandate giving suspects a warning prior to using a police K-9 as a potential use of force tool. Burrows v. City of Tulsa (10th Circuit), Trammel v. Thomason (11th Circuit), Sorchini v. City of Covina (9th Circuit), and Vathekan v. 95 Prince George's County (MD, 4th Circuit) Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: It is clearly established that it is unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing police dog to seize someone. Furthermore Kuha v. City of Minnetonka (8th Circuit), Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park (MN, 8th Circuit), and Rogers v. City of Kennewick (9th Circuit), Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: The court ruled that there was clearly established case law that failing to give a warning before releasing police dog to bite and hold is unreasonable. Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg failed to announce the use of his dog on a sleeping man is clearly an act of aggression with intent to do harm, shined another light on the systemic failures of policing in Santa Clara County. There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place. 96 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 1:53 PM To:Jeff Rosen; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; David Angel; Molly; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Roberta Ahlquist; Jonsen, Robert; Lewis. james Cc:Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; William Armaline; Raj Jayadev; Richard Konda; Walter Wilson; Derek Grasty; Roxana Marachi; Micael 'mica' Estremera; Elizabeth Kamya; Angelica Cortez; Kyle Dacallos; Virginia Groce-Roberts; Raven Malone; Ray F. Montgomery; Khalid White; Robert Salonga; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; Richard Konda; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Pat Burt; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Curtis Smolar Subject:Re: Meeting Request Regarding K9 use CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Rev Jethroe Moore’s front page story in the Palo Alto Daily Post( Saturday March 27‐28 edition): NAACP calls for firing of  cop who ordered dog to bite sleeping man: see link to the article below....      https://padailypost.com/2021/03/28/naacp‐calls‐for‐firing‐of‐cop‐who‐ordered‐dog‐to‐bite‐sleeping‐man/amp/ Sent  from my iPhone      On Mar 30, 2021, at 9:09 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com     Mr. Moore,    Very well articulated including the referenced case law!  However, your final paragraph encapsulated  the essence of what should occur first...    “There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place.”    The person identified, and responsible, for  the departmental deficiencies that have allowed these  officers to remain on the force....is none other then Jeff Rosen.....     Sincerely,    Palo Alto Free Press       Sent from my iPad  97     On Mar 30, 2021, at 12:22 PM, Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> wrote:    There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that  allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place.  98 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 12:33 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; midge@thebarretts.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; Mark Standriff; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Now Kanzlerin halts Oxford vaccine for those UNDER 60. 3-30-21 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 7:26 PM  Subject: Fwd: Now Kanzlerin halts Oxford vaccine for those UNDER 60. 3‐30‐21  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 7:12 PM  Subject: Fwd: Now Kanzlerin halts Oxford vaccine for those UNDER 60. 3‐30‐21  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:27 PM  Subject: Fwd: Now Kanzlerin halts Oxford vaccine for those UNDER 60. 3‐30‐21  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:25 PM  99 Subject: Fwd: Now Kanzlerin halts Oxford vaccine for those UNDER 60. 3‐30‐21  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:18 PM  Subject: Fwd: Now Kanzlerin halts Oxford vaccine for those UNDER 60. 3‐30‐21  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:12 PM  Subject: Now Kanzlerin halts Oxford vaccine for those UNDER 60. 3‐30‐21  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>             Tuesday, March 30, 2021 late              So now if you are over 60, the Oxford vaccine continues to be injected in Deutschland.  Start‐stop. In the UK, they  just roll on with hundreds of thousands injections of the Oxford‐AZN per day.  Every day. The same vaccine, 30 million  doses of which Biden's FDA is going to have its review panel review for weeks.  Every vaccination site in the United  States needs more doses to inject and the need will soar as all of these magical "availability windows" open for lower  age groups, as proclaimed by Biden. He thinks that will snow us and we won't see that the Oxford‐AZN vaccine,  released now, will save lives. Because it is being denied to Americans this week, some will die in May when "everybody  over 16 can get a dose" which, in itself, is a dubious proposition.  When you develop Covid in April, a shot in May won't  save you. It is too late then.          Germany restricts use of AstraZeneca vaccine to over 60s | DW News ‐ YouTube               Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of injections of the Oxford‐AZN vaccine continue in the four countries of the  UK.  The rest of the EU outside of Germany continues to use it too, apparently.  And Biden's FDA continues to ponder the  wonderful, confirmatory results of the 30,000 person trial that AZR was forced  to conduct in the U.S..  Those results are  wonderful, but the American people, the suckers, the patsies, will continue to die because of Biden letting his FDA keep  the vaccine from them. This is just murder.                  Listen to the video above. The UK has not found what the Germans have found. We are now in the middle of a  surge of Covid in the U.S. and people will die in April and May here because Biden is a sleeze‐bag. He has validated  and telegraphed his sleeze credentials for those inside the beltway with this.  If Biden had a shread of decency he  would, at long last, at long last, have you no decency sir, order the FDA to grant an EUA for the Oxford‐Astrazeneca  vaccine. If done so tomorrow, the vaccine could be injected by Thursday. Imagine, 30 million additional doses of Covid  vaccine suddenly available all over the U.S.                  I urge Congress once again to impeach Biden for murder.  If they do not, they are signing on to and adopting his  sleeze profile, and they are complicit in murder. They always have to wait to see if a new President is a straight shooter  on the sleeze continuum, like Carter, or a total scum‐bag like Lyndon. With this Oxford‐AZN vaccine hold‐up, they know  now where Biden stands.     100             AZN has 30 million doses of the Oxford vaccine being held in the U.S. It will be released "instantly" the minute the  FDA grants an EUA, the CEO of AZN told Congress under oath three weeks ago. The Oxford vaccine has now been trialed  and studied to death. EU, UK, US. It is safe and effective. The American people need it desperately. But our despot  president says "Let 'em hang". For that, Congress has a duty to impeach him.               Tonights ABC World News for Tues., March 30, 2021:   Hospital admissions are up in 11 States. Large group  gatherings, bars and restaurants opening are the reason. The variants are driving the surge. (LH‐ that would be the UK  variant, B‐1.1.7, the Brazil variant, the P variant, and the South African variant, B. 3.5.1.) Restaurants opening fully are  not making it easier. In Florida, anyone over 40 can get a shot. Everyone 16 and over on May 1 can get a shot, says  Biden. Why not millions of people by this Friday when the FDA releases the Oxford vaccine. It is that event which Biden  is preventing, and it is blocking that event which will cost lives in April and May and June. NO ONE CAN REFUTE THAT  RELEASING THE OXFORD VACCINE NOW WOULD SAVE AMERICAN LIVES. BIDEN'S REFUSAL TO RELEASE IT MAKES HIM  A MURDERER. HE WILL NEVER LIVE THAT DOWN.                        On Face the Nation last Sunday, one expert said that China wrote the report about the lab in Wuhan and  handed it to the WHO.                   BUT look at this mail that just came to me from Kaiser, where I am a member: Kaiser does not have reputation  as a pack of liars.                    Limited vaccine supply and expanding eligibility ‐ loran.harding@alumni.stanford.edu ‐ Stanford Alumni Mail  (google.com)             LOOK AT THIS:   Biden and the Governor of California can announce all the shots available to all sorts of age groups  on all sorts of dates, but Kaiser says they don't have enough vaccine to fulfull all of those promises.  WE NEED THE  OXFORD‐AZN VACCINE RELEASED BY THE FDA NOW OR PEOPLE WILL DIE IN APRIL AND MAY AND JUNE BECAUSE THEY  CANNOT HAVE THAT VACCINE NOW. That is irrefutable and Biden should be impeached for it. He'll never live it  down.  This guy is a murderer.                   Here is Epidemiologist Dr. Osterholm at the University of Michigan speaking today:  He says if you open up  vaccination to all age groups and you do not have enough vaccine, and we do not have, then the millions of over‐65s in  the U.S who still have not been vaccinated will be in competition with younger age groups for vaccines.   Biden is trying  to cover his ass by saying that all sorts of age groups can get vaccinated on May 1, when doing only that will cost lots of  lives. We need the Oxford‐AZN vaccine released now.                 Top epidemiologist on rise in COVID‐19 cases, new vaccine timeline ‐ YouTube             L. William Harding           Fresno, Ca.  701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/19/2021 Document dates: 03/31/2021 – 04/07/2021 Set 2 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 11:29 AM To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Raj; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Richard Konda; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; Binder, Andrew; Tony Dixon; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Greer Stone; Cecilia Taylor; Josh Becker; Roberta Ahlquist; Jonsen, Robert; Charisse Domingo; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Raven Malone; Jeff Rosen; kmartin@padailypost.com; pastor@universityamez.com; Sunita de Tourreil; DuBois, Tom; ParkRec Commission; Tanner, Rachael; mark weiss; Joe Simitian; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; David Angel; Winter Dellenbach; Kou, Lydia; Greg Tanaka; Stump, Molly; Pat Burt; Shikada, Ed; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary; Dave Price; Cormack, Alison; moore2j@att.net Subject:Information that has finally been disclosed by way of my public records act request, make on Feb 22, disclosure date 4-5-20—more data sought on the canine attack on Mr. Joel Alejo, and on Palo Alto’s canine generally ( slight edits from my 1st send) Attachments:CPRA Response Letter2_AJames K9_W0027788-022221_F(4-6).pdf; CPRA Response Docs_W002788-022221_K9-ref Question2.pdf; Bohdan Dog Record.pdf; Balko dog record.pdf; Gov claims.pdf; Enberg Logs-Redacted.pdf; Tannock Logs-Redacted.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.         4 ‐7‐ 2021   From: Aram James To: The people of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Is it time to ban police canine units in Palo Alto, and in all of Santa Clara County? Re: Aram’s attempt to receive information from the Palo Alto Police Department regarding the current status of our canine unit by using the California Public Records Act. Hi Folks, Here are the public records that have thus far been released to me, by the city of Palo Alto, as well as copies of my 34 questions that generated the partial responses, I have received thus far. ( see all info below) 2 In 2005 the PAPD was willing to release the race of the dog bite victims —but not so far this time. One has to wonder what the city is covering up. Also see the 25-page complaint filed by Mr. Alejo’s attorney including graphic injury photos taken during his stay at El Camino Hospital in Mountain View. Much of officer Enberg's deployment logs are redacted. One of things I did notice is more of his canine uses were in East Palo Alto than Palo Alto. Given the extent of the redactions, re Enberg’s canine log, and the small number of entries not redacted, it is difficult to establish any consistent pattern. Clearly this is an issue I think the public should pursue. Hopefully my attorney, who specializes in public record law, will convince the city of Palo Alto to provide more of the records that I have requested, as this legal process goes forward. In this way I can fill in for the public a more complete picture of how Palo Alto uses its canine units. The log for the second canine handler, Officer Tannock, seems to show canine deployments in Mountain View, Menlo Park, Redwood City and a fair share of the use of this officer’s canine time for public displays and public relations purposes. The public relations canine exhibits may be used to soften up the public to think how cute these canines are without giving the public the other-side of the story, how these vicious dogs are trained to mostly attack black and brown people here, and across this country. The injuries inflicted by these canines are often serious and sometimes even deadly. I wonder how many law enforcement hours are spent every year parading this vicious canines from one public event to another? And how much money does this unnecessary police exhibitionism, of these vicious and violent canines, cost our city every year? 3 Given the long history of using police canines against enslaved people, during the Jim Crow era, during the civil rights movement, and up and through today’s political demonstrations, what are we teaching our children about the use of violence against our black and brown brothers and sisters? I say it is past time we ban canine units in Palo Alto and across this country. Please review any and all of the questions and information below and see what you find. Feel free to share any of the information or concerns you have with me, and with the other folks on this list. Share the information with your concerned friends and neighbors. As more information is forthcoming from the city I will pass it your way. Sincerely, Aram James       Dear Mr. Cisneros,      Per your instruction, I am sending you the CPRA  response on behalf of Mr. James.  I had previously told  Mr. James that I would send him responses via email as  well as GovQA, so I have added him to this  communication.  Likewise, I have added you to the  GovQA notification although I don’t believe you will be  able to access the records on that format.      Thank you,     Lisa Scheff  4 Public Safety Program Manager/Records  Palo Alto Police Department  (650) 329‐2553 | lisa.scheff@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org | www.papd.org              CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 A.<1"-'....,.&IUVJ Vl"'TU I Ulle 0 Ne( v.Zweier v.Lusondai LOSH/0634084 LOSH/0782476 Nina-Nicky SG, HD-A, DNA v.Tiekerhook IP03 NHSB/l 873439 Watz UMWUSVAsko v.alten Felsenkellcr von der Lutter SZ Nr:2034335 SZ Nr: 1906890 SG, HD a normal, DNA gpr. Jana Lcbenszeit v.alten Felsenkellcr SchH 3,FH 1 SZ Nr: 1902404 - Vesta Janoscb vom Linzgau v.d.Germanenquelle SZ Nr:2057859 SZ Nr:l951633 V, HD nonnal, DNA Lissi Lebenszeit v .d.Sigisliebe SchH 3,IPO 3 SZ Nr: t 969889 Tyson Olil: von der Schiffslache von Karthago SZ Nr:206 l 899 SZ Nr: 1962325 SG, HD a normal, DNA gpr. Connie Korkl. 1 Lebenszeit v.Kornerplatz SchH 3,IPO 3 SZ Nr:1837689 - Wilma OJ ex v.Ketscher Wald de Valsory SZ Nr:2108980 SZ Nr:208287 I G, HD a nonnal, DNA Nelly Korkl.1 Lbz. v.Ketschcr Wald SchH 3 SZ Nr:l973933 Unikum Xaver v.Hollbachgrund v.Hollbachgrund SZ Nr:l966440 SZ Nr: 1810398 V, HD a normal. DNA Flora Korkl. Lebenszeit v .Hollbacbgrund SchH 3 SZ Nr:l851593 ~- Tessa Lewis von der Maineiche v.Malatesta SZ Nr:l890048 SZ Nr:l 739753 SG, HD a normal, DNA Ines Lbz. von der Maineiche SchH 2 SZ Nr: 1799293 CPRA Records Release W002788-022221I f .. Nemeclcy ovca.k Deutscher Schaferhund BoldAradel vlkoseda 0 pes 0 krcitka KADICOVA Veronika, Radomilice 37, 373 48 Argo LOI/10/103938 HD a normal, ED normal, DNA BH, IPO 3 Selezionato 1, 2014-2016 vlkoseda Sowvzeocl: EllSka Sovimljn CMKU/DS/81717 /11/13 dobcy HD a(0/0), ED (0/0), DNA (CZ) IPO 3, BH, FPr 1 2.tiida doiivotne 5CV1/P vlkoseda SOUJ'OZ8Dd: Egon; I Evar; velml dobrj; ZVV 3, IPO 3. BH; HD a(O/Ol. ED (0/0), DNA (CZ}; 1.tfide 2015-2016 5KU1/N; I Electra; velml dobrj; FPr 2. ZOP, BH, Zl/V 1, SPr 1, ZPU 1; HD a(0/0), ED (0/0), DNA (CZ); 1.tfida dohvotne SUl/P; I b.l.Uta; qlmJ dobrf: lPO 3, ZPS 1. ZVV 1. BH. FPr l; HD a(212). ED (Dllll. DNA (CZ}: 2.tiida doiivotne SCVl/P; lasko di Casa Uhanil LOl/OB/50455 HDA, ED 0 Vlnle di Dranel LOl/03/2815 HDB Mu Cerny obelisk CMKU/DS/58606/05/09 velmi dobcy, HD a{0/0) ED(0/0), DNA CZ ZVV2 2. tiida doZivotne 5CV1/P vlkoseda Artemis z Duboveho mljna CMKU/DS/48807 /03/05 velmi dobrj, HD a(O/O) ZPS 1. ZVV 3, ZPO 1. ZM CPRA Records Release W002788-022221I . • t. 0 v 0 CMKU/DS/107435/17 13594 953010001973774 iM Nem. Ellute 'On der Mohnwiese iZ Nr/2036438 iG, HD a normal DNA ~orkl.1 Lebenszeit ~. FH 1, BH, IPO 3, SchH 3 !rra '.;alin Nalag :MICU/DS/49502/03 -IDB lory ii Dranel :..OI/00/105274 Gina di Dranel LOI/00/100634 lpor Kiddo SUCHN0/36733/99 dobcy, HD A{SIC) t.tr.doZivotne SKXS/55 P SW 1, IPO 1 Erika Cerny obelisk CMKU/DS/29630/97 /00 velmi dobrf, HD a{0/0) 2.tt.doiivotne 5Cll/P 'lVV 1, SchH 3, IPO 3 UM CR Paso Naspo CMKU/DS/31012/97/02 -vfborny, HD a{lfl) t.tf.doZivotne SVl/P FH 1, SchH 3, ZPS 1, IPO 3, 'l:'JV 3 Tana 7 Rlatoncltohn rimlm 04.04.2017 o 1.0B.2017 Martina Hlivkova UMWUSVTom van· t Leefdaalhof SZ Nr/2018398 UM wusv Aline von der Mohnwiese SZ Nr/1905152 IngoU von Karthago SZ Nr/2019746 Bahe ta Galan CS CMKU/DS/35317/99/00 UMWUSVTom van't Leefdaalhof SZ Nr/2018398 Ares Katargo HPK/27149/94/96 Troll v.Haus Mlllnda LOSH/0756581 Ambra GT 631750 Cezar z Jasenskej dollny SHPK/O 1100/90/96 Flan a Kiddo SUCHN0/28683/95/98 Mlstr CR Gero Ch.melmj kvitek CKS/07825/91/94 Conny zDaskonu CKSP/05688/93 Derrik vom Hau's Iris SZ Nr/1801341 Kasa od Pollcte CS CMKU/DS/23359/95/97 Xero z PobranlCni striie CPRA Records Release W002788-022221I f .. Nemeclcy ovca.k Deutscher Schaferhund BoldAradel vlkoseda 0 pes 0 krcitka KADICOVA Veronika, Radomilice 37, 373 48 Argo LOI/10/103938 HD a normal, ED normal, DNA BH, IPO 3 Selezionato 1, 2014-2016 vlkoseda Sowvzeocl: EllSka Sovimljn CMKU/DS/81717 /11/13 dobcy HD a(0/0), ED (0/0), DNA (CZ) IPO 3, BH, FPr 1 2.tiida doiivotne 5CV1/P vlkoseda SOUJ'OZ8Dd: Egon; I Evar; velml dobrj; ZVV 3, IPO 3. BH; HD a(O/Ol. ED (0/0), DNA (CZ}; 1.tfide 2015-2016 5KU1/N; I Electra; velml dobrj; FPr 2. ZOP, BH, Zl/V 1, SPr 1, ZPU 1; HD a(0/0), ED (0/0), DNA (CZ); 1.tfida dohvotne SUl/P; I b.l.Uta; qlmJ dobrf: lPO 3, ZPS 1. ZVV 1. BH. FPr l; HD a(212). ED (Dllll. DNA (CZ}: 2.tiida doiivotne SCVl/P; lasko di Casa Uhanil LOl/OB/50455 HDA, ED 0 Vlnle di Dranel LOl/03/2815 HDB Mu Cerny obelisk CMKU/DS/58606/05/09 velmi dobcy, HD a{0/0) ED(0/0), DNA CZ ZVV2 2. tiida doZivotne 5CV1/P vlkoseda Artemis z Duboveho mljna CMKU/DS/48807 /03/05 velmi dobrj, HD a(O/O) ZPS 1. ZVV 3, ZPO 1. ZM CPRA Records Release W002788-022221I . • t. 0 v 0 CMKU/DS/107435/17 13594 953010001973774 iM Nem. Ellute 'On der Mohnwiese iZ Nr/2036438 iG, HD a normal DNA ~orkl.1 Lebenszeit ~. FH 1, BH, IPO 3, SchH 3 !rra '.;alin Nalag :MICU/DS/49502/03 -IDB lory ii Dranel :..OI/00/105274 Gina di Dranel LOI/00/100634 lpor Kiddo SUCHN0/36733/99 dobcy, HD A{SIC) t.tr.doZivotne SKXS/55 P SW 1, IPO 1 Erika Cerny obelisk CMKU/DS/29630/97 /00 velmi dobrf, HD a{0/0) 2.tt.doiivotne 5Cll/P 'lVV 1, SchH 3, IPO 3 UM CR Paso Naspo CMKU/DS/31012/97/02 -vfborny, HD a{lfl) t.tf.doZivotne SVl/P FH 1, SchH 3, ZPS 1, IPO 3, 'l:'JV 3 Tana 7 Rlatoncltohn rimlm 04.04.2017 o 1.0B.2017 Martina Hlivkova UMWUSVTom van· t Leefdaalhof SZ Nr/2018398 UM wusv Aline von der Mohnwiese SZ Nr/1905152 IngoU von Karthago SZ Nr/2019746 Bahe ta Galan CS CMKU/DS/35317/99/00 UMWUSVTom van't Leefdaalhof SZ Nr/2018398 Ares Katargo HPK/27149/94/96 Troll v.Haus Mlllnda LOSH/0756581 Ambra GT 631750 Cezar z Jasenskej dollny SHPK/O 1100/90/96 Flan a Kiddo SUCHN0/28683/95/98 Mlstr CR Gero Ch.melmj kvitek CKS/07825/91/94 Conny zDaskonu CKSP/05688/93 Derrik vom Hau's Iris SZ Nr/1801341 Kasa od Pollcte CS CMKU/DS/23359/95/97 Xero z PobranlCni striie Financial Information for K-9 Bohdan: Paying out of Account 70191001-32070 Questica BCR 2019-821403 Donation Received $29,554.00 Paid To Date Paid Acquisition -$9,810.00 Witmer Tyson 11/7/2018 Training -$3,300.00 Witmer Tyson 11/8/2018 Supplies -$824.59 Witmer Tyson 10/26/2018 K9 training -$1,650.00 Witmer Tyson 12/11/2018 Amount Left $13,969.41 CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 1 April 5, 2021 VIA EMAIL VIA CPA Web Portal Mr. Aram James C/O Mr. Abenicio Cisneros acisneros@capubilcrecordslaw.com RE: Mr. James’ California Public Records Act Request Dated February 22, 2021 Ref: W002788-022221 Dear Mr. Cisneros and Mr. James, This letter is being sent to you per your instructions of your electronic mail received April 1, 2021 on behalf of Mr. James. This follow up letter is in response to his California Public Records Act Request dated February 22nd and my last posting to Mr. James on February 18, 2021 in which Mr. James requests certain records maintained by the City of Palo Alto relating to the Canine program in the City of Palo Alto, pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 6250 et seq. Records Request 1: Any and all City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Police Department documents and related information regarding the numbers of police dogs currently in the PAPD canine unit. Response to Records Request 1: The Palo Alto Police Department currently has two canine service dogs. Records Request 2: Any and all documents related to the purchase, training, and cost of maintaining the current canine unit. (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 2: Please see attached .pdf labeled with reference to question #2. The City is still gathering financial documentation subsequent to your request and will release them in rolling intervals until completed. We anticipate the next release of financial records to be released on or before April 15, 2021. Records Request 3: Any and all documents and related information regarding the annual cost of maintaining the Palo Alto’s Canine unit. (The total annual canine budget for the Palo Alto Police Department) POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 2 Response to Records Request 3: For the last three years, the Department makes it a discretionary spending allocation from the operating budget to Canine expenses. Currently that amount is $10,800/year. In 2018, there was a donation of $29,554.00 as reflected in the attached document, refer to question #2 (Bohdan financial information.) Records Request 4: Any and all documents regarding the number of times the canine unit has deployed their dogs during the last 36 months against a person. (# of times the canines have been deployed as a weapon as a opposed to the use of the canine in a search and rescue mission.) (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 4: Please see attached .pdf labeled Enberg and Tannock Logs. Some responsive documents are exempt from disclosure or have been redacted pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 832.7 et seq., Gov. Code § 6254(c), and Welfare and Institutions Code § 5328 as they contain training and personnel record information as well as conservatorship information. Records Request 5: Any and all documents reflecting the race of those who were attacked by dogs in the PAPD canine unit during the last 36 months —from today’s date back 36 months. (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 5: Information regarding those sustaining injuries from a PAPD canine are contained in the Police Investigation Report and are exempt from the CPRA pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code §§ 6254(f). Records Request 6: While redacting the name of the individuals for privacy purposes —the number of individuals injured by the canine unit and the extent of said injuries...and all related documents redacted for privacy concerns. Including photos of the injuries. Response to Records Request 6: The number of bites in the past 36 months is five that required varying types of medical attention. Information regarding those sustaining injuries from a PAPD canine, details of their injuries and photos are contained in the Police Investigation Reports and are exempt from the CPRA pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code §§ 6254(f) and 6254(c). POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 3 Records Request 7: While redacting the name of the individuals for privacy purposes —the number of individuals injured by the canine unit and the extent of said injuries...and all related documents redacted for privacy concerns. Including photos of the injuries. Response to Records Request 7: I respectfully refer you to the response to records request #6 above. Records Request 8: A list of all complaints and lawsuits growing out of attacks by dogs on the canine unit going back 36 months from receipt of this CPRA request. (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 8: Zero complaints in the last 36 months. Here is the link to the Independent Police Auditor: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/auditor.asp There were two government claims filed in the last 36 months. Please see attached .pdf. Records Request 9: Any and all documents, name and type of artificial teeth, —and the material used to create these artificial teeth, that are made for each dog. For example teeth made of titanium. Response to Records Request 9: No responsive records subsequent to your request. The Department does not use artificial teeth. Records Request 10: Any and all documents, and related information re the vendor used by the PAPD to make teeth for each canine on the team. Response to Records Request 10: No responsive records subsequent to your request. POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 4 Records Request 11: Any and all documents, or related information, re the annual budget to pay for replacement of artificial teeth for the canine unit? Food budget? Medical budget? (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 11: No responsive records to your request. No Department dogs have artificial teeth. I respectfully refer you to the response above written for question #2. Records Request 12: All documents and information regarding the certification process each canine member must go through to obtain all appropriate certifications. Response to Records Request 12: Handler and Dogs take a POST qualification test once a year. Both PAPD canine teams have maintained and are currently certified. Please refer to the Palo Alto Police Department Policy 318 previously released to you on February 18, 2021. For further information on Canines please see attached link published by POST for further information and guidelines released by California POST: https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/Publications/K-9.pdf Records Request 13: Documentation or related information re whether the necessary documentation/certification for each canine is current. Response to Records Request 13: I respectfully refer you to the response to records request #12 above. Records Request 14: The name of each officer assigned to the canine unit. Response to Records Request 14: Agent Nick Enberg and Balko. Officer Julie Tannock and Bohdan. POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 5 Records Request 15: Any and all documents related to the training officers must undergo to qualify for membership to the canine unit Response to Records Request 15: I respectfully refer you to the response to records request #12 above. Records Request 16: Any and all documents and related information regarding the certification process members of the canine unit (police officers) must undergo to qualify for the unit. Response to Records Request 16: I respectfully refer you to the response to records request #12 above. Records Request 17: Any and all current information and documentation related to re whether each police officer currently assigned to the canine unit has up to date certification? Response to Records Request 17: Although individual officer training records are exempt from the CPRA pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 832.7 et seq. and Gov. Code § 6254(c), it is the policy of the Department that Canine teams be certified. Please refer to Palo Alto Policy 318 previously released to you on February 18, 2021. Records Request 18: Any and all documentation re the number of times a non police officer who has been bitten/attacked by a Palo Alto police dog has been required to obtain medical treatment during the last 36 months. Dating back 36 months from receipt of this request. Response to Records Request 18: It is the policy of the Department that any bite administered receives medical treatment. In the past 36 months, the number is five. POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 6 Records Request 19: Number of times the victim of a Palo Alto Police dog bite or attack has been required to be hospitalized. Time frame going back 36 months from the receipt of this CPRA request. Response to Records Request 19: I respectfully refer you to the response to question #18 above. Records Request 20: Area or areas of the city of Palo Alto where police have released their canines most frequently. Response to Records Request 20: No responsive records to your request. Records Request 21: Any and all information and documentation re the frequency (the number of times) the Palo Alto Police have used their canine unit to assist the East Palo Alto Police during the last 36 months? Response to Records Request 21: I respectfully refer you to the response above written for question #4. Records Request 22: To assist the Mountain View Police Department during the last 36 months? Response to Records Request 22: I respectfully refer you to the response above written for question #4. Records Request 23: The Menlo Park Police Department during the last 36 months? Response to Records Request 23: I respectfully refer you to the response above written for question #4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 7 Records Request 24: To assist the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office? (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 24: I respectfully refer you to the response above written for question #4. Records Request 25: The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office? (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 25: I respectfully refer you to the response above written for question #4. Records Request 26: Monies spent on training either a police officer member of the canine unit or a dog member of the unit for out of the Palo Alto training? (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 26: I respectfully refer you to the response to question #2 above. Records Request 27: Any and all emails, memos, written policies, and other documentation regarding the need to use the canine unit to keep or intimidate residents of East Palo Alto from traveling to Palo Alto. (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 27: No responsive records to your request. Records Request 28: Any and all text messages (or similar electronic communications) between members of the canine unit and other members of the Palo Alto Police department, or other local law enforcement agencies reflecting racial bias, towards African Americans or other racial minorities. (last 36 months) POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 8 Response to Records Request 28: No responsive records to your request. Records Request 29: Name of the canine supervisor and length of time that officer has been in that role. Response to Records Request 29: Sergeant Alex Afanasiev from 2018 – 2021. Records Request 30: The name of the canine team manager and the length of time that officer has held this position. Response to Records Request 30: Captain Andrew Binder from 2018 – 2020 and Assistant Chief Andrew Binder from 2020 – 2021. Records Request 31: Any and all documents or information re the number of times victims of canine bits, by the PAPD canine unit, have been transported to the Stanford Hospital or any other local hospital facility for injuries. (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 31: It is the policy of the Department that any bite administered receives medical treatment. In the past 36 months, the number is five. Records Request 32: Cost of all hospital visits for canine bits inflicted by the PAPD canine unit (last 36 months) Response to Records Request 32: No responsive records to your request. POLICE DEPARTMENT 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2406 9 Records Request 33: Any additional documents and information regarding the canine unit that I have not specifically asked for but are relevant to my current CPDA request to establish the current status of the PAPD canine unit Response to Records Request 33: A link to the City’s video and news release can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=5143 A link to the press release for the February 21, 2021 arrest can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=1&Entry=1804 I cannot speculate about what other documents you may be seeking. If you need assistance in locating additional disclosable records, please contact me. Records Request 34: Current Palo Alto Police Department policy or policies regarding the function, structure deployment of canines etc. Response to Records Request 34: Please refer to Palo Alto Policy 318 regarding Canines previously released to you on February 18, 2021. Records Request 35: Name of the current computer system, i.e., Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system used to track all active of the Palo Alto Police Department Canine Unit? Response to Records Request 35: The Department uses Intergraph Computer-Aided Dispatch from Hexagon for police and fire. Thank you, Lisa Scheff Public Safety Program Manager/Records Palo Alto Police Department Lisa.scheff@cityofpaloalto.org CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY c11 v or PALO ALTO 2SO Hamilton Avonuo, 8th Floor P.llo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2171 Christopher Adamson ADAMSON AHDOOT LLP 1150 S Robertson Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90035 Re: Claim No.: Claimant: Date of Loss: Dear Christopher Adamson: · August 12, 2020 C20-0037 Joel Domingo Alejo 06/25/2020 Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to the City of Palo Alto dated 07/10/2020 is hereby rejected. WARNING Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date that this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See California Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. Please also be advised that, pursuant to Sections 128.7 and 1038 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the City will seek to recover all costs of defense in the event an action is filed in the matter and it is determined that the action was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. If you have any questions or would like to discuss your claim, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, ~~ Claims Investigator Enclosure pc: Terence Howzell, Chief Assistant City Attorney City Of Pa I oA I to.o rg Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine. CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 ( ( ll!CTION 14&.8 945.6. (a) Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6 and subject to subdivision (b), any suit brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (conunencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (00111111encin9 with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division must be commenced: (1) If written notice is given in accordance with Section 913, not later than six months after the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail. (2) If written notice is not given in accordance with Section 913, within two years from the accrual of the cause of action. If the period within which the public entity is required to act is extended pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 912.4, the period of such extension is not part of the time limited for th• co1a1encement of the action under this paragraph. (b) When a person is unable to commence a suit on a cause of action described in subdivision (a) within the time prescribed in that subdivision because he has been sentenced to impriaonment in a state prison, the time limit for the commencement of such suit is extended to six months after the date that the civil right to commence such action is restored to such person, except that the time shall not be extended if the public entity establishes that the plaintiff failed to make a reasonable effort to comnence the suit, or to obtain a restoration of his civil right to do so, before the expiration of the time prescribed in subdivision (a). (c) A person sentenced to imprisonment in a state prison may not conaence a suit on a cause of action described in subdivision (a) unless he presented a claim in accordance with Chapter 1 (co111111encin9 with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division. SECTION 128. 7 128.?: (a) Every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise provided by law, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after bein9 called to the attention of the attorney or party. (b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met: CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 ( .· (1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of liti9ation. (2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous arqument for the extension, Rodification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. (3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. (4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (c) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In detersiining what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence. (1) A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notic• of motion shall be served as provided in Seption 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unles•, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees. (2) On its own motion, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b), unless, within 21 days of service of the order to show cause, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected. {d) A sanction imposed for violation of subdivision (b) shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in paragraphs 11) and (2), the sanction may consist ot, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deter~ence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. (1) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (2) Monetary sanctions JDaY not be awarded on the court's motion unless the court issues its order to show cauee before a voluntary CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 ( ' dismissal or settlenent of the clai~s made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. (e) When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this section and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. (f) In addition to any award pursuant to this section for conduct described in subdivision (b), the court may assess punitive damages against the plaintiff upon a determination by the court that the plaintiff's action was an action maintained by a person convicted of a felony against the person's victim, or the victim's heirs, relatives, estate, or personal representative, for injuries arising from the acts for which the person was convicted of a felony, and that the plaintiff is guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice in maintaining the action. (g) This section shall not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions. (h) A motion for sanctions brought by a party or a party's attorney primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, shall itself be subject to a motion for sanctions. It is the intent of the Legislature that courts shall vigorously use its sanctions authority to deter that improper conduct or comparable conduct by others siailarly situated. (i) This section shall apply to a complaint or petition tiled on or after January 1, 1995, and any other pleading, written notice of motion, or other similar paper filed in that matter. Bl!cnON t03I 1038. (a) In any oivil proceeding under the California Tort Claims Act or for express or implied indemnity or for contribution in any civil action, the court, upon motion of the defendant or cross-defendant, shall, at the time of the 9ranting of any summary judgment, motion for directed verdict, motion for judoment under Section 631.8, or any nonsuit dismissing the moving party other than the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor, or at a later time set forth by rule of the Judicial Council adopted under Section 1034 determine whether or not the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor brought the proceeding with reasonable cause and in the good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy under the facts and law which warranted the filing of the complaint, petition, cross-complaint, or complaint in intervention. If the court should deterinine that the proceeding was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause, an additional issue shall be decided as to the defense costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by the party or parties opposing the proceeding, and the court shall render judgment in favor of that party in the amount of all reasonable and necessary defense costs, in addition to those costs normally awarded to the prevailin9 party. An award of defense costs under this section shall not be made except on notice contained in a party's papers and an opportunity to be heard. (b) •oefense costs," as used in this section, shall include reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, the expense ot CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 ( services of experts, advisers, and consultants in defense of the proceeding, and where reasonably and necessarily incurred in defending the proceeding. (c) This section shall be applicable only on motion made prior to the discharge of the jury or entry of judgment, and any party requesting the relief pursuant to this section waives any right to seek damages for malicious prosecution. Failure to make the motion shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to pursue a malicious proaecution action. (d) This section shall only apply if the defendant or cross-defendant has made a aotion for summary judgment, judgment under Section 631.B, directed verdict, or nonsuit and the motion is granted. January 12, 2021 Sharona Eslamboly Hakim Law Offices of Eslamboly Hakim 8730 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 500 Beverly Hills,CA 90211 Re:Claim No.:C20Ͳ0037 Claimant:Joel Domingo Alejo Date of Loss:06/25/2020 Dear Sharona Eslamboly Hakim: We received your recent claim dated December 7,2020 (which was received by the City on December 18,2020),regarding an alleged incident that occurred on June 25,2020 at or near .Please note that a claim was previously presented by the same claimant for the same incident.The original claim was rejected, and Notice of that rejection was provided on or about August 12,2020. Although Government Code Section 910.6 provides for certain circumstances in which a claim can be amended,that Section does not require the City to take further action. Accordingly,the City stands on its prior rejection. Sincerely, Bella Wu Claims Investigator Enclosure pc:Terence Howzell,Chief Assistant City Attorney CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 0 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF PALO ALTO 2SO H<1mllton Avonuo, 8th l=loor P~lo Alto. CA 94301 650.329.2171 Christopher Adamson ADAMSON AHDOOT LLP 1150 S Robertson Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90035 Re: Claim No.: Claimant: Date of Loss: Dear Christopher Adamson: August 12, 2020 C20-0037 Joel Domingo Alejo 06/25/2020 Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to the City of Palo Alto dated 07/10/2020 is hereby rejected. WARNING Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date that this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See California Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. Please also be advised that, pursuant to Sections 128.7 and 1038 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the City will seek to recover all costs of defense in the event an action is filed in the matter and it is determined that the action was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. If you have any questions or would like to discuss your claim, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, 111!~ Claims Investigator Enclosure pc: Terence Howzell, Chief Assistant City Attorney City Of Pal oA I to.o rg Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine. CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 ( ( SECTION 94&.6 945.6. (a) Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6 and subject to subdivision (b), any suit brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter l (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division must be commenced: (1) If written notice is qiven in accordance with Section 913, not later than six months after the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail. (2) If written notice is not given in accordance with Section 913, within two years from the accrual of the cause of action. If the period within which the public entity is required to act is extended pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 912.4, the period of such extension is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action under this paragraph. (b) When a person is unable to commence a suit on a cause of action described in subdivision (a) within the time prescribed in that subdivision because he has been sentenced to imprisonment in a state prison, the time limit for the commencement of such suit is extended to six months after the date that the civil right to commence such action is restored to such person, except that the time shall not be extended if the public entity establishes that the plaintiff failed to make a reasonable effort to commence the suit, or to obtain a restoration of his civil right to do so, before the expiration of the time prescribed in subdivision (a). (c) A person sentenced to imprisonment in a state prison may not colllll\ence a suit on a cause of action described in subdivision (a) unless he presented a claim in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division. SECTION 128.7 128.7~ (a) Every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise provided by law, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after bein; called to the attention of the attorney or party. (b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, f ilin9, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met: CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 (1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litiqation. (2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous arqument for the extension, Rodification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. (3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. (4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (c) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has bee.n violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In deter.lining what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence. (1) A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notic• of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees. (2) On its own motion, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b), unless, within 21 days of service of the order to show cause, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected. (d) A sanction imposed for violation of subdivision (b) shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in paraqraphs (1) and (2), th• sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deter~ence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. (1) Monetary sanctions raay not be awarded against a represented party for a violation ot paragraph (2) of subdivision (bl. (2) Monetary sanctions Jll&Y not be awarded on the court's motion unless the court issues its order to show cause before a voluntary CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 { ' dismissal or settlenent of the clai~s made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. (e) When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to constitute a violation of this section and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. (f) In addition to any award pursuant to this section for conduct described in subdivision (b), the court may assess punitive damages against the plaintiff upon a determination by the court that the plaintiff's action was an action maintained by a person convicted of a felony against the person's victim, or the victim's heirs, relatives, estate, or personal representative, for injuries arising from the acts for which the person was convicted of a felony, and that the plaintiff is guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice in maintaining the action. (9) This section shall not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions. (h) A motion for sanctions brought by a party or a party's attorney primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, shall itself be subject to a ~otion for sanctions. It is the intent of the Legislature that courts shall vigorously use its sanctions authority to deter that improper conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. (i) This section shall apply to a complaint or petition tiled on or after January 1, 1995, and any other pleading, written notice of motion, or other similar paper filed in that matter. 8BcnONt031 1038. (a) In any oivil proceeding under the California Tort Claims Act or for express or implied indemnity or for contribution in any civil action, the court, upon motion of the defendant or cross-defendant, shall, at the time of the granting of any summary judgment, motion for directed verdict, motion for jud9111ent under Section 631.8, or any nonsuit dismissing the moving party other than the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor, or at a later time set forth by rule of the Judicial Council adopted under Section 1034 determine whether or not the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor brought the proceeding with reasonable cause and in the good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy under the facts and law which warranted the filing of the complaint, petition, cross-complaint, or complaint in intervention. If the court should determine that the proceeding was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause, an additional issue shall be decided as to the defense costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by the party or parties opposing the proceeding, and the court shall render judgment in favor of that party in the amount of all reasonable and necessary defense costs, in addition to those costs normally awarded to the prevailin9 party. An award of defense costs under this section shall not be made except on notice contained in a party's papers and an opportunity to be heard. (b) •oefense costs," as used in this section, shall include reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, the expense ot CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 ( services of experts, advisers, and consultants in defense of the proceeding, and where reasonably and necessarily incurred in defending the proceeding. (c) This section shall be applicable only on motion made prior to the discharge of the jury or entry of juc:kJment, and any party requesting the relief pursuant to this section waives any right to seek da111a9es for malicious prosecution. Failure to make the motion shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to pursue a malicious proaecution action. (d) This section shall only apply if the defendant or cross-defendant has made a motion for summary judg1'1lent, judgment under Section 631.B, directed verdict, or nonsuit and the motion is granted. CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 Novembe r 2019 (5) • 5 exterior/interior searches (10-33's, 10-66's) December 2019 (12) • HUGE PR opp -"Shop with a Cop" event -Bohdan introduced at end of event • Interior check ( 10-33) • 5 Exterior/Perimeter checks (10-33, prowler) • Perimeter Post • 10-66 subject search, garage, floor by floor • Exterior and interior search ( 459R) • Outside Assist (Mountain View) -K9 available, but not used • Call out of violent subject in apartment -set apartment on fire and threw objects at officers -subject detained , no UOF • Suicidal subject, threats of weapons -used K9 for commands outside the residence, no UOF January 2020 (10) • Apprehension (no bite) of man with a knife, jumping on cars on - • Tra ck -5150 subject • Perimeter/interior search, 664/459R • 2 Yard searches • High-risk stop -5 in custody, no UOF • 2Tracks, 10-66, DV suspect • PR detail (ride-a-long) • 10-96 on subject threatening staff with metal walke r -subject complied -non- bite apprehension February 2020 (8) • "man with a metal pole" -subject immediately co mplied, non-bite apprehension • 3 Perimeter checks, 10-33R and possible prowlers • Article search -K9 used to locate items tossed by 10-66 suspect • Felony car stop -both passengers detained, no UOF • Interior search, 459R • PR detail, impromptu March 2020 (3) -activity minimized due to COVID • PR detail, impromptu • Outside Assist (Mountain View) -track and area search for 245 suspect • Perimeter search, 10-33C CPRA Records Release W002788-022221 April 2020 (10) -activity mimimized • "Man with a machete" -subject detained, no UOF • 2 Perimeter/yard searches (possible prowler) • Track, 1065J • 3 Interior searches, 459C • Perimeter/Interior search, 10-33 • Track, Theft suspect • Track, cold fo r 1065 dementia patient -eventually located y perimeter unit May 2020 (7) -activity minimized • 2 Exterior/Interior searches (10-33R) • Track -theft suspect • 3 Perimeter checks, poss prowlers • Track -from 11-54 that was found to be 10851 ... good, long track but no find - possible suspect residence June 2020 (7) -activity minimized • 6 Perimeter/interior searches (10-33's, prowlers) -2 subjects detained during one search, no UOF • High risk car stop -2 detained, no UOF July 2020 • •••••• only, no deployments 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 11:34 PM To:Jethroe Moore; raj@siliconvalleydebug.org; Richard Konda; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; David Angel; Rebecca Eisenberg; Charisse Domingo; Joe Simitian; Cecilia Taylor; Sunita de Tourreil; pastor@universityamez.com; Greer Stone; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Dave Price; Raven Malone; Binder, Andrew; ParkRec Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; DuBois, Tom; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:What has been finally disclosed by way of my public records act request, make on Feb 22, disclosure date 4-5-20—more data sought on canine attack on Mr. Alejo Attachments:CPRA Response Letter2_AJames K9_W0027788-022221_F(4-6).pdf; CPRA Response Docs_W002788-022221_K9-ref Question2.pdf; Bohdan Dog Record.pdf; Balko dog record.pdf; Gov claims.pdf; Enberg Logs-Redacted.pdf; Tannock Logs-Redacted.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Folks,   Here are the public records that have thus been released to me as well as the 34 questions that generated the so far  partial responses I have received.     In 2005 the PAPD was willing to release the race of the dog bite victims —but not so far this time. One has to wonder  what the city is covering up.     Also see the 25 page complaint filed by Mr. Alejo’s attorney including graphic injury photos during his stay at El Camino  Hospital in Mountain View.    Much of officer Enberg's deployment logs are redacted but one thing I did notice is more uses in East Palo Alto than Palo  Alto.     Given the extent of the redactions, and the small number of entries not redacted..... it is difficult to establish any  pattern.    Hopefully my attorney who specializes in public record law will convince the city of Palo Alto to provide more of the  records that we have requested as this legal process goes forward.    The log for the second canine handler Tannock seems to show deployments in Mountain View, Menlo Park, Redwood  City and a fair share of use of the handler’s canine for public displays maybe to soften the public up to think how cute  these animals are .......without giving the public the other‐side of the story ....how these viscous dogs are trained to  mostly attack black and brown people here and across this country. The injuries are often serious and sometimes deadly    Anyway, please review any and all of the questions and information below and see what you find.     Feel free to share any info or concerns with me and the other folks on this list that you discover. As more information is  forthcoming from the city I will pass it your way.    Sincerely,    Aram   6       Dear Mr. Cisneros,      Per your instruction, I am sending you the CPRA response on behalf of Mr. James.  I had  previously told Mr. James that I would send him responses via email as well as GovQA,  so I have added him to this communication.  Likewise, I have added you to the GovQA  notification although I don’t believe you will be able to access the records on that  format.      Thank you,       Lisa Scheff  Public Safety Program Manager/Records  Palo Alto Police Department  (650) 329‐2553 | lisa.scheff@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org | www.papd.org            7 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Petition to the Palo Alto Finance Commission Attachments:20210406_LAdopt alower fee schedule for public parking permits i.pdf     Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         From: Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com>   Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 12:55 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Petition to the Palo Alto Finance Commission    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Sir/Madam,    Please send the attached, signed petition to the Finance Commission for the City of Palo Alto.    Thank you.    Carol Scott  Evergreen Park      ‐‐   Carol Scott  Dear Finance Committee and Councilmembers Cormack, Burt and Filseth, Please put the following fee changes on your agenda for action before the end of FY21. 1. Adopt a lower fee schedule for public parking permits in the commercial cores of University and California Avenue for service workers who have been excluded from core commercial parking. This change will provide equitable use of public parking for those service workers who have served us so well for so many years and during the Covid emergency conditions. 2. Increase by 100% the lower fee schedule for comparable non-resident permils to create the parking incentives embraced by the Parking and Transportation Commission on March 31. 3. Add $400 to the non-resident fee schedule for high wage worker so that there is an incentive to optimize lower cost public parking in commercial cores instead of residential neighborhood streets. It is our understanding that city staff in the Office of Transportation are in general agreement with these changes. Now is the time to implement equitable incentives for these workers and RPP neighborhood residents. tL@,J:uJ-/JJ&vcL Signature Street( optional) rjd'-< ttpJ Dae 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Ward <rebeca.ward@verizon.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 8:48 AM To:Shikada, Ed; Kou, Lydia Cc:Council, City Subject:GBAS regional meeting Attachments:SFO-GBAS-Final.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Lydia and Ed,    I hope you are doing well.  I listened to the GBAS Technical Working Group Meeting from 3/24/2021.  I appreciate that  you (Lydia) attend these meetings.  I heard your comment about the willingness of the City Manager to have Palo Alto  host a regional meeting in the next 60 days.  That will be too late.  The FAA representative in that same meeting said  they expect to issue their finding by the end of May which will lock the “overlay” procedures in.    GBAS is purely an airport and City and County of San Francisco project not an FAA edict.  The FAA is happy to hand the  airport a CATEX to do the implementation but the representative from the FAA was clear that the airport is the driver of  the GBAS implementation.  As such, the airport can pause implementation until the community input from impacted  cities and towns is included.  Further, it is unconscionable that the City and County of SF and airport are skirting  necessary environmental review that would provide facts about impacts prior to implementation of GBAS.    The City Manager needs to write a letter to the airport director and include the Mayor’s representative and  representatives from the City and County of San Francisco asking them to pause the implementation.  The airport should  not be allowed to cram through an optional project that increases airline efficiency and excludes impacted community  input. Palo Alto needs to stop allowing the airport to ignore the traffic from their operations over our community. We  now have nearly 60 % of SFO arrivals traffic over our community and 0% representation on the airport’s official  Roundtable.  Much of that traffic shifting to Palo Alto could have been averted if the City and Council had taken  appropriate action.    Why does the City and Council think it is OK for the SFO Roundtable (which has denied us membership for 26 years) to  repeatedly approve/make changes that impact our City without our input?  It’s not OK.  It is unbelievable that the City  has allowed itself to be so marginalized.  You don’t have 60 days. The City needs to act now to pause implementation.    Attached please find the FAA presentation.https://sforoundtable.org/wp‐content/uploads/2021/04/SFO‐GBAS‐Final.pdf    Thank you,    Rebecca Ward     Presented to: By: Date: Federal AviationAdministration Federal AviationAdministration GBAS Procedures and Environmental Review Process SFO Technical Working Group March 24, 2021 Federal Aviation Administration Federal AviationAdministration FAA’s Role in SFO GBAS •GBAS is currently being implemented in the National Airspace System as a non-Federal navigation aid. •While non-federal navigation aids may be purchased and maintained by airports, cities, and/or private entities for either private or public use, the FAA retains the power to approve or not approve these non-Fed systems and perform annual inspections. 2 Federal AviationAdministration •From the FAA’s perspective, the installation of GBAS and the development of CAT-1 approaches offers redundancy for properly equipped aircraft, if instrument landing system (ILS) approaches are not available. •While GBAS may enable steeper approaches, changes to approach angles can lead to both noise increases and decreases.FAA research in this area is ongoing, and will continue to assess opportunities for noise abatement. 3 FAA’s Role in SFO GBAS Federal AviationAdministration GBAS Environmental Review •Current proposed GBAS procedures at SFO are overlays (both vertically and laterally) of the RNAV procedures, and are not expected to change how aircraft fly today. •Environmental review for overlays is ongoing and should be completed by the end of May 2021. •Public comment period is not anticipated for the GBAS overlay procedures. 4 Federal AviationAdministration Procedure Environmental Review Process •The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the FAA to address the impacts of major federal actions on the human environment. This includes noise, socioeconomics, land uses, air quality, and water quality, among others. –If an action is not subject to NEPA—no further environmental action required. –NEPA analyses can differ—dependent upon the context and potential impacts. –There are three levels of NEPA review. 5 Federal AviationAdministration NEPA Review •Three Levels of NEPA Review –Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) – established list of actions that do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant impact. –Environmental Assessment (EA) –analysis of action and reasonable alternatives that could result in preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or Find of No Significant Impact. –Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) –detailed analysis of environmental consequences and alternatives, cumulative impacts, and mitigation actions. 6 Federal AviationAdministration Public Comment under NEPA •The FAA does not anticipate any public comments initiative under NEPA for the currently proposed GBAS (overlay) approaches. •For future proposals, public comments requirement under NEPA would be determined by the scope of the proposals. –The FAA recommends industry partners coordinate public engagement initiatives prior to submitting the proposed designs. 7 Federal AviationAdministration Environmental Review Flow Chart 8 Federal AviationAdministration Conclusion •Current GBAS procedures are overlays (both vertically and laterally) of the RNAV procedures and are not expected to change how aircraft fly today. •Environmental review on overlays will be is scheduled to be completed by the end of May 2021. •The FAA recommends industry partners coordinate public engagement initiatives prior to submitting the proposed designs. 9 Federal AviationAdministration Questions 10 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 8:10 AM To:Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:document for Apr 5 2021 Finance Committee meeting Attachments:Smith petition Apr 6 2021 Petition.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Dear Finance Committee and Councilmembers Cormack, Burt and Filseth, Please put the following fee changes on your agenda for action before the end of FY21. 1. Adopt a lower fee schedule for public parking permits in the commercial cores of University ·and California Avenue for service workers who have been excluded from core commercial parking. This change will provide equitable use of public parking for those service workers who have served us so well for so many years and during the Covid emergency conditions. 2. Increase by 100% the lower fee schedule for comparable non-resident permits to create the parking incentives embraced by the Parking and Transportation Commission on March 31. 3. Add $400 to the non-resident fee schedule for high wage worker so that there is an incentive to optimize lower cost public parking in commercial cores instead of residential neighborhood streets. It is our understanding that city staff in the Office of Transportation are in general agreement with these changes. Now is the time to implement equitable incentives for these workers and RPP neighborhood residents. ~ t"3-ll1t:i'4-±L5f.;J_j Sig~ Street(optioAal) Date 'I Dear Finance Committee and Councilmembers Cormack, Burt and Filseth, Please put the following fee changes on your agenda for action before the end of FY21. 1. Adopt a lower fee schedule for public parking permits in the commercial cores of University and California A venue for service workers who have been excluded from core commercial parking. This change will provide equitable use of public parking for those service workers who have served us so well for so many years and during the Covid emergency conditions. 2. Increase by 100% the lower fee schedule for comparable non-resident permits to create the parking incentives embraced by the Parking and Transportation Commission on March 31. 3. Add $400 to the non-resident fee schedule for high wage worker so that there is an incentive to optimize lower cost public parking in commercial cores instead of residential neighborhood streets. It is our understanding that city staff in the Office of Transportation are in general agreement with these changes. Now is the time to implement equitable incentives for these workers and RPP neighborhood residents. °' me ~JYM \~ (j\(J"'J Y/5/do~\ i/~~u~ Street( optional) Date 10 Baumb, Nelly From:rob levitsky <roblevitsky@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 6:51 AM To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Cormack, Alison; Greg Tanaka; Stone, Greer; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia Cc:Passmore, Walter; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Shikada, Ed Subject:Walter Passmore needs to work with Castilleja to sav Protected Trees Attachments:tree89plusTPZdrawing.jpg; oaksandredwoods_casti drawing.PNG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council I want to thank the City Council for dedicating 3 meetings to studying the issues with the Castilleja proposal, and for "Directing Palo Alto's Arborist to work with Castilleja to preserve as many protected trees, to reduce the loss of protected trees as can reasonably be accomodated" Preserving redwoods #115-120, and Oak #122 should be easily accomplished by moving the garage away from these trees. Oak tree #102 will take some extra care, as it is located along the path of the garage exit. More complicated will be saving Oak #89, which in the current design, has its roots sliced and diced, cut and compressed by electrical conduit trenches, water pipe trenches, 2000 Amp electrical panel and transformer on a heavy concrete pad, concrete pullboxes for electrical wires, garage exit ramp on the north side of the tree, and a swimming pool chopping off roots on the south side of the tree. And a 25 foot deep excavation for the pool will also dewater whatever roots are left on the south side of the tree. Oak #87 is also impacted by the pool excavation. (I have to guess about the depth of the pool excavation, because there is no number shown for the depth of the excavation on ANY of the drawings, and i have studied them all) Oak #155 is proposed to be removed to provide a site for an Underground TRASH DUMPSTER. Oak #140 is proposed to be removed for part of the Massive new building, The 4400 Sq Ft that need to be cut from the project could save tree #140, by giving the tree its Tree Protection Zone back. In any case, Walter Passmore needs to be involved in these decisions regarding the Protected trees, and NOT just asked to look over someone else's design. I spoke with Walter Passmore about all of this today, and he is ready to offer his expertise to ensure a design that meets the Council's desire to preserve these protected trees. Take a good look at this tree, Oak #89. If the Council and Staff have done their jobs, this tree will still be thriving when construction is done. Our neighborhood will judge the integrity of Castilleja on how well it treats this tree. 11 Baumb, Nelly From:Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 3:37 AM To:Rosen, Jeff Cc:William Armaline; Raj Jayadev; EXT.Richard.Konda; <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson; Derek Grasty; Roxana Marachi; Micael 'mica' Estremera; Elizabeth Kamya; Angelica Cortez; Kyle Dacallos; Virginia Groce-Roberts; Raven Malone; revray; Khalid White; Robert Salonga; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; Chavez, Cindy; Simitian, Joe; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; Michael Gennaco; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Curtis Smolar Subject:Re: Women in Law Enforcement Should more women become Police? Would we be safer? Attachments:NAACP Women in Blue Flyer.pdf; NAACP Women in Blue Flyer.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZEpcequqToiEtJuCnlyj65irMizEiGFdJGH On Friday, April 2, 2021, 01:38:13 PM PDT, Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org> wrote: Dear Reverend Moore, I hope you and your family are well. I wish you a Happy Easter. Thank you for your email. Attached is my response. 12 Sincerely, Jeffrey F. Rosen District Attorney Santa Clara County Tel. (408) 792-2855 Pronouns: He/Him/His https://outandequal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Pronouns-Guide.pdf From: Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 12:22 PM To: Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Boyarsky, Jay <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org> Cc: William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com>; Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>; EXT.Richard.Konda <sccala@pacbell.net>; <abjpd1@gmail.com> <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson <walterlwilson@hotmail.com>; Derek Grasty <wmdgrasty@gmail.com>; Roxana Marachi <roxana.marachi@gmail.com>; Micael 'mica' Estremera <mr.estremera@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Kamya <ekamya@ifpte21.org>; Angelica Cortez <angelica@leadfilipino.org>; Kyle Dacallos <kyledacallos@gmail.com>; Virginia Groce-Roberts <vgroce_roberts@yahoo.com>; Raven Malone <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com>; revray <revray@pactsj.org>; Khalid White <khalid.white@sjcc.edu>; Robert Salonga <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>; Jeff Moore <moorej@esuhsd.org>; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council <council@redwoodcity.org>; Anna Griffin <griffinam@sbcglobal.net>; robert.jonsen <robert.jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>; Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; ed.shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Eduardo Guilarte <eduardoguilarte@gmail.com>; Cecilia <CTTaylor@menlopark.org>; Donald Mendoza <donald.mendoza@menlo.edu>; 13 WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>; Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@gmail.com>; Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>; Planning Cmmission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>; chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>; Charisse Domingo <charisse@siliconvalleydebug.org>; Molly <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>; O'Neal, Molly <Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org>; Bill Johnson <Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>; Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>; Chavez, Cindy <Cindy.Chavez@bos.sccgov.org>; Simitian, Joe <Joe.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; Ellenberg, Supervisor <supervisor.ellenberg@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Sean James <seanchiba650@gmail.com>; Perron, Zachary <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org>; tom.dubois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>; eric.filseth <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>; rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Rodriguez, Miguel <miguel.rodriguez@pdo.sccgov.org>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; mark weiss <Earwopa@yahoo.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Michele <james_michele@hotmail.com>; yolanda <yolanda@rocketmail.com>; Patrice Ventresca <patriceventresca@gmail.com>; Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Curtis Smolar <csmolar@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use Good afternoon, request a meeting with you to discuss why you refuse to press charges/fire the Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg, and explain to us how this is not a prosecutable offense when this is the second time this officer has used his K9 to being harm to the communities of color. Regarding below. Currently, there are seven canine-specific cases that mandate giving suspects a warning prior to using a police K-9 as a potential use of force tool. Burrows v. City of Tulsa (10th Circuit), Trammel v. Thomason (11th Circuit), Sorchini v. City of Covina (9th Circuit), and Vathekan v. Prince George's County (MD, 4th Circuit) Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: It is clearly established that it is unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing police dog to seize someone. Furthermore Kuha v. City of Minnetonka (8th Circuit), Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park (MN, 8th Circuit), and Rogers v. City of Kennewick (9th Circuit), Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: The court ruled that there was clearly established case law that failing to give a warning before releasing police dog to bite and hold is unreasonable. Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg failed to announce the use of his dog on a sleeping man is clearly an act of aggression with intent to do harm, shined another light on the systemic failures of policing in Santa Clara County. There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place. APRIL 10TH 12:00PM Come join the virtual conversation! You will receive further information in a confirmation email after registering on the link below. Register in advance for this meeting by clicking HERE ZOOM DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WOMEN IN BLUE 14 Baumb, Nelly From:Moore, Jeff <moorej@esuhsd.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 3:27 AM To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Aram James; Council, City; Raj; Richard Konda; Mark Petersen-Perez; Planning Commission; chuck jagoda; Dave Price; Human Relations Commission Subject:Re: ( April 5, 2021 ...release additional video of police dog attack on victim of mistaken identity - Palo Alto Daily Post Attachments:NAACP Women in Blue Flyer.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please join us for this viewing    https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZEpcequqToiEtJuCnlyj65irMizEiGFdJGH      On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 2:11 AM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:  Thank you for sharing the Daily Post article (https://padailypost.com/2021/04/05/police‐release‐additional‐video‐of‐ police‐dog‐attack‐on‐victim‐of‐mistaken‐identity), Aram.      It is impossible not to be concerned by this timing ‐‐ a move that unavoidably creates a perception of  concealment.  While Jonsen was putting on a dog and pony show before City Council, claiming clean hands and a stellar  record, the City revealed that all along it had been  intentionally withholding incriminating video evidence which proves  without a reasonable doubt that Jonsen's officers intentionally (and gleefully) commanded a PAPD police dog to  repeatedly bite a man whom they had absolutely no rational reason to believe was the suspect they sought.      Given the lack of interest by our local govt to protect our community, it is even more intolerable that our DA refuses to  seek justice. It is incomprehensible that Jeffrey Rosen could view the official videos released by Palo Alto and Mountain  View without recognizing serious crimes being committed without any reasonable doubt. Here in Palo Alto, the violent  crime rate is very low ‐‐ except for violent crime perpetrated by police officers.      Had Dave Price of the Palo Alto Daily News not worked so tirelessly over so much time to demand that the City of Palo  Alto comply with state and local law regarding body camera footage, I wonder if any of us would know how truly  inhumanely Nick Enberg behaved.      How many other felonies has the PAPD committed and hidden from us?  Given that the Palo Alto City Council still  refuses to demand more transparency and accountability from the PAPD, which reports to them, no City Council or city  staff member can claim truthfully that Enberg's dog attack was anything different from the norm. For all we know,  PAPD officers violently attack innocent people every week, or every night. Any one of us could be next.    Best,   Rebecca          Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  15 www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:52 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  FYI More tape of dog attack released tonight by city of Palo Alto ( April 5,) check it out       https://padailypost.com/2021/04/05/police‐release‐additional‐video‐of‐police‐dog‐attack‐on‐victim‐of‐mistaken‐ identity/      Sent from my iPhone  16 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 10:18 PM To:Honky Subject:PLEASE HELP ME ASAP MODIFY THE FACE-MASK-EXEMPT CARD FOR THE PHILIPPINES Attachments:face-mask-exempt-card.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  ANYONE OR ANYBODY who is good in computer, to PLEASE HELP ME "ASAP" MODIFY/redesign THE FACE-MASK-EXEMPT CARD like this as attached FOR THE PHILIPPINES, that is, in according to Philippine RA 7277 – An Act Providing For TheRehabilitation, Self-Development And Self- Reliance Of Disabled Person And TheirIntegration Into The Mainstream Of Society And For Other Purposes, AND Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act is a law that seeks to protect all forms ofinformation, be it private, personal, or sensitive. It is meant to cover bothnatural and juridical persons involved in the processing of personalinformation. AN ACTPROTECTING INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL INFORMATION IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONSSYSTEMS IN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR, CREATING FOR THIS PURPOSE ANATIONAL PRIVACY COMMISSION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES OR THE “DataPrivacy Act of 2012”. As attached herein, please check, and I think this is already being used well-known successfully in Australia and elsewhere in this planet, however, I want to do the same and modify the information in that card according to Philippine settings as soon as possible since I am ready overwhelmed also of using face mask due to also to my long-term fibromyalgia health crisis, etc. I need help to redesign other than modify the information in this attached card for MY PATTERN here in the Philippines. I need someone to do it for me overseas SINCE I CANNOT FIND ANYONE HERE TO DO IT AT THE INTERNET CAFE OR COMPUTER SHOP HERE in town, in the province, here in the Philippines for fear of being in violation of the PHILIPPINE MANDATORY HEALTH PROTOCOLS, etc. COULD THERE BE ANY ARTISTS THERE OR CARD MAKERS OVER THERE TO HELP TO REDESIGN AND MODIFY THIS CARD FOR THE PHILIPPINE SETTINGS and then send back to me via email attachment and will be ready for printing for distribution to my family members, relatives, friends, etc. PLEASE HELP and thanks a lot in advance. 17 PLEASE URGENT. I CAN'T BREATHE ANYMORE. Eric V. Encina      Filipino Freelance Writer/Author/CampaignerFor Life, Family, Justice & Reforms        Practical Christian        Anti-Vaccine/Anti-5GCampaigner            Philippines     I want to 18 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 5:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Petition for Finance Committee April 6 2021 Attachments:Griffin Petition to Finance Committee April 6 2021.jpg Please see attached.      Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>   Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 5:17 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Petition for Finance Committee April 6 2021    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please convey to Finance Committee. Thank you. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Det1r F i11t111ce Co1111,1ittet• r111tf ('01111ci/111e111ber\ Cor111ock. IJ11r1 flt1<i f'i/.,·e1/1, Pletl.ll! p1111!1e fol/01vi11g fee cl1r111ge., 011 J'011r <1ge11tlr1 fi>r r1c1;011 l>efore 1/1e e11rl of J;-1'2 I. I. A t/opt fl lmver fee sclted11/ef1Jr p11hlic p11rki1111permits 111 the c11111111ercittl cor« 1if U11il'ersltr t111d Ct1/ifor11ia Ave1111e ffJr ser1•ice ••·o rli~n K'htJ J1ai·e bee11 e.xcl11ded /ro111 core co111111ert:ial ~ pttrki11~. TJ1i!i c /11111;.:e 1vill 111·t)\'ir/i! t!t/ttilf1/>le 11se of1111blic /Jarki11gfor tltofe ser\i;ce n1orker~ ••·/10 /1n•·e ferred 1u ..)Q ,,.,./I for ,.o '''"''J' )'ears a11tl d11ri11g 1/1e ("o••id e111erge11CJ' condi1io11s. 2. l 11crer1 ~ t! h J' I ()0% 1 /1 e lotiJe r fee .1i·c /1e1/ 11/e for ''01111111ra hie ,,,,,, .. ,.e!llflt•11t 11er111if)' to create tire porAi11g i11ce11ti•·es e111br11ced bJ' tire ParAi11g 011tl Tro11spor1a1io11 Co111111isfio11 011 ,\larch 31. J. Ar/rt $400 t11t/1e111J11-re \ille111 f ee ~·c/1e1l11/eft1r /1ig/1u1r1;::e1vnrker so r/1111 t/1ert: is a11 i11ce111i~·e to O/Jli111i:..e /O••·er CO\I p1,blic parAi11g i11 co111111ercic1I coref i11stead of resi1/e11tial 11eig/1bor/1ood :-,·treets·. fl i.l' our 1111der.l'lt111di11g 1/1111 cifJ' strif.j'i11 tlte (Jjfice of7'r<111l /JQrf111;011 tire;,, ge11eral r11.:ree111e11t •vitlt 1!1e.\e cl1r111ge.s. 1\"t'''' i.) 1/1e 1i111e ro ;111ple111e11t e1111itable i11ce111i,·e5 for tlte\e ,,·orkers a11d RPP nei1:hborltootl reside11Lr. IO/!fpfa Wll@pW""' iJ44 19 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 5:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Neilson Buchanan Subject:FW: Petitions to Council Finance Committee Meeting April 6 Attachments:Orenberg Petition Apr 6 2021.pdf; Beasley Petition April 6 2021.pdf; Akin Petition Apr 6 2021.pdf; Hodos Petition April 6 2021.pdf; Odell Petition April 6 2021 Finance Committe.pdf; Sauer Mark Petition April 6 2021.pdf; Dimit Petition April 6 2021.pdf   Please see attached from Neilson Buchanan.  Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>   Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 9:48 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Petitions to Council Finance Committee Meeting April 6    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please convey these petitions to Council Finance Committee. These three opportunities became more feasible after the PTC meeting last week. We had limited time to contact other supporters during the holiday weekend. Other resident leaders and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues as agenda items during the FY22 budget hearings and adoption of a new fee schedule for FY22. These items have been discussed in various forms since the foundation of the RPP stakeholder process almost 10 years ago. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 20 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Dear Finance Committee and Councilmembers Cormack, Burt and Filseth, Please put the following fee changes on your agenda for action before the end of FY21. 1. Adopt a lower fee schedule for public parking permits in the commercial cores of University and California Avenue for service workers who have been excluded from core commercial parking. This change will provide equitable use of public parking for those service workers who have served us so well for so many years and during the Covid emergency conditions. 2. Increase by 100% the lower fee schedule for comparable non-resident permits to create the parking incentives embraced by the Parking and Transportation Commission on March 31. 3. Add $400 to the non-resident fee schedule for high wage worker so that there is an incentive to optimize lower cost public parking in commercial cores instead of residential neighborhood streets. It is our understanding that city staff in the Office of Transportation are in general agreement with these changes. Now is the time to implement equitable incentives for these workers and RPP neighborhood residents. c::~ Li0ro/,,4ve. Signature Street( optional) 4 [-f / 2'D2-{ Date Dear Finance Committee and Councilmembers Cormack, Burt and Filseth, Please put the following fee changes on your agenda for action before the end of FY21. 1. Adopt a lower fee schedule for public parking permits in the commercial cores of University and California Avenue for service workers who have been excluded from core commercial parking. This change will provide equitable use of public parking for those service workers who have served us so well for so many years and during the Covid emergency conditions. 2. Increase by 100% the lower fee schedule for comparable non-resident permits to create the parking incentives embraced by the Parking and Transportation Commission on March 31. 3. Add $400 to the non-residentfee schedule for high wage worker so that there is an incentive to optimize lower cost public parking in commercial cores instead of residential neighborhood streets. It is our understanding that city staff in the Office of Transportation are in general agreement with these changes. Now is the time to implement equitable incentives for these workers and RPP neighborliood residents. ~{\. ~ ( v 944 BNc:::ul\i: ~. 64-APl.-2c>1.I Signature Street( optional) Date Mtc.kaJ E". ~~ 21 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 5:07 PM To:Council, City; Neilson Buchanan Subject:FW: petition for fee schedule improvements Attachments:Buchanan petition to Finance Committee April 6.pdf Please see attached from Neilson Buchanan.    Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>   Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 4:57 PM  To: Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City  <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: petition for fee schedule improvements    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please convey this petition to the Finance Committee so that changes can be considered before the start of FY21. Access to public parking by all commercial core workers has been ignored by past council and now is the time for equitable access by our service workers. We were not able to make a full effort to gather petition due to the tight timing of PTC meeting and holiday weekend. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 22 Baumb, Nelly From:PNQL-Now <info@pnqlnow.org> Sent:Monday, April 5, 2021 1:50 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanaka, Greg; Cormack, Alison; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Response from Neighbors of Castilleja Attachments:Stratford-Palo Alto Garland.PDF; Hillbrook.PDF; PinewoodHighSchool.PDF; Seton School.pdf; Stratford-SanBruno.PDF; Nueva.jpeg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      April 5, 2021    Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,    Thank you for your hard work in consideration of the proposed Castilleja expansion project. There are many moving  parts that depend upon one another, and we appreciate that you are working to give thoughtful regard for neighbors'  input.    We attach a few Conditional Use Permits that show how other private schools in Palo Alto and nearby jurisdictions work  with residential neighbors.    It's enlightening to learn that the City Council determined that a reduction in required parking spots by 20% would bring  Castilleja's goal of 104 spots down to 83. With Castilleja's existing surface‐level parking of 86 spaces, and their proposed  TDM program, which states there will be "no net new trips," Castilleja has not demonstrated that there is a need for a  highly carbon polluting, environmentally unsustainable underground garage, nor is it necessary to consider the school  would need to demolish houses and/or make the playing field a parking lot in order to grow. Not moving the pool would  allow the school to keep the current 35 spots at the corner of Kellogg and Emerson and the current 25 spots in the lot on  Emerson at Melville (where they want to relocate the pool), and give Oak Tree #89 a lifeline.      We understand that this issue is a tough one, and give you all credit for applying your best efforts to see all sides are  treated fairly.    Regards,   PNQLnow Steering Committee  Andie Reed, Hank Sousa, Jim Poppy, Mary Sylvester, Neva Yarkin, Rob Levitsky  PNQLnow.org  Representing 60+ close‐by neighbors and many Palo Alto residents  . . :=- ~:~ LOS ALTOS HILLS • CALIFORNIA November 24, 2003 Mr. Scott Riches Pinewood School 26800 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: 85-03-ZP-SD-CUP 26800 Fremont Road • Grading, drainage improvements and installation of a synthetic turf field Dear Mr. Riches: Your request for a Site Development Permit and a Conditional Use Permit for the above referenced projects was approved at the City Council meeting November 20, 2003. Please note the attached conditions which apply to these approvals. Please contact me at (650) 941-7222 if you have any questions regarding the conditions of · approval. Sincerely, /I I A~ ~GM Carl Cahill Planning Director Enc: Attachments 1 and 2 cc: Angelica Herrera 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 650/941-7222 Fax 650/941-3160 i . Pinewood School Conditions of Approval November 20, 2003 Page 2 • • ATTACHMENT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PEIUvilT PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission (depending on the scope of the changes). 2. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fence must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehkles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 3. No new outdoor lighting is approved. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 4. No hardscape material shall be placed underneath the existing trees along the south property line. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 5. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A final letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the site drainage was constructed in conformance with the approved plans and recommendations prior to final inspection. 6. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. ·•. Pinewood School Conditions of Approval November 20, 2003 Page 3 • •• 7. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with ~11 appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 8. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy pennits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 9. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation pl.an shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Fremont Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos· Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allow.ed within the Town limits. 10. The property owner shall grant a 17 .5' pathway easement to the Town over the existing public utility easement (P.U.E.), storm drain easement (S.D.E.), and sanitary sewer .easement (S.S.E.). The property owner shall provide legal descriptions and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 11. The property owners must obtain any necessary permit from the State of California, Department of Fish and Game and the Santa Clara Valley Water District for work within 50' of the creek banks prior to start ~ork. CONDITION NUMBERS 7, 8, 9 AND 10 SHALL BE C01\1PLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPART:MENT. ACTION NO. 2012-10 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 1095 Channing, Conditional Use Permit Amendment llPLN-00437 (John Miller, APPLICANT) On December 1 7, 2012, the Council conducted a public hearing and approved the application for amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten and after school day care program making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On November 29, 2011, John Miller on behalf of Elizabeth Seton School and Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, submitted for a Conditional Use Permit amendment associated with the operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program within an expanded Kindergarten building, and an after school day care program, associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at 1095 Channing Avenue. ("The Project") . B. Following staff review, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the conditional use permit application on April 25, 2012 and on April 30, 2012, within the prescribed timeframe, a request for a public hearing was submitted; additional information is contained in CMR #3333. C. On June 13, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and voted [4-0] to continue the project to a date uncertain to allow time for the applicant to work with the neighbors to have discussions regarding the proposed traffic pattern and the issues with trash and noise. D. On October 3, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and voted [4-1-1-1] to recommend that Council approve the project, subject to an addition condition of approval (Condition #26). The Commission's action is contained in the CMR #3333. E. On November 5, 2012, the Council pulled the item off consent calendar and scheduled the item for public hearing to address a neighbor's final concerns. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This project is . _________ exempt _ _from __ tbe_proYi_s_iQns _ _Qf_ __ t_he __ c;_al:Ltorni9:. ___ ~µ~i_~.9Dltl~!!_t_9-_l Q\l~Ji t y Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1 SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings. (1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, as conditioned, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed building is located on the eastern corner behind the existing church and convent, aligned with the main internal circulation, and will replace an existing undersized Kindergarten structure with newer and larger facility providing both Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten classrooms with extended daycare and shall be within the allowable square footage for the site. Additionally, the new structure will provide a prominent entrance at the existing parent drop off and parking area. The new classroom expansion propo.ses to meet the maximum student enrollment of 315 students allowed for the use and there shall be adequate parking spaces to accommodate this conditional use. The traffic pattern and vehicular circulation shall be conducted in an orderly way and shall not generate excessive trip demand. New trees and landscaping is proposed in the 5-foot setback between the building and adjacent residential property line to provide additional buffering and replace the trees that are proposed to be removed within the new building footprint. Conditions of approval have been imposed to ensure the project conforms to the submitted plans. (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the zoning Ordinance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is replacing an existing 1999 Kindergarten/restroom addition with a larger Kindergarten/restroom and Pre Kindergarten/restroom addition with after school daycare program that would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The total proposed 3,383 square feet addition will include exterior changes and addition that will provide high quality.design and site planning and shall be compatible to the existing structure in design and materials. The school shall be conducted in a manner that will support and promote the provision of comprehensive school and childcare services by public and private providers as a conditional use in R-1 zoning district and maintain Palo Alto's varied neighborhoods while sustaining vitality of its public facilities. This finding ---ca_n_Ee--ma:ae--In. Ifie·--at f irmati ve: 2 SECTION 4 . CUP Approval Granted. CUP approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by John Miller Architects and received September 26, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A. copy of these plans is on file in the Department of .Planning and Community Development. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning and Community Environment Department Planning and Transportation Division 1. The proposed project shall be constructed and shall operate in substantial conformance with the revised project description stamped received September 26, 2012, and plans stamped received September 26, 2012, on file with the City in planning application no. llPLN-00437, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the first page of the plans submitted for building permit. The building permit shall not be approved without this letter printed on the plan set. 3. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall have continuing jurisdiction over this Conditional Use Permit amendment and reserves the right to revoke or terminate this permit, reaffirm this permit or modify the conditions or impose new conditions with respect to this permit. 4. The total enrollment for Elizabeth Seton School shall be limited to 315 students which will include the enrollment for new Pre-Kindergarten program for up to 30 students and the following hours of operation: Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Any increase in enrollment shall require a new conditional use permit amendment. The school shall also provide a mandatory annual student enrollment report to the city to document the cap of students that shall not exceed 315 (maximum allowed) . ----------·-------------------------------------------------------.-------------------------·----------------------------5. The applicable conditions of use permlt 87-u'.i?-40 ·Twnich. amends use permits 59-UP-26 and 64-UP-7) shall apply. They are briefly itemized as below: 3 a. Parking space to be provided at a ratio of 1 space per each 4 seats b. Each parking shall be maintained for lifetime. c. No parking space shall be located within first 20 feet of the front property line. d. No parking permitted in the driveways. e. Driveways located between church and convent and between rectory and school shall have a minimum width of 14 feet. f. Exterior lighting shall be so arranged as to protect adjoining residential properties. To this end no light source, brilliant, reflection, or excessive, "spill light" shall be visible from adjacent residential properties. g. Location of three (3) foot wide privet to reach six feet in height at maturity to remain next to the existing chain link fence. h. Perimeter landscaping and the existing planting located between Kent Place and the existing cyclone fence shall be maintained and replaced to provide adequate screening. i. Any unauthorized lighting shall be removed or altered. j. There shall be no access or egress to or from Kent Place by vehicles or pedestrians. 6. The following City standard requirements (related to neighbors' concerns) shall be followed: a. Trash and Recycling requirements shall be applied as per PAMC code section 18.23.020 (B) (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided as feasible. b. The school shall install.covered trash and recycle containers at new location, as shown on site plan (Attachment C) with sufficient trash capacity, to prevent overflow of trash. Additional garbage pick-up trucks will be scheduled after 8:00 am to avoid disturbance to neighbors in immediate vicinity. Warning Signs shall be posted throughout the site warning parents and visitors to turn down their cell phones and radios when entering and exiting the parking lot area. c. Lighting requirements shall be applied as per PAMC code section 18 .23. 030 (B) (vii) Lighting of the building exteriorr parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purposer and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive TlTil-irilna-tTo.n·-aEove Eh.e-TT<Jbt-fix-Fur·e-;--~:ind ( c) {ii y 1'Irnlng ----.-- device should be considered for exterior and interior lights in order to minimize light glare at night. 4 d. Perimeter Landscaping shall be provided as per PAMC code section 18.54.040(a)Each unenclosed parking facility shall provide and maintain perimeter landscaped strip at least five feet wide between and adjacent to. a line defining the exterior boundary of the parking area and the nearest adjacent property line, not separated by a building, and Landscape screens shall form a dense visual buffer with a combination of trees and shrubs as per PAMC code section 18. 54. 040 (f) (1) On sites abutting or opposite a residential site, a dense visual buffer shall be provided. In addition, trees shall be planted or shall exist at a ratio of not less than one tree per three hundred square feet of the landscaped screen or fraction thereof, and supplemented with shrubs and groundcover. The tree and landscape inventory shall be as per sheet Al.l of revised plans dated September 26, 2012, and landscape inspection shall be as per condition of approval #25 below and new Redwood fences will be per condition #26. e. Noise shall be mitigated pursuant to PAMC code section 18.54.050 (g) Areas used for primary circulation, for frequent idling of vehicle engines, or for loading activities shall be designed and located to minimize impacts on adjoining properties, including provisions of screening or sound baffling. Warning signs will be posted throughout the site to alert parents and visitors to turn down their cell phones and radios when entering and exiting the parking lot area which shall be strictly followed and enforced by school staff. Other noise abating measurement proposed is the construction of a Redwood fence along the perimeter of the parking lot. Cost to be shared between the neighbors and the Church. Other noise abating measurement requested by neighbors' is the construction of a Redwood fence along the perimeter of the parking lot. Neighbors are willing to share the cost with the Church. 7. With the exception of pastor office hours, no other routine church services or activities shall occur during the peak hours of operation of the Pre-Kindergarten, K-8 and after school extended day care program, especially during drop-off and pick-up times. All other activities shall be limited to assembly sizes such that the parking demand of these services plus the school classes is less than the 44 spaces for school and 26 spaces for church activities. _B ..... _________ AlL __ drQ_p-::_of.f ____ aud _~i_~J~_:.1rn __ g_pe:r:-~J::j_Q:fl§ ____ f?.h9:J L_P_E:: c():rtt9:~DE:4 within the project site and in the areas clearly designated as drop off/pick-up areas. The school shall have a split drop-off system. There will be a front drop-off for children 5 from 1st to gth grade and side or walk-in drop-off for Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten children. There shall be an additional drop off area, further down from the front, which will be used as necessary. Dedicated school staff members shall be required to supervise and ensure that proper measures are in place. 9. School dismissal times shall continue to be between 3:00 PM to approximately 3:05. Students leaving immediately after dismissal shall be picked up at the side entrance (east side of school). Vehicles arrive starting at approximately 2:45 PM and queue in the side parking lot {east side of school/convent), which shall not backup on to Channing Ave. 10. 11. a. Students not picked up immediately after school stay for extended daycare in the classrooms or on the rear playground. Pick up is staggered from 3:30 PM until 5:30 PM and infrequently delayed pickups may stay to closing at 6:00 PM. b. Lower grades are signed out by the parents who park in the side parking lot and walk to the rear playground sign- out area c. Upper grades (5th -8th) are signed out by parents who park in the front parking areas (between church and school building) and walk to the rear playground sign-out area. The west gate, by the science modular classroom, will be opened as needed to accommodate the vehicles. Any changes proposed by the applicant to amend the striping on the side of the project site on the west side (where there is existing, legal noncomplying/inadequate back- up/aisle width) would require submittal of a revised striping plan to meet current Palo Alto Municipal Code requirements. The proposed parking layout showing 44 parking spaces for school, 26 parking spaces for church and 66 bike spaces is adequate for current scope of work. The plans submitted for building permit. shall include installation of bicycle parking with a capacity of 1 space for every 5 students or 63 bikes. The parking should be installed within 50 feet of the main entrance to the buildings or distributed around multiple buildings, with good visibility. The type of bike rack and location shall be approved by City Staff prior to installation (Inverted-U type are typical. 'Wave 1 or 'school yard1 are not allowed). --·---------·-------------------------------·------------------------------------------------------------------·---------· ·----·--------,-------------------------·--~--------------------------- 12. Planning/Landscape Inspection: Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the project planner (650- 6 329-2471) to inspect and verify special conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors as per material board stamped received September 26, 2012, and shall contact the Public Works Arborist (650-496-5953) to inspect the site landscape plan. 13. The school grounds and area in the vicinity of the school shall be kept in a clean, litter free state. The school administration shall be responsible for control of litter of school students in the school vicinity. Public Works Department Public Works Engineering 14. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact ~he Public Works' inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works' inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works' standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 15. FLOOD ZONE: The proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Accordingly, the proposed construction must meet all of the City's and Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements for construction within a flood zone, such as: the finished bottom floor must be at or above the base flood elevation (BFE); the crawl space (if used) must have flood vents; and all construction materials and equipment below the BFE must be water-resistant. Garage/storage slabs can be below the BFE, but the garage/storage will then need flood vents. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, and our website for more information. The plans must show the BFE on all applicable elevations/ sections and details; must include a calculation of the required amount of flood vents; must include the flood vents on the elevations and foundation plan; must note all -----------ffia-tei--Tais--SeTow-tFi_e ____ B_FE---a.-~3"---wa.Fei~-=-resistanF-;··--a.n.<:r--·rnust ---·1r1cTt.iae the Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form, which is 7 available from Public Works at the Develop~ent Center or on our website. Please note that FEMA recently (May 2009) changed the vertical datum of the flood zones. You must use the new vertical datum (NAVD88) on plans submitted for a building permit NOTE: Please correctly show the :flood zone designation as AH27.7 16. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown on this.plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing.runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines on our website. 17. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. 18. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 19. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 20. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the -e:XT8-t:TD.9-and.---pi·o'PC:»8ea---TmperV-I6us :su::rra:c·e----are-as wIEh-tne building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet 8 for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 21. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, "The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the sidewalk." Public Works Arborist 22. The Tree Protection Report (TPR) prepared by Walter Fujii, Project Arborist, dated March 06, 2012, is approved and shall be incorporated into the building permit plan set as specified below. All tree protection meas~res specified in this report are incorporated herein as conditions of project approval, in addition to the other tree protection conditions outlined below. 23. The final plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets: a) Sheet T-1 Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan available on the City website at (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp). Applicant shall complete and include the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspections and monthly reporting by the project arborist are mandatory (All projects: check #1; with tree preservation report: check #2-6; with landscape plan: check #7) . b) The Tree Preservation Report (TPR) . All sheets of the TPR approved by the City shall be printed on Sheet T-2, (T-3, T- 4, etc) and added to the building permit sheet index. c) Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans, irrigation plans,· site plans and utility plans, Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold and dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (all permeable ground area surrounding the trunk) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. d) Site Plan Notes. Include the following three notes in the following specified sheet(s) of the building permit plan set ------------sfiiETri9-:-------------------------------------------------------------- i) Note #1 -On the Site Plan -"All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, 9 watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans," ii) Note #2 -All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans, utility plans and relevant sheets shall include a note referring to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees, stating: "Regulated Tree - before working in this area contact Walter Fujii, Project Site Arborist, at (415) 699-6269," and iii) Note #3 -All Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: "Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of a protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 and note on site plan for instructions." 24. The plans submitted for building permit shall include a landscaping plan showing details of new landscaping and tree relocation. Alternate planting may be approved with review of City's Public Works Arborist. 25. The final landscape inspection, prior to occupancy approval, shall require review of the planting of new trees and landscaping as noted on sheet Al.1 of revised plans, dated September 26, 2012 with approved plans dated received February 15, 2012, and marked as "Exhibit A." These include (1) 15-gallon Coast Live Oak, (1) 24" box Persian Ironwood, (1) 24" box Elegant Tristania and T-25 shall be Acer "October Glory" as replacement trees to be located as per the direction of the City Arborist. Persian Ironwood (T-14) shall be used for screening trees as required for neighbors; backyards along south-east property line. Evergreen hedge consisting of (1) 5-gallon New Zealand Flax and (1) 5- gallon Carolina Cherry shall be planted at 5' O.C. along the north-east property line as landscape screening and buffer for abutting residential parcels, and (1) 5-gallon New Zealand Flax as landscape screening at the south-west (front) corner of the property. Two Monterey Pine trees and two Glossy Privets are permitted to be removed as per tree schedule information on sheet Al.1 of revised plans dated September 26, 2012. All Ivy along the perimeter of parking lot shall be removed. 26. The church shall build on church property, and maintain, a new (8) eight-foot tall redwood fence along the driveway adjacent to 1125 Channing. The fence shall be a six feet ----ea-1-1----Efol ici---wcYott--fe-nce--p lus----a---two-fo-o t--tall -1 at ti c-e-top---with- redwood siding and cement board noise-attenuation features as submitted to City staff October 26th, 2012. If the fence 10 is adjusted (based upon the Church land survey) to provide additional and adequate width for planting screening vegetation along the Church driveway, the Church shall plant Italian Cypress trees along the driveway planting strip at two to three feet on denter (on the Church side of the fence) . If the fence is placed in the same location as the existing fence, the applicant shall allow the owner of 1125 Channing to plant vegetation on Church property (assuming the Church land survey is correct) on the other side of the fence, to provide additional screening. Additionally, new six foot tall plus one foot tall lattice top wood fences with noise-attenuation, or modifications to existing fences as desired by mutual parties (residential property owner and Church), shall be built and paid for by the Church outside the chain-link fence and tailored to each property owner at 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Ave. and ending midway at 41 Kent Place. Fences shall be built during the first stage of construction. A five foot wide landscape strip at the edge of the side.parking lot shall be created along the common rear property line with 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Avenue and ending midway along the side property line of 41 Kent Place. In the landscape strip, the Church shall keep the existing large trees and plant four (15 gallon) Prunus Caroliniana behind 1133 and 1139 Channing Avenue and 11 Prunus Caroliniana next to 1141 Kent Place side property line. The existing vegetation in the landscape strip behind 1125 Channing Ave shall be pruned with the assistance of the neighbor. All ivy shall be permanently removed in the landscape strip up to the common property line and removed and trimmed quarterly or as necessary by the church staff to keep the ivy under control. The Church staff will remove and keep trimmed all ivy which was planted on the Church property but has spread to the area between the fences at the back of 1125 Channing Avenue. Irrigation shall be added only as needed to establish the Prunus Caroliniana and discourage ivy re-establishment. The parking spaces along the property line with the rear of 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Avenue shall be signed "staff". and have wheel stops. 27. A tree relocation plan shall be submitted to the City's Public Works Arborist and approved prior to building permit issuance. 28. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees and new landscaping. For trees, detail #513 shall be included on the ···· --·---IYfT<~rarion--plans ____ snow1ng---nvo -bubb1 er -heads--mounted-on--------- flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The 11 tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 29. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged) . 30. Landscape Planting notes shall include the following: "Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12" depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1" or larger shall be removed from the site. A turf-free zone around trees 36" diameter (18" radius) shall be provided for best tree performance." 31. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor of record shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division indicating that the required protective fencing is in place. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 32. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 33. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec.2.20 C&D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using 'air-spade' method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1. 5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then "Trenching and Tunneling Distance," shall be printed on the final plans. 34. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by Walter Fujii, Project site Arborist, at (415) 699-6269, with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to ---·------------------------Ene--·--c-i-Ey:-----~fC5r--·-r·ev~r-e·t~J":··------------------------------------------ ------ 12 35. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 36. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all Arborist Inspection Schedule measures; design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR, which are subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A mandatory Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City Building Division beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the TTM, Addendum 11. 37. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to the Palo Al to Municipal Code, and City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 38. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. Prior to final occupancy approval, the Planning Department (attn. project planner) and Public Works Arborist shall be in receipt of written verification from the project arborist that he/she has inspected all protected trees and irrigation, and that they are functioning as specified in the approved plans dated March 8, 2012 and as shown on Exhibit A. The inspections should include the following: i) Performance of Percolation & drainage checks is acceptable, ii) Inspection of Fine grading and all plantable areas for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots, and iii) Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. 39. MAINTENANCE. After final occupancy approval all required landscape and screening trees indicated in condition of approval shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version) . Any screening tree that dies shall be replaced (with approved. tree species and box size as shown on Exhibit A) or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the ----------------·-------------curre rit ______ P x:·ape-·rty ___ awrier-----virt~n1-n.------3--n----·aay:s··--cs-f -·crrs·c 0·ve·r-y·-~--- 13 40. Private Easement verification and allocation shall be the responsibility of the property owner and shall not be part of this approval. Building and Fire Department 41. Due to the new addition and expansion in use, the existing , building, including restrooms,_ shall comply with all requirements of the 2010 Building and Fire codes and local ordinances. 42. Monitored NFPA 13 fire sprinkler and NFPA 72 fire alarm system shall be installed. 43. The Fire Department access roadway shall be a min 20 ft wide all weather surfaces and be capable of supporting a 75,000 lbs fire apparatus. The roadway shall have a min 13 ft 6 in vertical clearance. 44. Fire Department access roadway to be posted as Fire Lane-No Stopping. Fire Access roadway to meet the standards of the Palo Alto FD. 45. Submit plans and specs to the Palo Al to Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division for review, approval and permit prior to installation. Utilities Department Utilities Water Gas Wastewater 46. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and 47. new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA's for domestic service shall be lead free. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire sprinkler system or onsite fire hydrants to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU's approval). Reduced pressure detector _____________ as_semblies _sha11 __ be __ ins_tal1_e.d on __ the_owne:r~_s._ __ Q_+:Qp_ext:.J': __ wi thin 5 feet of the property line. 48. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility 14 construction showing the location for the new backflow preventers. 49. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 50. All new backflow preventer devices shall be inspected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to final sign off for the project. The applicant shall provide the City with the initial test certificates and name, address, and phone number of responsible party for subsequent annual testing for all backflows. 51. For existing backflow preventer devices, the applicant shall provide current annual test certificates and name, address, and phone number of responsible party for subsequent annual testing prior to final sign off for the project. 52. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the existing and new load information requested for utility service demands specifically for the added gas load in b.t.u.p.h. The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain) . 53. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1' horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10' or existing trees. Maintain 10' between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 54. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 55. The applicant shall be responsible for any upgrading the existing utility services as necessary to handle anticipated 15 peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services. 56. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 57. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 58. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: 1) The pump(s) is limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less. 2) The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity flow line at least 20' from the City clean out. 3) The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time shall not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 59. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with any new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 60. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Utilities Marketing 61. If this project includes over 1,500 square feet of landscape modifications, the landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by Utility Marketing Services, a division of the Utilities Department. Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, the applicant will need to comply with the City's Landscape Efficiency Standards, which includes installation of a dedicated irrigation meter and approved backflow prevention device. Please submit the following items when applying for your Building and/or Grading Permit: 1) Landscape Water Use Statement 2) Water Use Calculations 3) Irrigation Plan 41· -CJra.2rrn9--I?Ian.___ - - 5) Planting Plan 16 the potential noise and privacy impacts that tf e increased circulation may have. At the P&TC meeting the applicant presented an altemativf plan that eliminated the driveway as a drop-off and pick-up area for the students. The driveway ould remain, however, it would only be used for employee parking and emergency vehicle ac1ess. The front parking lot and driveways on N. California Avenue were redesigned to accommodate all drop-off, pick-up and visitor parking needs. Staff addressed the revised plan and a so presented amended conditions of approval. At the P&TC meeting, members of the comm~ty spoke to both the initial plan and the revised plan. While acknowledgil1g improvements ii~ the plan to address the original concerns for the dri'."eway, they also stated their concerns that 1 they were ~ot given enough t.i1.11e to adequately review the proposal and comment on the sch?ol's operations and the condit10ns of approval. The P&TC continued the item to the October 26 lilleeting to allow the Stratford School, Palo Alto I Unified School District (PAUSD), and City Staff meet with the City/School Traffic Safety Committee and allow for community input. I On October 11, 2005 the City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) held a meeting at 4:00 PM to review the plan and receive community input. Courtesy noticing cards were sent to residents within a 600-foot radius of the sch90L The PAUSD retained John Wilson of Wilson Engineering, consulting traffic engineer for tl;le District, to review the project's circulation and parking plan. The review was based on the qt.JP maximum enrollment of 482 students and with the revised site plan that would provide all v~sitor, drop-off and pick-up in the front parking lot. John Wilson presented the conclusions of his: review to the Committee at the meeting. Several residents in the community spoke to the Co*ittee addressing concerns for pedestrian safety, capacity for onsite drop-off, and condition m nitming of the CUP. The CSTSC recommended that the City approve the CUP with three rec mmendations; 1) to include John Wilson's findings and.r~commen~ations, 2) to incl~de conditior for moni~oring .and reportin?, and 3) that · addit10ilal parking reserve be reviewed by th~ CSTSC pnor to implementation. A record of the Committee's recommendations with John W~lson's report is in Attachment H. The CSTSC and John Wilson's report recommendations have lbeen incorporated into the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). As noted in the CSTr C memo, the Wilson'Engineers Report contains a additional recommendation regarding the need for a crossing guard on North California Avenue between Barbara Drive and the school. The STSC did not discuss this recommendation at their meeting. The revised site plan (Attachment L) shows the parking and circulation improvements proposed for the school operation for the Conditional se Pennit. Attachment M shows the same parking and circulation, and includes an area designa~ed for parking reserve for 20 additional staff and visitor parking spaces. The parking reserve v.jould be implemented should it be deemed necessary to provide additional parking when the school reaches maximum enrollment of 482 students. As part of the Conditional Use Permit, the parkiili.g reserve would be implemented with an ARB permit with review and comment from the CSTSC. I Conditional Use Permit ~ There are two requn·ed findings that must be met for a CUP approval. The first fmcling is that the use shall not be detrimental or injurious to prbperty or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ge 1 era) welfare, or convenience. The second finding is City of Palo Alto Page 2 Attachment A DRAFT ACTION NO. 2005-XX RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 870 N. CALIFRONIA AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04PLN-00132 (STRATFORD SCHOOL, APPLICANT) On DATE, 2005, the Council upheld the Director of Planning and Community Environment's July 29, 2005 decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow a private educational use at an existing vacant Palo Alto Unified School District facility making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Palo Alto ("City follows: Background. The City Council of the City of Council") finds, determines, and declares as A. On December 17, 2004, Stratford School, on behalf of the Palo Alto Unified School District, applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a private educational use at an existing vacant school facility (Garland School) ("The Project") C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project on October 26, 2005 and voted [x-x] to recommend/deny that Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment's decision to approve the project. The Commission's action is contained in the CMR: xxx:05. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that: The proposed private educational use, as conditioned, at the existing vacant public school facility (Garland School) will not negatively impact the property or vicinity. A school use has been in existence at this facility since the mid 1950' s. The proposed use shall be conducted in accordance with all City (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and State regulations and, therefore, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Al to Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 oF the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that: 1 Planning Commission 2322 Crestmoor Drive Page 5 buildings counter-clockwise, with the Kindergarten and Grade 1-8 students drop-off/pick-up point being on the south side of the school towards the end of the driveway loop. Vehicles would queue, as necessary, in the striped driveway area around the buildings. Because of the length of the striped driveway area around the school (approximately 1,000 feet), any vehicle queuing related to student ~ arrivals and departures is proposed to occur fully on the school site. ,,,. The applicant has provided a detailed explanation of how the student drop-off/pick-up operation will work, which includes escorting of Kindergarten and Grade 1 through 8 students from vehicles into the school when arriving , and escorting students to awaiting vehicles when departing the school (see Exhibit 0). Vehicles would be permitted right-and left-turn movements from Crestmoor Drive into the school site when arriving, and utilize a right-turn only movement when departing the site, matching the historic vehicle turn movements when Crestmoor Elementary School was in operation. Exiting vehicles would then travel south on Crestmoor Drive to arrive at the signalized intersection with San Bruno Avenue. Unlike the Kindergarten through Grade 8 students (who can be dropped off/picked up), preschool students must be signed in/out of their classes by parents/guardians, requiring vehicles to be briefly parked at the school. Since many of the 37 on-site parking spaces would be utilized by employees of the school, and as 5 of the 7 preschool classes are expected to commence operation in the morning , staff is recommending a condition of approval that the number of on-site parking spaces be increased to provide additional parking for preschool student drop-off and pick-up. This would include designating spaces in the front area of the school for this short-term parking demand. Faculty and administrator parking would then be located either in the blacktop area or along the perimeter of the school. The condition requires submittal of a final Parking and Circulation Plan to the Community Development Department prior to school operations. The Plan can also include further staggering of arrival and departure times for preschool students (past 9:00 a.m. for the morning arrivals, and after 3:45 p.m. for the afternoon departures) to help furiher offset any peak parking demand. When the school hosts evening special events, additional on-site parking demand can be fully met by using the paved playground areas; a condition of project approval is recommended to address this. Bicycle parking is also proposed, with placement of bike racks by the school building near the playground. The San Bruno Park School District and the applicant would jointly be responsible for the maintenance of common open space areas, the parking lot and driveways, while the Stratford School would maintain school buildings and landscaping adjacent to the buildings. Building and Site Modifications There will be no building expansion. Minor exterior modifications will be made to the existing school buildings, including complete repainting of the exterior (using a Navajo White exterior with Seattle Red fascia trim); new seal coat and restriping of the driveway and playground areas; fence repair, as needed; replacement of driveway gates; slight regrading of handicapped accessible parking and pathways near the main school entrance to meet current Code requirements; and clean-up and replanting, as needed , in landscape areas. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring submittal of a landscape plan that provides details on the landscaping improvements. CITY OF SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Commission 2322 Crestmoor DrivE~ Page 6 Interior modifications will include addition of restrooms to preschool classrooms; interior painting; resurfacing and repairing cabinetry; replacing flooring to reflect Stratford theme colors; repairing windows and doors; and installation of energy-efficient furnaces. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff mailed a courtesy notice to property owners in the project vicinity in advance of the applicant's project informational meeting held on September 24, 2014. The legal notice for the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries on November 7, 2014, and posted in the San Mateo Daily Journal on November 8, 2014. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION The subject site is primarily located within the Open Space and Conservation District, with the entry and exit driveways and some of the site's parking stalls located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District closest to Crestmoor Drive. The San Bruno Zoning Ordinance allows private school facilities in both Open Space and Conservation and Single-Family Residential Districts with the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed private school has been analyzed based on potential impacts related to traffic/circulation, noise, and general compatibility with single family residences in the vicinity. From a land use perspective, staff acknowledges the applicant's proposal focuses on re-use of the existing Crestmoor Elementary School. There has been historic use of the project site as a public school for over 50 years. Additionally, student enrollment at the private school is based on the upper ranges of student enrollment at Crestmoor Elementary School over the past 25 years. Further, the project site Is surrounded on three sides by Crestmoor Canyon open space, and is adjacent to eight residences along Crestmoor Drive, separated by an upslope open space buffer (containing stands of mature trees) and six-foot solid board fences along the rear of these residential lots. And as the proposed private school does not include any expansion of the existing school facilities, the proposed project presents limited potential for new impacts or land use compatibility Issues with surrounding uses. Traffic and circulation issues are addressed through the applicant's proposed use of the circular, one- way driveway around the perimeter of the school and provision of on-site parking spaces. Staff has included several conditions of approval to address parking and traffic to ensure acceptable operating conditions. These include: limiting hours of school operations (Condition No. 5), designation of preschool student drop-off/pick-up parking areas and employee parking areas through a final Parking and Circulation Plan (Condition No. 6), maintaining the historic right-turn only for vehicles exiting the school onto Crestmoor Drive (Condltlon No. 8), requiring provision of parking details to parents, along with enforcement of the provisions by thia applicant (Condition No. 9), special-event parking requirements (Condition No. 10), and use of monitors during daily student drop-off and pick-up (Condition No. 11 ). Outdoor school activities (recesses, play time during lunch, physical education periods, and outside afternoon play during extended care) has the potential for generation of noise. However, staff notes that the proposed operation of the private school will not exceed the noise levels generated by outdoor activities when Crestmoor Elementary School was in operation at the site for over 50 years. Further, outdoor activities will be limited to daytime hours during weekdays, and all outdoor activities will be monitored by the school staff (also required through the recommended condition Nos. 5 and 12). Condition No. 13 also prohibits use of outside bells or buzzers. Additionally, the majority of the project site is surrounded by open space within Crestmoor Canyon, further reducing potential for generation of any significant noise impacts. CITY OF SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Commission 2322 Crestmoor Drive Page 7 Pursuant to Section 12.111. 050.B of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall grant the Use Permit if it makes the following findings (required findings are in bold, followed by Staff's analysis of the merits of the project and how the findings can be made): 1. Will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use. Staff Response: The proposed operation of the private school will be very similar in use characteristics to the Crestmoor Elementary School operation that occurred at the site for over 50 years. The private school will utilize existing facilities, and there will be no expansion of the school buildings or grounds. Enrollment at the school shall be limited to 250 students, recognizing the upper levels of student enrollment at Crestmoor Elementary School over the last 25 years. Recommended conditions of project approval will regulate transportation and circulation at the site, outdoor play, student enrollment and related operational criteria . The proposed use , as conditioned, will therefore not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 2. Will not be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city. Staff Response: The proposi:id private school operation will utilize existing facilities of the former Crestmoor Elementary School. No expansion of the buildings or grounds are proposed. Recommended conditions of project approval will regulate transportation and circulation at the site, outdoor play, student enrollment and related operational criteria, reducing potential for adverse impacts to adjoining residences along Crestmoor Drive. Existing driveways and encroachments onto Crestmoor Drive will provide access to and from the school, and the historic right-only driveway vehicle exit turn movement onto Crestmoor Drive will be maintained. Existing City services for water, wastewater and storm drainage will continue to be used . The majority of the project site is surrounded by Crestmoor Canyon open space, and access to and use of the open space area and its trail system will not be impacted by the private school operation. The project therefore, as conditioned, will not be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 3. Will not be inconsistent with the general plan. Staff Response: The General Plan land use designation for the school site is Open Space (with a smaller portion of the driveway area connecting to Crestmoor Drive having a Single-Family Residential designation). The proposed private school involves reuse of the former Crestmoor Elementary School, which was in operation for over 50 years until the School was declared a surplus facility by the San Bruno Park School District in 2013. The proposed private school would not expand the school buildings or its grounds, and would not adversely impact the adjoining open space within Crestmoor Canyon. Further, the Open Space and Conservation Zoning designation (a long with the smaller Single-Family Residential portion of the site), wh ich implements the CITY OF SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Commission 2322 Crestmoor Drive Page 8 General Plan land use desi~ination , provides for school uses subject to Planning Commission approval of a use permit. The proposed use would therefore, as conditioned, be consistent with the General Plan. Recommendation Based on the above analysis and Findings of Fact 1-5, staff recommends approval of Use Permit 14- 011, subject to Conditions of Approval 1-21. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed private school is allowed in the Open Space and Conservation and Single-Family Residential Zones, subject to use permit approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The use permit to operate a private school will not, with application of the Conditions of Approval, result in significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood in terms of land use, traffic, parking, and noise. 3. The proposed private school will utilize existing building facilities and playground areas originally constructed in 1957 and used by the Crestmoor Elementary School until its closure in 2013. No expansion of the school buildings or facilities are proposed, and maximum student enrollment of 250 recognizes the upper levels of student enrollment at Crestmoor Elementary School over the last 25 years . 4. The operator of the facility will provide on-site parking spaces for staff, and adequate on-site vehicle queuing areas to allow students to be dropped off and picked up. 5. The proposed facility will require compliance with applicable permitting, plan review and inspections by the Department of the State Architect. A condition of project approval requires the applicant to provide evidence of all required State approvals for the operation of the proposed school. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Community Development Department-(650) 616-7042 1. The applicant shall file a declaration of acceptance of the following conditions by submitting a signed copy of the Summary of Hearing to the Community Development Department within 30 days of Planning Commission approval. Until such time as the Summary is filed , Use Permit 14~011 shall not be valid for any purpose. 2. Applicant must obtain a business license though the Finance Department. 3. The request for a use permit for a private school at 2322 Crestmoor Drive shall operate according to plans and applicant statement approved by the Planning Commission on November 18, 2014, labeled Exhibits C and D, except as required to be modified by these Conditions of Approval. Any modification to the approved plans shall require prior approval by the Community Development Director. CITY OF SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Commission 2322 Crestmoor Drive Page 10 11. The applicant shall supervise daily student drop-off and pick-up activities, including use of monitors at key locations at the entry to the school driveway at Crestmoor Drive, around the school building perimeter, and at the main drop-off/pick-up point on the south side of the school. 12. The applicant shall ensure supervision of all outdoor activities, including recess, lunch, physical education and after school (extended care) program activities, to control noise levels. This shall include presence of a supervisor(s) when students are using the lower-level playground/playfield. 13. There shall be no outside use of school buzzers, bells or loudspeakers. 14. The applicant shall ensure all perimeter fencing and gates are kept in good repair to help ensure students remain on school grounds when school is in session. 15. The applicant shall obtain a City sign permit for installation of new signs if required under City sign regulations. Building Division -(650) 616-7020 and Fire Department-(650) 616-7096 16. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department and Fire Department with copies of approved construction permits, final plans and evidence of all required final inspection approvals from the Department of the State Architect prior to occupancy and use of the school. Public Services Department-(650) 616-7068 17. The applicant shall be required to contact the Public Services Department, Engineering Division, and obtain the necessary City permits, inspections and approvals if the project triggers the need for a new water meter, or if changes are proposed to water and wastewater system connections to City systems. Police Department -(6 50) 616-7129 18. The applicant shall maintain exterior lighting at the project site in good working order to ensure adequate lighting for safety purposes. Installation of any new lighting shall be shielded from adjoining residences. 19. The handicapped parking stalls shall be appropriately painted and marked, with paint and signage, as per the California Vehicle Code. 20. The parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per Section 22658(a) of the California Vehicle Code, to assist in the enforcement and removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. 21. It is recommended that the applicant install a burglary alarm system that is monitored by an off- site alarm company. CITY OF SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Commission 2322 Crestmoor Drive Page 11 Submitted on 11/14/14 by: Brian Millar, AICP Contract Planner CITY OF SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION 2015-018 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DENYING APPEALS OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING A REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND MODIFY OPERATIONS OF AN EXISTING PRIVATE SCHOOL (HILLBROOK SCHOOL) ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLIC/\.TION: ll-12-002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: EIR-13-001 PROPERTY LOCATION: 300 MARCHMONT DRIVE (APNS: 532-10-001 AND 532-11- 011) PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/APPELLANT: HILLBROOK SCHOOL/MARK SILVER; APPELLANT: PATTI ELLIOT (AND OTHERS) WHEREAS, on Septcrnbcr 24, September 30, and October 6. 2014, the Planning Commission held public hearings and considered a request to modify a Conditional Use Pennit to increase school enrollment and modify operations of an existing private school (Hi]]brook School) on property zoned HR-I, and to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and, WHEREAS, on October 6, 2014, the Planning Commission certified the E1R and approved the request to modify a Conditional Use Permit to jncrcasc school enrollment and modify operations ohm existing _)riv&te chool (J-lillbrook chool) on property zoned HR-l; und, WHEREAS, the Applicant Hillbrook School/Mark Silver and Patti EUiot et. al. filed timely appeals of the decision of the Planning Commission approving a request to modify a Conditional Use Permit to increase school enrollment and modify operations of an existing private school (Hillbrook School) on prope1ty zoned HR-!; and, WHEREAS, the Appellants waived. in writing, the fitly-six (56) day time period for the Town Council to hear the Appeals pursuant to Tovvn Code Section 29.20.280; and, C. The Final ErR is certified as complete and compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act. More specifically, the Town Council finds that (l) the Final ELR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; (2) the Fina.I EIR was presented to the Town Council, which has reviewed and considered the infonnation contained therein; and (3) the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town, NOW1 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. The appeals of the decision of the Planning Commission approving a request to modify a Conditional Use Permit to increase school enrollment and modify operations of an existing private school (Hillbrook School) on property zoned HR-1 are denied. 2. The Final EJR is certified as complete and compliant with the California Environmental Quality Ace More specifically, tl1e Town Council finds that ( 1) the Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines~ (2) the Final EJR was presented to the Town Council, which has reviewed and considered the infonnation contained therein; and (3) the Final ElR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town. 3. The Conditions of Approval have been modified by the Town Council as attached hereto as Exhibit A and are hereby adopted as the Conditions of Approval for this permit. 4. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by other state or federal laws. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the l ih day of March, 2015, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SIGNED: --t-t°'A' ·rr...J.I.~ ·t r/£' M OR OGRE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA CLERK ADMJNISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-March 17. 2015 300 Marchmont Drive Conditional Use Permit U-12-002 Environmental Impact Report EIR-13-001 CUP rr 1-4 Requesting approval to modify a Conditional Use Permit to increase school enrollment and modify operations of an existing private school (Hillbroo.k School) on property zoned HR-1. It has been determined that this matter may have a significant impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (EJR) has been prepared as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). APNs 532-10-001 and 532-11-011. PROPERTY OWNERJAPPLJCANT: HiHbrook School/Mark Silver TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DI.RECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division J. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below. 2. EXPlRATION: The Master Plan approved May 7, 200 l (Resolution 20 J J-048) is vested. The Conditional Use Permit modification will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.335 an approval is vested when the activity approved is con1me11ced in a substantial, as distinguished from tentative or token, manner. For this Conditional Use Permit. suhstantia] shall mean any increase in student enrollment above 315. 3. USE: The approved use .is a junior kinderga1ien (JK) through eighth (8L11 ) grade educational institution/private school, with ancillary after school activities, after school care, and afler school sports. a. HOURS: STUDENTS and their families may be on campus Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., during the academic calendar year (mid-August through mid- June). b. EXTENDED HOURS: Up to 10 times per year, hours may be extended past 6:00 p.m. up to 9:30 p.m. The school's management and maintenance staff do not count towards the 10 times per year for extended hours. 4. AFTER SCHOOL ACTIVITIES: Enrichment prognu11S inc'luding but not limited to arts, mechanics, engineering, and language for the school's students are permitted, up to 6:00 p.m ., Monday through Frfriay, mid-Aug~tst through mid-June. 5. AFTER SCHOOL SPORTS AND COMPETITIONS: Any sports, competitive or not, and other competitions with at least one participating team from this approved school are pcnnitted up to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, mid-August through mid-June. These competitions are pennittcd to occur a maximum 3 days per week, up to 2 days per week outdoors. 6. AFTER SCHOOL CARE: Childcare for the school's students is permitted up to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, mid-August through mid-June. 7. VOLLEYBALL AND BASKETBALL TOURNAMENTS: A tournament is a series of contests/matches/games between two or more schools/teams one of which must be the approved school. Tournament hours are 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, I 18. MANDATORY TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN: The school shall implement, at its expense, a Mandatory Traffic DemancJ Management Plan consisting of any of the following means to limit daily vehicle trips: carpools, busing, shuttle buses, traditional school buses, bicycling, walking management plans, or other methods submitted by the school. The school must infonn persons and entities, covered by the plan, that pickup and drop-offs are prohibited on public streets in the immediate vicinity of the school. The school is solely responsible for enforcement of and compliance with a Mandatory Traffic Demand Management Pfrm. 19. TRAFFIC COUNT MONITORING: The school shall monitor its compliance using the existing embedded counter and by installing tube counters as a backup. The data from the counters will be used to determine whether the school has complied w.ith the traffic requirements contained in condition 17. The Town shall conduct ongoing traffic data validation by contracting for a random manual traffic count for three days, each semester. The data shall be compared with Sensys data (i.e, the embedded counter data) and results provided to the Town Traffic Engineer. lf the Town Traffic Engineer finds the school out of compliance, the Town shall contract for additional data collection, with a one week mech1mical (hose) traffic count to verify the counts. The school shall be considered out of compliance if any mecha11ical readings exceed the Sensys counts by more than five percent and where the readings are above the maximum number of daily vehicle trips. lf the Sensys data continues to demonstrate ongoing non-compliance, the discrepancy shall trigger the compliance proceedings po1iion of the CUP. The school is required to reimburse the Town for all staff and contract services associated with this condition. 20. BUS STOPS: The school may continue to use bus stop locations negotiated with private businesses. Any existing or new bus stop must be approved by the Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Depatiment as a suitable and safe place for 8 bus stop. 21. PARKING: AU parking shall be accommodated onsite. 22. PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF AREA: A pick-up and drop-off area shall be maintained on school grounds. 23. EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD: The emergency access road to Ann Arbor Drive shall not be opened up at any time to public or school use. The road may be opened for construction access only if it is part of an approved construction plan for an Architecture and Site application. 24. CURFEW AND NOISE; The school shall comply with the Town Code governing curfew and noise levels with the exception of one amplified DJ event, mid-August through 1nid- June (not summer). 25. ONGOING COMPLIANCE REVLEW: Upon completion of the six-month initial review set forth in condition 16, the Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review to determine if the school is in compliance with this Conditional Use Permit rt: at any revievvs, tJ1e Planning Commission finds that the school is in violation of this Conditional Use Permit or that new or more effective data collection methods are available to compute traffic counts, then the Conditional Use Pern1it may be modified and/or revoked as allowed under the Town Code. Compliance review shall be completed at the school's expense. 26. PENALTIES FOR EXCEEDANCES OF THE MAXIMUM DAILY TRIP CAP: a. ff the 'J'o\\11·s Traffic Consultant's review of the trip cap montJ1l y monitoring reports reveals that the number of trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap, the applicant shall pay a penalty of$ l ,000 per clay and $ l 00 per excess trip. 3 b. If tl1e Town's Traffic Consultant's review of the trip c:ap monthly monitoring reports reveals that the number of trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap for a second consecutive monitoring period, the applicant shall pay a penalty of $2,500 per day and $250 per excess trip. c. If the Town's Traffic Consultant's review of the trip cap monthly monitoring reports reveals that the number of trips exceeds the maximum daily trip cap for a third consecutive monitoring period, the applicant shall pay a penalty of $5,000 per day and $500 per excess trip. d. Penalty money shall be paid to the Town and used towards neighborhood traffic/pedestrian improvements as approved by the Town's Parks and Publ.ic Works Director. e. The school is not subject to fines in the first six months after the date of this approval. 27. NEIGHBORHOOD COORDINATION: The school shall post a schedule of events on a website accessible to the public at the beginning of every academic calendar year. 28. GYMNASIUM DOORS AND WINDOWS: The loading doors on the Ann Arbor side shall be closed at all times whenever activities are being held inside the gymnasium. The other doors and windows in the brymnasium shall be allowed to remain open during activities. 29. SQUARE FOOTAGE: The maximum structural square footage is 55,715 square feet as approved by the Master Plan on May 7, 200 I (Resolution 201 l ~048). The existing campus is cutTently 52,683 square feet and an additional 3,032 square feet is permitted in the library and cafeteria/mt classrooms with an approved Architecture and Site application. 30. BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: The footprints of the future buildings may be required to be modified during the Architecture and Site approval process to reduce tree impacts. 31 . TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section J. l 0.115 requires that any applicant v.rho receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third pmty to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 4 23 Baumb, Nelly From:Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 11:40 AM To:Rosen, Jeff Cc:William Armaline; Raj Jayadev; EXT.Richard.Konda; <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson; Derek Grasty; Roxana Marachi; Micael 'mica' Estremera; Elizabeth Kamya; Angelica Cortez; Kyle Dacallos; Virginia Groce-Roberts; Raven Malone; revray; Khalid White; Robert Salonga; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; Chavez, Cindy; Simitian, Joe; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; Michael Gennaco; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Curtis Smolar Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use Attachments:meeting request.doc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  April 4, 2021 Jeff Rosen DA of Santa Clara County West Wing, 70 W Hedding St, San Jose, CA 95110 Re; Meeting Request Dear Mr. Rosen: A letter is not a meeting. The police had a chance to meet with you before your charging decision in the Alejo case. The community only heard about the attack 6-7 months after it occurred and because Mr. Alejo filed a claim for 20 million dollars with the city of Mountain View and the city of Palo Alto and because the Daily Post discovered the complaint and then acted to expose the attack. The Post then filed a California Public Records Request for release of the video footage of the incident from both involved police departments(PAPD and MVPD). Both departments delayed release of the video footage in violation of the CPRA (California Public Records Act). Your office had the opportunity to review the video footage and the law enforcement version of the incident before the public even heard of the canine attack. Your office reviewed the video footage and case without input from community members and your office had already decided Not to file charges long before the community even knew of this incident (all done behind closed doors and with the hope the public would never even know the incident occurred). (As an aside, this secrecy and lack of transparency by your office is counter to your prior promises to be a forwarding thinking and transparent public official. Your apparent complicity with the PAPD in keeping this matter buried is not acceptable and must not be repeated.) 24 We still demand a meeting where we can give you our input in person let you hear how we view the video footage, the stop resisting ploy, the DA’s outrageous claim that Alejo deserved what he got because his first reaction to being awaken by an unknown animal was to try to get the animal off of him. And even if the police can make some plausible argument that a first bite of Mr. Alejo was appropriate certainly the additional bites were unjustified and constitute excessive force. In fact, under People v Sears 62 Cal. 2d 737 (1965) the prosecution is entitled to submit to the court a tailored, to the facts of the case, instruction to the jury, as an example: If you find that the police in this situation were justified in initially releasing the dog on the victim, but subsequently allowed the canine to inflict injury beyond what was necessary to detain Mr. Alejo (the infliction of unnecessary and gratuitous pain and injury) you can still convict officer Enberg with assault & battery, assault & battery under color of authority and other related crimes. Similarly, the jury could be instructed as follows: If you find that Mr. Alejo was not resisting arrest and that the officers on video footage were setting up a defense for their conduct, knowing they were being recorded, by repeatedly saying “stop resisting” “stop resisting “ you can infer that the officer or officers had a consciousness of guilty regarding the conduct they were engaged in and you may consider this evidence in determining whether the officer(s) is guilt of the charge or charges in this matter. We believe you should listen to the community allow us to review the police reports, the video footage, and other evidence and allow us to offer you our input re why a jury of 12 members of our diverse community could in fact return a verdict of guilty in this case. The police earn public support by respecting community principles. Winning public approval requires hard work to build reputation: enforcing the laws impartially, hiring officers who represent and understand the community, and using force only as a last resort. Not the District Attorney, He is voted on by the people and when he fails, he will be voted out by the people. Sincerely, The Nine Principles of Sir Robert Peel Sir Robert Peel was instrumental in having the Act for Improving the Police in and Near the Metropolis (the Metropolitan Police Act) passed in the English Parliament in 1829. Peel had a specific vision as to the principles under which the police should operate. The nine principles that he penned nearly 200 years ago are just as important to proper police operations today as they were in early nineteenth-century London. 1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.  The ability of the police to perform their duties depends on public approval of police actions. 25  Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.  The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity to use physical force.  Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.  Police use of physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advise and warning is found to be insufficient.  Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.  Police should always direct their attention strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.  The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. On Friday, April 2, 2021, 01:38:13 PM PDT, Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org> wrote: Dear Reverend Moore, I hope you and your family are well. 26 I wish you a Happy Easter. Thank you for your email. Attached is my response. Sincerely, Jeffrey F. Rosen District Attorney Santa Clara County Tel. (408) 792-2855 Pronouns: He/Him/His https://outandequal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Pronouns-Guide.pdf From: Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 12:22 PM 27 To: Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Boyarsky, Jay <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org> Cc: William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com>; Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>; EXT.Richard.Konda <sccala@pacbell.net>; <abjpd1@gmail.com> <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson <walterlwilson@hotmail.com>; Derek Grasty <wmdgrasty@gmail.com>; Roxana Marachi <roxana.marachi@gmail.com>; Micael 'mica' Estremera <mr.estremera@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Kamya <ekamya@ifpte21.org>; Angelica Cortez <angelica@leadfilipino.org>; Kyle Dacallos <kyledacallos@gmail.com>; Virginia Groce-Roberts <vgroce_roberts@yahoo.com>; Raven Malone <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com>; revray <revray@pactsj.org>; Khalid White <khalid.white@sjcc.edu>; Robert Salonga <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>; Jeff Moore <moorej@esuhsd.org>; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council <council@redwoodcity.org>; Anna Griffin <griffinam@sbcglobal.net>; robert.jonsen <robert.jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>; Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; ed.shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Eduardo Guilarte <eduardoguilarte@gmail.com>; Cecilia <CTTaylor@menlopark.org>; Donald Mendoza <donald.mendoza@menlo.edu>; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>; Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@gmail.com>; Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>; Planning Cmmission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>; chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>; Charisse Domingo <charisse@siliconvalleydebug.org>; Molly <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>; O'Neal, Molly <Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org>; Bill Johnson <Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>; Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>; Chavez, Cindy <Cindy.Chavez@bos.sccgov.org>; Simitian, Joe <Joe.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; Ellenberg, Supervisor <supervisor.ellenberg@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Sean James <seanchiba650@gmail.com>; Perron, Zachary <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org>; tom.dubois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>; eric.filseth <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>; rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Rodriguez, Miguel <miguel.rodriguez@pdo.sccgov.org>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; mark weiss <Earwopa@yahoo.com>; Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Michele <james_michele@hotmail.com>; yolanda <yolanda@rocketmail.com>; Patrice Ventresca <patriceventresca@gmail.com>; Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Curtis Smolar <csmolar@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use Good afternoon, request a meeting with you to discuss why you refuse to press charges/fire the Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg, and explain to us how this is not a prosecutable offense when this is the second time this officer has used his K9 to being harm to the communities of color. Regarding below. Currently, there are seven canine-specific cases that mandate giving suspects a warning prior to using a police K-9 as a potential use of force tool. Burrows v. City of Tulsa (10th Circuit), Trammel v. Thomason (11th Circuit), Sorchini v. City of Covina (9th Circuit), and Vathekan v. Prince George's County (MD, 4th Circuit) Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: It is clearly established that it is unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing police dog to seize someone. Furthermore Kuha v. City of Minnetonka (8th Circuit), Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park (MN, 8th Circuit), and Rogers v. City of Kennewick (9th Circuit), Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: The court ruled that there was clearly established case law that failing to give a warning before releasing police dog to bite and hold is unreasonable. Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg failed to announce the use of his dog on a sleeping man is clearly an act of aggression with intent to do harm, shined another light on the systemic failures of policing in Santa Clara County. There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place. April 4, 2021 Jeff Rosen DA of Santa Clara County West Wing, 70 W Hedding St, San Jose, CA 95110 Re; Meeting Request Dear Mr. Rosen: A letter is not a meeting. The police had a chance to meet with you before your charging decision in the Alejo case. The community only heard about the attack 6-7 months after it occurred and because Mr. Alejo filed a claim for 20 million dollars with the city of Mountain View and the city of Palo Alto and because the Daily Post discovered the complaint and then acted to expose the attack. The Post then filed a California Public Records Request for release of the video footage of the incident from both involved police departments(PAPD and MVPD). Both departments delayed release of the video footage in violation of the CPRA (California Public Records Act). Your office had the opportunity to review the video footage and the law enforcement version of the incident before the public even heard of the canine attack. Your office reviewed the video footage and case without input from community members and your office had already decided Not to file charges long before the community even knew of this incident (all done behind closed doors and with the hope the public would never even know the incident occurred). (As an aside, this secrecy and lack of transparency by your office is counter to your prior promises to be a forwarding thinking and transparent public official. Your apparent complicity with the PAPD in keeping this matter buried is not acceptable and must not be repeated.) We still demand a meeting where we can give you our input in person let you hear how we view the video footage, the stop resisting ploy, the DA’s outrageous claim that Alejo deserved what he got because his first reaction to being awaken by an unknown animal was to try to get the animal off of him. And even if the police can make some plausible argument that a first bite of Mr. Alejo was appropriate certainly the additional bites were unjustified and constitute excessive force. In fact, under People v Sears 62 Cal. 2d 737 (1965) the prosecution is entitled to submit to the court a tailored, to the facts of the case, instruction to the jury, as an example: If you find that the police in this situation were justified in initially releasing the dog on the victim, but subsequently allowed the canine to inflict injury beyond what was necessary to detain Mr. Alejo (the infliction of unnecessary and gratuitous pain and injury) you can still convict officer Enberg with assault & battery, assault & battery under color of authority and other related crimes. Similarly, the jury could be instructed as follows: If you find that Mr. Alejo was not resisting arrest and that the officers on video footage were setting up a defense for their conduct, knowing they were being recorded, by repeatedly saying “stop resisting” “stop resisting “ you can infer that the officer or officers had a consciousness of guilty regarding the conduct they were engaged in and you may consider this evidence in determining whether the officer(s) is guilt of the charge or charges in this matter. SAN JOSE/SILICON VALLEY BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 1313 North Milpitas Blvd Suite #163, Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone 408-991-4610 We believe you should listen to the community allow us to review the police reports, the video footage, and other evidence and allow us to offer you our input re why a jury of 12 members of our diverse community could in fact return a verdict of guilty in this case. The police earn public support by respecting community principles. Winning public approval requires hard work to build reputation: enforcing the laws impartially, hiring officers who represent and understand the community, and using force only as a last resort. Not the District Attorney, He is voted on by the people and when he fails, he will be voted out by the people. Sincerely, Pastor Jethroe Moore II, President Website: http://www.sanjosenaacp.org Email: sjnaacp@sanjosenaacp.org 28 Baumb, Nelly From:RICH STIEBEL <w6apz@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 8:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:A Novel Approach Attachments:A Novel Approach 040521o.doc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please distribute to all council members. Thanks, Rich Stiebel A Novel Approach 040521o Let’s consider some facts. 1. Educating girls is a good thing for our society 2. The population of our area is growing, hence the push for more housing. 3. Castilleja educates a percentage of our area’s girls. 4. Even if that percentage does not change, Castilleja’s growth is inevitable. 5. Neighbors of Castilleja are unhappy even with the present enrollment. 6. Neighbors are using all possible technicalities to limit Castilleja’s growth. 7. Due to the pandemic many corporate buildings stand empty. 8. Many companies are realizing that working from home is working; they do not need all the office space they have. 9. Interest rates are lower now than before the pandemic. Let’s consider some possibilities. 1. Instead of expanding at its present site, Castilleja moves to a non- residential area. 2. Castilleja buys vacant corporate buildings with sufficient real estate to build an expanded campus. 3. The city grants Castilleja waivers to exceed current height limits and floor area ratios to provide space for their current and future projected growth. 4. The city encourages Castilleja to build underground parking adequate for this projected growth to prevent parking congestion in its new location. 5. A non-profit, or possibly an altruistic billionaire buys the property and leases it to Castilleja, with an option to buy in the future. 6. The city “sweetens the process” in every way possible since Castilleja’s move out of a residential neighborhood is to everyone’s advantage. 7. Castilleja sells its present property for residential development. Rich Stiebel 840 Talisman Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435 650-494-0128 29 Baumb, Nelly From:Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org> Sent:Friday, April 2, 2021 1:38 PM To:moore2j Cc:William Armaline; Raj Jayadev; EXT.Richard.Konda; <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson; Derek Grasty; Roxana Marachi; Micael 'mica' Estremera; Elizabeth Kamya; Angelica Cortez; Kyle Dacallos; Virginia Groce-Roberts; Raven Malone; revray; Khalid White; Robert Salonga; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; Chavez, Cindy; Simitian, Joe; Ellenberg, Supervisor; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; Michael Gennaco; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Curtis Smolar Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use Attachments:Letter to Rev. Moore II, President.4-2-2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Reverend Moore,    I hope you and your family are well.    I wish you a Happy Easter.    Thank you for your email.      Attached is my response.    Sincerely,               Jeffrey F. Rosen  District Attorney  Santa Clara County  Tel. (408) 792‐2855    Pronouns: He/Him/His  https://outandequal.org/wp‐content/uploads/2020/05/Pronouns‐Guide.pdf    From: Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net>   Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 12:22 PM  To: Rosen, Jeff <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Boyarsky, Jay <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>  Cc: William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com>; Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>; EXT.Richard.Konda  <sccala@pacbell.net>; <abjpd1@gmail.com> <abjpd1@gmail.com>; walter wilson <walterlwilson@hotmail.com>; Derek  30 Grasty <wmdgrasty@gmail.com>; Roxana Marachi <roxana.marachi@gmail.com>; Micael 'mica' Estremera  <mr.estremera@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Kamya <ekamya@ifpte21.org>; Angelica Cortez <angelica@leadfilipino.org>;  Kyle Dacallos <kyledacallos@gmail.com>; Virginia Groce‐Roberts <vgroce_roberts@yahoo.com>; Raven Malone  <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com>; revray <revray@pactsj.org>; Khalid White <khalid.white@sjcc.edu>; Robert Salonga  <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>;  Jeff Moore <moorej@esuhsd.org>; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;  citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP‐City Council <council@redwoodcity.org>; Anna Griffin  <griffinam@sbcglobal.net>; robert.jonsen <robert.jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>; Andrew  <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>; ed.shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Eduardo Guilarte  <eduardoguilarte@gmail.com>; Cecilia <CTTaylor@menlopark.org>; Donald Mendoza <donald.mendoza@menlo.edu>;  WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>; Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@gmail.com>; Human  Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>; Planning Cmmission  <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>;  pat@patburt.org; Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>; chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>; Charisse Domingo  <charisse@siliconvalleydebug.org>; Molly <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>; O'Neal, Molly  <Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org>; Bill Johnson <Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com>; Gennady Sheyner  <gsheyner@paweekly.com>; Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>; Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>; Chavez, Cindy  <Cindy.Chavez@bos.sccgov.org>; Simitian, Joe <Joe.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; Ellenberg, Supervisor  <supervisor.ellenberg@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG>; Sean James <seanchiba650@gmail.com>; Perron, Zachary  <Zachary.Perron@CityofPaloAlto.org>; tom.dubois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>; eric.filseth  <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>; rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Rodriguez, Miguel  <miguel.rodriguez@pdo.sccgov.org>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; mark weiss <Earwopa@yahoo.com>;  Michael Gennaco <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Michele <james_michele@hotmail.com>; yolanda  <yolanda@rocketmail.com>; Patrice Ventresca <patriceventresca@gmail.com>; Palo Alto Free Press  <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Curtis Smolar <csmolar@gmail.com>  Subject: [EXTERNAL] Meeting Request Regarding K9 use    Good afternoon, request a meeting with you to discuss why you refuse to press charges/fire the Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg, and explain to us how this is not a prosecutable offense when this is the second time this officer has used his K9 to being harm to the communities of color. Regarding below. Currently, there are seven canine-specific cases that mandate giving suspects a warning prior to using a police K-9 as a potential use of force tool. Burrows v. City of Tulsa (10th Circuit), Trammel v. Thomason (11th Circuit), Sorchini v. City of Covina (9th Circuit), and Vathekan v. Prince George's County (MD, 4th Circuit) Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: It is clearly established that it is unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing police dog to seize someone. Furthermore Kuha v. City of Minnetonka (8th Circuit), Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park (MN, 8th Circuit), and Rogers v. City of Kennewick (9th Circuit), Court's findings and rulings pertaining to the K-9 announcement: The court ruled that there was clearly established case law that failing to give a warning before releasing police dog to bite and hold is unreasonable. Palo Alto Police Officer Nick Enberg failed to announce the use of his dog on a sleeping man is clearly an act of aggression with intent to do harm, shined another light on the systemic failures of policing in Santa Clara County. There is an urgent need to root out and to identify the departmental deficiencies that allowed these officers to remain on the force in the first place.