HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180402plCC2City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 7:59 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Outrageous! -- Video is up -- Alcheck, 3/14 at PTC "My Last Comment is Directed to
Staff ..."
https://youtu.be/FurF5zGxyH4?t=12091
Follow-up to my knee-jerk, capsule email to you (below) after Item 1 at P&TC on Wednesday.
City manager included on this one. Video of the 3/14 P&TC meeting is up; link to start of 3-minute segment is above and below .
Kindly view, then process your reaction into the overall fabric of personal experience, direct comments from
others including those made in public, and this week’s press coverage all related to the suitability of
Commissioner Alcheck’s continued presence on the commission. https://youtu.be/FurF5zGxyH4?t=12091
Thank you,
Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street
From: Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Subject: Outrageous! Date: March 14, 2018 at 10:15:04 PM PDT To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Alcheck’s lecture to the planning director at the end of Item 1 at P&TC tonite ... one-upped even himself during
the evening, which included more of the usual, and .... not to mention, the new revelations in the press Monday. The time for action has arrived.
Sent from Fred's iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 12:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marge Shapiro <mshap12@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 11:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Animal Shelter
Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Los Altos and board member of Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter I am aware of the ongoing issue
of management and upgrading of the shelter. This is a worthy project for our communities and it needs to proceed. Our
president, Jeremy Robinson, has presented to you the ultimate vision for a state of the art and revenue producing
facility. We have a prime partner, Pets In Need, waiting to manage the shelter but time is short and their patience is
waning. After several years of working toward this agreement, it is time for the contract to be signed. Please don’t let
this opportunity pass.
Thank you,
Marge Shapiro
Director
Friends of the Palo Alto Shelter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Leslie Evers <pergamond@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:52 AM
To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Palo Alto ARB review of proposed Verizon towers is essential
To the City, ladies and gentlemen,
Please note I am OPPOSED to the installation of over 90 (or any number) of Verizon towers in the city without their
first being passed through the Architectural Review Board in Palo Alto.
I am very appreciative of the City council’s hard work in keeping our town livable and also up with the times.
However, I have no idea what these things are going to look like ‐ and pictures online are not promising or appealing.
I think as citizens we would all prefer someone be in charge of how they look. In addition, there is an extra concern for
potentially increased microwave radiation exposure, but that's a side issue. I assume that has been thoroughly
evaluated?
I am really more concerned with just dropping these things all over town indiscriminately without aesthetic guidelines. If
I had an overall vote I would say NO to it all. But the ARB review is absolutely vital if it is going to happen.
There is a meeting tomorrow (Monday) night regarding this but I cannot attend, so I am making my voice known. Thanks
so much for you attention.
Leslie Johnson Evers
1146 Waverley Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:16 AM
To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com; chuckjagoda1
@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary;
dcbertini@menlopark.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; HRC; Stump, Molly;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Damon Silver; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com;
Council, City; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; timothygray@sbcglobal.net;
council@redwoodcity.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; myraw@smcba.org; Watson,
Ron; Tony Dixon; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu
Subject:Palo Alto Human Relations Commission questions police-video-transparency-policy
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/13/commission-questions-police-video-transparency-policy
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:38 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Please deny approval to Verizon's cell towers
Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board:
Please deny approval to Verizon's cell towers in our neighborhoods. I am concerned about noise, aesthetics, and
radiation. At the very least, Verizon's cell tower equipment should all be underground (except the antenna) and
all equipment must not violate City noise ordinances.
Secondarily, I am concerned about anything being added on to the utility poles, as the city was supposed to put them all underground. If towers and antennas go up in our neighborhoods on existing utility poles, there will be
an inequity throughout the city. Let's make Palo Alto even more beautiful!
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Annette Evans Fazzino
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:30 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject:Please do not approve latest proposal by Verizon
To ARB,
Please do not approve Verizon’s cell towers unless all the equipment, except the antenna, are undergrounded and
does not violate our noise ordinances.
They're making excuses for not doing so by saying Palo Alto is in the flood zone for a once in a 500 year chance of flood ‐
and it's is ridiculous. If ARB think it's a valid reason, we shouldn't have any electrical equipment on poles ‐ esp when a
flood can topple the poles and cause fires to surrounding trees and home.
Jerry Fan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:redress.of.grievance@gmail.com
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:10 AM
To:sdremann@paweekly.com
Cc:Council, City; HRC; allison@padailypost.com; Dave Price; Watson, Ron;
bjohnson@paweekly.com; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org;
bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; Jay Boyarsky; Jonsen, Robert; Perron,
Zachary; Keith, Claudia; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org;
acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com; James Aram; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Stump,
Molly; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Keene, James; Kniss,
Liz (external); Scharff, Greg; Lum, Patty; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org;
dangel@da.sccgov.org; Binder, Andrew
Subject:Please elaborate Ms. Dremann
And feel free to respond by publishing our past violation(s) to demonstrate how you and your publisher (Bill
Johnson) censor anything controversial and or benign or for that matter anything coming out of East Palo Alto a
predominantly African America and Latino community... https://www.facebook.com/PAFreePress/posts/1689913184366253
Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press
Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮
Sent from my iPad
1
Independent Review of the BART Police Oversight
Structure
June 2017
Michael J. Gennaco
323 821 0586
7142 Trask Avenue
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
OIRGroup.com
Aaron B. Zisser
628 400 1203
Oakland, CA
civilrightsconsulting.com
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 3
II. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6
A. Background. ................................................................................................................................... 6
B. Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................................. 7
C. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 9
III. Findings and Recommendations........................................................................................ 11
A. Clarifying Oversight’s Scope ...................................................................................................... 11
B. Increasing OIPA’s Monitoring Responsibilities ........................................................................ 12
C. Making the Complaint Process Available to All ....................................................................... 14
D. Enhancing OIPA Investigations ................................................................................................. 14
E. Improving the Disposition Process of OIPA Investigations ..................................................... 18
F. Additional Risk Management Role for OIPA. .......................................................................... 23
G. Developing a Mediation Program ............................................................................................... 24
H. Ensuring Prompt OIPA Notification of All Critical Incidents ................................................ 25
I. Enhancing OIPA’s Footprint Regarding Use of Force ............................................................. 25
J. Mapping Out a Significant Role for the Auditor in BART PD’s Early Identification System
26
K. Increasing OIPA’s Role as Auditor ............................................................................................ 27
L. Expanding OIPA’s Role in Policy Development ....................................................................... 28
M. Ensuring Integration of Oversight in BART PD’s Policies and Practices .............................. 29
N. Clarifying the Relationship Between OIPA and the BART Police Citizen Review Board .... 30
O. Clarifying and Enhancing the Roles of the BART Police Citizen Review Board .................. 31
P. Providing Increased Transparency Authority for BART Oversight ...................................... 34
Q. Ensuring Periodic Review of BART Oversight ......................................................................... 34
3
I. Executive Summary
Overview of the review: Chapter 3-01 of the BART oversight model (hereinafter the
“Model”) provides as follows:
The Board of Directors, with input from the BART Police Citizen Review Board,
Auditor, BART Police Associations, complainants and the public, will evaluate
the BART Police citizen oversight structure after the first year of implementation
to determine if the need exists to make changes and or otherwise make
adjustments to the system to improve its continued performance. This evaluation
shall in no way be intended to eliminate the BART Police citizen oversight
structure.1
This review and report were commissioned and conducted in furtherance of BART’s compliance
with this provision of the Model; that is, to facilitate the Board of Directors’ evaluation of the
oversight structure.
Our review began in January 2017. We interviewed the stakeholders whose input is expressly
set out in the Model, but we conducted many additional interviews with a broad range of other
significant parties. We ensured that the evaluation takes account of the original impetus for the
establishment of the oversight system – the January 1, 2009, shooting of Oscar Grant by a BART
Police Department (BART PD) officer – as well as the subsequent systemic reviews of policies
and practices. Because oversight’s effectiveness depends heavily on the community’s trust,
engagement, and support, we placed a high premium on community attitudes and concerns
regarding the oversight system. We measured these factors in a variety of ways.
During our review, all individuals we met were generous with their time, accessibility, and
candor. Representatives of the Board of Directors, the BART Police Citizen Review Board, and
the BART PD were particularly helpful in providing both relevant documents and important
insights regarding the issues discussed herein. The Office of the Independent Police Auditor
(OIPA) was especially helpful in facilitating the mechanics of our work, and was continually
available to provide documents and important perspective. To the degree that our findings and
recommendations may help enhance the current civilian oversight system, it reflects the
cooperation, assistance, and acumen provided by these stakeholders.
The oversight system: The BART PD oversight system, established in July 2010 following a
process that involved community input, consists of the OIPA and the BART Police Citizen
Review Board. According to the Model, OIPA (with a current staffing level of three) is to
conduct investigations of complaints alleging serious officer misconduct, make
recommendations on BART PD policies and practices, audit Internal Affairs (IA) investigations,
conduct close monitoring of officer-involved shootings, conduct community outreach, issue
1 The Oversight Model is available on the website of the Office of the Independent Police
Auditor: https://www.bart.gov/about/policeauditor and attached to this report as Attachment A.
4
public reports on investigation outcomes and trends, and provide staffing and other resources to
the BART Police Citizen Review Board.
The BART Police Citizen Review Board consists of 11 members. Each of the nine Directors
selects one member, while one is appointed by the police associations, and one is “at-large.”
According to the Model, the Review Board is to hold monthly public meetings, review OIPA’s
investigations, review BART PD and OIPA recommendations regarding BART PD policies,
make its own recommendations regarding BART PD policies, conduct community outreach, and
issue reports on its activities. Its members are also authorized under the Model to participate in
officer and executive hiring.
Overview of findings: We found that the Model devised in response to the tragic shooting of
Oscar Grant created two oversight entities that have served a valuable purpose in establishing
effective civilian oversight over an agency that had no such previous external influences. The
fact that we offer numerous recommendations designed to strengthen and clarify the original
Model should in no way diminish the work of those who have worked diligently to fulfill the
overarching objectives of accountability, advancing progressive police practices, and fostering
greater community trust in law enforcement. Instead, this Report seeks to fulfill a key part of the
Model’s original vision: one that recognized that a constructive re-assessment of BART’s
nascent oversight program should be built into the design.
From that starting point, we found several areas in which the Model could benefit from revision
and reform. These include significant omissions in the Model relating to investigations and
auditing authority, and the ambiguities in provisions relating to outreach, reporting,
investigations, and policy recommendations.
The review features a total of fifty-three recommendations. They range in scope from broad
issues of jurisdiction and structure to more particular or technical adjustments to specific
provisions in the Model. Among the key categories that produced specific suggestions for
reform are the following:
Recommendations to expand authority and related findings: We recommend expanding the
oversight system’s authority in two areas:
Broader audit authority: First, we recommend expanding the auditing authority to
allow OIPA to review any operational aspect of BART PD – as opposed to merely
reviewing IA’s operations.
Investigations absent a complaint: Second, we recommend authorizing OIPA to
conduct its own independent investigation or review into any use of force or potential act
of misconduct without the need to await receipt of a qualifying citizen complaint.
Other recommendations and findings:
Independence from each other’s roles and responsibilities should be reinforced through
structural changes to OIPA and the BART Police Citizen Review Board for the sake of
their respective and mutual effectiveness. OIPA’s obligations relating to staffing the
5
Review Board should be removed, the requirement of a Review Board performance
evaluation of the IPA should be eliminated, and orientation and training for Review
Board members should be enhanced to delineate roles and responsibilities.
Case Auditing should be conducted in a more consistent and thorough manner that
allows for not only pre-completion input into the IA investigation, but also the ability to
influence dispositions and discipline prior to BART PD’s final decision.
A Systemic Auditing protocol should be developed and implemented. OIPA should
analyze trends and patterns, and it should be involved in BART PD procedures relating to
use-of-force reviews and early identification of officers who may require remedial
interventions.
Investigations should address a broader range of complaints; any person should be able
to file a complaint; and written protocols should be developed regarding investigative
techniques, procedures, and coordination with other BART components to ensure
confidence in OIPA’s investigations and to ensure that it receives all complaints coming
in to BART.
Use of Force Review should become an arena in which OIPA more regularly
participates, including assessing individual incidents, and contributing to holistic
discussions of tactics and training, and other potential elements of constructive feedback.
Policy, procedure, and practice recommendations should constitute a regular and
formalized element of OIPA’s interactions with and influence on BART PD.
Public reporting by OIPA should be enhanced, in the form of greater detail with regard
to its case monitoring role of internal investigations initiated by BART PD. Similarly,
OIPA should report on the increased activities proposed in this report.
Mediation should continue to be studied for ways to make it more attractive to
complainants and officers.
An oversight system evaluation should be conducted periodically.
6
II. Introduction
A. Background.
BART PD: Established in 1969, BART PD is “comprised of 296 personnel, of which 206 are
sworn peace officers,” according to BART PD’s website.2 BART PD covers the entire BART
system, which extends into four counties. The Chief of Police reports to the General Manager
(GM), who is appointed by the Board of Directors.
Shooting of Oscar Grant and aftermath: On January 1, 2009, Oscar Grant was fatally shot by
BART police officer Johannes Mehserle on the Fruitvale Station platform. On August 11, 2009,
the law firm Meyers Nave issued a report regarding policies and practices “relevant to the” Oscar
Grant shooting.3
From June 2009 to September 2009, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives (NOBLE) conducted a review of BART PD’s policies and practices, and it issued a
report on January 1, 2010, which identified areas for improvement in a number of areas of BART
PD’s operations.4 A follow-up audit was conducted in 2013, and BART PD continues to report
on its ongoing efforts to implement the recommended reforms.
In June 2010, Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of murder and
voluntary manslaughter charges.
BART Public Safety Accountability Act: In September 2009 – immediately following the
Meyers Nave report and before the completion of the NOBLE report – a bill was proposed in the
state legislature to create an independent oversight system for BART PD. In July of 2010, the
BART Public Safety Accountability Act was enacted. It directed the BART Board of Directors
to “establish an office of independent police auditor, reporting directly to the board, to
investigate complaints against district police personnel” and assigned the following “powers and
duties” to the appointed auditor5:
(1) To investigate those complaints or allegations of on-duty misconduct and off-duty
unlawful activity by district police personnel, within the independent police auditor’s
purview as it is set by the board.
2 “History of the BART Police Department,” http://m.bart.gov/about/police/employment.
3 Meyers Nave, “Review of BART PD Policies, Practices and Procedures Re: New Year’s Day
2009,” 1 (Aug. 2009), available at
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Meyers_Nave_Public_Report.pdf.
4 NOBLE, “BART Management Audit,” (Jan. 2010) [NOBLE Audit (2010)], available at
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/NOBLE Final Report.pdf.
5 CA Pub. Util. Code § 28767.8(a) (2016).
7
(2) To reach independent findings as to the validity of each complaint.
(3) To recommend appropriate disciplinary action against district police personnel for those
complaints determined to be sustained.6
The Act also authorized the Board to create “a citizen review board to participate in
recommending appropriate disciplinary action.”7
Oversight Model: Pursuant to the legislation, the BART Board of Directors formed a committee
to study what type of oversight should be established. There were numerous public hearings
with robust input from members of the community. The Model eventually promulgated called
for an independent police auditor, as well as a citizen review board. Responsibilities of the
oversight system – detailed in this report – included: investigations of complaints alleging
serious officer misconduct, recommendations on BART PD policies and practices, auditing of
Internal Affairs investigations, close monitoring of officer-involved shootings, community
outreach, and issuing public reports on investigation outcomes and trends.
OIPA: The OIPA is appointed by and reports directly to the Board of Directors. OIPA consists
of three staff, including the Independent Police Auditor (IPA), an investigator, and an
administrative support person.
BART Police Citizen Review Board: The Review Board consists of 11 members, including
nine members appointed by the respective Directors, a member appointed by the police
associations, and an at-large member selected through a formal application process.
B. Scope and Methodology
Scope: Chapter 3-01 of the Oversight Model provides as follows:
The Board of Directors, with input from the BART Police Citizen Review Board,
Auditor, BART Police Associations, complainants and the public, will evaluate the
BART Police citizen oversight structure after the first year of implementation to
determine if the need exists to make changes and or otherwise make adjustments to the
system to improve its continued performance. This evaluation shall in no way be
intended to eliminate the BART Police citizen oversight structure.
Even though the Model calls for an evaluation after one year of implementation, no assessment
has ever been conducted since the inception of BART’s civilian oversight. While this lapse was
unfortunate, it is a testament to OIPA and the Board of Directors that this independent review
has now been commissioned.
We sought to answer two basic sets of questions:
6 CA Pub. Util. Code § 28767.8(b)(1)-(3) (2016).
7 CA Pub. Util. Code § 28767.8(c) (2016).
8
Does the oversight structure perform as contemplated in the language of the Model? If
not, what ambiguities or omissions in the Model’s language may impact optimum
performance?
Could the oversight structure be improved or enhanced to further the oversight system’s
goals, as articulated in best practices and understood by the communities it serves?
Overview of methodology: To these ends, we evaluated:
The language of the Model for ambiguity or weaknesses.
Whether practice could benefit by providing clearer authority, expansion of duties, and
reconsideration of priorities.
The perceptions and concerns of communities BART serves and BART system
stakeholders, as well as national best practices, to gauge what changes would help to
instill additional trust in the oversight structure and aid in serving its goals.
Interviews: Our review began in January 2017 and entailed more than 50 interviews with nearly
four dozen stakeholders. These included OIPA staff; BART Police Citizen Review Board
members; seven BART directors; local oversight professionals; local advocacy groups, including
the local ACLU affiliate and the Coalition on Homelessness; police associations; IA officers; and
BART PD command staff.
Community interest and concerns: Just as it was essential that we speak with police officials
and representatives, community feedback – particularly input from impacted communities,
including communities of color – was of critical importance in our review. This is because the
effectiveness of civilian oversight depends heavily on the community’s trust in its independence,
authority, and capacity.
Community members – especially those who have perceived or borne the brunt of systemic
unfairness and an adversarial relationship with law enforcement – are much more likely to
provide information and insight to an oversight entity that they consider fair, meaningful, and
empowered. Those contributions from the community can, in turn, strengthen the legitimacy and
the effectiveness of the oversight entity. And this dynamic can ultimately increase community
trust in the police department, as well – the public is reassured by the sense of accountability and
gives credence to the positive acknowledgements of progress that the oversight entity can
provide. Accordingly, our recommendations draw heavily on what we learned from and about
the communities served by BART.
We assessed community interest through interviews with individual residents as well as political
leaders, leaders of community and advocacy groups, and leaders of other Bay Area oversight
agencies who could speak to broader community sentiment. We also gauged community interest
and concerns through other Bay Area initiatives on oversight, as well as input provided during
the original 2009 process.
9
Finally, we sought to account for any countervailing concerns, with an eye toward maximizing
the understanding and acceptance of all key stakeholders, including those subject to oversight
and those with contrasting viewpoints on how it should function.
BART Police Citizen Review Board sessions and documentation: We attended three Review
Board sessions and requested and reviewed additional documentation, including:
The Model and earlier drafts of the Model
Review Board bylaws
Complaints and OIPA investigation reports
Notifications provided to officers and complainants
OIPA monitoring reports regarding IA investigations
OIPA and Review Board reports
Review Board agendas and minutes
OIPA and Review Board policy recommendations
IPA and Review Board member selection materials
The 2010 NOBLE report, the follow-up 2013 audit, and the 2009 Meyers Nave report
Outreach materials
Public information regarding the process for developing the oversight Model, community
members’ observations of the oversight system, and serious incidents involving BART
PD officers
Best practices and standards: In addition to drawing from our own experience and exposure to
various oversight models and practices, we consulted best practices and standards from a variety
of sources, including the National Association for the Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
(NACOLE) reports and reports by other professional organizations; scholarly literature on
oversight; the NACOLE code of ethics (cited in the Model); the Core Principles for an Effective
Police Auditor’s Office (cited in the Model); U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
investigations and consent decrees8 and COPS Collaborative Reform Initiative reports9; and the
Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (May 2015).10
C. Acknowledgements
We received enormous support throughout the review process from a range of stakeholders and
are grateful to each person who took the time to sit down with us for an interview. We were able
to interview most members of the Board of Directors, who expressed strong interest in the
review. Some helpfully directed us to other stakeholders. BART PD’s executive staff, Internal
8 The U.S. Department of Justice publishes its findings letters and settlement agreements on its
website: https://www.justice.gov/crt/special-litigation-section-cases-and-matters0.
9 The U.S. Department of Justice catalogues its COPS assessment reports:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/collaborativereform.
10 Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (May 2015), available at
https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce finalreport.pdf.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:04 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Daniel Martin <danleemartin@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 12:37 AM
To:Billups, Janet
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Claim Against the City form
Attachments:20180228 rejection of claim Palo Alto.pdf
Ms. Billups,
Attached is the rejection of my claim, for identification.
There is another large dead branch about to fall from the tree in front of our house, this one large enough to kill
someone, or once again cause significant vehicular damage. This is apparently an oversight of the arborists who trimmed the trees about 6 months ago. With this note, it is more likely that a repeat episode will be classified as
a liability of the city.
In the handwritten note I left when I visited your office in late February, prior to rejection, I expressed my
dissatisfaction with the process for investigating my claim. The issues are as follows:
1. I provided full information on the event when I first reported it in December. You could easily have told
me that car damage from a falling city tree is not covered by city insurance.
2. You have wasted your own time, my time, the damage appraisal fee, and the city attorney's time by not
giving me this information up front. On the City side, that represents at least $2000 of taxpayer money, just to feed the claim through your system. I made several inquiries in follow up, before I was provided the claim rejection.
In this sense the City Attorney’s office is serving its own existence, rather than serving
the city and taxpayers
Why bother paying an appraiser come to my house and verify the damage I had reported, if it is clearly outside that accepted as liability ? 3. The response from the city was approximately 2 weeks late, beyond their required response time. This
delayed my having repairs done on my car.
4. The city has made no effort to inspect the trees on our street to determine if The falling branch damage
is likely to recur in the near future.
Please notify the proper dept of CPA, to have the current falling branch threat addressed. If it would kill
someone, it would be much worse than my car damage.
Sincerely. Dan Martin
1157 Harker Ave
On Feb 26, 2018, at 10:58 AM, Billups, Janet <Janet.Billups@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:04 AM
2
Mr. Martin,
I’m still waiting for a response from the attorney. As soon as I have that I will contact you. I apologize
for the delay.
Regards,
<image001.png> Janet Billups | Claims Investigator
Office of the City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor | Palo Alto, CA 94301
O: 650.329.2171| F: 650.329‐2646
E: janet.billups@cityofpaloalto.org
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message, together with any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this item in error, please notify the original sender and destroy this item, along with any
attachments. Thank you.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Daniel Martin [mailto:danleemartin@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:50 AM
To: Billups, Janet <Janet.Billups@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Claim Against the City form
Any news? Maybe I can come by today. DM
On Dec 19, 2017, at 8:25 AM, Billups, Janet
<Janet.Billups@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Mr. Martin,
I received the claim you submitting via email. Please forward an original “wet
signature” claim form to the City Clerk, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor, Palo
Alto. Emailed or faxed claims are not accepted.
Best regards,
Janet
<image001.png> Janet Billups |Claims Investigator
Office of the City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor | Palo Alto, CA 94301
O: 650.329.2171|F: 650.329‐2646
E: janet.billups@cityofpaloalto.org
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message, together with any attachments is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and
prohibited from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
item in error, please notify the original sender and destroy this item, along with any attachments. Thank
you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:04 AM
3
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Daniel Martin [mailto:danleemartin@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:38 PM
To: Billups, Janet <Janet.Billups@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Re: Claim Against the City form
Ms. Billups:
Thank you for the information you provided on the telephone today regarding insurance claims against the city.
Attached is the form with the information, and photos of the car before it was
moved, after the tree damage. The Person carrying the tree branch is neighbor
Larry Donnelly, who carried the branch away.
The electronic form is filled out in red font, and I do not know how to change font
color. I have provided a signed copy.
I will get repair estimate. Please initiate the claim against city insurance. Please advise any further action required by me at this time.
Best regards,
Dan Martin 650 867 0367 1157 Harker Avenus
<image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> <image004.jpg>
<image005.jpg>
<image006.jpg>
<image007.jpg> <image008.jpg> <image009.jpg>
<image010.jpg>
<image011.jpg>
On Dec 18, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Billups, Janet
<Janet.Billups@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Dear Mr. Martin,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:04 AM
4
Attached is a claim form and instruction letter. The furnishing to you of
a claim form is not an admission by the City of any liability. Feel free to
contact me if you have any questions.
Regards,
Janet Billups
<image001.png> Janet Billups | Claims Investigator
Office of the City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor | Palo Alto, CA 94301
O: 650.329.2171|F: 650.329‐2646
E: janet.billups@cityofpaloalto.org
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message, together with any attachments is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may
contain information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or
copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this item in error, please notify the original sender and destroy this item, along with any
attachments. Thank you.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
<Claim Form.pdf>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kenney Mencher <kenney.mencher@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 8:47 PM
To:Borges, Paula; Council, City
Cc:Arp, Ron; Rice, Danille; Gaines, Chantal
Subject:Re: Email regarding waste containers
Dear Paula,
Thank you so much! This is awesome and exactly what I wanted thank you.
Kenney Mencher
Phone: (510) 390-3952 Kenney.Mencher@gmail.com
http://www kenney-mencher.com/
http://www.etsy.com/shop/kmencher http://www.youtube.com/user/kmencher
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Borges, Paula <Paula.Borges@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Dear Mr. Mencher,
I received a copy of your email correspondence from March 12 regarding waste containers being left out in
your neighborhood. We will look further into the issue and connect with the residents and/or property
managers. I have the following locations are as being an issue:
- 183 Everett
- Businesses at the corner of High and Everett Street
- Businesses at the corner of Alma and Everett
- Apartment complex on Hawthorne and High Street
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:41 AM
2
Paula Borges Fujimoto | Manager, Environmental Programs – Zero Waste
Public Works Department | Environmental Services3201 East Bayshore Road | Palo Alto, CA 94303
D: 650.496-5914 | E: paula.borges@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:15 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Removal of Mr. Alcheck from his position
Dear Council Members:
You are duty bound to remove Mr. Alcheck from his appointed post. At best his ethics are appalling as reflected in the recent expose' in both our local papers. At worst, his actions
are criminal.
It is a violation of the public trust for him to remain in his position on the PTC.
I would ask you to watch the PTC meeting from a week ago. His behavior was peculiar, bizarre and shameful
to the chamber. Please unseat Mr. Alcheck. He should not be in a position of power and influence.
CeCi Kettendorf
Luke F. Brennan
3719 Grove Ave
Palo Alto, 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 8:06 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Request to.deny approval to Verizon
Dear ARB,
I urge you to deny approval to Verizon's request unless all their battery and adjunct equipment is undergrounded
and does not create visual or sound pollution in our neighborhoods. Thank you, Jyotsna Nimkar
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:sherry heller <Sherry_Mark@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 9:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I had been communicating with Chris Corrao about the Ross Road bicycle blvd and how it feels so much less safe for my
6th grader to ride along it each day to and from school. I have watched him almost get side‐swiped by cars who pass
along next to him at the pinch points. I have also watched cars trail two‐feet behind him at the pinch points. What would
happen if he suddenly fell down?
Mr. Corrao assured me that when all the construction is complete, we should see a much safer street than what we had
before. He also assured me that he was continuing to monitor the progress of the blvd to make sure it was meeting
intended expectations. Now I have heard he is no longer with the City of Palo Alto. Hmm. I can’t say I am surprised he
left. Kind of like getting out of a burning building while you still can. But what about all the rest of us who are left stuck
with this mess?
I would like to ask each of you to come down to Ross Road at 7:45am and 3pm every day (and at 1:45pm on
Wednesdays) and watch our kids biking to and from school in the path of impatient drivers. Would you really feel
comfortable putting your child into the path of these cars? Yes, some people are driving slower. But if a child is injured
by one of the drivers who is not slowing down, and that child could have been out of that driver’s way on the old Ross
Road, what will your response be?
Thank you,
Sherry Heller
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 12:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:rogersac@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 11:19 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road and adjacent streets.
Dear City Council
My name is Carol Rogers and I live at 3395 Stockton Place. I am a member of the YMCA and I regularly walk there as
well as walk around the neighbourhood including to my church on Middlefield Road.
I am sending this email to you because I am very concerned about the changes that have been made on Ross Road. I have seen the bulbouts being constructed and am watching how the traffic and in particular the bike traffic deal with the
bumps (sleeping policemen) and the road narrowing. I have seen that traffic entering and exiting the Y car park is very impacted and that there is damage to the kerbs and the plants in the bulbout on the north entrance/exits. I have also used
the roundabout on Meadow at Ross and find this a very difficult maneouvre due to the steep curve on the road along with the narrowing of the roadway due to large bulbouts as well as traffic islands. I am from England so very familiar with
roundabout use, but this roundabout is very different from the small mini roundabouts we have which are often just nothing more than raised painted circles which traffic uses to efficiently cross the roundabout while keeping roundabout
rules. The pedestrian traffic islands in England are also very different as they are used as pedestrian waiting areas so that pedestrians cross each side as a separate road only needing to be alert about traffic coming in one direction at a time.
This particular roundabout has none of these features so in my opinion is very difficult for me to see as an improvement to efficient traffic flow. I happen to believe that roundabouts are much more efficient and safe than four way stops or traffic
lights due to less time being wasted and the need to watch for traffic from one direction at the junction
There will always be a great deal of traffic on Ross because of the Y. The membership includes many people with mobility issues who will not be able to walk or ride a bike there. Also the Y attracts people from quite a large area who will use
cars. There is also the added issue that many members go there on the way to or from work or other activities so they will also need to come by car. Many of the staff live so far away that their car is necessary and with the hours the Y operates it
is not likely that public transport would suit them. Ross Road itself gets plenty of traffic from home delivery services among others and those drivers are not always the same individuals who will become familiar with the constraints Ross
Road now holds.
My other big concern is what is happening to other roads as a result of the changes to Ross. I have not seen numbers published of how many vehicles used Ross before the work started, but I presume you did a comprehensive traffic count
for a before and after analysis. I also have not seen any published vehicle counts done for Louis, Christine, Ames and other streets that will be impacted by the changes. I personally do not like using Louis outside Palo Verde school when I
am driving as it seems wrong to me to add to the dangers of having additional traffic to those children who walk to school there. My own children walked to Palo Verde and I felt that it was usually a very safe thing for them to do. However now
there is probably additional traffic due to Ross and I think that is not a good thing. I will be very interested to see the data on the vehicle counts for Louis before and after the changes to Ross as well as the before and after vehicle counts to the
previous quiet cross streets of Ames, Christine and others.
Finally, I would mention that crossing Ross Road at Colorado, Loma Verde or Meadow is something I have to do frequently to get to anywhere on Middlefield. Although I walk frequently, of course there are many times I have to drive
these streets. The traffic islands are narrow and can be troublesome for those who approach them without familiarity. Many visitors and guests to my home have commented how unexpected they are. The particular design seems poor since
they are not designed for pedestrians to use as a waiting area while crossing the street and the narrowing makes little sense, particularly if a bus has to turn. There is also the problem of the telephone box on Loma Verde which often
necessities utilities workers to set up a little camp while they work. It leaves very little space for safe negotiation of the junction.
Please take these concerns into account as the work progresses on Ross. I believe there will be some type of accident as
a result of the changes.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 12:46 PM
2
Sincerely.
Carol Rogers.
3395 Stockton Place.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:15 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Emily Jaquette <ebreuner@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 6:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road changes need to be reversed
Dear City Council -
Recently I was driving a group of girls to Rick's for ice cream after their final basketball game for the season. All were JLS student. As I pulled out of the YMCA, I had to cross into oncoming traffic because it was
not possible to make a right turn without doing so as I left the YMCA because of the new bulb outs. Seriously,
all council members should go attempt it to see what I am talking about.
As we approached the new roundabout at Ross Road and E Meadow on our way to Rick's, all the girls in car told me that they now avoid the roundabout to get from their homes to JLS each day because it's so scary being
forced into traffic to get through it. Instead they ride up Louis Road, through Ramos park and up Mayfield to
cross Middlefield. Was your intent in spending millions to make Ross bike friendly that bikers actually avoid
using it?
Second, I heard from parent the other day that as he was driving down Ross Road, an oncoming truck sped up
to avoid the speed bump before this parent passed him. To this parent's horror, the truck avoided the speed
bump by crossing the middle line, straddling the two lanes and putting his tires in each of the divets in the speed
bumps in the middle of each lane meant for bikes. So the crazy design is actually causing unsafe driving
behavior!
Your effort to make Ross Road bike safe is a failure and the roundabout is unsafe.
Tear it out and for heaven's sake, DO NOT build any new ones.
I ride my bike to work at the District office at 25 Churchill most days. I enjoy using the clearly marked
Colorado road, and then the Bryant bike boulevard. Those are safe bike routes that required no ridiculous
roundabout to make them safer and did not cost several million dollars. Please - come to your senses and
reverse the madness!
Emily Jaquette
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:15 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Katherine Lose <klose01@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross road modifications
Dear Council Members,
I live on Coastland Drive. I am horrified by the changes to Ross road. I do not ride a bike. I will never ride a bike. But I do
walk, a lot. I walk to California Ave. for dinner, to Midtown for errands|services and to walk 2 dogs. I am constantly on
the lookout for cars that will aggressively take my right of way crossing in a crosswalk at a stop sign or at a red light
when I get the walk sign. The changes to Ross road don’t even provide the cue of a stop sign or a red light to protect
pedestrians. I can’t imagine cars being willing to stop with no other cue than me standing there on the sidewalk in the
middle of a block. I am deliberating about giving up my membership to the Ross Road YMCA. I just don’t want to deal
with getting to and fro. I will depend more on Amazon to deliver goods to my house rather than drive thru my
neighborhood. It is particularly troubling that our neighborhood has yet to get underground utilities but the city spends
a huge amount of money on making our daily lives more difficult.
Respectfully,
Katherine Lose’
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:sarit schube <saritschube@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road
I am writing to express my concern over the changes that are being made to Ross Road. I do not know the logic
behind them, but I do not feel safer now neither as a bicyclist nor as a driver of a car. Narrowing the street
makes everyone have less room to navigate it. Sincerely,
Sarit Schube
3833 Corina Way
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 5:36 PM
To:stephanie@dslextreme.com; Council, City
Cc:Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org;
sdremann@paweekly.com; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu;
allison@padailypost.com; GSheyner@paweekly.com; emibach@padailypost.com;
jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; apersky@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org;
aflint@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; HRC;
smanley@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org; mharris@scscourt.org
Subject:Speak out on Persky recall
FYI:
Please post your comments re your views on the Persky recall. See link below.
We encourage everyone to post including members of the press, like the Palo AltoFree Press, members of the Palo Alto HRC, city council members, members
of law enforcement.. you all have 1st Amendment rights, so here’s your chance to
express your views. Go for it!! Don’t bite your tongue!!!
Aram James
http://archives.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2016/07/28/brock-turners-probation
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:08 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wen Xu <wendy_xu21cn@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 8:19 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Verizon cell tower?!
Hello,
I'm a Palo Alto resident and a tax-payer, who very much appreciate this well-cared-for town and neighborhood. I recently learned
about a proposal by Verizon to construct cell towers in residential neighborhoods of Palo Alto. Please do not approve the proposal without a) asking Verizon to have all the equipment except the antenna to be located completely underground and b) comply with Palo Alto’s noise ordinances. We, at Silicon Valley, should set a high standard when it comes to evaluating construction project of such nature and
scale. The rest of the state and country look up to silicon valley leaders to adopt advanced technologies and push for a safer, better living environment (not the other way around).
I appreciate your reading this email and give sincere considerations. Wen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 10:23 AM
To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Binder, Andrew;
Cullen, Charles; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert; council@redwoodcity.org;
Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org
Subject:What do body worn cameras actually reveal?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/01/us/police-bodycam-
video.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=55C620504C4C42B35C4A1DC2B437D786&gwt=
pay
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:13 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Scottie Zimmerman <bigwheel.spot@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:48 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:De Geus, Robert
Subject:Years of inaction concerning Palo Alto's animal shelter
Dear Council Members and Rob De Geus,
One of the most important documents to come out of the long process debating the future of Palo Alto Animal Services (PAAS) was the 2015 Police Department Audit of shelter operations. I’m writing to remind you of some results of the audit. I’m attaching visual aids that clarify issues of expense vs. revenue at the shelter and
that compare sources of revenue among various shelters in the Bay Area.
First, PAAS expenditures, with the blue portion representing staff salaries and benefits:
The jagged black line represents annual revenues between FY 2005 and FY 2014. Most notably, you can see a
precipitous drop in income between FY 13 and FY 14. That decline occurred because the three Vet. Techs at
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:13 AM
2
PAAS resigned or retired in July 2012 (FY 2013), and they were not replaced for more than a year. This made
it impossible for PAAS to offer spay/neuter services to the public during that time, cutting off a primary source
of income. I’ve attended Council meetings at which members expressed consternation over the drop in income in 2013-2014. Well, here’s the cause: Inability to interview, process, and hire replacement Vet. Techs, thus no
spay/neuter income.
Next are details of PAAS annual revenue between FY 2005 - FY 2014:
The colors tell a story. Notice that income from spay/neuter services is in purple and is a reliable revenue
source until FY 2013 when the Vet. Techs left PAAS. The purple shrinks, and the revenue shrinks. An
additional remarkable feature is the amount of Other income (in orange) for FY 2013. This shows a dramatic
increase in Donations to the shelter. Citizens of Palo Alto were indignant that the shelter might be closed down,
and they came forward with generous donations.
And finally, here is a chart illustrating a comparison among shelters in our area:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:13 AM
3
Notice that Humane Society Silicon Valley (HSSV), Peninsula Humane Society (PHS), and San Francisco
SPCA have large blue segments. That’s because these organizations are 501(c)(3) nonprofits free to solicit
donations that support their animal care and public services. You can see also that PAAS and San Jose barely earn enough to pay 40% of their annual expenditures.
The audit that was performed is clear and comprehensive. If you haven’t read it in a while, here’s the URL to
see the document:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47385
Resolving the problems the auditor found has taken 3 years. I hope I’m clear that I want the City to act! We
want necessary commitments so Pets In Need takes over management of an upgraded current shelter with
fundraising plans for new facilities that bring Palo Alto’s animal services proudly into the 21st century.
Sincerely,
— Scottie Zimmerman
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:13 AM
4