Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-04-11 City Council Emails
From:Public Records Request Tracking System To:Public Records Request Tracking System Cc:Scheff, Lisa; Jonsen, Robert; Maloney, Con; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; James Aram; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Wagner, April; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Total number of Twitter accounts muted or blocked by Chief Robert Jonsen Date:Monday, April 11, 2022 9:35:06 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email frompublic.records.request.tracking@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. System generated reminder and a word of caution: Litigation process will begin on April 15th. Public Records Request Tracking System Sent from my iPad On Apr 6, 2022, at 6:51 AM, Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com> wrote: Would like this to be independently Confirmed by a third-party, I simply do not trust chief Jonsen I believe him to be pathological…. Many thanks, Mark Sent from my iPad On Apr 6, 2022, at 5:52 AM, Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com> wrote: Must be received by: April 15th 2022, 6255 of the Government code Total number of twitter accounts muted or blocked See generally: California Public Records Act (Govt C && 6250-6268). The California Public Records Act was enacted in 1968 to protect public access to information about the conduct of state business by government officials. See: Government Code & 6253 re time limits for said disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. See: Writings as defined in California Public Records Section 6252(f) and Evidence Code & 250. If you believe I am not entitled to the requested records I am requesting that you justify your refusal within (ten) days in writing under & 6255 of the Government code. You may only refuse to give me these records if there is an express law prohibiting you from giving them to me. In the case of California State University of Fresno Assn, Inc. V Superior Court McClatchy Co. (2001) 90 Cal App.4th 810, the court held that "The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate "clear overbalance" on the side of confidentiality." Please provide any additional legal authority you would like me to be aware of re this request . Please feel free to contact me to discuss this request if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Mark Petersen-Perez Editor and Chief Palo Alto Police Reporting from Nicaragua ps. Our established algorithms will send out a notification if The request is beyond the 10 day mandated requirement. Sent from my iPad From:Jeff Levinsky To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Height Transition Ordinance Needs Fixing Date:Friday, April 8, 2022 10:40:13 AM Attachments:Height Transitions April 10 2022 Comments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers: The proposed height transition ordinance on Monday's agenda weakens protections and doesn't abide by the directions you set at your last hearing on this. I've attached a marked-up version of the staff report so you can see the specific problems and ways to fix them. Thanks, Jeff Levinsky City of Palo Alto (ID # 14058) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/11/2022 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Council Review of Changes to Height Transitions Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of Ordinance Clarifying Ambiguities in Height Transitions, Adding RMD to the list of Residential Districts and Amending the Setback for the RM -40 Zone District From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt an ordinance proposing changes to height transitions and other development standards (Attachment A). Executive Summary: The issue of height transition development standards is related to the objective standards project but focuses narrowly on development standards tables within district regulations in Title 18. This draft ordinance is the first of two ordinances expected in the first half of the year as part of the objective standards project. Changes to height transitions are proposed for two reasons. First, the language governing height transitions varies across districts and is sometimes ambiguous; this has resulted in the code being interpreted and implemented differently over time. Second, community members have expressed concern that these lower height limits generally do not apply to the RM-40 zone district which is a high-density district. Additionally, this report proposes adding the RMD (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District) to the list of Residential Zones in title 18.08 and to the PC list of zoning districts where a reduced height is required. Lastly, this report proposes changes to the RM-40 front and side setbacks to be consistent with all RM zones and to transform the subjective variable setbacks to objective standards. This change is being made at this time since it was a straightforward request by the Council and relates to the development standards tables already being modified herein. 12 Packet Pg. 249 City of Palo Alto Page 2 A near-future second ordinance will address all other aspects of the objective standards project, based on feedback received from the Council on October 4 and November 8, 2021. Background: For further details on the larger Objective Standards project and its relationship to State Housing Laws and a summary of community outreach completed to date, please review the January 24, 2022 staff report1. Records from previous meetings described above and the other 13 ARB meetings and three PTC meetings focused on objective standards can be found on the project webpage: bit.ly/ObjectiveStandards City Council Action At its January 24, 2022 meeting, the City Council reviewed a draft ordinance and directed staff to make the following changes: A. Amend the proposed Ordinance to a 150 ft height transition zone, while leaving the abutting conditions where they already exist; B. Clarify if projects want to reduce the horizontal transition zone, the y are opting into the discretionary process; C. Extend the height transition rules in Part A to RM40 adjacent nonresidential buildings; and D. Investigate 18.38.150 section (b), and to incorporate RMD into the language. The next section of the report details responses to each motion item, explaining how the item is addressed in the ordinance, this report, or a future ordinance. Discussion and Analysis: The following changes have been incorporated into the draft ordinance based on the Council motion. A. Amend the proposed Ordinance to a 150 ft height transition zone, while leaving the abutting conditions where they already exist; Abutting is defined in Chapter 18.04(2) as follows: "Abutting" means having property or district lines in common. This means that where “abutting” is applied (i.e. for mixed use and residential development in commercial zones), the lower height limit will apply to: 1. Abutting properties (i.e lots sharing property lines or corners), and/or 1 Link to January 24, 2022 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220124/20220124pccsm-amended-linked-cq- added.pdf 12 Packet Pg. 250 City of Palo Alto Page 3 2. Abutting zoning districts, (i.e. including parcels separated by a street or alley, as district boundaries are often along the centerline of a street2). However, where “abutting” is applied, the lower height limit will not apply if the latter parcel is separated by another parcel (i.e., not abutting). In the current version of the ordinance in Attachment A, City staff removed “abutting” where it was proposed to be added to two sets of district regulations: 18.13: RM-20/RM-30/RM-40 and 18.20: MOR/ROLM/RP/GM district regulations. One of the consequences of the motion, as made, is that in these two sets of districts, the lower height limit would apply to the “leapfrog” scenario, as illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Height Transitions for Parcels Not Abutting (Leapfrog Scenario) As proposed by the draft ordinance, within 150 feet of a site with R-20 zoning, the lower height limit of 35 feet would apply, as shown in light blue—regardless of whether a parcel is abutting or separated by another lot. The dotted lines indicate separate parcels. Staff was unsure if this was the Council’s intent. If this was the Council’s intent, then the proposed ordinance in Attachment A is correct, as written. If this was not the Council’s intent, then the term “abutting” should be added to the height standard in Chapters 18.13 and 18.20. Figure 2 illustrates the effects of not including “abutting” in the reduced height standard in Chapter 18.13 and 18.20 regulations (i.e. “leapfrog” scenario). In this South El Camino Real location, the height transition (i.e. 35 foot height limit) would apply in the northern corner the southern CS-zoned parcel, about 15 feet into the property. Since this site is a Housing Element Opportunity Site it is required to meet its density threshold and realistic capacity as calculated in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, which could result in taller building on other portions of the site. The lower height limit would apply to the northern corner of the parcel and the remaining portion of the site could build out up to the maximum height of up to 50 feet. 2 A proposed footnote to each development standards table helps clarify that the 150-foot distance is measured from the property line of the subject site and not from the district boundary, which could be the centerline of the street. 12 Packet Pg. 251 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Figure 2: Applicability of Height Transitions for Parcels Not Abutting (18.13: RM-20/RM- 30/RM-40 and 18.20: MOR/ROLM/RP/GM) B. Clarify if projects want to reduce the horizontal transition zone, they are opting into the discretionary process; In general, when applicants request any kind of modification from a development standard or objective design standard, they are opting into a discretionary review process. To vary from the transitional height requirement, an applicant would need to apply for 1) a variance or 2) a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) both of which are discretionary processes. 1) Variances are reviewed at the staff level (PAMC Section 18.76.030). However, in the case of a height transition, it would be very difficult for staff to make the required findings for a variance, which include determining that the site has special circumstances, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in 12 Packet Pg. 252 City of Palo Alto Page 5 this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district 2) Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) at reviewed in the same manner as architectural reviews (PAMC Section 18.76.050 and 18.77.070), which can be done at the staff level or through the ARB process. This allows the ARB to use discretion in their interpretation of the AR findings to condition and recommend approval or denial of projects. There is a key exception under State Density Bonus Law, which allows concessions and waivers to modify development standards, without necessarily triggering discretionary review. An affordable housing project proposed under State Density Bonus law could request a waiver or concession from the height transition standards, and still be subject to ministerial review.3 As a result, staff recommend not stipulating that the discretionary process is necessarily required. Rather, proposed footnotes in the RM and CN/CS/CC development standards tables each confirm that a reduction requires review by the ARB and approval by the Director, which are inherently discretionary actions. This would apply to most projects except for a project utilizing State Density Bonus law to exceed height standards. C. Extend the height transition rules in Part A to RM-40 adjacent nonresidential buildings; The revised ordinance in Attachment A removes the exception for new non -residential projects within 150 feet of a RM-40 district. This means that non-residential projects within 150 feet of a RM-40 district would now be subject to the reduced height limit. As with most of Palo Alto’s new ordinances, no caveats are identified in the ordinance for pipeline/pending projects, so any project that has not yet been approved (i.e. 123 Sherman Avenue, 21PLN-00172) would be subject to this standard, where applicable. D. Investigate 18.38.150 section (b), and to incorporate RMD into the language. This motion item relates to maximum heights stated in Chapter 18.38: Planned Community (PC) District. The revised ordinance in Attachment A adds RMD to the list of zoning districts where a reduced height limits would be required for new PC projects adjacent to an RMD site. Currently, PC sites adjacent to RM-zoned sites—i.e., a higher density district—are subject to these lower height limits, so it is reasonable to assume that RMD should be included in the list of zones. Environmental Review: 3 For example, under SB 35, a project that utilizes State Density Bonus law to vary from development standards is still considered “consistent with objective zoning standards.” (Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(5).) 12 Packet Pg. 253 City of Palo Alto Page 6 The ordinance revisions represent implementation of adopted plans and policy. Therefore, the revisions are exempt under CEQA and covered by the CEQA documents prepared for the Comprehensive Plan. The project aims to facilitate implementation of State law. The project does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Attachment12.a: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Title 18 to Clarify Transitional Height Standards and Update Setbacks for RM-40 (PDF) 12 Packet Pg. 254 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 1 0160063_20220329_ay16 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Various Chapters of Title 18 (Zoning) to Clarify Transitional Height Standards and Update Setbacks for the RM-40 Zone District The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. A. Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code contains development standards governing the maximum height of structures in close proximity to lower density residential zones. The purpose of these development standards is to ensure the harmonious transition between lower and higher intensity development. B. The existing language on height transitions has created confusion among the public, project applicants, and City staff. This confusion, in turn, has resulted in differing interpretations of the law over the years. C. The City Council now wishes to clarify the zoning code with respect to height transitions. The clarifications to height transition standards contained in this ordinance are declarative of existing law. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.030 (References to Districts) of Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows (new text underlined): 18.08.030 References to Districts Reference within this title to residential districts generally and as a grouping, includes all districts identified in this section. Where references are made to more restrictive or less restrictive residential districts, such references shall apply sequentially between the most restrictive and the least restrictive. Residential District Restrictive Reference RE Most Restrictive R-1 (20,000) R-1 10,000) R-1 (8,000) R-1 (7,000) R-1 12.a Packet Pg. 255 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 2 0160063_20220329_ay16 R-2 Least Restrictive RMD RM-20 RM-30 RM-40 SECTION 3. Section 18.13.040 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential (RM-20, RM-30 and RM-40) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text): 18.13.040 Development Standards (a) Site Specifications, Building Size and Bulk, and Residential Density The site development regulations in Table 2 shall apply in the multiple-family residence districts, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the Architectural Review Board and approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services, pursuant to the regulations set forth in Chapter 18.76, performance criteria set forth in Chapter 18.23, and the context-based design criteria set forth in Section 18.13.060. Table 2 Multiple Family Residential Development Table RM-20 RM-30 RM-40 Subject to regulations in: [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply Front Yard (ft) 20 20 0-2520 (12) 18.13.040(b) On arterial roadways, expressways, and freeways (1) 0-20 (1,2) 0-20 (1,2) 0-25 (1,2) Interior Side Yards (ft) For lots with width of 70 feet or greater 10 10 10 For lots with width of less than 70 feet 6 feet Interior Rear Yards (ft)3 10 10 10 Street Side and Street Rear Yards (ft) 16 16 0-16(2) 12.a Packet Pg. 256 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 3 0160063_20220329_ay16 Maximum Height (ft) 30 35 40 Maximum height for those p Portions of a site within 50 feet of a more restrictive abutting residential district or a site containing a residential use in a nonresidential district (9) 35 18.08.030 [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Footnotes: (1) Minimum front setbacks shall be determined by the Architectural Review Board upon review pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76 and the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. Arterial roadways, expressways, and freeways are identified in Map T-5 of the Comprehensive Plan and do not include residential arterials. (2) Lesser setbacks may be allowed by the Planning Director, upon recommendation Minimum street side setbacks in the RM-40 zone may be from 0 to 16 feet and shall be determined by the Architectural Review Board upon review pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76and the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. Special setbacks may not be reduced except upon approval of a design enhancement exception or variance. [. . .] (8) The minimum density for a site may be reduced by the Director if, after the proposal is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, the Director finds that existing site improvements or other parcel constraints, preclude the development from meeting the minimum density. A site with an existing single-family use or two-family use may be redeveloped at the existing density, either single-family or two-family as applicable. An existing or replaced single-family or two-family residence shall not be considered a nonconforming use, and the provisions of Chapter 18.70 shall not apply, solely based on the minimum density requirement. (9) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. [. . .] SECTION 4. Section 18.16.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, And Service Commercial (CN, CC And CS) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text): 18.16.060 Development Standards (a) Exclusively Non-Residential Uses Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses and alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These 12.a Packet Pg. 257 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 4 0160063_20220329_ay16 developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and development services, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Table 3 Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in Section [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Maximum Height (ft) Standard 25' and 2 stories 50' 37' (4) 50' Portions of a site wWithin 150 ft. of an abutting residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) (9) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 35' 35' 35' 18.08.030 [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Footnotes: (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. [. . .] (9) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (b) Mixed Use and Residential Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments and residential developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and development services, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 12.a Packet Pg. 258 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 5 0160063_20220329_ay16 Table 4 Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards CN CC CC(2) CS Subject to regulations in: [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Maximum Height (ft) Standard 35'(4) 50' 37' 50' Portions of a site wWithin 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) (5) abutting or located within 50 feet of the side 35' 35'(5) 35'(5) 35'(5) 18.08.030 [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Footnotes: (1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. [. . .] (5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. [. . .] (10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. (1) Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in a mixed use development with residential uses. (2) Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay. 12.a Packet Pg. 259 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 6 0160063_20220329_ay16 (c) Exclusively Residential Uses [. . .] SECTION 5. Section 18.18.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial (CD) District) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text): 18.18.060 Development Standards (a) Exclusively Non-Residential Use Table 2 specifies the development standards for new exclusively non-residential uses and alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CD district, including the CD-C, CD-S, and CD-N subdistricts. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.18.110, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and development services, pursuant to Section 18.76.020: Table 2 Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards CD-C CD-S CD-N Subject to regulations in Section: [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50 50 25 Portions of a site wWithin 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone district – (3) – (3) – (3) 18.08.030 [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] (b) Mixed Use and Residential Table 3 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments and residential developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlines in Section 18.18.110, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and development services, pursuant to Section 18.76.020: 12.a Packet Pg. 260 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 7 0160063_20220329_ay16 TABLE 3 MIXED USE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CD-C CD-S CD-N Subject to regulations in Section: [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50' 50' 35' 18.08.030 Portions of a site wWithin 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone)(4) 40'(4) 40'(4) 35'(4) 18.08.030 [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Footnotes: (1) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space except as provided below); (3) minimum private open space dimension 6; and (4) minimum common open space dimension 12. For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real, CS sites on San Antonio Road between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. In order to qualify as usable open space, the rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230. [. . .] (4) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. (5) The weighted average residential unit size shall be calculated by dividing the sum of the square footage of all units by the number of units. For example, a project with ten 800- square foot 1-bedroom units, eight 1,200-square foot 2-bedroom units, and two 1,800- square foot 3-bedroom units would have a weighted average residential unit size of ((10x800)+(8x1,200)+(2x1,800)) ÷ (10+8+2) = 1,060 square feet. [. . .] 12.a Packet Pg. 261 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 8 0160063_20220329_ay16 SECTION 6. Section 18.20.040 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 18.20 (Office, Research, And Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP And GM) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text): 18.20.040 Site Development Standards Development in the office research, industrial, and manufacturing districts is subject to the following development standards, provided that more restrictive regulations may be required as part of design review under Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (a) Development Standards for Non-Residential Uses Table 2 shows the site development standards for exclusively non-residential uses in the industrial and manufacturing districts. TABLE 2 INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MOR ROLM ROLM(E) RP RP(5) GM Subject to Regulations in Chapter: [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50 35(4) 35(4) 50 Portions of a site wWithin 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone district (5) 35 35 35 35 18.08.030 Portions of a site wWithin 40 ft. of an abutting residential zone district(5) 35 25 25 35 18.08.030 [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] (5) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-20, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. [. . .] SECTION 7. Section 18.30(J).090 (Development Standards) of Subchapter 18.30(J) (Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Regulations) of Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck- through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text): 12.a Packet Pg. 262 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 9 0160063_20220329_ay16 18.30(J).090 Development Standards The following development standards shall apply to projects subject to the AH affordable housing combining district in lieu of the development standards for the underlying zoning district, except where noted below: Table 1 Development Standards AH Combining District (1) Minimum Site Specifications Subject to regulations in: [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Maximum Height (ft) 50' Portions of a site wWithin 50 ft of an abutting residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) R1, R-2, RMD, RM-20, or RM-30 zoned property 35'(3) 18.08.030 [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] (3) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. The Planning Director may recommend a waiver from the transitional height standard. [. . .] SECTION 8. Section 18.30(K).070 (Development standards) of Subchapter 18.30(K) (Workforce Housing (WH) Combining District Regulations) of Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text): 18.30(K).070 Development Standards (a) Where the WH combining district is combined with the public facilities district, the following development standards shall apply for workforce housing projects, including permitted incidental uses, in lieu of the development standards for the underlying PF zoning district: Table 1 Development Standards WH Combining District Minimum Site Specifications Subject to regulations in: [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] 12.a Packet Pg. 263 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 10 0160063_20220329_ay16 Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50' Portions of a site wWithin 150 ft. of an abutting residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone)(5) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 35', except as limited by applicable daylight plane requirements 18.08.030 [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] Footnotes: [. . .] (5) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. [. . .] SECTION 9. Section 18.38.150 (Special requirements) of Chapter 18.38 (PC Planned Community District Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows (new text underlined and deletions struck-through; omissions are noted with [. . .] for large sections of unchanged text): 18.38.150 Special requirements. Sites abutting or and having any portion located with one hundred fifty 150 feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RMD, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements: (a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in the most restrictive adjacent zone district. (b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty 150 feet of any abutting RE, R-1, R-2, RMD, RM-20, or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five 35 feet; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty 60 percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty 150 feet of an abutting RM-4 30 or RM-5 40 district shall be fifty 50 feet. [. . .] SECTION 10. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 11. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent 12.a Packet Pg. 264 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 11 0160063_20220329_ay16 jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 12. The Council finds that the Ordinance is within the scope of and in furtherance of the Comprehensive Plan 2030 which was evaluated in that certain Final Environmental Impact Report certified and for which findings were adopted by Council Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721 on November 13, 2017, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Ordinance does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that no new effects would occur from and no new mitigation measures would be required for the adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 13. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Development Services 12.a Packet Pg. 265 From:Holly Mills To:City Attorney Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Deborah Caplan Subject:Letter dated 4-07-2022 Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 4:23:48 PM Attachments:image001.png 2022-04-07 Letter to Molly Stump, City of Palo Alto.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from hmills@olsonremcho.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. Stump: Please find attached a letter from Attorney Deborah Caplan. Thank you. Holly M. Mills Legal Secretary 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 400|Sacramento, CA 95814 916.442.2952 | hmills@olsonremcho.com olsonremcho.com Long Beach 555 E. Ocean Blvd, Ste. 420 Long Beach, CA 90802 Sacramento 555 Capitol Mall, Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Oakland 1901 Harrison St., Ste. 1550 Oakland, CA 94612 Olson Remcho LLP olsonremcho.com VIA EMAIL April 7, 2022 Molly Stump City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Ms. Stump: I received your March 7, 2022 letter. I found it largely nonresponsive and would like to make another effort to obtain the information requested. In my February 24, 2022 letter, I asked several questions. I repeat those questions below with your response and my follow-up request: 1)What efforts has the City made to ask all Council members and staff to provide communications on private devices if those communications related to the requested meeting agendas (June 14 – June 22, 2021)? 2)Has the City made any effort to determine whether responsive communications existed at one time but may have been erased/deleted? Has the City made any efforts to have an information technology person examine public or priva te devices for responsive communications that may have been erased/deleted? If so, what efforts? If not, why not? 3)Some of the City’s responses included texts or portion of group chats but omitted the full series of communications. Did the City make any effort to retrieve the full exchange in cases where partial communications were provided? If so, what efforts were made? If not, why not? Your March 7, 2022 letter is largely nonresponsive to these questions, saying only that “the City informs officials of requests for records that may reside on their privately-owned accounts and assists the officials to search for and identify any responsive records.” It is not clear whether this is a general policy or Councilmembers and staff have been requested to s earch their devices for documents specifically responsive to this PRA request. Please clarify. In addition, your letter says that you “assist” Council members, but does this assistance include IT assistance to retrieve deleted communications? Finally, the third question identifies additional Molly Stump City of Palo Alto April 7, 2022 Page 2 potentially responsive documents; what, if any efforts have been made to obtain the fuller exchange of communications? Your letter claims to want additional information, but you already have partial threads of communications and have been specifically requested to follow up on those – without any response. In focusing on the communications already disclosed, I do not mean to suggest in any way that these communications represent the entirety of documents I seek. As I said previously, it is my understanding that many group communications – whether by text, group chat, or other platforms – involved all seven members of the Council or at least a clear majority. None of these have been provided. 4)Does the City have any policy or mechanism for monitoring or maintaining communications that would otherwise constitute public records but are made on private devices? Your March 7, 2022 letter indicates that “[t]he City does not use tracking software on privately - owned smartphones and personal email accounts.” Again, this is largely nonresponsive. The information available to me is that City officials have routinely engaged in communications on private devices during meetings, including texting, group chats, etc. I also under stand that you have been involved in some of these communications. In light of your participation, I assume that City officials and staff should have been informed – and routinely reminded – that communications about matters on the Council agenda are publ ic records subject to disclosure. If that were the case, it would not be difficult to retrieve these documents as City officials and staff would have been routinely saving them. Your March 7, 2022 letter (and the larger failure of the City to provide these documents) suggests that City officials and staff have not been so advised. This is very troublesome from the perspective of maintaining and preserving public documents, but it also raises broader questions about whether these “off-the-record“ communications about agenda items are being used to circumvent the open meeting law. Government Code section 54952.2 provides: A majority of the members of a legislative body shall not, outside a meeting authorized by this chapter, use a series of communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.” … Molly Stump City of Palo Alto April 7, 2022 Page 3 “Discuss among themselves” means communications made, posted, or shared on an internet-based social media platform between members of the legislative body, including comments or use of digital icons that express reactions to communications made by other members of the legislative body. While the open meeting law allows officials to use social media platforms to communicate individually and respond to questions from the public, it does not allow for group communications by text, group chat, etc. to discuss agenda items. City Council members should have been advised that the use of social media to discuss and negotiate decisions on agenda items raised potential violations of the open meeting law; if you have been participating in these communications, Council members may be under the erroneous impression that such communications are legally permissible. They are not. I therefore amend my question to ask, in follow up: Does the City have any specific policy or mechanism for tracking communications on private devices involving a majority of the Council regarding agenda items? If not, why not? 5)Has the City withheld any documents based on a claim of privilege? If so, please provide a privilege log that identifies the document and the basis of the claimed privilege. If not, please confirm that no documents have been withheld based on a claim of privilege. 6)Has the City withheld any documents based on any other claimed exemptions from disclosure? If so, please identify the document(s) and the claimed exemption. If not, please confirm that no documents have been withheld based on claimed exemptions. Your March 7 letter declined to provide any additional information about exemptions. While you are correct that a formal “privilege log” is not required, you are not correct that your responses have met the requirements of the PRA. Government Code section 6255 states: The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. This language cannot reasonably be read to allow for blanket claims of multiple exemptions for an undisclosed number of records. It requires that the withholding of each “record” be justified with reference to a specific claim of exemption. In light of this requirement, I reiterate my request that any documents being withheld – including your own documents – be individually identified and the claimed exemption individually identified and justified . Molly Stump City of Palo Alto April 7, 2022 Page 4 7)Is the City’s search for responsive documents complete at this time or is it continuing to search? How much longer does the City anticipate that it will require to fully respond to my request? Although you suggest that the City’s search is ongoing, the second question was not answered in your March 7, 2022 letter. It has been more than eight months since I submitted a request for documents related to three specific Council meetings. I have repeatedly been clear that the request is focused on non- public off-the-record communications related to agenda items using private devices. Despite this, even the most recent batch of documents you sent me contains large numbers of non - responsive documents and only a few responsive documents—documents which clearly indicate the existence of many more documents that have not been produced. Moreover, the documents you have produced do not include other non -public communications that I have good reason to believe exist. Both the documents disclosed and your failure to disclose more suggest that the City is, at best, not committed to disclosure. More generally, your actions raise serious questions about Palo Alto’s compliance with the Public Records Act as well as the Open Meetings Act. I look forward to a more complete response from the City on these points. Sincerely, Deborah B. Caplan DBC:HM Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org City.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org From:Roger McCarthy To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Copy of Roger McCarthy"s remarks made at the 30 March PTC meeting Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 11:29:12 AM Attachments:Roger McCarthy remarks to 30 Mar 2022 PTC meeting.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from rlmccar@aol.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. For the record, a printed copy my remarks to the 30 March PTC meeting are attached. Dr. Roger L. McCarthy 650 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 561-4462 1 Remarks of Roger L. McCarthy of 650 Waverley Street to the PTC meeting on 30 March 2020: My name is Roger McCarthy, and I am here to speak in support of Castilleja School's proposal. But first, I would like to thank you all for your time and service on this board and the work you have done so far. I urge the PTC to approve as quickly and expeditiously as possible the changes and upgrades to the Castilleja project that have now undergone MULTIPLE YEARS of review. I have spoken to you in support of Castilleja before because I strongly believe this project must be approved. I am deeply invested in seeing this project gain approval and break ground. While we have argued over the relatively insignificant details of Castilleja's plans, hundreds of young women have missed the opportunity to study in an all-woman environment of an exceptional educational institution that EVERY indicator predicts would have made them more successful particularly in the STEM fields. We have now reached the point where this horrendous NIMBY delay has become unjust to the future of young women whose only sin is they can't vote. By way of introduction, I lived for more than 20 years, about a mile from Castilleja. Although I have a daughter, I have never sent a child there. I have no connection with Castilleja past or present and have never even set foot in the place. My interest in this issue stems solely from the concerns of the Nation's top technical hierarchy, the national academies. I am an officer and Treasurer of the National Academy of Engineering, a Governing Board member of the National Research Council, and a Director of The National Academies Corporation. For reasons I am sure everyone understands, we must make a national priority increasing representation of women in STEM fields. If technology's future is going to reflect our values, our nation desperately needs more women leaders in tech. All Girls schools play a critical role in that effort in Silicon Valley and around the world. During their formative years, study after study has found that young can develop and grow their leadership skills faster and more effectively in an all-girl school environment. This is particularly evident in the rate at which girls who graduate from all-girl institutions eventually go into the STEM fields. The only argument about this evidence is the rate; are they three times1 more likely or six times2 more likely? Outstanding institutions educating women are the best opportunity we currently have to address our national disgrace of not having enough women in the STEM fields. While this national problem cannot be solved by Palo Alto alone, we can do our bit if we stop arguing over 1 or 2 trees (apart from the fact Castilleja plans to plant 100 new ones) or a few thousand square feet and start looking at the big picture. Over the years, this project has evolved. Castilleja has offered numerous revisions and revisions of revisions in the interest of compromise. Sadly, every time Castilleja offers a compromise, the "goalposts" are moved. When first submitted, the hope was to enroll 540 as soon as construction was complete. Now, there is no guarantee that they will ever enroll 540. A series of compromises have made that number a goal with high hurdles. 1 https://www.ncgs.org/wp‐content/uploads/2018/12/ResearchReport_FINAL.pdf (accessed 22 August 2020) 2 https://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/Sax_FINAL%20REPORT_Sing_1F02B4.pdf (accessed 22 August 2020) 2 The school agreed that it would only enroll 540 if daily trips remained below 440, which was already a count that had been reduced by aggressive TDM and represented a 14% reduction to the standard under Castilleja's existing CUP. Over time, though, as the goalposts were moved again, the daily trip count was reduced further. If Castilleja wants to reach 540 students in the current proposal, the daily trip count must remain below 383. That's significantly less than the original 440 and represents another significant compromise. The school only wants to offer more opportunities to more young women, so they will do everything in their power to keep trips below the count. That is the only way they can reach 540. All of this represents the compromise about enrollment. With their directive to you to find a path to 540 students, the City Council has conveyed that they believe in this compromise Next, I want to talk about the compromises regarding the garage. The EIR, which you previously recommended for approval, found no significant impacts for this entire project, including a much larger garage than the versions you are reviewing tonight. The last time you voted on the project in 2020, those of you who are attorneys agreed that the city code supported the underground parking. As this proposal comes before you tonight, the staff has suggested an amendment the City Council did not ask for. This is just another unjustified movement of the goalposts. Let's not forget that Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan calls for parking to be moved underground. The collective legal wisdom on your Commission has already asserted that it is not disallowed by the code. The last series of compromises I'd like to address regards square footage. The accuracy of the square footage counts has been called into question, but the good news is there is no doubt. The current permits have been verified, and an audit has been done on the existing structures. We know what is permitted, and we know what is there. Everything is in compliance with Palo Alto's municipal code, following very particular rules about above-ground square footage and basement space. The new conversation from opponents about volumetrics is another ploy to again move the goalposts. They assert that Castilleja needs to create residential types of spaces because it happens to have been built in an area long long before it became a neighborhood and long long before it became an R-1 residential zone. To state the obvious educational spaces are not living rooms or kitchens. Classrooms and labs, and teaching studios are not built like homes. Neither are libraries or museums or places of worship—all spaces known to have particularly high ceilings and therefore "volumetrics" that are quite different from residential spaces. Quibbling is now about the fact that that gym, which was built 20 years ago, has high ceilings. Gyms, houses of worship, art galleries, and libraries—by nature, do have high ceilings. But we agree that all enrich our lives. Even so, that completed project is not part of this proposal. It is finished and separate. 3 Ultimately, this process has involved years and years of compromise, which has only been met by more and more demands from a small group of vocal neighbors. It never seems to end with them, as the goalposts keep moving. As city leaders, I trust you to put a stop to this unreasonable process. The garage is permitted under code. The new building's square footage falls below that allowed under current permits. The enrollment is contingent upon strict traffic limits. The compromises that have led to this version of the proposal leave no more risks and only benefits for the neighborhood. As a former CEO of a company operating in 16 different locations, I don't have time here to address all the impracticalities of a satellite campus. And, finally, let us not forget we should be collectively ashamed that this whole Castilleja discussion is being driven by nitpicking R1 zoning (aka "exclusionary zoning"), invented in Berkeley in 1916 solely to achieve racial segregation.34 I urge the PTC to finally approve this long-delayed and worthwhile project. 3 https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the‐racist‐history‐of‐single‐family‐home‐zoning (accessed 16 November 2021) 4 https://www.berkeleyside.org/2021/02/24/berkeley‐denounces‐racist‐history‐of‐single‐family‐zoning‐begins‐2‐ year‐process‐to‐change‐general‐plan (accessed 16 November 2021) From:DOUG BLOYD To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment Letter For April 11th Council Meeting Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 2:58:22 PM Attachments:April 11th Letter.odt Some people who received this message don't often get email from dbloyd@comcast.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please include the attached letter as a submission to the "Public Comment" agenda segment of the Palo Alto City Council's April 11th meeting. Doug Bloyd 408-396-1963 4-11-2022 Council Members, My name is Doug Bloyd. I am a waterfowl hunter, and a resident of Santa Clara County. California State laws, enforced by the California State Lands Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, clearly state that it is legal for waterfowl hunters to hunt on the navigable San Francisco Bay waters that flood in and ebb out of Palo Alto's Baylands Nature Preserve. However, Palo Alto City leaders recently chose to exercise their jurisdictional authority to overrule these State laws, thereby criminalizing waterfowl hunting on the navigable San Francisco Bay waters within the Baylands Nature Preserve. Waterfowl hunters are now facing hefty fines and possible incarceration if they unwittingly wander into the City of Palo Alto's newly established "No Hunting Zone". I am requesting today that the City Council fully fund and prioritize updating the the CIty's Baylands Nature Preserve website. There is currently no mention of the Baylands Nature Preserve "No Hunt Zone" anywhere in the parks' rules and regulations section on the website. This is information that the public should be made aware of, especially given the the controversial nature of your new laws! The California waterfowl hunting season historically begins at the end of October. Please take steps to make sure the City's Baylands Nature Preserve website is updated with the "No Hunting Zone" information before then. Thank you for your time, and I hope you give my thoughts consideration. Doug Bloyd 408-396-1963 From:Aram James To:Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Encryption and voting by Ze’ev Wurman ( Palo Alto Daily Post, April 8, 2022)….I don’t vote for liars. Date:Saturday, April 9, 2022 4:01:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Jonsen, Robert; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Tanner, Rachael; Shikada, Ed; Greer Stone; Vara Ramakrishnan; Council, City; chuck jagoda; EPA Today; Figueroa, Eric; Richard Konda; Angie Evans; mark weiss; ebecca Eisenberg; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Tony Dixon; Perron, Zachary; Josh Becker; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; City Mgr Subject:Encryption and voting by Ze’ev Wurman ( Palo Alto Daily Post, April 8, 2022 Date:Saturday, April 9, 2022 10:37:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Jonsen, Robert; Bill Johnson; Dave Price; Council, City; Alison Cormack; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Planning Commission; chuck jagoda; bob nunez; Jethroe Moore; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Cindy Chavez; Greer Stone; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Winter Dellenbach; Roberta Ahlquist; Kou, Lydia; Tom DuBois; Pat Burt; Tanaka, Greg; Human Relations Commission; Jay Boyarsky; Enberg, Nicholas; Binder, Andrew; City Mgr; Joe Simitian; Rebecca Eisenberg; Raj Subject:Encryption and voting by Ze’ev Wurman ( Palo Alto Daily Post, April 8, 2022 Date:Saturday, April 9, 2022 10:28:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; City Clerk’s Office; Boyd, Holly; Nicolson, Murdo; Blanch, Sandra; Raisch, Nicholas; Lee, Frank Subject:Council Consent Agenda Questions for 4/11/22: Items 3 and 6 Date:Friday, April 8, 2022 12:29:25 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image002.png Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff responses to questions from Councilmember Cormack regarding Monday night’s Council Meeting: April 11, 2022 Amended Agenda Staff response to Consent Items 3 and 6 Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Gaines, Chantal; Shikada, Ed Subject:Letter to Senator Becker: Senate Bill 1000 Law Enforcement Agencies: Radio Communications Date:Friday, April 8, 2022 12:08:04 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png Hello Councilmembers, Please view the following links for updated 2022 Items with City Action for Intergovernmental Affairs: SB 1000 (Becker): On April 7, the Mayor signed a letter supporting SB 1000 Law Enforcement Agencies: Radio Communications Support from the City of Palo Alto. This bill would require a law enforcement agency, including the California Highway Patrol, municipal police departments, county sheriff's departments, specified local law enforcement agencies, and specified university and college police departments, to ensure public access to the radio communications of that agency Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Council, City; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Greer Stone; Jay Boyarsky; Roberta Ahlquist; Joe Simitian; Rebecca Eisenberg; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Figueroa, Eric; Bill Johnson; Jethroe Moore; City Mgr; Enberg, Nicholas; Human Relations Commission Subject:DA and Sheriff"s forums Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:08:04 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. From:Catherine Martineau To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Gollinger, Peter Cc:Pat Burt; Clerk, City; Kammy Lo; Sally O"Neil; Keller, Marilyn; Christie Galitsky; Gabrielle Trudeau; Indira Selvakumaraswamy Subject:Palo Alto Annual Mayor"s Tree Planting Saturday 4/9 at 9AM Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 4:39:48 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, City Manager Shikada, and Acting Urban Forester Gollinger, Please join Mayor Burt and Canopy for Palo Alto's 26th Annual Mayor's Ceremonial Tree Planting We are happy to assist Mayor Burt in planting a native Valley Oak and celebrate trees together. This tree planting is also part of the South Palo Alto Tree Initiative; that plants trees in South Palo Alto (south of Oregon Expressway) with the intention to close the 22% Canopy gap with North Palo Alto. Event Date: 4/9/22 Event Time: 9am-10:00am Location: Bol Park, Bol Park Play Area, 3540 Laguna Ave, Palo Alto Weather forecast: 73 Degrees sunny Parking: along Laguna Ave Safety: Masks optional and available on site if needed We will film the tree planting and Mayor Burt's remarks and incorporate the footage into communications about similar mayors' plantings in neighboring communities for wide distribution. I ask that you kindly RSVP by responding to this email. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to seeing you there, Catherine ------------------------------------------------------ Canopy logo Catherine Martineau (she/her) Executive Director Working from home cell: 650-575-5310 We’re hiring! From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Rebecca EisenbergCc:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert; Aram James; Diana Diamond; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley; Bill Johnson; Anna Griffin; Maloney, Con; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly Subject:Re: Robert Jonsen mangling my words and I don"t appreciate that Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 8:35:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Correction: BTW the Female [she’s] he’s growing her wings back and I’m so happy about that. She’s the one front and center… Don’t want to upset the LGBT wildlife community Sent from my iPad On Apr 5, 2022, at 9:18 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: I think the whole process is for the birds… This whole email string is non-discript. Start thinking in a creative way….if your bird brains can handle it…. Mr. Ed the city of Palo Alto talking horse….maybe he should change is horse bridle or bit… BTW the Female he’s growing her wings back and I’m so happy about that. She’s the one front and center… Mark Petersen-PerezEditor in chiefPalo Alto Free Press Reporting from Nicaragua Sent from my iPad On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:32 AM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dear City Council, Chief Jonsen, and others: Robert Jonsen is literally quoting me as saying the OPPOSITE of what I clearly said. That is a truly unethical act. What Jonsen says: "Rebecca Eisenberg correctly notes that it has always been illegal for police to transmit PII by radio, which has always been a problem." What I said: It has always been illegal for police to transmit PII by radio, which has NEVER been a problem because cops don't transmit PII by radio. Police have literally zero reason to transmit PII by radio. It is a wholly ineffective way to communicate PII, and there are ample other communication methods to do so, e.g. TELEPHONE. This is why there have been no lawsuits. This is why there have been no problems. This is why police radio transmissions have been unencrypted for almost a century. Why is this all of a sudden a problem? Because for the first time in US history, police officers are being held accountable for their own criminal actions, a change that the vast majority of us welcome. But that only was possible due to publicaccess to police radio transmissions. Encrypting police transmissions protects wrongdoers at the expense of public safety. The police have shown what is most important to them. Even Jonsen admits that: he wants to encrypt communications to avoid lawsuits -- from victims of police brutality. Please, listen to police radio transmissions. You can find them on the internet or even on episodes of Law & Order or Reno 911. Here is a writing guide to police radio transmissions: https://penandthepad.com/write-police-radio-conversation-8459164.html Police radio communications are usually when police officers are either (1) driving in their car, or (2) at a noisy location, and never (3) when they are at the station at their desk. If a cop tried to transmit a SSN or DL by radio, it would take literally 20 times to get the numbers through. It would be a terrible SNL skit. This is why cops use abbreviations and codes to refer to what they are doing. Here is a typical radio transmission: "POSSIBLE 250 AT UNIVERSITY AND CHANNING. HEADING THERE, REQUESTING BACKUP OVER." Can you even imagine an officer relying on such info as "Catch the escaping perp! He is the guy with SSN 999-999-9999!" This literally is an argument made by Robert Jonsen - one you appear to be accepting. Why would an officer need to reference a SSN or DL or address??? Jonsen deceptively claims it is to "identify a suspect." First, Jonsen does not bother identifying suspects. He believes that it is appropriate to command attack dogs to bite potential suspects far before they are identified. The correct identification of suspects seems wholly unimportant to him. But if he did care about identifying suspects, there is no possible way that the kind of PII he mentions would be remotely useful. Since when is SSN, job history, or credit card records a means of identifying a witness??? How about the characteristics that witnesses can see with their eyes, like age, height, hair color, and clothing? To the extent that PII needs to be discussed by officers, there is always the old fashioned method of TELEPHONE, including encrypted cell phone technology -- which, mind you, police officers almost never use even though they are supposed to. In other words, Robert Jonsen - you are lying. For almost a century, officers have been PERFECTLY fine using radios to transmit Codes about crimes, car accidents, and/or fires, etc., and giving locations - without ANY NEED to communicate PII. They do not have any need to use radio for PII now, just like they didn't in the 1930's. The only reason for encryption is to hide information of interest to the public, including but not limited to malfeasance by the folks we pay a ton of money to protect us. What in the world do they have to hide? This is NOT COMPLICATED. Police have no reason to use radios for PII, and without PII, the radio transmissions should not be encrypted. The CHP confirmed this. Common sense confirms this. Documented history confirms this. Almost a century of radio transmissions have happened without a hitch. The cops have not come up with one example of when radio needs to be used for PII rather than phone. They give only lies and false fear. Please use common sense and back Becker's bill -- to RESTORE police transmissions the way they have been for almost a century. Don't let the police change things that always worked fine. JUST TELL THE POLICE TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE FOR A CENTURY: KEEP PII OFF RADIO, and use the phone instead. Why is that hard? This is simple: officers never used radio to communicate PII over the past 100 years. They don't need to use radio to transit PII now. Done. The problem is solved. There is no need for encryption. Thank you Rebecca Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq.Principal & FounderNetskink Positive Impact InvestmentsPrivate Client Legal Serviceswww.linkedin.com/in/eisenbergrebecca@privateclientlegal.com415-235-8078 From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert; Aram James; Diana Diamond; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley; Bill Johnson; Anna Griffin; Maloney, Con; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Stump, Molly Subject:Re: Robert Jonsen mangling my words and I don"t appreciate thatDate:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 8:18:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I think the whole process is for the birds… This whole email string is non-discript. Start thinking in a creative way….if your bird brains can handle it…. Mr. Ed the city of Palo Alto talking horse….maybe he should change is horse bridle or bit… BTW the Female he’s growing her wings back and I’m so happy about that. She’s the one front and center… Mark Petersen-PerezEditor in chiefPalo Alto Free Press Reporting from Nicaragua Sent from my iPad On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:32 AM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dear City Council, Chief Jonsen, and others: Robert Jonsen is literally quoting me as saying the OPPOSITE of what I clearly said. That is a truly unethical act. What Jonsen says: "Rebecca Eisenberg correctly notes that it has always been illegal for police to transmit PII by radio, which has always been a problem." What I said: It has always been illegal for police to transmit PII by radio, which has NEVER been a problem because cops don't transmit PII by radio. Police have literally zero reason to transmit PII by radio. It is a wholly ineffective way to communicate PII, and there are ample other communication methods to do so, e.g. TELEPHONE. This is why there have been no lawsuits. This is why there have been no problems. This is why police radio transmissions have been unencrypted for almost a century. Why is this all of a sudden a problem? Because for the first time in US history, police officers are being held accountable for their own criminal actions, a change that the vast majority of us welcome. But that only was possible due to public access topolice radio transmissions. Encrypting police transmissions protects wrongdoers at the expense of public safety. The police have shown what is most important to them. Even Jonsen admits that: he wants to encrypt communications to avoid lawsuits -- from victims of police brutality. Please, listen to police radio transmissions. You can find them on the internet or even on episodes of Law & Order or Reno 911. Here is a writing guide to police radio transmissions: https://penandthepad.com/write-police-radio-conversation-8459164.html Police radio communications are usually when police officers are either (1) driving in their car, or (2) at a noisy location, and never (3) when they are at the station at their desk. If a cop tried to transmit a SSN or DL by radio, it would take literally 20 times to get the numbers through. It would be a terrible SNL skit. This is why cops use abbreviations and codes to refer to what they are doing. Here is a typical radio transmission: "POSSIBLE 250 AT UNIVERSITY AND CHANNING. HEADING THERE, REQUESTING BACKUP OVER." Can you even imagine an officer relying on such info as "Catch the escaping perp! He is the guy with SSN 999-999-9999!" This literally is an argument made by Robert Jonsen - one you appear to be accepting. Why would an officer need to reference a SSN or DL or address??? Jonsen deceptively claims it is to "identify a suspect." First, Jonsen does not bother identifying suspects. He believes that it is appropriate to command attack dogs to bite potential suspects far before they are identified. The correct identification of suspects seems wholly unimportant to him. But if he did care about identifying suspects, there is no possible way that the kind of PII he mentions would be remotely useful. Since when is SSN, job history, or credit card records a means of identifying a witness??? How about the characteristics that witnesses can see with their eyes, like age, height, hair color, and clothing? To the extent that PII needs to be discussed by officers, there is always the old fashioned method of TELEPHONE, including encrypted cell phone technology -- which, mind you, police officers almost never use even though they are supposed to. In other words, Robert Jonsen - you are lying. For almost a century, officers have been PERFECTLY fine using radios to transmit Codes about crimes, car accidents, and/or fires, etc., and giving locations - without ANY NEED to communicate PII. They do not have any need to use radio for PII now, just like they didn't in the 1930's. The only reason for encryption is to hide information of interest to the public, including but not limited to malfeasance by the folks we pay a ton of money to protect us. What in the world do they have to hide? This is NOT COMPLICATED. Police have no reason to use radios for PII, and without PII, the radio transmissions should not be encrypted. The CHP confirmed this. Common sense confirms this. Documented history confirms this. Almost a century of radio transmissions have happened without a hitch. The cops have not come up with one example of when radio needs to be used for PII rather than phone. They give only lies and false fear. Please use common sense and back Becker's bill -- to RESTORE police transmissions the way they have been for almost a century. Don't let the police change things that always worked fine. JUST TELL THE POLICE TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE FOR A CENTURY: KEEP PII OFF RADIO, and use the phone instead. Why is that hard? This is simple: officers never used radio to communicate PII over the past 100 years. They don't need to use radio to transit PII now. Done. The problem is solved. There is no need for encryption. Thank you Rebecca Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq.Principal & FounderNetskink Positive Impact InvestmentsPrivate Client Legal Serviceswww.linkedin.com/in/eisenbergrebecca@privateclientlegal.com415-235-8078 From:Aram James To:Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Braden Cartwright; Diana Diamond; Greer Stone; EPA Today; Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; Jay Boyarsky; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Roberta Ahlquist; City Mgr Subject:DA and Sheriff"s forums Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 3:44:16 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. STR1CTATTORNE SHERIFF'S RACES 30111 LIS FOR VIRTUAL CANDIDATE FORAMS FOR THE RACES OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND SN'FRIFF Santa Clara County District Attorney Forum: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 - 7:00pm-8:30pm registration link tinyurl.com/28ambh69 Santa Clara County Sheriff Forum: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 - 7:00pm-8:30pm registration link tinyurl.com/3vjn376s Invite All Your Friends For A Unique Chance To Meet Your Future Representatives. Spanish and Vietnamese interpretation will be provided if you have questions for any of the candidates, please submit them through the registration links. L�CHIP b "Eva C.ALdFO'k NIA VALIEr ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE ,,.,.ser,.w�.. •in y CA Retroemaisy Northern California $+APB Cig.s Ve.a.ry Chapter L andzriRoundtublc From:Gloria Carlson To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja Date:Sunday, April 10, 2022 7:56:08 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from gloriascarlson@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners, I am writing in support of Castilleja’s modernization project. I am a 40+ year resident of Palo Alto and live right off of Embarcadero Road. I have seen our city grow and prosper through the years and am grateful to live in a vibrant place that features outstanding education, innovation, and culture. While neither I nor my daughter attended Castilleja (we both attended PAUSD schools), I am a strong supporter of single sex education for those families seeking the opportunity. Castilleja is renowned across the country for its outstanding curriculum educating young women to be our future leaders. It’s a well documented fact that business and government need more women leaders, and Palo Alto should be proud of what Castilleja stands for and teaches. For that reason, I ask you to support their updated project, including the underground garage and higher enrollment. As I stated, I live off of Embarcadero, and while traffic has grown through the years, it is absolute hogwash to suggest that Castilleja plays any part in that traffic. Castilleja’s small enrollment -- even when it grows to 540 students -- is a miniscule part of the economic fabric of our city when compared to Stanford, tech start ups, and Paly traffic. The school should be allowed to modernize and grow, to offer more opportunity to girls seeking single sex education -- and the school’s rigorous TDM program, as well as the limitations spelled out in the conditions of approval will prevent any traffic impact. The EIR for which you recommended certification affirms that. Let’s get this project approved and in the process get as many cars as possible below ground in the underground garage. Let’s beautify our streets by preserving greenspace rather than parking cars. Thank you for your continued attention to this project and vote to approve. Sincerely, Gloria Carlson, Santa Ana Street From:Michelle Overmeyer To:Council, City Subject:Ramona Street Date:Saturday, April 9, 2022 3:43:03 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from muller_9600@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Good afternoon I visited Palo Alto and really enjoyed the parklettes on Ramona Street. I came from the Monterey area and had no problem finding street parking a couple blocks away. The closed off road for outdoor dining gives a great option for visitors like me spending the afternoon in your city. Thank you for being forward-thinking leaders and adapting your city and offering a variety of choices. Regards, Michelle Overmeyer Seaside, CA From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:deadline extended to April 20 - AIP grants comment opportunity Date:Saturday, April 9, 2022 3:39:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Per https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/drafts_2022/ Updated Comment By Date The FAA will be publishing a notice to correct the discrepancy between the stated length of the comment period and the published date. This notice will extend the comment period through April 20, 2022. As soon as the notice publishes, we will add a link to it on this page. the docket still says 4/12 but it's now April 20th. On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 10:37, Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Council, Today the publication Airport Noise Report noted the opportunity to comment on AIP grants. Federal Register DOCKET https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/04/2022- 06968/airport-improvement-program-aip-grant-assurances TO COMMENT https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FAA-2022-0345-0001 As you are aware, AIP grants are a source of enormous frustration with our community because they allow the FAA to mismanage noise impacts and their effect on productivity, education, and health outcomes. Just this week, SFO was lamenting that putting monitors outside their contours constitutes "revenue diversion" which is part of the grant limitation issues that airports and industry then use as the excuse to limit and control information, data, analysis and mitigation opportunities. The purpose of the update is to "reflect recently issued Executive Orders" which includes Executive Order 13985 on “Ad- vancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities. Nobody has a chance with the AIP grant shackles. East Hampton, as wealthy as it is, could not succeed with the Part 161 process while the grants were in effect and had to wait until their grants ran out to take more control. What is the first thing they are doing now? Investing in real world data and information to inform themselves and decisions. Without investments in noise exposure analysis, underserved communities cannot advocate for themselves. In my comment to the NES federal register I expressed that the FAA's 65 threshold excludes the majority of people impacted and the agency's sole focus on insulation limits the menu of potential mitigations. In Europe, noise analysis products are required from all EU countries or they are fined. Of course they don't insulate every house but they develop ideas and ways to collectively work together to address impacts. All the bad problems seem to be fine when they are under the radar, but when they are revealed suddenly it's an issue where "we all need to work together, can't do it alone" - well yes, but if we are to work collectively, then trust matters. The AIP grants interfere with trusted communications and are a systemic barrier to doing better to manage impacts. The deadline to comment is April 12. I hope the City can add some inputs. Thank you, Jennifer From:Stewart Raphael To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Recommending Castilleja Project Date:Saturday, April 9, 2022 2:43:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Leaders, I’m Stewart Raphael, a 9 year resident of Palo Alto. When I spoke to you last year in December, I spoke about the need for increased enrollment at Castilleja - about the power of their all-girls education and also the effectiveness of the school’s TDM program in mitigating any impacts from that enrollment increase. I find it hard to believe that we’re still debating this topic, so I’d like to take this opportunity to restate the results of Castilleja’s robust TDM program: The school has reduced traffic in the neighborhood by around 30%, thanks to the requirements placed on all employees and students. Their proposed CUP adds additional TDM measures, to further mitigate traffic in the neighborhood. Examples include: guaranteed emergency rides home for employees who don’t drive, new bus and shuttle routes, and an internal Castilleja “lift” service. They’ve demonstrated their commitment to TDM. The school added new bus routes from San Mateo, Burlingame, and Woodside when students from those communities were fearful of taking the train during the pandemic. The underground garage WILL NOT bring additional cars to the neighborhood, because it can not. Car trips to the neighborhood are capped. And, please remember that the Final Environmental Impact Report showed there to be no negative impact on traffic related to the new garage, as long as drop off and pick up were distributed around campus, as planned. I asked you then, and I ask you now: please recommend approval of this project so that opportunities for girls and young women can be expanded, and the campus can be modernized with no negative impacts. Respectfully yours, Stewart Raphael 571 Military Way From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; fred beyerlein; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; Dan Richard; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Daniel Zack; dallen1212@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. April 6, 2022. BA.2 in UK, big numbers. Date:Friday, April 8, 2022 10:25:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:34 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. April 6, 2022. BA.2 in UK, big numbers. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:09 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. April 6, 2022. BA.2 in UK, big numbers. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:07 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. April 6, 2022. BA.2 in UK, big numbers. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:55 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. April 6, 2022. BA.2 in UK, big numbers. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:52 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Wed. April 6, 2022. BA.2 in UK, big numbers. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:22 PM Subject: Dr. John Campbell Wed. April 6, 2022. BA.2 in UK, big numbers. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thursday, April 7, 2022 To all- Dr. John Campbell in the UK for Wednesday, April 6, 2022: Big numbers, high prevalence of infections in the UK from BA.2, with 10X as many re- infections of those who previously were infected and/or were vaccinated, as in previous waves. 10X as many, so if you are fully vaccinated and/or have had the disease and recovered, you are still, now, subject to re-infection with the BA.2 variant. So, take precautions. That is the experience so far in the UK. The curve for new cases there is starting to peak and turn downward. We have not seen this as much in the US yet as he expected, but he expects that we will. See his charts for the US: Number of new cases and hospitalizations in the US is WAY down from BA.1. Those will go up somewhat in the US as BA.2 spreads, he expects, and be short lived. Hospitalizations and deaths in the UK caused by the spread of BA.2 are mostly in adults over 75. Transatlantic data burst - YouTube I am wearing a mask when indoors, social distancing, washing hands, and am pouring in the 6,000 IU of Vitamin D3 and 100 mcg of Vitamin K-2 every day. I'll get the fourth Moderna vaccination as soon as Kaiser makes it available. My last haircut was in March. Of 2021. Hard to see how women deal with long hair. Notice that he says, again, that Covid will become more endemic. We may see waves of it for several years as it becomes endemic. BUT, KCBS-SF was talking to a big gun MD at Stanford about a week ago. He said that political gridlock is endemic in the US, as is influenza. But the flu kills 60,000 to 100,000 Americans every year, so we don't need another disease to become endemic. I didn't catch his name as the KCBS signal can be sketchy at 200 miles remove, but he was saying that for a new disease to arise, taper off and become endemic is nothing to celebrate. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; fred beyerlein; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: 25 more HSR trains for Sweden. Date:Friday, April 8, 2022 4:39:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:49 PM Subject: 25 more HSR trains for Sweden. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, April 8, 2022 To all- Twenty five more HSR trains for Sweden. They cost $30 million each. Extensive network in Sweden, Denmark and Norway already. France, Spain, Germany, Italy have extensive HSR already, of course. And the rich Republicans in California's Central Valley have moved heaven and earth to stop HSR in California. They have failed, but they will never give up. SJ in this announcement is not San Jose. SJ signs agreement with Alstom for 25 high-speed trains - International Railway Journal (railjournal.com) One small farmer in Kings County, Calif. spent millions suing to stop HSR in the Central Valley. Wonder where he got the money. Thousands of highly educated, high income, high tech workers from SV will pour into Fresno to buy affordable housing when the trip is 45 minutes. Cos. in SV might build facilities here too with cheaper land and that nearby housing. Their managers could get down here in one hour when needed on HSR. HSR through Fresno will be transformative. Home prices will soar here when the CHSRA has the money in hand to begin construction Merced to Gilroy to Diridon Station in San Jose. $8-12 billion is needed, Home owners in Fresno should almost tax themselves to raise the money. All of the engineering work and all the environmental reviews for that stretch have been completed. 45 minutes Fresno to San Jose, and to the enormous Google complex to be built there, will transform the backwater that is currently Fresno. PS: It is an obscenity that the United States has not one millimeter of HSR, when the countries whose military defense we provide free of charge all have it. Ditto for affordable universities and universal health care. On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, I drove on highway 99 in Fresno from Shaw Avenue to Fresno St., a distance of perhaps 10 miles. The condition of that major artery through Fresno, Calif. means that the United States cannot claim to be an "advanced country". It is a third world country when our corrupt politicians let that situation continue. Just that 10 mile stretch of road classifies the United States as a third world country. Every 2 feet there is a big sharp- edged pothole or a big patch. The road is an obscenity, and the governments of the State of California and the United States are obscenities for letting that to exist. The people running the US and California Departments of Transportation should be charged criminally for the condition of Hwy 99 through Fresno. The members of the California legislature and Congress who could vote to correct Hwy 99 and will not should also be charged criminally for the condition of Hwy 99 in Fresno. And, of course, Gov. Newsom should be kicked out of office in November if only because of that stretch of highway. The United States is a third world country and the crooks in our government give untold billions of dollars to foreign countries every year to allow them to live the good life. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:AIP grants - opportunity to comment, deadline April 12 Date:Friday, April 8, 2022 10:38:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, Today the publication Airport Noise Report noted the opportunity to comment on AIP grants. Federal Register DOCKET https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/04/2022- 06968/airport-improvement-program-aip-grant-assurances TO COMMENT https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FAA-2022-0345-0001 As you are aware, AIP grants are a source of enormous frustration with our community because they allow the FAA to mismanage noise impacts and their effect on productivity, education, and health outcomes. Just this week, SFO was lamenting that putting monitors outside their contours constitutes "revenue diversion" which is part of the grant limitation issues that airports and industry then use as the excuse to limit and control information, data, analysis and mitigation opportunities. The purpose of the update is to "reflect recently issued Executive Orders" which includes Executive Order 13985 on “Ad- vancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities. Nobody has a chance with the AIP grant shackles. East Hampton, as wealthy as it is, could not succeed with the Part 161 process while the grants were in effect and had to wait until their grants ran out to take more control. What is the first thing they are doing now? Investing in real world data and information to inform themselves and decisions. Without investments in noise exposure analysis, underserved communities cannot advocate for themselves. In my comment to the NES federal register I expressed that the FAA's 65 threshold excludes the majority of people impacted and the agency's sole focus on insulation limits the menu of potential mitigations. In Europe, noise analysis products are required from all EU countries or they are fined. Of course they don't insulate every house but they develop ideas and ways to collectively work together to address impacts. All the bad problems seem to be fine when they are under the radar, but when they are revealed suddenly it's an issue where "we all need to work together, can't do it alone" - well yes, but if we are to work collectively, then trust matters. The AIP grants interfere with trusted communications and are a systemic barrier to doing better to manage impacts. The deadline to comment is April 12. I hope the City can add some inputs. Thank you, Jennifer IS IT POSSIBLE TO RESTORE TRUST IN JOURNALISM...IN AMERICA AND THE WORLD? Wed, Apr 13 Online Rethinking Capitalism and Freedom: Milton Friedman in Retrospect Thu, Apr 14 Online Disarm, Defund, Dismantle — Online Launch Thu, Apr 14 Online 2022 Digger Debate Series - Vermont’s first U.S. House debate of 2022 Wed, Apr 13 Online From:Eventbrite To:Council, City Subject:Do something new this week Date:Friday, April 8, 2022 2:43:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Your Weekly Event Guide Check out these recommended events for you Online events for you The Spanish Civil War Letters of George and Ruth Watt Sat, Apr 9 Online Internet for the People? Fri, Apr 8 Online View all recommended Event collections A selection of events picked by local experts COLLECTION Music Festival Calendar: Your Save Our Planet: Earth Day Events & Activities Honor the planet we all share and help preserve the globe for future generations by attending an event in honor of Earth Day. Learn more about climate change or discover ways you can go green at these curated online events. Go green Guide to Festival Season It's never too early to start thinking about your next music festival. Get ready to make some memories! COLLECTION The Best Online Events to Attend Without Leaving Your Home Learn new skills, participate in group activities, or get some exercise without ever stepping foot outside. Classic Chinese Baking with Kristina Cho Wed, Apr 13 Online Black History Monthly Series Mon, Apr 11 Online Virtual: Marisa Siegel: Fixed Stars Fri, Apr 8 Online Editor's Picks We pick events, you make the plans Eventbrite Find your next experience on Eventbrite Download the app Let’s be friends Brought to you by the fine folks at This email was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Unsubscribe here Privacy Policy Eventbrite | 535 Mission Street, 8th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105 © 2022 Eventbrite. All rights reserved. From:upcomingsales@friendspaloaltolib.org To:Council, City Subject:Stupendous Super Spring Book Sale - Friends of the Palo Alto Library Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 5:04:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Visit our web site CUBBERLEY USED BOOK SALES FACE COVERS RECOMMENDED Saturday April 9 Bargain Room 9:30am - 4pm Children's Room 10am - 4pm Main Room Sale 11am - 4pm Sunday April 10 All Rooms 11am - 4pm FEATURED IN APRIL History Sets Gardening Children's Room/Vintage The West 4000 Middlefield Road Palo Alto NE corner of the Cubberley Community Center (650) 213-8755 www.fopal.org Maps and Directions More information on the sales Donate your used books, DVDs, &c ALL NET PROCEEDS GO TO HELP PALO ALTO LIBRARIES Marty's (Main) Room In our Main Room, prices are way below what used book stores charge. Hardcover books start at $2.00 and softcover books start at only $1.00. No numbered tickets this month! (Another reminder that yes, we are still in a pandemic!) Please note that due to crowding during the first two hours of the Book Sale, no strollers, rolling carts, etc. can be brought into the Main Room. This is for the safety of shoppers and volunteers alike. By 12:30 or so, the crowd thins out and shoppers are welcome to bring these items into the sale. Children's Book Sale The Children's Room is located in the portable next to the soccer field near Greendell School. It is entirely filled with children's books and toys. You'll find picture books, school age fiction and non-fiction, award winners, non-English titles, CDs and DVDs, and books for parents and teachers, most for 50 cents or $1. Strollers are welcome in the Children's Room at any time. Bargain Books in H-2 The Bargain Room is located in Rooms H-2 and H-3 of the Cubberley main campus, between Marty's Room and Middlefield Road. On Saturday, paperbacks are 50 cents, hardcovers are $1, and children's books are 50 cents each. The room also contains many records, CDs, and DVDs at $1 each. On Sunday, the room opens at 11 am and all prices are half off. Or, save even more on Sunday by buying green FOPAL reusable bags from us for $3/ea (or bring your own grocery-size reusable bag) and stuffing them with any items in the room for $5/bag. Fill four bags at $5/bag and fill a fifth bag FREE! (We no longer receive sufficient used paper grocery bags along with donations for this purpose.) News from the Library, by E-mail and RSS The Library would like you to know that the first week in April is National Library Week, and you can read their latest newsletter here. If you have ever given the Library your e-mail address, like this newsletter editor did when he signed up for a Palo Alto Library card, you have probably noticed that they are sending you one to a few e-mails per month since the start of the pandemic. If you haven't been getting these e-mails, and are curious, there's an archive of them here. The messages linked from the archive page have links to a subscription page. If you prefer this sort of thing in your RSS reader instead of your e-mail, you can get the RSS feed here. (This may open in your RSS reader instead of in your browser.) The City may also be sending you "Uplift Local" e-mails once a week or so. There is an archive of those e-mails here. And if like yr hmbl newsletter editor you have not been paying attention and are wondering what is open and how much the Library has a Current Library Services page. What's Special for April! For April, in the large special bays to your right, as you enter the Main Room, you'll find a big collection of newly shelved books for the History Special. A fair amount books were donated to the Gardening section this month. As you enter you'll find the Gardening section on your right in the corner with a garland of notable gardening quotes hanging above, compliments of the section manager Ann Justice. An abnormally large amount of Sets came in this month; look for these books in the Sets section for our April sale as well the Sets shelves allotted space in the Bargain Room/H2. Shout out to FOPAL's youngest section manager Felix Chen for confidently managing this challenging section! In Children's Room, the "Vintage Corner" was one of our featured subjects last month. Children's Room vintage book section manager Lisa Heitman held over many of the unsold books from the last sale and added many more that we didn't have room for. The West, managed by long-time volunteer Tyler Vinciguerra was given a good culling after the March sale, and as a result, you'll see a freshened-up section with many new titles for you to choose from. Can't make it to the monthly sale? Want to support your local literacy programming? Shop one of FOPAL's community library sale areas: look for a book sale gondola in the Downtown Library and two book sale gondolas at the Rinconada Library. For a bigger selection visit the FOPAL book store in the Mitchell Park Library, this space receives new books weekly. Remember, most all hardback books are always $2 and paperbacks are only $1, and that these sale areas are open when the libraries are open! History "This month we are again featuring History on the Specials shelves as you enter the Main Room on your right. Showcased are China, the Middle East, Russia, Medieval History, and British Imperialism. The Medieval collection is particularly extensive including the Encyclopedia of Medieval History (volumes sold separately). To the left, between the Travel sections, there is a collection of exploration and historical travel books. Don't miss the 'set' section in our regular History aisle as among our selections we have a most unusual 1903 numbered set of Courtiers and Favorites of Royalty published in Paris. Very nice. We're selling sub-sets of the set. Enjoy your shopping!" -Suzanne Little and Lin McAllister Children's Room/Vintage "With the sun shining in, the children's vintage nook is looking very spring-ish for the April Monthly Book Sale. The little kids section has a large collection of vintage Dr. Seuss (but only the Seuss estate approved versions, mind) as well as a new, robust selection of Little Elf books. These Little Elf books are just a small fraction of an entire box full, so if you're a fan, you can look forward to more to come in the next few months. The older kids series book section has more than 20 Hardy Boys books, a few Trixies and Nancys, and the usual assortment of older series (like Tom Swift Sr, for example). There is also a replenished anthology section, as well as a 12 volume set (complete) of the 1937 My Bookhouse compendium. Plenty for vintage book lovers to love!" -Lisa Heitman Children's Room "The Children's Room is again extremely well stocked for the coming sale. Look for books about Passover, Easter, and Mothers' Day (which occurs before the May sale, so this is your only chance to find something special for Mom). We have a bountiful supply of games, puzzles, and toys, many brand new. There are some beautiful sets of Chinese-language readers and reference books, along with picture books galore in Japanese and Korean. And our graphic novels shelves are full, with everything from comics to anime to Tintin to classic novels in graphic format. Come and browse!" -Carolyn Davidson Anthropology "Sex & Drugs & Heads will Roll; yes it's all happening down on the Anthropology shelves this month! There are several books on the theme of incest, a few describing the effects of LSD and cannabis on society and politics, a selection of books on the economy of the coffee industry and a small collection on head hunting and cannibalism." -Helen Beevers Drama "The Drama section has a selection of sets available again this month, including study sets of Angels in America, a set of Yale Shakespeare wanting a good home and there are some lovely illustrated Shakespeare plays presented in a slip case." -Helen Beevers Self-Help "Featured books this month include: Atomic Habits; Emotional Agility; Getting Past your Past; Buy Yourself the F... Lilies; One Breath at a Time; and How to Be Yourself. I've received a number of books about Neurolinguistic Programming which are grouped together in a subsection. There are two shelves of 'Popular on Amazon' books plus three more full shelves of 'New Arrivals' that came in this month. And of course there are all the books from previous months and many books placed in the subsections. So enjoy browsing and taking advantage of the great prices!" -Marnie Donations We have made it past Drop-off Donations 3.0 and have returned to accepting donations without the need to make an appointment. HOWEVER.... We are closed for donations from Sunday April 3 through Sunday April 10 to prepare the Main Room for this weekend's sale. Please hold your donations until Monday April 11. Please read our donation guidelines before you bring materials to us. All that said, our normal hours for drop-off donations are Monday through Saturday, 3pm- 5pm. (But not the week before the sale.) Suggestions? We're always eager to hear your suggestions for ways to improve our book sale. Please email us at suggestions@friendspaloaltolib.org. This notice comes to you from the non-profit organization Friends of the Palo Alto Library. No trees were felled in the making of this e-mail. Visit our web site. Become a member by joining online. Be sure to receive your own free copy of this e-mail notice so that you'll know about all special upcoming books sales. To sign up, just e-mail us. We carefully protect the privacy of your e-mail address. We will not share your e-mail address with any other organization and we will not use it for any purpose other than to send you these notices. If you do not wish to receive these e-mail notices in the future, please reply with the words "Remove Me" in the first line of the text. From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: AIISF | Check out our new exhibit opening soon at the US Immigration Station Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 4:16:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation <info@aiisf.org> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 4:07 PM Subject: AIISF | Check out our new exhibit opening soon at the US Immigration Station Source: Allan Seid, AIISF April 2022 E-News Dear ALLAN, I hope that all of you are enjoying the longer and warmer days. It’s a beautiful time to visit Angel Island. If you haven’t seen the new Angel Island Immigration Museum building (open on weekends only) or the Taken From Their Families exhibit about Japanese American incarceration during WWII, check out www.aiisf.org/visit to plan your next trip. It’s my pleasure to introduce Angelo Racelis as the newest member of our AIISF team. Angelo is our administrative coordinator and will be assisting with a range of different responsibilities. He previously served as the Operations and Visitor Services Coordinator at the Chinese Historical Society of America (CHSA). Speaking of CHSA, be sure to check out their new Bruce Lee exhibit, which launches later this month! Kudos to CHSA Executive Director Justin Hoover and the team there for what promises to be an amazing addition to Chinatown. The preview photos and videos look amazing! AIISF is a founding member of the Chinatown Media and Arts Collective (CMAC). Be sure to register for your free tickets for the inaugural event on April 30, Neon Was NeverBrighter: A Glimpse Into The Future which will feature several art activations and performances across San Francisco’s Chinatown. With Asian and Pacific American Heritage month right around the corner in May, we are gearing up for a number of events and programs. Be sure to save the date for: May 1 – 31: A temporary exhibit on Angel Island entitled Lighting the Darkness. For the month of May, 140 LED candles will be displayed at the Angel Island Immigration Station to recognize the 140th anniversary of the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Each candle is a reminder of 1 year of the law’s historic and continuing negative impacts.May 2: A virtual presentation with the Chinese American Heritage Foundation in Boston (see more info below).May 6 & 7: Multiple events -- including a memorial wreath-laying, a large scale projection at Fort Mason, and a program at the Chinese Culture Center -- to recognize the 140th anniversary of the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in collaboration with APA Heritage Foundation, API Legal Outreach, Chinese Culture Center of San Francisco, CMAC, and several other organizations and individuals including past AIISF Board President Felicia Lowe and past AIISF Executive Director Eddie Wong.May 11: A virtual program co-hosted with the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation And much more. We’ll be sharing additional details later this month. Stay tuned and stay safe! Edward Tepporn AIISF Executive Director Help! Angel Island Descendants Needed! AIISF has received a number of recent requests to interview descendants of immigrants who were detained on Angel Island. If you would be open to sharing your family’s story either with an academic research team and/or a media reporter, please email Ed atetepporn@aiisf.org. We deeply appreciate your assistance in sharing your family’s story to help raise awareness about Angel Island. Upcoming Programs and Exhibitions NEON WAS NEVER BRIGHTER: A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE霓虹閃爍愛華埠: 展望未来 | Saturday, April 30 | Learn More The Chinatown Media & Arts Collaborative (CMAC) is hosting its inaugural event, Neon Was Never Brighter: A Glimpse Into the Future. This outdoor event is a free, multi- sensorial outdoor experience showcasing art activations created from diverse media. A tribute to Chinatown's legacy, the event aims to advance the social and economic recovery of the neighborhood through art and culture. ANGEL ISLAND IMMIGRATION STATION: A SELECTION OF PERSONALSTORIES AND POEMSMay 2, 2022 | 5 pm PDT / 8 pm EDTFREE via Zoom | Register Here This year, AIISF is partnering again with the Chinese American Heritage Foundation for their AAPI Talks 2022 in celebration of Asian and Pacific American Heritage Month. Learn more about some of the people and poems connected to the Angel Island Immigration Station. UPCOMING EXHIBIT: LIGHTING THE DARKNESS May 1 - May 31 | Angel Island Detention Barracks Museum The history of the former US Immigration Station at Angel Island is directly linked to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The passage of this law marked the first time in our nation’s history that a specific country was singled out. The law prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the US and barred the Chinese from becoming U.S. citizens. In the decades that followed, additional exclusionary immigration laws and policies were passed that impacted most countries from Asia and the Pacific. May 6, 2022 marks 140 years since the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. AIISF's Lighting the Darkness exhibition is a solemn reminder of the many lives, families, and communities who were impacted by this and similar laws. It also pays tribute to the strengths and ongoing contributions of immigrants then and now. Each candle represents one year since the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Although it was finally repealed in 1942, the impacts of racism and xenophobia continue today. Community Partner Events (not directly affiliated with AIISF) WE ARE BRUCE LEE: UNDER THE SKY, ONE FAMILY at CHSAOpening April 24, 2022 | Learn More Located at the CHSA Museum in Chinatown, San Francisco, We Are Bruce Lee is an exhibit featuring contemporary art and historical artifacts that celebrates the remarkable life of a Chinese American icon, who transcended race, geography, and culture through uncanny strength and resilience. THE PAPER DREAMS OF HARRY CHINDirected by Jeffrey LoMay 4 - June 18 | Learn More Set during the Chinese Exclusion Act, the story centers on Harry Chin, a Chinese national who entered the United States through forged documentation - a secret he kept throughout his life, including his own daughter. Similar to many other "paper sons and daughters", the story of the Chin family reveals the personal and political repercussions of making a group of people “illegal.” Connect to AIISF Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation | 870 Market Street, Suite 941, San Francisco, CA 94102 Unsubscribe allanseid734@gmail.com Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by info@aiisf.org From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo To:Council, City Subject:Stanford Developmental Labs @ the JMZ Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 1:37:55 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from info+friendsjmz.org@ccsend.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Stanford Developmental Labs at the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo The JMZ is not just a place to learn about science – it is also a place to contribute to science! In 2014, the JMZ and Stanford’s Social Learning Lab (Dept. of Psychology) launched a partnership to support research into how children think, learn, and interact with others. Now, researchers in the Social Learning Lab and other groups in the Department of Psychology at Stanford University (Stanford Developmental Labs) are excited to be back at the JMZ following its reopening in November. Scientists cannot study how the human mind develops without the help of families like you. Instead of running studies in a closed lab space, Stanford’s partnership with the JMZ allows researchers to bring their studies to the public. You may see Stanford Researchers with nametags walking around the museum, and they may ask whether you and your child are interested in participating. We hope that these will be fun, informative activities for everyone. You can see how scientific studies on child development are conducted while your child participates in research activities that are designed to be fun and engaging! Teresa Garcia, lab manager, Social Learning Lab at Stanford, shares more about the scientists and research activities, as well as how you can participate, below. This is the latest installment in our newsletter series with news about the new Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo! Stanford Social Learning researchers visiting the JMZ! What are we studying? We are interested in how children learn about the world and communicate what they know. Young children are amazing learners - they face the difficult task of figuring out “how the world works” and they do this in just the first few years of life! We study how young children achieve this remarkable feat in order to better understand how the human mind works. Here is an example of a study at the JMZ: Costs and Rewards in Teaching - published thanks to families at the JMZ! Even if we wanted to, we can’t always teach others everything. Sometimes we have to make decisions about what to teach. How do we decide what to teach and what to leave for learners to discover? In this study, completed with the help of families at the JMZ, we had 5-7-year-old children make decisions about what to teach someone else and found that children consider the utility of the information when choosing. They chose to teach the information that would be the most exciting or interesting to the learner as well as the most difficult for them to learn on their own. This work was published in Nature Human Behaviour in 2021 and also featured in this Stanford News article. Here are some questions that we are asking in ongoing studies: Can children understand the benefits of one-to-one (individual tutoring) vs. one-to- many teaching (like in a classroom) and choose different strategies for teaching depending on the context? Can children use information about another person’s physical constraints when solving problems together? At what age do children reason about what others think of them, and how does this capacity affect free play and exploration? How do children consider the past helpfulness of other people around them when making decisions as they learn? Come check out our research room! Our research happens in a quiet room called the Stanford Studio next to the Building Blocks exhibit, so that children and families feel comfortable in a private setting. If both you and your child are interested in trying out our study that day, we can all head over to the room together. Our research activities are designed for one child to participate at a time, but your family is welcome to come in and watch! Come visit our special gameroom! Your whole family is welcome to come and watch the study! How do I participate? Once in the room, the researcher will ask you to sign a consent form so that we have your permission for your child to participate. Here are the most important things to know about the form: Our activities are designed to be fun and engaging for children, but you or your child are free to stop at any time. We ask for your child’s date of birth and record the session, but we keep all of our data confidential and securely stored in our lab. We conduct studies on how children think and learn. This means that we will not be analyzing or drawing conclusions about any specific child. There is no right or wrong answer to our tasks – any answer your child gives during the session is valuable data for us! Here’s Kat, our post-doctoral researcher, going over our consent form for their child to participate in the study. Feel free to ask any questions! After the consent form has been signed and if your child is interested in trying the research activity, we will get started! Studies often involve watching simple video clips or playing with toys and are designed to be fun and engaging. The researcher might ask your child what they think or prefer. Remember, there’s no right or wrong answers - we are just interested in what children say or do in response to these questions. Thus, it is important that parents do not give hints or suggestions during the session! :- ) Each research project is designed for specific age groups. We have studies for infants, toddlers, preschoolers and older children (up to 7 or 8). Here’s one of our 8-year-old participants helping us out with our study! Our studies take the form of different activities and games. Here is Teresa, our lab manager, and one of our 4-year-old participants learning about some special boxes and rolling toys through a tube! Our studies are designed to be fun and engaging for your child! We hope that you all have as much fun as we do! We love answering questions and giving out thank you stickers at the end of our study! During this time we are also making sure to abide by the safest practices possible, such as sanitizing our study materials, to ensure that families feel comfortable participating. What happens after a research project is complete? Our researchers will try the research activity with many children at the JMZ. Once we have a big enough group of children (varies by study but more than 50 - 80 children in most cases), we can look at what the data tells us about children’s learning and decision making. We don’t look at children’s individual responses, but we do see what children do as a group, depending on their age. For example we might see what percentage of children chose one option over another or how long children played with a certain object on average. The research process can sometimes take years, but in the end, we hope to present the results at conferences and publish in a scientific journal! Our findings are also featured in popular media so that even more people can learn about our research. Through this process we hope to share with others what we have learned so that together we can improve our knowledge of how children learn and think! Do you have any questions? If you are interested in learning more you can email the Social Learning Lab at sociallearninglab@stanford.edu, or visit our website: sll.stanford.edu In addition to Social Learning Lab, our JMZ space features researchers from these labs in the Department of Psychology at Stanford: Language and Cognition Lab - langcog.stanford.edu Markman Lab - markmanlab.stanford.edu Social Concepts Lab - scl.stanford.edu Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo info@friendsjmz.org | www.friendsjmz.org Connect with us Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo | 1451 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by info@friendsjmz.org powered by Try email marketing for free today! From:tom tomvlasic.com To:Council, City Cc:Draeger, Teri Subject:Southgate Parking Permits Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 12:09:51 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from tom@tomvlasic.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council members, I want to commend Teri Draeger for her help in getting me my parking permits for Southgate. This year as was the case the last time we could actually get permits, the Ducan Solutions process was not!!! I could recount the issues, but needless to say my frustration was relieved by Teri's help and "public service." She is an asset and I was glad she was around to help resolve the problems. Treat her well and other staff members like her. They deserve your support and respect. Sincerely, Tom Vlasic Southgate From:k jm To:Council, City Subject:Hate Crime Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 11:49:55 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kjm1445@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, Some of you who drive down Alma may have seen the Ukraine flags I had displayed on my property from first day of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Last night someone entered my property, ripped down the flags - filled with human sh*t then rolled up and put further inside my property. This is a despicable HATE CRIME. That is happened here in Palo Alto is so disappointing... Regards, K Moreau From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Keeping things from the public trumps transparency in town | An Alternative View | Diana Diamond | Palo Alto Online | Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 10:55:52 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please read Diana Diamond's blog and the comments to it. Substantive responses to the points raised would be appreciated. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/2022/04/05/keeping-things-from-the-public-trumps- transparency-in-town?utm_source=express-2022-04- 07&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express#comment_85316 View your plaque From:Kelly Nolan To:Council, City Subject:Ready for delivery – your press plaque for > Avenidas honors seven with ‘Lifetimes of Achievement’ awards. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Date:Thursday, April 7, 2022 7:31:03 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hello Ladoris See, touch, hold and feel your plaque without paying My team here thinks I've finally lost my marbles but I'm deadly serious about the offer I'm about to make you. I want to send you your press article mounted on a plaque for a 30 day free inspection. There is no obligation to buy, no risk for you. I'm offering you this because I believe you can only appreciate the plaque's quality by holding and touching it. Make up your own mind when you've the plaque in your hands. If you don't love it and don't want to keep it, just tell us, rip up the invoice and we'll arrange and pay for return shipping. So there's no hassle for you. If you decide to keep it the lucinda plaque costs $219. Alternatively, call us on 888-239-5731 to get straight through to someone who can help. I'm keeping this free inspection offer open for the next 7 days. Celebrating your great news, Kind regards, Kelly Nolan Account Manager That’s Great News PS. There is no catch, we've delivered over 200,000 plaques to happy customers. It only takes a minute to confirm having the plaque delivered to you before you decide if you wish to buy. UNCONDITIONAL 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE ON ALL PLAQUES A full refund if you don’t like the plaque. 4.8 Overall Satisfaction Rating That's Great News is not affiliated with PALO ALTO WEEKLY Article Avenidas honors seven with ‘Lifetimes of Achievement’ awards. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Featured Ladoris Cordell, Palo Alto City Council Published Mar 04, 2022 View my plaque That’s Great News, 900 Northrop Rd., Wallingford, CT 06492. All Rights Reserved. Call Us: 888-239-5731 and reference Customer ID (11775674) Free Inspection T&Cs i) Available on plaque purchases under $400 ii) All orders shipped to Canada must be paid with Credit Card. All Prices are in USD If you don’t want an alert when you’re featured in the press or our offers please unsubscribe to avoid us contacting you again. View email online. {"iid":"34694565","cid":"11775674","oid":"6508535135"} From:Aram James To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:ebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Planning Commission; Foley, Emily; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Transportation; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; paul bundy; Joyce Beattie; Jasmina Bojic; linda lopez- otero; Mary Gallagher; Carol Lamont; Debbie Mytels; Sunita de Tourreil; Dave Price; Paul George @ PPJC; Sandy Perry-HCA; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:Re: 123 Sherman-Low-mod income -HOUSING, NOT OFFICES Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 3:47:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Roberta, You have always always been down for the cause. So proud to know you. Keep on Keeping on! aram On Apr 6, 2022, at 2:51 PM, Robin <twoloyal@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Beloved Roberta, Thank you for your dedication. Love you very, very, very much. Robin On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 02:24:35 PM PDT, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: Dear Folks: We need LOW-Moderate Income HOUSING for the people who work here now. If you do a survey of your own city workers, and we (our Low-income Housing Committee) has done this informally), you will find that no one without a 6 figure salary can afford to live in the city in which they serve. It is time for all the city officials and their committees to bite the bullet and seek out funding for such affordable housing. Waiting for this city to serve ALL of its workers and residents, Roberta Ahlquist From:Tina Kuan To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja Street School Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 3:15:58 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from tinakuan@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I am writing to express my fervent support of Castilleja School. Thank you for your service regarding the Castilleja project. It is a surprisingly contentious issue considering that both sides of this debate want the same thing, fewer cars in the neighborhood. Castilleja has done that in two ways: 1. By reducing daily trips to campus by 25–31% 2. By submitting plans to move street parking below ground. As far as reducing trips, the school will continue to do this after the CUP is approved because in order to enroll more students, daily trips cannot rise above current levels. The good work the school has done on TDM will only become more comprehensive. The ARB supports this, as evidenced by their recommendation for a parking structure that meets the maximum number of car spots allotted by code. And as far as moving street parking below ground, you have five options before you. All of them move parking off neighborhood streets. All of them shift part of the drop off and pick up below ground. All of them reduce the overall size from the original proposal. All of them preserve trees. You can’t go wrong. Just select a plan and make a recommendation to City Council. It is well beyond time for this excellent project to be approved. The ARB voted for Option D (accomodating a larger underground structure of 69 cars) with the garage design of option E so that an additional oak tree could be saved. Sounds like a great compromise to me. Please support this spirit of compromise and bring this years-long process to a successful conclusion. Respectfully, Tina Kuan 2351 Emerson Street From:Robin To:ebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Planning Commission; Foley, Emily; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Transportation; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Aram James; paul bundy; Joyce Beattie; Jasmina Bojic; linda lopez-otero; Mary Gallagher; Carol Lamont; Debbie Mytels; Sunita de Tourreil; Dave Price; Paul George @ PPJC; Sandy Perry-HCA; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:Re: 123 Sherman-Low-mod income -HOUSING, NOT OFFICES Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 2:51:10 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from twoloyal@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Beloved Roberta, Thank you for your dedication. Love you very, very, very much. Robin On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 02:24:35 PM PDT, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: Dear Folks: We need LOW-Moderate Income HOUSING for the people who work here now. If you do a survey of your own city workers, and we (our Low-income Housing Committee) has done this informally), you will find that no one without a 6 figure salary can afford to live in the city in which they serve. It is time for all the city officials and their committees to bite the bullet and seek out funding for such affordable housing. Waiting for this city to serve ALL of its workers and residents, Roberta Ahlquist From:Roberta Ahlquist To:ebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Planning Commission; Foley, Emily; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Transportation; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Aram James; paul bundy; Joyce Beattie; Jasmina Bojic; linda lopez-otero; Mary Gallagher; Carol Lamont; Debbie Mytels; Sunita de Tourreil; Dave Price; Paul George @ PPJC; Sandy Perry-HCA Subject:123 Sherman-Low-mod income -HOUSING, NOT OFFICES Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 2:24:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Folks: We need LOW-Moderate Income HOUSING for the people who work here now. If you do a survey of your own city workers, and we (our Low-income Housing Committee) has done this informally), you will find that no one without a 6 figure salary can afford to live in the city in which they serve. It is time for all the city officials and their committees to bite the bullet and seek out funding for such affordable housing. Waiting for this city to serve ALL of its workers and residents, Roberta Ahlquist From:Aram James To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:mark weiss; Peter Wegner; Palo Alto Free Press; Jonsen, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Linda Jolley; eli.walsh@baycitynews.com; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Planning Commission; Council, City; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Dave Price; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Raj Subject:Thanks to city council member Greer Stone for taking a heroic stand for our First Amendment rights and for our constitution Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:59:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Rebecca, Extremely well said. Thank you Greer Stone for standing up for our constitution our First Amendment and for the critical need for a robust press in a true democracy. Aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2022, at 11:31 AM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: I join Aram's shout-out regarding the knowledge, integrity, and courage displayed by Council Member Greer Stone during the deliberations about police encryption of historically public police radio transmissions, and I condemn the condescending and trivializing way his proposals were treated by others on the Council. Palo Alto leadership take note: sometimes the lone voice sings most on key. Best, Rebecca On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:22 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mark, Like to see the Russian disinformation and anti-Semitic info you refer to —might want to raise the issue at next Monday’s city council meeting or the upcoming HRC meeting. I agree I tend to have more faith in Josh Becker and his pending SB 1000 then the majority of the city council who last night fell prey to Robert Jonson’s on going propaganda campaign against police transparency of all types …including continuing with his insistence on encrypting police radio traffic here in Palo Alto. The only council member who stood up to Jonsen’s double speak and in support of our first amendment and constitution was Greer Stone. Although I don’t always agree with Greer he is by far the most consistent stand of our city council members on all issues related to our constitution rights. aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:51 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: For what it’s worth looks like Parham has set his email to not take messages from anybody; Forgot to say I’m very concerned with anti-semitic and Russian disinformation being put on car windshields in my neighborhood; And concerned about fentanyl overdose like the one that happened right in front of me on Friday April 1, no fooling: It’s listed on the city’s website as “12:48 PM medical back up“ whereas i phoned it in at 12:28; maybe that means they sent a firetruck then another fire truck then the cops and an ambulance something like that. The police who I spoke with identified the man based on our saying what we thought his name was but did not really investigate to my observation who gave this man the dangerous drug. Besides saying something like “hey anybody know who gave this guy the dangerous drug?” I also think it’s weird or problematic or concerning that I went down there yesterday to find there was no lobby open, went down again today to find I would have to come back in an hour, and then went online and found what I was looking for or partially; And yesterday I went into the elevator to go up to the seventh floor only to find the elevator set to not go anywhere which again find you own metaphor. I tend to believe Josh Becker more than staff and what is possible with encryption and in all these cases we have too many settings and not enough direct actions. Mbw Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:38 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: Well let’s start with the fact that I am sitting in a café in Palo Alto with a dog in my lap talking into a handheld communication device which mediates my attempts to communicate with either of my friends Aram or Rebecca; what does that tell you about our attempt to self-govern self- police or just be human, stay human? Regarding transparency I’m not sure it is necessary nor sufficient; I work in the arts, permit this analogy: Peter Wegner has an amazing piece of art at the new business school it is a color scoreboard with mechanical and digital action. Shortly after installation they stuck a big piece of plastic around it because people were touching it ruining the sensitive mechanism; problem fixed yet you don’t hear the satisfying click click click. I’m saying if transparentcy means the police stand behind bulletproof plastic and speak to us through Doohickey‘s and devices it’s not the same as being part of us. Dennis Burns who I initially objected to and then realized I was wrong mentioned agent Robert Parham to me; we are both Dartmouth grads; unlike me he is also a football player rugby player Wall Street banker and served our country. To Dennis or to Robert himself I said I felt he was a candidate for chief, city manager and or mayor. He was wrong about the mural but I’ve never heard his rationale. I was threatened with physical violence by not CeceCarpio but a different muralist. I still think the BLM mural on Hamilton Street is one of the cultural highlights of my 28 years here working in the arts and community. I think we should do more with Stuart Robertson a Stanford grad. If agent Robert Parham does not respond to emails from citizens you might have a chance to reach him by phone or voicemail or see him on his watch. I’ve only met him a couple times. Thank you all for your service to our community Mark Weiss By the way I still want to know why Mr. Wegner’s suite of works for the new police station was defunded or reduced most glaring omission is the LED elements; and no one reading this has a kinder gardener who could’ve created the same elements Cc: Peter Wegner Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:50 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Folks: Yes, to my knowledge Officer Robert Parham is still with the PAPD. Parham a real hero NOT is one of the 5-6 officers who sued the city- —recently dismissed lawsuit -claiming the BLM mural caused him distress, constituted discrimination, job harassment etc. I know —-or hope my memory is correct—- but believe Mark Weiss —my good friend — knows officer Robert Parham and both attended Dartmouth. Really!!! Maybe Mark can weigh in on this officer. And of course let Parham jump in. I have never heard a good thing about Parham but maybe someone has a few positive things to say… I’ve been sending a wide variety of cop related, canine related, bad cop stories, killer cop stories, police brutality stories… copied to Parham and other members of the BLM law suit police complainers . Also tried to hit up Nick Enberg notorious canine torture case personality ( victim Joel Alejo) and Julie Tannock —the second member of the canine team—may still be out on injury leave. Not sure if her injury was canine related. Officer Tannock is also copied in on this message case she wants to weigh in. Ok, let the conversation start….aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio- encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3- 5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting- police-abuse-community- action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Aram James Cc:mark weiss; Peter Wegner; Palo Alto Free Press; Jonsen, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Linda Jolley; eli.walsh@baycitynews.com; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Planning Commission; Council, City; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Dave Price Subject:Re: Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:31:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. I join Aram's shout-out regarding the knowledge, integrity, and courage displayed by Council Member Greer Stone during the deliberations about police encryption of historically public police radio transmissions, and I condemn the condescending and trivializing way his proposals were treated by others on the Council. Palo Alto leadership take note: sometimes the lone voice sings most on key. Best, Rebecca On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:22 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mark, Like to see the Russian disinformation and anti-Semitic info you refer to —might want to raise the issue at next Monday’s city council meeting or the upcoming HRC meeting. I agree I tend to have more faith in Josh Becker and his pending SB 1000 then the majority of the city council who last night fell prey to Robert Jonson’s on going propaganda campaign against police transparency of all types …including continuing with his insistence on encrypting police radio traffic here in Palo Alto. The only council member who stood up to Jonsen’s double speak and in support of our first amendment and constitution was Greer Stone. Although I don’t always agree with Greer he is by far the most consistent stand of our city council members on all issues related to our constitution rights. aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:51 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: For what it’s worth looks like Parham has set his email to not take messages from anybody; Forgot to say I’m very concerned with anti-semitic and Russian disinformation being put on car windshields in my neighborhood; And concerned about fentanyl overdose like the one that happened right in front of me on Friday April 1, no fooling: It’s listed on the city’s website as “12:48 PM medical back up“ whereas i phoned it in at 12:28; maybe that means they sent a firetruck then another fire truck then the cops and an ambulance something like that. The police who I spoke with identified the man based on our saying what we thought his name was but did not really investigate to my observation who gave this man the dangerous drug. Besides saying something like “hey anybody know who gave this guy the dangerous drug?” I also think it’s weird or problematic or concerning that I went down there yesterday to find there was no lobby open, went down again today to find I would have to come back in an hour, and then went online and found what I was looking for or partially; And yesterday I went into the elevator to go up to the seventh floor only to find the elevator set to not go anywhere which again find you own metaphor. I tend to believe Josh Becker more than staff and what is possible with encryption and in all these cases we have too many settings and not enough direct actions. Mbw Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:38 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: Well let’s start with the fact that I am sitting in a café in Palo Alto with a dog in my lap talking into a handheld communication device which mediates my attempts to communicate with either of my friends Aram or Rebecca; what does that tell you about our attempt to self-govern self- police or just be human, stay human? Regarding transparency I’m not sure it is necessary nor sufficient; I work in the arts, permit this analogy: Peter Wegner has an amazing piece of art at the new business school it is a color scoreboard with mechanical and digital action. Shortly after installation they stuck a big piece of plastic around it because people were touching it ruining the sensitive mechanism; problem fixed yet you don’t hear the satisfying click click click. I’m saying if transparentcy means the police stand behind bulletproof plastic and speak to us through Doohickey‘s and devices it’s not the same as being part of us. Dennis Burns who I initially objected to and then realized I was wrong mentioned agent Robert Parham to me; we are both Dartmouth grads; unlike me he is also a football player rugby player Wall Street banker and served our country. To Dennis or to Robert himself I said I felt he was a candidate for chief, city manager and or mayor. He was wrong about the mural but I’ve never heard his rationale. I was threatened with physical violence by not CeceCarpio but a different muralist. I still think the BLM mural on Hamilton Street is one of the cultural highlights of my 28 years here working in the arts and community. I think we should do more with Stuart Robertson a Stanford grad. If agent Robert Parham does not respond to emails from citizens you might have a chance to reach him by phone or voicemail or see him on his watch. I’ve only met him a couple times. Thank you all for your service to our community Mark Weiss By the way I still want to know why Mr. Wegner’s suite of works for the new police station was defunded or reduced most glaring omission is the LED elements; and no one reading this has a kinder gardener who could’ve created the same elements Cc: Peter Wegner Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:50 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Folks: Yes, to my knowledge Officer Robert Parham is still with the PAPD. Parham a real hero NOT is one of the 5-6 officers who sued the city- —recently dismissed lawsuit -claiming the BLM mural caused him distress, constituted discrimination, job harassment etc. I know —-or hope my memory is correct—- but believe Mark Weiss —my good friend — knows officer Robert Parham and both attended Dartmouth. Really!!! Maybe Mark can weigh in on this officer. And of course let Parham jump in. I have never heard a good thing about Parham but maybe someone has a few positive things to say… I’ve been sending a wide variety of cop related, canine related, bad cop stories, killer cop stories, police brutality stories… copied to Parham and other members of the BLM law suit police complainers . Also tried to hit up Nick Enberg notorious canine torture case personality ( victim Joel Alejo) and Julie Tannock — the second member of the canine team—may still be out on injury leave. Not sure if her injury was canine related. Officer Tannock is also copied in on this message case she wants to weigh in. Ok, let the conversation start….aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio- encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3- 5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting- police-abuse-community-action- manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Rebecca EisenbergTo:Council, City; Planning Commission; Foley, Emily; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; TransportationCc:Aram James; Diana Diamond; Mark Petersen-Perez; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Palo Alto Forward; Rebecca Sanders; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Reckdahl, KeithSubject:Corrected: Why is the Planning Department approving a large office complex next door to housing?Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:18:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. (With apologies; redundant paragraphs removed) Dear Jodie, Emily, Planning Dept, Planning Commission and City Council: Last night I attended an official Palo Alto Planning Dept meeting to discuss a proposed large commercial office development at 123 Sherman, next door to Palo Alto Central Condominiums and abutting the train tracks. See City of Palo Alto's project page here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/123-Sherman-Avenue-21PLN-00172 123 Sherman formerly was used for residential purposes. The site's only neighbor on the same side of the street, Palo Alto Central, is a relatively new, attractive, higher-end condominium development whose homes sell for $1 - $2 million. (See https://www.sanjosecondomania.com/condos/PALO-ALTO-CENTRAL.php) Palo Alto Central homes are lovely, spacious, and many units enjoy views of the foothills. At 123 Sherman next door which is the combination of 4 large parcels, the applicant intends to place a large three-story commercial office building, with two stories of office, and a bottom story of "retail" (despite the plethora of empty retail storefronts on California Ave.). Below is what I learned (either at the meeting, or by having to do my own research afterwards because my questions were not answered at the meeting): 1.Although located in a mixed residential/commercial zone, 123 Sherman has almost entirely been used for Residential purposes, according to the records I could locate. As such, the applicant purchased and demolished formerly-existing homes, taking homes off the market and exacerbating the housing shortage. See Zillow's records of the location: https://www.zillow.com/palo-alto-ca/condos/?searchQueryState=%7B%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%22123%20Sherman%20Ave%20Palo%20Alto%2C%20CA%2094306%22%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22west%22%3A-122.14480251073837%2C%22east%22%3A-122.13863343000412%2C%22south%22%3A37.42635370801266%2C%22north%22%3A37.429633892374426%7D%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A26374%2C%22regionType%22%3A6%7D%5D%2C%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22globalrelevanceex%22%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22sf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22mf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22manu%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22land%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22tow%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22apa%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A18%7D If that long URL does not work, go to Zillow.com, search for "123 Sherman Ave., Palo Alto" and by clicking on the various lots you will see the homes that the developer purchased in and around 2020. I'm going to estimate that 10 homes were bulldozed, which I think is a conservative estimate. 2. Despite the fact that the developer purchased homes, and intends to use the land for commercial purposes, the City Staff allowed the applicant to go through the streamlined ministerial process, apparently -- which sounds a lot like what happened with the President Hotel. Is that City Council's intention for projects where developers buy homes and convert them to offices? Is the ministerial process intended to apply in these situations for developers who purchased residential property? 3. According to the developer's plans submitted to the Palo Alto Planning Department, this new office building will house up to 721 workers, consisting of (all these numbers taken from the plans submitted- https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-projects/123-sherman-ave/c3-123-sherman-2501-park-plan.pdf ): - 195 occupants on the first floor (not including the fact that retail occupants will come and go, causing numerous car trips);- 255 occupants on the second floor; and- 271 occupants on the third floor. 4. According to the developer's plans submitted to the Palo Alto Planning Department, this project will create 68,674 square feet of office space in addition to 76,899 square feet of underground parking - creating by combining 4 adjacent large parcels, home to numerous large structures previously. 5. Yet, Jodie and Emily insisted that the building fell within Palo Alto's city-wide cap on new office space of 50,000 square feet, even including all other new office projects - e.g. potentially at Town & Country, possibly near where REI used to be located, and at all the other office locations that are sprouting up on El Camino, in Ventura, in South Palo Alto, near University, and elsewhere. How does that make sense? 6. Using the developer's own numbers, 123 Sherman could produce as many as 721 new jobs, after taking approximately 10 (or more - it's impossible to know at this point) homes off the market. That is a net impact of 731 new homes needed in Palo Alto due to this project - using the developer's submitted numbers. 7. Those 721 commercial occupants of 123 Sherman will cause 1442 new commutes through Palo Alto streets on a residential block located on the only bike boulevard in that entire area of Palo Alto. 8. When asked about the net impact of this office construction, City Staff again insisted that creating 721 new jobs and 1442 car trips down a residential bike boulevard is "within the Comp Plan." 9. When asked about safety measures for trucks on the Park Ave Bike Boulevard, which young children use to bike to and from school, Emily or Jodie responded that "this will be looked into." Meanwhile, children on bikes are killed far too often in our community - including as recently as 2 weeks ago in Mountain View and 2 years ago, just a few blocks away, in Palo Alto. If a bike boulevard is not protected from commercial traffic, what streets will be? Isn't protecting bike boulevards for children part of the comprehensive plan? 10. Regarding the fact that this project could increase the jobs-to-housing imbalance by up to 731 (including homes lost and jobs created), City staff insisted that "we have enough housing in production." That is news to anyone who is following the Housing Element process. 11. Neighbors were given only approximately 10 minutes to speak. They were unsurprisingly universally opposed to this project, and none of their concerns have been addressed. Their concerns stated at the meeting include: (A) environmental hazards caused by two-story basement so close to the toxic plume of the HP Superfund site; (B) issues with waste management - garbage will be sitting outside for a week awaiting pickup; (C) blockage of light: while residents may not have strong rights to a view, they absolutely have rights to light, and this project both blocks light as well as causes light pollution; (D) parking issues and traffic: this is a *residential* block that never before has had to contend with a large office-only commercial development; (E) vague plans to "provide train passes" to employees that have never reduced traffic in the past; (F)the applicant's drawings and diagrams are factually incorrect -- e,g presenting the neighborhood as commercial when it is residential on that block, and also intentionally omitting balconies and windows of the condominiums next door, which are only a few feet away from this proposed commercial office building. City Staff had no response to these concerns, and did not instruct the applicant to correct its drawings and designs (!). 12. Even worse, Jodie or Emily insisted that an environmental review would be BAD for neighbors, even though obviously neighbors disagree and common sense dictates otherwise. 13. Given that currently, commercial developments are the only means of funding the City's affordable housing reserves, I asked Jodie and Emily how this commercial-only development will assist with the creation of homes to house the 721 jobs created there. I expected to hear in response how much the developer would be paying in impact fees. Instead, Jodie denied that the addition of 721 new jobs would impact our housing needs (?). I remain curious about how much money this project would generate in impact fees, and if those fees would be sufficient to cover the housing needs created by the addition of 721 new jobs on a residential street. 14. When asked if the North Ventura neighborhood has been consulted about this office development, City Staff did not respond. 123 Sherman is just a few short blocks away from where Ventura officially begins. The influx of 721 new commuters will impact them terribly, so I cc'd a couple North Ventura folks on this email to make sure they know about this and have an opportunity to state their opinions before the applicant continues to expend money on it. 15. When the city was asked if they tried to convince the applicant to build housing there instead, given that its only close neighbor is housing, and that it is literally abutting the train tracks -- therefore in the EXACT location that we are supposed to prioritize for housing -- Emily and Jodie did not answer. The applicant did try to answer, however, and said something about housing requiring "density" -- even though, given the same amount of space, offices are always more dense than housing. For example, in an office large enough to employ 721 workers, the developer could be providing 20 or 30 nice, larger townhouses, which would mesh well with the condominium development next door. 20 townhouses would create zero to 40 commutes at most every day - likely less, given the proximity of the train -- as opposed to 1442 commutes to/fromthis office complex. (We easily could predict the traffic impact of using this site for housing by looking into the traffic impact of Palo Alto Central next door.) 16. When asked for any precedent of placing an office complex a few feet away from a residential building, Emily, Jodie and the applicant all used an example that they made up. Specifically, they claimed that an office building was allowed to go up next to the senior living facility on El Camino near Oregon, but that is a RESIDENTIAL building, not office. (Could the Planning Department actually not know this, or were they intentionally lying? Either is troubling). Additionally, they made some reference to Fry's, even though they should know, as City Planners, that the Fry's site is zoned RESIDENTIAL. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/11/departure-of-frys-electronics-leaves-palo-alto-with-a-zoning-dilemma . How can we expect appropriate results from a Planning Department that misstates its own zoning code andmischaracterizes an apartment building as an office building? In sum, the meeting about 123 Sherman raised far more questions than it answered. Most stakeholders were absent, neighbors did not have adequate time to speak, the City was not able to gauge the actual opposition to this project through this call, the City's answers ranged from factual errors to nonexistent, and the applicant was misled about their chances of succeeding with their project. We see, over and over, the problems created when applicants are given unreasonable and false expectations by City Staff. It leads to huge and costly problems for the City. The President Hotel is a perfect example of this, as is Castilleja. Applicants need to be informed of their chances of success from square one. Also disturbing about this project is that the 123 Sherman site is IDEAL for housing, per the Housing Element priorities. It is; 1) currently unoccupied; (2) next door to a multi-family housing development, so wholly in line with the neighborhood and (3) abutting the train station, and therefore could not be any closer to public transportation. Most of all is the troubling notion that, in a city where many residents object to the addition of multi-family housing near them, our City Staff had no hesitation in approving a large office complex next door to housing on a residential block. Do they believe that residents would be fine with 721 office workers moving in next door? Would you be okay with an office serving 721 workers built next door to you? This project is problematic and needs to be rejected in its current form before the applicant is forced to spend too much money on a development that clearly violates the priororities of our city, and would inevitably lead to lawsuits from neighbors. The professional and high integrity thing to do would be to inform the applicant now before they are forced to spend - and waste - millions of dollars on a project that has little chance for success given its innumerable problems.\ Given that I addressed this email to the individuals who have the power to clarify the building and zoning codes, I hope I don't hear "we don't have a choice" in response. You have a choice - especially if you act soon rather than allow this to go on for too long. One way to act now is to issue a clarification that the ministerial process cannot apply to residential property that developers plan to use for commercial purposes, given Palo Alto's urgent need for housing, and the already overwhelming imbalance between jobs and housing. I'm sure there are other ways to stop this train before it leaves the station as well. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss. Best, Rebecca. 415-235-8078 Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq.Principal & FounderNetskink Positive Impact InvestmentsPrivate Client Legal Serviceswww.linkedin.com/in/eisenbergrebecca@privateclientlegal.com415-235-8078 From:Rebecca EisenbergTo:Council, City; Planning Commission; Foley, Emily; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; TransportationCc:Aram James; Diana Diamond; Mark Petersen-Perez; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Palo Alto Forward; Rebecca Sanders; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Reckdahl, KeithSubject:Why is the Planning Department approving a large office complex next door to housing?Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:05:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Jodie, Emily, Planning Dept, Planning Commission and City Council: Last night I attended an official Palo Alto Planning Dept meeting to discuss a proposed large commercial office development at 123 Sherman, next door to Palo Alto Central Condominiums and abutting the train tracks. See City of Palo Alto's project page here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/123-Sherman-Avenue-21PLN-00172 123 Sherman formerly was used for residential purposes. The site's only neighbor on the same side of the street, Palo Alto Central, is a relatively new, attractive, higher-end condominium development whose homes sell for $1 - $2 million. (See https://www.sanjosecondomania.com/condos/PALO-ALTO-CENTRAL.php) Palo Alto Central homes are lovely, spacious, and many units enjoy views of the foothills. At 123 Sherman next door which is the combination of 4 large parcels, the applicant intends to place a large three-story commercial office building, with two stories of office, and a bottom story of "retail" (despite the plethora of empty retail storefronts on California Ave.). Below is what I learned (either at the meeting, or by having to do my own research afterwards because my questions were not answered at the meeting): 1.Although located in a mixed residential/commercial zone, 123 Sherman has almost entirely been used for Residential purposes, according to the records I could locate. As such, the applicant purchased and demolished formerly-existing homes, taking homes off the market and exacerbating the housing shortage. See Zillow's records of the location: https://www.zillow.com/palo-alto-ca/condos/?searchQueryState=%7B%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%22123%20Sherman%20Ave%20Palo%20Alto%2C%20CA%2094306%22%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22west%22%3A-122.14480251073837%2C%22east%22%3A-122.13863343000412%2C%22south%22%3A37.42635370801266%2C%22north%22%3A37.429633892374426%7D%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A26374%2C%22regionType%22%3A6%7D%5D%2C%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22globalrelevanceex%22%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22sf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22mf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22manu%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22land%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22tow%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22apa%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A18%7D If that long URL does not work, go to Zillow.com, search for "123 Sherman Ave., Palo Alto" and by clicking on the various lots you will see the homes that the developer purchased in and around 2020. I'm going to estimate that 10 homes were bulldozed, which I think is a conservative estimate. 2. Despite the fact that the developer purchased homes, and intends to use the land for commercial purposes, the City Staff allowed the applicant to go through the streamlined ministerial process, apparently -- which sounds a lot like what happened with the President Hotel. Is that City Council's intention for projects where developers buy homes and convert them to offices? Is the ministerial process intended to apply in these situations for developers who purchased residential property? 3. According to the developer's plans submitted to the Palo Alto Planning Department, this new office building will house up to 721 workers, consisting of (all these numbers taken from the plans submitted- https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/new-development-projects/123-sherman-ave/c3-123-sherman-2501-park-plan.pdf ): - 195 occupants on the first floor (not including the fact that retail occupants will come and go, causing numerous car trips);- 255 occupants on the second floor; and- 271 occupants on the third floor. 4. According to the developer's plans submitted to the Palo Alto Planning Department, this project will create 68,674 square feet of office space in addition to 76,899 square feet of underground parking.. Yet Jodie and Emily insisted that the building fell within Palo Alto's city-wide cap on new office space of 50,000 square feet, even including all other new office projects - e.g. potentially at Town & Country, possibly near where REI used to be located, and at all the other office locations that are sprouting up on El Camino, in Ventura, in South Palo Alto, near University, and elsewhere. How does that make sense? 5. Using the developer's own numbers, 123 Sherman could produce as many as 721 new jobs, after taking approximately 10 (or more - it's impossible to know at this point) homes off the market. That is a net impact of 731 new homes needed in Palo Alto due to this project - using the developer's submitted numbers. 6. Those 721 commercial occupants of 123 Sherman will cause 1442 new commutes through Palo Alto streets on a residential block located on the only bike boulevard in that entire area of Palo Alto. 7. When asked about the net impact of this office construction, City Staff again insisted that creating 721 new jobs and 1442 car trips down a residential bike boulevard is "within the Comp Plan." 8. When asked about safety measures for trucks on the Park Ave Bike Boulevard, which young children use to bike to and from school, Emily or Jodie responded that "this will be looked into." Meanwhile, children on bikes are killed far too often in our community - including as recently as 2 weeks ago in Mountain View and 2 years ago, just a few blocks away, in Palo Alto. If a bike boulevard is not protected from commercial traffic, what streets will be? Isn't protecting bike boulevards for children part of the comprehensive plan? 9. Regarding the fact that this project could increase the jobs-to-housing imbalance by up to 731 (including homes lost and jobs created), City staff insisted that "we have enough housing in production." That is news to anyone who is following the Housing Element process. 10. Neither the City Staff nor the applicant provided an estimate of how many square feet of office space will be created by this development (this seems like an easy question, right?), despite being asked numerous times. Given the size of the lots and the structures that were previously there, it is easy to assume that each floor of office and/or retail could be 80,000 square feet. (This project combined FOUR large parcels and was previously occupied by many structures!), possibly 100,000 square feet a floor - 3 total floors. 11.Despite the huge size of the combined four parcels, City Staff concluded that this office development would not be limited by the City's 50,000 square foot of new office space limit. They insisted on this even though they admitted that they do not know how many other new office spaces are in the works. They were unaware that as much as 20% (approx) of Town & Country may be converted to office if the developer applies this year. They admitted that they did not look into the status of other proposed office space developments. 12. Neighbors were given only approximately 10 minutes to speak. They were unsurprisingly universally opposed to this project, and none of their concerns have been addressed. Their concerns stated at the meeting include: (A) environmental hazards caused by two-story basement so close to the toxic plume of the HP Superfund site; (B) issues with waste management - garbage will be sitting outside for a week awaiting pickup; (C) blockage of light: while residents may not have strong rights to a view, they absolutely have rights to light, and this project both blocks light as well as causes light pollution; (D) parking issues and traffic: this is a *residential* block that never before has had to contend with a large office-only commercial development; (E) vague plans to "provide train passes" to employees that have never reduced traffic in the past; (F)the applicant's drawings and diagrams are factually incorrect -- e,g presenting the neighborhood as commercial when it is residential on that block, and also intentionally omitting balconies and windows of the condominiums next door, which are only a few feet away from this proposed commercial office building. City Staff had no response to these concerns, and did not instruct the applicant to correct its drawings and designs (!). Even worse, Jodie or Emily insisted that an environmental review would be BAD for neighbors, even though obviously neighbors disagree and common sense dictates otherwise. 13. Given that currently, commercial developments are the only means of funding the City's affordable housing reserves, I asked Jodie and Emily how this commercial-only development will assist with the creation of homes to house the 721 jobs created there. I expected to hear in response how much the developer would be paying in impact fees. Instead, Jodie denied that the addition of 721 new jobs would impact our housing needs (?). I remain curious about how much money this project would generate in impact fees, and if those fees would be sufficient to cover the housing needs created by the addition of 721 new jobs on a residential street. 14. When asked if the North Ventura neighborhood has been consulted about this office development, City Staff did not respond. 123 Sherman is just a few short blocks away from where Ventura officially begins. The influx of 721 new commuters will impact them terribly, so I cc'd a couple North Ventura folks on this email to make sure they know about this and have an opportunity to state their opinions before the applicant continues to expend money on it. 15. When the city was asked if they tried to convince the applicant to build housing there instead, given that it's only close neighbor is housing, and that it is literally abutting the train tracks -- therefore in the EXACT location that we are supposed to prioritize for housing -- Emily and Jodie did not answer. The applicant did try to answer, however, and said something about housing requiring "density" -- even though, given the same amount of space, offices are always more dense than housing. For example, in an office large enough to employ 721 workers, the developer could be providing 20 or 30 nice, larger townhouses, which would mesh well with the condominium development next door. 20 townhouses would create zero to 40 commutes at most every day - likely less, given the proximity of the train -- as opposed to 1442 commutesto/from this office complex. (We easily could predict the traffic impact of using this site for housing by looking into the traffic impact of Palo Alto Central next door.) 16. When asked for any precedent of placing an office complex a few feet away from a residential building, Emily, Jodie and the applicant all used an example that they made up. Specifically, they claimed that an office building was allowed to go up next to the senior living facility on El Camino near Oregon, but that is a RESIDENTIAL building, not office. (Could the Planning Department actually not know this, or were they intentionally lying? Either is troubling). Additionally, they made some reference to Fry's, even though they should know, as City Planners, that the Fry's site is zoned RESIDENTIAL. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/11/departure-of-frys-electronics-leaves-palo-alto-with-a-zoning-dilemma . How can we expect appropriate results from a Planning Department that misstates its own zoning code andmischaracterizes an apartment building as an office building? In sum, the meeting about 123 Sherman raised far more questions than it answered. Most stakeholders were absent, neighbors did not have adequate time to speak, the City was not able to gauge the actual opposition to this project through this call, the City's answers ranged from factual errors to nonexistent, and the applicant was misled about their chances of succeeding with their project. We see, over and over, the problems created when applicants are given unreasonable and false expectations by City Staff. It leads to huge and costly problems for the City. The President Hotel is a perfect example of this, as is Castilleja. Applicants need to be informed of their chances of success from square one. Also disturbing about this project is that the 123 Sherman site is IDEAL for housing, per the Housing Element priorities. It is; 1) currently unoccupied; (2) next door to a multi-family housing development, so wholly in line with the neighborhood and (3) abutting the train station, and therefore could not be any closer to public transportation. Most of all is the troubling notion that, in a city where many residents object to the addition of multi-family housing near them, our City Staff had no hesitation in approving a large office complex next door to housing on a residential block. Do they believe that residents would be fine with 721 office workers moving in next door? Would you be okay with an office serving 721 workers built next door to you? This project is problematic and needs to be rejected in its current form before the applicant is forced to spend too much money on a development that clearly violates the priororities of our city, and would inevitably lead to lawsuits from neighbors. The professional and high integrity thing to do would be to inform the applicant now before they are forced to spend - and waste - millions of dollars on a project that has little chance for success given its innumerable problems.\ Given that I addressed this email to the individuals who have the power to clarify the building and zoning codes, I hope I don't hear "we don't have a choice" in response. You have a choice - especially if you act soon rather than allow this to go on for too long. One way to act now is to issue a clarification that the ministerial process cannot apply to residential property that developers plan to use for commercial purposes, given Palo Alto's urgent need for housing, and the already overwhelming imbalance between jobs and housing. I'm sure there are other ways to stop this train before it leaves the station as well. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss. Best, Rebecca. 415-235-8078 Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq.Principal & FounderNetskink Positive Impact InvestmentsPrivate Client Legal Serviceswww.linkedin.com/in/eisenbergrebecca@privateclientlegal.com415-235-8078 From:Public Records Request Tracking System To:Public Records Request Tracking System Cc:Scheff, Lisa; Jonsen, Robert; Maloney, Con; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; James Aram; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Wagner, April; Council, City Subject:Re: Total number of Twitter accounts muted or blocked by Chief Robert Jonsen Date:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 5:51:26 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email frompublic.records.request.tracking@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Would like this to be independently Confirmed by a third-party, I simply do not trust chief Jonsen I believe him to be pathological…. Many thanks, Mark Sent from my iPad On Apr 6, 2022, at 5:52 AM, Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com> wrote: Must be received by: April 15th 2022, 6255 of the Government code Total number of twitter accounts muted or blocked See generally: California Public Records Act (Govt C && 6250-6268). The California Public Records Act was enacted in 1968 to protect public access to information about the conduct of state business by government officials. See: Government Code & 6253 re time limits for said disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. See: Writings as defined in California Public Records Section 6252(f) and Evidence Code & 250. If you believe I am not entitled to the requested records I am requesting that you justify your refusal within (ten) days in writing under & 6255 of the Government code. You may only refuse to give me these records if there is an express law prohibiting you from giving them to me. In the case of California State University of Fresno Assn, Inc. V Superior Court McClatchy Co. (2001) 90 Cal App.4th 810, the court held that "The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate "clear overbalance" on the side of confidentiality." Please provide any additional legal authority you would like me to be aware of re this request . Please feel free to contact me to discuss this request if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Mark Petersen-Perez Editor and Chief Palo Alto Police Reporting from Nicaragua ps. Our established algorithms will send out a notification if The request is beyond the 10 day mandated requirement. Sent from my iPad From:Aram James To:Roberta Ahlquist; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Winter Dellenbach; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; EPA Today; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Alison Cormack; Figueroa, Eric; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Tannock, Julie; Jay Boyarsky; Enberg, Nicholas Subject:Petition update · Julian"s dad (John Shipton) "Time is running out for Julian, his physical condition is shocking" · Change.org Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 11:28:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.change.org/p/free-julian-assange-before-it-s-too-late-stop-usa-extradition/u/30413047?cs_tk=AgfoSO_lYEMDAFQVVmIAAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvE2- X7vqzjFqAQkcmklWITc%3D&utm_campaign=a13733b017cc454fb456c15e677b5e4b&utm_content=initial_v0_5_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs Sent from my iPhone From:Lian Bi To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Casti Project Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 9:10:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi: My name is Lian Bi and I have lived in Palo Alto for xx years. I’d like to talk to you about the parking garage Castilleja is proposing. As a near neighbor, I support a parking option that moves more cars below grade and away from the Bike Boulevard. I would much prefer to walk along a car-free, tree-lined street. I understand that in March of 2021 the City Council suggested that the school should only move 50% of its allotted parking spots underground. This is an improvement, but since more can be moved below ground without impacts on trees and the environment, I believe that is the better path. Just two weeks ago, the ARB indicated that they’d prefer a parking garage that has more spots. 69 in fact. They concurred that a parking structure that removes as many cars from the street as possible is the best option. If I recall correctly, in January, you were debating between parking garage option D and E. The ARB suggests a blend of the two options - Option D below ground and Option E above which maximizes both tree preservation AND green space WHILE minimizing City street parking. The good news is that the ARB has already carved a path that you can continue following. Since you, the PTC, have already approved Castilleja’s plans, this shouldn’t be a difficult decision to approve again. The school has been compromising for years, the ARB agreed to a compromise with elements of Plan D and Plan E. I really appreciate this, and I sincerely hope you keep these points in mind as you discuss Castilleja’s latest revisions. With all of this compromise behind us, the time to approve is now. Best Lian Bi From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; fred beyerlein; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; clinton.olivier; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Mark Standriff; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Sally Thiessen Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell 4-5-22 UK Sec. of Health FINALLY acknowledges Vit. D3 Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 7:48:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. l ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:28 PM Subject: Dr. John Campbell 4-5-22 UK Sec. of Health FINALLY acknowledges Vit. D3 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Tuesday, April 5, 2022 To all- Dr. John Campbell for today. The Sect. for Health in the UK finally acknowledges the importance of Vitamin D3 in dealing with Covid. Dr. Campbell started on this topic in January, 2020!!!!! and he says so. The top health authorities in the UK are either incompetent or too busy out shopping to do their jobs. He has excoriated them repeatedly for this and he has excoriated their opposite numbers for it in the United States. STILL no change in guidance for Vitamin D3 levels in the United States, despite massive evidence that good levels of Vit. D help the pt. ward off the worst effects of Covid. Biden lets these incompetents continue at their lovely salaries, too lazy or too stupid to react to the evidence and change the official guidance for Vitamen D. That bungling I lay at the feet of Biden. It is costing lives in the US. At least the British government has the decency to admit that they have been wrong on this for a long time. When is our bungler in Chief going to crack down hard on the top public health officials in the US government and end their "Let 'em hang" policy wrt the American people. Vitamin D, UK deficiencies acknowledged - YouTube Today too, California's "Corporate diversity law" was ruled unconstitutional. The lawsuit argued that it violated the state's constitutional equal protection clause. This must be a dark day for the Nazis in Washington and Sacramento. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Jonsen, Robert; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Greer Stone; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Braden Cartwright; Enberg, Nicholas; Figueroa, Eric; City Mgr; Council, City; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Richard Konda; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Alison Cormack; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com Subject:Re: Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:57:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Well, he was well prepared…as he should have been. He was in the hot seat of public opinion. You know as well as do the art of a convincing argument. And the jury in this case city council member. I did not tune in…..But the jury was stacked was there an expert witness on the opposing side… That should have been the case and or at the very least those that were opposed should’ve been given equal time. Here’s my satire on the dave price, The price is wrong.. https://twitter.com/pafreepress/status/1511332947319734281?s=21&t=age1YqPogppZsQRZwhEuqw mark Sent from my iPad On Apr 5, 2022, at 2:26 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mark, Like to see the Russian disinformation and anti-Semitic info you refer to —might want to raise the issue at next Monday’s city council meeting or the upcoming HRC meeting. I agree I tend to have more faith in Josh Becker and his pending SB 1000 then the majority of the city council who last night fell prey to Robert Jonson’s on going propaganda campaign against police transparency of all types …including continuing with his insistence on encrypting police radio traffic here in Palo Alto. The only council member who stood up to Jonsen’s double speak and in support of our first amendment and constitution was Greer Stone. Although I don’t always agree with Greer he is by far the most consistent stand of our city council members on all issues related to our constitutional rights. aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:51 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: For what it’s worth looks like Parham has set his email to not take messages from anybody; Forgot to say I’m very concerned with anti-semitic and Russian disinformation being put on car windshields in my neighborhood; And concerned about fentanyl overdose like the one that happened right in front of me on Friday April 1, no fooling: It’s listed on the city’s website as “12:48 PM medical back up“ whereas i phoned it in at 12:28; maybe that means they sent a firetruck then another fire truck then the cops and an ambulance something like that. The police who I spoke with identified the man based on our saying what we thought his name was but did not really investigate to my observation who gave this man the dangerous drug. Besides saying something like “hey anybody know who gave this guy the dangerous drug?” I also think it’s weird or problematic or concerning that I went down there yesterday to find there was no lobby open, went down again today to find I would have to come back in an hour, and then went online and found what I was looking for or partially; And yesterday I went into the elevator to go up to the seventh floor only to find the elevator set to not go anywhere which again find you own metaphor. I tend to believe Josh Becker more than staff and what is possible with encryption and in all these cases we have too many settings and not enough direct actions. Mbw Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:38 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: Well let’s start with the fact that I am sitting in a café in Palo Alto with a dog in my lap talking into a handheld communication device which mediates my attempts to communicate with either of my friends Aram or Rebecca; what does that tell you about our attempt to self-govern self- police or just be human, stay human? Regarding transparency I’m not sure it is necessary nor sufficient; I work in the arts, permit this analogy: Peter Wegner has an amazing piece of art at the new business school it is a color scoreboard with mechanical and digital action. Shortly after installation they stuck a big piece of plastic around it because people were touching it ruining the sensitive mechanism; problem fixed yet you don’t hear the satisfying click click click. I’m saying if transparentcy means the police stand behind bulletproof plastic and speak to us through Doohickey‘s and devices it’s not the same as being part of us. Dennis Burns who I initially objected to and then realized I was wrong mentioned agent Robert Parham to me; we are both Dartmouth grads; unlike me he is also a football player rugby player Wall Street banker and served our country. To Dennis or to Robert himself I said I felt he was a candidate for chief, city manager and or mayor. He was wrong about the mural but I’ve never heard his rationale. I was threatened with physical violence by not CeceCarpio but a different muralist. I still think the BLM mural on Hamilton Street is one of the cultural highlights of my 28 years here working in the arts and community. I think we should do more with Stuart Robertson a Stanford grad. If agent Robert Parham does not respond to emails from citizens you might have a chance to reach him by phone or voicemail or see him on his watch. I’ve only met him a couple times. Thank you all for your service to our community Mark Weiss By the way I still want to know why Mr. Wegner’s suite of works for the new police station was defunded or reduced most glaring omission is the LED elements; and no one reading this has a kinder gardener who could’ve created the same elements Cc: Peter Wegner Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:50 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Folks: Yes, to my knowledge Officer Robert Parham is still with the PAPD. Parham a real hero NOT is one of the 5-6 officers who sued the city- —recently dismissed lawsuit -claiming the BLM mural caused him distress, constituted discrimination, job harassment etc. I know —-or hope my memory is correct—- but believe Mark Weiss —my good friend — knows officer Robert Parham and both attended Dartmouth. Really!!! Maybe Mark can weigh in on this officer. And of course let Parham jump in. I have never heard a good thing about Parham but maybe someone has a few positive things to say… I’ve been sending a wide variety of cop related, canine related, bad cop stories, killer cop stories, police brutality stories… copied to Parham and other members of the BLM law suit police complainers . Also tried to hit up Nick Enberg notorious canine torture case personality ( victim Joel Alejo) and Julie Tannock —the second member of the canine team—may still be out on injury leave. Not sure if her injury was canine related. Officer Tannock is also copied in on this message case she wants to weigh in. Ok, let the conversation start….aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now- depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio- encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3- 5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting- police-abuse- community-action- manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Lorraine Brown To:Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:51:58 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lobrown170@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council - While the Castilleja project is not yet before you, I would like to again assert my support for the school's proposal to modernize their campus, move parking below grade, and increase enrollment -- all while abiding closely to the conditions of approval. I made the points below at the PTC hearing last week, and I want to make sure you see them as well. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the project, including the option with more underground parking. Let's get those cars off the street and abide by the city's Comp Plan. First: I want to address the continued mischaracterization of the Castilleja project as an “expansion”. We need to be accurate in our language and call it what it is: a campus modernization, similar to what other schools in Palo Alto have completed. Asserting that a “Costco-sized” building will replace the current building on Kellogg Street ignores the FACT that the proposed plan (which has been redesigned several times AND approved by the ARB–twice) is SMALLER than what is there now. Please just look at the plans. The update is beautiful, it reflects the neighborhood aesthetic, and again, the massing is less than what we see today. It is not an expansion. Second: declaring that the school’s existing above grade square footage is significantly in excess of what code allows ignores the FACT that Castilleja, as a school, operates under a CUP. The Conditional Use Permit dictates the school’s permitted square footage (which is different from a residence because of a CUP). The standards are different for a school than they are for a residence. That’s a fact. The whole reason that the school must apply for a CUP is because it is NOT a residence and residential codes do not apply. Third: I hope we can finally put to rest questions about the FAR. Castilleja’s current FAR is 0.51 and the proposed FAR will be 0.48. I will say it again, this is not an expansion. The school has revised these plans again and again because the goalposts keep moving. It’s time for this to stop. Countless other Palo Altans like me believe that time has come for the project to be approved. The school has come forward with excellent mitigation measures, built-in consequences, and plans for compromise. Now you can do as you have been charged and focus on the facts and not be sidelined by misinformation. Last, one point about enrollment: I suspect the word “expansion” came in part from the school’s request to increase enrollment. It is imperative that people understand the facts: 540 is contingent on the success of the school’s TDM program and is ONLY attainable if car trips remain below 383 which, by the way, is significantly below the 440 trips in the school’s original proposal. Said differently, 540 is a goal but not a guarantee, fully contingent on the school’s TDM performance, and enforceable by measures in the CUP. The school may never meet that number, especially with the lower trip cap. These traffic mitigations are central to the entire proposal, and no “expansion” in enrollment will happen unless the traffic in the neighborhood is fully mitigated. Thank you, Lorraine Brown Walter Hays Drive From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Linda Jolley; Stump, Molly; Council, City; chuck jagoda; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; bob nunez Subject:NO Tasers from the archives of aram james Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:54:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://richmondpulse.org/2015/12/11/expert-stun-guns-far-from-nonlethal-alternative-to- bullets/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Winter Dellenbach; Diana Diamond; Jay Boyarsky; Human Relations Commission; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Emily Mibach; Gennady Sheyner; Bill Johnson; Jonsen, Robert; chuck jagoda; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Binder, Andrew; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; mark weiss Subject:Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:30:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Mark, Like to see the Russian disinformation and anti-Semitic info you refer to —might want to raise the issue at next Monday’s city council meeting or the upcoming HRC meeting. I agree I tend to have more faith in Josh Becker and his pending SB 1000 then the majority of the city council who last night fell prey to Robert Jonson’s on going propaganda campaign against police transparency of all types …including continuing with his insistence on encrypting police radio traffic here in Palo Alto. The only council member who stood up to Jonsen’s double speak and in support of our first amendment and constitution was Greer Stone. Although I don’t always agree with Greer he is by far the most consistent stand of our city council members on all issues related to our constitutional rights. aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:51 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: For what it’s worth looks like Parham has set his email to not take messages from anybody; Forgot to say I’m very concerned with anti-semitic and Russian disinformation being put on car windshields in my neighborhood; And concerned about fentanyl overdose like the one that happened right in front of me on Friday April 1, no fooling: It’s listed on the city’s website as “12:48 PM medical back up“ whereas i phoned it in at 12:28; maybe that means they sent a firetruck then another fire truck then the cops and an ambulance something like that. The police who I spoke with identified the man based on our saying what we thought his name was but did not really investigate to my observation who gave this man the dangerous drug. Besides saying something like “hey anybody know who gave this guy the dangerous drug?” I also think it’s weird or problematic or concerning that I went down there yesterday to find there was no lobby open, went down again today to find I would have to come back in an hour, and then went online and found what I was looking for or partially; And yesterday I went into the elevator to go up to the seventh floor only to find the elevator set to not go anywhere which again find you own metaphor. I tend to believe Josh Becker more than staff and what is possible with encryption and in all these cases we have too many settings and not enough direct actions. Mbw Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:38 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: Well let’s start with the fact that I am sitting in a café in Palo Alto with a dog in my lap talking into a handheld communication device which mediates my attempts to communicate with either of my friends Aram or Rebecca; what does that tell you about our attempt to self-govern self- police or just be human, stay human? Regarding transparency I’m not sure it is necessary nor sufficient; I work in the arts, permit this analogy: Peter Wegner has an amazing piece of art at the new business school it is a color scoreboard with mechanical and digital action. Shortly after installation they stuck a big piece of plastic around it because people were touching it ruining the sensitive mechanism; problem fixed yet you don’t hear the satisfying click click click. I’m saying if transparentcy means the police stand behind bulletproof plastic and speak to us through Doohickey‘s and devices it’s not the same as being part of us. Dennis Burns who I initially objected to and then realized I was wrong mentioned agent Robert Parham to me; we are both Dartmouth grads; unlike me he is also a football player rugby player Wall Street banker and served our country. To Dennis or to Robert himself I said I felt he was a candidate for chief, city manager and or mayor. He was wrong about the mural but I’ve never heard his rationale. I was threatened with physical violence by not CeceCarpio but a different muralist. I still think the BLM mural on Hamilton Street is one of the cultural highlights of my 28 years here working in the arts and community. I think we should do more with Stuart Robertson a Stanford grad. If agent Robert Parham does not respond to emails from citizens you might have a chance to reach him by phone or voicemail or see him on his watch. I’ve only met him a couple times. Thank you all for your service to our community Mark Weiss By the way I still want to know why Mr. Wegner’s suite of works for the new police station was defunded or reduced most glaring omission is the LED elements; and no one reading this has a kinder gardener who could’ve created the same elements Cc: Peter Wegner Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:50 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Folks: Yes, to my knowledge Officer Robert Parham is still with the PAPD. Parham a real hero NOT is one of the 5-6 officers who sued the city- —recently dismissed lawsuit -claiming the BLM mural caused him distress, constituted discrimination, job harassment etc. I know —-or hope my memory is correct—- but believe Mark Weiss —my good friend — knows officer Robert Parham and both attended Dartmouth. Really!!! Maybe Mark can weigh in on this officer. And of course let Parham jump in. I have never heard a good thing about Parham but maybe someone has a few positive things to say… I’ve been sending a wide variety of cop related, canine related, bad cop stories, killer cop stories, police brutality stories… copied to Parham and other members of the BLM law suit police complainers . Also tried to hit up Nick Enberg notorious canine torture case personality ( victim Joel Alejo) and Julie Tannock —the second member of the canine team—may still be out on injury leave. Not sure if her injury was canine related. Officer Tannock is also copied in on this message case she wants to weigh in. Ok, let the conversation start….aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now- depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio- encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3- 5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting- police-abuse- community-action- manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Jonsen, Robert; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Greer Stone; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Braden Cartwright; Enberg, Nicholas; Figueroa, Eric; City Mgr; Council, City; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Richard Konda; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Alison Cormack; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com Subject:Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:26:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Mark, Like to see the Russian disinformation and anti-Semitic info you refer to —might want to raise the issue at next Monday’s city council meeting or the upcoming HRC meeting. I agree I tend to have more faith in Josh Becker and his pending SB 1000 then the majority of the city council who last night fell prey to Robert Jonson’s on going propaganda campaign against police transparency of all types …including continuing with his insistence on encrypting police radio traffic here in Palo Alto. The only council member who stood up to Jonsen’s double speak and in support of our first amendment and constitution was Greer Stone. Although I don’t always agree with Greer he is by far the most consistent stand of our city council members on all issues related to our constitutional rights. aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:51 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: For what it’s worth looks like Parham has set his email to not take messages from anybody; Forgot to say I’m very concerned with anti-semitic and Russian disinformation being put on car windshields in my neighborhood; And concerned about fentanyl overdose like the one that happened right in front of me on Friday April 1, no fooling: It’s listed on the city’s website as “12:48 PM medical back up“ whereas i phoned it in at 12:28; maybe that means they sent a firetruck then another fire truck then the cops and an ambulance something like that. The police who I spoke with identified the man based on our saying what we thought his name was but did not really investigate to my observation who gave this man the dangerous drug. Besides saying something like “hey anybody know who gave this guy the dangerous drug?” I also think it’s weird or problematic or concerning that I went down there yesterday to find there was no lobby open, went down again today to find I would have to come back in an hour, and then went online and found what I was looking for or partially; And yesterday I went into the elevator to go up to the seventh floor only to find the elevator set to not go anywhere which again find you own metaphor. I tend to believe Josh Becker more than staff and what is possible with encryption and in all these cases we have too many settings and not enough direct actions. Mbw Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:38 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: Well let’s start with the fact that I am sitting in a café in Palo Alto with a dog in my lap talking into a handheld communication device which mediates my attempts to communicate with either of my friends Aram or Rebecca; what does that tell you about our attempt to self-govern self- police or just be human, stay human? Regarding transparency I’m not sure it is necessary nor sufficient; I work in the arts, permit this analogy: Peter Wegner has an amazing piece of art at the new business school it is a color scoreboard with mechanical and digital action. Shortly after installation they stuck a big piece of plastic around it because people were touching it ruining the sensitive mechanism; problem fixed yet you don’t hear the satisfying click click click. I’m saying if transparentcy means the police stand behind bulletproof plastic and speak to us through Doohickey‘s and devices it’s not the same as being part of us. Dennis Burns who I initially objected to and then realized I was wrong mentioned agent Robert Parham to me; we are both Dartmouth grads; unlike me he is also a football player rugby player Wall Street banker and served our country. To Dennis or to Robert himself I said I felt he was a candidate for chief, city manager and or mayor. He was wrong about the mural but I’ve never heard his rationale. I was threatened with physical violence by not CeceCarpio but a different muralist. I still think the BLM mural on Hamilton Street is one of the cultural highlights of my 28 years here working in the arts and community. I think we should do more with Stuart Robertson a Stanford grad. If agent Robert Parham does not respond to emails from citizens you might have a chance to reach him by phone or voicemail or see him on his watch. I’ve only met him a couple times. Thank you all for your service to our community Mark Weiss By the way I still want to know why Mr. Wegner’s suite of works for the new police station was defunded or reduced most glaring omission is the LED elements; and no one reading this has a kinder gardener who could’ve created the same elements Cc: Peter Wegner Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:50 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Folks: Yes, to my knowledge Officer Robert Parham is still with the PAPD. Parham a real hero NOT is one of the 5-6 officers who sued the city- —recently dismissed lawsuit -claiming the BLM mural caused him distress, constituted discrimination, job harassment etc. I know —-or hope my memory is correct—- but believe Mark Weiss —my good friend — knows officer Robert Parham and both attended Dartmouth. Really!!! Maybe Mark can weigh in on this officer. And of course let Parham jump in. I have never heard a good thing about Parham but maybe someone has a few positive things to say… I’ve been sending a wide variety of cop related, canine related, bad cop stories, killer cop stories, police brutality stories… copied to Parham and other members of the BLM law suit police complainers . Also tried to hit up Nick Enberg notorious canine torture case personality ( victim Joel Alejo) and Julie Tannock —the second member of the canine team—may still be out on injury leave. Not sure if her injury was canine related. Officer Tannock is also copied in on this message case she wants to weigh in. Ok, let the conversation start….aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio- encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3- 5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting- police-abuse-community- action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:mark weiss Cc:Peter Wegner; Palo Alto Free Press; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jonsen, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Linda Jolley; eli.walsh@baycitynews.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Planning Commission; Council, City; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Dave Price Subject:Re: Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:22:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Mark, Like to see the Russian disinformation and anti-Semitic info you refer to —might want to raise the issue at next Monday’s city council meeting or the upcoming HRC meeting. I agree I tend to have more faith in Josh Becker and his pending SB 1000 then the majority of the city council who last night fell prey to Robert Jonson’s on going propaganda campaign against police transparency of all types …including continuing with his insistence on encrypting police radio traffic here in Palo Alto. The only council member who stood up to Jonsen’s double speak and in support of our first amendment and constitution was Greer Stone. Although I don’t always agree with Greer he is by far the most consistent stand of our city council members on all issues related to our constitution rights. aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:51 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: For what it’s worth looks like Parham has set his email to not take messages from anybody; Forgot to say I’m very concerned with anti-semitic and Russian disinformation being put on car windshields in my neighborhood; And concerned about fentanyl overdose like the one that happened right in front of me on Friday April 1, no fooling: It’s listed on the city’s website as “12:48 PM medical back up“ whereas i phoned it in at 12:28; maybe that means they sent a firetruck then another fire truck then the cops and an ambulance something like that. The police who I spoke with identified the man based on our saying what we thought his name was but did not really investigate to my observation who gave this man the dangerous drug. Besides saying something like “hey anybody know who gave this guy the dangerous drug?” I also think it’s weird or problematic or concerning that I went down there yesterday to find there was no lobby open, went down again today to find I would have to come back in an hour, and then went online and found what I was looking for or partially; And yesterday I went into the elevator to go up to the seventh floor only to find the elevator set to not go anywhere which again find you own metaphor. I tend to believe Josh Becker more than staff and what is possible with encryption and in all these cases we have too many settings and not enough direct actions. Mbw Sent from my iPhone On Apr 5, 2022, at 12:38 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: Well let’s start with the fact that I am sitting in a café in Palo Alto with a dog in my lap talking into a handheld communication device which mediates my attempts to communicate with either of my friends Aram or Rebecca; what does that tell you about our attempt to self-govern self- police or just be human, stay human? Regarding transparency I’m not sure it is necessary nor sufficient; I work in the arts, permit this analogy: Peter Wegner has an amazing piece of art at the new business school it is a color scoreboard with mechanical and digital action. Shortly after installation they stuck a big piece of plastic around it because people were touching it ruining the sensitive mechanism; problem fixed yet you don’t hear the satisfying click click click. I’m saying if transparentcy means the police stand behind bulletproof plastic and speak to us through Doohickey‘s and devices it’s not the same as being part of us. Dennis Burns who I initially objected to and then realized I was wrong mentioned agent Robert Parham to me; we are both Dartmouth grads; unlike me he is also a football player rugby player Wall Street banker and served our country. To Dennis or to Robert himself I said I felt he was a candidate for chief, city manager and or mayor. He was wrong about the mural but I’ve never heard his rationale. I was threatened with physical violence by not CeceCarpio but a different muralist. I still think the BLM mural on Hamilton Street is one of the cultural highlights of my 28 years here working in the arts and community. I think we should do more with Stuart Robertson a Stanford grad. If agent Robert Parham does not respond to emails from citizens you might have a chance to reach him by phone or voicemail or see him on his watch. I’ve only met him a couple times. Thank you all for your service to our community Mark Weiss By the way I still want to know why Mr. Wegner’s suite of works for the new police station was defunded or reduced most glaring omission is the LED elements; and no one reading this has a kinder gardener who could’ve created the same elements Cc: Peter Wegner Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:50 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Folks: Yes, to my knowledge Officer Robert Parham is still with the PAPD. Parham a real hero NOT is one of the 5-6 officers who sued the city- —recently dismissed lawsuit -claiming the BLM mural caused him distress, constituted discrimination, job harassment etc. I know —-or hope my memory is correct—- but believe Mark Weiss —my good friend — knows officer Robert Parham and both attended Dartmouth. Really!!! Maybe Mark can weigh in on this officer. And of course let Parham jump in. I have never heard a good thing about Parham but maybe someone has a few positive things to say… I’ve been sending a wide variety of cop related, canine related, bad cop stories, killer cop stories, police brutality stories… copied to Parham and other members of the BLM law suit police complainers . Also tried to hit up Nick Enberg notorious canine torture case personality ( victim Joel Alejo) and Julie Tannock — the second member of the canine team—may still be out on injury leave. Not sure if her injury was canine related. Officer Tannock is also copied in on this message case she wants to weigh in. Ok, let the conversation start….aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio- encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3- 5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting- police-abuse-community-action- manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:mark weiss To:Aram James Cc:Palo Alto Free Press; Rebecca Eisenberg; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Linda Jolley; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Figueroa, Eric Subject:Re: Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 12:38:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Well let’s start with the fact that I am sitting in a café in Palo Alto with a dog in my lap talking into a handheld communication device which mediates my attempts to communicate with either of my friends Aram or Rebecca; what does that tell you about our attempt to self-govern self- police or just be human, stay human? Regarding transparency I’m not sure it is necessary nor sufficient; I work in the arts, permit this analogy: Peter Wegner has an amazing piece of art at the new business school it is a color scoreboard with mechanical and digital action. Shortly after installation they stuck a big piece of plastic around it because people were touching it ruining the sensitive mechanism; problem fixed yet you don’t hear the satisfying click click click. I’m saying if transparentcy means the police stand behind bulletproof plastic and speak to us through Doohickey‘s and devices it’s not the same as being part of us. Dennis Burns who I initially objected to and then realized I was wrong mentioned agent Robert Parham to me; we are both Dartmouth grads; unlike me he is also a football player rugby player Wall Street banker and served our country. To Dennis or to Robert himself I said I felt he was a candidate for chief, city manager and or mayor. He was wrong about the mural but I’ve never heard his rationale. I was threatened with physical violence by not CeceCarpio but a different muralist. I still think the BLM mural on Hamilton Street is one of the cultural highlights of my 28 years here working in the arts and community. I think we should do more with Stuart Robertson a Stanford grad. If agent Robert Parham does not respond to emails from citizens you might have a chance to reach him by phone or voicemail or see him on his watch. I’ve only met him a couple times. Thank you all for your service to our community Mark Weiss By the way I still want to know why Mr. Wegner’s suite of works for the new police station was defunded or reduced most glaring omission is the LED elements; and no one reading this has a kinder gardener who could’ve created the same elements Cc: Peter Wegner Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:50 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Folks: Yes, to my knowledge Officer Robert Parham is still with the PAPD. Parham a real hero NOT is one of the 5-6 officers who sued the city- —recently dismissed lawsuit -claiming the BLM mural caused him distress, constituted discrimination, job harassment etc. I know —-or hope my memory is correct—- but believe Mark Weiss —my good friend — knows officer Robert Parham and both attended Dartmouth. Really!!! Maybe Mark can weigh in on this officer. And of course let Parham jump in. I have never heard a good thing about Parham but maybe someone has a few positive things to say… I’ve been sending a wide variety of cop related, canine related, bad cop stories, killer cop stories, police brutality stories… copied to Parham and other members of the BLM law suit police complainers . Also tried to hit up Nick Enberg notorious canine torture case personality ( victim Joel Alejo) and Julie Tannock —the second member of the canine team—may still be out on injury leave. Not sure if her injury was canine related. Officer Tannock is also copied in on this message case she wants to weigh in. Ok, let the conversation start….aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio- encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3- 5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting-police-abuse- community-action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Jonsen, Robert Cc:robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Council, City; City Mgr; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; Bill Johnson; Tony Dixon; Cindy Chavez Subject:LA COUNTY SHERIFF VILLANUEVA MUST TESTIFY UNDER OATH ABOUT "DEPUTY GANGS," JUDGE RULES Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 11:47:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://abc7.com/amp/villanueva-sheriff-deputy-gangs-lasd/ From:Aram James To:Dave Price; Pat Burt; Alison Cormack; chuck jagoda; Kou, Lydia; Greer Stone; City Mgr; Bill Johnson; Council, City Subject:Union should have no voice in the encryption issue ( reverse unconstitutional encryption now Date:Tuesday, April 5, 2022 12:30:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dave price is right the union should have no say on encryption issues it should be police management collaborating with the press and community watch dogs. This is what the first amendment requires. Neither the police union or even police management can compromise the rights pursuant to the first amendment given to the community and the press to monitor our police. From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert Cc:Aram James; Diana Diamond; Mark Petersen-Perez; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley; Dave Price; Bill Johnson Subject:Robert Jonsen mangling my words and I don"t appreciate that Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:32:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Chief Jonsen, and others: Robert Jonsen is literally quoting me as saying the OPPOSITE of what I clearly said. That is a truly unethical act. What Jonsen says: "Rebecca Eisenberg correctly notes that it has always been illegal for police to transmit PII by radio, which has always been a problem." What I said: It has always been illegal for police to transmit PII by radio, which has NEVER been a problem because cops don't transmit PII by radio. Police have literally zero reason to transmit PII by radio. It is a wholly ineffective way to communicate PII, and there are ample other communication methods to do so, e.g. TELEPHONE. This is why there have been no lawsuits. This is why there have been no problems. This is why police radio transmissions have been unencrypted for almost a century. Why is this all of a sudden a problem? Because for the first time in US history, police officers are being held accountable for their own criminal actions, a change that the vast majority of us welcome. But that only was possible due to public access to police radio transmissions. Encrypting police transmissions protects wrongdoers at the expense of public safety. The police have shown what is most important to them. Even Jonsen admits that: he wants to encrypt communications to avoid lawsuits -- from victims of police brutality. Please, listen to police radio transmissions. You can find them on the internet or even on episodes of Law & Order or Reno 911. Here is a writing guide to police radio transmissions: https://penandthepad.com/write-police-radio-conversation-8459164.html Police radio communications are usually when police officers are either (1) driving in their car, or (2) at a noisy location, and never (3) when they are at the station at their desk. If a cop tried to transmit a SSN or DL by radio, it would take literally 20 times to get the numbers through. It would be a terrible SNL skit. This is why cops use abbreviations and codes to refer to what they are doing. Here is a typical radio transmission: "POSSIBLE 250 AT UNIVERSITY AND CHANNING. HEADING THERE, REQUESTING BACKUP OVER." Can you even imagine an officer relying on such info as "Catch the escaping perp! He is the guy with SSN 999-999-9999!" This literally is an argument made by Robert Jonsen - one you appear to be accepting. Why would an officer need to reference a SSN or DL or address??? Jonsen deceptively claims it is to "identify a suspect." First, Jonsen does not bother identifying suspects. He believes that it is appropriate to command attack dogs to bite potential suspects far before they are identified. The correct identification of suspects seems wholly unimportant to him. But if he did care about identifying suspects, there is no possible way that the kind of PII he mentions would be remotely useful. Since when is SSN, job history, or credit card records a means of identifying a witness??? How about the characteristics that witnesses can see with their eyes, like age, height, hair color, and clothing? To the extent that PII needs to be discussed by officers, there is always the old fashioned method of TELEPHONE, including encrypted cell phone technology -- which, mind you, police officers almost never use even though they are supposed to. In other words, Robert Jonsen - you are lying. For almost a century, officers have been PERFECTLY fine using radios to transmit Codes about crimes, car accidents, and/or fires, etc., and giving locations - without ANY NEED to communicate PII. They do not have any need to use radio for PII now, just like they didn't in the 1930's. The only reason for encryption is to hide information of interest to the public, including but not limited to malfeasance by the folks we pay a ton of money to protect us. What in the world do they have to hide? This is NOT COMPLICATED. Police have no reason to use radios for PII, and without PII, the radio transmissions should not be encrypted. The CHP confirmed this. Common sense confirms this. Documented history confirms this. Almost a century of radio transmissions have happened without a hitch. The cops have not come up with one example of when radio needs to be used for PII rather than phone. They give only lies and false fear. Please use common sense and back Becker's bill -- to RESTORE police transmissions the way they have been for almost a century. Don't let the police change things that always worked fine. JUST TELL THE POLICE TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE FOR A CENTURY: KEEP PII OFF RADIO, and use the phone instead. Why is that hard? This is simple: officers never used radio to communicate PII over the past 100 years. They don't need to use radio to transit PII now. Done. The problem is solved. There is no need for encryption. Thank you Rebecca Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Netskink Positive Impact Investments Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 From:Aram James To:Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Greer Stone; chuck jagoda; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; Joe Simitian; Planning Commission; Planning Commission Subject:More people killed by the police around 1000 per year per the DOJ —way more then police officer killed Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:07:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hi Folks: More people killed by the police around 1000 per year- per the DOJ —way more then police officers killed. And the data year after year clearly shows that black & brown people are hugely disproportionate killed by police officers. We must discuss this reality if we are to have a truly honest conversation. Aram From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Winter Dellenbach; Greer Stone; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Police auditor to vet and report cases in which Palo Alto Police points a gun Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 10:51:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/15/police-auditor-to-vet-cases-in-which-palo- alto-officers-point-guns Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Alison Cormack; Tom DuBois; chuck jagoda; Council, City; City Mgr; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Stump, Molly; Greer Stone; City Mgr; Clerk, City; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Braden Cartwright; Winter Dellenbach; Emily Mibach; Kou, Lydia Subject:Pursuant to the public records Act I’m requesting the RIPA data discussed by chief Jonson, Alison Cormack and Tom Dubois at tonight’s city council meeting Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 10:42:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Public Records Act Tom & Alison: See below my CPRA request for the RIPA data you were discussing with the Chief tonight April 4, 2022 —-during the city council meeting…… more specifically during the study session with the police….. item # 16 on the agenda. Pursuant to the public records Act I’m requesting the RIPA data discussed by chief Jonson, Alison Cormack and Tom Dubois at tonight’s at the city council meeting. From:Aram James To:Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; chuck jagoda; Jay Boyarsky; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen Subject:No Encryption bill SB 1000 by Josh Becker Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 8:15:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://padailypost.com/2022/03/27/state-sen-becker-introduces-bill-to-eliminate-police-radio- encryption/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Palo Alto Free Press Cc:Rebecca Eisenberg; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Linda Jolley; Mark Weiss; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Figueroa, Eric Subject:Re: Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 7:50:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Folks: Yes, to my knowledge Officer Robert Parham is still with the PAPD. Parham a real hero NOT is one of the 5-6 officers who sued the city- —recently dismissed lawsuit -claiming the BLM mural caused him distress, constituted discrimination, job harassment etc. I know —-or hope my memory is correct—- but believe Mark Weiss —my good friend — knows officer Robert Parham and both attended Dartmouth. Really!!! Maybe Mark can weigh in on this officer. And of course let Parham jump in. I have never heard a good thing about Parham but maybe someone has a few positive things to say… I’ve been sending a wide variety of cop related, canine related, bad cop stories, killer cop stories, police brutality stories… copied to Parham and other members of the BLM law suit police complainers . Also tried to hit up Nick Enberg notorious canine torture case personality ( victim Joel Alejo) and Julie Tannock —the second member of the canine team—may still be out on injury leave. Not sure if her injury was canine related. Officer Tannock is also copied in on this message case she wants to weigh in. Ok, let the conversation start….aram Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2022, at 6:49 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio- encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3- 5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting-police-abuse-community- action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert Cc:Aram James; Diana Diamond; Mark Petersen-Perez; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley; Dave Price; Bill Johnson Subject:Fry"s Site zoned Residential not commercial Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 7:32:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Re-sending to correct subject line: Despite the consistent misinformation propagated by the City Council, the Planning Commission, and most directly by Sobrato himself, the Fry's site is ZONED RESIDENTIAL, not commercial. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/11/departure-of-frys-electronics-leaves-palo- alto-with-a-zoning-dilemma We need to correct the record for once and all. How Sobrato flipped the narrative so that our most informed members of the public are getting this wrong is frustrating. The Fry's site is zoned residential and that is how it must be treated. Best, -- Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Netskink Positive Impact Investments Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert Cc:Aram James; Diana Diamond; Mark Petersen-Perez; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley; Dave Price; Bill Johnson Subject:Re: Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 7:25:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Despite the consistent misinformation propagated by the City Council, the Planning Commission, and most directly by Sobrato himself, the Fry's site is ZONED RESIDENTIAL, not commercial. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/06/11/departure-of-frys-electronics-leaves-palo- alto-with-a-zoning-dilemma We need to correct the record for once and all. How Sobrato flipped the narrative so that our most informed members of the public are getting this wrong is frustrating. The Fry's site is zoned residential and that is how it must be treated. Best, -- Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Netskink Positive Impact Investments Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert; James Aram; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 6:49:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. No Rebecca, No mistake Mr. Parham is blocking my email address as well….. This has been pointed out to city attorney Molly Stump including Chief Jonsen on more than one occasion. Without a response. In my opinion in violation of your first amendment right to redress your grievance on a government agency. Mark Petersen-Perez Sent from my iPad On Apr 4, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non-encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio-encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio- system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3-5- million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid- Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting-police-abuse-community-action- manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert Cc:Aram James; Diana Diamond; Mark Petersen-Perez; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley Subject:Does Officer Parham still work for the PAPD? Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 6:26:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Although I never said anything inappropriate to Officer Parham (and I don't think I ever met him), he appears to be blocking my emails: Your message to robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. Is this typical behavior for a police officer? I have never encountered this before from an official paid by my tax money. Maybe it is related to this? When I saw that my message was blocked, I googled the name "Robert Parham" and this is the first reference that came up. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/parham.html Perhaps someone can shed light on what happened here. A typo? Best, Rebecca On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio-encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio-system-has- dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3-5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow- up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting-police-abuse-community-action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert Cc:Aram James; Diana Diamond; Mark Petersen-Perez; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley Subject:Addendum: Speak out tonight Re: Errors in City Manager"s report on police radio encryption Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 6:21:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Also: FYI: the flawed & misleading PAPD report is being discussed at the City Council meeting tonight. Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220404/20220404pccsmamendedlinked1.pdf Zoom info: https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238 On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:18 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non- encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio-encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un-encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio-system-has- dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3-5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow- up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting-police-abuse-community-action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert Cc:Aram James; Diana Diamond; Mark Petersen-Perez; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Curtis Smolar; Linda Jolley Subject:Errors in City Manager"s report on police radio encryption Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 6:19:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dave Price's thoroughly researched response to the Palo Alto Police Department Report was not attached to tonight's agenda. This is an unfortunate oversight because Dave's comprehensive and extensive resource is of urgent interest to the public, and should be of interest to City Council, the boss of the Palo Alto Police Department. It is ironic, frustrating and a complete abandonment of their job duties (and ethical responsibilities) that the City Council almost never believes the public at their word - not regarding ancient trees, Castilleja's history of lies, the existence of the now-depleted HomeKey program and the potentially disastrous HP Superfund Site, yet time after time -- despite its documented history of illegal actions, wrongful misdeeds, and inappropriate and unlawful secrecy -- City Council and City Staff believe the words of the Palo Alto Police Chief, and its disgraced former chief Robert Jonsen, as gospel. Whom exactly is the Palo Alto City Council serving? The community? or someone else ,... ? DAVE PRICE'S RESEARCH REGARDING INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS AND MISLEADING INACCURACIES IN THE PAPD'S REPORT: March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non-encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio-encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un- encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police-radio-system-has-dead- spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3-5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under the heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:50 PM Linda Jolley <lindajolley9@yahoo.com> wrote: in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting-police-abuse-community-action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Linda Jolley To:abjpd1@gmail.com; Diana Diamond; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Reifschneider, James; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Jonsen, Robert Subject:Cops Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 5:50:28 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lindajolley9@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. in approximately 2015 I was sleeping in the cab of a pickup truck with window down 2 inches. PA cop inserted his baton and struck Me repeatedly on the head Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 8:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting-police-abuse-community-action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Annette Ross To:Council, City Subject:Encryption Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 2:33:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I write to add my voice to those saying NO to encryption. There are options that protect personal identifying information that do not compromise the public’s access to information about what’s going on. This need has become critical in the United States. Palo Alto, sadly, has a recent history of events that underscore the reasons why this is so important. It’s hard to understand how the switch gets thrown on something like this w/o Council’s approval. The City Manager should not have that sort of latitude and any City Manager that arbitrarily claims it should be advised that the City Manager takes direction from City Council. Annette Ross Palo Alto From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:End encryption and protect personally identifiable information Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 2:01:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor Burt & Council Members, You need to take the right decision and end encryption of police radio frequency in Palo Alto. The city manager rushed his decision to implement encryption did not have public meetings to hear residents’ views. The city council was blindsided by Shikada’s decision to change policy in favor of encryption. I know that Palo Altans and some council members are stunned by this regressive action to prevent the public and journalists information in real time. As the CHP has worked with another method to ensure the protection of personally identifiable information Palo Alto’s police department can follow suit. The CHP can provide information but not in entirety therefore keeping the identity of the alleged perpetrator masked. Transparency is critical to our democracy. I urge the council to discard encryption. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Dave Price Subject:Misplaced City Priorities: We"re Paying A Senior CPAU Staffer to lobby to continue to the illegal overcharges Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 1:53:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello. I was very upset to learn that PA Taxpayers are paying a new CPAU senior staff to work against the interests of the residents who've been illegally over-charged $20,000,000 a year to link the business tax to the continued illegal practice of ripping us off. How about supporting a CLEAN business tax that's long over-due??? It's bad enough that PA is the ONLY city without a business tax while we're over- run by commuters and have to bear the costs of the town's skewed economy that has recovered much more slowly than surrounding communities but it adds insult to injury that we A) are paying for the city's appeal and B) are now paying someone to lobby us to continue this illegal practice! When is PA going to start supporting us, the residents and taxpayers, instead of pandering to the deep-pocketed interests like Casti, Town & Country??? We're increasingly bearing the financial and quality-of-life costs of your misplaced priorities, the glut of offices that remain empty while PEOPLE go elsewhere to shop, depriving the city of sales tax revenues while the city pleads poverty and has yet to restore full library services and other resident services. Read the whole discussion on Palo Alto Online but here's some highlights: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2022/03/29/despite-business-objections- palo-alto-advances-new-tax#comment_form " I was surprised to learn from my friend at CPAU that they have a paid senior staffer working full time to get the Utilities Transfer measure passed. This makes it seem like the City is less interested in representing its residents' wishes than manipulating them." " @Larry, that's absolutely outrageous. Write City Council. Write the City Manager. Write letters to the Editors. I'm so tired of them stealing $20,000,000 from us each and every year and STILL not opening the libraries, short-changing Animal Services so each new pet owner has to spend $1,000 to spay/neuter their animals AND still not having full hours at Animal Services. Re other cities recovering so much faster than Palo Alto, maybe that's because they're not office parks dependent on the commuters who over-run us. Maybe it's also because PA has a long history of ignoring resident-serving businesses while allowing companies with their own cafeterias to destroy nearby restaurants. Anyone else been to First Friday in Los Altos? They have music from 6-9 with lots of musicians/bands playing on both Main and State Streets. Who organized it? The owner of the Nature Gallery who left PA for Los Altos and is happily thriving there rather than fighting the T&C landlord! Both streets were mobbed and the restaurants and stores were hopping! Anyone else been to the Weds. night market in Menlo Park? Who organized it? The owner of Bistro Vida. And what does our fair city do for merchants like that? Less than NOTHING. It ignores them and forces residents to campaign against the destruction of resident- serving businesses by the landlord right at the end of the pandemic when our highly paid staff couldn't even define MEDICAL/Retail!" Enough. Remember who you're representing! Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach PA, CA 94301 View this email in your browser. Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter April VOTER April 4, 2022 From:LWV Palo Alto VOTER To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA April VOTER - Are You Up to Date on the June 7 Primary Election Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 1:52:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Subscribe to our Google Calendar In this Issue Message from our President LWVPA Annual Membership Meeting Voter Services Updates Reclaim Our Vote: Reaching Beyond Palo Alto March 2022 Board Meeting Highlights Advocacy Report Climate Calls Events from Other Leagues and in the Community YCS Spring Fundraiser and Community Event Systemic Racism in Healthcare Cultivating Civic Conversations About the Sate of Our Democracy Bay Area Monitor Notes Celebrating National Arab American Heritage Month Message from our President Greetings to all! It’s spring at last, and although the pandemic is not quite over, we do have the pleasure of seeing the faces behind the masks once again. And we anticipate and look forward to our Annual Meeting on Saturday, May 14, in person. I hope that many of our members attended or listened to the March 9 Speaker Event, ”The Road to Democracy Runs Through the Classroom: Preparing the Next Generation of Voters to be Engaged Citizens”. Two of our well-regarded League members, Susie Richardson, Facing History and Ourselves Board member, and Jennifer DiBrienza, Palo Alto School Board member, led the discussion on the importance of civic education in Palo Alto schools and the lasting effect that classroom involvement has on democracy. You can watch the recording HERE. Recently, we have moved to reestablish our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Committee. We will take the groundwork from the Equal Justice Committee in the past two years and weave that into the next phase of our commitment to the DEI endeavor. Many members have expressed interest in this focus. Lastly, please plan to reserve the morning of Saturday, May 14 for the League's Annual Membership Meeting with guest speaker Ed Shikada, Palo Alto’s City Manager. We look forward to an informative and lively in-person gathering, our first since the pandemic. Do join us at the Baylands Golf Links at 9:30 am! All the best, Liz LWVPA Annual Membership Meeting In-Person Gathering at Baylands Golf Links Saturday, May 14, 2022 9:30 am - 12:00 pm 1875 Embarcadero Rd., Palo Alto Please mark your calendar and prepare to join our Annual Membership Meeting, the most important gathering of our League year and our first in-person meeting after two years! We welcome you to come at 9:30 am to enjoy a continental breakfast and connect with fellow members. The meeting will begin at 10:00 am. Members will elect new officers, directors, and a nominating committee; approve a budget; and adopt our top Program emphases for the coming year. Special Guest Speaker: Ed Shikada Progress Report on City Priorities Ed Shikada has served as the City of Palo Alto’s eighth City Manager since December 2018. He has been with the City since early 2015, and prior to becoming city manager, Ed served in the dual role of Assistant City Manager and General Manager of the Utilities Department. From 2003 to 2015, Ed served the City of San Jose, beginning as a Deputy City Manager before becoming City Manager. Look for a separate invitation with registration information and an Annual Membership Meeting Kit in April. We look forward to seeing you there! Voter Services Updates PRIMARY ELECTION: JUNE 7, 2022 Mail-in Ballots will be sent out the week of May 9, 2022 For Palo Alto voters, the June 7th primary ballot will include numerous statewide races, three countywide races, and the Congressional District 16 primary election in which seven candidates are challenging the incumbent, Anna Eshoo. The ballot will also include one local ballot measure. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS CANDIDATE FORUMS JUNE PRIMARY 2022 The five Leagues in Santa Clara County are co-sponsoring virtual Candidate Forums for the three countywide races and the Congressional District 16 race. You must register for each Zoom event separately in order to attend. Thursday April 21, 7 pm: Santa Clara County Sheriff, hosted by San Jose/Santa Clara League. Register here. Thursday, April 28, 7 pm: Santa Clara County District Attorney, hosted by Southwest Santa Clara Valley League. Register Here. Tuesday, May 3, 7 pm: Congressional District 16, hosted by the Palo Alto League. Register Here. Thursday, May 5, 7 pm: Santa Clara County Assessor, hosted by Los Altos- Mountain View Area League. Register Here. Election Information Vote Early! 3 ways to return your ballot: Mail postage-paid return envelope. Place in secure official drop box, available 30 days before the election. Go to Vote Centers, open 4 or 11 days before the election. Go to a vote center if you: Make a mistake and need a replacement ballot Lose your ballot Don’t receive your ballot Need material in another language Need accessible voting equipment Register and vote on the same day Sign up for Where’s My Ballot HERE to track your vote-by-mail ballot—when it is mailed, received, and counted. County Voter Information Guide Voters have the option to receive their guide electronically instead of by regular mail. Go Green HERE. It’s good for the planet and saves tax dollars! NEW! Voter Outreach Team meeting Primary Elections are coming! Our Voter Services team is seeking volunteers to help with voter registration/education outreach efforts. These will include tabling at various events and locations and distributing voting information to Palo Alto businesses, libraries and senior centers. New ideas welcome! To get involved, join Liz Jensen on Sunday, April 10 at 4:30 p.m. at this Zoom Link. Hope to see you there! High School Voter Registration Our Voter Services Team completed high school voter registration/education in three high schools in March, including Pinewood, Kehillah, and Gunn, for a total of 21 classrooms visited. Seventeen League volunteers and six high school students participated in this effort. We will return to Paly in April. Thank you to everyone who helped us accomplish this important work! Reclaim Our Vote - Reaching Beyond Palo Alto LWVPA Voter Services Team Empowering voters is core to what we, as League members, do. Former LWVPA off-board member Linda Henigin helps empower voters beyond Palo Alto through Reclaim Our Vote, a campaign of the nonpartisan Center for Common Ground. Our Voter Services team is now sponsoring the costs of the postcards, stamps, and other supplies you need for LWVPA members to write these postcards. You can learn more about the program, and request postcards from Linda, by filling out her form. Please check the box indicating that you’re a LWVPA member and ignore the information about costs. We’re currently writing postcards to voters in Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina in advance of their primary elections, which are in May. As the summer rolls along, we will write postcards to voters in South Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, Florida, and Louisiana in advance of each of their primary elections. Linda’s form will always have the most up-to-date information. We’re so excited to be able to support voters across the country in this way. We hope you’ll join us! March 2022 Board Meeting Highlights The Board heard reports including Voter Services election plans, Annual Meeting plans, and the Nominating Committee slate of candidates. The following motions were approved: A through D on Consent Calendar including the minutes. League’s 2022-2023 budget. An LVWPA Local Campaign Finance Reform educational event to be held in September, with sponsorship by California Clean Money Campaign, ACLU Mid-Peninsula Chapter or ACLU of Northern California, and Common Cause, to be listed alongside LWVPA; and co-sponsorship by Allied Organizations to be listed separately. The development of a subcommittee under Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) to reach out to the state and national LWVs for consultant recommendations, consider the scope of work and ways to engage membership, and return with 2-3 bids, including the Hella Social Impact bid. The Board expressed appreciation to Lythcott for DEI leadership and affirmed its commitment to DEI and the work needed to improve how we integrate DEI into Board and organizational leadership and operations. Communications Director to spend up to $2200 to develop a ClubExpress website by outsourcing the development work to Step Forward Tech, a tech consultant company specializing in website development and other functions in ClubExpress. Our next Board Meeting is on Tuesday, April 26, 7 - 9 pm. We are planning on meeting in person and will provide the meeting details in our April E-Blast. - Megan Swezey Fogarty, Secretary Advocacy Reports State Bills the League of Women Voters of California has recently lobbied for include: Voter Purges: AB 2841 would ensure voters are notified before they are removed from voter registration rolls and prevent wrongful cancellation of registration of voters who are under conservatorships. Recalls: SCA 6 would amend the state constitution’s Recall provision by providing that in the case of recall of the Governor, the Lt. Governor would temporarily succeed the Governor until a replacement candidate is selected with majority support at the next statewide election. The bill would also allow the officer who is the subject of the recall to be a candidate in the special recall election. If the Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General or member of the State Board of Equalization is recalled, the replacement would be filled by appointment. Public Housing: SCA 2 would repeal Article 34 of the California constitution, which requires a majority vote of any town, city, or county electors before public funds can be spent on building “low-rent” housing. It passed in 1950 and appealed to racist fears regarding integration of white communities. No other state has such a requirement for approval of the building of low-income housing. This law adds to the cost and delays of building low-income housing. It has blocked the construction of thousands of needed homes and contributed to the conditions which led to 160,000 people being unhoused in California. SCA 2 has passed the state Senate and awaits action in the Assembly. Abortion Access: SB 245 (became law on March 22, 2022) prohibits health insurance policies from requiring cost sharing (co-pays) for abortion services. Abortion coverage is a basic level of health care. SB 245 addresses unequal access to health resources. Although health insurance plans in California must cover the cost of abortion, often hefty co-payments result in a delay in acquiring an early abortion procedure. Cost-sharing requirements have had significant negative effects on women who have been unable to raise the additional funds for co-payments in a timely manner. National Court Strikes Down Florida Voter Suppression Law: On March 30, 2022, a federal court issued an injunction against SB 90, a Florida law which imposed limits on voter registrations and mail-in voting, removed drop boxes, increased burdens on third-party voter registration organizations like the League, and made it criminal to offer food or water to persons waiting in line to vote or offer to help blind, disabled, or illiterate voters cast their votes. SB 90 violated the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It was aimed squarely at Black voters, disabled voters and those with limited incomes. The League of Women Voters of Florida joined partners including the NAACP in filing suit shortly after the Florida governor signed the law. The court held that it “should not countenance a law denying Floridians their sacred right to vote.” - Lisa Ratner, 2nd Vice President and Advocacy Chair Climate Calls Why does the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) call our electricity “carbon neutral?” Here is a short summary of the current state of our electricity: CPAU seeks to meet our electricity demand with carbon-free sources including wind and solar. However, for evenings or other times when renewable electricity is not available, Palo Alto relies on natural gas plants to generate electricity. CPAU purchases “carbon offsets” for the electricity generated by natural gas--typically by paying someone to plant trees or do something else to reduce carbon emissions. Thus, our electricity is "carbon neutral." California SB 1305 requires that all energy service providers periodically inform their customers of the source of power they are being sold. You can view the CPAU 2020 Power Content Label on the city website. CPAU currently has contracts with five large-scale solar projects and will bring a sixth solar generation facility online in 2023. The new plant will enable Palo Alto to supply ~45% of its electrical needs with solar power. AB 2514 requires all publicly owned utilities to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of local energy storage systems every three years. Local energy storage could provide resiliency in an emergency, lower carbon emissions and/or lower electricity distribution system costs. As of 2020, the costs still outweighed the benefits, but this calculation may change next year due to rapid changes in the utility scale battery market. The Utilities Advisory Commission developed an extensive analysis of the situation. Want to share your ideas? Need further information? Please write to us at lwvpaoffice@gmail.com with the subject header: Climate Calls. Events from Other Leagues and in theCommunity YCS Spring Fundraiser and Community Event Reaching Beyond: Featuring Local Authors and Changemakers Thursday, April 14, 2022 7:00 pm - 8:15 pm Join the Youth Community Service (YCS) as we Reach Beyond with local authors whose voices of resilience bring us all hope. Hear our Keynote Speaker, Judge LaDoris Cordell, the first African American woman to sit on the Superior Court of Northern California, and the author of Her Honor: My Life on the Bench...What Works, What's Broken, and How to Change It. Judge Cordell will have an insightful conversation with three local authors: Antonio de Jesús López, author of Gentefication, Councilmember, City of East Palo Alto Joanna Ho, author of Eyes that Kiss in the Corners, Vice Principal, East Palo Alto Academy Tonga Victoria, author of Hyphen American, Communications Director, Anamatangi Polynesian Voices (APV), East Palo Alto Please join us for this wonderful virtual event! Systemic Racism in Healthcare LWV Southwest Santa Clara Valley Wednesday, April 27, 2022 Register Now 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm Alissa Shaw, faculty member of the Public Health & Recreation Department at San Jose State University, explores systemic racism in healthcare by analyzing past policies and current challenges through a women’s health and equity lens. Cultivating Civic Conversations About the State of Our Democracy Spring 2022 Session: Sundays, April 10 - June 12, 2022 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm This free 10-week seminar offers participants a chance to step back and take a fresh approach to civic education and engagement—one that makes fewer assumptions about what “everyone knows” about our history and government. We hope the seminar will help you to: Discover new voices, historical context, viewpoints and resources Reflect upon and reframe your place in the community Encourage and expand your capacity for civic engagement Nurture humor, insight, joy and perspective Register Now Register Now Bay Area Monitor Notes Women’s History Month High School Housing Academy Air District Files Case Against Chemtrade Gardening and Stress Celebrating National Arab American Heritage Month During the month of April, the Arab America Foundation formally recognizes the achievements of Arab Americans through the celebration of National Arab American Heritage Month (NAAHM). Across the country, cultural institutions, school districts, municipalities, state legislatures, public servants, and non-profit organizations issue proclamations and engage in special events that celebrate our community’s rich heritage and numerous contributions to society. Click HERE for more information. LWVPA Board Officers & Directors OFFICERS Liz Kniss President Nancy Shepherd 1st Vice President, Immediate Past President Lisa Ratner 2nd Vice President, Advocacy Megan Swezey Fogarty Secretary Theivanai Palaniappan Treasurer DIRECTORS Ellen Forbes Webmaster Liz Jensen Voter Services Karen Kalinsky Collaborations & Community Outreach Myra Lessner Events Hannah Lu Communications Jeannie Lythcott At-Large DEI Kathy Miller Voter Services Sigrid Pinksy Parliamentarian Lynne Russell Fundraising Co-Chair Cari Templeton Membership LWVPA Off-Board Budget Kathy Miller, Chair Civics Education Jenn Wagstaff Hinton Civil Discourse Liaison Susan Owicki Education Team Chair TBD Equal Justice Chair TBD Fundraising Co-Chairs Abbie Dorosin Heike Enders Housing & Transportation Steve Levy, Chair LWVPA Board Folder Task Force Ellen Smith Hannah Lu Natural Resources Mary O'Kicki Hilary Glann Nominating Committee Chair, Terry Godfrey Cari Templeton Dawn Billman Melissa Baten Caswell Observer Corps Chair TBD Jeannie Lythcott Pros & Cons and League Presentations Mary Jo Levy Responsible Gun Ownership Hilary Glann Stacey Ashlund Social Media Admin Aisha Piracha-Zakariya Rachel Kellerman Bella Daly VOTER and E-Blast Editors Hannah Lu Arati Periyannan Voter's Edge David Springer Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and Action Alerts Click here to sign up for Email News and Action Alerts from LWVUS How to contact your elected officials United States President Joseph R. Biden (202) 456-1414 Senator Dianne Feinstein (415) 393-0707 Senator Alex Padilla 202-224-3553 Rep. Anna Eshoo (650) 323-2984 California Governor Gavin Newsom (916) 445-2841 Senator Josh Becker (650) 212-3313 Assemblymember Marc Berman (650) 691-2121 Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian (650) 965-8737 joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Other Areas in California Locate your elected officials by street address For a complete list of ALL your electeds, see here on our website. JOIN A TEAM Learn More About Our Teams and Programs on our Website! Facebook Twitter Website Copyright © 2022 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.