10/17/2011 - cityofpaloalto.org

DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:

LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL

RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS

ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES

ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES

10/17/2011 SET 2

Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week.

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Lauren [[email protected]] Saturday, October 08, 2011 4:45 PM Architectural Review Board; Espinosa, St1<omnf'l; cmr,~ ~t I object to the ATT DAS Project .. . . .

Dear Mayor, City Council, and ARB Board Members

I am writing to request that you halt the rollout of the ATT DAS System. I object to this system because lam against unnecessary blanket proliferation of wireless antennae due to health concerns. In addition, I believe it will damage the enjoyment of my home and my property value due to its unsightly appearance and noise generating equipment. I request that the City of Palo Alto invest the time and resources to create a Wireless Master Plan in the interest of all Palo Alto citizens.

Sincerely, Lauren Burton

Sent from my iPhone

1

Minor, Beth

From: [email protected]

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 12:35 PM

To: Council, City

Subject: I object to the AT&T DAS Project

Dear City Council,

Page 1 of1

, , OCl \ ,AM 1: 14 2

I am writing to request that you halt the rollout of the AT&T DAS System. I object to this system because I believe it will damage my property value due to its unsightly appearance and noise generating equipment. I also have concerns about whether these towers could be dangerous to our health. I request that the City of Palo Alto invest the time and resources to create a Wireless Master Plan in the interest of all Palo Alto citizens. Thanjk you,

Susan Edelman

[email protected] EarthLink Revolves Around You.

10/11/2011

Minor, Beth

From:

Sent:

To:

Dick Maltzman [[email protected]]

Sunday, October 09, 2011 11 :42 PM

Architectural Review Board; Espinosa, Sid (internal); Council, City II OCT I I AM 1: 41

Cc: David Matheson; David Schrom; Irene Au; Mike Knowles; Sarah Carpenter; Terry Godfrey

Subject: I object to the AT&T DAS Project


Page 1 of7

I am writing to request that you halt the rollout of the ATT DAS System. I object to this system because I believe it will damage my property value due to its unsightly appearance and noise generation, as well as the obvious concern about the health hazards from microwave radiation from cell towers sitting in front of your house.

In addition, apart from its effect on property values, I am very concerned about the radiation emitting from these towers and their effect on everyone, particularly small children. They are proposing installing one of these DAS towers directly in front of our home at 1880 Park Blvd. Immediately across the street is the Peers Park Pre-School and our neighbor on the other side of the telephone pole in question has two very small children.

Finally there is the noise level- a constant 46 decibels in front of our tiny house. We have one of the smallest cottages on one of the smallest lots in Palo Alto. We have high windows, perfect for ventilation in the Summer - and an avenue for the constant noise level to intrude on our lives. It is inconceivable that placing this DAS monstrosity in front of our little cottage won't tremendously impair its resale value, if not make it practically unsalable. Allowing such an intrusion has to be a taking without compensation in violation of the US and California Constitutions.

There have, been two studies, one in Germany and one in Israel about the health hazards of living in the vicinity of cell towers - and they find the risk extends over 300 yards around the tower. The article describing these studies can be found at http://www.emf-health.com/articles-celltower.htm. Even more significant is the article by Karen J. Rogers at http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/Health-Effectsfrom-Cell-Phone-Tower-Radiation which I set forth in its entirety below. Then there is the question of necessity. I note, as most people have, that Verizon has much better reception in our area that does AT&T. Where are there cell towers? Why put these DAS towers directly in residential areas - why not on telephone poles carrying wires through unpopulated areas, like the foothills? Why not erect them along the railroad tracks where they at least would be out of sight?

I therefore respectfully request that the City of Palo Alto invest the time and resources to create a Wireless Master Plan in the interest of all Palo Alto citizens that protects our property values, esthetics and health.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Richard & Charlene Maltzman 1880 Park Blvd.

10111/2011

Palo Alto, CA 94306 Now Karen Rogers' Article:

Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation

by Karen J. Rogers

Page 2 of7

The safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that the electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health.

The cell phone industry is expanding quickly, with over 100,000 cell phone towers now up across the u. S., which is expected to increase ten-fold over the next five years. The industry has set what they say are "safe levels" of radiation exposure, butthere are a growing number of doctors, physicists, and health officials who strongly disagree, and foresee a public health crisis.

Many towers have been built recently in Siskiyou Colorado, with dozens more planned, as telecommunications companies rush to comer markets in this fast-growing industry. These towers emit radio frequencies (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), for a distance of up to 2-1/2 miles. They are essentially the same frequency radiation as microwaves in a microwave oven.

Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue andDN A, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. [1]

Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women. Doctors from the United Kingdom have issued warnings urging children under 16 not to use cell phones, to reduce their exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation. [2]

Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. And, 33 delegate from 7 countries have declared cell phone towers a "public health emergency".

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of setting the standards of exposure for the public, and claims that, based on scientific studies, the current levels are safe. But it is nota public health agency, and has been criticized as being "an arm of the industry". Many who work for the FCC are either past, present or future employees of the very industries they are supposed to regulate. With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, critics have stated "you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show".

"Our federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, and the blood supply were "safe", but which were later found to be harmful.

"You can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show."

- Cathy Bergman-Veniza, at Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center Conference, 1996

The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts, Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland, at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 microwatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S. Standard. [3,4]

1011112011

Page 3 of7

Contrary to what the communications industry tells us, there is vast scientific, epidemiological and medical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and microwave radiation emitted from cell towers, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. [5,6,7,8].

There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems.

Scientists and advocacy groups say that the current FCC "safe" standards are based on 1985 research, and fail to consider more recent research that found brain cancer, memory impairment, DNA breakdown, and neurological problems with RF at much lower levels. The earlier studies considered only the "thermal", or heating effects of the radiation - in other words, the level at which the radiation would heat tissue, or "cook" a person, in the same exact manner that a microwave oven works. The FCC levels may ensure our tissues are not "cooked", but they fail to address long-term chronic exposure at low levels, or what is called "non-thermal" effects.

Doctors say that RF radiation is wreaking havoc with normal biological cell functions. "RF alters tissue physiology" says Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who found genetic damage in a $28 million research program, paid for by the industry. He now fights to have safety levels lowered. [9] In 1998 the Vienna Resolution, signed by 16 of the world's leading bioelectromagnetic researchers, provided a consensus statement that there is scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposure are established. It says existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. No safe exposure level can be established at this time.

The world's leading electromagnetic researchers say existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. - The Vienna Resolution, 1998

The Salzburg Resolution, adopted in 2000 at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than.1 mW/crn2 - 10,000 times more strict than the current U.S. standard. This limit takes into account the growing evidence for non-thermal RF bioeffects. [10]

Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary, chronic, cumulative Radio Frequency Radiation. Low levels ofRFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the .01 to 100 mW/crn2 range at levels hundreds, indeed, thousands, of times lower than the U.S. standards. These harmful low levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location. Reported health problems include headache, sleep disorders, memory impairment, nosebleeds, an increase in seizures, blood brain barrier leakage problems, increased heart rates, lower sperm counts, and impaired nervous systems.[ 11 ] (Emphasis supplied)

Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in history. There are no conclusive studies on the safety of such exposures, and the growing body of scientific evidence reports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable.

Dr. Neil Cherry, Ph.D. biophysicist from New Zealand, reports that "Th ere is no safe level of EMR radiation." He said the standards are based on thermal effects, but important non-thermal effects also take place, such as cell death and DNA breakdown. Dr. Cherry wrote a 120-page review of 188 scientific studies. liThe electromagnetic radiation causes cells to change in a way that makes them cancer forming." It can increase the risk of cancer two to five times, he said. liTo claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence." (Emphasis supplied)

liTo claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence." - Dr. Neil Cherry, biophysicist

Public health officials caution that we err on the side of conservatism, given the massive public health risk that is possible.

10/11/2011

Page 4 of7

Other federal health agencies disagree that safe levels of exposure have been identified, much less built into the FCC standard. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not agree with the FCC standards, and analysts have recommended that EMR be classified as a "probable human carcinogen". [12]

Deputy Director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Jacobsen, has stated that the safety ofRF "has not been established nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it", and cites risk of brain cancer, tumors and DNA breakdown. The California Public Utility Commission has urged the cell phone industry to not locate towers near schools or hospitals. And the World Health Organization reports "many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF fields and excess risk of cancer. These studies do not provide enough information to allow a proper evaluation of human cancer risk from RF exposure because the results of these studies are inconsistent."

"The safety of RF has not been established, nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it." -Elizabeth Jacobsen, Deputy Director, US Department of Health

"Our bodies are exquisitely sensitive to subtle electromagnetic harmonics, and we depend upon tiny electrical impulses to conduct complex life processes," says Dr. Robert Becker, author of The Body Electric, and Cross Currents, The Perils of Electropollution. [13, 14]

He says "at the present the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of (these) electromagnetic fields." Radiation once considered safe, he says, is now correlated with increases in birth defects, depression, Alzheimer's disease, learning disabilities, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and cancer.

The incidence of brain cancer is up 25% since 1973, and this year 185,000 Americans will be diagnosed with brain cancer. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and young adults.

Yet, the United States has a de facto policy of "post sales surveillance" with respect to RF radiation. Only after years of exposure, will there be studies to characterize the health consequences.

Some adverse health effects show up immediately, but it can often take 3 to 10 years for the longer term effects ofRF illness to appear, such as cancer. Many researchers, public health officials and citizens believe that consumers shouldn't be forced to act as guinea pigs in a bioeffects experiment for the next 20 years. In short, "we are the experiment", for health effects.

Dr. Gerard Hyland, physicist, says existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate, since they focus only on the thermal effects of exposure. [15] Hyland, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, says existing safety guidelines "afford no protection" against the non-thermal influences. "Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests. "

"Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate." - Dr. Gerard Hyland, Physicist - two-time nominee, Nobel Prize in Medicine

The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to ensure passage of a law which essentially gives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods, and makes it nextto impossible to oppose them based on health reasons. It is no coincidence that EPA funding was also cut in 1996 for electromagnetic radiation health studies. Citizens and communities across the country are angered, and are protesting this imposition of involuntary, 24-hour-a-day microwave exposure, without proven safety levels. As one citizen stated, "There's no place left to escape."

The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to pass a law that took away citizen's rights to oppose cell towers based on health reasons.

10111/2011

Page 5 of7

Also, once a cell tower is erected, it has proved very difficult to verify the radiation is within legal limits. There are no safety measures in place to ensure that the towers are not emitting higher radiation levels than legally allowed. One frustrated resident fmally spent $7,000 purchasing his own equipment to test a cell phone tower near hishome, and found it emitting radiation at levels 250% over the legal limit. [16]

Property values have also been known to drop once a cell tower is erected, due to the perceived risk of negative health effects. Cellular phone frequencies have also seriously disrupted local emergency and law enforcement radio communications.

Massachusetts lawyer Mark Berthiaume, opposing placement of a cell phone tower, said "Municipalities .... are being bullied every day by providers of wireless telephone service who use their fmancial clout and the federal (law) to intimidate the communities into allowing them to place large towers in inappropriate locations." [17]

Some Questions and Answers:

But don't we need and depend on cell phones?

Of course. No one is saying not to have cell phones and towers, but to make them safer. If Austria can have levels 10,000 times more protective, then so can we. It is just more expensive to the companies. Also, we don't have to let.these cell towers go anywhere and everywhere the industry wants them. We can require that they erect the minimum number required to provide adequate coverage, and be put in the safest places possible.

Why don't we just oppose the construction of cell towers in our county?

In a strategic move, the cell phone industry has tried to make it illegal for citizens to oppose the towers based on health concerns. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, state and local rights were seriously limited with regard to opposing towers based on health concerns. The constitutionality of this Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court, and a long legal battle is sure to follow. But it will take years, while the public continues to be exposed to chronic, cumulative radiation with each new cell tower.

So what CAN we do?

The Telecommunications Act prevents citizens from opposing the towers based on concerns about RF emissions, but we can oppose them on numerous other valid grounds. There are still rights we and our local elected officials maintain, that allow us local control ofthe number, size and placement of cell towers, while still providing for adequate cell phone coverage. Numerous communities have called for moratoriums on tower construction, allowing them needed time to study the issue, and enact strict ordinances that require the industry to respect community desires, such as building the minimum towers necessary, in appropriate locations. During these moratoriums, communities are preparing non-industry biased studies of cell phone tower need, and creating cell tower Master Plans, to help protect the rights and health of citizens, while complying with the law. [18, 19, 20]

Siting of cellular towers is an important function of our elected officials. Protection of citizens' health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibilities of local government. We urge our elected officials to protect the health and welfare of the citizens who live here, rather than big-money interests with profit as their bottom line.

For further information, these websites offer a good starting point: emrnetwork.org, www.microwavenews.com. www.ccwti.org, www.wave-guide.org, www.planwireless.com, www.rfsafe.com, www.Sageassociates.net

©2002, Karen J. Rogers, B.S.

10/11/2011

Page 6 of7

Endnotes

1 Microwave and Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure, San Francisco Medicine, Vol. 74, No 3, March 2001 2 Mobiles Risk to children, Daily Mail (U.K.), May 11,2000 3 Radiofrequency Radiation Health Studies, Wireless Antenna Site Consumer Infonnation Package, Sage Associates, Montecito, CA, 2000, www.sageassocciates.net 4 Tower concerns should be health, not aesthetics, Burlington Free Press, January 12, 2001 5 Selected and Extensive Bibliographies on Electromagnetic Fields and Health, Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Infonnation Service, compiled by: Richard W. Woodley, revised 1999, www.waveguide.orglarchiveslbridlewoodlbiblio.html 6 Reported Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation, www.waveguide.org/library/studies.html 7 Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation, Sage Associates, 2000 at www.sageassociates.netlrfchartreportbio-sample.pdf, and Reference List for Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR), Sage Associates, August 2000, at: www.sageassociates.netlBibliographysample.pdf 8 A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?, includes extensive reference to scientific papers and government documents citing adverse health effects from cell tower radiation, ww.cyburban.coml~lplachta/safeweb2.htm

9 Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider's Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf, ©2001 10 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, by Monica Kauppi, No Place to Hide, September 2000, Resolution presented June 2000 and signed by 19 of23 speakers, including Dr. Carl Blackman of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 11 Ibid, endnote 5. 12 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, External Review Draft, No. EPAl600/6-901005B, October 1990. 13 Becker, Robert 0., & Gary Seldon, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1985 14 Becker, Robert 0., Cross Currents: The Perils of Electropollution, The Promise of Electromedicine, Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 336 pp., 1990. 15 The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Gerard Hyland, presented to European Parliament's Industry, Trade, Research and Energy Committee, July 11, 2001. 16 FCC takes look at 'antenna farm', Denver Post, October 30, 1998. 17 Town May Order Company to Remove Cellular Tower, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, March 20,2000. 18 Cellular Tower Zoning, Siting, Leasing and Franchising: Federal Developments and Municipal Interests, by Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, Howlett Attorneys at Law, presented to International Municipal Lawyers Association, September 2001. 19 Plan Wireless Newsletter, Kreines & Kreines, Inc., at www.planwireless.comlindex.htm. 20 U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, SPRINT SPECTRUM v WILLOTH , (Corrected Opinion, August Tenn 1998) , Docket No. 98-7442, at http://laws.findlaw.coml2ndl987442v2.html

10/1112011

Richard D. Maltzman MALTZMAN GOULD LLP

425 CALIFORNIA STREET 1880 PARK BLVD.

25th Floor Palo Alto, California 94303 San Francisco, California 94104 By Appointment Only

At either location: Telephone: (415) 434-3200; Direct Dial: (415) 317-5600; Facsimile: (650) 618-0411;

Email: [email protected] Absent an express statement to the contrary in the text of this email or its attachments, any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and shall not be relied upon by its recipient or any other person, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under any tax law. This message may contain confidential and/or legally-privileged information and is intended for use by the indicated addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee, (a) any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, or action you take because of it is strictly prohibited; (b) please return the complete message to the sender; and (c) this message is not a solicitation for purchase or sale or an agreement of any kind whatsoever that binds the sender

1011112011

Page 7 of7

Minor, Beth


Richard Simoni [[email protected] Monday, October 10, 2011 12:10 AM

Glty GF PAL9 A\"I~~~A tCny CLERK S (JrFle£

Architectural Review Board; Espinosa, Sid (internal); Counci~ Gity ATT DAS Project: other carriers, appearance, alternat\V~{)C I \ \ ~Mldf\

Dear Mayor, City Council, and ARB Board Members:

I believe there C!re significant problems with the AT&T DAS antenna plan that should be addressed before approval of this project.

There are 4 major wireless carriers in the U.S ... AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Will the other 3 carriers also be allowed to add their own units to the top of utility poles? As an electrical engineer (Ph.D. EE, 1992, Stanford) It makes no sense to me for the four carriers to independently do whatever they like on the poles without a coordinated effort and plan among them.

With respect to appearance and potential noise, they don't seem to have a great answer for locations where the major streets have underground utilities with no poles (e.g., much of Arastradero) apart from putting the equipment atop poles in regular residential streets. Certainly the City should object to these locations on aesthetic grounds.

I am in favor of improved wireless coverage, speed, access, etc., but there are other approaches besides a DAS system that can achieve this, such as regular macrocells with overlapping picocells in only those areas where the wireless traffic requires it, with supplemental femtocells and wi-fi. This type of approach may be more consistent with the aesthetic goals of the city, and it would serve the city well to work with AT&T on such an approach.

Best regards,

Rich Simoni King Arthur Ct Palo Alto, CA

Sent from my iPad

1

Page 1 of1

Minor, Beth

From: [email protected]

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 6:13 AM ;, AM 1: .. , Architectural Review Board; Espinosa, Sid (internal); Councill ~iW:l I I To:

Subject: I Object To the AT&T DAS System Project


I am writing to request that you halt the rollout of the AT&T DAS System. I object to this

system because I believe it will damage my property value due to its unsightly appearance

and noise generating equipment. I request that the City of Palo Alto invest the time and

resources to create a Wireless Master Plan in the interest of all Palo Alto citizens.

Regards,

Pete

Pete Wisowaty

1851 Park Blvd.

Palo Alto, CA 94306

(Tax Payer)

10/11/2011

Minor, Beth

From: Richard Brand [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:27 PM

To: Architectural Review Board; Council, City

Subject: Against ATT DAS Project

Ladies and Gentlemen: \

eliIY Of PALO ALTQ. CA tHTY CLERK'S OFFltl!:

fI OCT I I AM 7: 4 I

Page 1 of 1

Having researched this project I now wish to offer my objection. Previously I have state,d my concerns about the misuse by ATT of the generic term "wireless" when the discussion should include the present AND future technology to be included in these antennae. Are these antennae for cellular, IEEEB02.11 commonly called Wi Fi, or IEEEB02.16 etc? ATT shows little respect for the knowledge of our community by hiring Mr. Kasselman, a non-technical individual to speak to these issues and then lobbies their cellular customers to to support their DAS project as the only option to better coverage. Yes ATT has cellular coverage issues but they are mostly due to inadequate network design and . deployment as Verizon Wireless does not suffer the same conditions. I'm a Vz Wireless customer, why should my community have to suffer for the benefit of the minority ATT cellular customers? Palo Alto needs a comprehensive voice, video and data master plan before we allow these competitive carriers to make band-aid like fixes. Richard Brand 2B1 Addison ave.

10/11/2011

Minor, Beth

From: Sandeep Jain [[email protected]]

Sent:

To:

Monday, October 10, 2011 3:05 PM r, OCT Architectural Review Board; Espinosa, Sid (internal); Council, City'·. II

Subject: I object to the ATT DAS Project - Reconsider and get community involved


I am writing to request that you halt the rollout ofthe ATT DAS System.

Page 1 of1

AP11: 41

I object to this system because I believe it will damage my property value due to its unsightly appearance and noise generating equipment.

I request that the City of Palo Alto invest the time and resources to create a Wireless Master Plan in the interest of all Palo Alto citizens.

Further any such request with wide implications for the Palo Alto Community must solicit and accommodate community input extensively.

Community involvement, input and education has been sorely lacking in this project.

Thanks Sandeep

10/1112011

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To:

Shealan Singh [[email protected]] (fitlY OF PALO ALT(JOA Monday, October 10,20114:17 PM elTY CLERK'S t1FPj~f2 Architectural Review Board; Espinosa, Sid (internal); Council, City .

Subject: I object to the AT&T DAS Project , f OCT J r AM 7= ~ I

Dear Mayor, City Council, and ARB Board Members I am writing to request that you halt the rollout of the AT&T DAS System. I object to this system because I believe it will damage my property value due to its unsightly appearance and noise generating equipment. I request that the City of Palo Alto invest the time and resources to create a Wireless Master Plan in the interest of all Palo Alto citizens.

Thank you for your consideration, Shea Ian Singh Palo Alto Resident

1

Minor, Beth


Nick Briggs [[email protected]] Monday, October 10,20119:16 PM

"y Of PALO Y CLERK'S

Architectural Review Board; Espinosa, Sid (internal); CO\lQcH, Q.it~ I objectto the ATT DAS Project J1 eel I J AM 7: It'l


As the owner of 3994 La Donna Avenue, in close proximity to a proposed DAS antenna in the Barron Park neighborhood, I am writing to request that you halt the rollout of the ATT DAS System. I object to this system because I believe it will damage my property value due to its unsightly appearance, noise generating equipment, and the proximity of an emitter of EM radiation near my two-story residence. I request that the City of Palo Alto invest the time and resources to create a Wireless Master Plan in the interest of all Palo Alto citizens.

1

Minor. Beth

From: Stacey Curry Bishop [[email protected]] C'ITY OF PALOA~IO,CA $!TY CLERK'S OFFI£E

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:03 PM

To: Architectural Review Board; Espinosa, Sid (internal); Council, ch~CT II Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Please consider a thoughtful Wireless Master Plan for the City of Palo Alto

Dear Mayor, City Council, and ARB Board Members,

PH 5: I'

Page 1 of1

I'm writing this letter to formally document my outrage that the city of Palo Alto and AT&T are poised to place a cell tower 17 feet from my house at 230 Leland Avenue. I certainly understand that AT&T is attempting to address the poor cell phone reception issues that impact many areas of Palo Alto. However, scattering these towers throughout the city within close proximity of homes and families isn't a reasonable approach. The implementation of this ill-conceived plan promises to diminish the property tax base and quality of life of Palo Alto. I implore you to consider alternatives, including the placement of cell towers away from residential homes and schools (e.g., alongside the Caltrain tracks). Our beautiful city and its residents deserve more thoughtful approaches.

Sincerely,

Marc & Stacey Bishop

230 Leland Avenue

stacey. [email protected]

10/1112011

Page 1 of 4

Minor, Beth ¢/l)'llfd PALO ACrID, G.A

From: [email protected] on behalf of Office of EidTieYgQb&R~!i1~emt [[email protected]] . .

Sent: Wednesday, October OS, 2011 4:05 PM f t OCT -6 AM 7: 51 To: [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Announcement of emergency notification test by Stanford Univversityon October 12 at 12:05PM

Dear Stanford neighbor,

I am contacting you to let you know that on October 12th at approximately 12:05 PM, Stanford will be conducting its fall test of the campus emergency alert system, AlertSU. The AlertSU system was instituted by the university to comply with new campus emergency notification requirements. AlertSU is a tool which can be used to notify the campus community of an immediate life-safety situation, such as a wildfire, a large chemical release or an armed or dangerous person. The AlertSU system is a layered communications approach used to alert the campus community. The system is composed of a mass notification system capable of delivering messages via phone, email and SMS text, emergency information hotlines and websites and seven alert sirens located throughout the campus.

During the test on the 12th, individuals near the campus may hear the outdoor warning system being tested. You do not need to take any specific action during the test. The noise level during testing will be at approximately 90 decibels near the siren source and 70 decibels at the perimeter of campus, which is comparable to the volume of a vacuum cleaner. During the 60-second test, people on campus and nearby residents should hear a warning tone and verbal instructions followed by another tone and set of instructions. The outdoor emergency warning system consists of seven sirens distributed across the Stanford campus. After consultation with Stanford residential leaseholder and Santa Clara County representatives over placement, three have been mounted on 50-foot-tall poles along Arboretum Road, in Frenchman's Park near Gerona Road and on Stanford Avenue across from Nixon School. The other four sirens are mounted atop the Lyman Graduate Residences, the Beckman Center, Meyer Library and the Hoskins mid-rise in Escondido Village. Under the right conditions, the high-intensity sound created by the sirens can travel up to half a mile. The system is tested twice annually, specifically during the months of April and October. Residents of neighboring communities can receive advance electronic mail notifications of future tests by sending a blank email to [email protected]. Future test dates will also be announced on the university emergency website at http://emergency.stanford.edu and in local newspapers. More information about the tests and AlertSU is available at http://alertsu.stanford.edu. Please feel free to share this information with others in your community.

If you have any questions about the test or the AlertSU system, please feel free to send those to us at [email protected].

1016/2011

Sincerely,

Keith A. Perry Manager, Office of Emergency Management Environmental Health & Safety Stanford University

Additional information about the AlertSU Outdoor Warning System

What is the AlertSU Outdoor Warning System?

Page 2 of4

The AlertSU Outdoor Warning System consists of seven sirens with speakers geographically distributed across the main Stanford campus.

When will the AlertSU Outdoor Warning system be used? The AlertSU Outdoor Warning System will be used to notify the community of an immediate life safety situation. Examples of situations in which the system might be employed include:

• An armed and dangerous person on campus • A major chemical hazard with potential to affect a large segment of the campus • Any situation with the potential to cause significant harm to the campus community

Additionally, the system will be tested twice a year. Usually once in October and once in April.

What will the system sound like? What should I expect to hear?

When the system is activated, it will produce a warning tone possibly followed by voice instructions directing you to take specific action to protect your safety. When emergency officials determine that the threat is over, an "all clear" tone and message will be activated, indicating that it is safe to resume normal activities. To hear a sample of the Alert tone, visit our AlertSU Outdoor Warning System website at, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/EHS/prod/general/erprep/AlertSUOutdoorWarning.html.

What should I do if I hear the siren? If it is not a test, immediately stop and listen for additional instructions. Be prepared to act either by evacuating or seeking shelter in a secure location. After you are in a safer location, seek additional information by accessing one of the university emergency broadcast systems:

• Emergency hotline 725-5555

10/6/2011

Page 3 of4

• Emergency website http://emergency.stanford.edu • KZSU 90.1 FM

Where are the sirens located? There are seven sirens on the Stanford campus. They are located at:

• Arboretum Rd • Beckman Building • Lyman Graduate Residence • Meyer Library • Gerona Rd • Stanford Ave. • Hoskins Midrise

Where will I hear the sirens? The sirens have been designed and placed to allow for campus-wide coverage. The high intensity sound can travel up to one-;-half a mile from each pole. Sound range may vary based on location and conditions, such as terrain, buildings and outdoor noise. Neighbors in close proximity to campus may hear the system when it is activated and can check http://emergency.stanford.edu or one of the other information outlets for more information as it becomes available.

When will the sirens be tested? The sirens will be tested twice per year, once in the fall after students return to campus and once in the spring. Dates of tests will be placed on the university emergency website, http://emergency.stanford.edu and on the AlertSU system homepage http://alertsu.stanford.edu. To receive advance notice of siren tests via email, send a blank email to:

alertsu publicnotice- [email protected]

Will I hear the sirens indoors? Possibly, but people inside buildings usually will not hear the siren syst~m.The system is designed to notify people who are outdoors not those deep within buildings. For those indoors and in other areas where the sirens are not audible, Stanford has already implemented the AlertSU mass notification system. The AlertSU system provides direct contact via text messages, phone contact and email alerts for Stanford community members whose information is in the AlertSU system. It will be important for those who do hear the siren or receive an AlertSU message to alert those who may not have heard it. Spread the word.

What should I do when I hear a test? Stop what you are doing and listen for instructions. Report any concerns or questions about your ability to understand the system via email to the Emergency Management Office

1016/2011

Page 4 of4

at [email protected].

Do other schools have systems like this? Yes, a wide variety of other campuses have installed or are planning to install similar systems including UC Berkeley, UCLA, Washington State, Duke, Brown, and North Carolina just to name a few.

For more infprmation about the AlertSU system, visit our website at http://alertsu.stanford.edu.

10/612011

Minor. Beth


Irvin Dawid [[email protected]~ OF PALO AIJO.CA Friday, October 07, 2011 4:03 P~''TY CLERK'S OFfICE Council, City Please make bikes and pedestrirrdCfi9riiY i~~u,tRijld Transit planning

Palo Alto City Council Members

I urge you to support a bicycle, pedestrian and transit-first approach to VTA's Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects.

More important are the land uses by the BRT stops - how do you spell DENSITY??!!

Yes, 'older' folks like that word - they view it as threatening to their lifestyle. Well, it's time someone stood up to that smugness and told them that we NEED DENSITY IN THE RIGHT PLACES, and along the transit corridors, by the transit stops - and that means BRT stops in addition to rail stops, are appropriate.]

If that doesn't calm them, ask them how they'd like increasing density IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD??

Bus Rapid Transit offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create efficient public transportation and safe streets for walking and bicycling.

There are so many reasons why BRT will improve our quality of life, from reduced pollution to fewer injuries thanks to improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

Please support bus-only lanes, bike lanes and pedestrian improvements so that Bus Rapid Transit can achieve its full potential.

Sincerely,

Irvin Dawid 753 Alma St Apt 126 true Palo Alto, CA 94301

1

TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:

Rob Brau1ik Steve Palmer and Thane Young October 7, 2011 Federal Update for Palo Alto

House Keeps Government in Business through Nov. 18

With little debate, the House voted 352-66 to accept the Senate's version of a Continuing Resolution (H.R. 2608) that keeps the Government funded through Nov. 18.

This was part of the compromise worked out two weekends ago to give appropriators time to pass their 12 annual spending bills, or more likely, an Omnibus bill that incorporates them into one piece oflegislation.

The House has approved six spending bills, and the Senate has okayed one. None has been enacted into law.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said this week that he planned to bring three bills to the floor that have made it through the Senate Appropriations Committee with Republican support. They are the Agriculture, Transportation-HUD, and Commerce-justice-Science Bills.

House Delays Cement Regulations

The GOP-led House continued its attack on regulations deemed unnecessary or hannful, particularly environmentally related ones, by voting to delay certain ru1es governing cement making.

The bill (H.R. 2681), which passed 262-161, overturns the EPA's current air pollution regu1ations on cement manufacturing and gives the agency 15 months to come up with new ones. A similar bill regarding industrial boilers (H.R. 2250) is being debated.

Like their predecessors, these bills to limit EPA's authority face daunting odds in the Senate.

China Currency Bill Moves Closer to Passage

A bill to penalize the Chinese for currency manipulation worked its way toward a vote in the Senate, probably next week. Earlier votes in both the House and the Senate implied the bill would cruise to success~ but business organizations and Republican leaders are resisting.

The central bank of China, plus that county's ministries of commerce and foreign affairs, warned that the legislation could spark a global trade war. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill, fearing much the same resu1t.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a strong supporter, counter that the bill won't start a trade war, because we're already in one. "We're getting our clocks cleaned every day," he said.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is clearly working against the measure, and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, warned, "You could start a trade war given the economic uncertainty; it's just very dangerous and we should not be engaged in this."

With the nation's unemployment stuck at 9.1 percent, the "Occupy Wall Street" protests spreading, and 2012 election positioning, the bill has found supporters not only with Democrats but also with a significant faction of Republicans.

The Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act (S. 1619) would make it possible for the U.S. Government to impose duties on imports found to be unfairly subsidized by currency manipulation. The United States has long criticized China for keeping the value of its currency artificially low to undercut competition.

Currency manipulation is one of several ways that China is undermining the world trade system, selectively subsidizing trade, and securing unfair advantages, say many nations, including the United States.

Many Republicans joined Democrats in voting 79-19 on Monday to take up the measure, easily passing the 60-vote requirement. Sen. McConnell predicted he would be able to reverse that result, but in another procedural vote on Thursday, 12 Republicans joined all but three Democrats to take up the measure again, 62-38.

Whether Speaker Boehner can convince his unwieldy majority to block the measure in the House, particularly when Democrats are developing their populist 2012 themes around fmancial inequity, is a very open question. A similar measure easily passed the House last year, and this year's version, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 639), already has 225 co-sponsors, more than a majority of Members.

President Obama remains somewhat ambivalent about the measure. At his Thursday news conference, he said he has passed along his concerns to Sen. Schumer, noting that the measure might not pass muster with the World Trade Organization and could complicate America's generally good relationship with China.

"I think we've got a strong case to make, but we've just got to make sure that we do it in a way that's going to be effective," President Obama said.

President Endorses 5-percent Tax Levy on Millionaires

President Obama, who has been barnstorming key states to push his $447-billionjobs bill, said he'd go along with Senate Democratic Leaders' plan to use a 5-percent income tax levy on Americans earning more than $1 million a year to pay for the bill.

The millionaires' tax would replace the President's original plan to pay for the jobs bill by limiting tax deductions for families earning more than $250,000 a year and deductions for the oil and gas industry. The change is a concession to win over Democrats from resource-rich states and those moderates who had agreed with Republicans that limiting deductions would harm small businesses and charities.

The change makes President Obama's long-shot chances of passing the bill in the Senate somewhat better, but it still faces enormous opposition in the Republican-controlled House. Republican leaders there say the bill was never meant for passage anyway, but as a cudgel to use in the coming election.

###

P A H C ~I a nag I! m I! n tan d S I! r ,. i C I! S

( () H P () H \ I I () "\

Oak Manor Town houses & Scattered Sites

KAREN PURVIS P.O.BOX.60594 PALO ALTO, CA 94306

Dear KAREN PURVIS,

630 los Robles Av.· Palo Alto, california 94306 (650) 858-2199 . Fax (650) 858-3085

www.paloaltohousingcorp.org

IMPORTANT

Date: SEP 1 2 2011

We are pleased to infonn you that we are currently pre-qualifying the top 10 applicants on the waiting list For: 2 Bedroom unit .Monthly rent is $_1422. Your inteniew has been scheduled at the following date & Time:

Date & Time Location

Date:~--=-~O~CT---::l :-::-1....;;;..20.;;...;..11'--~ ___ ~Tim=e:~--'1'--:C_70_. MJ\. __ Oak Manor Town Houses (Management Office) 630 Los Robles Av. Palo Alto, CA 94306

ALL HOUSEHOlD MEMBERS LISTED ON YOUR APPLICATION WHO ARE 18 YEARS OR OlDER WILL NEED TO BE PRESENT FOR THE INTERVIEW. In order to help us facilitate this process, please bring all of the items listed below and copy of them, which apply to your household, to the interview. Please call the office at (650)858-2199 to confIrm your appointment.

• Picture IDlDriver's License for each adult household member • Birth Certillcates for each household member under the age of 18 years old • Social Security cards for all household members • 2010 Income Tax Retmns and W2-s • Payroll stubs from the past six pay periods • Award letter/print out from Social Security showing monthly income • Checking Account statements for the last six months.( complete statement of each month) • Current month bank statement for Savings Accounts • Current Statement from all 40 1-K/IRA and/or other asset account • Landlord addresses for the past 3 years of residency

In the event that you are unable to keep this appointment, please call our office at (650)858-2199 and we will try and accommodate you. Please be aware however, that a delay in completing your interview could result in a potential delay in qualifying you for residency at Oak Manor Town Houses & Scattered Sites. And we may have to continue processing the next person on the waitlist. If we do not hear from you and you fail to show up to your scheduled appointment, we will understand that you are no longer interested in residency at Oak Manor Town Houses & Scattered Sites, and your name will be removed from our waiting list We look fotWard to working with you.

SincerelY'r;)

1\-D-Rene Rodriguez Duran Property Assistant Manager

G:J EaUAL HOUSING OPPORlUNITY

Oak Iftteredhearings· imprurdoes' edcall.80?-?35-2929.. beca f ,: .. (I Monor Town Houses & Sca ltes not discriminate against any person use 0 race,

color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin

Page 1 of1

Minor, Beth

From: Margaret Petitjean [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:45 AM

To: Council, City; MPETIT [email protected] II OCT -6 AM 7: 52

Subject: Fw: Menlo Park City Council Email Log<BR>: Fwd: CSA - Expert Witness from Margaret Petitjean on 2011-10-04 (Menlo Park City Council Email Log<BR»

Margaret Petitjean <[email protected]> has sent you the following web link:

http://ccin.menlopark.org/8767.html

10/612011

Page 1 of1

Minor, Beth

From:

Sent:

Mark Petersen-Perez [[email protected] -1 AM 1: II Friday, October 07, 2011 6:30 AM .

To: Keene, James

Cc: Council, City; [email protected]; Tony Ciampi; Espinosa, Sid; Stump, Molly; [email protected]

Subject: James Keene - From the Tucson Weekly Archives

Down the Drain Missing money remains a mystery at Jose Ibarra's Ward 1

office.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com!gyrobase/down-the-drainiContent?oid=l075030&mode-print

"Keene is the type of guy who's very vindictive. I've been his toughest critic. I don't like him. He doesn't

like me. He wants a cloud hanging over me."

"He blames City Manager James Keene for fomenting political strife within Ward 1 and political divisions on

the council, where the Democrats' slim 4-3 majority is further shrunk by Carol West's frequent votes with

Republicans."

Sent from my iPad

10/7/2011

Page 1 of1

Minor, Beth

From: Palo Alto Free Press [[email protected]]

Thursday, October 06,2011 7:20 PM '10el -1 AM 1: 21 Sent:

To: Keene, James

Cc: Stump, Molly; Council, City; [email protected]; Tony Ciampi; Espinosa, Sid (internal); [email protected]; [email protected]; Dianda, Mario; Bob Moss; Wilcox, Justin; [email protected]; Bill Johnson; Sue Dremann

Subject: City Manager James Keene housing subsidy by City of Palo Alto

PAFreePress Palo Alto Free Press City Manager James Keene housing subsidy by City of Palo Alto bit.lylnvgkYJ ow.lyli/iGOv tb.melBTsFOosU

"We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!" sm

ellugar adecuado en el momento oportuno

Editor - Mark Petersen-Perez

10/7/2011

Minor, Beth

From:

Sent:

To:

Palo Alto Free Press [[email protected]]

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:28 PM

Larkin, Donald; Brown, Sandra; Stump, Molly

Page 1 of1

CITY OFPAL9 f\yt,?,,(i,\ env CLERK S OFF\eE

1\ Gel \ 2 AM CJ! 04 Cc: [email protected]; HRC; [email protected]; darylsavage@gmaILcom; Council, City; Philip,

Brian; Bullerjahn, Rich; Apple, Kara; Nielepko, Max; Villaescusa, Marianna; Scharff, Greg; Tony Ciampi; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Tim James; [email protected]; [email protected]; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Aram James; Burns, Dennis; [email protected]; Wong, Scott; Beacom, Bob

Subject: The White House Blog: Civil Rights

Attachments: SandraBrownVoiceMail.mp3

Sandra:

Would your officers respond to a Whitehouse blog request interview????

http://www . whitehouse.gov/blog/issues/Civil-Rights

What about you Larkin? What about you Molly?

All of you are a damn embarrassment to Democracy! ! !

"We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!" sm

ellugar adecuado en el momenta oportuno


1011212011

Page 1 of1

Minor,8eth

From: Palo Alto Free Press [[email protected]] CJfryDler R O. A.liG. ~:A

Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:41 AM

To: Espinosa, Sid

Cc: Council, City; Keene, James

Subject: Outstanding example of community spirit, engagement and leadership

P AFreePress Palo Alto Free Press Outstanding example of community spirit, engagement and leadership hit.1y/qFYr14 pic.twitter.comlJMghL5n9

"We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!" SIn

ellugar adecuado en el momento oportuno


10/12/2011

Minor. Beth

'PLEASE CONTAC'l' THE CI'l'Y CLERK'S OFFICE TO VIEW ADDI'l'IONAL PAGES OR A'l''l'ACHMENTS RELA'l'ED 'l'0 'l'HIS

O ~ -LTM (>DOCUMENT. Pff'{ OF PAL t-\v.y!

From: Tony Ciampi [[email protected]] -_. etTY CLERK'S OFFtCE ....

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1 :18 PM It OCT -1 AM 1: 2' To:

Cc:

Subject:

[email protected]; Council, City; Larkin, Donald; Keith, Doug; Stump, Molly; Keene, James; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; senator [email protected]; [email protected]

abjpd1 @gmail.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Will U.S. Judge Lucy Koh conceal the crimes of Taser International and Kustom Signals as Michael Gennaco has done?

Attachments: ENFORCING THE LAW https_ecf.cand.uscourts.gov_cgi-bin_show_temp.pUile=7891438-0--4572.pdf

Michael Gennaco Independent Police Auditor for the Palo Alto Police Office of Independent Review:

Mr. Gennaco,

u.s. Federal Judge Lucy Koh and you both worked out of the same Southern California Office of the Department of Justice at the same time.

Don't you find it peculiar that I had Judge Fogel for a year and then with no explanation my case is handed over to Judge Koh, your former fellow Co-worker. And then Judge Koh continues the cover-up which you began. See Attachment.

Everyone knows that you and Judge Koh know that the Palo Alto Police have edited and falsified four audio/video recordings and two taser gun data ports and the taser gun activation reports. Judge Koh's and your refusal to debate the facts reveals that you and Koh have lost your argument claiming that no tampering has occurred. The fraudulent report you put out regarding my incident is an intentional act on your part to cover up the crimes of the Palo Alto Police and to wrongfully incriminate me of a crime. You're a "false-witnesss bearer" Mr. Gennaco.

I have thrown out numerous allegations regarding the integrity of you and your investigation yet you refuse engage me. You claim to have held police officers accountable in the past and have dedicated your life to the protection of civil rights.

Can you tell me why you have turned your back on truth and justice in my case? Can you tell me why you have put out a lie in order to falsely incriminate me of a crime while covering 'up the torture committed by Palo Alto Police Officer Kelly Burger? Can you tell me why you refuse to debate the evidence and the facts?

Did the DOJ train you and Judge Koh how to cover up the crimes of law enforcement because both of you use very similar methods and techniques of obfuscation and denial?

You covered up the FACT that the P APD and City Attorney Don Larkin violated its own policy by NOT providing

1017/2011

Page 2 of2

the taser gun activation report with the original police report.

Now Judge Koh is covering up the violation of State Bar Rule 5-100 and the extortive act committed by City Attorney Don Larkin in much the same manner. Now Judge Koh is going to cover up Warren Page's, Kustom Signals', Andrew Hinz's and Taser International's actions of covering the crimes of the Palo Alto Police just as you have done.

Largely as a result of his multi-ethnic upbringing and the encouragement of his family and his mentor, the Hon. Thomas Tang, for whom Mr. Gennaco served as a law clerk, Mr. Gennaco has dedicated his entire legal career to the protection of civil rights.

Prior to working at the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Gennaco served for ten years as a trial attorney with the Civil Rights Division in Washington, D.C. While there, Mr. Gennaco successfully prosecuted an LAPD officer for using excessive force and false arrest and was involved in prosecuting numerous other hate crimes and police misconduct cases.

http://laoir.com/MGennaco. html

Joseph (Tony) Ciampi 650-248-1634

10/7/2011

Case5:09-cv-02655-LHK Document209 Filed09/29/11 Page1 of 46

1 Plaintiff Joseph Ciampi, in pro se 2 P.O. Box 1681

Palo Alto, California 94302 3 Phone (650) 248-1634 4 Email: [email protected]

5 Plaintiff Joseph Ciampi, in pro se

FILED SEP 292011

RICHARD W. WiE.KlNG CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

NORrHERN OISTRICT OF CAUFORNIA

&,

UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN JOSE DIVISION)

JOSEPH CIAMPI

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PALO ALTO, a government entity; LYNNE JOHNSON, an individual; CHIEF DENNIS BURNS, an individual; OFFICER KELLY BURGER, an individual~ OFFICER MANUEL TEMORES, an individual; OFFICER APRIL WAGNER, an individual; AGENT DAN RYAN; SERGEANT NATASHA POWERS, an individual.

Defendants.

Case No. C 09·02655 LHK (PSG)

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS

FRCiv.P 71, 70(a), 37, 26 & 16(f)

JUDGE: LUCY H. KOH United States Judge

RE: Court Docs. 189, 195 & 198

26 1. Introduction:

27 On August 9, 2011 Defendants and Plaintiff came to terms on a Settlement Agreement

28 which was placed on the record in Judge Maria·Elena James' court. Subsequently, Defendants,

1 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A SECOND MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS C 09 02655 LHK (pSG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


specifically Donald Larkin, the assistant city attorney of Palo Alto inserted several terms into the

written settlement agreement that were NOT placed on record during the August 9,2011

Settlement and thus were NOT agreed to by Plaintiff. On September 1,2011 during a second

Settlement Conference, Mr. Larkin/Defendants agreed to use the exact language in the written

settlement agreement that was used during the August 9, 2011 Settlement Conference which was

placed on the record. Mr. Larkin again inserted several terms which were NEVER placed on the

record during the August 9, 2011 Settlement Conference. These terms are: "past and present

. agents, servants, employees, directors, contractors, and representatives, j' which"are cited in

paragraphs 6 and 7 of Mr. Larkin's written Settlement Agreement, Court Doc. 208-2.

Plaintiff has provided Defs. and Mr. Larkin two written settlement agreements signed by

PIt. based entirely on the August 9, 2011 Settlement, however, Defs. and Mr. Larkin refuse to

sign and execute the written settlement agreements, Exh. 911 of Court Doc. 200, Exhs. 926 and

927.

Defendants claim that THIRDINON~PARITES were included in the Settlement even

though none of the THIRDfN ON -PARTIES were at the Conference nor were they ever even

identified by Defendants prior to the Settlement Conference or during the Settlement Conference

as being a part of the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff claims that no THIRDfNON-PARITES are a part of the Settlement Agreement

because they were never placed on the record during the Settlement Conference directly or

indirectly through being identified as being represented by Defendants.

2. Defendants Aeknl}wledgedtaUtttFd-.J)!rtie5 notiltdudedilt,the,SefUement:

Defendants have stated, "The City agrees that the scope of the release was not intended

to preclude future actions against third parties, " lines 7-8 pg 2 of Defs. Pos. Statement, Court

Doc. 204. Defendants have stated, "The City agrees with Ciampi that scope a/the release was

not intended to preclude future actions against third parties, " lines 23-24 of pg. 2 ofDefs. Opp.

To Mot. to Enf. Agreement, Court Doc. 208. Defendants acknowledge that THIRD/NON

PARTES are not a part of the Settlement Agreement. Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew


SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR A TTpRNEYS C 09 02655 LHK (pSG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Hinz and Taser International are THIRDINON-PARTIES with respect to Case No. C09.

02655 and the August 9, 2011 Settlement Agreement. Therefore there is no justification to

include Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International into the written

Settlement Agreement.

Defs., Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman state the what was placed on the recorq during the

August 9,2011 Settlement Conference is as follows:

"The material terms agreed 10 in court were:

1. Payment by the City to Ciampi 0/$35,000, inclusive of costs and attorneys 'foes;

2. A general release with a waiver o/Civi! Code section 1542;

3. A/ul/ and complete dismissal; and

4. No admission offault, liability a/wrongdoing by either party. "

Lines 8-13 of pg. 4 of Court Doc. 208.

That's it. Defs. Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman themselves acknowledge that there were

NO THIRDINON-PARTIES placed on the record.

Mr Larkin and Defs. have stated to the Court and PIt that, "The written agreement

prepared by the City contains only those material terms. with a release that reflects the exact

language used by the Court to describe the scope of the agreement," lines 16-18 ofpg. 4 of

Court Doc. 2.08.

Mr. Larkin has inserted the material terms of "past and present agents, servants,

employees, directors, contraclors, and representatives, ., in the written agreement prepared by

him and the City of Palo Alto, Sections 6 and 7 of Court Doc. 208-2.

The material terms of "past and present agents, servants, employees. directors,

contractors, and representatives, " are not found anywhere in the August 9, 2011 transcript, Exh.

918 of Court Doc. 200 as such these terms donot reflect the exact language used by the Court to

describe the scope of the agreement.

Mr. Larkin has knowingly and intentionally made a false statement to the Court and PIt.

regarding the terms and language that he has placed in the written settlement agreement in order


SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS C 09 02655 LHK (pSG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


to mislead the Court and PIt. to the contents of the written agreement which Mr. Larkin has

prepared all in order to defraud PIt. Ciampi of his lawfully held righs and claims against

THIRDINON-PARTIES. Mr. Larkin's act constitutes a violation of

Cal. Bus. And Prof. Codes § 6128(a) § 6068 (d) and § 6106 and Cal State Bar Rules: 5-

200(A)(B)(C).

The question is, will Judge Koh address this prima facie false statement made by attorney

Don Larkin and hold him accountable? See ~~s 15 through 27 of Pits.' Decl.

3. Actual Identity of Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser

International:

Defs. provided PIt. with their designated expert reports on January 31, 2011, (Exh. 916-2

of Court Doc. 200 and submitted the expert reports to the court on February 14,2011 as Exhibits

16 and 20 of Court Doc. 125. These expert reports identify Warren Page as an expert who is an

employee for Kustom Signals Inc. and Andrew Hinz as an expert who is an employee of Taser

International Inc. The two expert reports specifically identify Warren Page and Andrew Hinz as

experts in their respective fields yet no where in either report is Warren Page and Andrew Hinz

referred to or identified as "past and present agents, servants, employees, directors, contractors,

and representatives afthe City of Palo Alto." Warren Page identifies himself as the lead

Engineer for Kustom Signals and Andrew Hinz refers to himself as the Director of Technical

Services for Taser International thereby eliminating them as having any connection with the City

of Palo Alto.

As of the date of the signing this document, Defs. have not produced any fee agreement

or contract for services with Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International

pursuant to FRCiv.P 26(a)(2)(B)(vi). On September 12, 2011 the court, Judge Koh, ordered

Defs. to produce any indemnification agreement with Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew

Hinz and Taser International, Court Doc. 202. Defs., Mr. Larkin, stated that th~ City of Palo

Alto does not have an indemnification agreement with Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew

Hinz and Taser International and did not produce any other contract with Warren Page, Kustom


SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS C 09 02655 LHK (PSG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International which would identify Warren Page's, Kustom

Signals', Andrew Hinz's and Taser International's relationship to the City of Palo Alto. Since

Defs. have not produced any contract between the City of Palo Alto and Warren Page, Kustom

Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International there is no contract. Since there is no contract,

Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International cannot be and will not be

construed as being any of the terms: "past and present agents. servants. employees. directors,

contractors, and representatives of the City of Palo Alto, " even if the City of Palo Alto and Mr.

Larkin produce a contract at a later date.

As far as PIt. is concerned, even if the court allows Defs. to insert the terms: "past and

present agents. servants. employees. directors. contractors. and representatives of the City of

Palo Alto, .. into the written settlement agreement, PIt. is under no legal obligation to recognize

Warren Page, Kustom Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International as being any of the generic

terms since the City of Palo Alto did not produce a contract between it and Warren Page, Kusto

Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International.

Any future contracts provided by Defs. and or the City of Palo Alto regardless of the date entere

into shall not be recognized by Plaintiff as a part of the Settlement Agreement between PIt. and

the City of Palo Alto or cause Plaintiff to lose his rights to his claims against Warren Page,

Kustom Signals, Andrew Hinz and Taser International.

Plaintiff hereby recognizes now and forever Warren Page as an employee of Kustom

Signals Inc. and a "designated expert." and "Witness." Plaintiff hereby recognizes now and

forever that Warre~ Page is not any of the following terms: ''past and or present agent. servant.

employee. directQr. contractor. and representative of the City of Palo Alto . ..

Plaintiff hereby recognizes now and forever Andrew Hinz as an employee ofTaser

International Inc. and a "designated expert." and "Witness." Plaintiff hereby recognizes now and

forever that Andrew Hinz is not any of the following terms: "past and or present agent. servant,

employee. director. contractor, and representative of the City of Palo AIIO . ..

By way of analogy of a third/non party vs. that of actual party:

5 PLAlNTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A SECOND MOTION FOR


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21


If Andrew Hinz had been placed on the current lawsuit, he would not be identified as an

employee of the City of Palo Alto but of Taser International. On August 9, 2011, Case No. C09-

02655 was calendared to go to trial on September 26,2011. PIt. could have settled with the City

exactly as Plt. has done on August 9, 2011 and the trial would have continued with Andrew Hinz

as the lone remaining defendant, because Andrew Hinz was not represented at the Settlement

Conference and has not settled any claims with Plaintiff. Therefore, the City of Palo Alto is not

liable for anything that Mr. Hinz has done and Mr. Hinz is not a part ofthe municipality of the

City of Palo Alto.

4. Government Code 995.9:

During the September 14,2011 Hearing, Defs.' Attorneys Don Larkin and Steven

Sherman asserted to the Court and PIt. that Gov. Code 995.9 would provide Andrew Hinz, Taser

International, Warren Page and Kustom Signals the lawful authority to file a cross-complaint

against the City of Palo Alto requiring the City to indemnify them should PIt. file a lawsuit

against Andrew Hinz, Taser International, Warren Page and Kustom Signals.

This was and is a false statement for Gov. Code 995.9 does not provide any authority to any

person or entity to file a civil suit against any public entity, Gov. Code 995.9 provides

permission to public entities to defend or indemnify or defend and indemnify any witness who

has testified on behalf of the public entity in any criminal, civil, or administrative action.

Additionally Gov. Code 995.9 actually prohibits a public entity from defending or indemnifying

a witness if the testimony giving rise to the action against the witness was false in any material

respect, or was otherwise not given by the witness with a good faith belief in its truth, which 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

would be the circumstance of any action brought by PIt. against Andrew Hinz, Taser

International. Warren Page and Kustom Signals.

Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman knowingly made a false statement and a false representation

of the meaning of Gov. Code 995.9 to the Court and PIt. on September 14,2011 in order to

mislead the Court and Pit to the true meaning of Gov. Code 995.9 witn the intent and motive to

defraud PIt. of his lawfully held rights and claims against Andrew Hinz, Taser International,



1

2

3

4

5

6

'7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

. 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case5:09-cv-02655-LHK Document209 Filed09/29/11 Page? of 46

Warren Page and Kustom Signals by inducing PIt go accept the City's fraudulent settlement

agreement, See ~~s 6 through 14 of Pits.' Decl. The above act constitutes a violation of Cal.

Bus. And Prof. Codes § 6128(a) § 6068 (d) and § 6106 and California State Bar Rules 5-200

(A)(B)(C). The question is, will Judge Koh address this self-evident prima facie false statement

made by attorney Don Larkin and hold him accountable? See ~~s 15 through 27 of PIts.' Decl.

Additionally, Don Larkin stated to the Court and PIt, "However, should the City agree to

a settlement agreement that specifically authorizes an action against Andrew Hinz and Warren

Page, we would expect a cross-complaint for indemnification pursuant to Government Code

section 995.9, which authorizes a public agency to indemnify a witness who testifies on behalf of

the agency. " Lines 22 through 26 of pg. 2 of Court Doc. 204.

This is a very slick use of words. Mr. Larkin states, "we would expect a cross

complaint, "inferring that Andrew Hinz and Warren Page could file a cross-complaint pursuant

to 995.9 without actually stating that 995.9 provides authority to bring a cross-complaint.

However by stating that they would "expect a cross-complaint" the intent is to cause the reader

to believe that Gov. Code 995.9 actually provides the authority to do so even though it does not.

This is also an intentional act to mislead the Court and Pit as to the true meaning of Gov. Code

995.9 in order to induce PIt. to agree to Defs.' fraudulent Settlement Agreement.

5. Doi v. Halekulani Coporation, 276 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir., 2002).

Plaintiff appreciates Defs. introducing Doi v. Halekania into the argument. As usual,

Defs. twist the ruling away from what it actually states and means in order to get the ruling to

meet their fraudulent agenda.

It is well established that an oral agreement placed on the record and memoralized is

binding, Doi v. Halekulani Coporation, 276 FJd 1131 at 1139 (9th Cir., 2002). Further more,

the court found that nothing can be added to or removed from the written agreement that was

placed on the record in the oral agreement, Doi, Supra, 276 F. 3d at 1134, 1138 and 1139.

Appellant, Doi, wanted to challenged the existence of terms added in the written agreement,

specifically a list of Appellee's entities which Appellant, Doiagreed not to work at as a part of

7 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A SECOND MOTtON FOR


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


the oral agreement placed on record in open court. Appellant, Doi claimed that the tenus were

not placed on the record in open court and therefore the terms should not be a part of the Mitten

agreement. The problem for Appellant, Doi, is the terms she claimed were not placed on the

record in open court were in fact placed on the record in open court and therefore should be

included in the written agreemerit. Doi, Supra, 276 F. 3d at 1138.

The actual transcript from the oral agreement states, "She, (Appellant), also agrees not to

reapply to any related entities ofHalekulani Corporation, and those entities will be listed and

setforth in the release document." Right Column Doi, Supra, 276 F. 3d at 1134.

If Defs., Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman ~ stated during the August 9, 2011 Settlement

Conference on the record in open court, "the City and the entities whether public or private that

will be listed in the release document., JI then Mr. Larkin and Mr. Sherman would have a case

that supports the Defs.', Mr. Larkin's and Mr. Sherman's position. The fact is Mr. Larkin and

Mr. Sherman made no reference on the oral record to add or remove anything or anyone in the

wri tten settlement agreement that was. not.spe.cifled ou. the recordduringJheSettlement

Conference.

Furthermore, no one, no person, nobody during the Settlement Conference defined the

terms "nobody," "anything," and "anyone." These terms were never defined or placed into

context of use during the Settlement Conference on the oral record. Defs. and Mr. Larkin have

unilaterally added their own subjective definitions of what these terms mean and refer to in the

written settlement without obtaining a stipulation from PIt. agreeing to their use of the

definitions. PIt. does not agree with the definitions used by Defs. and Mr. Larkkin's definitions

of terms placed in the written agreement and or the use of context which are both contrary to

how PIt. interpereted the definitions and use of context of the terms during the oral agreement.

As such any use of definitions and or context of the terms "nobody," "anything." and "anyone"

in the written agreement are objected to by PIt. However if the Defs. require a definition and use

of context PIt. has provided them in the written agreement, Exh. 927.



Page 1 of4

Minor, Beth

[email protected] eEry Of PALO ALre,GA Monday,October10,20112:42AM €lITY CLERK'S tlFPleE

From:

Sent:

To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] .. ca.us; . '

Cc:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]'n(\TltAM" [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Council, City; [email protected]; hayden@yourc~i a~nl:ierkoln; Ii 1: It" [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; HRC; [email protected]; Bums, Dennis

Subject: Horsley & Munks Attempt to Shove a New County Jail Down Our Collective Throats

Special To: the PaloAltoFreePress & the Mid-Peninsuia Daily Post-Monday October 10, 2011

Former San Mateo County Sheriff Don Horsley And Current Sheriff Greg Munks Are Attempting to Shove a New County Jail Down Our Col/ective Throats! Are We The People Going to Say No To Their Good Cop Bad Cop Routine? Or Instead, Will We Complacently Allow This Law Enforcement Duo To Send Us Down The Prison Industrial Complex River To Economic Hell? Just Say No To Horsley And Munks. NO NEW JAILllIIIIIIII

Hi Mark, (and Tony):

Here are some of my observations re San Mateo County and the progress, or lack thereof- re their realignment plan (AB 109), inmates returning from the state prison to the county jail, and or for community supervision. Many of my views/ observations-were made/gleaned from attending several county realignment meetings (supervisor and former county sheriff Don Horsley- nowhere to be found). I might add, Horsley is-despite his attempted protestations to the contrary, cheer leader # 1 for the new jail along with the current sheriff Greg Munks. Why I am not surorised that the former sheriff is supporting the current sheriff for a new jail. and both sellina us down the economic river to the equivalent of prison industrial complex hell.

Talk about the classic good cop Horsley and the bad cop Munks: bottom line they are both about shoving this mammoth failed criminal justice policy down our collective throats, facts be damned-all with the complicity of the other top political players in San Mateo County. The only vote on the five member BOS (Board of Supervisors), against a new jail plan was supervisor David Pine-and he sounded almost apologetic in offering at least some minimum resistance to the new jail. Don1 count on David Pine to truly come out swinging against the madness of this failed criminal justice policy (my observation, he just doesn't have it in him to be a true advocate against this failed policy, of course, I hope he proves me wrong-but I'm not holding my breath).

Despite Horsley's failed attempt at cover (playing it both way as it were), see his Guest Opinion in

Saturday's Daily Post: How to make the new jail the best solution, truth is he is likely the most dangerous member of the current BOS. Given his back ground as the former sheriff, and his ability to sound at least reasonably articulate on the issues-he is a danger and a threat to true public safe since he is good at making bad criminal justice policy sound palatable .. He talks a good progressive game, but bottom line he has still not taken off his sheriff's uniform- and don't expect him to do so anytime soon.

The county executives responsible for making certain there are adequate resources for returning inmates are instead allocating most of the money for their own purposes ( while simultaneously slapping their selves on the back-- while claiming falsely, and in their own self~nterest I might add, that San Mateo has the best reentry programs in the state. Simply put what a joke!!! This is nothing but law enforcement bravado and political posturing at its worst. If you think this is just my opinion see the Daily POST piece of Monday Oct. 3, 2011 titled: Here come the state inmates-Group says San Mateo County isn't ready for more prisoners. Here is some relevant language re San Mateo County

fromthearticle,',San Mateo County, which is planning to

build a new jail, flunked because it isn't spending

enough money on programs designed to help

prisoners re-enter society in the opinion of

Californians United for a Responsible Budget. CURB

says it wants to curb prison spending by reducing

the number of prisoners and prisons. I handed a copy of this Daily Post Piece to each member of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors at their October 4, 2011

meeting. Not only did Horsley not mention the article or CURB's criticisms at the board meeting -but you will see no reference to CURB's comments in Horsley's October 8, 2011, Daily Post guest opinion. This guy Horsley will apparently continue to bury his head in the sand re the reality of the failed prison~ail policy he is preaching/supporting while pretending to be a progressive prison~ail reformer. My advice: Don't buy what this guy is peddling to the

public to the great detriment of all of the social programs that will suffer if the Horsley/Munks jail/prison is built (180 million to build- not considering the inevitable cost overruns-and the annual cost of running this new county prison 40-50 million per year).

San Mateo County is pushing more of the same old same old-hoping for different results--by hiring more probation officers, cops, etc., while at the same time mostly leaving the returning inmates with no or

inadequate reentry programs, no job training or jobs, etc. It's all a big time set-up to promote their new county jail.

Since they (the realignment executive committee -with sign off from the board of supervisors) are not providing adequate programs or jobs for returning inmates-they can predict- almost with a certainty, that there will be a high rate of recidivism-- that they can then point to and report back to the public to spark fear of a rising crime rate, and thus falsely/disingenuously claim requires/supports a county new jail/prsion.

Wow! I call such thinking and design a conspiracy against the true interest of the people. And I have told San Mateo County's elected District Attorney, Steve Wagstaffe- who I will copy in on this e-mail-that he is

1011112011

\

Page 2 of4

the only San Mateo County public official-who possess the political gravitas- to push for a change of direction re this ass backwards criminal justice policy. The question is now: will Steve do so-push for a change of direction- or instead, decide to follow Horsley's lead and bury his head in the sand as well. I hope not.

As I have said to Steve Wagstaffe: if you are truly a man in support of public safety first -and not just giving lip service to the concept -then it is your job as San Mateo's District Attomey- to see to it that realignment funds are given to evidence based programs proven and designed to reduce recidivism now -not after a crime wave that was allowed to happen because we let the money go to hire more police, and more probation officers---.:knowing that this has been a tried and true formula for a 70 percent plus recidivism rate, all because law enforcement cheer leaders #'s 1 & 2--Greg Munks and Don Horsley--want to shove a new county jail/prison down our throats, while Rome bums around us. I say we can't let it happen. Unless Munks and Horsley start telling the truth to the people it's time we consider recalling both of these pretend public servants.

Sincerely,

Aram James

Tony,

Did you ever receive an answer to your legal points?

M

Dear Honorable City Council, Mayor Sid Espinoza, City Attorney Molly Stump, City Manager James Keene and Police Chief Dennis Burns,

I attended the September 15, 2011 community forum regarding the vehicle habitation ordinance. Several people asserted that currently there was nothing the Palo Alto Police Department could do in holding citizens accountable for offensive acts and needed another ordinance in place to deal with those offensive acts.

Specifically, a Mr. Thomlinson, his wife and Mr. Barton cited a specific problem with an individual harassing their children which is also noted in the Palo Alto Weekly's online version. Given the information provided by the Thomlinsons and Mr. Barton it occurred to me that this individual could be arrested and charged with violating several existing laws.

The guy in the brown van who harassed the kids can currently be charged with:

PC 422.69(a), 415(2). PA Muni Code 9.09.010(b)_ and possibly PC 420. So the question is, why isn't he being charged?

The guy who threw the rock threw the woman's window can be charged with, PC 594(2), 420 and PA Muni Code 9.09.0l0(b). So the question is why isn't he being charged.

For the City of Palo Alto to deliberately NOT enforce these laws is a violation of the victims' 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law as well as Article 1 Sec. 28 of the Calif. Const, the "Victim's Bill of Rights."

The City Manager, the Police Chief and the City Attorney have a Constitutioual duty to uphold and enforce the laws.

By not enforcing the current laws, the City of Palo Alto is violating the Tomlinsons' and the Bartons' Constitutional Rights to equal protection of the law and opening the City up for a lawsuit.

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show storv.php?id=22546 "Stephan Tomlinson and Harris Barton, who both live near Addison Elementary School, said a man who parks his van near their homesiras verbally assaulted their children, ages 6, 8 and 10, and the children were brought back to their homes in tears.

"I fear in some cases for my children'$ stifety. " Tomlinson said.

http://paloaltofreepress.com!community-thinking-on-vehicle-habitation-solutions-vs-outright-banl Several parents outlined concerns that specific behavior of specific car dwellers are affecting their children - that the children are frightened and avoid them at all costs. Many people expressed sympathy for their ongoing daily experience -in some cases for two years, in others for a decade.

Sleeping ordinance or no sleeping ordinance, I find it reprehensible that the City of Palo Alto would allow a citizen to get away with intimidating, harassing, frightening and violating the Constitutional Rights of kids when it is within the City's current power to do something about it.

Tony Ciampi

Calif Penal Codes:

http://www.leginfQ.ca.gov/cgi-binlcalawguerv?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits-20

HARASSMENT

422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the united States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

10/1112011

VANDALISM

PC 594. (a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism:

(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material. (2 ) Damages. (3) Destroys.

PC 415. Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:

(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.

(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.

(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

420. Every person wbo unlawfully prevents, hinders, or obstructs lIllY person from peaceably enterilllr upon or establishilllr a settl ....... t or residence on any tract of public land of the UDited States within the State of California, subject to settlement or entry under any of the public land laws of the United States; or who unlawfully hinders I prevents, or obstructs free passage over or through the public lands of the United States within the State of California, for the purpose of entry, settlement, or residence, as aforesaid, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

PALO ALTO HlJNJ:CJ:PAL CODES

Page 3 of4

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f-templatesSfn=default. htmS3. OSvid=amlegal: palo alto ca

1.08.010 Penalty for violations.

It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this code. (a) Misdemeanor. Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any mandatory requirements of this code is guilty ofa misdemeanor, except as otherwise specified by state law or expressly provided by this code. Unless a different penalty is expressly provided by this code, any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this code shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding six months, or both fine and imprisonment.

9.09.010 Regulating public nuisance.

It shall be unlawful for any person on any street or in any public place within the city to do any of the following:

(a) To urinate or defecate, except at a lavatory facility.

(b) To willfully and maliciously disturb any lawful assemblage or procession of persons.

(c) To ignite, cause to be iguited, pennit to be ignited, or suffer, allow or maintain any outdoor fire except as permitted by Section 22.04.300 of this code. 1bis subsection (c) applies to activities on private property as well as on public property.

(Ord. 4911 § 2, 2006)

DISTURBING THE PEACE

9.10.030 Residential property noise limits.

(a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.

LITTERING 5.20.030 Discarding of solid waste and recyclable materials.

No person shall throw, drop, leave, place, keep, accumulate, or otherwise dispose of any solid waste or recyclable materials upon private property either with or without the intent to later remove the same from such place or premises, or upon any street, public right-of-way, sidewalk, gutter, stream, or creek, or the banks thereof, or any public place or public property. This section shall not prohibit the placement of solid waste or recyclable materials in public solid waste or recycling receptacles, or in containers, bins or boxes for collection in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, or at the city landfill or posted recycling centers in accordance with the procedures thereof. (Ord. 4451 § 1 (part), 1997)

1011112011

Page 4 of4

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

~ 9.04.010 Streets, sidewalks, highways, alleys - Consumption of alcoholic beverages prohibited.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to consume any alcoholic beverage upon any street, sidewalk, highway or alley except as may be authorized by City Council. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, alcoholic beverages may be consumed in a city-owned right-of-way by patrons within legally permitted eating

establishment seating areas in accordance with, and subject to a conditional use permit issued pursuant to § 18.76.010 of this code. (Ord. 4991 § 1,2008: Ord. 4051 § 1, 1991: Ord. 3364 § 1 (part), 1982)

"We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!" SID

eI lugar adecuado en el momenta oportuno


1011112011

Page 1 of 1

Minor, Beth

From: abjpd1 @juno.com Ctfi\9JL~K;S Sent:

To:

Cc:

Sunday, October 09, 2011 8:50 AM . . . . . t Itl [email protected]; Council, City; paloaltofreeprebLiGtJlbo~~cJuCk.jagOda1 @gmail.com

alphonse994 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: [action_condi] Can Rice redact Wikipedia? from: Sebastian doggart (cleaned up copy)

Attachments: Untitled Attachment

By: Sebastian Doggart

I took a glance today at Condoleezza Rice's Wikipedia page --http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Condoleezza Rice -- and was amazed at how her record has been whitewashed: no mention of her reversal of affirmative action policies at Stanford; no mention of her complicity in Chevron's atrocities in the Niger Delta; no mention of the kidnappings (aka illegal renditions) for which she was responsible; no mention of her international role justifying Guantanamo. References to our two films about her, Courting Condi and American Faust have been completely excised. There is only scant allusion to all the lies she told Congress and the American people. And the section on her role in torture has been written to suggest it's all been resolved, and her self-damning speech to a student at Stanford has been spun as a defence.

As you know, Wikipedia is now a primary source of information for students, journalists and the public, . and it's also open to any of us to correct falsehoods. I'm currently embroiled in my own new Rice battle (she's trying to get my new film True Bromance, which pokes fun at her, pulled from the Carmel Film Festival, since she has just bought a big house in a nearby gated community). But I'll put some time aside to make some edits on the page in a week or so. Meantime, please add your own edits to the page, with accurate references, to ensure that she does not succeed in distorting history and concealing her tragic legacy. Thanks.

Sebastian Doggart

[email protected]

10/11/2011

OCTOBER 4, 2011 TO: STATE COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS

NOTIFICATION OF PG&E'S APPLICATION FOR RECOVERY OF NATURAL DISASTERRELATED COSTS IN ELECTRIC RATES

(A. 11"(]9-014

On September 21, 2011, Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") filed Application No. 09-11-014 with the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"), In which PG&E seeks authorization to recover costs recorded In its Catastrophic Event Memorandum Account rCEMA") that are associated with the following seven natural disasters: August 20,09 Fires, October 2009 Storm, Janual)' 2010 Earthquake, Janual)' 2010 Storms, November 2010 'Storm, December 2010 thru Janual)' 2011 Storms, and the March 2011 Storms (collecilvely, the ·CEMA Events").

PG&E estimates that electric revenues to cover these costs will increase by $32.44 million over a 1 year period beginning January 1, 2013.

What Is CEMA and What Does It Do? CEMA stands for CatastrophiC Event Memorandum Account State law allows public utilities to seek recovel)' of the incremental costs at (1) restoring utility services to its customers; (2) repairing, replacing or restoring damaged utility facilities; and (3) complying with govemment agency orders resulting from declared disasters. The CPUC requires that costs recorded in a utility's CEMA may be recovered in rates only after a request by the affected utility, a demonstration of their reasonableness, and approval by the CPUC.

What types of costs are included in PG&E's Application1

During the period from August 2009 through July 2011, PG&E incurred over $225 million In costs rom the CEMA Events across Its service temtory. However, consistent with CPUC requirements, PG&E is seeking recovery for damages Incurred only in those counties that were declared a state of emergency. In its Application, PG&E requests authorization to recover $32.44 million in revenue requirements associated with additional electric distribution, hydro generation, and customer contact center operations costs incurred as a result of the CEMA Events.

Does this mean rates will increase? Yes. If PG&E's application is approved, it would result In a change of less than one percent in PG&E's total annual revenue and a slightilncrease to electric rates for bundled service customers (customers who receive electric generation as well as transmission and distribution service rom PG&E) and for customers who purchase electricity from other suppliers (direci access and community choice aggregation). The estimated system bundled average rate would increase by approximately 0.26% relative to current rates on January 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, cali PG&E at 1-800-143-5000. For TDDITTY (speech-hearing impaired), call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles lIame al1-800-660-6789 §IF '~ ii9 !l( 11 1-800-893-9555

You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company CEMA Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120.

THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application.

The ORA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of ali utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The ORA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise In economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The ORA's views do not necessarily refleci those of the CPUC. Other parties of record may also participate.

/

The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals In testimony and are subject to Cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (AW). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record may present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings.

After considering ali proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW wili Issue a draft deciSion. When the CPUC acts on this application, It may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application. .

If you would like to learn how you can participate In this proceeding or If you have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as foliows:

Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102

1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toli free) TTY 1-415-703-5282 or TTY 1-866-836-7825 (toll free) Email [email protected]

If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the number of the application (11-09-014) to which you are referring. All comments wiil be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff.

A copy of PG&E's CEMA Application and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-noon, and the CPUC's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.govlpucJ.