Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-18 City Council EmailsFrom:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:Item #9 Impact Fees Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 12:05:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing & Council Members, The residents of Palo Alto need the council to reject lowering impact fees as proposed in item number 9. Our libraries, parks, and community centers are the long standing, established foundations that contribute to the well being of residents of all ages. Do not cut funding for Parks, Libraries and Community Centers. As you well know during the week our population is approximately 125,000 but on weekends 67,000. The town endures stresses on services and infrastructure. The carbon increase is already showing the impacts of car commutes to Palo Alto. The residents should not subsidize well-paid SV workers to move here. That is exactly what the developers are urging you to do. Palo Altans already subsidize services and infrastructure so this change will harm the city should you allow developers to decrease impact fees. Do not buckle under pressure from developers to lower impact fees. You need to support the quality of life that parks, community centers and libraries hold for Palo Altans. Take a good look at who is pushing you to do otherwise. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:Annette Ross To:Council, City Subject:Impact Fees Date:Monday, November 18, 2024 8:51:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Council Members: I understand that Council may consider reducing impact fees. Why? A past Council struggled to get these fees to their current level. Costs across the board are increasing, unfunded State mandates are impacting local governments unfavorably, and myriad pieces of legislation already provide plenty of concessions to developers. Fees are critical to providing and maintaining infrastructure. And Palo Alto is required to grow. You know all this. Please, let's not compound our problems. Annette Ross Palo Altoona Sent from my iPhone From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:For Study Session Monday Nov. 11 Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 3:54:06 PM To: City Council Members From: Winter Dellenbach Date: For 11-18-2024 Council meeting RE: IPA & PAPD Study Session with City Council Independent Police Auditor (IPA), Jan 1 - May 31, 2024 Body Worn Cameras Disappointingly, body worn cameras were never activated 9 times or late into during an incident. Use of these cameras has been a vital check on police excesses or exoneration, and are evidentiary of criminal activity or its absence. Unfailing timely use is critical to good policing inPalo Alto. IPA Recommendation #9 “PAPD should focus managerial attention on ways of ensuring that officers are meeting policy expectations regarding use and activation of body-worn cameras.” My Recommendation: #9 seems amorphous. Please ask what specifically what will be done to cure this situation? Less Lethal Projectile Use Deploying a less lethal projectile, here a SAGE round, commonly termed a “rubber bullet”, shot off part of a person’s finger. What type of SAGE was used is unknown (there are several). Less lethal doesn’t mean injury or death can’t occur - use may result in either, though it can be safer than shot with a firearm. My Recommendation: We need to be better informed about SAGE use. I encourage you to ask for information specifically about the type of SAGE used that blew off part of a person’s finger. Several Officers simultaneously pointed firearms at this person which was reported. Audit Suggestions for the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) It would be valuable to have the IPA perform an audit of PAPD Field Training or body worn camera use. My Recommendation: I urge you to ask the IPA about both, then consider having one performed. ++++++++++++++ PAPD Use of Force Report for Jan 1 - June 30, 2024 There were a total of six use of force cases during the first half of 2024 by Officers using physical strength alone. This resulted in injury beyond what could be treated in the field to all 6 persons. The race of these 6 subjects was: Black (3), White (1), Hispanic (1), and Other (1). While a small sample, it is consistent with prior demographic reporting showing use of force more often used on Black and Hispanic people. Additionally, PAPD firearm pointing, or stopping individuals is more often experienced by Black and Hispanic persons than Whites or Asians. Taser Use Taser use in 2022, 2023 and first half of 2024 is zero. Use of Tasers may result in injury or death. Before 2022, Tasers use was not unusual. My Recommendation: Ask what accounts for this fairly dramatic change in Taser use? +++++++++++++ TRUST County officials now have a direct, 24/7 hotline to reach TRUST (the Trusted Response Urgent Support Team), a mental health crisis team that rolls out in vans across the county to de-escalate emergencies and provide resources and assistance to individuals and their family members. It does so without the presence of police. Those in mental health crisis can now call the direct line at 408-596-7290. This is a huge improvement to simplifying access to TRUST services. My Recommendation: I urge the PAPD to post this direct number on its website in an appropriate place, so those in crisis may easily and quickly access it. We urge you to prioritize community safety and employee welfare in your deliberations. Local1319 stands ready to collaborate in implementing solutions that will enhance public safety, maintain high-quality emergency response, and support the dedicated employees who make itpossible. Thank you for your time and commitment to making the right decision for our community andworkforce. We are happy to speak with any of you to discuss these matters further. Respectfully, Joseph Penko Palo Alto Fire Department Local 1319 President C: 650.392.5589 | E: josephpenko@gmail.com City of Palo Alto (ID # 8530) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/16/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fire Deployment Changes & Amendment to the Table of Organization & Budget Amendment Title: Fire Department Deployment Changes and the Conclusion of Meet and Confer With IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) Related to Impacts From the Stanford Fire Contract Revenue Reduction; Approve a Budget Amendment in the General Fund; and Approve an Amendment of the Table of Organization by Eliminating 7.0 Firefighter and 4.0 Apparatus Operator Positions From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Amend the Table of Organization by eliminating 4.0 FTE Apparatus Operators and 7.0 FTE Firefighter (Paramedics) positions; 2. Amend the FY 2018 Appropriation Ordinance for the General Fund by a. Increasing the Fire Department appropriation in the amount of $70,000; b. Decreasing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $70,000. 3. Acknowledge completion of the meet and confer process with IAFF over impacts related to the reduction in Stanford Fire Contract revenue. Executive Summary If approved, the actions recommended in this report will implement service delivery deployment changes in the Fire Department realizing $1.5 million in annual savings and reducing daytime staffing by one position and nighttime staffing by three positions. This savings will assist in partially offsetting lower reimbursements from Stanford University for fire services. The proposed deployment saves approximately $1.5 million annually, adds a fourth ambulance, keeps all fire stations open and staffed 24 hours per day, results in no layoffs and is consistent with the performance standards of the department. The proposed model is responsive to service demand levels that increase during the daytime and decrease in the nighttime. It is anticipated that all aspects would be implemented no later than January 2018. In July 2016, the City of Palo Alto (City) began formal meet and confer sessions with the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) due to a significant revenue reduction from the Stanford Fire Contract. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Station 4 3600 Middlefield Engine, Ambulance (Cross-Staffed 24 Hr) 3 3 Station 5 600 Arastradero Engine, Wildland Engine (Cross-Staffed 24 Hr) 3 3 Station 6 (Stanford) 711 Serra Engine, Battalion Chief, Ladder Truck 8 8 TOTAL 27 27 Under California labor laws, the City must meet and confer in good faith with the labor group, IAFF, over bargainable impacts defined under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). IAFF is offered extensive opportunities to respond and identify impacts related to intended changes. MMBA allows for lengthy question and answer periods allowing the IAFF to seek clarification, request data and public records, and to propose alternative solutions for impacts within their bargaining unit. Discussion Since July 2016, the City conducted 14 meet and confer sessions with the IAFF. The City sought to identify expenditure reductions and cost recovery opportunities as a result of revenue reductions from the Stanford Fire Contract. The City also sought to continue to meet its service performance goals through the identification of efficient and alternative delivery models. The goals guiding these efforts include: a. Meeting adopted performance standards for emergency calls: o Eight minutes or less, 90 percent of the time in urban and suburban service areas o 20 minutes or less, 90 percent of the time in rural service areas of the Palo Alto Foothills b. Ensuring risk reduction (fire & life safety) inspections, mandated training, community service, and administrative assignments can be completed c. Strategically planning for future call growth o Emergency medical services call volume continues to increase due to larger daytime populations and community members aging into high risk demographics for EMS utilization d. Maintain at least one paramedic on every ambulance, fire engine, and ladder truck. At the conclusion of the meet and confer process, the parties understand that the revised deployment model will continue to maintain at least one paramedic on every fire engine, ladder truck and ambulance. Below provides a summary of the major deployment changes as recommended by the staff. The following sections in this report discuss in further detail these changes including an understanding of how they were arrived at. - Reduce daily staffing on the ladder truck from 4 personnel to 3 personnel - Cross-staff an engine apparatus and an ambulance apparatus at three of the six stations allowing personnel to respond on either apparatus depending on the call for service type - Four ambulances staffed during peak hours (8:00 am to 8:00 pm daily), increasing from the current level of three - The apparatus assigned to calls will be based on physical proximity to the needed call. City of Palo Alto Page 5 a. Measuring and prioritizing the fire, rescue and emergency medical services risks in the community b. Evaluating and prioritizing the PAFD’s resources to manage or reduce the identified community risks c. Identifying and establishing objective prevention and deployment strategies to meet established performance standards and adopted response policies d. Ensuring a safe and effective response force for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations e. Annually evaluating and validating crew size and configuration, effective response force performance on all types of incidents and overall system performance f. Informing policy makers, government leaders, and the public about the community’s risks and capabilities of the fire department to operate within the available resources g. Modeling system performance using advanced predictive data analytics that includes call volumes, locations of calls, and traffic patterns under a variety of unique resource deployments. Demand for fire and EMS services are directly related to the size of the population. There is a strong correlation between daytime and nighttime populations and the number of requests for fire and EMS services. The demographics for fire are influenced by the age of buildings, rentals versus ownership, maintenance of the buildings and the demographics of the occupants. EMS is very much driven by age, with young and old populations utilizing emergency medical services much more frequently. In Palo Alto and Stanford, the number of fire incidents has declined 32 percent since 2007. Residential structure fires have decreased by 82 percent in the same period. This is primarily a result of strong and effective building codes especially fire sprinklers, new construction practices that incorporate fire resistive materials, and fire safe appliances. In addition, public education has increased awareness among occupants and property owners regarding fire prevention and fire safe practices. EMS activity on the other hand has increased 36 percent and ambulance transports 52 percent since 2007. Much of this can be attributed to aging populations and the expanded awareness of the 9-1-1 system. A recent analysis showed that Palo Alto residents ages 65 and over account for 17 percent of the population, but account for nearly 50 percent of the ambulance transports to hospitals. The City of Palo Alto has been a leader nationally in providing pre-hospital emergency medical services. More recent advances in communication and monitoring technology, have contributed to the growing use of the 9-1-1 system. 9-1-1 provides an almost instantaneous link to first responders and quick response. The scope and quality of services provided by the PAFD is acknowledged in the annual National Citizens Survey as one of the top rated city service. Ambulance Staffing Currently the PAFD staffs three ambulances, two dedicated and one cross-staffed unit 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. The two dedicated ambulances are staffed with a crew of two firefighter/paramedics full time with no cross-staffing. The third ambulance, a cross-staffed ambulance, is staffed with a crew of three who can respond on either the ambulance or fire engine. Cross-staffing both the ambulance and fire engine is a way to increase efficiency and serve the community by using one crew of medical personnel and firefighters to staff multiple fire apparatus. Based upon the call, the dispatchers and emergency responders decide which apparatus the crew takes to the call. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The deployment change also modifies staffing for one of the department’s ambulances from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am, when calls for service are at their lowest. In the evening, the ambulance would be cross-staffed by an engine company. This new night staffing model (8:00 pm to 8:00 am), provides a total of 24 firefighters on duty each night. The new plan proposes staffing four ambulances 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. This is one more than the old deployment model. Daytime: From 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, two ambulances would have dedicated staffing as is the current practice. Two additional ambulances would be cross-staffed by two fire engine crews. Nighttime: From 8:00 pm to 8:00 am, when the call volume is the lowest, one ambulance would have dedicated staffing and three crews would cross-staff an ambulance and engine. The last modification would extend the PAFD’s practice of staffing all ambulances with at least one paramedic and one Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Truck Staffing Under the proposed deployment, there will be one less firefighter on duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, 26 under the proposed deployment, compared to 27 under the old. This is accomplished by staffing the PAFD’s ladder truck with three firefighters instead of four. This returns to the staffing configuration used on the ladder truck for decades in the PAFD. In 2013, the crew size increased from three to four firefighters. This ladder truck staffing modification is based upon a community-wide risk assessment, critical task analysis, and effective response forces needed to mitigate known hazards. Other factors considered include the emergency call volume and types of calls for the ladder truck. Finally, the City maintains and supports automatic aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions that immediately dispatch multiple ladder trucks to high risk, low frequency incidents. PAFD’s primary automatic aid partner staffs their ladder truck with three personnel as well. Stanford Staffing Under the proposed deployment, a total of eight personnel staffing four apparatus will be located at the Stanford Fire Station. This includes one ambulance, the ladder truck, one fire engine and a smaller unit known as a rapid response vehicle (RRV). All units are available to respond to calls for service throughout the City of Palo Alto and Stanford. The RRV is a new and innovative EMS and fire apparatus, smaller than a municipal engine and slightly larger than a full size pick-up truck, designed to maneuver on narrow streets in the core campus area and other densely populated areas in downtown Palo Alto. The RRV contains medical equipment to function at the paramedic level. It also has a small pump and water tank designed to extinguish minor fires. The RRV responds to lower level and non-emergent EMS calls, small fires, service calls, and fire and supervisory alarms on Stanford Campus. A minimum of two personnel, one of whom is a paramedic, will staff the RRV. The crew assigned to the engine cross-staffs the fire engine and RRV. Timeline The implementation process will begin immediately after receiving Council Authorization to amend the table of organization and acknowledge completion of the meet and confer process. Fire Department City of Palo Alto Page 7 staff will work to make the appropriate changes to dispatch systems, conduct any staff alignment and station assignments with IAFF, and consult with neighboring fire jurisdictions to review mutual and automatic aid agreements. All proposed changes are anticipated to go into effect no later than mid- January 2018. Resource Impact The FY 2018 Adopted budget reflected anticipated reductions in expenses of $1.3 million as a result of these deployment changes. Although this model is anticipated to save $1.5 million, the current adopted reduction of $1.3 million is anticipated to be appropriate for FY 2018 due to the phasing of the implementation. The ongoing reduction in costs, namely the elimination of 11 full time positions will be included in the development of the FY 2019 budget. In order to implement these changes, some additional costs are anticipated. Additional uniform equipment is recommended to ensure turnout-times of cross-staffed crews are not delayed by moving personal protective equipment between two different apparatus. The one-time cost associated with this is anticipated to be $70,000 with ongoing costs estimated at $20,000 annually. This report, requests additional funds of $70,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and the ongoing funding will be evaluated as part of the FY 2019 budget with the goal of finding net- zero adjustments to absorb these costs in the Department and only adjustments brought forward as needed. The reduction in the BSR would result in a further reduction of the Budget Stabilization Reserve below the City Council approved 18.5 percent, however, it is anticipated that sufficient excess revenues and additional expense savings from FY 2017 will offset this once the FY 2017 financials are closed. Therefore, it is staff’s intent to restore the BSR to City Council approved target of 18.5 percent. If the actions recommended in this report are approved, in total approximately $823,000 will have been used from the BSR to date in FY 2018, primarily for the janitorial services contract approved in August 2017. In addition, the City in coordination with Stanford will need to design and purchase a new rapid response vehicle. It is expected that Stanford will pay the full cost of the apparatus as part of the new agreement. In the interim, the PAFD can modify an existing fire apparatus for a short-term and temporary solution. Environmental Impact This report is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Environmental review is not required. Attachments  Attachment A - Data used to determine System Performance and Design during the Meet and Confer Process  Attachment B – Unit Hour Utilization (UHU): Predicted Overall Utilization of new deployment, data analyzed May 2017 Attachments:  Data used to determine System Performance and Design during the Meet and Confer Process October 16 2017  May 2017 UHU Analysis Data used to determine System Performance and Design during the Meet and Confer Process Time of Day Workload The time analysis that shows significant variation is response activity by hour of day. Response workload directly correlates with the activity of people, with workload increasing during daytime hours and decreasing during nighttime hours as shown in the following figure. Incident activity is at its highest between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM County Ambulance handling EMS calls in Palo Alto (Predicted Trufage) Turfage is a term used to describe when the Palo Alto Fire Department has committed all ambulances to calls for service and County Ambulance must respond to handle the subsequent emergency medical services call. Key P0b s001: Current deployment P4J1 s000: Proposed deployment Overall Utilization Comparison -- All simulated units Utilization Comparison - PAF Core Units Utilization Comparison - Autoaid Units Predicted Utilization -- Medical "Turfage" From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City; citymgr@cirtyofpaloalto.org Cc:Jo Ann Mandinach Subject:#9 Impact Fees Date:Sunday, November 17, 2024 12:35:58 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from needtono@well.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Please don't even think of forcing residents to deal with reduced city services to allow developers to profit evenmore. I was surprised to see candidates for council bragging about how they worked to restore library hours when they'restill way below the pre-lockdown schedules. For example, Rinconada -- formerly Main -- Library -- only saw restored hours for Monday hours until 6PM whichstill has only only has 2 evening hours all week -- from 6-8PM on Thursdays -- because it pushed up the openingtime by the same 2 hours -- so it opens at noon instead of 10AM. Obviously working adults and kids with after-school jobs are severely disadvantaged Further, to save money they've eliminated Author Alerts which alerts you to acquisitions for your favorite authors tosave a lousy $5 a YEAR per user. They justify this because "only" 5 patrons have bothered to complain and theirpolicies are "data-driven" rather than reality-based since a quick glance at the HOLD shelves shows a hugeshrinkage now that no one knows when there's a new work of interest to reserve. This type of false economy is very irritating, reduces the libraries' value and led me to foot the bill personally for thevery same valuable Author Alert service -- AND wasted my time researching how to restore the service for my ownuse. It also wasted the librarians' time trying to justify the indefensible new policy. We need to fund the libraries and parks MORE, not less, especially when they'll be serving 6,000+ MORE residentsdue to the new developments. Please support residents and resident services, not developers by letting them profit even more. Respectfully,Jo Ann MandinachPalo Alto, CA 94301 From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team Subject:Council Consent Questions: 11/18/24 Date:Thursday, November 14, 2024 5:07:38 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage002.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff responses to questions submitted by Council Member Tanaka: November 18 Amended Agenda Staff responses to Item 3 Best, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org 2 #512854432_v2 distinct fee structure is preferred because it more proportionately reflects the size and impact of the residential units.”1 Conversely, staff explains that a consolidated rate is more appropriate where “a jurisdiction may not have sufficient building permit data” or “may not be able to project the type of future development.”2 While staff goes on to suggest selection of the distinct rate structure, it appears that the presented building permit data is in fact insufficient, that future development was almost entirely ignored in the analysis and therefore the impact of future development unknown, and that the data may have been selectively chosen to skew the Council’s choice in favor of the distinct rate. The staff report and supporting memorandum from DTA dated August 20, 2024 (the “DTA Report”) imply that many factors, including multiple pieces of information gleaned from the building permit data, and a detailed analysis of anticipated trends in future development, were used to arrive at the distinct rate. However, the discussion on page 3 of the staff reveals a much simpler truth - the distinct rate is merely the result of dividing the current fee by average unit sizes, almost entirely based on past building permit data and selective pending projects: The building permit data provided for multifamily developments from 2013 to 2024 bizarrely includes two projects whose applications were withdrawn (486 Hamilton Avenue and 200 Portage), but excludes this Project all other pending residential development projects proposed under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the Housing Accountability Act. We have likewise been unable to find any substantive analysis of potential future development, even though staff opines that the ability to predict future development is one of the two factors that inform whether selection of a distinct rate structure is appropriate. It appears that the only way future development assumptions informed this analysis, was back in 2021, before the City received its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, before it received many of the applications included in the building permit data list, and certainly before it received any of the in-process Builder’s Remedy applications. This outdated information (exceedingly low assumptions of 2,517 units for single-family and 2,007 units for multifamily 1 Item 9: Staff Report, page 3. 2 Item 9, Staff Report, page 4. 3 #512854432_v2 between 2021-2041) appears to have been used to arrive at the current fees (see DTA Report tables 3, 5, and 7), which then became the basis for the proposed distinct fee by dividing the current fee by the average square footages indicated in the building permit data. Without updating the assumed units that will be built from 2021-2041 in any way, the analysis is entirely skewed and inaccurate. We suggest that City Council simply has not been provided with enough data about and analysis of both past development and future anticipated development, especially the latter category. In such a situation, by staff’s own admission it is more appropriate to adopt the consolidated rate. We note that as staff mentions in its report, Council is at liberty to select either option and will be considering the City’s entire development impact fee structure in more detail in 2025, with the support of much more robust study. Until then, we urge the Council to conservatively adopt the consolidated rate structure. If City Council Selects the Distinct Rate, It Should Be Made More Equitable The vast difference between the square footage rate that staff suggests for a single-family unit versus a multi-family unit, is inequitable. It essentially functions as an additional “tax” on multifamily development that will be passed on to families who cannot affordable single-family homes, penalizing them for their desire or need to live in a rental unit or smaller unit rather than building a home. As fellow stakeholder Grubb Properties has pointed out, an 850 square foot multifamily or duplex unit would pay the same as a much larger, 2,014 square foot single-family home. Put another way, a 1,400 square foot multifamily unit would pay more than a single-family home more than twice its size at 3,000 square feet: Staff states that it “disagrees” that this is disproportionate and inequitable, opining that “apartments will typically house more residents in the same square footage,” and it is therefore “more equitable to charge distinct fees to multi-family and single-family development.” Staff then goes on to say that the distinct rate was calculated based on “average unit and household sizes.” However, there is no evidence that any data related to the size of a household was considered – the building permit data listed in the DTA Report is devoid of this information. Even if the data was considered, an even payment per person is not necessarily an equitable payment. Charging families who live in closer quarters more, penalizes their inability to buy or build a new home. It is that simple. It also 4 #512854432_v2 incentivizes developers to propose developments composed of micro-units, further adding to the shortage of family-sized units across all types of housing. For all of the above reasons, we request that Council consider lowering the per square foot rate for multifamily units if it selects the distinct option. Thank you for considering our requests. Sincerely, Matt Hengehold President, Hengehold Trucks From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Cc:"Roy Kornbluh" via SVBC Palo Alto Team; Transportation Subject:Bike Parking for Apartments. Date:Wednesday, November 13, 2024 12:35:36 PM If city staff is working with apartment owners to install car chargers, why is secure, sheltered bike storage at apartment complexes not also part of this discussion? I've had hundreds of people, including our mayor, tell me, "I can't ride a bike because I live in an apartment andthere's no safe place to store it." I would also like to know why this wasn't part of the discussion decades ago. Failure to address the obvious doesn'tfill me with confidence when it comes to the councils ability to address climate change. Deb G., 94306 Source: American Friends Service Committee – Companies Profiting from the Gaza Genocide | American Friends Service Committee https://search.app/kBJG32JcCMTQvgqk8. 4. Given Keith’s religious affiliations and his employment with Lockheed as a weaponsmaker, do you believe it is realistic to expect him to have the courage to call for a cease-fire resolution or to demand an end to all military aid to Israel? Henry, please let me know yourthoughts on the Keith Reckdahl matter. 100 American Communities Have Called for a Gaza Cease-Fire https://search.app/iru9XrYo6fYqabgi7. Best regards, Avram Finkelstein (aka Aram James)https://search.app/kBJG32JcCMTQvgqk8 Penalizing petty crimes more severely won Big corporate pharma won too to get a larger share of the med-ical pie of prescription drug $$$. In many ways these were way more critical than voting for candidates. The passage or failure of these are what will and those in the future will be contending with for decades to come. For me the most heartbreaking was the absolute devastation proposition 33. California needs every tool box in the kit to combat the housing and un- affordability crisis. Huge global corporations like Blackstone (a major slumlordwho is also buying up small hospitals etc across the nation) who poured millionsinto defeating the measure. I am a Californian, born in the Bay Area. I personally have been affected first by the affects of Prop 13 which as a child I could not vote against yet felt the impact immediately in my school, in my housing, in my public library. Then when I could vote like again Costa Hawkins in 1995, ever so hopeful that also went down in flames. The economic crisis we as Californians and as a nation are existential. It's been decades in the making. After this election I am not veryoptimistic that it won't get worse. The voter here whether informed or not have spoken at their BB on Nov. 5th and the choices are going to restrict, constrain and consternate. What a pity, what ashame we as humans could not have done better for each other, for our community, our state and our Nation. It appears that the propositions were the Trump votes that blue "non partisan" vote California crossed over to the red in droves. Sincerely, Liz Liz GardnerPalo Alto On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:12 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:Latest results as of 11/12/2024 in the Palo Alto City Council race for the 4th and last openseat. Doria Summa 10,795 Keith Reckdahl 10,825 Keith led by 15 last night and leads by 30 votes tonight. Did the register of voters steal this election from Doria Summa? Should there be a new special election? Should Keith Reckdahl simply do the right thing and concede the election to DoriaSumma? Keith is 59, Doria is 66. Election Night Reporting https://search.app/ogDhibhnpaW7UPWeA Fixin’ San Mateo County fully supports the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors’ findings and recommendations following this report, including the call for the Sheriff to resign. As community members, we are deeply concerned by the documented actions of Sheriff Christina Corpus and her Chief of Staff, Victor Aenlle, which undermine public confidence. We have long advocated for the appointment of a permanent Inspector General, and we urge the Board to take this vital step. A dedicated Inspector General would provide a steady, transparent avenue for addressing concerns, empowering deputies to report issues and fostering a culture of integrity and accountability. We also call on the Board to task the Independent Citizen Advisory Committee (ICAC) with reviewing Judge Cordell’s findings and advising on essential steps forward. Their insights are critical to achieving meaningful reform. Fixin’ San Mateo County, alongside the Coalition for a Safer San Mateo County, extends sincere gratitude to Judge LaDoris Cordell for her exhaustive investigation and to the Board of Supervisors for their prompt, transparent response in releasing this report. We stand ready to support all efforts that prioritize justice and safety for every member of our community. Jim Lawrence, Presidente de Fixin' San Mateo County, emitió la siguiente declaración hoy en respuesta al reciente informe del Jueza LaDoris Cordell en la Oficina del Sheriff del Condado de San Mateo: "Estoy profundamente alarmado por las conclusiones del informe de la juez LaDoris Cordell, que exponen graves problemas dentro de la Oficina del Sheriff. Este informe subraya la urgente necesidad de una supervisión independiente para salvaguardar la confianza pública y garantizar la responsabilidad de nuestras fuerzas del orden. Las conclusiones del juez Cordell destacan el papel crítico que un Inspector General desempeñaría en el Condado de San Mateo. Si queremos recuperar la confianza en la Oficina del Sheriff, debemos establecer mecanismos de supervisión robusta ahora." Fixin' San Mateo County apoya plenamente la Junta de Supervisores del Condado de San Mateo de las conclusiones y recomendaciones a raíz de este Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website or otherwise asked to be updated about Fixin' San Mateo County. Copyright © 2024 Fixin' San Mateo County (FxSMC), All rights reserved. regarding how to submit oral public comment at the hearings. If you challenge the above land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised during consideration of the item at the above public meetings, or in written correspondence delivered to the County of Santa Clara Planning Commission by emailing planning2@pln.sccgov or planning.commission@pln.sccgov.org, or by delivering correspondence to the addresses above, prior to or at the public meetings. Board of Supervisors: Prior to the hearing, written communications should be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors prior to the hearing date by emailing to Boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org or delivering to 70 W. Hedding Street, 10th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, CA 95110. If you challenge this decision, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors prior to, or at, the public hearing. SPOKEN PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the public may provide spoken public comments at these meetings as follows: Spoken public comments will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Planning Commission or the Board, click on the associated Zoom link for the relevant on the web address above to access the Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. 1. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser such as Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, or Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer. 2. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. The Clerk requests that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. 3. When the Commission Chairperson calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. (Call in attendees press *9 to request to speak, and *6 to unmute when prompted.) 4. When called to speak, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. From:Bruce Hodge To:Council, City Subject:Comments to Palo Alto City Council, 12-Nov-2024 Date:Tuesday, November 12, 2024 4:55:41 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from hodge@tenaya.com. Learn why this isimportant Comments to Palo Alto City Council, 12-Nov-2024 Good evening - Bruce Hodge - with Carbon Free Palo Alto. Tonight I speak with a heavy heart - mindful of the attacks that will be unleashed on our ability to address the climate crisis - as the result of our fateful election only 1 week ago today. This incredibly unfortunate result means that climate progress will necessarily shift to state, regional and local initiatives. The City of Palo Alto has put a tremendous amount of effort towards identifying and implementing programs and policies that will move the needle forward. But City Hall cannot do it alone. This is a project that requires participation from all sides - our community needs to step it up and respond to this crisis by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. For most residents, this means replacing your gas water heater and gas furnace with ultra efficient heat pump devices. And ditching your gas car for an EV or a hybrid. Want to avoid health problems? Replace your harmful gas stove with an electric induction cooktop. You won’t believe how much nicer the cooking experience will be. Ask your electrified neighbor to show you! And yes, City Hall could do more, and we here at Carbon Free Palo Alto have a list of no regrets actions that the City could take. High on that list is for the City to provide zero percent interest financing for climate friendly upgrades - for the amount in excess of the normal replacement costs. We’ve crunched the numbers, and the City can provide this at scale - at a low and reasonable cost. We’re urging utilities and CCAs in the entire Bay Area to do the same. Our list of actions also includes being smarter about how electrification occurs by promoting a common sense approach called the Watt Diet. There are also a number of local mandates that we think are worthy of consideration. Our hope is that the City Council will become more engaged in this crisis - starting now! Let’s craft smart and effective solutions and engage the community. Come on - let’s roll!