Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-22 City Council Emails701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 08/22 /2022 Document dates: 08/15/2022 – 8/22/2022 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. Blog | COVID-19 | Racial Justice From:Silicon Valley Community Foundation To:Council, City Subject:New grantmaking opportunity! Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 10:00:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. 650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org Apply for a Movement- and Power-Building Community Action Grant! SVCF’s Movement- and Power-Building Community Action Grant program primarily provides grants to BIPOC-led (Black, Indigenous or people of color) and allied organizations responding to the needs of communities of color and communities where the majority of families work in low-income jobs. As part of Silicon Valley Community Foundation’s long-term strategy to achieve systemic change in Silicon Valley, our goal is for these investments to help organizations build power within their communities. SVCF is partnering with Heising-Simons Foundation to provide resources that will help nonprofits organize people, build coalitions and advocate for public policy changes in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. If you are interested in applying, please join our virtual information session on August 26, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. PDT. Register here. View the complete nonprofit requirements and submit an application by Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:59 p.m. PDT here. Learn more about previous SVCF grantees: New nonprofit organizes Asian American youth South Bay Youth Changemakers was started in 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the goal of providing its local youth participants with the tools and programs to help them become more engaged in politics and government. SIREN builds on years of support for immigrant community SIREN, the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network, has been serving the Silicon Valley area for almost 35 years, providing legal services and helping community members advocate for themselves. Address 2440 West El Camino Real Apply Here › Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040 About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change. Copyright © 2022 Silicon Valley Community Foundation View in browser | Unsubscribe From:Sam Gersten To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment - Anti-Displacement Programs Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 10:38:52 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sam.gersten@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, My name is Sam Gersten and I am a renter in the Midtown neighborhood. I have lived in Palo Alto for the last year. I rent in Palo Alto because of the inclusive community and great access to work. I am writing today to strongly encourage you to support anti-displacement programs like the latest Safe Parking Program site at First Congregational Church and the renter protections included in the Housing Element's Programs. Anti-displacement efforts like these help renters like me stay. When rents across the Bay Area keep rising and the median home price in Palo Alto is over $3,000,000, staying for most families is beyond difficult. Almost half of your constituents are renters at risk of displacement. That's a big problem. Please support us by approving the inclusion of renter protection in the Housing Element and the Safe Parking site at First Congregational. Sincerely, Sam -- Sam Gersten sam.gersten@gmail.com | 718-570-7661 Blog | COVID-19 | Racial Justice From:Silicon Valley Community Foundation To:Council, City Subject:New grantmaking opportunity! Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 10:00:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. 650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org Apply for a Movement- and Power-Building Community Action Grant! SVCF’s Movement- and Power-Building Community Action Grant program primarily provides grants to BIPOC-led (Black, Indigenous or people of color) and allied organizations responding to the needs of communities of color and communities where the majority of families work in low-income jobs. As part of Silicon Valley Community Foundation’s long-term strategy to achieve systemic change in Silicon Valley, our goal is for these investments to help organizations build power within their communities. SVCF is partnering with Heising-Simons Foundation to provide resources that will help nonprofits organize people, build coalitions and advocate for public policy changes in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. If you are interested in applying, please join our virtual information session on August 26, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. PDT. Register here. View the complete nonprofit requirements and submit an application by Friday, September 16, 2022 at 11:59 p.m. PDT here. Learn more about previous SVCF grantees: New nonprofit organizes Asian American youth South Bay Youth Changemakers was started in 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the goal of providing its local youth participants with the tools and programs to help them become more engaged in politics and government. SIREN builds on years of support for immigrant community SIREN, the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network, has been serving the Silicon Valley area for almost 35 years, providing legal services and helping community members advocate for themselves. Address 2440 West El Camino Real Apply Here › Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040 About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change. Copyright © 2022 Silicon Valley Community Foundation View in browser | Unsubscribe From:Aram James To:Pat Burt; Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Human Relations Commission; Linda Jolley; chuck jagoda; Binder, Andrew; Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Lydia Kou; Cormack, Alison; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Greg Tanaka; Roberta Ahlquist; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com Subject:From the archives of Aram James August 2013 ( past time to end homelessness in Palo Alto) article for city council attention for item # 4 of the consent calendar-proposed safe parking program at the First Congregational Church ( 1985 Louis Road) Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 9:14:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________      https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/08/02/aram-james-car-dwelling-ban-would-demonize-the-homeless/amp/ Sent from my iPhone From:Rob Nielsen To:Council, City Subject:August 22 Council meeting, Item #4 — Neighbor in support of FCCPA’s Safe Parking Program application Date:Monday, August 22, 2022 7:46:48 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from crobertn@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, I am a neighbor of First Congregational Church of Palo Alto (FCCPA) who lives on Celia Drive and worships at St. Mark’s. We bought and moved into our house in 1998 and have lived there, as we do now, for 14 of the intervening years. I am writing in support of FCCPA’s Safe Parking permit application, which is Item #4 on the consent agenda of the August 22 council meeting. City Council approved the Safe Parking Program in February 2020 by unanimous vote. It is now one part of the city’s contribution to addressing our area’s homelessness crisis. FCCPA has followed all of the program guidelines, and city staff recommends that the permit be approved. This program has been run successfully at Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and at Highway Community, where neither church has received any complaints from neighbors or community members. FCCPA has set up its program in a way that protects the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. Our community is rich in resources and is well able to help those in need. They are our neighbors after all, send children to our schools, and have much to contribute to our town. The least we can do is to allow churches to give them a safe place to sleep. I urge you to help FCCPA move forward by approving this application at the August 22 council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Rob Nielsen From:Cara Silver To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Program Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 9:08:24 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carasilver1@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and City Council: I write in strong support of First Congo's application to participate in the Safe Parking Program. First Congo is close to my house and I pass by it daily. It's a perfect spot for a small, well run safe parking program. This program is exceedingly well organized, has experience working in our community and offers a full suite of resources to ensure neighborhood compatibility. I've volunteered for Hotel de Zink for years and know how impactful these types of programs can be. Homelessness is increasing at an alarming rate and we should seize every opportunity we have to address this issue. People living in cars are holding on by a thread and sometimes all they need is a safe place to stay, a bit of stability and normalcy and a supportive community. I am so grateful that First Congo is joining other religious organizations to fill this need. First Congo has ample space in its parking lot, particularly in the evenings. The program is well supervised and the location for the program has been thoughtfully designed to give parkers privacy and safety. I frequently drive by the parked car dwellers on El Camino and have never seen any type of disturbance or nuisance. The safe parking program at Unitarian Universalist Church is hugely successful, as is Hotel de Zink. I look forward to welcoming four new households to our neighborhood. I urge you to deny the appeal and let the well-designed and supervised program begin. Thanks, Cara Silver Amarillo Avenue View this email in your browser From:npete To:Council, City Subject:Support Safe Parking at First Congregational Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 9:03:46 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from npetexyz@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members I urge you to support without delay Safe Parking at First Congregational Church. I am both a member of the church and a long time Palo Alto homeowner. Our church leadership has work openly, respectfully, and diligently with our neighbors in considering all aspects of Safe Parking. We clearly have a “Yes-able” plan. It is now time for our community to help more vehicle dwellers be safe and ultimately transition to more stable solutions. The four spaces designated in our church parking lot will help. Thank you Nancy Peterson 549 Ashton Ave Palo Alto CA 94306 npetexyz@gmail.com Begin forwarded message: From: First Congregational Church of Palo Alto <office@fccpa.org> Date: August 19, 2022 at 1:44:48 PM PDT To: Npetexyz@gmail.com Subject: This week at FCCPA Reply-To: First Congregational Church of Palo Alto <office@fccpa.org>  This Week at FCCPA WORSHIP Join us for worship on Sunday at 10:00 a.m. outdoors in our courtyard in person or on Zoom at this link. We will have piano duets from Joe Guthrie and Daniel Lockert and a children's story from Todd Erickson. We will hear reflections on the July service trip to San Diego/Tijuana from our youth and adult participants and Eileen Altman's sermon will include reflections from the service trip about God's call on us, through the prophet Jeremiah, to respond to the needs of our vulnerable neighbors with justice and dignity. Sunday Bulletin: Find the order of worship at this link. Worship Recordings: You can watch recordings of previous worship services here. Ways to Give to the Church: Thank you for all the ways you continue to support our church, through the mail, online, or by text! Learn more on our Giving Page. CONNECTING WITH FCCPA Outdoor Worship in August: Throughout the month of August, our Sunday morning worship services will be held outdoors in our courtyard and on Zoom. Please feel free to dress comfortably and join us under the trees. Dog Days Refreshments: As a celebration of summer and our outdoor worship, the Education Board will be serving cool beverages and treats on August 21, both before and after worship. Please arrive early or stay late for refreshments and fellowship in the courtyard! Majesty of the Spiritual Concert: Join a church group attending the Majesty of the Spiritual concert at San Francisco’s Herbst Theatre on Sunday, August 28th at 3 pm concert. Among other artists, you will see our own Daniel Lockert and baritone Robert Sims, who sang at our worship service on July 31. The church is chartering a bus, leaving the church parking lot at 1:00 p.m. The cost for each person is $50 round trip, payable to the church office. Please email Karen Routt by Wednesday, August 24 to reserve a seat on the bus. Order tickets for the concert here. You can receive a 15% discount using the code: CHURCHPA (thanks to Daniel Lockert). Art Adventures on Zoom: Dave Howell has been traveling this summer, and he will be sharing about art from some amazing destinations on Tuesday evenings at 7:30 on our regular worship Zoom. (Just go to fccpa.org and click on "Join us Live Online"). We will start on August 30 with Barcelona, Spain, followed by Madrid on September 6, Ireland on September 13, and some wonderful museums in the Northeastern United States on September 20. Join us on Zoom Tuesday nights for some great art conversation! Homecoming Sunday Events: Join us on September 11 for a day filled with joyful opportunities to connect with friends from church and our wider community. Join us for worship at 10:00 in our sanctuary as we welcome back our Chancel Choir and our youth program kicks off a new year during Backyard Sunday School After worship, the Education Board hosts a potluck luncheon in the Courtyard, with a bouncy slide on the front lawn From noon-2:00, the Outreach Board hosts in the first annual "FCCPA Serves" Day of Service. Some of the projects are on-site at the church and some are out in our community. Most of the volunteer opportunities are from 12:00 - 2:00 pm. Please use this link to scroll through the sign-up sheet and find a project that calls to you! Then at 3:00 pm, join us in the Courtyard for “Songs from the Sixties” featuring Mike Crager, Tyler Cobbett, Howard Look, and Kurt Taylor. We often associate the 1960's with rock 'n roll, but the decade was also rich in contributions to the jazz, standards, and Latin genres, from Michel Legrand to John Coltrane and Chick Corea, and the Brazilian bossa nova, Check it out! CHILDREN, YOUTH, & FAMILIES Backyard Sunday School: The young and the young at heart are invited to join us in the Backyard this Sunday (8/21) as we take a look at the story of Esther (Esther 2:5-18; 3:1-6; 8:1-17). As we do most Sundays, we'll act out this tale of bravery and change. And we will enjoy time to create, play, snack and pray. Please join us for some fun, faith and fellowship! This past Sunday: What a fantastic day in the Backyard this past Sunday! While Teacher Todd preached in worship, Pastor Dave led Sunday School. With the help of Michele, Sam and our creative young people, he brought to life the Laborers in the Vineyard parable, complete with threats of litigation from some of the laborers (during the story play)! He also enjoyed praying, singing, snacking and decorating bird houses with our fantastic Backyard community. After worship, Todd led the annual Blessing of the Bikes and Backpacks. During this all-ages event, he not only blessed bikes and backpacks, but also bags, car keys, phones, jackets, water bottles and even brains! Visitors to the Backyard also enjoyed take-homes, prayer cards and treats. It was a lovely and meaningful way to celebrate the beginning of the school year, remember that God is always with us and also be deemed most worthy of His blessings! COVID Awareness: As we move into a fall season with easily transmissible COVID variants, we strongly suggest that you remain at home if you or your child(ren) are experiencing cold or cold- like symptoms (or any other COVID-related symptoms, of course!). We thank you in advance as we strive to keep the children in the Backyard as healthy as possible! Cherub Choir: The Cherubs will resume singing/playing weekly in the Backyard on September 18! If your child is preK through 2nd grade and loves to sing, dance and have fun, she might LOVE the Cherub Choir, which is under the playful and creative direction of Emily Bender. If you have questions about the 2022-2023 Cherubs, contact Emily. Children's and Youth Choirs: The Children's and Youth Choirs will also resume on September 18 (times tba) and this year will meet weekly in the Youth Room (next to the children's bathrooms in the Backyard). Once again, the choirs will be under the invaluable direction of Andrea Ward. For more information about either of the 2022-2023 choirs, contact Andrea. Youth Groups: We hope our tween and teens have summers that are filled with fun, good health and lots of connection. Both the Middle School and High School Youth Groups will be back in the fall, starting on September 11! To learn more or to be added to the email list, contact Sam Putney. Questions or thoughts about Children’s Ministries? Contact Todd regarding Children and Family Ministries and Sam regarding Youth Ministries. LOVING OUR NEIGHBORS The Bay Area Native Allies Project (BANAP) has a webpage on our website. Check it out! Opportunities to learn and act in solidarity with Bay Area Native People: Sign the Project Juristac Petition of the Amah Mutsun Ohlone Peoples. The tribe is seeking up to 20,000 signatures to protect their sacred lands from a new corporate rock mining endeavor. Shellmound Hike in the San Bruno Mountain Ecological Reserve. Click here for directions for a self-paced and self-guided tour. Our Immigrant Accompaniment Story: FCCPA Immigrant Accompaniment Team members have supported the Cáceres family through its immigration journey from Honduras to the U.S. Find the story here. Need Fencing or Gardening Work Done? Our Honduran friends have skills in building fences and gardening and would be eager to do projects for you around the house, as soon as such work is again safe for public health. Besides gardening and fencing, Rosman can also paint, repair roofs and install irrigation. Contact Alan Stivers to put yourself on the list for future projects. Please provide a description of the job, your estimate of the number of hours needed and when you would ideally like for the job to be done in your email. SAFE PARKING ADVOCACY You can read the latest Palo Alto Online article about our application to participate in the Safe Parking program here. On Monday, August 22, the consent calendar for the Palo Alto City Council meeting will include our application for participation in the Safe Parking Program. At our congregational meeting on April 24, we voted to participate in this program. We received conditional approval for our application on July 6, but an appeal has been filed. Anne Campbell, Wes Chow, and Eileen Altman sent a response to that appeal to the city on behalf of the church. We are hoping that our application will be approved as part of the consent calendar, but if three Council members vote to pull it, then the Council will discuss our application and vote on it separately at a future meeting. You can help by writing to the Council members to express your support for our participation in the Safe Parking program, using the sample language below: Dear [Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Councilmember], I am a [X] year resident of Palo Alto and have been a [member/part] of First Congregational Church of Palo Alto since [year]. I am writing to support the church’s permit application to participate in the city’s safe parking program. The program will help ensure the safety of all residents and address the crisis of people experiencing homelessness in our city. The safe parking program, in partnership with Move Mountain View, helps to move vulnerable people into permanent housing while giving them a safe and predictable place to sleep as they are awaiting new options. This makes our entire community safer, cleaner, and healthier. [(Optional) Personal anecdote or a story from your neighborhood/community] Please vote to approve our application as part of the consent calendar at the August 22 Council meeting. Sincerely, [Your Name] Palo Alto City Council: Pat Burt (Mayor) Tom DuBois Alison Cormack Eric Filseth Lydia Kou (Vice Mayor) Greer Stone Greg Tanaka PRAYER CONCERNS Dick van Gelder has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and has begun chemotherapy. Dick and Joan would love a cheery card. Bob Daehler is in a rehab facility in Flagstaff, AZ recovering from injuries he sustained in a fall in early July. If you wish to send a cheery card to Bob, contact Eileen Altman for the address. Flora Morita, Ron Morita’s mother, is in hospice care. Ballard French, father of Linda Sodos, is recovering from partial hip replacement surgery. Don Hayler is being treated for lung cancer. If you would like to add your own name or the name of one dear to you to this list, contact Rev. Dr. Eileen Altman. WIDER CHURCH & GLOBAL MINISTRIES Global Ministries: Please pray with our mission co-workers and mission partners in Lebanon. U.S. Disaster Response: The United Church of Christ’s Disaster Ministries unit is extending a helping hand to survivors of record- breaking floods and tornadoes that devastated communities from Missouri to Kentucky and West Virginia within the past eight months. You can contribute to help support these efforts, by donating online, designating your gifts for the Emergency USA Fund. Sign up for News from the United Church of Christ, a weekly e-zine of news, resources, and justice-action items e-mailed each Tuesday. Subscribe to NCNC E-News from the Northern California Nevada Conference of the UCC, emailed each Thursday, with news from our Conference, Associations, and nearby churches. CONNECT AND SERVE Worship Tech Support: If you would like to be trained as a volunteer to run our A/V system in the sanctuary, serving once or twice each month during worship, please contact Ben Roberts or David Howell, or drop by the A/V area in the sanctuary on a Sunday. We would be glad to tell you more about it. Worship Greeters: Greeters welcome parishioners and visitors as they arrive for services. If you and/or your family or friend would like serve as Greeters for an upcoming service sign up here. All God’s “singers” got a place in the Choir! The Chancel Choir and the Women’s ensemble are on hiatus for the summer. Rehearsals resume September 8. Come join in the music making fun! Contact Jenny. The Peace and Justice Task Force develops strategies for our congregation to learn about and respond to peace and justice concerns in our community, nation, and world. The group meets monthly, usually on the third Tuesday of the month. Contact Steve Ketchpel for more information. The Memoirs Writing Group will be taking a Summer Break. We will resume our Second Tuesday meetings on October 11. Elected Leadership Meetings (August-May): Church Council meets monthly on Wednesdays at 7:30 p.m. The Deacons, Outreach, and Worship Boards meet monthly on Wednesdays at 7:30 p.m. The Trustees meet on Sundays once per month at 8:30 a.m. The Education Board meets periodically on Sundays at 11:45 a.m. COMMUNITY EVENTS Green and Electrified Home Tour: Want to see how a house runs without fossil fuels? Visit several homes near you that have made the switch to clean, green electricity. You’ll get to taste food made on an induction cooktop, learn about heat pump water heaters, and possibly ride in an electric vehicle! For more details about homes you can see, register for the FREE Green Home Tour on Sat. Sept. 24, from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. Learn more at the MVPJ website. Join 350 Palo Alto, CCL SVN, and allies on Thursday, October 6 from 7-8:30 pm over Zoom as we invite the Palo Alto city council candidates for a vital conversation on municipal climate policy. Moderated by prominent community members and local students, this event aims to spark a conversation between citizens and the candidates. RSVP here and submit questions for the candidates here. JUST IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD Sacred Grounds is Open After Worship: Stop by to grab a cup of coffee, tea, espresso, a speciality drink, or a delicious snack. Electric Vehicle Owners: FCCPA now offers discounted pricing to church members when charging your electric vehicle at our charging station located in the Embarcadero Road parking lot. Two charging stations are available for your convenience. If you are interested in special discounted pricing please contact Business Manager, Rita Tetzlaff for instructions. Email change? Have you changed your email address lately? Please send an email to Linda so she can update the database with your new email address. Amazon Smile: Amazon donates .5% of the price of eligible purchases to our church if you shop through our Amazon Smile link. FCCPA Partners in Ministry We're Social! Visit our website Stay in Touch... E-mail our members of staff Rev. David Howell Rev. Dr. Eileen Altman Todd Erickson Joe Guthrie Jenny Matteucci Rita Tetzlaff Linda Sodos Simone C Sam Putney First Congregational Church of Palo Alto United Church of Christ No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey: Welcome!(An Open and Affirming Congregation) Our mailing address is: 1985 Louis Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Regular Office Hours Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Lunch 12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.) phone: (650) 856-6662 fax: (650) 856-6664 This email was sent to << Test Email Address >> why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences First Congregational Church of Palo Alto · 1985 Louis Rd · Palo Alto, CA 94303 · USA Copyright ©2022 First Congregational Church of Palo Alto*, All rights reserved. This email was sent to npetexyz@gmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences First Congregational Church of Palo Alto · 1985 Louis Rd · Palo Alto, CA 94303 · USA From:Todor Ganev To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org Subject:8-22-22 Consent Calendar Item 4 Appeal of FCCPA Safe Parking Permit Application 22PLN-00159 Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 7:24:17 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from tganev@hotmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council members: I am writing this email in anticipation of the Consent Calendar meeting tomorrow, 8/22/22. I request that you pull the so-called “safe parking” item out of consent. This is clearly not suitable for a consent decision, as it is a very controversial issue. Following the latest developments, I believe that a large number of taxpaying and voting Palo Alto residents, (in addition to those who originally signed the 7-20-22 appeal), are very concerned about the flaws in this safe parking program implementation. The latest staff report (ID # 14609) lists some arguments against our appeal. I can confidently say that practically all of those arguments and reasoning are weak and can be easily refuted with facts, statistics and common sense. Therefore, a proper hearing is not only warranted, but necessary. We must rely on you now to protect our health, safety, and welfare and those of our children. As just some examples, please allow me to highlight a few glaring flaws in the reasoning of those who support the implementation of this program without reasonable modifications (report ID # 14609). 1. An outrageous flaw is that the proponents quote a safe distance of 25 feet from the parking spots to the residences, referencing some outreach in another community, a dubious precedent which has neither legal nor scientific standing. These 25 feet are the length of a modestly sized living room! What reasonable person would agree to have 4 cars at a living room distance and accept it is safe? This would be simply ludicrous if it weren’t cruel, especially to the children who reside so close to the proposed parking spots. Study after study has shown (c.f. US EPA, OEHHA, Air Resource Board etc., etc.) that even hundreds of feet of distance from car exhaust are a hazard, so the distance of mere 34 feet proposed here is clearly unsafe. Also, please note there are several doctors among the residents who oppose the present location of the parking spots and call for moving them further away from the residents. The only reasonable compromise here is for FCCPA to move the safe parking spots to their much larger parking lot on Lous Road, as substantiated in more detail on the 7-20-22 Appeal. The program implementation, as formulated right now, is plagued by critical uncertainties and insufficient planning. This is precisely what a permit system is supposed to prevent. Here are some examples: 2. It is not enough to state that idling will be allowed if the temperatures exceed a certain range. As formulated, this rule is virtually unenforceable, because of the lack of well-defined procedures, e.g. where and how will the vehicle dwellers objectively measure the temperatures and who will decide that temperatures warrant idling, who would actually be able to address violations in a timely and meaningful fashion. Will we have to breathe exhaust while waiting for someone to come from Mountain View late at night to enforce the rule? Clearly, in its present simplistic and generic form, the temperature-based idling rule may sound good on the surface, but is, in fact, a recipe for confusion and even conflict. Similar considerations apply to smoking and other nuisances that are, in theory, prohibited. 3. It is misguided, even arrogant of proponents who do not even live next to the church to suggest that we, the neighbors, will “likely keep our windows closed” – they are not entitled to impose on our living habits and apparently are missing the fact that even with closed windows the toxic fumes seep in. My household actually experienced this in March this year, when “guests” of the church repeatedly caused us car exhaust issues that necessitated almost a week of daily complaints to the pastors, (including to Altman herself), who appeared unable or unwilling to address the issue. 4. The proponents are quoting data from only one year, 2021, which data have little statistical significance, compared to the detailed US climate data we provided in the 8-10-22 Addendum to the appeal. The data we provided (c.f. USClimatedata.com) cover tens of recent years and are much more representative of the probability of low temperatures in the winter. Even with climate change, which is a slower process, the detailed statistics we present are valid and much more compelling. In short, the idling will not be rare, and even rare idling is a hazard. Again, the only reasonable compromise here is for FCCPA to move the safe parking spots to their much larger parking lot on Louis Road, as substantiated in more detail in the 7-20-22 Appeal. Let me reiterate: We are not against helping the unhoused, many of us volunteer and donate to such causes already. We are against the flawed implementation of this particular program and are asking for reasonable modifications, but are being ignored and even vilified (c.f. Altman’s regrettable use of pejoratives and insults in the press and media e.g. Palo Alto Weekly, CBS news) For many years we have been putting up with garbage, loitering, urination, smoking from guests of Hotel De Zink and other FCCPA initiatives in the name of being good neighbors, but FCCPA is not reciprocating, now that we need them to be the good neighbors and respect our health and welfare. FCCPA are expecting us, the existing neighbors, to be altruistic and assume risks in the name of the lofty program goal, but they themselves are not willing to make even a small compromise and to accept even a small inconvenience (if any at all). Consequently, we are relying on you to ensure we are also being treated fairly. Please pull this item out of consent on 8/22/22 and please encourage rational compromise and addressing of critical gaps and flaws in the proposed program implementation. Thank you, Todor Ganev From:Aram James To:Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; gmah@sccoe.org; Winter Dellenbach; Human Relations Commission; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez; chuck jagoda; Jeff Rosen; Binder, Andrew; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Josh Becker; Greg Tanaka; Anna Griffin; Ann Ravel; Linda Jolley; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission Subject:ADD YOUR NAME: Say NO to Voter Suppression Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 6:58:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.  Aram, I wanted to make sure you saw this update on GOP voter suppression efforts. So many folks have already added their name to condemn the GOP’s most recent attempts to subvert our elections, and it’s incredible to see the groundswell of support we have to protect our democracy. If you agree that we must defeat voter suppression, add your name to join us, join Dr. Shirley Weber, California's Secretary of State, today. ADD YOUR NAME Onward, Dr. Shirley Weber California Secretary of State (The original email is below.) Add your name to condemn these Republican attacks on democracy — join Dr. Shirley Weber, California's Secretary of State, today >> ADD YOUR NAME Aram, I’m about to ask you to sign our petition condemning voter suppression. But first, I want to tell you my story, and my family’s story. Because this is personal for me. I was born in Hope, Arkansas. My father was a sharecropper, and he and his father before him were denied the right to vote. It was well known that if a Black man attempted to vote, they could be killed. My family was run out of town by a lynch mob after a dispute with a white farmer. California was distant and strange, but it felt far enough away to be safe. When we settled in, my mother volunteered as a poll worker and would go on to run a polling place right out of our home in the South L.A. projects. My parents never took for granted what it meant to be able to vote. Add your name, Aram, to join me, Dr. Shirley Weber, in condemning Republican efforts to corrupt our democracy. As your Secretary of State, I will always fight modern-day Jim Crow voter suppression. ADD YOUR NAME California must be a leader in protecting our democracy. We’ve expanded vote by mail, helped people with criminal convictions regain the right to vote, and worked tirelessly to keep our elections safe, fair, and accessible. As Secretary of State, I will continue to call out voter suppression and other threats. From Republican efforts to overturn the election on January 6 and beyond to the racist voter ID laws and gerrymandering designed to limit the power of Black voices, we know that Republicans are trying to corrupt our democracy because they can’t win fair and square at the polls. I will give everything I have to honor my family’s legacy and protect your right to vote. Add your name here to let me know you’re with me. >>> ADD YOUR NAME Thank you, — Dr. Shirley N. Weber Secretary of State of California Paid for by Shirley Weber for Secretary of State 2022. FPPC #1435477. Does not equal endorsement. Daily Kos, PO Box 70036, Oakland, CA, 94612. Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Daily Kos, please click here. From:Aram James To:Pat Burt; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian; Jethroe Moore; Sean Allen; ladoris cordell; ParkRec Commission; gmah@sccoe.org; Stump, Molly; mark weiss; melissa caswell; Greer Stone; Greg Tanaka Subject:Palo Alto church"s safe-parking plan for homeless stirs controversy with neighbors Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 5:46:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. NewsBreak Used by over 45 million people Open APP Palo Alto church's safe-parking plan for homeless stirs controversy with neighbors CBS San Francisco PALO ALTO -- A battle is brewing over a church in Palo Alto trying to help the poor by allowing homeless people to park their vehicles and sleep in a church parking lot.Is it a case of NIMBY-ism in the wealthy town of Palo Alto, or is the church refusing to compromise with its neighbors?Some neighbors are trying to block First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, located at the corner of Louis Road and Embarcadero Road, from allowing vehicle dwellers to park in their back parking lot overnight."The porta potty is going to be right here, sort of backed up... Click to read the full story Sent from my iPhone From:Mary Beth Train To:Council, City Subject:Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 5:25:39 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mbt3305@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. In short, I would like to see more housing built in Palo Alto, with units in various sizes and types. I would like more specific language for housing on city-owned property and faith- based organizations. I support greater density on El Camino, Alma, San Antonio, the southern parts of Middlefield, as well as ADU's. Various types of housing can exist together, such as in the Downtown neighborhood. I encourage the adoption of the suggestions from Palo Alto Forward. I am a 45-year resident of Palo Alto, first living in an Eichler on Middlefield and now at Channing House. Thank you! -- Mary Beth Mary Beth Train - Home office phone 650-324-7346 *voice only, not text* -mbt3305@yahoo.com From:Hamilton Hitchings To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; HeUpdate Subject:Input to Housing Element Review by City Council Monday Aug 21, 2022 Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 3:49:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and Jonathan Lait, Although I was a member of the HEWG below are my personal additional suggestions for the council to consider during the Housing Element Program Review on Monday night: * Do we really need to revise the municipal code to mirror everything that’s in state law or is this just a safeguard in case state law gets overturned. E.g. program 1.3. * In program 1.4 in the HEWG we only discussed and agreed to build housing over city parking lots but this has since been expanded to all city-owned parcels, which I think is too much for this cycle. Further, there is no requirement for the minimum percentage of units that are affordable, which should be be at least “primarily” or ideally 100% affordable housing. We should not be using public lands for market rate housing. * Program 1.6 items C and D: Should limit Stanford El Camino sites to 50' and for the additional proposed upzoning beyond that require additional affordable housing of 20% or ideally 25% overall. Many of Stanford’s staff need affordable housing to live in Palo Alto. In their participation in the housing element, Stanford representatives have strongly advocated for upzoning but strongly resisted any additional requirements for affordable housing in exchange. * Program 1.6 item E: For Stanford Transit Center PC, require explicit language that states all or a majority to be used for affordable housing. * Program 1.6 F & G: Put more teeth into Stanford building a housing pipeline for the next housing cycle such as being required to provide a certain percentage of our overall RHNA number, e.g. 20%. * Add a program to rezone at least all housing sites on RHNA Housing Site list so they can only build housing and ground floor retail where required when redeveloped but no office. This will help make our RHNA list more defensible against HCD challenges and increase housing production. * Program 3.3D: I don’t think the housing overlay program should be extended to religious institution sites within R-1 districts. * Program 3.5 C: if you limit ARB hearings to two, then developer loses their incentive to follow ARB directives * Program 6.3 B, Strengthen language to ensure rezoning sites that allow both housing and office on the same site so it more financial advantageous to build housing instead of office * 6.4 A - Safe Parking Program should do background checks to screen out sex offenders and violent convicted felons. This will make the program safer for nearby residents, school children and the other safe parking participants. It will reduce neighborhood opposition and allow greater expansion of the program thus serving more homeless. Despite, what some folks say, homeless car dwelling is not typically deep in residential child-centric areas but instead on el camino and commercial areas so this will bring more homeless into these neighborhoods so safety is a legitimate concern. Please consider all of the above changes to the Housing Element. Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Joe Simitian; Jeff Rosen; Jethroe Moore; Sean Allen; Rebecca Eisenberg; Enberg, Nicholas; Josh Becker; Vara Ramakrishnan; chuck jagoda; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Perron, Zachary; Cindy Chavez; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; Wagner, April; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Pat Burt Subject:Time to say No to Tasers in Palo Alto Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 3:14:54 PM Attachments:Aram James (DJ-1-12-18) (00000003).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:mwilliams To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City; Howard, Adam; Anne Cribbs; Anderson, Daren Subject:Stevenson House Neighbor Event, Thursday August 25, 3:30 to 5 pm Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 3:04:32 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from moniwilliams@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. You are invited! The Palo Alto Pickleball Club, with Jocelyn Tseng and the Picnic Tables Committee, will be hosting our neighbors, the residents and staff from Stevenson House. Some of you may know that Stevenson House is an affordable independent living senior residence, and their property abuts Mitchell Park near the pickleball courts. You can learn more about Stevenson House here: https://stevensonhouse.org/ This event will feature an exhibition pickleball game, mini lessons, and refreshments and cake at the Picnic Tables and on Courts P3 - P6 Please join us if you are available to meet and mingle with our guests and enjoy the refreshments. Monica Williams USAPA Ambassador Palo Alto Pickleball Club President (650)772-9493 cell (650)254-1041 home From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Steve Levy Subject:Air travel uptick Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 1:13:29 PM Attachments:Numbers-Aug2022-Air-Travel-Picking-Up.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi All, First i have tried to clean the lists so no one is getting multiple emails. Hope I got everyone. Next up is a state economic update. You all saw the food news on Friday about jobs growth. The update will look at the regional and industry trends as well. For today I pass along an update on air passenger trends. Some airports are now equal to or surpassing pre-pandemic travel levels. Bay Area airports and LAX are farther from full recovery in part as they have the most international travel, which was the hardest hit during the pandemic. Steve 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 1 August 2022 Air Travel Picking Up The number of passengers at California’s major airports has increased in recent months. The gain is led by airports that mainly serve domestic travel while airports serving international travel are seeing strong recent increases in travel volumes but are farther behind 2019 passenger totals. The 4 major Southern California airports (LAX, OC, BUR and ONT) had the largest increase over 2021 passenger levels for the first months of 2022 (77.2%) but still trailed 2019 volumes by more than 20%. The three major Bay Area airports (SFO, OAK and SJC) saw a strong increase in 2022 but trailed 2019 levels by the most of any region (27.8%). The San Diego and Sacramento airports are the closest to matching pre- pandemic travel volumes. All of the data comes from airport websites. Air Passengers First Six Months of Year (Millions) 2019 2020 2021 2022 22 vs 19 22 vs 21 Southern California 53.7 22.5 23.3 41.3 -23.1% 77.2% San Francisco Bay Area 33.0 16.1 13.9 23.9 -27.8% 71.8% San Diego 12.1 5.3 5.8 10.0 -17.1% 72.8% Sacramento Region 2.7 1.3 1.7 2.5 -8.4% 46.9% Source: Airport websites Air travel picked up in June and with two more summer months, air travel volumes will likely get closer to pre-pandemic levels. San Diego airport surpassed June 2019 passenger volume in June 2022 and Sacramento airport was close to 2019 volumes. For Southern California and Bay Area airports June 2022 was closer to pre-pandemic levels than the six month totals. Air Passengers in June (Millions) 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 2 June 2019 June 2020 June 2021 June 2022 22 vs 19 22 vs 21 Southern California 10.0 1.4 6.4 8.2 -17.9% 27.6% San Francisco Bay Area 6.1 1.5 2.4 4.8 -21.5% 101.7% San Diego 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.2 20.7% 126.8% Sacramento Region 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 -3.8% 15.3% One of the reasons that Southern California and Bay Area airports are farther behind 2019 passenger levels is that they are the main airports for international travel, which has only very recently started to recover. A comparison of June international volumes at SFO, LAX and SJC is shown below and even with the growth in June 2022, volumes are well below 2019 levels. International Air Passengers in June (Millions) June 2019 June 2020 June 2021 June 2022 SFO 1.49 0.04 0.27 1.04 LAX 2.36 0.13 0.76 1.62 SJC 0.83 0.03 0.43 0.37 Southern California Airport Trends Compared to 2019 Orange County, Burbank and Ontario airports had similar passenger volumes in the first six months of 2022. All of the Southern California declines compared to 2019 came from LAX, in part as discussed above from declines in international travel. Air Passengers First Six Months of Year (Millions) Southern California Airports 2019 2020 2021 2022 22 vs 19 22 vs 21 LAX 43.0 17.7 18.0 30.6 -28.8% 70.5% OC 5.3 2.2 2.6 5.2 -1.2% 99.5% BUR 2.7 1.3 1.1 2.8 0.7% 160.4% ONT 2.6 1.4 1.7 2.7 2.7% 60.3% All Southern California airports except Los Angeles International exceeded their 2019 passenger volumes in June 2022. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 3 Air Passengers in June (Millions) June 2019 June 2020 June 2021 June 2022 22 vs 19 22 vs 21 LAX 8.04 1.03 4.89 6.12 -23.9% 25.2% OC 0.92 0.18 0.73 1.00 8.8% 37.1% BUR 0.52 0.09 0.36 0.54 4.2% 51.0% ONT 0.48 0.14 0.43 0.51 7.1% 19.0% Bay Area Airport Trends All of the Bay Area airports remain well below 2019 in passenger volumes for the first six months of the year, though all show substantial gains compared to the first six months of 2021. Air Passengers First Six Months of Year (Millions) San Francisco Bay Area 2019 2020 2021 2022 22 vs 19 22 vs 21 SJC 7.4 3.1 2.6 5.1 -31.7% 94.6% SFO 19.1 10.4 8.1 13.8 -27.7% 71.2% OAK 6.5 2.6 3.2 5.0 -23.5% 54.7% On the other hand, all Bay Area airports trailed 2019 passenger levels in June 2022. Air Passengers in June (Millions) June 2019 June 2020 June 2021 June 2022 22 vs 19 22 vs 21 SJC 1.41 0.19 0.76 1.07 -24.0% 41.9% SFO 3.48 1.04 0.81 2.67 -23.4% 230.4% OAK 1.22 0.26 0.82 1.06 -13.3% 29.9% Comments While passenger levels have been increasing throughout the state’s major airports, there are headwinds causing uncertainty as to how quickly they can recover from here. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 4 Many airlines are reducing flight schedules and COVID cases, while declining recently, are still high enough to discourage some travelers. On the positive side, it is likely that the conditions that reduced international travel will continue to abate and those travel levels will increase. It is too soon to know what the circumstances will be for the Thanksgiving and winter holidays. From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Wagner, April; Reifschneider, James; Shikada, Ed; Tannock, Julie; Winter Dellenbach; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Foley, Michael; Sean Allen; Enberg, Nicholas; Joe Simitian; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jethroe Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jeff Rosen; Josh Becker; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Cindy Chavez; Vara Ramakrishnan; Pat Burt; ParkRec Commission Subject:Crisis in policing runs deeper than you think | The Hill Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 1:10:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/3609069-crisis-in-policing-runs-deeper-than-you-think/ Sent from my iPhone From:Kathy Jordan To:Council, City Subject:Regarding the City/FCC ‘Safe Parking’ program Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 12:28:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the City Council: Regarding the City/FCC ‘Safe Parking’ program: While we all share the goal of seeing our fellow man be self-sufficient, including providing housing for him or herself, we may differ on the ways to help others reach this goal. We know that the good people of FCC and the City seek to help the vehicle dwellers parking on Palo Alto City streets. We simply think that this help can and should come in a different form, one which will not negatively impact the safety and welfare of FCC's neighbor residents, which we believe will happen if this program is implemented in the manner in which it is proposed. FCC and the City suggest the help they seek to provide the City’s vehicle dwellers should be in the form of introducing dwellers to reside in our neighborhood, in the FCC parking lot, close to our homes, from evening through morning, without them or any employed entity agreeing to perform background checks on prospective participants, or to establish reasonable participant criteria, such as excluding those with a criminal background or those involved in active or past drug use. We contend this will increase risks to the safety and welfare of our neighborhood. We suggest there are other ways for FCC and the City to help the vehicle dwellers, which would not include increasing safety and welfare risks to the neighborhood and its residents. Other forms of assistance that the City and FCC could offer to the vehicle dwellers without increasing safety and welfare risk to neighbor residents could include the following: Vehicle dwellers could still make use of some FCC facilities, for some limited time period, without staying the evening, overnight and into the morning in the FCC parking lot, again, as long as background checks and reasonable participation criteria are employed, such as excluding those with a criminal background or those involved in active or past drug use. The City could make some of its public facilities available for limited time periods to the vehicle dwellers, for similar purposes to what is suggested by FCC, such as for taking showers and the like, while similarly mitigating increased risks to the safety and welfare of its residents and users of its public facilities, by performing background checks and employing reasonable participation criteria, such as excluding those with a criminal background or those involved in active or past drug use. FCC members and/or City staff could still assist vehicle dwellers with social welfare needs through engaging with them where they currently are located. 'Emergency Shelter'? We particularly question the premise under which this program is being undertaken, to wit that it qualifies as 'emergency shelter,' and would thus be exempt from City housing code and regulation for residential neighborhoods and other. We recognize that vehicle dwellers are a different population than the completely unsheltered homeless, but still, many of these vehicle dwellers may bring issues of dysfunction to the table and thus into our neighborhood if the program is implemented, issues such as employment, financial, criminal, drug use, and mental health issues. As profiled in a past article on the El Camino Real vehicle dwellers in the PA Weekly, a number of the vehicle dwellers make a temporary economic choice to work in the area during the week, and return home to their permanent homes elsewhere on the weekend, due to the higher wages available here versus those available in the area of their permanent homes. According to the PA Weekly article, this set of vehicle dwellers do have permanent housing - elsewhere - and in many cases, return to that permanent housing on the weekends during their sojourn in Palo Alto. According to the article, this set of vehicle dwellers have made an economic choice to park and reside in their vehicles on the streets of Palo Alto, for temporary, project related employment. Another set of vehicle dwellers featured in the article may be more likely to dwell in their cars/RVs on the City’s streets more permanently. It begs the question - how can a situation be considered an 'emergency' when a set of vehicle dwellers make a temporary economic choice to park on the City’s streets, and have permanent housing elsewhere, to which they plan to return? As for the other, more permanent set of vehicle dwellers, given that vehicle dwellers have been parking on El Camino Real and on City streets for years, and many vehicle dwellers will remain parking on the streets in Palo Alto even if this FCC program is implemented, how can the vehicle dwelling situation in Palo Alto be construed as an 'emergency'? No vehicle dweller parking on the street is in imminent danger in parking on a City of Palo Alto street, which danger would then recede by then parking instead in a parking space on the FCC parking lot. If this were truly an 'emergency', to either vehicle dweller health or safety, or to City health or safety, then wouldn't all of the vehicle dwellers currently parked on the City’s streets have to be immediately relocated? But the City is not proposing this action. In fact, it is likely that new and additional vehicle dwellers may come to park in the street parking spots vacated by those who go to park overnight in the FCC parking lot. Clearly, this situation cannot be considered an 'emergency' when there is no imminent danger or threat to the vehicle dwellers parking on the street, or to City health and safety, when other, similarly situated vehicle dwellers, who cannot be accommodated in City ‘Safe Parking’ spots and programs, will remain parked on City streets overnight and during the day as well. ‘Shelter’? Additionally, FCC and the City are not providing the vehicle dwellers with 'shelter.' Shelter connotes protection from the elements. FCC and the City are simply permitting the vehicle dweller to use a parking spot, in a different location from those on City streets, and reside in the open air FCC parking lot, adjacent to our neighborhood, from evening through morning, while making use of some of FCC's facilities during that time. A parking space is not 'shelter'. If so, then a City parking space on the City's streets would be considered 'shelter.' Yet the City and FCC seek to move vehicle dwellers from a parking space on the City’s streets, to an FCC parking space, and then label it ‘shelter.’ This is a fiction. The vehicle that dwellers dwell in is their actual 'shelter' in this case, not the parking space. The vehicle dwellers are providing their own shelter, not the City nor FCC. Thus, in neither case, the case of 'emergency', or the case of 'shelter,' does the FCC/City ‘Safe Parking’ program meet the meaning of what constitutes an 'emergency shelter', which would exempt the FCC proposed program from City housing code and regulation. Safe parking for whom? Neighborhood residents do not seek to prevent the City or FCC from helping the vehicle dwellers, in fact we commend them for attempting to do so, but we suggest that they do so in a different manner, one that does not put neighborhood residents, including resident children, at increased risk to their safety and welfare. As such, we consider the name of the program currently being proposed, 'Safe Parking', a misnomer, as we believe the program will increase risks to the safety of FCC neighbor residents, and negatively impact their welfare. We suggest that the City and FCC employ a different manner to assist the vehicle dwellers parking on City streets. We ask that the City reverse its approval of implementation of a ‘Safe Parking’ program located at FCC. Thank you. Best, Kathryn Jordan From:Sarah Longstreth To:Council, City Subject:Approve First Congregational Church"s Safe Parking Application Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 12:26:12 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from slongstreth@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, I’m a long-time resident and homeowner in Palo Alto - I grew up in Midtown and returned to Palo Alto after graduate school to raise my family here. I’ve lived here for 36 of my 52 years. I’m reaching out today to express my support for First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s Safe Parking permit application, on the agenda for your August 22 meeting. Thank you for approving the Safe Parking Program back in early 2020, a program that is a critical part of our community’s efforts to address homelessness. I was pleased to see that city staff recommend approval of First Congregational’s permit application, given that First Congregational has followed all of the Program’s requirements, and has ensured that its implementation of the Program will protect nearby residents and also respect the privacy and dignity of the people it helps. I paid close attention when the Unitarian Universalist Church applied to operate a Safe Parking Program, given the proximity to our home. I was extremely happy when the City Council approved the Safe Parking Program at that site, and understand that since kickoff, there have been no complaints from neighbors. Part of the reason I care so deeply about finding space for the unhoused in our community is because I live on Amarillo Avenue, close to Greer Park, and travel along Fabian almost every day. This neighborhood - my neighborhood - includes many who currently live in vehicles. So I see daily reminders of the human cost of lack of affordable housing in our community. I consider these folks my neighbors and care about their wellbeing and safety in the same way that I care about the wellbeing and safety of my housed neighbors. Their presence creates zero issues for me and I have zero concerns about my personal safety. I am happy to know that unhoused vehicle dwellers are able to find places to lawfully park in my neighborhood. Until we are able to offer more affordable housing in Palo Alto, we need to find more ways to support and welcome humans across the economic spectrum. First Congregational’s Safe Parking Program is a small way to do this. I urge you to approve the First Congregational Church's Safe Parking Application as part of the August 22 Consent Calendar. Kind regards, Sarah Longstreth 979 Amarillo Avenue From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Sean Allen; Winter Dellenbach; Jethroe Moore; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; chuck jagoda; Raj; Vara Ramakrishnan; Rebecca Eisenberg; Joe Simitian; Jay Boyarsky; Josh Becker; Cindy Chavez; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com Subject:10 Chattanooga police officers reassigned after they "misrepresented the truth or filed a false report," chief says Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 12:09:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. NewsBreak Used by over 45 million people Open APP 10 Chattanooga police officers reassigned after they 'misrepresented the truth or filed a false report,' chief says CNN Ten Chattanooga police officers have been reassigned to non-enforcement positions and will no longer be allowed to testify in court after they "misrepresented the truth or filed a false report," according to a police department press release. Click to read the full story Sent from my iPhone From:caroleandsteve eittreim To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking for Homeless Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 10:25:53 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from eittreimcs@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, Please support the Safe Parking programme offered by the First Congregational Church. It is our moral duty to help the homeless where we can. Thank you. Sincerely, Caroleann Eittreim 1975 ivy Lane Palo Alto, Ca 94303 650-856-6977 From:Linda Frommer To:Council, City Subject:Support for FCCPA"s Safe Parking Program Application. Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 8:43:14 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from lindafrommer@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________  Dear City Council Members, As a homeowner and neighbor of the First Congregational Church, I support their application to provide safe parking for people unhoused. There is no evidence to support the appeal which claims safety concerns. I urge the Council to approve their application. Linda Frommer 1525 Walnut Drive From:E Nigenda To:Council, City Subject:Re: Consent Item # 3 for Aug. 22, 2022, Safe Parking Permit at 1985 Louis Road Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 7:02:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, As a neighbor to the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, I support Staff recommendation that Council uphold the Director’s Decision to approve a Safe Parking Permit at 1985 Louis Road. I am not an immediate neighbor (~ 0.7 miles) so I hesitated to voice an opinion. Then I noticed that several of the neighbors signing the appeal live much farther from the proposed parking site than I do. Regarding the issues the appellants cite - idling cars and air quality, safety and background checks, overall proximity to residences – since neighbors living in cars are already parking on City streets, the program does not create any new concerns. If neighbors living in cars need to keep warm, they will idle their cars on the street near our house or in the Church’s parking lot. As for neighborhood safety – there are no guarantees that neighbors in houses are any safer than neighbors in cars - we were shocked and horrified when one of our neighbors, a long-time resident, shot a BB gun at school children. If anything, I believe the Safe Parking Program, in addition to increasing participants’ overnight safety, helps address and mitigate some of the issues the appellants raise. The City’s Safe Parking Program is a small but important step in helping our neighbors in need. I am grateful to the First Congregational Church and other faith- based organizations who have stepped up to help. Thank you for your service to our community, Esther Nigenda Palo Alto resident From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Jethroe Moore; Enberg, Nicholas; Rebecca Eisenberg; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Human Relations Commission; Greer Stone; Tannock, Julie; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Josh Becker; Raj; Cindy Chavez Subject:How Conservatives Are Trying to Shut Down the Progressive Prosecutor Movement Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 12:25:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. >  Closing Argument This week's art is by Brian LFrank. Full work below. DONATE BY JAMILES LARTEY Prosecutors have a tremendous amount of discretion around the criminal charges they do and — just as importantly — do not pursue. This has been an animating principle behind the rise of the so-called progressive prosecutor movement, and now some conservative opponents are targeting that discretion in a bid to shut the movement down. The most extreme example comes from Hillsborough County, Florida, home to Tampa. Earlier this month, Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended State Attorney Andrew Warren, arguing that Warren was neglecting his duty to enforce the law. DeSantis noted that Warren was among several prosecutors nationwide who signed a letter opposing state laws seeking to criminalize transgender people in 2021. Despite the fact that Florida currently has no such laws, DeSantis argued that “these statements prove that Warren thinks he has the authority to defy the Florida Legislature” and ignore laws he disagrees with. DeSantis made the same point about a similar letter Warren signed on the criminalization of abortion this summer. On Wednesday, Warren sued DeSantis in federal court. “By challenging this illegal abuse of power, we make sure that no governor can toss out the results of an election because he doesn’t like the outcome,” said Warren, who was elected by voters in his county in 2016 and 2020. Writing in the Tampa Bay Times, four criminologists argue that contrary to DeSantis’ attacks, Warren has “been vigorously prosecuting felony cases and the most impactful crimes.” The Tallahassee Democrat notes that the same day Warren was removed from his job by an armed deputy, his office announced indictments in the 1983 rape and murder of two women. DeSantis’ hand-picked replacement has already begun to roll back some of Warren’s more progressive policies — like non- prosecution of many non-violent misdemeanors — leaving some people worried that Black and poor Floridians will suffer under a more punitive regime. The New Republic argues it’s no coincidence that DeSantis went after Warren over criminal laws that would marginalize transgender people and pregnant patients. While DeSantis’ approach has been the most aggressive yet, it’s far from the only effort against prosecutors. The Marshall Project’s Keri Blakinger wrote about this growing movement to preempt reform-minded prosecutors in February, noting: “From Virginia to Missouri to Texas, conservatives have backed bills allowing the state to take over cases local district attorneys choose not to pursue, undermining the ability of elected prosecutors to carry out reforms that led voters to support them in the first place.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling on abortion appears to be supercharging these fights by kicking a highly contentious social issue into the realm of criminal law for the first time in a half- century. In view of that trend, this editorial in Washington Monthly argues that there are “reasons to be wary of schemes that effectively override the discretion of local prosecutors and law enforcement.” Steve Mulroy, the incoming district attorney for Shelby County, Tennessee, which includes Memphis, appears to have taken notice of the growing preemption push. In a July interview with The Daily Memphian, Mulroy said that enforcing abortion laws would be a low priority for his office, but that “prosecutors should never say never.” He noted that under Tennessee law, district attorneys can be stripped of their jurisdiction over certain offenses and replaced with an independent prosecutor. Mulroy defeated longtime county prosecutor Amy Weirich earlier this month, coincidentally on the same day that Warren was booted from his job. Mulroy ran on a progressive platform, pledging bail reform, juvenile justice reform and the launch of a conviction review unit. This week, MLK50 spoke with a number of the Memphis community groups that helped propel Mulroy to victory, on their hopes for his tenure. Weirich, on the other hand, ran on a “tough on crime” ethos, and cast Mulroy’s approach as a threat to public safety, even as violent crime had steadily increased throughout her 11-year term. She is well-known for a handful of high-profile cases, including the wrongful conviction of Noura Jackson in 2009 and the prosecution of activist Pamela Moses for trying to register to vote while ineligible. Weirich’s defeat received much less attention from the national media than the successful campaign to recall San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin in June, which many framed as a referendum on the progressive prosecutor movement. Criminologist John Pfaff cautioned against this kind of meaning- making from a single election. He urged that it’s more useful “to think about how it fits in with all the other examples of progressive prosecution we have so we can better understand the complicated politics of punishment.” In other words, to look at a single event as a single data point and not as sufficient evidence of a trend. Another recent data point might be the primary victory of Sarah Fair George in Vermont last week, running on a progressive platform. And yet another, the failure of a conservative push to recall Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón this week. This was the second effort by Gascón’s adversaries to recall him. The Los Angeles Times editorial board hopes there won’t be a third, calling the efforts a waste of resources, arguing that “voters sought in Gascón a leader who does not merely prosecute, but engages in a dialogue with residents about police, prosecution and prisons, and advocates for constructive and safety-enhancing change.” THE BEST OF THE MARSHALL PROJECT Where’s the data? Nearly 40% of law enforcement agencies across the U.S. failed to report crime data to the FBI's national database in 2021. Check out how much data is missing where you live. You did not die in vain. Jy’Aire Smith-Pennick participated in the robbery and shootout that claimed the life of a Delaware man named Ira Hopkins. The latest installment in our Life Inside series is Pennick’s letter to Hopkins, “a loving son and uncle, an amazing chef and a leader.” Women gathered in a California jail in 2019. Each week, Closing Argument highlights thework of an artist with personal experience of incarceration. This piece is by Brian L Frank. Jamiles Lartey is a New Orleans-based staff writer for The Marshall Project. Previously, he worked as a reporter for the Guardian covering issues of criminal justice, race and policing. Jamiles was a member of the team behind the award-winning online database “The Counted,” tracking police violence in 2015 and 2016. In 2016, He was named “Michael J. Feeney Emerging Journalist of the Year” by the National Association of Black Journalists. Want less email? Update your preferences. Have Feedback? Reply to this email with your thoughts. This email was sent to abjpd1@gmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences The Marshall Project · 156 West 56th Street · Suite 701 · New York, NY 10019 · USA From:James Taylor To:Council, City Subject:First Congregational Church Safe Parking Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 9:31:07 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jamet1234@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Burt, Palo Alto Council Members I moved to Palo Alto 25 years ago as a relatively new immigrant and became a citizen 24 years ago yesterday. I've lived in Greenmeadow for most of that time, raised two children and now have two grandchildren. I'd like to express my support for both the Safe Parking Program and for First Congregational's permit application. When I first moved to Palo Alto I became a Big Brother, in Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Bay Area. Through this program I met many who had spent time unhoused and in shelters - not just my "little" and his family but many others. The challenges of finding housing near desperately-needed work, often while avoiding abusive spouses and with no financial reserves, were constant. All of those who managed to overcome these challenges could tell a story of some program that had helped. Each such program, like the Safe Parking Program, only helped a few families. Nevertheless these programs matter and without them families and children suffer. Please approve the FCCPA Safe Parking permit at this week's meeting. While new issues raised should always be considered, re-litigating issues that have already been addressed and re-raising problems for which good solutions have been found during previous permitting processes is unhelpful. Palo Alto has a process that works and it should allow additional churches to follow it. Thank you James Taylor 4123 Briarwood Way, Palo Alto From:Meri Gruber To:Council, City Subject:Support for the Safe Parking Program Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 9:25:58 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from meri.gruber@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Honorable City Council Members, I am a resident of Greenmeadow in Palo Alto and I am writing to express my support for the Safe Parking program in Palo Alto. Specifically, I want to express support for the most recent permit application by the First Congregational Church. The current appeal against this permit is not raising new issues - previous applications such as that by the Unitarian Universal Church have already addressed them. I believe the permit should be granted. We have a collective responsibility to the unhoused, and these modest programs are a start. I count on your continued support of the Safe Parking Program in our community. Thank you for your service. Best regards, Meri Gruber 4123 Briarwood Way, Palo Alto From:John Dukovic To:Council, City Subject:In support of FCCPA’s safe parking program Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 7:26:07 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from johndukovic@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident and homeowner in the vicinity of the First Congregational Church, I support the Church’s proposed program to provide a safe place for unhoused persons to park their vehicles. I encourage you to reject the recent appeal to the program. In my judgment, the concerns raised are far outweighed by the need to accommodate our unhoused neighbors. Thank you. Sincerely, jd John Dukovic 1525 Walnut Drive, Palo Alto johndukovic@gmail.com From:Ken Horowitz To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Palo Alto and School District Sign Cubberley Lease – City of Palo Alto, CA Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 6:39:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hello City Manager and City Council I hope you will begin as soon as possible to consider whether you wish to continue this lease agreement after 2024 given that is $2.7M annually plus maintenance costs Thank you, Ken Horowitz Palo Alto resident https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-articles/Community-Services/Palo-Alto-and-School-District-Sign-Cubberley- Lease Sent from my iPad From:Marlene F Wine To:Council, City Subject:First Congregational Church of Palo Alto"s Safe Parking Program Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 6:38:49 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mfw@stanford.edu. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I fully support First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s Safe Program and strongly urge you to allow it to go forward. I recently learned about St Mark’s program to feed and house a small group of homeless individuals during the month of August. The program encouraged the surrounding community to participate by volunteering a meal or two during the month of August. When I delivered my dinner I was able to get a glimpse of how the program is run and how grateful the individuals who partake in the offerings are. Programs such as this give members of the community an opportunity to make a small contributions to the enormous need for providing temporary housing in a safe environment and to give individuals a change to turn their lives around. The Church’s proposal is a small step forward and I hope those who oppose it will give it a chance to show its merits. I know of no evidence to support the allegations of the risk of crimes – can those individuals be asked to site such incidents? Marlene Wine Sent from Mail for Windows Error Icon From:Ronald Jean Smith To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Delay) Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 5:05:51 PM Attachments:icon.png icon.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from baywoodronald@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ronald Jean Smith <baywoodronald@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 17:05 Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Delay) To: <senator.becker@senate.ca.gov> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 11:26 Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Delay) To: <baywoodronald@gmail.com> Delivery incomplete There was a temporary problem delivering your message to desk@kntv.com. Gmail will retry for 45 more hours. You'll be notified if the delivery fails permanently. The response was: DNS Error: DNS type 'mx' lookup of kntv.com responded with code NOERROR DNS type'aaaa' lookup of ge.com.s5b1.psmtp.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN DNS type 'a'lookup of ge.com.s5b1.psmtp.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN DNS type 'aaaa'lookup of ge.com.s5a1.psmtp.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN DNS type 'a' lookupof ge.com.s5a1.psmtp.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN DNS type 'aaaa' lookup ofge.com.s5b2.psmtp.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN DNS type 'a' lookup ofge.com.s5b2.psmtp.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN DNS type 'aaaa' lookup ofge.com.s5a2.psmtp.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN DNS type 'a' lookup ofge.com.s5a2.psmtp.com. responded with code NXDOMAIN ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ronald Jean Smith <baywoodronald@gmail.com> To: Ch13 News <desk@kntv.com> Cc: Bcc: Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:17:04 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Norma lisa Greer ----- Message truncated ----- From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; boardmembers; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; fred beyerlein; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dallen1212@gmail.com; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; leager; Leodies Buchanan; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Armed robberies of Rolex wearers in Oakland Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 4:50:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 4:04 PM Subject: Fwd: Armed robberies of Rolex wearers in Oakland To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 3:54 PM Subject: Fwd: Armed robberies of Rolex wearers in Oakland To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 3:51 PM Subject: Fwd: Armed robberies of Rolex wearers in Oakland To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 3:41 PM Subject: Fwd: Armed robberies of Rolex wearers in Oakland To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 3:35 PM Subject: Fwd: Armed robberies of Rolex wearers in Oakland To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 3:22 PM Subject: Armed robberies of Rolex wearers in Oakland To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Saturday, August 20, 2022 To all- You save and shop for years to get that impressive watch, and this happens. This is not jewelry store robberies. They have cameras, at a minimum. It is the armed taking of Rolexes off of owners wrists. I have always noticed that in Rick Steves Travels in Europe shows, he is wearing a $20 casio. He has said in travel advice vids to "Leave the Rolex at home". “Multiple Arrests Made in String of Rolex Robberies” from Oakland Police Department CA : Nixle While I was living in Guadalajara, it was in the news that someone was killed for his Rolex on the Reforma in Mexico City. A young woman was relieved of her expensive watch in LA recently. They knocked her down with their car first and then got out and took her watch when she tossed it away. I googled it. "April 12, 2022: "Woman was hit by a vehicle while she tried to run away from a suspect who tried to steal her watch" Here it is: This story is from a website in INDIA, so this robbery in LA got noticed! Watch: Video Shows Woman Hit By Car As She Tries To Flee Robbers In Los Angeles (ndtv.com) Here is more on this robbery: LAPD warns Angelenos to be careful with valuables amid surge in follow-home robberies - YouTube She got out of her vehicle and tried to run from them on foot. I would not have gotten out of the vehicle. Read the comments after this video. People don't think the police, DAs, judges are doing their job and are willing to arm up (with guns) as a result. I know "progressives in Congress and State houses are the real issue". Largely true. You know, the French had a Devils Island in Guiana or someplace. That is one idea. No need to build expensive prisons with big screens, good food etc. Don't we have some islands? We have the Aleutions. You have to be careful where you wear these. I saw a blurb on YouTube where someone said "Don't wear a watch in LA!" Too bad, but in our gun-drenched country, these should not be a huge surprise. Notice cars following you home. Not too hard to figure it out. Drive to the police station if one does. Some people get a permit to carrry a gun and then carry one. A man was robbed of a $500,000 watch while he was eating dinner in LA. They'll take some chances for the $100,000 a fence will pay them for it. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Aram James To:Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt; Planning Commission; Perron, Zachary; Human Relations Commission; Sean Allen; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; Tannock, Julie; Figueroa, Eric; Foley, Michael; Enberg, Nicholas; epatoday@epatoday.org; Greg Tanaka Subject:Re: Whole Foods Fired Employees For Wearing BLM Apparel - YouTube Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 4:31:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ > On Aug 20, 2022, at 3:36 PM, Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com> wrote: > >  > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P37nVcn9yjI > > > Sent from my iPhone From:Brooke Bishara To:Council, City Subject:Public Letter to City Council re: Safe Parking Permit at First Congregational Church of Palo Alto Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 3:02:44 PM Attachments:August 20, 2022 Dear Palo Alto City Council, The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto (UUCPA) is writing in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking Permit as agendized on .pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from brooke.bishara@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. August 20, 2022 Dear Palo Alto City Council, The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto (UUCPA) is writing in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking Permit as agendized on the August 22nd Council meeting. UUCPA has been operating a Safe Parking program on our church campus for the past 10 months and we are strong supporters of the program expanding to other church sites. Why? Because Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. We understand that members of the community are often concerned about safety when in proximity to people who are unhoused. However, UUCPA’s experience has been that the screening process used by Move Mountain View to select program participants has helped prevent safety issues from arising in our own program. Our program has operated successfully for 10 months and has not received any complaints from neighbors or community members during this time, including from our neighbors at Stevenson House who originally filed an appeal of our permit application. We have discovered first-hand that Safe Parking helps move vulnerable people into permanent housing while giving them a safe and predictable place to sleep as they are awaiting new options. This makes our entire community safer, cleaner, and healthier. Over 10 months UUCPA has hosted a total of six vehicles, with two-thirds of these either still in the program or moved into more permanent housing, hence no longer on the streets of Palo Alto. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with city regulations, as reviewed by the Planning Department. On behalf of the entire UUCPA congregation, we urge you to approve FCCPA’s Safe Parking Permit as agendized on the August 22nd Council meeting. Thank you. Respectfully, Brooke Bishara, Board President Kristi Iverson, Action Council Chair From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Enberg, Nicholas; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Joe Simitian; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; Greer Stone; Josh Becker; Raj; chuck jagoda; Cindy Chavez; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; bob nunez; Richard Konda; Foley, Michael; friendsofgrannies@grannies.com; Pat Burt Subject:School District Transfers Vice Principal After He Used N-Word Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 2:57:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/2PgFW1qUeeA Sent from my iPhone From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Wong, Tim Subject:Housing Element update Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 12:25:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and council members, For the GM/ROLM sites, please ask staff to suggest strong incentives to encourage housing on these sites. Despite recent council incentive programs, to my knowledge no owner has proposed converting to housing. It is reasonable to expect HCD to look for some substantial changes in current policy on these sites to make them attractive to owners for housing and inclusion in the site inventory. With regard to city-owned parking lots, I support housing on these sites along with preserving sufficient parking capacity, but I am concerned that requiring mainly BMR units will produce few if any feasible projects and we will lose housing opportunities. I believe the same applies to 27 University Avenue. The city has a good PHZ policy that is bringing forth proposals now that include 20% BMR units spread across income groups. I believe apply the PHZ concept to 27 University Avenue can encourage a substantial number ot total AND BMR units. The goal, I believe, is to develop programs/incentives that encourage feasible projects. Stephen Levy From:Nancy Olson To:Council, City Subject:Support Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 11:57:36 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from nso2431@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I support the safe parking position of First Christian church and existing programs and future locations. This is a needed and direct way to help individuals and our community! Nancy Olson 2431 Bryant Street Sent from my iPhone From:Beth Nord To:Council, City Subject:Please approve FCCPA"S Safe Parking Program Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 9:51:09 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from brnandsdl@earthlink.net.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Palo Alto City Council: I am a resident of Palo Alto and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto (UUCPA). I write in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking Permit as agendized on the Consent Calendar of your August 22 Council meeting. UUCPA has been operating Safe Parking on our church campus for the past 10 months and we are strong supporters of the program expanding to other church sites. Why? Because Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The UUCPA program has operated successfully and has not received complaints from neighbors or community members. We have discovered first-hand that Safe Parking helps move vulnerable people into permanent housing while giving them a safe and predictable place to sleep as they are awaiting new options. This makes our entire community safer, cleaner, and healthier. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with the regulations established by the City of Palo Alto and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. I urge you to approve FCCPA’s Safe Parking Permit in your August 22 Council meeting. Good heavens; what’s the problem? I live fairly close to the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and I am simply not aware of the cars in our parking lot for this program. In fact I have had to ask what the hours of the program are, hoping to see the cars at least once in a while to be aware of what’s going on, since I have NEVER seen them. Lack of safe, secure housing in this area is an incredible problem. This is a tiny step toward solving this problem and a win-win situation. Please approve this program for FCCPA. Thank you. Sincerely, Beth Nord Palo Alto nd nd From:Aram James To:Pat Burt; Linda Jolley; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Winter Dellenbach; Planning Commission; chuck jagoda; Donald Mendoza; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky Subject:From The Mercury News e-edition - Newsom’s office blasts Oakland’s handling of large homeless camp Date:Saturday, August 20, 2022 8:57:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be interested. Newsom’s office blasts Oakland’s handling of large homeless camp https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=78dcc642-1bc9-43d8-8e27- 2afa545ae11d&appcode=SAN252&eguid=af950cca-9d84-497d-8e67-2e82f6a0f9e9&pnum=4# For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here: Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary; Sean Allen; Binder, Andrew; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Shikada, Ed; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Council, City; Planning Commission; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg; ParkRec Commission Subject:"Banditos" Hearing: Dead rats left near LASD members" homes for cooperating with investigations, witness says Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 10:19:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.foxla.com/news/banditos-hearing-dead-rats-left-near-lasd-members-homes-for-cooperating-with- investigations-witness-says Sent from my iPhone From:Ruth Robertson To:Council, City Subject:Letter on Agenda Item 5 City Council Meeting August 22 Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 9:01:39 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rwsrobertson@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, My name is Ruth Robertson and I am a homeowner in Palo Alto for close to 30 years. I am asking that you approve the inclusion of renter protection in the Housing Element. There are many reasons people choose to rent in Palo Alto besides proximity to employment. I want to add to the list additional reasons that are not often taken into consideration. One of my adult children is a renter in Palo Alto and chooses to live near us so they can care for my husband and me in our retirement years. By helping renters we can help families take care of one another and stay together. We can help elderly folks live out their years in the community they are familiar with. In addition, we can help many who grew up and went to school here return to the city and the families they love. Thank you for your consideration. Ruth Robertson From:Ruth Robertson To:Council, City Subject:Letter on Agenda Item 4 City Council Meeting August 22 Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 8:44:40 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rwsrobertson@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, My name is Ruth Robertson and I am a homeowner in Palo Alto for close to 30 years. One of my adult children is a renter in Palo Alto and chooses to live near us in Palo Alto so they can care for my husband and me in our retirement years. I am writing today to ask that the Council uphold the Director’s Decision to approve a Safe Parking Permit at 1985 Louis Road, the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto. I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and we dealt with neighbor complaints when a similar program was proposed at my church one year ago. Those complaints were addressed and the board of Stevenson House reviewed the matter and withdrew its appeal of our permit to operate a safe parking site. Now we have an appellant asking for some of the same issues to be considered in the case of the First Congregational Church. Background checks and overall potential security issues were more than adequately addressed last year. As just one example, documents were presented that show vehicle dwellers are actually much more likely to be victims of crime than to commit crimes. Neighbors' fears of a criminal element living in proximity are therefore unfounded. As for vehicle emissions relating to potential idling of vehicles and overall proximity to residential use, we all know what has happened to gas prices. I find it disingenuous of the appellants to cite this reason for reconsideration of the program's approval. I would hope that they could find it in themselves to open their hearts to the underserved in our community and realize they have benefitted from their proximity to the Congregational Church. That church has served as a voting location and opened their doors to many groups working for the betterment of the community and the planet. I personally have benefitted from living near it, as I have both voted there and attended meetings held by a group fighting climate change. Thank you for your consideration. Ruth Robertson From:Olga * To:Council, City Subject:Public comment on Renter Protection program Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 6:49:23 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from fromrwluv@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, My name is Olga Ortmann and I rent an apartment locally. I am writing today to strongly encourage you to support anti-displacement programs like the latest Safe Parking Program site at First Congregational Church and the renter protections included in the Housing Element's Programs. The combination of outrageous rents, insane inflation, and low-paying jobs creates a demoralizing situation where hardworking people are pushed into homelessness because of greed and corruption. It affects all of us bringing down the quality of life even for those who are not at that level yet! And if it is allowed to continue more and more destitute people will be needlessly created on daily basis. I also want to bring your attention to highly immoral practice pertaining to BMR rentals that should be illegal because it is greatly contributing to housing problems and unfairly enriches the landlords who also collect tax benefits. As market rent dropped dramatically due to covid Tax Credit properties throughout Santa Clara county in Redwood City, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara shocked thousands of tenants with a 3% hike at the worst possible time in 2021. For 2022 they raised it another 5% on top of the previous increase. When I questioned the management, I was told that it is due to COLA. But COLA was never intended for rent increase calculation, only to take care of retirees! Furthermore, according to published SSA data, it was set at 1.6% for 2020, for 2021 at 1.3%, and for 2022 it is 5.9%. How did they come up with 3% and 5%? Not only the increase was predatory and unjustifiable, but it makes so-called below market rate rent (BMR) units price higher than market rent units, which should never take place by definition! To add insult to the injury, people who lost their income cannot move to bring the rent down and Section 8 is no longer available to newly destitute people. I am aware that other Tax Credit properties located in the same Santa Clara County did not endure the increase, such as those in the city of San Jose. Nobody can explain to me why. I also know that even if HUD came up with the rent increase it is up to the individual property owners to accept it or not. Who and what allows them to do it? Bottom line - collecting higher than market rent for BMR units should be criminal because the owners not only get unjustifiably high rent but also get tax benefits on top of it! It has to be stopped immediately and the BMR rent revised! Please do not hesitate to contact me for more info pertaining to the subject! Sincerely, Olga Ortmann From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; boardmembers; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; fred beyerlein; beachrides; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dallen1212@gmail.com; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; news@fresnobee.com; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 6:29:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:31 PM Subject: Fwd: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:26 PM Subject: Fwd: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:23 PM Subject: Fwd: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 3:03 AM Subject: Fwd: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:31 AM Subject: Fwd: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:23 AM Subject: Fwd: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:15 AM Subject: Fwd: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:53 AM Subject: The VW ID Buzz, seen at an auto show in DLand. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, August 19, 2022 To all- Good walk around of the new VW ID Buzz, shot in Wolfsburg. He does not speak German. Hell means bright in German. He sees that on the dash. Maybe re headlights. I Check Out The Volkswagen ID. Buzz For The First Time! - YouTube Here is a very good look at one at "the british seaside". what we call the beach, I think. Here you really see what it is. In the first vid, above, he said the US version will be longer. His guess is that the one he shows there will be $100,000. That will turn most people off. Sort of a competitor to the Tesla Model X. Those can run well over $100K. It is a van. Some of these people say it is more like an SUV. It would for sure work as a car, one says. Can VW make a camper version? Bet they can. Don't miss this: Might we send English teachers over to the UK to help these people speak English? Love the styling. When he is driving it, it looks like a luxurious ride. VW ID. Buzz: WORLD EXCLUSIVE FIRST DRIVE! - Why It’s Our Electric Car of the Year | Top Gear - YouTube Blake Shelton- Some Beach Blake Shelton - Some Beach (Official Music Video) - YouTube Here a well-off Brit uses the configurator on the VW webite to price out an ID. Buzz as he would want one equiped. Total: 80,000 Euros. You can convert to dollars. One could buy at least three small Japanese ICE cars for that. How many trips to Germany in the off season could you take for that? Rent one while you are over there. BTW, the Euro and the dollar did hit parity a couple of weeks ago. They are at parity today, Friday, August 19, 2022. In around 2008 one paid $1.45 for a Euro. ID Buzz Prices Released! FULL Configurator (euro/German) walk though - *warning* it's expensive! - YouTube Here is another look at it. This person says $40,000 to $50,000. Volkswagen ID.Buzz *FULL TOUR* Interior, Exterior! Unveiled! - YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. (Inland). From:Christine N Witzel To:Council, City Cc:LWV of Palo Alto Subject:Fw: Please support FCCPA Safe Parking application Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 5:32:06 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cnwitzel@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, The First Congregational Church of Palo Alto (FCCPA) has submitted a Safe Parking application to the City which has been approved by City Staff and is on your Consent Agenda for the August 22nd meeting. Yesterday afternoon I counted 27 aged RVs parked on El Camino between University and Matadero Avenues. The City clearly needs to take advantage of this offer and this program. Please support the church's application to help homeless people park safely overnight and receive needed services from Move MV. Thank you for your service, Christine N. Witzel Barron Park From:Linda Henigin To:Council, City Subject:In support of the FCCPA SPP application Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 2:05:41 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from linda@brail.org. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Honorable City Council Members, I am writing to express my support for the Safe Parking Program permit application by First Congregational Church of Palo Alto (FCCPA). I ask you to leave the item on the Consent calendar so that it can be approved and start helping people immediately, and so you can allow sufficient time for the urgent business of the Housing Element Draft Goals, Policies and Programs. I live closer to First Congregational than some who signed the appeal letter, and I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, and thus have first-hand experience with the Safe Parking Program. I am only speaking for myself in this email. As you are already very aware, homeless people are here, in Palo Alto. As you know, some are already sleeping in their cars in our community in various locations around town. Many of them have jobs, friends, family members, and children in school in Palo Alto. Those folks are subject to no rules or regulations aside from where they can park overnight. They are not screened, and they are not forming relationships with service providers. And they can idle their cars all night long, with no provision to stop them. In order to help get people out of sleeping in their cars and into more stable housing, everyone who was on the Council on February 24, 2020 voted unanimously to approve the formation of the program, including Council Members Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Kou, and Tanaka, and now-former members Fine and Kniss. As you know, when we move these folks into Safe Parking Programs, they are connected to services, and they are subject to enforceable rules about idling their cars. The Safe Parking Program keeps us all safer in these ways: The people in the program are professionally screened and then connected to programs and services that help them; Rules about any car idling can be enforced; The vehicle dwellers form ongoing, accountable relationships with case workers, which helps them move back into stable housing, and if not already employed, to get jobs. As to the car exhaust issue raised by the appellant, Mr. Todor Ganev, it would seem likely that he and his neighbors would keep their windows closed on those rare nights when the temperature is expected to go below 40 degrees between 7 PM and 7 AM. If that is the case, that would mitigate any exhaust that might potentially come from the parked cars. It would also mitigate the ongoing exhaust already coming from the cars on Embarcadero Road, which abuts Mr. Ganev’s house, and which is close to the only other house (22 Morton Way) that shares the church’s back fence whose residents signed the appeal. The parked cars are also allowed to idle briefly if the overnight (7 PM to 7 AM) temperature is above 85 degrees. We rarely have nights where the temperature stays above 85 degrees past about 9-10 PM. This issue would seem to be resolvable with good faith efforts from both parties, and need not be a roadblock to allowing the program to proceed at this time. As to the safety/background check issue, the Council had a robust discussion about that at its meeting on August 30, 2021, when Council was considering Stevenson House’s appeal of the Unitarian Universalist Church’s Safe Parking Permit Program. Mr. Ganev has raised the exact same concerns as Stevenson House, using the exact same language, copied verbatim, as was used in the Stevenson House appeal letter. Stevenson House dropped their appeal before the item was brought back to Council, indicating that they resolved their concerns. They’ve been given the opportunity to voice their concerns once the program started operating, and they have not registered even one concern. Additionally, we have evidence from both the Unitarian Universalist Church’s and Highway Church’s programs. Neither church has experienced any safety issues of any kind. Zero. There are multiple ways for neighbors to register their concerns, and not one person has registered even one concern about either program. None. This spotless safety record must be taken for what it is - evidence that the program as constructed by the City Council, and as implemented by Move Mountain View, is as safe as any program can be. In this case, "background checks" are a solution in search of a problem. The safety record of the existing programs is spotless, so there is no problem here. And there's no such thing as a "universal background check." There are criminal records housed in various states and localities that would have to be accessed separately. None of the piecemeal information that you would get from any background check process would make us any safer than the relationships formed between the case workers, the vehicle dwellers, and the community, as designed by the program. Relationships, not background checks, make us safer. One more point about safety: On page 191 in the City Council packet, the appellant, Todor Ganev asserts: "Also, there is a first-hand account from another location that in the past security guards hired by Move Mountain View have been doing drugs together with the vehicle dwellers." That's the only actual criminal allegation I've found in any of the arguments by those who oppose the program. The language used by Mr. Ganev is a verbatim copy of an email by Tilli Kalisky-Bannett (on page 177 of the City Council packet). I asked Tilli Kalisky-Bannett for any leads on that allegation so that I could find out more about that alleged criminal behavior. Ms. Kalisky-Bannett responded with the following: "The accounts of the below came from interviews and conversations from individuals who have been researching the program in and across California." That is not a "first-hand account." It appears that Mr. Ganev’s and Ms. Kalisky-Bannett’s claims of criminal behavior cannot be substantiated. It’s important to record this fact. And finally, it’s also important to note that of the people who signed the appeal letter, only 5 of the people live in 3 houses which either share a boundary or are directly across the street from the church. That’s three out of the 20 houses that ring the church. An additional 5-6 houses look to be about 600 feet from the church. The remaining signers live as far as 1.5 miles away from the church. This appeal formally represents a small percentage of the immediate neighbors. To sum up, the Safe Parking Program increases safety for neighbors and vehicle dwellers. We are grateful to you for approving the program. We look forward to seeing First Congregational Church’s program succeed, just as the ones at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church’s programs are already succeeding. With thanks, Linda Henigin FCCPA neighbor Community Volunteer From:Cat Sanchez To:Council, City Subject:A letter about next week"s agenda items Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 1:40:45 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from catsan@stanford.edu. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Councilmembers, My name is Cat Sanchez. I rent an apartment on Curtner Ave by Happy Donuts. I moved there from on-campus housing at Stanford when I got a job after graduating. I lived on campus for 5 years and have been in my apartment for about 6 months. I have considered myself a Palo Alto resident the whole time because I shop and drive and dine in Palo Alto. I am a really lovely 20-minute bike ride from my office on campus and I really love all the parks my dog and I can go to on the weekends. My area of Palo Alto is very friendly, and I love my neighbors! I am lucky to be able to afford to live in an apartment, but so many do not have that luxury. They work here, but they cannot afford to live here. Imagine that. But they are important members of our economy and our community. Renter protection keeps all of us in our homes. Also, the Safe Parking Program site at First Congregational Church is 4. FOUR. Parking spots. How can we deny that? These are people who are already in our community. The concerns being brought up against this are trivial and really speak to a discomfort with having to see how the other half life. As someone who was housing insecure my entire childhood, who has spent time sleeping in a car, I am very upset that this is even something we are discussing denying. There are many in this community who are one bad month from being homeless themselves. I’ve seen credible numbers that close to half of everyone in our community are renters at risk of displacement from our community. Four parking spots in a church parking lot is the smallest possible grace we could give someone who but “there but for the grace of God” go we. Please, please do not give in to the NIMBY sentiments of people who would rather live in a bubble of ignorance at the price of further harming people who are already so “down on their luck.” Those are people who cannot understand how impossible it is to climb out of the kind of hole you are in when you live in a car. No one choose that. In short, please, please approve the Safe Parking site at First Congregational. Please also approve the inclusion of renter protection in the Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs. Both of these are exactly what a city government owes its people. We are here too, and we cannot stay if we are priced out. Thank you, Cat Sanchez, AA, BA, MA Assistant Dean for the Office of Community Standards Pronouns: she/her/hers Office of Community Standards | Stanford University White Silence is Violence – there are no White Allies We cannot “cooperate” to fix a system in which we are complicit The Muwekma Ohlone people are the Traditional Owners of the land on which I live and work. I offer my gratitude and respect to their Elders past and present. Please note: I may not regularly check or respond to email after 5pm or on weekends. Be assured that I will respond as soon as possible, likely the next business day. From:Angela He To:Council, City Subject:Renter Protection in the Housing Element Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 1:39:01 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from angelahe101@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am a renter in Palo Alto. I love living in Palo Alto because of the proximity to my workplace, beautiful trees, and vibrant downtown. I am writing to encourage you to support tenant protections in the Housing Element's Programs. In particular, I care deeply about requiring a 90-day notice for a rent increase of 6% instead of the state's 10% threshold for noticing. As a graduate student, I am on a meager stipend and pay far more than 30% of my income towards rent. Without adequate notice of a rent increase, I would have little time to look for another (somewhat) affordable apartment in Palo Alto in an already highly expensive and competitive rental market. Though the Housing Element does not mention rent control, I would like you to strongly consider implementing rent control in Palo Alto. At my income level, I am just a hundred dollars away from being unable to afford to live in Palo Alto. I wish to continue to live in Palo Alto during my time as a graduate student at Stanford so I can continue to be part of the Palo Alto and Stanford community. Furthermore, almost half of your constituents are renters at risk of displacement. Please support your renting constituents by approving the inclusion of renter protection in the Housing Element. Your renting constituents are equally important as home-owning constituents to the Palo Alto community. We too care deeply about Palo Alto and enjoy going to the farmers' markets, parks, and strolling around the beautiful neighborhoods. Sincerely, Angela He From:Laura Kenney To:Council, City Subject:Longtime Louis Rd. resident in support of safe parking program at First Congregational Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 12:34:30 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lm_kenney@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, I have lived down the block from the First Congregational Church for 29 years; they have always been good neighbors. I strongly support the city staff-approved plan to bring the Move MV safe parking program to our block and am somewhat appalled by the misinformed (misanthropic?) movement against it. I have read about the other four sites this program operates in--two of them in Palo Alto--and know that there have been no problems or complaints stemming from their operation. This seems the least we could do to help a few of the unhoused in our community. Please let this program go forward. Sincerely, Laura Kenney 2174 Louis Rd. Palo Alto From:Aram James To:Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Planning Commission; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; ParkRec Commission; paloaltorenters@gmail.com Subject:January 6th hearings Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 12:12:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.  Add your name to condemn these Republican attacks on democracy — join Dr. Shirley Weber, California's Secretary of State, today >> ADD YOUR NAME Aram, I’m about to ask you to sign our petition condemning voter suppression. But first, I want to tell you my story, and my family’s story. Because this is personal for me. I was born in Hope, Arkansas. My father was a sharecropper, and he and his father before him were denied the right to vote. It was well known that if a Black man attempted to vote, they could be killed. My family was run out of town by a lynch mob after a dispute with a white farmer. California was distant and strange, but it felt far enough away to be safe. When we settled in, my mother volunteered as a poll worker and would go on to run a polling place right out of our home in the South L.A. projects. My parents never took for granted what it meant to be able to vote. Add your name, Aram, to join me, Dr. Shirley Weber, in condemning Republican efforts to corrupt our democracy. As your Secretary of State, I will always fight modern-day Jim Crow voter suppression. ADD YOUR NAME California must be a leader in protecting our democracy. We’ve expanded vote by mail, helped people with criminal convictions regain the right to vote, and worked tirelessly to keep our elections safe, fair, and accessible. As Secretary of State, I will continue to call out voter suppression and other threats. From Republican efforts to overturn the election on January 6 and beyond to the racist voter ID laws and gerrymandering designed to limit the power of Black voices, we know that Republicans are trying to corrupt our democracy because they can’t win fair and square at the polls. I will give everything I have to honor my family’s legacy and protect your right to vote. Add your name here to let me know you’re with me. >>> ADD YOUR NAME Thank you, — Dr. Shirley N. Weber Secretary of State of California Paid for by Shirley Weber for Secretary of State 2022. FPPC #1435477. Does not equal endorsement. Daily Kos, PO Box 70036, Oakland, CA, 94612. Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Daily Kos, please click here. From:Nancy Krop To:Council, City Subject:Support for FCCPA Safe Parking Permit Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 10:47:01 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from nkrop@kroplaw.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, I am a Palo Alto resident, writing to support the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application, on the Consent Agenda of your August 22nd Council meeting. “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members” (Mahatma Gandhi). I appreciate the City Council unanimously approved the Safe Parking Program in February 2020 as a way of addressing our area’s homelessness crisis. I am very pleased City Staff recommends approval of this permit. I am told the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church currently operate Safe Parking Programs. I am told both programs operate successfully and neither church received any complaints from neighbors or community members. I am told it’s only four cars, sleeping overnight, with social workers and security guards involved. This is a very small thing we can do to help the homeless in our community. I urge you to approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Agenda at your August 22nd Council meeting. Nancy Krop Palo Alto resident From:Jane Zimmerman To:Council, City Subject:Church housing Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 10:35:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, The program to allow four unhoused car dwellers to park overnight in a church parking lot is well supervised and carefully planned to minimize problems while providing safety to this exposed and vulnerable population. I strongly support this program and any similar ones that may adopt its model and encourage the city to provide funding as well as legal support. Not in My Parking Lot? Is this the best we can be? Jane Zimmerman 675 Maybell Ave Palo Alto From:robert feiner To:Council, City Subject:First Congregational Church Safe Parking Program Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:37:19 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from rhfeiner@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I would like to voice my strong support of this program. I have spoken with Reverend Howell and this is being done in a thoughtful and responsible fashion. I am aware of a not uncommon ‘not in my neighborhood’ attitude in our city. I live a block away from Briones Park and there are a fair number of vehicle dwellers on Clemo as there are bathrooms in the park. I know of no issues as a result of this and I’ve lived in the neighborhood for 39 years. My synagogue, Congregation Beth Am, has also partnered with Home and Hope over the years to provide temporary shelter for families in need, again without incident. I am proud to have these service ‘in my neighborhood’. Thank you for your consideration in support of the program. Robert H. Feiner Sent from my iPad From:Annie Bedichek To:Council, City Subject:In support of First Congregation’s parking program Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 8:49:35 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from annie@bedichek.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I strongly support this program. Palo Alto has added a lot of offices, but not a lot of housing in my 60 years here. We can and are starting to do better. These small programs like letting a few vetted people sleep safe do not move the needle to solve all housing issues. But they help the communities that provide the lots to make a big difference in a few people’s lives. In my view, it’s piece by piece that we change the world. Please don’t let the black and white thinkers talk you out of something with very little downside that could have huge upside for some people who need it. We can’t solve the affordable housing issue with this, but we can help 4 cars of people sleep safe and get some help. Please help them. Thank you for all you do. Annie Bedichek 884 Loma Verde Ave Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone US. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division A so z ant Auotney Crane, a! G SO Penm ptun is Aw, NW RFK H'asMngtna DC 20530 JUN28 2013 "14 ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL Sheriff Leroy D. Baca Los Angeles County Shenffs Department 4700 Ramona Boulevard Monterey Park, CA 91754 RE: Investigation of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Stations in Antelope Valley heriff Baca: The Civil Rights Division has concluded its investigation of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) regarding allegations of unconstitutional conduct by deputies at two stations located in the Antelope Valley cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, California. LASD pledged complete cooperation throughout the investigation, and began taking munediate steps to proactively fix the deficiencies identified in the investigation. Since the conclusion of the investigation, LASD has additionally memorialized its commitment to • lenient further reform efforts by entering into a Statement of Intent, which broadly outlines lies that will be negotiated in a final Settlement Agreement. -We found that LASD's Antelope Valley stations have engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unlawful searches and seizures, including the use of unreasonable force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI. We found also that deputies assigned to these stations have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The LASD policies we reviewed were, for the most part, consistent with constitutional policing. However, our investigation showed that these policies are not consistently followed, and that some types of policy violations are routinely tolerated. This tolerance for misconduct occurs in part because the accountability measures LASD has in place are not effectively implemented in the Antelope Valley. We found that LASD must do more to ensure that deputies adhere to policies, and that supervisors and commanders provide appropriate redirection, guidance, and accountability when errant conduct occurs. We recognize the inherent challenges of policing and the daily risks that deputies take to protect the communities they serve. LASD's Core Values reflect that policing cannot be effective unless it is constitutional. LASD, through its commitment to Trust -Based Policing, 1 -2- rerngiii7es that "lilt is incumbent upon law enforcement to recognize that without the full faith and coupetati.on of the public, the mission of public safety is severely impaired." LASD leadership's clear recognition that effective policing is undermined if deputies not respect the rights of the individuals they serve, alongside the robust accountability infrastzucture that LASD already has in place, including two forms of independent civilian oversight, is cause for optimism. We believe that this investigation and its resulting findings can serve as the foundation for more consistent adherence by all Antelope Valley deputies to LASD policies. and better implementation of LASD's accountability mechanisms. We have great confidence that we and LASD leadership share the same goals of reducing crime, ensuring respect for the Constitution. and building public confidence in LASD's policing in the Antelope Valley. We look forward to partnering with LASD and Antelope Valley leadership to devise sustainable and workable remedies in a final Settlement Agreement that will ensure that every Antelope Valley deputy shares LASD's Core Values and carries out their law enforcement duties onsistent with these values and the Constitution. We thank all thc members of LASD with whom we interacted, in particular, Sheriff Rasta, Chief Anthony La Berge. former Chief Neal Tyler, Commander Bobby Denham, fonner Captain Robert Jensen, the Office of the County Counsel, the Office of Independent Review, and the Office of Special Counsel. for the cooperation, transparency, diligence and professionalism demonstrated throughout our investigation. We look forward to continuing our collaborative relationship in crafting and implementing sustainable remedies to correct the problems our investigation revealed. I. BACKGROUND The Antelope Valley lies approximately 70 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California, and includes the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale along with unincorporated areas. LASD is the primary law, enforcement agency for the Antelope Valley, and the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale contract with LASD to provide law enforcement services through two stations that arc each independently operated by a captain. A total of approximately 400 sworn LASD deputies are assigned to these two stations. Historically, LASD's contracts with the cities have included the provision of patrol services. Between 2004 and 2011, LASD devoted extensive resources to policing Antelope Valley participants of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (commonly referred to as thc Section 8 program), which is a rental assistance program that provides housing ortunities for low-income families. Racial intolerance is an unfortunate part of the history of the Antelope Valley. As of 010, the Antelope Valley had the highest rate of hate crimes of any region in Los Angeles County. In the 1960s, African -American families who wanted to live in Lancaster and Palmdale were directcxl to the historically minority neighboring community of Sun Village because of discriminatory real estate practices throughout the Antelope Valley. In the 1980s, demographics in the Antelope Valley began to change as lower real estate price attracted families from other parts of Los Angelo County, who were predominantly African -American and Latino. As the African -American and Latino populations increased, so did racial tensions. During the 1990s, there was a series of hate crimes in the Antelope Valley. In 1990, during Palmdale city elections, -3 - an African -American female candidate's campaign sign was spray -painted, "vote white." In 1997, three white youths allegedly murdered a black man in Palmdale so that one of the youths could earn a white supremacist tattoo. In the last decade, hate crimes have continued to take place: two black men were allegedly stabbed by a white mayoral candidate's son, who was reciting "white power" slogans the night of the crime; two homes in Palmdale were vandalized with racially ufensive words and a swastika; and in August 2010, a predominantly African - American church in Palmdale was firebombed. In recent decades, the racial demographics of the Antelope Valley have undergone a sizeable shift, According to the Census Bureau, between 1990 and 2010, the population of Lancaster grew from 97,291 to 156,633, while the proportion of whites in the total population decreaaod from 79% of thc population to 49.6% of the population. During that time, the proportion of African Americans almost tripled, increasing from 7.4% of the population to 20.5% of the population; and the Latino/Hispanic population increased from 15% to 38% of the population. During the same 20 -year time period, Palmdale's population grew from 68,917 to 152,750, while the percentage of whites in the total population fell from 76% to 49% of the population. Also during that time, the proportion of African Americans more than doubled, increasing from 6.4% of the population to 14.8% of the population; and the Latino/Hispanic population increased dramatically from 22% to 54.4% of the population. In addition, the number of African -American housing voucher holders in the Antelope Valley has increased in the last ten years. Between 2000 and 2008, the approximate number of African -American voucher holder families in Lancaster increased from 510 to 1,530, and in Palmdale, from 455 to 825. By 2010, 73% of the voucher holder households in Lancaster and 69% in Palmdale were African American. By comparison, for that same time period in 2010, only 37% of HACoLA's entire .her holder population and approximately 40% of households on its wait list were black In Lancaster and Palmdale, some residents have been vocal about their opposition to the increase in the number of voucher holders, particularly the increase in the number of African - American voucher holders. Residents' statements about this increase have included thinly veiled references to their Section 8 neighbors' race, including references to the neighborhood "growing darker" and "the creeping darkness." Social media sites and public message boards provided a platform for numerous community members to voice their opposition to the influx of African - American Section 8 voucher holders in the Antelope Valley, including but not limited to a Faccbook Page titled "I Hate Section 8." By way of example, on one such site, one citizen wrote, "My earlier prediction that the entire LA county section of the Antelope Valley is being 'ghettoized' has been confirmed by a tour of thc area this week.... I sec 'creeping darkness' even on the west side as well." On another site, a June 2012 post included racist lyrics from a song entinlel, "Nigger, Nigger," which was written by a white supremacist in the mid-I960s in response to the civil rights movement. Sites like this one not only facilitated biased speech against African -American voucher holders, but also the targeting of specific voucher holders. In 2010, an LASD deputy took photographs of luxury vehicles in a home's garage during a Section 8 compliance check, and sent them to the administrator of thc "I Hate Section 8" Faccbook page. Subsequently, the family's home was vandalized with the message, "1 hate Section 8 you fucking niggers," scrawled on their garage door, and the family's son had urine thrown on him as i -4- tlic perpttnitur cllud. "Dirty Section 8 nigger." The family relocated from Palmdale hack to inner city Low Angeles for fear of further harassment. The "I Hate Section 8" Facchook page was removed immediately after this incident. Seine Lancaster and Palmdale city officials also repeatedly expressed hostility towards certain types of Section 8 voucher holders. While couching their opposition to Section 8 in terms of fraudulent voucher holders, Lancaster's Mayor Rex Parris and other City Council members made clear that their opposition to Section 8 extended even to legitimate Section 8 households. Mayor Parris, for example, stated that housing seniors and persons with disabilities is "the reason that [the Section 8] program" should exist. While vowing not to do anything dial would in any way create obstacles for Section 8 housing for seniors or the disabled, Mayo' Pun i . spoke of a "monster that comes with Section 8" and stated an intent to try to keep Section 8 voucher holders from outside the Antelope Valley from moving there. Mayor Parris also stated publicly his belief that it ts "unfair" that African Americans receive a higher percentage of Section 8 program vouchers than their population share. Mayor Parris repeatedly said that Lancaster should be "waging a war" against the voucher program, arguing that the program is a "problem that is crushing [the Antelope Valley] community." On February 19, 2009, during a Lancaster Section 8 Commission meeting, former Lancaster City Council Member Sherry Marquez' stated ,"Unfortunately, those that receive the vouchers do not stay in the City of Los Angeles, they migrate to thc Antelope Valley .... Lancaster soon will be inundated with another group." In Palmdale. the City Manager commented that the City needed to be "as vigilant as possible" with respect to enforcement of the voucher program rules, and a Palmdale Councilman stated that he wanted to make sure that voucher holders did not "swarm thc valley." in response to these hostilities, the NAACP and The Community Action League filed a lawsuit against Lancaster, Palmdale. tho Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (HACoLA), and LASD, that resulted in agreements by both Cities to address thc hostile messaging about voucher holders and the voucher program that have come frotn some city oflicials.3 Both cities entered similar agreements with the plaintiffs in which they promised to, among other items, issue press releases announcing that the cities condemn discrimination and welcome people from diverse backgruunda, including participants in the voucher program. and too abide by all federal, state, and local fair housing laws. At the announcement of the I-incastcr agreement, Mayor I'arris stated, "I'rn looking forward to working with [TCAL and NAACP leaders], they're good men and bright men and we seem to want the same things." He went on to state, "Make no mistake about it, 97 percent of the people that are getting Section 8 are benefiting this community." During her 2008 campaign Sherry Marquez ran on an "anti -crime" platfomi that conflated the issue of crime and the voucher program. l ler campaign materials stated Sherry. Marquez was the "the hest choice to fight crime and Section 8" and that she would "ensure that lthcl city fights gangs and Section 8." 2 Sec agreements between plaintiffs and the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster resolving civil complaints in 7hc Cmty. Action League. ei al. v. City of Palmdale. el al„ No. CV I I -4 S 17 ODW (V13Kx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012). Neither city admitted to violations alleged in the civil complaint. 4111111111111 -5- Racial stereotypes evident in past statements by some within Lancaster and Palmdale leadership are also reflected within LASD ranks in the Antelope Valley. During our investigative tour, a sworn LASD supervisor offered an unsolicited opinion that all newly arrived African -American residents of the Antelope Valley were or are gang members. As early as 2004, the then Lancaster Sheriff Station Captain made statements to the press about voucher holders that included a similar conflation of race, crime, and the voucher program: "A lot of the time [voucher holders are] trying to do a good thing: their nephew from South Central is getting in trouble so they send him up here. He rewards them by continuing his gang activity." Between 2010 and 2011, civilians filed at least 25 complaints regarding deputies' discriminatory conduct, including at least two complaints alleging that deputies used racially derogatory language (with one of those remarks captured on a video recording). The allegations in these formally reported complaints of discrimination are consistent with the scores of unreported complaints of discrimination and harassment that were relayed to us during the course of our investigation. 11. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Policing practices in the Antelope Valley reflect, and unfortunately contribute to, a harmful divide between some of the more long-standing, primarily white residents of the community, and newer, more often non-white arrivals to the Antelope Valley. Our investigation demonstrated reasonable cause to believe that LASD Antelope Valley deputies engage in a pattern or practice of misconduct in violation of the Constitution and federal law in a number of ways, including. • Pedestrian and vehicle stops that violate the Fourth Amendment; • Stops that appear motivated by racial bias, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutory law; • The use of unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and • Discrimination against Antelope Valley residents on the basis of race by making housing unavailable, altering the terms and conditions of housing, and coercing, intimidating, and interfering with their housing rights, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).' Our investigation also showed that LASD's accountability systems are not effectively detecting or preventing these patterns of unlawful conduct in the Antelope Valley. LASD's Antelope Valley stations do not properly consider and resolve complaints from community Alongside these findings, we found that, while LASD had a past practice of violating oucher holders' Fourth Amendment rights, this pattern of constitutional violations appears to have been corrected, in part because LASD, with the assistance of its Office of Independent Review, instituted new policies and practices that became effective in March 2012 (after our investigation began) to prevent constitutionally impermissible searches of voucher holders' homes. r -6- j members who allege mistreatment by deputies. LASD's early warning system does not adequately identify or effectively respond to Antelope Valley deputies with repeated complaints or other histories indicating a need for intervention to prevent further and perhaps more egregious violations of LASD policy and the law. Our analysis of stop and search activity in the Antelope Valley revealed biased law enforcement activity, as African Amerini ns and, to a lesser extent, Latinos, are more likely to be stopped or searched than whites in the Antelope Valley. Despite the belief that more aggressive law enforcement practices are warranted due to recent fluctuations in crime rates in the area, there is no apparent public safety explanation to justify this pattern of racially disparate stops and searches. The higher rate of searching African -American pedestrians, for example, has not correlated to a higher discovery rate of contraband. In fact, in Lancaster, the contraband seizure rate is about 50% lower for African Americans than for whites.4 Additionally, even using regression analysis to control for a variety of factors, we found that for offenses where law enforcement discretion is especially high, African -American pedestrians in Lancaster are 25% more likely to be stopped than whites. Consistent with the overall disproportionate effect of policing activity on communities of color in the Antelope Valley, our review of incident reports and interviews with community members revealed problematic and, at times, unconstitutional deputy interactions with individuals. Community members relayed consistent reports of deputies conducting inappropriate detentions, and our observations confirmed that these incidents were not aberrational. We found, for example, that Antelope Valley deputies, in violation of the law, routinely detain community members, including domestic violence victims and minor traffic offenders, in the backseats of patrol cars without any individualized assessment of danger or �tvicion. We found that deputies use unreasonable force against handcuffed detainees who do not pose threats to the deputies or to the public. Notably, the vast majority of the use of force incidents that involved handcuffed subjects were against people of color. While most of these incidents appeared contrary to LASD policy, some LASD policies and practices appear to permit and even encourage deputies to use force that is out of proportion to the threat of harm presented. We found that LASD's activities relating to homes occupied by voucher holders in Lancaster and Palmdale resulted in violations of the Fair Housing Act and, in some instances, the Fourth Amendment. At least from 2008 through mid -2011, LASD participated in HACoLA's investigations of homes participating in the voucher program at disproportionate rates in the Antelope Valley compared to the remaining parts of the County where HACoLA's and LASD's jurisdictions overlap. Because the Antelope Valley's population of voucher holders has a significantly higher percentage of African Americans than voucher holders living in the rest of HACoLA's jurisdiction 70% compared to 40% — LASD's practice of accompanying HACoLA on compliance checks in the Antelope Valley disproportionately impacted African - American voucher holders. i 4 We did not find a disproportionate contraband seizure rate in Palmdale. -7- LASD's Lancaster and Palmdale stations played a critical role in the campaign against voucher holders in the Antelope Valley, including by intimidating, harassing, and facilitating the termination of voucher holders from the program, both in conjunction with HACoLA investigators and independently. Our investigation showed that LASD's conduct targeted at African -American voucher holders violated the FHA. Despite the level of LASD's involvement with HACoLA's administrative checks in the Antelope Valley, LASD deputies involved in enforcement of the voucher program received no training on the program, the elements that constitute a violation of the voucher holder's contract, or the difference between conducting administrative and cri ninal investigations, until May 2012. Though LASD's policies are generally consistent with constitutional policing, we found that systemic failures in the application of these policies and procedures in the Antelope Valley - especially those related to accountability — have allowed unconstitutional policing to persist and have fueled the distrust of LASD by Antelope Valley's African -American and Latino communities. For example, despite LASD's comprehensive protocol for responding to, classifying, and reviewing civilian complaints, deputy violations of policy in civilian interactions rarely result in any meaningful response from LASD. Of all the 180 misconduct complaints, called "service comment reports," made by civilians over a one-year period in the Antelope Valley, only one was ever formally investigated as an administrative investigation. That case resulted in criminal charges being filed against the involved deputy. Among the other 179 complaints, handled as informal service reviews instead of formal investigations, were complaints of significant misconduct, including complaints of unreasonable force and discriminatory policing. The classification of these investigations as "service reviews" is significant. Only complaints that arc elevated to a formal administrative investigation, as opposed to an informal service review, may result in discipline. This means that during this onc- year period, only one personnel complaint filed by a civilian was considered serious enough to be elevated to an administrative investigation (as serious misconduct must be investigated via administrative investigation rather than via service review) so that discipline was even possible. As discussed further below, LASD minimized the seriousness of discrimination complaints by failing to investigate any as a serious complaint that could potentially result in discipline. The unlawful practices we identified undermine LASD's legitimacy and foster distrust within the community, especially with African -American and Latino residents. Such distrust perpetuates a divide between deputies and residents, making law enforcement efforts less effective and unnecessarily escalating daily encounters between deputies and community members. For example, routine questioning of community members about their probation and parole status, which our review indicated happens more with African -American and Latino community members, fosters distrust in the community. Although LASD increased its efforts at community engagement in the Antelope Valley after the initiation of our investigation, and these efforts have been well -received by many members of the community, these efforts do not displace the need to ensure that basic police functions, such as conducting stops and searches, are conducted constitutionally and in a manner that builds community trust. Alongside the troubling patterns and practices we observed, we also found reasons to believe that LASD has the potential to more quickly resolve many of the problems we found than many other agencies. First, LASD has a uniquely independent and knowledgeable oversight -8 - infrastructure. The Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, MetTict, Bobb, in particular, has provided monitoring and recommendations to LASD since 1993 and reports directly to the Board of Supervisors. Special Counsel Bobb previously warned the department of the problems our investigation confirms. Additionally, LASD receives legal advice and operational input from the Office of Independent Review (OIR), a civilian oversight group created by the Board of Supervisors in 2001 and led by Michael Gennaco. We understand that Los Angeles County plans to create a new oversight position of Office of the Inspector General, which would be responsible for oversight and monitoring of LASD. It does not appear that this entity need displace the Special Counsel or OIR and, in any event, their deep know lr ledFe of LASD and its systems would appear useful in addressing the concerns we raise. In addition to our confidence in LASD's oversight mechanisms, our interactions with LASD leadership during the investigation also give us optimism about swiftly addressing the findings set out in this letter. Sheriff Baca has been clear in his commitment to ensuring that all LASD deputy officers comport their conduct to the agency's core values and the Constitution. Antelope Valley commanders, Chiefs Tyler and La Berge, were proactive in reaching out to the DOJ during the investigation, seeking information throughout the investigation to facilitate an immediate response to concerns we raised. Their initiative has led already to the implementation of many community outreach efforts, which have begun to repair relationships with many segments of the community in the Antelope Valley. This kind of proactive response from a law enforcement agency bodes well for remediation, and we commend LASD for embracing the investigation with this attitude. III. GENERAL METHODOLOGY On August 19, 2011, we notified LASD of our investigation, which was brought pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (Section 14141), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI). These laws authorize the United States to file a legal action when it has reasonable cause to believe that a law enforcement agency engages in a pattern or practice of violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. A pattern or practice may be found by examples representing typical conduct, as opposed to isolated instances. Int'1 Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 n.16 (1977) (noting that the phrase "pattern or practice" "was not intended as a tcrm of art," but should be interpreted according to its usual meaning "consistent with the understanding of the identical words" used in other federal civil rights statutes). For a court to find a pattern 01 practice. it does not need to find a set number of incidents or acts. See United States v. W. Peachtree Tenth Corp., 437 F.2d 221, 227 (5th Cir. 1971) ("The number of [violations] . . . is not determinative . . . . In any event, no mathematical formula is workable, nor was any intended. Each case must turn on its own facts"). Our investigation was also brought pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, Title Vlll of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, as amended (FHA). The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, national origin, religion and other protected categories. More specifically, it is unlawful under the Act to make housing unavailable to any person on the basis of being a member of a protected class; to subject persons to different terms and conditions on the basis of being a member of a protected class; or to coerce, intimidate. 1 -9 - threaten. or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or cxyoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected under the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 360401. 3604(6). 3617. The investigation was conducted by two Civil Rights Division sections: the Special Litigation Section and the Housing & Civil Enforcement Section. The investigation involved a review of over 35,000 LASD documents, including, but not limited to, policies, training matenals, use of force reports, arrest reports, civilian complaint files, and operations plans. \,'e also conducted a six -day long site visit to Palmdale and Lancaster, and interviewed numerOUS LASD command and line staff, rode with patrol deputies, toured the Antelope Valley stations and reporting districts, interviewed local govermnent officials, and met with other relevant go.crnment agencies. While on -site, we held two community meetings that were attended by hundreds of community members, and conducted outreach efforts to interview additional community members. In total, over the course of the entire investigation, we interviewed approximately 400 community members in -person and by telephone. In reaching our finding:, we worked closely with two police practices consultants with extensive experience in police practices and systems of accountability, as well as an expert who conducted statistical analyses of LASD's search and seizure data of nearly 49.000 pedestrian and vehicle contacts for the entire calendar year of 2011. Our review also included analyses of LASD files reflecting contact by deputie i with voucher holders. LASD provided 157 files regarding voucher holders dated between Maicli 2007 and August 2011. which do not capture every instance in which LASD accompanied HAC;o1.A for an inspection. Nor do these files reflect every tune that LASD conducted investigations of voucher holders without HACoLA present. Generally, LASD did not maintain records of the voucher holders it investigated unless a referral was made for termination of voucher program benefits or criminal prosecution. IV. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Fourth Amendment 1. Searches and Seizures The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to he secure in then person*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. CONST. a'ncii,I IV. The Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers to briefly detain individuals tor investigative purposes if the officers possess reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U S. 1, 21 (1968). Possessing reasonable suspicion requires an officer to be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' of cruninal activity," but also "specific, articulablc facts which, when considered with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for particularized suspicion." Id. at 27; United &arcs v Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane) (cmphasis in original). Certain fiictors by themselves - including nervousness, suspicion of drug use, race, and presence in a high crime arca - arc insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. Sec, e.g.. Morena v. -10 - Baca, 431 F.3d 633, 642 (9th Cir. 2005) (nervousness in a high crime area); United States v. Hernandez, 489 Fed. Appx. 157, 159 (9th Cir. 2012) (nervousness, "suspicion of drug use or a conclusory statement about officer safety do not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a search for weapons"); Miller v. City of Simi Valley, 324 Fed. Appx. 681, 684 (9th Cir. 2009) ("persons of a particular racial or ethnic group may not be stopped and questioned bccau,c of such appearance") (quoting Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d at 1134 n.22). Warrantless searches are "per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few specifically established and well -delineated exceptions," including searches incident to valid arrests. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). Searches of vehicles arc unreasonable when there is no officer safety reason for the search, such as when individuals arc already handcuffed and the search is unlikely to uncover evidence of the offense underlying the arrest. Gant v. Arizona, 556 U.S. 332, 337-38 (2009) (vehicle search following arrest for suspended license unreasonable); United States v. Cervantes, 678 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) ("police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.") (quoting California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991)). LASD's searches of voucher holders' homes are subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions, whether deemed "administrative" searches or otherwise. Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 540 (1967) (Fourth Amendment standards apply to administrative housing inspections). Administrative searches by law enforcement agents that exceed the authorized scope of their regulatory purpose are illegal. Michigan v. Clifford. 464 U.S. 287, 294-95 (1984) (arson investigators authorized to conduct administrative search into cause of home fire violated Fourth Amendment when they continued to search home with primary purpose of gathering criminal evidence of the crime of arson). Whether a nominally administrative search exceeds the authorized scope of its regulatory purpose, and thereby violates the Fourth Amendment, is determined by looking at both the actual purpose of the search and how the search is conducted. See Alexander v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1360 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding Fourth Amendment violation where two police officers entered plaintiff's home with administrative warrant to inspect for violations of health and building codes, but for the true purpose of making an arrest); United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820, 831 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989)) ("once a search is conducted for a criminal investigatory purpose, it can no longer be justified under an administrative search rationale"). The manner and method in which an administrative inspection is carried out must be sufficiently tailored to the administrative goals of the regulatory scheme leading to the inspection. United States v. Bulacan, 156 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 1998). Administrative inspections conducted i ii , raid -like manner violate the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment. Gordon vv. city of Moreno Talley, 687 1'. Supp. 2d 930, 944-52 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (unnecessarily extensive and intrusive manner of warrantless health and safety inspections that included five police officers with bulletproof vests and firearms contravened reasonableness standard of Fourth Amendment because "they were more akin to those conducted during criminal sweeps"). -11 - Consent can make a warrantless criminal search constitutionally valid. See Illinois ►v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990); United States v. Graham, 480 Fed. Appx 453, 454 (9th Cir. 2012). However, valid consent to a search must be truly voluntary. Consent to search — cnminal or administrative — cannot be established by "mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority." United States v. Shaibu, 920 F.24 1423, 1426 (9th Cir. 1990). This is particularly true where the overwhelming display of authority removes the ability to meaningfully coniem See United States v Marshall, 488 F.2d 1169, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 1973) (finding consent not voluntary when resident answering door was confronted by several officers who rushed the doui with drawn guns. Any indication of consent would have been "in response to an overwhelming display of authority under the compulsion of the badge and the guns."). 2. Use of Force Excessive force claims in the context of an investigatory stop, arrest, or other "seizure" ,it a free citizen are analyzed under the Fourth Amendmcnt's objective reasonableness standard. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989); see also Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2007) (considering the "quantum of force" used relative to the availability of less severe alternatives). To determine whether the force used is reasonable, "the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests" are balanced against the legitimate governmental interests at stake. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; see also Blankenhorn v City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 477 (9th Cir. 2007). In determining whether force is reasonable, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including: "the severity of the crime at issue; whether the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and whether [the subject] is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; Davis, 478 F.3d at 1054. The "most important" factor under Graham is whether the suspect objectively posed an "immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others." Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 702 (9th (`i* 2005). "A simple statement by an officer that he fears for his safety or the safety of others is not enough; there must be objective factors to justify such a concern." Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 12X 1 (9th Cir. 2001). As the touchstone of Graham is whether the use of force is reasonable, courts have considered a nurnber of factors beyond those specifically articulated in Grahani, which are not exclusive. Other factors may include, for example, "the availability of less intrusive alternatives to the force employed, whether proper warnings were given and whether it should have been apparent to officers that the person they used force against was emotionally disturbed." Glenn v Washington Cnty., 673 F.3d 864, 872 (9th Cir. 2011). In the Ninth Circuit, "police tactic[s] that needlessly or unreasonably create[] a dangerous situation necessitating an escalation in the use of force" are "a course of action this circuit has expressly refused to endorse." Deorle, 272 F.3d at 1282 n. 20 (citing Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1291 n.23 (9th Cir. 2000)). Other courts have similarly denounced unnecessary escalation of force and have held that each use of force during an incident must be justified and should be evaluated independently for reasonableness. See, e.g., Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143. 1 150 (7th Cir. 1994) ("[W]e carve up the incident into segments and judge each on its own terms to see if the officer was reasonable at each stage"); Livermore v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397, 406 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting that "the proper approach under Sixth Circuit precedent is to view -12 - excessive force claims in segments"); Wiegel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143, 1153 (10th Cir. 2008) ("[T Jhere is evidence tlurt for three minutes the troopers subjected [the individual] to force that they knew was unnecessary to restrain him ...."). B. Fourteenth Amendment l he Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits selective or discriminatory enforcement of the law based on race. Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996). Discriminatory policing may arise from an explicit classification, or from a facially neutral policy or practice that is implemented or administered with discriminatory intent. See United State, v..4rrnstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 457 (1996); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-41 (1976). To assess discnminatory intent, courts consider direct and circumstantial evidence. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-66 (1977). Sometimes intent may also be established when the effect of a state action leads to the existence of a "clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race." Id. at 266. Additionally, proof of disproportionate impact may provide circumstantial evidence of invidious intent. Id. In some cases, "proof of discriminatory impact 'may for all practical purposes demonstrate unconstitutionality because in various circumstances the discrimination is very difficult to explain on nonracial grounds." Miller -El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 345 (2003) (quoting Batson t Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 93 (1986)). A law enforcement activity may violate the Equal Protection Clause where discriminatory intent was a contributing factor motivating the action or dmision, the plaintiff need not show that "the challenged action rested solely on racially discriminatory purposes." Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265 (emphasis added); sere also Moo v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 610 (1985) (discriminatory purpose implies that u decision maker selected course of action at least in part "because of' adverse effects on identifiable group). In Arlington Heights, the Supremo Court also suggested a "totality of the circumstances" approach by providing a non -exhaustive list of other types of circumstantial evidence for courts to consider when trying to determine whether discriminatory intent was a motivating factor, including: (1) thc historical background of a local government's decision; (2) the specific sequence of events leading to a decision; (3) departures from normal procedural sequence; (4) substantive dcpartun s from a decisionmaker's normal dccisionmaking; and (5) legislative or administrative history, including contemporary statements by members of u decisionmaking body. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 2661-68. C. Fair Housing Act The Fair !lousing Act prohibits a broad range of conduct that has the purpose or effect of discriminating on thc basis of race, and the Act applies to the conduct of law enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 711 (9th Cir. 2009) (fact issue precluded summary judgment as to FHA claim regarding differing response times of law enforcement personnel in Latino neighborhoods as compared to white neighborhoods). Section 804(a) of the FHA makes it unlawful to "refuse to sell or rent . . . or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, u dwelling to any person because of race [or] color...." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) (emphasis adde(1). Courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have broadly construed thc "otherwise make unavailable" langiwg( -13 - in section 3604(a), opining that it "appears `to be as broad as Congress could have made it, and all practices which have the effect of denying dwellings on prohibited grounds are therefore unlawful." S. Calf Housing Rights Ctr. v. Krug, 564 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1150 (C.D. Ca1. 2007); Housing Rights Ctr. v. Sterling, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1190 (C.D. Ca1. 2004) ("3604(a) also prohibits actions that make apartments effectively unavailable") (emphasis in original), see also United States v. City of Parma, 661 F.2d 562, 568 (6th Cir. 1981) (section 3604(a) claim in context of city's racially motivated opposition to public housing). It is also unlawful under Section 804(b) of the FHA to "discriminate against any person in the terns, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race [or] color ...." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (emphasis added). Section 3604(b) applies "broadly" and "is not limited to those who are engaged in the 'sale or rental' of dwellings." The Cmty. Action League, et al. v. City of Palmdale, et al., No. CV 11-4817 ODW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2012) (Order Denying Motions to Dismiss). This provision has been applied in the context of allegations of discriminatory policing, including enforcement policies and practices alleged to have been implemented in a racially discriminatory manner. See Comm. Concerning Only. Improvement, 583 F.3d at 713-14; Davis v. City ofNew York, No. 10 CV 0699, 2012 WL 4761494 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2012) (fact issue precluded summary judgment as to claim that the NYPD and the NYC Housing Authority's trespass enforcement policies and practices, which were allegedly conducted in a racially discriminatory and unlawful manner, violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) by limiting public housing residents' ability to enter and exit their homes and their ability to receive guests). Finally, Section 818 of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, makes it unlawful "to coerce. intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his ]raving exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected" by the FHA. This Section prohibits conduct designed to harass members of a protected class and drive there out of the neighborhood. The Ninth Circuit has held that the provision should be "broadly applied 'to reach all practices which have the effect of interfering with the exercise of rights' under the federal fair housing laws, . . . [ranging] from racially motivated firebombings to exclusionary zoning and insurance redlining." United States v. City of Hayward, 36 F.3d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Proof that actions violate the FHA can be demonstrated under either a "disparate treatment" or a "disparate impact" theory. With respect to disparate treatment claims, intent can be shown through direct evidence of discrimination, such as through open statements evincing discriminatory animus, or, as is more often the case, through circumstantial evidence, because "municipal officials . . . seldom, if ever, announce on the record that they arc pursuing a course of action ... to discriminate." Smith v. Town of Clarkson, 682 F.2d 1064 (4th Cir. 1982); Contrrrns v. City of Chicago, 119 F.3d 1280, 1291-92 (7th Cir. 1997). Moreover, a court is not limitcd to considering the motives of the official decision -makers themselves when considering whether an official action was taken for discriminatory reasons. Instead, public officials may be held liable for intentional discrimination if they take official action in response to private citizens' discriminatory motivations. See United States v. Yonkers Bd. ofEduc., 837 F.2d 1181, 1224 (2d -14- Cir. 1987) ("[A] governmental body may not escape liability . . . merely because its discnminatory action was undertaken in response to the desires of a majority of its citizens"), Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d at 1066 (upholding municipal liability because there "can be no doubt that the defendants knew that a significant portion of the public opposition was racially inspired, and their public acts were a direct response to that opposition"). As discussed in the Fourteenth Amendment section above, in Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-68, the Supreme Court suggested some types of circumstantial evidence that courts should consider when determining whether discriminatory intent was a motivating factor in an official action by a lucfil government. A plaintiff can also establish a violation of the Fair Housing Act by showing a "disparate impact," which is to say a discriminatory effect without a showing of discriminatory intent. Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 306 (9th Cir. 1997); Keith v. Volpe II, 858 F.2d 467, 482 (9th Cir. 1988); 24 C.F.R. 100.500 ("Liability may be established under the [FHA 1 based on a practice's discriminatory effect . . . even if the practice was not motivated by a discriminatory intent.")'. Under the adverse impact theory, a facially neutral policy or decision has a "discriminatory effect" if it "actually or predictably results in racial discrimination." Keith IL 858 F.2d at 482. In addition to the adverse impact theory of disparate impact, the Central District of California has recognized "a second type of racially discriminatory effect that a facially neutral decision about housing can produce." Keith v. Volpe I, 618 F. Supp. 1132, 1 150 (C.D. Cal. 1985). "This is 'the effect which the decision has on the community involved; if it perpetuates segregation and thereby prevents interracial association it will be considered invidious under the Fair Housing Act independently of the extent to which it produces a disparate effect on different racial groups."" Id. at 1150-51; see also Huntington Branch NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926, 937 (2d Cir.1988) (finding perpetuation of segregation after a town blocked a housing project that would have started to desegregate a white neighborhood); United States v. City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179, 1186 (8th Cir. 1974) (finding perpetuation of segregation where there was "proof that many blacks would live in the development" that would be located in exclusively white community); Keith 1, 618 F. Supp at 1151 (finding perpetuation of segregation when the ultimate result of the city's actions was to "prevent low income minority displacees from continuing to reside in [the city]"). D. Title VI Title VI prohibits law enforcement agencies that receive federal financial assistance from engaging in law enforcement activities that have an unnexsary disparate impact basal on race, color, or national origin. Specifically, Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United Stater shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving S HUD issued 24 C.F.R. 100.500 under its delegated authority to implement the FHA Sec 42 U.S.C. § 3614a. The regulation is therefore entitled to deference. Chevron USA. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984). -15 - federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. LASD receives federal financial assistance made eligible under Title VI and currently has at least $30 million in open federal awards.' V. DISCUSSION A. LASD's Antelope Valley Stations Engage in a Pattern of Unconstitutional Stops and Searches, Unreasonable Force, and Biased Policing We have reasonable cause to believe that LASD's Antelope Valley deputies engage in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional law enforcement activity that reflects unlawful bias and that violates individuals' rights not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, including the use of unreasonable force. These practices violate the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fair Housing Act, and Title VI. Our investigation uncovered an apparently unjustified disparate impact of stops and searches of African Americans and Latinos, as well as a practice of racially biased enforcement of the voucher program, unlawful backseat detentions, and a pattern of stops and searches without adequate legal justification. 1. Antelope Valley Deputies' Stop and Search Practices Have an Unnecessary Disparate Impact on African -American and Latino Residents and Violate the Fourth Amendment LASD deputies stop and search African Americans and Latinos in the Antelope Valley in a manner indicating that stops and searches are motivated, at least in part, by bias. With the assistance of a statistical expert, we conducted a regression analysis of all 4,084 pedestrian and 44,672 vehicle stops and searches recorded in Lancaster and Palmdale during 2011.' This analysis allowed us to control for factors other than race that could potentially influence the reason why African Americans and Latinos are stopped and/or searched at a disproportionately higher rate. All of the regression analyses conducted of this data accounted for a multitude of factors, including (1) the demographic composition of each LASD reporting district, (2) the ages of residents, (3) the gender of residents, and (4) the crime rates by race reported by each reporting district. Each statistic described in the following paragraphs was conducted using a regression analysis, which accounted for these four different variables, to determine whether there is a disproportionate effect on African Americans and Latinos. Additionally, the regressions are weighted by district populations, because the estimates of population and crime characteristics arc more reliable in districts with larger populations. While it is impossible to account for every single factor that could affect law enforcement activity, the regression analyses account for the major factors that influence law enforcement activity, including crime rates. Even after accounting for all these factors, the analysis shows that none of these factors could 6 This estimated amount is very conservative as it does not take into account subgrants that LASD may receive as part of larger awards. 7 Regression analyses demonstrating racial disparities may be used to prove a pattern or practice of discrimination. See Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400-02 (1986) (alleging pattern or practice of employment discrimination); Intl Bbd of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 337-40 (1977) (alleging pattern or practice of employment discrimination). 11 -16- account for the clear disproportionate effect that Antelope Valley policing practices still have on African -American and, to a lesser extent, Latino residents. This disproportionate impact thus provides circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266 (intent may be established by clear pattern unexplainable on grounds other than race); Miller -El, 537 U.S. at 345 (discriminatory impact demonstrate unconstitutionality). This disparate impact also appears to be unnecessary and 'n violation of Title VI. Pedestrian Stops and Searches. Our statistical analysis of 2011 pedestrian stop data showed that the stop rate of minority pedestrians is disproportionately high in the Antelope Valley. In Palmdale, African -American and Latino pedestrians are stopped at a rate 33% higher than if there were no racial differences, and, in Lancaster, African -American pedestrians are stopped at a rate 38.5% higher than if there were no racial differences. In Lancaster, the aggressive pedestrian stop rate of African Americans cannot be justified by demonstrating that the higher rate of stops results in discovery of more contraband. In fact, a regression analysis controlling for the factors described above indicates that there is about a 50% lower rate of contraband seizure for African -American pedestrians compared to whites. In Palmdale, there was no statistically significant difference in contraband discovery rates by race. The low contraband seizure rate for African Americans indicates that, overall, LASD deputies in the Antelope Valley appear to have a less accurate threshold of suspicion for searching African Americans, and that the greater frequency of searches of African Americans cannot be explained by a greater likelihood that they are carrying contraband (such as illicit drugs or weapons). Vehicle Stops and Searches. Though the analysis of Antelope Valley's 2011 vehicle stops alone did not reveal any racial disparities, the analysis of the searches resulting from vehicle stops revealed a stark effect on African Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos. Controlluig for potential intervening factors, the regression analysis revealed a finding that, following vehicle stops, the search rate of the persons of African Americans in the Antelope Valley is 10-15 percentage points higher than that of whites, and the disparity in the search i me of Latinos in the Antelope Valley is also statistically significant. Additionally, across the Antelope Valley, the vehicles of African Americans arc searched at an 8-14 percentage point higher rate than whites. The analysis also revealed that, in vehicle stops, Latinos and their vehicles are starched at a statistically significant disparate rate.' These analysts arc statistically significant because the likelihood that the racial disparities in the analyses arose randomly or by chance is less than five percent. Additionally, differences bctwecn the expected and observed values for African Americans and Latinos subjected to policing activity that arc outside two standard deviations may be sufficient to show discrimination. See Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 496 n.17 (1977) (In a case involving underrepresentation of Mexican Americans on grand juries, the Court stated, "[I]f the difference between the expected value and the observed number is greater than two or three standard deviations, then the hypothesis that the jury drawing was random would be suspect to a social scientist.") -17- Drsctctionary Offenses. The data also shows a clear racial disparity for African Americans when stopped for offenses where law enforcement discretion is greatest. Such charges include offenses such as crossing against a traffic light, jaywalking, failing to yield right of way, or walking on the wrong side of the street. Controlling for possible intervening factors discussed above, we found that an African -American pedestrian in Lancaster is over 25% more likely than a white pedestrian to be stopped for a discretionary offense. A large number of these stops, for minor offenses such as jaywalking, also resulted in questionable pat downs and consent scat chcs. The disparate contraband discovery rate discussed above can alone indicate biased policing. The discovery rate should be the same regardless of race if individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, rather than race, is fueling the suspicion that leads to the search. It is unclear, however, whether disparate discovery rates in the Antelope Valley stem from bias because of the significant number of purported consent searches and, to a lesser extent, parolee probationer searches conducted by Antelope Valley deputies, which do not require individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 856 (holding that suspicionless searches of parolees are constitutional because parolees consent to suspicionless searches as condition of parole).' What is clear, however, is that LASD's search tactics place a disproportionate burden on African Americans in the Antelope Valley, in that African Americans are significantly more likcl.v to be searched even if they arc not carrying contraband. We know also, based upon the scores of complaints we received about LASD's search practices during our interviews of community members, that this practice is a significant cause of the divide between LASD, and Latinos and African Americans in the Antelope Valley. Over and over again, we heard disturbingly similar accounts of Antelope Valley deputies pulling over African -American and Latino pedestrians and drivers, searching their persons and/or cars, and releasing them without a citation or any information about why they were initially stopped. In addition, if a deputy's decision to ask an individual whether he or she is on probation or parole prior to a search is in part prompted by the race of the individual, this constitute unlawful discrimination. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the selective enforcement of the law based on race); Richards v. City of bus Angeles. 261 Fed. Appx. 63, 65-66 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a claim of racial harassment by police on the basis of race constitutes Fourteenth Amendment claim). While it is lawful to ask about an individual's probation or parole status even if there is no reasonable suspicion of ° While the patrol log contains a data field for deputies to record the category of a search - for example, as a consent search, a search incident to arrest, or a pat down - there is no separate data field where deputies document whether a civilian was subject to search because of his parole or probation status. Further, LASD's directive regarding "Logging Public Contacts" does not require deputies to provide a narrative that articulates the probable cause justifying the search as opposed to the stop. There does not appear to be any documentation of an individual's informed consent to search, outside the recent policy change regarding the voucher program, other than a deputy's patrol log entry. -18 - criminal activity, the practice of routinely asking individuals whether they are on probation or parole has an impact on both the perception and reality of bias in LASD. '° Our review of a year's worth of civilian complaints indicates that all people who stated that thcy were asked about their probation or parole status were African -American or Latino. It is thus clear that LASD spends significant resources, in terms of time and community trust, conducting searches that turn up nothing. Therefore, it is incumbent upon LASD to: (1) better track and analyze data so that it can ensure that a legitimate law enforcement purpose, rather than bias, is fueling these disparate seizure rates; (2) reassess its emphasis on consent and probation or parole status searches and determine whether there are steps it can take to reduce thc di% isiveness and potential for constitutional harm of this heavy handed approach;" and, (3) enhance policy and training to ensure that officers understand that it is a violation of law to ask, based on an individual's race or ethnicity, whether someone would consent to search or is on probation or parole. See WWhren, 517 U.S. at 813 (Fourteenth Amendment prohibits thc selective enforcement of the law based on race); Rodriguez v. Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 89 F. Supp, 2d 1131, 1140 n.5 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ("It is settled law that race or appearance alone is insufficient to justify a stop or arrest."). 1° During an investigation into one African -American civilian's complaint that he was questioned about his probation or parole status for no reason during a traffic stop, one involved deputy told the LASD investigator that he "always asks everyone he stops" about their probation or parole status "to get into cars," that is, as a pretext to search vehicles. The other involved deputy told the investigator that he instructs all deputy trainees to ask those same questions during every stop. To his credit, the lieutenant who reviewed this civilian complaint advised both deputies that some people "will be offended and become angry if they are immediately asked about being on parole, or probation, when they arc first contacted on a traffic stop." The deputy still insisted that he would continue to ask such questions, dismissive of the potential impact that the practice might have on his relationship with the community. A recent 2012 Lancaster Fourth Amendment training curriculum provides guidance about searches of probationers and parolees, but still does not address the underlying practice of questioning. The deputy's statements are consistent with what we hcard from African -American and Latino Antelope Valley residents who felt that deputies assumed they had criminal records when they were asked about probation or parole status at the outset of minor police -civilian interactions, such as low-level traffic stops. 11 Other jurisdictions have significantly more restrained stop and consent search policies. whether voluntarily or by law, with no indication that this compromises public safety. See e.g., State v. Carty, 790 A.2d 903, 912 (NJ. 2002) (consent searches of vehicles without independent reasonable suspicion violate state constitution); State v. Ferrier, 960 P.2d 927, 929-30 (Wash. 1998) (failure to provide informed consent vitiates legitimacy of consent); State v. Ladcon, 979 P.2d 833, 838-39 (Wash. 1999) (use of pretext stops for warrantless searches or seizures v iulates state constitution). 1 1 -10- Enforcement of the (lousing Choice Voucher Program in the Antelope Valley Reflected Bias and Violated the Fair Housing Act and the Fourth Amendment In response to racially -charged opposition to the growing presence of African -American voucher holders in the Antelope Valley, and amid a climate of tolerance for racially derogatory conduct within the LASD, the LASD teamed with the Housing Authority of Los Angeles County (HACoLA) to pursue enforcement of the voucher program. Lancaster and Palmdale city officials initiated the campaign of enforcement by entering into Memoranda of Understanding (MOCs) with HACoLA to hire and pay for dedicated fraud investigators. As a result of the MOUs. enforcement of the voucher program in Lancaster and Palmdale differed from enforcement of the voucher program throughout the rest of the county in both qualitative and quantitative ways, and was carried out with the intcnt that African -American voucher holders leave Antelope Valley. All of the fraud investigators were former LASD deputies, worked our cat office spacc in the Lancaster or Palmdale sheriff's stations, and were issued LASD email addresses to conduct their HACoLA business. In addition, a Palmdale deputy coordinated with a dedicated district attorney investigator to specifically develop criminal fraud cases against voucher holders in the city for violations of the voucher program's rules. The MOUs were renewed and expanded every year beginning in 2004 until June 2011, when Los Angeles County instituted a moratorium on the MOUs in response to thc filing of private litigation.12 LASD played a critical role in enforcement of thc voucher program in the Antelope Valley, teaming with HACoLA investigators and acting independently to pursue enforcement efforts at voucher program households, including by intimidating, harassing, and facilitating the termination of voucher holders from thc program. Among other things, LASD: (1) sent numerous deputies on HACoLA compliance checks of the homes of voucher holders. often in the absent of any legitimate justification; (2) accompanied HACoLA on a disproportionately large percentage of compliance checks in thc Antelope Valley as compared to other areas of Lo Angeles County where fiACoLA's and LASD's jurisdictions overlap; (3) allowed deputies to directly question voucher holders about their compliance with the voucher program's rules; (4) referred voucher holders for criminal prosecution for voucher program violations; (5) independently used law enforcement tools, such as probation/parole checks and arrest warrants, to obtain information about voucher program violations; (6) failed to properly issue Miranda warnings even when deputies had a legitimate reason to enter thc home; and (7) provided confidential information about vouches. holders to third parties. As mentioned above, LASD's efforts with respect to voucher program compliance in thc Antelope Valley were conducted in a manner that was qualitatively and quantitatively different from enforcement of the voucher program throughout the rest of the county. In the conduct of these efforts, LASD departed from standard or proper procedures in a number of important wad s; for example, as described below and elsewhere in this letter, deputies often departed from department policies and procedures that require a warrant or, in its absence, consent to enter and 1` The County agreed not to renew the MOUs with Lancaster and Palmdale for a period of three years as part of a settlement agreement reached with private plaintiffs in March 2012. -20 - search a resident's home. Moreover, LASD's conduct had serious consequences for voucher holders in -the Antelope Valley, including (in some cases) termination from the voucher prop .uii, cnmtnal prosecution for administrative violations, and relocation from the Antelope Valley for tillof further law enforcement harassment. 'tgorous enforcement of the voucher program would not, on its own, violate the FHA. owever, here, LASD's enforcement efforts were part of racially biased opposition to voucher holders. and were based on an unsubstantiated and racially stereotypical correlation of race and crime — including that African -American voucher holders in the Antelope Valley were gang in ambers and that the increase in voucher holders had brought crime to the Antelope Valley. 1s described above, in determining whether conduct violates the FHA, courts look to a wide range ot circumstantial evidence, including the historical background against which the conduct takes place. the specific sequence of events leading to the conduct; departures from normal procedures; and statements by the actors evidencing racial bias. See Arlington Heights. 429 L.S. at 266. Reliance on circumstantial evidence is necessary, especially when dealing with municipal entities, because courts recognize "municipal officials ... seldom, if ever, announce on the record that they are pursuing a course of action ... to discriminate." Smith v. Town of Clarkson, 682 F.2d [055, 1064 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Contreras v. City of Chicago, 119 F.3d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1997). a) LASD's Enforcement of Voucher Program Rules Differed in the Antelope Valley and Was Not Justified by Legitimate Law Enforcement Concerns HACoLA rnay initiate compliance investigations when it has information that a voucher holder is not abiding by the program requirements. A compliance investigation may include an evaluation of the voucher holder's home, which is commonly referred to as a compliance check. Tlicse compliance checks are not criminal investigations and HACoLA investigators arc not entitled io enter the voucher holder's home without first obtaining consent to enter. Refusal by a person present at the residence to provide consent cannot itself jeopardize the household's housing assistance benefits. If a household refuses to consent to a compliance check, HACoLA rnay schedule an appointment with the voucher holder to address the program compliance concerns HACoLA Administrative Plan Scc. 10.7.3. In a departure from ordinary procedures employed elsewhere in the county, LASD deputies accompanied HACoLA investigators on virtually all voucher program compliance checks in the Antelope Valley from 2004 through 2007, and to a more limited degree until 2011, when LASD was notified of this investigation and when a private civil nghts lawsuit alleging similar facts was filed against Lancaster and Palmdale. Our analysis of data provided by HACoLA revealed that LASD's practice of accompanying I lACoLA investigators occurred in a disproportionately lugh percentage of compliance checks in the Antelope Valley us compared to the rat of the County, including areas that border on inner-city Los Angeles and that are policed by LASD. Between January 2008 and August 2011, a much higher percc ntage of 11ACoLA field contacts in the Antelope Valley (where the majority of voucher holders arc African American) involved LASD deputies, as compared to field contacts in the remaining pans of the county in which HACoLA's and LASD's jurisdiction overlap (where African Americans arc not the majority of voucher holders). 1 -21- More often than not, multiple deputy shenffs, sometimes as many us nine. would acurnpany HACoLA investigators on their administrative housing checks. Deputies would routinely approach the toucher holder's home with guns drawn, occasionally in full SWAT armor, and conduct searches and questioning once inside. In over 40% of the cases in which LASD's tiles indicated the number of deputies involved. ;ix or more deputies were presait. The sheer numbers of armed, uniformed deputies wl:o participated in many of the compliance checks call into queetion whether voucher holders were able to give meaningful consent to compliance inspections by HACoLA investigators. See Gordon v. City of Moreno Valley, 687 F. Supp 2d 930, 944-521C.D Cal 2009) (concluding that the unnecessarily extensive and intrusive Enamel of warrantless health and safety inspections that included five police officers with bulletproof vests and firearms contras ened the reasonableness standard of Fourth Amendment because "they were more akin to those conducted during criminal sweeps"); United States v. Marrhull, 4y? F2d 1169, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 1973 ► (finding that consent was not voluntary when a resided answenng the door was confronted by several officers who rushed the door with drawn guns because any indication of consent would have been "in resporse to an overwhelming display of authenty under the compulsion of the badge and the guns"). Moreover, LASD deputies failed t,? acxluire separate consent to enable them to legally accompany HACoLA investigators into voucher holders' homes. See discussion below for Fourth Amendment implications. Of the 157 files provided by LASD, less than one-half included information demonstrating any reason for deputy presence, v.het_her ensuring thc safety of HACoLA investigators or furthering a prefer lay. enforcement purpose. such as conducting a probation or parole compliance search or ;erring a warrant. Moreover. only one quarter of the files that indicate the number of deputies present describe circumstances that would justify the number of deputies rho responded_ For example, of the files that specifically articulated a teed to provide for investigator safety and stated no other basis for deputy presence, often four to six deputies were invoked whet one or two deputies should have adequa:dy addressed that need. Additionally, LASD deputies often improperly comingied their law enforcement ftaictions with the administrairsc process and participated in HACoLA irrvatigatitons beyead tt� scope of sea-uring investigator safety. Courts have emphasized the I Marta= of kaepctg criminal in.estigatiors separate from adminstranve searches. See Nyman v. JcnvJ, «%J US. 309 11971). Suncis Cnty of San Diego. 4.64 Fad 916 (9th Cu 2006). Moreover. courts base held that the manner and method in which an act inutranve inspection is cursed our meat be narrowly tailored to the administrative goals of the inspection. See Liz ed Sutter . 8.ioaa ; IM F.3d 963, 967-68 (9th Cie. 1998). As a result of these practices. LASD depimes Bert able tau intern iew people and conduct searches before the individnis understood the rights, incinctimg that they melt be tncnnumnng themselves by participating in the hoasszng COM= COMpbanix check. For example, deputies questioned v01.01171- holders during eam fiance cheias above information such as employment history and who rutted m the home horse women kaad eo purpose other than to substantiate voucher pmg-a n violations LASD deiptines scud abv Lae information gathered dunng these coarphance cioais to farther atmmal aroaszpixirs banal solely on the voucher holders' alleged voucher rroh-am vitiations. In simile onset. LSD also used voucher program cumplumsx tuts as a white ao fib sztrristod amaiinW investigations, gaining access to ss roper holden' fries ovi ± r !226exats s$ae provide -22 - notice of their true purpose or administering necessary Miranda warnings. For example, in 2007, LASD arrived at a voucher holder's residence to serve an arrest warrant for driving without a license and to assist with a HACoLA compliance check. The deputy also suspected the voucher holder of stealing property from her former landlord. The deputy participated in the compliance check, but did not disclose to the voucher holder the fact that a criminal investigation was also underway regarding the stolen property. During the compliance check, the deputy noted the presence of an item similar to the reported stolen property and photographed rt. As a result of information obtained during this improper search, the deputy later obtained a search warrant to recover the property. As a result of LASD's conduct in accompanying HACoLA investigators on compliance checks as described above, voucher holders in the Antelope Valley were subjected to far more intrusive and intimidating searches of their homes, and in some cases, harsher administrative or cruninal consequences to those searches, than voucher holders elsewhere in the county. Given the demographics and evidence of what led to this focused enforcement of the voucher program's rules in the Antelope Valley, this diffeieutial treatment of voucher holders in the Antelope Valley violates the FHA. b) LASD Deputies Independently Targeted Voucher Holders in the Antelope Valley LASD went beyond simply assisting HACoLA in its enforcement efforts. LASD independently employed otherwise legitimate law enforcement powers, including probation and parole checks, arrest warrants, traffic stops, and criminal prosecutions, in order to further the enforcement of HACoLA program rules, facilitate the termination of voucher holders, and harass and intimidate voucher holders. Otherwise legitimate law enforcement action, aggressive or otherwise, does not itself violate the law, but here, actions taken by LASD deputies were part of racially -motivated bias against the voucher program (sometimes following specific =ails making such bias explicit) and appear to have been focused on the ultimate goal not just to terminate voucher holders from the voucher program, but to force them out of their homes. This conduct, taken as a whole and considered against the social, historical, and procedural context, violated the FHA. "Even intrinsically lawful acts may lose that character when they arc constituent elements of an unlawful scheme." United States v. City of Parma, 494 F. Supp. 1049, 1055 (N.D. Ohio 1980) (citations omitted) ("The character and effect of a general policy is to be judged in its entirety, and not by dismembering it as if it consisted of unrelated parts."); Harris v. ltzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that circumstantial evidence. whcn viewed as a whole, may establish a genuine factual issue about whether facially unrelated actions were discriminatory). By relying on probation or parole checks, which do not require consent, LASD deputies were able to enter voucher holders' homes to conduct searches and collect information pertinent to voucher program compliance that HACoLA could then use to support termination. Had HACoLA investigators sought to conduct those searches, they would have needed consent to enter. Similarly, LASD used traffic and pedestrian stops and arrest warrants as a means to question individuals to obtain information relating to voucher program enforcement. The following examples from LASD's files demonstrate this problematic conduct: -23- • In 2011, seven LASD deputies and a HACoLA investigator arrived at a voucher holder's home both to investigate possible violations of her voucher program contract and to conduct a probation compliance check. However, the lead deputy disclosed to the voucher holder only that they were there to conduct a "routine" probation check. Once the lead deputy entered the home and the voucher holder gave him information about the home's residents, the deputy told the HACoLA investigator — who was waiting outside — that the voucher holder's response did not match the voucher program contract. The HACoLA investigator and lead deputy then jointly questioned the voucher holder about her compliance with the voucher program's rules, which is documented in an incident report to substantiate criminal charges based solely on violations of the voucher progrunl contract. While LASD was purportedly at the home to conduct a probation check. LASD's file contains no information regarding the nature or scope of the probation search or any probation consequences that resulted. • During a 2008 traffic stop, deputies determined that an African -American woman had a warrant fur driving without a license. A deputy then contacted a HACoLA investigator and determined that the woman participated in the voucher program. The deputy and investigator then engaged in a joint investigation into the woman's employment and the occupants of her home in order to find evidence of voucher program violations. At one point, the deputy told the woman that if she was honest about her violations, he would not file a criminal report and the only consequence would be termination of her benefits. When the deputy did not receive the admissions he desired, he filed an incident report to substantiate criminal charges based solely on alleged violations of the voucher program contract. • In another case. in 2008, four deputies and a HACoLA investigator visited the home of a voucher holder for the purpose of conducting a probation compliance check of one of the residents of the home. The deputies had invited a HACoLA investigator to participate in the search although they had no evidence of any voucher program violations. Once inside the home, the deputies and the investigator identified property that they suspected was stolen, including a dolly marked as property of the United Parcel Service. Ultimately. the deputies arrested the voucher holder for unlawful possession of the dolly, which was estimated to cost S125, even though they could not confirm that it was stolen. Following the probation compliance check, HACoLA terminated the voucher holder from the voucher program for allegedly stealing the UPS dolly, along with other program iolations they uncovered during the probation compliance check. Furthermore, our investigation revealed that LASD took criminal enforcement action against some voucher holders, solely on the basis of violations of the voucher program rules. Notably, in some of these cases LASD pursued criminal charges despite the fact that HACoLA had already terminated the voucher holder from the voucher program. HACoLA administrators informed us that it was not their ordinary policy to refer contract violations to LASD for criminal enforcement. LASD referred these voucher holders to the District Attorney for charges of perjury (i.e., false statements on their housing contract) and/or grand theft (i.e., overpayments made by HACoLA). These charges resulted in some voucher holders being arrested, prosecuted for felonies. jailed, left in debt to HACoLA for restitution, typically in five -digit sums and, -24 - importantly, forced from their homes. In just one example, three months after a voucher holder was temunuted from the voucher program and opted to stay in the home and pay market rent to their landlord, a Palmdale deputy initiated an investigation into the family for "lying about their financial status to the Los Angeles County Housing Authority and . . . defrauding the county in regards to receiving housing assistance." As part of that investigation, the deputy obtained a search warrant for the family's home. During the execution of that warrant, the deputy questioned the head of household about how the family could afford to continue living in the house even after being temiinated from the voucher program and how they could afford various household items, including groceries, cellular telephones, a lawnmower, and exercise equipment, on such a limited income. At the conclusion of the search and interview, the deputy arrested the couple and confiscated all of the property (including the family automobile) that he believed the family should not have been able to afford as evidence of fraud against the Housing Authority. Ultimately, LASD successfully recommended to the District Attorney that the couple be prosecuted for perjury and grand theft of the total rent that had been paid by the Housing Authority, in the amount of $27,971. Finally, LASD provided information obtained in the course of its participation in voucher program compliance checks to third parties, which led to the harassment of voucher holders. For example, shortly after a compliance check conducted by HACoLA and LASD where they photographed luxury vehicles in the voucher holder's garage, an LASD deputy sent those photographs to the administrator of the Antelope Valley -based "I Hate Section 8" Facebook page. Subsequently. the family's home was vandalized with the message "I hate Section 8 you fucking niggers" scrawled on their garage door, and the family's son had urine thrown on him as the perpetrator yelled, "You dirty Section 8 nigger." The family relocated from Palmdale back to inner city Los Angeles for fear of further harassment. c) No Law Enforcement Justification Exists for LASD's Targeting of Voucher Program Households LASD's involvement in enforcement of the voucher program's rules was motivated, at least in part by the unsubstantiated perception among some members of the Antelope Valley community, including public officials, press, residents and deputies themselves, that AfricanAmencans in the voucher program had brought increased crime to the region. The only crime-rclated analyses LASD provided to us in the course of this investigation disprove the purported link between the voucher program and crime in the Antelope Valley. In 2007, a Lancaster sergeant conducted a study which concluded that "Section 8 housing did not change the crime statistics within their respective communities." In August 2009, a statistician employed by the city of Lancaster, at the request of the Mayor and City Manager. conducted an analysis revealing that for the period analyzed there was no link between crime and voucher holders in Lancaster. The Lancaster analysis further asserted that in certain neighborhoods, voucher program households might actually keep crime rates lower. Despite these findings, LASD invested significant resources to investigate vouches program participants. Notwithstanding this focus and the widely -accepted belief, including within the LASD, that voucher holders had brought serious, gang -related crimc to the Antelope Valley, there is no evidence that these investigations resulted in arrests for gang -related criminal activity. 1 From:Aram James To:epatoday@epatoday.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Pat Burt; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Vara Ramakrishnan; Rebecca Eisenberg; Binder, Andrew Subject:Can you please read. ? This is a Minority Majority County/Police Chief Bob Jonsen read the DOJ report and past practices everywhere. Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 8:41:30 PM Attachments:Scanned Documents (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Reply-To: Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net>  https://almanacnews.com/news/2017/02/21/cover-story-people-of-color-speak-up-about-personal-impact-of-police-stops https://www-vice-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vice.com/amp/en/article/d3akm7/how-facebook-bought-a-police-force? amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16607987092272&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com https://onezero.medium.com/blm-protestors-demand-facebook-defunds-its-police-program-fe6a0c6be917 Sent from https://sd18.senate.ca.gov/news/6172015-kqedsfgatecom-driving-suspended-license-top-crime-menlo-park-many-lose-cars https://www.menlotogether.org/2020/06/08/petition-demand-data-about-menlo-park-police-stops-by-race/ From:Ian Irwin To:Council, City; City Attorney Cc:Carol Kiparsky Subject:Re: Sidewalk accessibility Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 7:29:46 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 2022 ADA REQUIREMENTS 2022 Sidewalks: A sidewalk is considered an accessible path of travel and must have at least one accessible route from a passenger loading zone, public street, or accessible parking area. Walking surfaces should have a clear width of at least 36 inches. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 18, 2022, at 7:25 PM, Ian Irwin <ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I am an elderly individual that lives in the downtown area. Because of Covid and the resulting expansion of restaurants on to sidewalks for outdoor dining it has become increasingly difficult for an elderly person to walk down the street in Palo Alto! Especially with a walker! In many places, due to outdoor chairs, tables and other accessories the passable sidewalk is constricted to 12 inches or less! I understand that during the Covid Pandemic it was important to allow restaurants to have outside dining. For this reason, I put up with the limitations on my mobility as I navigated the streets of my city! However, many of the rules and restrictions have now been relaxed or eliminated, and it is time to balance sidewalk accessibility and commercial interests. I deserve to have my streets back! I have attached the 2021 ADA rules for sidewalks. Please note that they specify a 36 inch walkable area. I would also point out that there are currently about 140 ADA lawsuits against municipalities and other public entities around sidewalk accessibility. My age and vulnerability to COVID have led me to self limit my participation around indoor dining and other indoor spaces. It is time to stop limiting my access to public spaces in the city! Sincerely, Ian Irwin Sent from my iPhone From:Ian Irwin To:Council, City; City Attorney Cc:Carol Kiparsky Subject:Sidewalk accessibility Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 7:26:02 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I am an elderly individual that lives in the downtown area. Because of Covid and the resulting expansion of restaurants on to sidewalks for outdoor dining it has become increasingly difficult for an elderly person to walk down the street in Palo Alto! Especially with a walker! In many places, due to outdoor chairs, tables and other accessories the passable sidewalk is constricted to 12 inches or less! I understand that during the Covid Pandemic it was important to allow restaurants to have outside dining. For this reason, I put up with the limitations on my mobility as I navigated the streets of my city! However, many of the rules and restrictions have now been relaxed or eliminated, and it is time to balance sidewalk accessibility and commercial interests. I deserve to have my streets back! I have attached the 2021 ADA rules for sidewalks. Please note that they specify a 36 inch walkable area. I would also point out that there are currently about 140 ADA lawsuits against municipalities and other public entities around sidewalk accessibility. My age and vulnerability to COVID have led me to self limit my participation around indoor dining and other indoor spaces. It is time to stop limiting my access to public spaces in the city! Sincerely, Ian Irwin Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Enberg, Nicholas; Jethroe Moore; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Vara Ramakrishnan; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Josh Becker; Raj Subject:Cop Indicted For Breaking Man"s Ankle While Tackling Him Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 6:48:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/46Ed_5UkxAQ Sent from my iPhone From:Amy Zucker Morgenstern To:Council, City Subject:In favor of Safe Parking approval at the First Congregational Church Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 6:04:54 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from parishmin@uucpa.org. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear members of the City Council, Thank you so much for the hard work you do on behalf of Palo Alto. I am writing in advance of your August 22 meeting to urge you to approve the Safe Parking program proposed for 1985 Louis Road, the First Congregational Church. The church with which I serve, the Unitarian Universalist Church (UUCPA), has had a very positive experience with the same program. We met with some resistance at first when we proposed to host people in up to four vehicles per night, as I'm sure you recall. The neighbors who were opposed wanted more extensive background checks, but once they had a more thorough understanding of the process by which people enter the program and how the program is run, they withdrew their objections. Since then, six different people have used the program at UUCPA, and neither we nor any neighbors have had any problems. Our housing crisis is so dire. We need to do much more to resolve it, and allowing people to sleep in their cars legally and safely only treats a symptom, not the causes. But symptoms are often very painful, and it doesn't get much more painful than having to sleep on the street. I am grateful that the city joined us in alleviating the suffering of these several neighbors. Whenever we come to the end of a service at UUCPA, we say these words together: Go out into the world in peace Be of good courage Hold fast to what is good Return no one evil for evil Strengthen the faint-hearted Support the weak Help the suffering Rejoice in beauty Speak love with word and deed Honor all beings. You helped us realize these intentions when you approved our Safe Parking Program. I hope you will do the same next week. Take care, Amy -- Rev. Amy Zucker Morgenstern, Parish Minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto parishmin@uucpa.org ~ (650) 665-9139‬ Blogging at http://sermonsinstones.com she/they To set up an appointment: calendly.com/amyzm In case of an urgent pastoral need, please don't wait: call (650) 494-0541 x25 The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto: Transforming ourselves, each other, and the world. Web: uucpa.org Facebook: facebook.com/uucpa Twitter: @uucpa From:Lynnie Melena To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking at Congregational Church Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 5:28:57 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lynniemelena@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, I strongly urge you to approve the Congregational Church's application for a permit for only four RVs to have a safe and supportive place to park their vehicles at night. It is such a small, but important, gesture toward dealing with homelessness in Palo Alto. It has saddened me to walk past an RV regularly parked on El Camino in my Barron Park neighborhood and see children's toys outside the door, knowing small kids are living there and the family tolerating heavy traffic and buses day and night. Think how much better a church parking lot would be for them. Lynnie Melena From:Virginia Van Kuran To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Safe Parking at First Congregational Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 5:01:57 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from virginia@vankuran.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hi City Council, I am writing in support of Safe Parking at First Congregational Church. I live nearby at Louis and Garland and have for almost fifty years. I grew up in the area as well. We are at a point where we need to provide this kind of service in our community while we peruse more permanent solutions. Regards, Virginia Van Kuran 879 Garland Dr Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Laura Cenamor To:Council, City Subject:Support for Safe Parking Permit at First Congo Church Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 4:54:43 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromlauracutting80@googlemail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, We are both residents of Palo Alto and neighbors of First Congregational Church. Our daughters attend Duveneck Elementary and have done so for the last four years. It was wonderful that the City Council unanimously approved the Safe Parking Program in February 2020 as a way of addressing our area’s homelessness crisis. First Congregational Church has followed all of the guidelines of the program, and City Staff recommends approval of the permit. First Congregational’s program is set up in a way that protects the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The letter that you received contesting the permit mentions steps that other churches have taken when moving forward with the program. It neglects to mention that programs in other areas, such as Santa Barbara, don't need to even inform neighbours of any such program. We wonder, had First Congo neighbours not been informed, would they even realise that the program was taking place? As they don't seem to have noticed that there are currently vehicle dwellers sleeping in the area, maybe because these people have not posed any problem thus far? As I am sure would be the case if they are allowed to park at First Congo. It seems the safety of the people living in their cars is what we should be concerned with, not residents who already have extremely safe and comfortable dwellings. Having listened to the Zoom meeting regarding this issue it makes absolute sense that this permit be granted. I understand that some residents feel that they were not heard during this meeting but questions were typed into the chat and then answered proficiently by: PA Council, First Congo Church and Move Mountain View. We were left with no lingering questions or doubt as to the safety of this program. It was also apparent that this is in fact, a very small neighborhood program which is trying its best to address locally a much wider national problem. Think globally, act locally. We believe that all people should have access to a safe place to sleep at night and if Move Mountain View and First Congo can assist a few in this most basic human need then we are grateful to them. We are slightly baffled at the assumption that just because you find yourself without a permanent address you are then a criminal and a threat to children! It seems like a well thought out and previously tested program, that in all likelihood will increase safety for all concerned and hopefully provide some respite for people who have found themselves in need. We firmly believe that this FCCPA Safe Parking Application should be granted by leaving it on Consent Calendar at the Council meeting on August 22nd. Thank you for listening, Yours Sincerely, Laura and Simon Cenamor From:Aram James To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Joe Simitian; Winter Dellenbach; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore Subject:San Jose Police Contract Dispute Boils Over into Mayoral Campaign | San Jose Inside Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 3:23:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/san-jose-police-contract-talks-boil-over-into-public-debate/ Sent from my iPhone From:Cynthia Chin-Lee To:Council, City Cc:Session; Pat Kinney Subject:First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto supports the Safe Parking Permit of First Congregational Church of Palo Alto Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 2:19:43 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cynthiachinlee@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council members, The First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto strongly supports the efforts of the Palo Alto City Council to provide a pathway to stable housing for those in our community who are unhoused. The Safe Parking Program is one such pathway and offers local churches the option of providing safe parking for individuals who have been sleeping in their cars on city streets. We write today in support of our neighbor church, the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application which is on the Consent Agenda of the August 22nd Council meeting. Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church currently host Safe Parking Programs. Both programs are operating successfully and neither church has received complaints from neighbors or community members. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with the regulations established by the City of Palo Alto and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. We urge you to approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your August 22nd Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, The elders (Session) of First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto, 1140 Cowper Street, Palo Alto Rev. Jane Esterline, Lela Noble, Cynthia Chin-Lee, Sukgi Choi, Margaret Ann Fidler, Karen Huddleston, Mohan Iyer, Janet Cox, Derrick Kikuchi, Lee Merkle-Raymond, Martha Maris, Ellen Forbes -- Cynthia (Cyndi) Chin-Lee (She/Her) Speaker, Author, and Diversity Change Agent Author: Amelia to Zora: Twenty-six Women Who Changed the World Living on Muwekma, Ohlone, and Ramaytush land cynthiachinlee.com Blog | COVID-19 | Racial Justice From:Silicon Valley Community Foundation To:Council, City Subject:SVCF Annual Meeting and Movement- and Power-Building Community Action Grants Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 1:02:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. 650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org CEO Nicole Taylor makes Top 50 list SVCF CEO Nicole Taylor has been named to The NonProfit Times' 2022 NPT Power & Influence Top 50 list. The publication’s 25th annual list highlights influential nonprofit executives. Taylor has been recognized for leading and advancing systemic solutions that drive enduring community change. Read the statement Movement- and Power-Building Community Action Grants SVCF, in partnership with Heising-Simons Foundation, welcome proposals from local organizations responding to the needs of communities of color and communities where the majority of families work in low-income jobs. The application deadline is September 16, 2022. Save the date: 2022 Annual Meeting SVCF’s annual meeting will take place at the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts on October 11, 2022. Program and registration Learn more information are coming soon! Staff spotlight: Michelle Fries "I’m most excited to see that our new direction reinforces SVCF’s roots: focusing on our local community." - Michelle Fries, Director of Nonprofit Support Services and Leadership Investment. Portraits of Community Action Maimona Afzal Berta, an education leader who promotes equity and prioritizes community, families and students, shares her story in our latest community action portrait. Local nonprofit improves neighborhood safety For 30 years, members of the Guadalupe Washington Neighborhood Association have worked to protect and enhance their San José neighborhood. Address 2440 West El Camino Real Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040 About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change. Copyright © 2022 Silicon Valley Community Foundation View in browser | Unsubscribe From:Maureen Kennedy To:Council, City Subject:Approval of Safe Parking Program Permit to Allow Overnight Parking of up to Four (4) Vehicles Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:05:16 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email frommaureenekennedy@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my support for the approval of the Safe Parking Permit to allow overnight parking of up to four vehicles at the First Congregational Church. The homeless situation in Palo Alto will only be improved if all possible solutions are implemented. Two other churches have implemented this program successfully. Establishing the program at the First Congregational Church would extend the availability of this program. Having grown up in Palo Alto, I would like the city to expand programs that can address this very pressing need. I appreciate the City Council 's prior support of this Safe Parking Program and hope it will continue. Thank you. Sincerely, Maureen Kennedy From:Jo English To:Council, City Subject:Support The Safe Parking Site Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:13:27 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from drjosey@aol.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I am a resident of Palo Alto and I attend the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto (UUCPA). I write in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking Permit as agendized on the Consent Calendar of your August 22nd Council meeting. UUCPA has been operating Safe Parking on our church campus for the past 10 months and we are strong supporters of the program expanding to other church sites. Why? Because Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The UUCPA program has operated successfully and has not received complaints from neighbors or community members. We have discovered first-hand that Safe Parking helps move vulnerable people into permanent housing while giving them a safe and predictable place to sleep as they are awaiting new options. This makes our entire community safer, cleaner, and healthier. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with the regulations established by the City of Palo Alto and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. I urge you to approve FCCPA’s Safe Parking Permit in your August 22nd Council meeting. Please help with this humanitarian crisis. We could be the ones who need to find a safe place to sleep. Sincerely, Jo English From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: scan Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 8:39:49 AM Attachments:20220818063906692.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Allan Seid Date: Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 6:47 AM Subject: S.F. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ADDRESSES ANTI-ASIAN HATE ATTACKS. Source: S.F. Chronicle 8/18/22 MORE TALK AGAIN OR REAL EFFECTIVE ACTION THIS TIME? Allan S. MM. MT MMKM, A4 I SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE AND SFCHRONICLE.COM tr{r**it Jenkins .pledges change on. Asian attacks in S.F. By Joshua Sharpe San Francisco District At- torney Brooke Jenkins told a crowd in Chinatown on Tuesday night that the District Attorney's Office finally takes concerns about crimes against Asian Americans seriously. "I come to you as a sign of change," said Jenkins, who was appointed 4o days ago after her former boss, Chesa Boudin, was ousted in a recall. "You've been struggling with feeling unheard and unseen ... by the San Fran- cisco D.A.'s Office. "You are now seen, and you are nowheard." Jenkins' indirect criticism of a predecessor who prosecuted 27 of the 3o suspected hate -crime cases referred to his office last year occurred during a town hall organized for residents to speak to officials after recent attacks against older Asian American people. It was also among the first events to put Jenkins, who is running to keep her job in the November election, front and center with worried residents to discuss the attacks as an office- holder. Allegations that Boudin's office wasn't doing enough on hate crimes helped animate the campaign to recall him, which Jenkins helped lead after quitting the District Attorney's Office in October 2021. Jenkins was greeted with several rounds of heavy ap- plause. She paused every few moments so her words could be translated for those who didn't speak English fluently. The latest high -profile attack was the July 31 assault and rob- bery of a 70 -year -old woman who was followed into her Fran- cisco Street building and robbed. Police Chief Bill Scott said in- vestigators believed four people were responsiole, muuaulg three children, one as young as 11 years old. The attack came just days before Gregory Chew, a veteran of various city commis- sions, was attacked by a man who pulled up to him on abike on Third Street and started hit- ting him. Scott, who urged residents to come forward with incidents of racism, said the city had seen two -and -a -half years of attacks against Asian Americans, espe- cially elders. Scott noted that, so far this year, hate crime reports are down in the city. A depart- ment spokesperson said Wed- nesday that there had been 23 reported hate crirnes in the city this year. "Some people are afraid to go outside," Scott told a crowd of perhaps ISo at Victory Hall on Stockton Street. "We cannot allow that to be the case in this great city" Jenkins said she would hold people accountable for crimes against Asian American resi- dents to send a message"that this type of conduct is no longer tolerated in San Francisco." Jenkins said she had started a new unit, headed by Nancy Tung, who previously ran for district attorney, focusing on "vulnerable victims," including elders. The unit would do some hate -crime cases, she said. The crowd cheered Tung. Jenkins assured that her office would work to prosecute hate crimes where evidence supports it, though she and Scott acknowl- edged the requirements might not be met in all cases. Hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prove because of how hard it can be to demonstrate a racist or biased motive and because most bias incidents don't cleanly fit the definition of a crime. Jenkins' office didn't immedi- ately respond Wednesday when asked if she had filed hate crime charges in any cases yet. But whether or not attacks on Asian Americans meet the legal criteria for a hate crime, Jenkins insisted she would see conse- quences for the perpetrators. In total, San Francisco record - ea 141 nate-crone offenses last year, a 139% increase over 2020, according to California Depart- ment of Justice statistics. Au- thorities referred 3o cases to the District Attorney's Office then headed by Boudin, which prose- cuted 20 as hate crimes and another seven as other crimes. Photos by Stephen Lam / The Chronicle S.F. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins held a town hall in the wake of recent violent incidents toward Asian American elders on Tuesday, telling the crowd, "you are now heard." Camila Ng, 73, a retired China- town resident who attended Tuesday, told The Chronide she has been increasingly worried since the start of the pandemic. She feels like she can't go a day without hearing about a crime committed against Asian Amer- ican and Pacific Islander resi- dents. "When you turn on the TV, you see it every, every day," Ng said. To be extra careful, she does her shopping in the daylight. Police recorded 6o reported hate crimes against Asian Amer- ican residents and businesses last year, representing a 567% increase from 2020. During a public safety com- mittee hearing in April, Sheryl Evans Davis, executive director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, noted there remains a lot of ambivalence about reporting xenophobic encounters to police, since many involve behavior that may not technically break the law but still unleashes trauma on the recipi- ent. 'And so when someone is yelled at or chased down the street with people saying things Anh Le, a victim of a November 2019 attack in China- town, wipes his face after. asking a question to Jenkins and Police Chief Bill Scott to them, if they don't physically assault them, if they are not making a threat, sometimes it doesn't go anywhere," Evans told supervisors during the April 14 hearing. On Tuesday night, Scott said the Police Department wanted to hear about all cases, even if they seem to be in a gray area. The number of hate crimes reported statewide rose in 2021 to a level not seen since the after- math of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror- ist attacks on the United States. Attorney General Rob Bonta has said the nearly 1,800 crimes reported in 2021 reflected a 33% jump from 2020. Black and Asian American Californians were among the most common targets of bias -motivated acts of violence and property crimes, according to a report from Bon- ta's office. The national statistics are grim and show that most of the racist hostility reported by Asian Americans falls under the cate- gory of harassment. Stop AAPI Hate — a data collection project by the AAPI Equity Alliance, Chinese for Affirmative Action and San Francisco State University's Asian American Research Initia- tive has tallied -nearly 11,500 incidents of anti -Asian hostility nationally two years into the pandemic, with more than two- thirds of the incidents involving some form of harassment. One in six incidents involved physical violence, the report said. Adrienne Fong, who attended the town hall, said she worried officials weren't working hard enoughto attack the root causes of the crimes against Asian Americans in San Francisco. After listening to officials talk about more police presence in Chinatown and stiffer penalties in court, Fong was left wanting more talk about trying to better understand the systemic issues that are behind the crime. "It's like they're putting a broken Band-Aid on some- thing," Fong told The Chronicle. Joyce Nakamura also wanted to see the city going after root causes. She doesn't want police to be the only answer. Social services are needed and different partners to attack the problemin a holistic way, she said. "I'm afraid to go out on my own, in different incidences I have been verbally and physical- ly attacked," Nakamura said. She said she didn't want sweenine statements about how things will get better. She wants results. Chronicle editor Raheem Hosseini contributed to this report. Joshua Sharpe is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Email: joshua.sharpe@sfchronicle.com, Twitter: @joshuawsharpe From:Ellen Smith To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking at First Congregational Church Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 7:30:09 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ef44smith@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I join the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto and many others in supporting the application of the First Congregational Church to participate in the Safe Parking program. I am saddened at the fear expressed by neighbors of the church about people whose "offense" is that they cannot afford housing. While uncontrolled parking of RVs has led to some of the problems the neighbors worry about, providing supervised and limited parking both avoids these issues and gives people a chance to move beyond having to live in their vehicles. MOVE MV already operates four other congregational safe parking lots, including two in Palo Alto. None of these existing programs has received complaints from neighbors or community members nor have there been any incidents jeopardizing community safety. MOVE MV’s screening complies with the rules of Santa Clara County, which funds the program. The County prohibits the additional screening as an unnecessary barrier to assistance. Please approve the FCC application. Ellen Smith 850 Webster Street, Apt. 427 From:Jan Fenwick To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Program Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 7:17:27 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from janfenwick@mac.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ There are times (such as now) when we need to think outside our own interests, and our own “electability” to do what’s right for humanity. The SAFE PARKING PROGRAM, has a lot of safeguards built into its program and should be supported by our citizens AND the CITY COUNCIL! Thank you, Jan Fenwick, 620 Sand Hill Rd. 222d, Palo Alto, 94304. From:Mary Ruth Leen To:Council, City Subject:Do The Right Thing for Those In Need! Date:Thursday, August 18, 2022 6:57:45 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mrleen@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I live not far from First Congregational and welcome Safe Parking in my neighborhood! The First Congregational Church of Palo Alto's (FCCPA) application to the City has been approved by the Planning Director and meets all the regulations of the city ordinance. The program will be managed and operated by MOVE MV, an experienced nonprofit specializing in connecting the unhoused to find safe places to stay and ultimately to permanent housing. There is no evidence to support the appeal which claims the program will jeopardize community safety because clients are insufficiently vetted. MOVE MV operates four other church SPPs, two in Mountain View and two in Palo Alto, using the same vetting criteria (required by the funding agency, the County of Santa Clara) that will be used in the FCCPA lot. None of these current programs has received any complaints from neighbors or community members nor have there been any incidents jeopardizing community safety. Santa Clara County prohibits the vetting requested in the appeal as an unnecessary barrier to urgent assistance. Safe Parking participants must: Have a car, driver’s license, valid automobile registration, & insurance Agree to work with a case manager to secure permanent housing Check in on a regular basis with the case manager Consent to personal and car identification information being shared with the Palo Alto Police Department Be prepared for a security guard to randomly check on them throughout the night Agree to behavior standards (exit and entry times, no loud noise, violence, guns, or alcohol) -- Take care, Mary Ruth Leen From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Enberg, Nicholas Cc:Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Emily Mibach; ladoris cordell; Council, City; Planning Commission; Human Relations Commission; Lewis. james; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Raj; peninsula_raging_grannies@yahoo.com; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:Time to ban canines in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:55:21 PM 8-18-2022  Hi Andrew, ( PAPD Chief Andrew Binder) Thanks for sending this article, dated 10-12-2021, my way, see below in Chief Binder’s email to me dated 8-16-22, and thanks for letting me know that the OIR will be reviewing, and reporting, on this canine incident, in the near future. I really don’t think it should be necessary for me to pursue the video footage of this incident by way of the CPRA. Why don’t you exercise your discretion as police chief and sit down with me and officer Enberg, if he wishes to be present, and watch the video together? Per the person who was walking by my house, Mr. Alexander Joseph Furrier, the alleged victim of the canine attack back in October of 2021, has apparently secured a civil attorney regarding the canine bite portion of the incident. Can you provide me with any information in this regard? Name of the lawyer secured by Mr. Furrier? Has the city been served with a complaint or lawsuit in this matter? Did this particular incident, in your view, need to be resolved with the use of a canine? Or given that the defendant was drunk and noncompliant could several officers on the scene have been able to take the alleged victim into custody without the canine bitting Mr. Furrier multiple times ? I UNDERSTAND U HAVE HIRED A NEW CANINE HANDLER WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING THE COMMUNITY. I REALIZE YOU HAVE A LOT OF UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE YOUR OWN CALLS. LIKE THE GREAT CALL TO NO LONGER ENCRYPT POLICE RADIOS IN PALO ALTO. BUT WE( the community) SHOULD TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND BAN CANINES IN PALO ALTO. CANINES HAVE BEEN USED DISPROPORTIONATELY ON AFRICAN AMERICANS SINCE THE BIRTH OF THIS NATION AND BEFORE. CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, BUT YOU ADVISED ME THAT WITH TWO CANINE HANDLERS AND TWO CANINES THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE CANINE UNIT IS APPROXIMATELY $500,000 A YEAR. IN MY VIEW THE $500,000 PER YEAR WOULD BE MUCH BETTER SPENT ON MENTAL HEALTH WORKERS, PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS, SOCIAL WORKERS., ETC. Andrew, I hope we can discuss the canine issue before you take the drastic step of reestablishing a canine unit in Palo Alto. Please read this series( link below) on how dangerous canines are to the health and safety of our community both here in Palo Alto and across this country. We can no longer close our eyes to the truth: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/15/mauled-when-police-dogs-are- weapons Best regards, Aram James 415-370-5056 On Aug 16, 2022, at 9:56 AM, Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Aram - Your CPRA request below will be handled through the CPRA process but as you await our response, here's some info on the case you are referring to below - https://padailypost.com/2021/10/12/man-arrested-for-battery-and- hate-crimes-following-fight-downtown/ Also, consistent with our revised scope of services with the IPA, this case was sent to OIR for review and you should expect to see it on the upcoming IPA report coming out shortly - andrew -----Original Message----- From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 7:37 PM To: Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Enberg, Nicholas <Nicholas.Enberg@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: PAPD working weaponized canine free since June 2022. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hi Andrew, Please call me with any comments or concerns you have with my memo. Thanks, aram August 15, 2022 California Public Records Request for any video footage of a canine attack that is alleged to have occurred in October 2021 — the dog handler alleged to have released the canine on the alleged victim is alleged to have been officer or agent Nicholas Enberg. Per the Daily Post piece of Thursday, August 11 ( by Braden Cartwright) both PAPD canines are now retired —but there is NO PLAN to permanently shut down the use of weaponized canines used to attack community members like Joel Alejo in June 2020, that resulted in a $135,000 settlement and unknown attorney fees. Based on the information I received yesterday from a community member walking by my house —while I was outside —this person after seeing the signage on my fence including a sign reading NO CANINE UNITS —spontaneously blurred out the name Enberg — I responded I was familiar with Officer Enberg —the person went on to say: that someone they know had been attacked in October of 2021 ( well after the Alejo matter) by a weaponized canine released by Officer Nicholas Enberg. The person advised that there exists video footage of the incident —that tonight I am asking Police Chief Andrew Binder to release( assuming of course that the information I received was accurate). And assuming the PAPD is in possession of video footage of the incident. Per the person the injuries were substantial and the person attacked by the canine is seeking Justice. Per the person, the DA has not acted on the case. I left a message with the District Attorney today — no response yet—to see what the DA knows about the case if anything. I emailed officer Enberg last night regarding whether he wished to speak with me about something. He responded that we could in fact talk but so far we have not been able to set up a time to speak. The person who was walking by my house was accompanied by another walker, they were in a rush —so I did not receive the name of the attorney handling the case or the journalist the person mentioned who is apparently writing about the incident. I did give the person who spoke to me my email address inhopes that person reaches out to me with additional information in the near future. I have contacted a member of the local press in hopes they can assist in investigating this matter. I would be very disappointed if it turns out the PAPD has been in possession of video footage of this alleged incident and has NOT released the footage to the press and community. Sincerely, Aram James From:Eleanor Lewis To:Council, City Subject:I support safe parking at FCCPA Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 9:49:53 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from etlewis1@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I live near Greer Park and attend FCCPA. As a renter I have great sympathy for the unhoused and those without secure housing. I strongly support all efforts to house our hard working neighbors or at the least to give them a safe place to sleep. Please do not be deterred by the concerns expressed by neighbors and approve the permit. Thank you, Eleanor Lewis From:Aram James To:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Winter Dellenbach; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com Subject:California Public Records Request Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 8:27:01 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png image007.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. August 18, 2022 Hi Molly, I’ve yet to hear anything on the below public records request filed on August 7, 2022. Please update me on the status of my CPRA request when your time permits. Best regards, Aram James 415-370-5056  August 7, 2022 Pursuant to The California Public Records Act please provide the following documents: 1. Any and all documents reflecting the total legal cost/legal fees to the City of Palo Alto for defending the Gustavo Alverez case. Costs include the actual settlement amount and any outside legal fees and any and all additional fees to defend the Gustavo Alverez case. 2. Any and all documents reflecting the total cost to the city in defending the Julio Arevalo case. This includes the cost of the actual settlement, outside legal fees and and any all other fees related to the defense of the Julio Arevalo case. 3. Any any all documents reflecting the cost to the city of defending the Joel Alejo case. This is includes the actual settlement in the case, the cost to hire outside council and all other costs to the city of defending the Joel Alejo case. 4. Any and all documents related to the HR and IPA investigations of Captain Zack Perron since 2004 related to the alleged racist comments made by Captain Zack Perron to then officer Marcus Barbour. Sincerely, Aram James Abjpd1@gmail.com 415-370-5056 <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-- >MOLLY S. STUMP City Attorney Office of the City Attorney (650) 329 - 2171 | Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. From:Nancy Lowe To:Council, City Subject:Stop World Control Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 8:16:01 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromnancymcdonaldlowe@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/jury Virus-free.www.avast.com From:Michele Lew To:Council, City Subject:Agenda item #4 on 8/22/2022 Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:56:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, I am a native Palo Altan and current resident. I am writing in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application and encourage you to keep it on your August 22nd Consent Agenda. The Safe Parking Program is a proven success in Palo Alto at two sites, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church. Neither church has received any complaints from neighbors or community members. We have a homelessness crisis in our community, and we in Palo Alto need to be part of the solution. The proposed FCCPA Safe Parking Program is an incremental step forward, with capacity for four vehicles to park at a time. Program participants check in weekly with a case worker. Let’s implement the FCCPA Safe Parking Program, while we also build additional affordable, supportive housing so that no one in our community has to sleep on the street or in a car. Please approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your August 22nd Council meeting Thank you for your consideration, Michele Lew From:Heidi Stein To:Council, City Subject:Support for FCCPA"s Safe Parking Program application. Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:50:59 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from heidih.stein@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I support FCCPA's Safe Parking Program application. The First Congregational Church of Palo Alto's (FCCPA) application to the City has been approved by the Planning Director and meets all the regulations of the city ordinance. The program will be managed and operated by MOVE MV, an experienced nonprofit specializing in connecting the unhoused to find safe places to stay and ultimately to permanent housing. There is no evidence to support the appeal which claims the program will jeopardize community safety because clients are insufficiently vetted. MOVE MV operates four other church SPPs, two in Mountain View and two in Palo Alto, using the same vetting criteria (required by the funding agency, the County of Santa Clara) that will be used in the FCCPA lot. None of these current programs has received any complaints from neighbors or community members nor have there been any incidents jeopardizing community safety. Santa Clara County prohibits the vetting requested in the appeal as an unnecessary barrier to urgent assistance. Please vote yes. Thank you Heidi Stein 4134 Amaranta Ct From:Katherine Weller To:Council, City Subject:Support for Safe Parking at First Congregational Church Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:42:51 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kpweller2@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council Members, My name is Katherine Weller, and I live and work here in Palo Alto. I have been a resident for the past 5.5 years. My husband and I love living here, and are expecting our first child. We're thrilled to raise our baby in such an open-minded and loving community. I recognize that being a good member of our community means caring for our neighbors who are less fortunate.That is why I am writing to support the proposed Safe Parking program at First Congregational Church. As a soon-to-be parent, I feel very safe welcoming this program to my neighborhood (we live just 1 mile away from the church). Our unhoused neighbors should be able to spend the night in a safe, caring environment like the one Move Mountain View will provide. I also love that Move Mountain View will offer social workers to help these neighbors obtain stable housing. That is the ultimate goal! I hope you will support this program. I can't wait to start my family here in Palo Alto because of its values-- and I believe we should extend these values for our unhoused neighbors, too. Thanks for your consideration, Katherine Weller From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; bballpod; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; fred beyerlein; beachrides; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dallen1212@gmail.com; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: NY Times: The Coming California MegaStorm. Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 6:28:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 4:53 PM Subject: Fwd: NY Times: The Coming California MegaStorm. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 3:29 PM Subject: Fwd: NY Times: The Coming California MegaStorm. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 2:59 PM Subject: NY Times: The Coming California MegaStorm. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Wednesday, August 17, 2022 To all- This doesn't sound like fun. A flood that will come out of the sky, not down a river. It will cause the rivers to flood, of course. How close do you live or operate a business to a river likely to flood? Not sure if this will open if you do not subscribe, but you can Google the topic and find it elsewhere probably. The Coming California Megaflood - The New York Times (nytimes.com) No, the NY times won't open, but here is the story: The most destruction will be in the Central Valley. Happy thought: Keep a raft and oars in your garage? Climate change could make parts of drought-prone California a "vast inland sea" due to megafloods, study shows | CNN I just read this again. It won't matter much where your house or business is. This will be such a huge, long duration flood that it will catch everything anywhere on the floor of the Central Valley. LA area ditto. In Sacto in 1862 they had water 30 feet deep for months. KCBS said that Leland Stanford had to take the oath as Governor in a boat. And this could happen any old year. Sure to happen over next 40 years. Could happen repeatedly. All of this is in case you've run out of things to worrry about. So we will rein in climate change. What about the rest of the world? They said recently that China builds a new coal-fired power plant every week. Here is another gem. City of Antioch is building a desal plant for $103 million. Our governor was there the o. day and drank a glass of recycled water. Not the same as a desal plant product. Why are they building that? BECAUSE THE DELTA IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY SALTY WITH LESS WATER COMING DOWN THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS TO HOLD BACK THE WATER FROM SF BAY AND BECAUSE OF RISING SEA LEVEL AND THUS RISING WATER LEVEL IN S.F. BAY. . Any consequences of increased intrusion into the delta of sea water due to less flow in the two big rivers? Well, for one tiny thing 25 million Californians get their drinking water from the Delta. How? The water is shipped south by big pumps at the Delta and goes down the federal Central Valley Project's Delta Mendota Canal and the State of California's California Aqueduct. That latter one takes water to huge pumps south of Bakersfield and it is pumped up and over 4,000' of mtns to the Los Angeles Basin. So, rising sea levels PLUS now huge drought in the west which puts less water down the two big rivers in California. The result of the two is more salt water intrusion into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. They already, for years, have blasted water west into the Delta to try to hold back the encroaching sea water from San Francisco Bay. - northern part of San Francisco Bay. One solution- extreme- to address this will be to build the Golden Gate Dam JUST west of the existing Golden Gate Bridge. That will turn San Francisco Bay into a fresh water marsh. See all of that in "The Earth Under Water". Maybe $5 billion in today's money to build the Golden Gate Dam. Go to YouTube and look for "The Earth Under Water" One hour. I have sent the link out many times. You notice in there they show a map of the US. With rising seas, we will lose Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida. Look way over the the west there. They show a huge tongue of water coming from the Delta down the San Joaquin river producing and inland sea by Fresno. Paddle-wheel steamers will travel on this sea from Fresno to San Francisco. But the fact that Antioch is building a desal plant because of increasing salinity in the Delta should be the canary in the coal mine for water experts in California. See what they say about losing the Delta in "The Earth Under Water". Side note: The feds are going to restrict even more the water the SW states take from the Colorado River. That will hurt the LA basin more than it hurts the Central Valley and N. California. LA gets its water from three sources: A canal from the Colorado River, a canal from the Owens Valley (still working?) and from the aformentioned California Aquaduct. We in the Central Valley do not use Colorado R. water. But if the Delta salts up, one of the three sources of water for the LA basin will be threatened. (and some of the water for ag. in Calif. south of the Delta will be gone). Ditto if the feds cut back on water from the Colorado. If those two phenomena progress, LA basin will be in trouble. Desal? Expensive, energy hungry. And with less and less water in the San Joaquin River, consider the plan of two women faculty at Stanford 10 years ago. Currently we let trillions of gal. of water flows down the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers to the ocean in wet years. SO, build canals out into farm land and build berms 10 feet or more taller there and put the water, impound it, in there. You build lots of these. Big berm around 1,000 acres, ten feet tall. There you could store 10,000 acre-feet of water. Let it perc into the vast aquifur under the S.J. valley. Let it perc into the aquifer and raise the water table. In dry years, crops could be raised in these mini-storage reservoirs. In wet years, we'd pay the farmers for the value of lost crops. This would work. We know where the aquifer is. It even has a name. It is huge, and we could add water to it, to be pumped out in drought years. PRESENTLY farmers on the west side of the S.J. Valley operate wells as much as 1500 feet deep in dry years, and that causes ground subsidence. Lots of it. It damages canals and I-5. We have even had ground subsidence in the western reaches of the City of Fresno. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Barbara klein To:Council, City Subject:I support First Congregation Church safe parking application Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 5:48:31 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bkleinpa@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I agree with the League of Women of Palo Alto Board's recent written support of FCCPA application. Looks like: * adequate safeguards, Move MV adequate Vetting and supportive church congregation; great need for transitional ways of getting people into more permanent housing. I urge Palo Alto City Council to vote “yes.”on this safe parking application. Barbara Klein bkleinpa@gmail.com resident of Palo Alto since 1976 From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC; Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 08-03-22 UAC meeting, item VII.3 -- FTTP Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 4:42:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Commissioners and Council members, On 08-03-22, at item VII.3, the Utilities Advisory Commission discussed an item about FTTP. Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and- minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/08-03-2022/08-03-2022-agenda-and-packet.pdf Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and- minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/08-03-2022/08-03-2022-id-14582-fiber.pdf Video: https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-832022/ Below the "######" line is a TRANSCRIPT of this item, with my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with "###"). Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ####################################################################################################### TRANSCRIPT: ### Attended by Vice Chair Johnston and Commissioners Forssell, Smith, Bowie, and Metz, and Council Member Cormack. Absent were Chair Segal and Commissioner Scharff. 1:07:50: Vice Chair Johnston: We'll move on to our next agenda item, which is the Discussion of Preliminary Internet Survey Results and Financial Business Models for Palo Alto Fiber. And I think on this, we'll take the public comments next. So, I understand, Tabatha, you have at least one card. 1:08:21: Tabatha Boatwright: Yes, Vice Chair Johnston. I do have a public speaker in the Chambers. Mr. Jeff Hoel. 1:08:28: Vice Chair Johnston: OK. Mr. Hoel. Welcome. 1:08:34: Jeff Hoel: Thanks. First, I want to say I support citywide municipal fiber to the premises. Just so you don't get confused by my subsequent comments. It seemed to me like the -- at some point, staff should report what all of the survey questions were, and the flowchart for how the survey -- ### I should have finished this thought. Staff should provide a flowchart for how the survey skipped over some questions, depending on how the responder answered previous questions. I answered the question(s) about who pays the bills and do you have home internet. So I said no. And after that, the only question the survey would allow me to see or answer was, well, why not? And I -- You know, I didn't get a chance to say what I wanted if for. It just seems like I didn't get my chance to participate. The survey was supposed to educate us about some things, and I just wanted to comment on whether it's done that already. For example, it was concerned about the CPAU brand. So there are some questions in there that allow experts to figure that out. But the data wasn't presented. And so, if there could be a discussion of that, that would be cool. At one time, I think somebody was hoping that, as the result of the survey, we'd get to know where AT&T already had fiber. But I think you didn't ask participants where they lived, and so I don't think you got that information. And so, I just want to confirm that. ### At 1:23:26, John Honker says the survey DID ask for the participant's address. So, I was wrong. Also, what about TV? My own feeling is, most municipalities have figured out now, you don't have to do TV. But I just hope the survey data confirms that. It would be interesting to know how invitees there were to the residential and the business surveys -- separately. And could people take the survey multiple times? I thought, at one time, there was supposed to be a mechanism where you were invited and then the response sort of said whether you were invited or not. But the way it ended up, I think you could just go to the internet and click on a URL, and go take the survey. And, hopefully, nobody took it multiple times. Thank you. 1:11:37: Vice Chair Johnston: Thank you. 1:11:40: Tabatha Boatwright: If anyone else from the public would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. Or, if you're on the phone, press *9. 1:11:53: Vice Chair Johnston: I don't see any other hands. Do we have any others? 1:11:56: Tabatha Boatwright: No, Vice Chair. It doesn't look like we have any hands raised. 1:11:59: Vice Chair Johnston. OK. So, I'll turn it to the staff, or to John Honker, for the presentation. 1:12:13: Dave Yuan: Good evening, commissioners, and Council Member Cormack. Tonight, we present to you the preliminary internet survey results, and the financial business models for fiber to the premise, or FTTP. Next is the agenda, John, if you don't mind changing. 1:12:21: ### Slide 2: Agenda (which can be found on PDF page 4 of the staff report) So, as of April, we were about somewhere between 50 to 75 percent complete with the engineering design for FTTP, community engagement, and also the business -- ISP business models. As of today, we are about 90 percent complete, with all three of those tasks. On June 23rd, we launched a Palo Alto internet survey and deposit program. Tonight, we'll be presenting a snapshot of the survey results, as of July 13th. We shared these preliminary results with the UAC Fiber Subcommittee on July 20th. So, special thanks to Commissioners Johnston, Metz, and Smith for meeting with us in advance of this meeting. We will also take another snapshot of the results shortly, and update the competitive market analysis, for the Joint Council/UAC Study Session in September. 1:13:19: We evaluated three business models: the Insource, the 100 percent City staff; and the Outsource, which is primarily strategic vendors; and a Hybrid, which is a combination of both Insource and Outsource. Tonight, we'll focus more on both the Insource and Outsource models. The Hybrid model is a little more difficult, because there are so many variations, or compositions of City and house staff and also vendor contracts. So, that's actually a moving target. For the Hybrid model that we did model, we did a 70 percent Insource and a 30 percent Outsource, to ensure that we have representation in every core function, to provide a City ISP model. The total staffing and vendor costs for the Hybrid model was almost the same as the Insource model. And so, tonight, we see input and feedback from the UAC, and also Council Member Cormack, for the Joint UAC session. And we are planning to bring this back to the full UAC in October, as an action item, and recommendation to Council. ### Interesting. When would it come back to Council as an action item? Would that be when Council makes its "go/no-go" decision? So, now, let me hand this over to John Honker, from Magellan Broadband. 1:14:25: John Honker: Great. Thank you, Dave. And good to see everyone again. Commissioners. Vice Chair and Chair. ### Chair Segal was absent. My name is John Honker. Good to be back in front of you again this evening, with a project update for fiber to the premise. 1:14:41: ### Slide 3: Project Update Just a quick update on the actual progress of the project. Dave kind of summarized this. So, our scope in this is really to help guide the City through the entire business planning process, to get to a point, here shortly, where you'll have important decisions to make on the best strategy to move forward with -- or -- and how to move forward with Palo Alto Fiber. What the best business operational and -- um -- the best way to effectively run the business would be, inside of Palo Alto. Right? As Dave mentioned, we've looked at multiple models, and have presented the -- are going to be presenting the ones that are really the most effective for the City to consider. Ultimately, it's your decision. We will guide you through the process of looking at -- from a pretty early business perspective, which models make the most sense for the City, given its strengths, some of its constraints. And look at maybe, potentially, even blending some of those together, to ensure that Palo Alto Fiber can be as successful as possible, and serve the community with the best services around. 1:15:55: We're going through the regulatory review currently, which is going to look at state agencies like the CPUC, as well as federal agencies that have specific compliance and regulatory requirements for providing internet service. One thing that's good about internet service is that it's still considered an information service, and it's -- we call it a lightly-regulated service, when compared with things like telephone and television. ### What's "good" depends on your point of view. ### In 2015, the (Obama) FCC classified internet service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/to-kill-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-says-broadband-isnt- telecommunications/#:~:text=An%20information%20service%2C%20by%20contrast,definition%20%22includes%20electronic%20publishing%2C%20but Then, in 2017, the (Trump) FCC classified internet service as an information service under Title I of the Communications Act. ### Senators Markey and Wyden, and Representative Matsui, have introduced legislation that would reclassify internet service as telecommunications service. And that would make clear that the FCC has the right to insist on net neutrality. https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-wyden-and-rep-matsui-introduce-legislation-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-reverse- damaging-trump-era-deregulation https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/congressional-democrats-introduce-net-neutrality-bill/ FCC Chair Rosenworcel believes the FCC has the authority to reclassify internet service as a telecommunications service and reestablish net neutrality even without the proposed legislation. But until a fifth FCC commissioner is appointed, there may not be enough FCC votes to do this. https://www.nexttv.com/news/jessica-rosenworcel-fcc-has-authority-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules ### The City shouldn't mind complying with the principles of net neutrality. We have gone through with ASD and the City's -- City staff governance and operational models, to really tease out what the opportunities and constraints are around staffing and job descriptions and departments. We've put together pro-forma financials. At this point, we're sort of at a -- as Dave mentioned -- a 90 percent complete on the financials. We do have some updated pricing coming in for construction of the network, from local vendors. As you know, the market for any construction has -- is very volatile currently. So, we feel it's important for you to have the latest pricing for both materials and labor for Palo Alto Fiber. So, we've gone out for another revisit with construction contractors, to get the most accurate pricing for you, come this September joint meeting. And, finally, as Dave mentioned, the engineering design. 90 percent complete. We're rounding the corner to the 100 percent completion mark, which will put you in a position -- depending on your decision. If you decide to move forward with Palo Alto Fiber, it will put you in a position to immediately put that out to bid, on the street, for -- with a -- competitive RFPs, for construction of the network. 1:17:49: ### Slide 4: Preliminary Survey Update So, the first -- and, really, I think, one of the key aspects that we're looking at tonight -- is really the survey. Right? The survey, as Dave mentioned, has been out since June 23rd. This is a bit of an update from your packets. We took a snapshot of the survey results today. I have to say, first, the survey results have been really astounding. You know, great engagement from the Palo Alto community, from citizens and households. It's a very engaged City. Engaged population. And they want to express their -- you know, their views on Palo Alto Fiber. So, as we launched the survey, we originally had 21,925 emails -- almost 22,000 emails -- that went out to individual households across the City. ### Is this saying that 21,925 people were invited to take the residential survey? If so, how many people were invited to take the business survey? Using the Utility email database. ### Who's in this database, and who isn't? As of today, the snapshot of completed surveys today is about 3,200. ### The slide shown at the meeting said 3,241 as of 08-03-22. The slide in the staff report said 3,177 as of 07-20-22. That's a -- Congratulations to the community for responding. Because it's a huge number. Almost 15 percent response rate. And, in addition to that, about 700 $50 deposits have been received to date for Palo Alto Fiber. ### The slide shown at the meeting said 703. The slide in the staff report said 652 as of 07-20-22. To put this in perspective, the last two, you know, rows on this slide are really important. ### The Slide 4 in the staff report doesn't have these two rows: Original Goal For Statistical Validity 95% Confidence Interval, 5% Margin of Error Realized Statistical Validity 99% Confidence Interval, 2.2% Margin of Error So, as we look at the survey, the goal is to get to a strong confidence interval, with as small as possible margin of error. And, typically, for statistical validity, we're looking for, you know, a 95 percent confidence interval, with a 5 percent margin of error. That means, effectively -- In layman's terms, that means that the results of a small group of the population -- that's been randomized, right? Because, effectively, we've surveyed the entire population. It creates a large random sample -- that -- we want to be close -- very confident that those samples are representative of the rest of the community. So, our original goal on the survey was to get to about 380 surveys. That would put us in a 95th percent confidence interval with a 5 percent margin of error. Because we really saw a huge response from the community, and we have 3,241 unique surveys, right now, you're at a 99 percent confidence interval with a 2.2 percent margin of error. And that means, you know, the representativeness of the sample is even greater than we expected. And the margin of error, meaning the result's differing from what you would traditionally see in a smaller sample, are even lower than we expected. So, this sets up for very good -- a very good result. Very good, statistically relevant results, in the residential population. 1:20:48: ### Slide 5: Preliminary Survey Update -- How much do you pay each month for your internet services ... So, as we look at this -- and this snapshot is really just some high points. 1:20:56: ### Back to Slide 4 You know, as we've taken our snapshot today, we will utilize this, really, to run the whole survey analysis, and the results of this survey. On each and every question. As well as run the quantitative analysis that tells us what take rates should be expected, based on different pricing levels. Right? Because a major part of the residential survey was to go in and say, at these pricing levels, which would be your preferred provider. And, among existing providers in the community, including Palo Alto Fiber, what price levels are most attractive to you, at what speeds, and from which provider. So, that combination of brand, speed, and price will allow us to run what we call a conjoint analysis on this survey, to determine the best -- the most effective pricing model service tiers and speeds, to warrant the greatest take rate. And that is the analysis that you're going to see coming out in the coming weeks, before the joint meeting coming up in September. 1:22:11: ### Back to Slide 5 A couple of high points from the survey, from direct questions, are, really, in terms of pricing. And I'm going to talk about these in comparison to some other peer communities that we've seen, or other similar survey work that we've done in other communities. So, in terms of pricing, how much are you paying for your internet services, not including television and telephone. ### Is there any way of knowing whether the price is an everyday price or promo price? This is a pretty normal distribution for internet -- for, let's say, mid-size cities. Right? Most of our pricing comes in our $41 to $60 a month band, and the $61 to $80 a month band. So, if we look at those two together, we have about 60 percent of the population that's paying, basically, between $40 and $80 a month. We have a little bit of a premium -- about 20 percent of the population is paying about $81 to $100 a month. And we'll look at this data to determine what service that is, as well as where they're located and what provider they're using. Because, as we look at this, this may be -- this may be existing AT&T, where they have fiber-to-the-home deployed, and they're charging a premium for those service. Or it may be a Comcast 1 [gigabit] or 2 gigabit service. ### I wish we'd get into the habit of specifying both download and upload speeds. So, this helps us understand where these services are available. Because we understand -- we know, from the survey data, addresses for each individual household that responded to the survey. That will be an important next step. So, we think this is a preview of things to come, of what a pricing model will look like for Palo Alto. 1:23:44: ### Slide 6: What company provides your internet service at home? What company provides your internet service? As we look at the results here, Comcast is dominating -- around 67 percent. AT&T at 24 percent. What's interesting here is, we know that AT&T has deployed some fiber, because, when we look at the percentage difference, you know, we see Comcast owning a smaller percentage of the market than we do in other communities, where AT&T, or the existing telephone company, hasn't deployed a fiber-to-the-home product. So, the market's a little more of a duopoly here, in terms of high-speed internet, than purely a monopoly, which Comcast holds in a lot of other markets. So, you know, this higher percentage -- typically, in a normal community, we would see this -- the telephone company owning between 10 and 15 percent of the market, while Comcast, or the cable company, would own closer to 75 percent or 80 percent of the market. You do have a few smaller providers here. Nothing unusual. You know, a few providers, that make, you know, 5 to 6 percent of the total market share. 1:24:54: ### Slide 7: Do you purchase other service with your home internet services? Um. We heard a comment earlier about other services being purchased -- in cable television specifically. You know, our thoughts on this were -- We were expecting these results. When we looked at the survey -- When we look at Palo Alto as a rel- -- as a high tech community. And what I think -- This data confirms our suspicion that cord-cutting is a big part of Palo Alto. Meaning, as we look at what other services residents are purchasing with their internet service, you know, cable television is very low. Under 30 percent. Home telephone is even lower, at 25 percent. And then, 54 -- 55 percent reported that they're only providing internet. Now, this question we can't take on its own, because there's a lot of false positives in it. 1:25:50: ### Slide 8: If you use cable TV at home, ... So, the next question is really important. If you use cable TV at home, would you consider switching to an internet service like Netflix or Hulu over the next year? So, out of the 30 percent that say they still subscribe to cable TV, from the prior question, we look at the percentage here who say that they would cancel, and just use internet streaming. We've got about 17 percent. 54 percent already subscribe to streaming. A few peo- -- you know, 12 percent would keep their cable TV, and ADD streaming. And then, 2.7 [percent] would just keep their cable TV. And then, there are some people who are not sure, as well. But what's really important is, you know, when we take a minority of the population that's subscribing to cable TV, and we say, we know that there's some more people that are going to be cancelling service, it tells us that that trend in Palo Alto is MUCH further along than it is in other communities. For example, in the Southeast -- And it's very regionalized. In the Southeast, cord-cutting has a much lower rate, typically, than in the Mountain West, or in the Northwest. Right? So, as we look at Palo Alto, this makes a lot of sense. And it also -- What's important about it is, it infers to the fact that cable TV is not a highly-demanded service by Palo Alto citizens. And that for Palo Alto to potentially offer that would, more than likely, not be necessary. We'll look at the data more. But the reason that we ask these questions is, we want to understand if the City would need to offer cable TV as part of its package. Because if it didn't, and these numbers were higher, you know, would you lose customers because you didn't have that bundled package? The data's telling us that, no, there's enough of a majority that doesn't subscribe to cable TV today that it wouldn't affect -- adversely affect take rates for Palo Alto Fiber. 1:28:00: ### Slide 9: Please rate your overall satisfaction with your home internet service Um. We asked -- There's some some satisfaction and importance level questions in there. So, you know, here's our global satisfaction question. How satisfied are you with your home internet today? We look at -- The dissatisfied percentage is about 30 percent. And those are really typically going to be more of the early adopters for a new fiber-to-the-home provider which has a better brand, in terms of, let's say, customer service. In terms of speeds. In terms of symmetrical service. Right? The same speeds up and down. And reliability. So, we have 30 percent, which we would look at as -- think about that as more of your captive market, that, you know, you want to really go after and be able to attain. Then, there's the remaining percentage. Right? 12.5 percent -- almost 13 percent -- that are neutral. And then, about 58-60 percent that are somewhat satisfied or very satisfied. So, we have to think about that in marketing terms, in that, you know, this population here, in the neutral, can probably be incentivized to switch. We're going to have to work harder on the somewhat satisfied and very satisfied customers. And what we'll look at there is, as we get that survey analysis done, what factors are most important to them. Right? Is it in-home technical support? Is it speed? Is it reliability? We all know price. Everyone wants a lower price. So, that's a common denominator across all options. But what other levers can we pull, in Palo Alto Fiber, to make it a better value proposition to the customer? And to try to pick up some of the market share that's in the neutral or the customers who are apparently satisfied with their service. 1:29:47: ### Slide 10: ... please select the top 3 reasons why you would switch .... This is another control question, which is really important. Because we just ask it a different way. It helps us reinforce what IS important to Palo Alto customers. And we ask them, you know, if Palo Alto Fiber were going to provide high-speed internet to your home, what are the top three reasons you would switch from your existing provider? Right? We look at speed and price being very close, with reliability being third. But speed and price are almost always, you know, the top two. Sometimes, price is above speed. Sometimes, speed is above price. But we just need to be focusing on those as really core. So, the goal here, again, is, as we think about how to ensure strong take rates, ensure community satisfaction with the service, it's all about setting prices at the right rate, and delivering higher speeds, and, finally, a higher-reliability product. And that reliability can be in the form of just uploads and downloads. Right? Making sure there's consistent speeds across the network when you're surfing. So that you don't -- You know, you're not on a Zoom, like we're on tonight, and all of a sudden, my video goes out. Or my audio goes out. So, it could be that. It could be reliability in terms of access, or in terms of customer service. So, we have to think about all those different dimensions as we're building a value proposition for the customer. Or for the citizen. 1:31:22 Chair Johnston: John, if you've kind of gone over the survey, maybe we can take a pause here, and just see -- I know Commissioner Smith has a question. I don't know if it relates to this. But this might be -- If it's OK, could we, maybe pause for some questions sat this point? 1:31:36: John Honker: I think it's a great time. Absolutely, Vice Chair. Commissioner Smith. Happy to answer any questions. 1:31:43: Commissioner Smith: Thank you. Thank you both. And, first of all, stellar results. Thrilled. Even from the last time we met. I'm thrilled. I guess understanding the numbers is very important. But going all the way back to the number of responses that we received ... ### Slide 4 again and the statistical validity, that's GREAT. But are those 3,200 responses -- are they reflected in the rest of your slides? Or -- Have we updated those slides? 1:32:19: John Honker: They're trending the same way. So, your numbers may change a little bit, as you can see here. You know, different levels of customers -- Because it's not all -- Not every question is a required question. So, in some cases, we'll have, you know, we'll have less than 3,400 responses. Like, here in this question, you have 2,800. ### Slide 5 again. But these [percentages] get adjusted, based on the responses, for the margin of error and the confidence interval. ### I assume Honker means that the percentages are relative to how many people answered the specific question. 1:32:47: Commissioner Smith: Fantastic. Um. Just a general comment. I, too, am pleased that our statistics are showing that half of the population have already cut the cord. 1:33:03: ### Slide 8 again. They are really most concerned about broadband internet. Half the population. Within that -- You know, to your point, with a 99 percent statistical validity. Basically, half the population don't need a telephone. Or, at least, a landline. And they don't need Comcast for some kind of cable TV. We can, to your point, use streaming services. So, thank you. That's all I had. Thank you, Vice Chair. 1:33:31: Vice Chair Johnston: Thank you. I did have one question on the slide that you have up here. Oh, I'm sorry, on the slide that has the various pricing levels. Maybe slide 5. 1:33:47: John Honker. Um. Sure. Slide 5. 1:33:49: ### Slide 5 again. Vice Chair Johnston: This one. Do we know what the speeds are that people are getting with those various pricing levels? 1:34:00: John Honker: We do, actually. So, as we run the post-analysis, you'll get a -- We'll -- We calculate what we call a price per megabit. ### I think he means price per Mbps, but I'm not sure. Meaning, how much speed are you getting for a dollar. For every dollar that you spend. ### I'm not convinced that that particular statistic is all that illuminating. So, it will tell you -- and it's really important to look at this. It will tell you, as leadership, how much people are spending on internet, and how much they're getting for their money. And then, we can build that value proposition to say here's how much more they would get with Palo Alto Fiber. And we can put that in dollar terms. So, that will be, really, an important part -- I'm glad you picked up on that, because it's really important as we look at the overall business plan for the network. 1:34:41: Vice Chair Johnston: But the point being, it -- Well, that -- That's great. I mean, it's fabulous. But it sounds like you really can break these -- a lot of these numbers down, more finely, based on the service that that particular respondent is getting. 1:34:58: John Honker: That's correct. So, what you'll see coming, in the coming weeks, are the speed tiers of the people who responded to the survey, and the prices that they're paying for those speed tiers. So, for example, one gigabit [per second[. Maybe a 500 megabit [per second]. And a hundred megabit [per second]. ### Don't forget about upload speeds. And you'll see what the existing providers are charging for those. And what the customers are paying. And then, we'll line that up against what Palo Alto Fiber should look -- be charging. To have -- run sort of a competitive analysis, to make sure pricing and rate setting is appropriate for the market in Palo Alto. 1:35:40: Vice Chair Johnston: I understand Commissioner Forssell has a question. 1:35:44: Commissioner Forssell: Yeah. Thank you, Vice Chair. My question is about -- survey respondents -- those questions that are -- that are matters of their perception. 'Cause I noticed in the survey. there's like a speed test, so that you could actually, you know, measure what their internet service was. And price is not a matter of perception. But reliability, especially, is something people kind of feel like they have reliable internet or not. And I'm wondering if you have any intuition for -- or any survey data showing -- whether their perception of reliability comes from their internet service provider, or if it is their in-home wireless setup. It's like, I get the feeling a lot of people blame their internet service provider when maybe their Wi-Fi is not configured particularly well. And if you have any sort of insight on how that affects this whole process. 1:36:43: John Honker: Well, that's a great insight to begin with, Chair Forss- -- Commissioner Forssell. Reliability is somewhat subjective as we look at it. There's some tools inside the speed test that will give us performance measures of their internet service. Because most people -- most households -- don't have their computer directly wired into their internet modem. They have wireless. Right? We all have wireless. I'm on wireless right now. We always have that variable that we have to control for. Right? We always have a wireless service, which may interfere. Right? Maybe I have, you know, a metal plate in my wall. Or a riser. Or a steel column. I can't do anything about that. I'd love to blame it on the internet. Right? I'd love to blame it on my ISP. So, rather than using that as sort of a measure of, let's say, control -- or a measure of how we determine, you know, a service package, let's say, for internet, we want to look at bigger trends. How often has your internet service provider been down? Right? As we look -- There's tools on the internet that we can use to determine, within the existing providers, how often have they been down, how often have they had network issues. And that's true quantitative data. Right? And if we can prevent some of that with Palo Alto Fiber, of course, that will create a more -- a higher reliability. What we can't control is what's behind the router. Right? Which we call behind the meter on the electric side. We can't control what's happening on the wireless networks. 1:38:28: Commissioner Forssell: I basically agree with you, except maybe to point out that that would be a differentiator, if Palo Alto could provide some in- home consulting around really optimizing the setup -- "behind the meter." You know, in the home, or in the business, that actually is a potential differentiator. 1:38:47: John Honker: No, that's actually a great point. And most municipal utilities do that. Because of exactly that problem. If you can control the environment inside the home. Meaning, if I'm the service provider, and I have control over the wireless network inside the home, I know when there's an issue. And I can be proactive with a customer, and call them if there is an issue. Because it helps them fix it. And it keeps your reputation really strong with the customer. So, that usually also avoids, you know, a call to the call center. And in some cases, it avoids a truck roll. Meaning that if, you know, a customer has continued problems, eventually, the utility will have to dispatch someone. Right? And that's expensive. And that, you know, 1) the customer's really frustrated, and 2) you're having the expense of a truck roll to go fix a problem that, truthfully, is in the customer's home. So, if you have access to that equipment, which most of the broadband systems of today allow, you can control that environment, and preemptively improve reliability. 1:40:02: Commissioner Forssell: Thank you. 1:40:03: John Honker: You're welcome. 1:40:04: Vice Chair Johnston: OK. Any more questions at this point? Or should let John go on? 1:40:10: Council Member Cormack: Oh, somebody's echoing. Um. Chair Johnston, might I ask a quick question? 1:40:16: Vice Chair Johnston: Sure. 1:40:17: Council Member Cormack: Thank you so much. In the presentation so far, about location -- neighborhood-specific streets, my sense, from talking with people, is that it varies greatly, depending on where you are in the City. Have you found anything so far of interest in the data about specific areas within the City that might be more or less likely to be interested in participating in this program? 1:40:45: John Honker: Commissioner, ### Council member. we will find that out here in the coming weeks, as we start to look at the data behind the survey. As the survey -- You know, as we collect the data. We have all the addresses. So, one thing that we're doing now is building heat maps, to understand the different dynamics around, you know, what cust- -- where customers are located, what prices they're paying, what providers that they have in the City today. So, you'll be seeing that come out here in the coming weeks, as we -- as our snapshot of the survey is done. As we start to pull that out. We've already started to work with your team to get a preliminary heat map out of the survey responses. Right? Just to show, generally, where people have responded. While not giving away specific addresses It's going to be very sanitized and generalized. But, behind the scenes, we'll have data on providers, speeds, prices, and locations of each survey respondent. And that will go a long way in helping you develop the best business case for Palo Alto Fiber. 1:42:01: Council Member Cormack: Yeah. I -- My personal belief is that it's going to be about speed. Everything I've read, everybody I've talked to, you know, other play- -- when I've been at other people's houses and vice versa, there is great differentiation in the City on that. And so, I think that's an opportunity. Thanks. 1:42:21: John Honker: You welcome. 1:42:45: Vice Chair Johnston: OK. So, I think it was actually helpful to have that pause, and be able to talk about the survey. And now we can move into the financials. 1:42:38: ### Slide 11: Competitive Analysis John Honker: Great. So, we've really covered this slide here, which is the competitive analysis. And that analysis, we've talked through that. Great questions. ### Slide 12: Staffing/Vendor Resources We'll go through, now, sort of the business models, and an update on the financial analysis. So, as we look at it, let's think about the business model generally in two parts. One, we have the cost estimates for the network. Right? The capital, and the investment that's going to be necessary to build Palo Alto Fiber's network, and ensure it has the capital it needs to continue over time, in terms of renewal and replacement, and reserves. On the operating side, we want to -- you know, we're looking -- well, we've looked at the business models surrounding the network. So, what really -- And the goal is to determine the best mix of resources, and -- both internal and external, for Palo Alto Fiber. And I think, as you're looking at these slides, and you're thinking about business models for Palo Alto Fiber, there's no right and wrong way to do it. Right? It's all a matter of controlling cost and quality, among some different options. We talked about, as Dave mentioned, the insource model, which is effectively full Palo Alto employees staffed for the entire construction and operation of the network. Meaning your employees are managing the network. You're providing service. You're running the business. You're running the utility. 1:44:11: The opposite of that would really be more of an outsource model, where, you know, all the key functions of the network are outsourced to third parties, either because of internal capabilities aren't there, or there's a cost savings in outsourcing versus insourcing. And then there's some in-betweens. Right? There's some opportunities to insource -- meaning to staff some positions directly as employees -- and there's opportunities to outsource certain functions. So, as we look at that, this matrix kind of gives you an idea of how that work was carried out by the project team. Because we looked at, you know, where existing resources made the most sense to leverage and utilize with Palo Alto Fiber. Things like Finance and Accounting, General Management, Billing, Customer Service, and Legal. Areas where the City has existing capabilities and could scale those capabilities into the broadband business. We think about new hires as those areas essential to the operation of the business. In an insource model, you're hiring the entire staff. Right? All employees. In an outsourced model, you're outsourcing most of it. But even in that model, you can't really outsource the entire network to a third party and not have inside resources to manage that third party. It's also very difficult to make a business successful -- a broadband business successful -- if you don't have some core functions that are managed from within. Right? Functions that are really core to the organization. Things like Sales and Marketing, you know, Operations Management, Field Services, Customer Service, and Quality Control. Now, these don't have to be staff level positions. But in a more outsourced model, or a hybrid model, you may have inside management, who's controlling this, but then outsourced vendors who are actually fulfilling the work. And operating the network. 1:46:15: And then, finally, strategic vendors. We look at these as being sort of more commodity-oriented work. And opportunities for -- where Palo Alto may not have the skill set internally, to outsource to a, you know, either vendors in the tech support area, overnight customer service, engineering and design, construction, and construction management and inspections. We also look at opportunities where you may transition from one business model to the other. For example, if you're building the network, you'll need a Program Manager. You'll need Construction Inspectors. Right? For the right-of-way. For underground and for aerial, on CPAU's poles. You'll need Engineering Services. All of those are needed with a construction project. Once a construction project is complete, a lot of that staff will go away. So, in this case, is it better to hire a strategic vendor to manage the construction of the network, and then, once they're complete, you know, that's their scope of work. You know, they're finished, and it's turned over to the City to operate. So, there's some of those opportunities to phase and transition from one preliminary business to another over time. There's also the opportunity to learn. And to grow those capabilities in-house, but outsource them initially. Things like Tech Support, Network Operations, more of the technical functions, where Palo Alto may not have those capabilities today, but as you grow, and as you learn from the vendors who may be managing that from Day One, those functions could be insourced over time. If the business, you know, required it. So, what's really important in this matrix, in just thinking about the business model, is that it's very fluid. Right? The goal is to, again, control costs, control quality for the end customer, to make Palo Alto Fiber successful. 1:48:25: ### Slide 13: Staffing Estimates for Business Models Just some data on how we've looked at the business models. So, you know, as we've looked at the three -- Insource, Hybrid, and Outsource -- this will give you an idea of what staffing requirements would be needed in each business model. So, if we look at a purely Outsourced option, where you just have management, controlling contracts with strategic vendors, you know, you're looking at, potentially, about 5 FTEs in Palo Alto Fiber. Five full- time City employees. Versus a Hybrid model, where you're controlling some of those functions internally, but you're outsourcing other functions. And, in this case, we looked at about a 70-30 model, where Palo Alto is outsourcing about 30 percent of the functions, and insourcing about 70 percent. That can absolutely change. Right? Depending on how you want to deploy Palo Alto Fiber. But that gives us a larger requirement for staff. Right? Closer to the 17 FTEs. And then, finally, the Insource model is about 25 FTEs. So, 25 new employees for Palo Alto, for Fiber. And then, you know, we talk also about the approach of outsourcing the functions during the first few years. Like construction, construction management. But then insourcing those over time, as Palo Alto picks up the capabilities to manage those specific functions. 1:49:58: ### Slide 14: Summary of Staffing Models So, in financial terms, you'll see some preliminary numbers in the packets around the different models, and the differences in staffing costs for those models. You know, as we look at Insourced versus Outsourced, there's a pretty significant difference between those two models. Hybrid's not -- You know, the 70-30 Hybrid model didn't give us a very significant change. There's, again, many different iterations to look at, as we go through this process. But what's important is really -- You know, the core numbers on these bottom rows. Right? So, over, let's say, a ten-year period, we're estimating your Insourced staffing costs are about $55 million, versus your fully Outsourced costs, around $38 million, all in. And that's a combination of FTE costs and vendor costs that are being used. So, we look at these staffing costs, in the top three rows, as really being -- you know, the actual cost of employees and overheads for Palo Alto Fiber. Again, as we look at Insourced, growing to about $6 million, versus about $1.5 million in the outsourced model. Now, of course, since we're outsourcing quite a bit of that, in that fully Outsourced model, our vendor costs are growing significantly. Right? Because we're pushing most of those functions to the vendors, which is giving us about a $3.5 million cost with strategic vendors on an annual basis. You know. Versus the Insourced model, where you're, you know, using your employees to do that. We're looking at about about half a million a year. So, when we bring that all together -- the Palo Alto staffing costs plus the vendor costs -- you know, our totals Insourced, about $54-$55 million, versus $38 million for the Outsourced. So, it's a pretty big difference between those two. But what's also important is not only the cost. Because as we're moving some of those functions outside to strategic vendors, we are losing some control. Now, you can control quality in contracts to some degree. But we will be at -- For the savings that Palo Alto Fiber will receive by outsourcing some of these functions, you're also going to be dealing with vendors who have, you know, other business. Right? And they're going to be -- you're going to be utilizing, say, shared staff for tech support, call centers, etc. Versus having dedicated in-house staff to be managing that. Right? That's just one of the outcomes of outsourcing some of these functions. The quality that's delivered. Can we get the best vendors to participate, to give us good pricing, and to deliver the quality that Palo Alto would expect if it were providing services itself. 1:53:03: ### Slide 15: Key Takeaways So, you know, some of the key takeaways, as we look at this, is the balance of quality versus risk and control. If you want to think about the retention of key staff and vendors. One thing that's very important, as we look at 1:53:22: ### Back to Slide 14. this Insource versus Outsource option. There's no silver bullet for the Outsourced option. Meaning that there's no single vendor who really can perform all of these functions simultaneously, as a single outfit. So, you know, you're going to be working with multiple vendors, multiple supply contracts to achieve this. Which does complicate things. Right? There's some finger-pointing between vendors if there's issues on the network, that you'll have to deal with. Right? So, there's, like I said, no silver bullet. It can be done. And it's completely feasible to do. But it's not a light switch, where we just outsource all of the operations to a vendor and expect that, you know, everything will go smoothly. So, picking the right vendors is really important. ### Back to Slide 15. 1:54:08: It's also very, very important to be able to adapt. Because you have those vendors in place, and they have -- a few have, effectively, fixed costs with those vendors, we have to think about making sure that the business can adapt to changing market conditions. So, for example, if your take rate is considerably higher than you anticipate, and you have in the call center -- let's say you have 30 percent more volume in the call center than you expect -- can your vendors scale, to be able to handle that? So, due diligence on these key vendors, for tech support, network operations, construction management, etc. is really critical, as we all move forward, and looking at the best solution. 1:54:56: ### Slide 16: Financial Plan Vice Chair Johnston: So, John, might we pause again, before we go on to the financial plan? ### Back to Slide 15. 1:55:00: John Honker: Absolutely, Commissioner. Vice Chair. 1:55:03: Vice Chair Johnston: OK. I think Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Forssell both have questions. So, Commissioner Smith. 1:55:11: Commissioner Smith: Thank you, Vice Chair. I appreciate it. John, thank you so much. I appreciate that. On your numbers of the Summary of Staffing Models. ### Back to Slide 14. And you alluded to this in your comment just now. I assume these staffing models are assuming a 32 percent take rate. 1:55:27: John Honker: They are. Correct. Yeah. 1:55:29: Commissioner Smith: I think that's important to note. I think what might be worthwhile in the 10 percent that we have yet to do is to identify that -- what the count is, in terms of what that means. And, a 32 percent take rate, what that means in terms of the number of lines that we're delivering. And what that means in terms of how many FTEs are necessary to support X number of lines. Right? Just to give a basis of orientation. Because what we see here is GREAT. But it shows a very flat-lined growth over the extended years. Which is -- would be the ideal case. But if your take rate is -- If we're going in at what we consider to be conservative, at 32 percent, but we suddenly get a take rate of 65 percent on day one, these numbers are wrong. 1:56:19: John Honker: Right. 1:56:19: Commissioner Smith: And we need to be aware of that. 1:56:23: John Honker: So, that's actually a great point, Commissioner Smith. So, I think what we should do is sort of a range. Let's look at, you know, as we get survey data back, and we look at those take rates, let's do a high, medium, and low. So, we create sort of a wedge. Right? In a graph, to say, you know, our costs are going to end up somewhere in this range. Right? Inside of this wedge on the graph. Rather than trying to peg it to a specific number. Because if you grow too fast, and don't have enough customer service agents or installers or tech support, you know, the quality is going to suffer. 1:57:01: Commissioner Smith: I 100 percent agree. And I think one caveat to that -- in addition to that -- what I would want to show Council and our fellow citizens in Palo Alto is that, despite we're at a take rate that might be higher, our capital investment is planned in this model. So, our capital investment assumes full roll-out to the entirety of the City of Palo Alto. So, it's -- That doesn't get bigger simply because our take rate goes from 32 to 65 percent. There's incremental adds for individual households, but not the X million -- 1:57:38: John Honker: Not the magnitude that -- Yeah. Exactly. And that's important. Because there will be some variable capital costs with higher take rate. Just for example, if you added a new substation and 2,000 new electric customers, you need variable capital for meters. Right? So, in the broadband world, if you have 1,000 more customers than you expect, you need 1,000 more service drops and 1,000 more routers, to service those customers. So, as we develop that, let's make sure we do a high, medium, and low, so we can look at both the increases in staff, which will drive increased operational costs, balanced with the increasing capital, and revenues that are going to be coming in. Right? Because the revenues will support the higher operational costs. But, on the front end, may need some more capital, to cover that additional take rate. 1:58:34: Commissioner Smith: Brilliant. Thank you so much. 1:58:37: John Honker: You're welcome. 1:58:42: Commissioner Forssell: If I may, Vice Chair Johnston? 1:58:44: Vice Chair Johnston: Yeah. 1:58:45: Commissioner Forssell: Thank you. 1:58:46: Vice Chair Johnston: Please. 1:58:48: Commissioner Forssell: So, yeah, Mr. Honker, I appreciate the analysis so far, and fully appreciate that there are a lot of qualitative factors besides estimates of -- cost estimates, in different staffing models. But, even looking at the cost estimates in the staffing models, I'm struck that the fully- outsourced does seem to be significantly less expensive than fully-insourced or hybrid. And it's especially driven by the difference in costs -- just over the first few years, '23, '24, '25, and '26. Can you help me understand why the estimates -- in a year like 2025, for fully-outsourced -- like, why there's so -- why the vendors are so cheap? 1:59:43: John Honker: Yeah. That --- 1:59:45: Commissioner Forssell: To complete tasks that require 23 full-time employees, if it's insource, it only requires $0.87 million vendor cost in the fully- outsourced model. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. 1:59:58: John Honker: Sure. That's a great question. So, as you're looking at those numbers, and we look at the first few years, the -- You know, in a fully- insource model, Palo Alto has to ramp up its staff completely, to be able to service that customer load. Meaning you have to hire well ahead of your customers. Which means, you know, by -- let's say look at year 2 -- you're effectively at 19 FTEs, but you're only connecting, you know, the first year's customers. Right? And the next year -- So, staffing requirements are front-loaded ahead of your customers. In an outsourced model, you're paying more by the drink. You're paying as you go, for those customers that are connected. So, you're not managing all that front-end cost. The down side of that, of course, is, you're more -- you're in a shared pool of resources, where you may have a vendor who's managing, let's say, four or five different broadband networks, and you're getting a slice of their staff, versus dedicated full-time staff. So that's why you see, in the first couple of years, those numbers are considerably lower. You know, by a couple of million dollars. And then they catch up in the later years, as the demand of those customers ramps up. 2:01:27: Commissioner Forssell: Got it. So, the reason vendor costs are quite low in the early years, in the fully-outsourced model, is just they don't have much to do, so you don't have to pay for it. 2:01:36: John Honker: Right. You're paying -- You're effectively -- Most of the vendors will bill you by the customer. So, if you only have a few customers in the first year, there still may be a minimum commitment. But it's going to be considerably less than staffing 19 FTEs, that unfortunately, in that first year, may not be doing a whole lot. Right? Because you have fewer customers than you -- you have more staff than you need for those customers. But it's very difficult to hire right on time. Meaning, if you need another FTE to service the next 1,000 customers, it's very difficult to hire that right in the nick of time. You almost always will have to staff that before. Especially in the job market that we've seen, it's difficult to do that. The vendor environment gives you some flexibility, because that pool of staff is already ready to serve those customers. 2:02:35: Commissioner Forssell: Got it. Thank you. 2:02:36: John Honker: You're welcome. 2:02:37: Vice Chair Johnston: So, if there are no other questions, I do have -- I have a couple. John, you note, at the bottom of slide 13, 2:02:52: ### Back to Slide 13. that one approach is to outsource functions during the first several years, and then bring them in-house. And I just have a sense that -- Well, I share the point that -- I share your key takeaway, where you say that the speed to market and scalability is vital to success. And I'm not sure I can explain exactly why, but, to me, those two things go together. And to -- in terms of speed and -- speed to market and being able to really do a good job for the initial customers, my instinct is that we want to do kind of more outsourcing on the front end, get that expertise. And we could build that expertise in- house over time. But you want to have the expertise available on day one, so you don't have disappointed customers. 'Cause you really want to build the brand reputation from the very start. So, it's a long way of asking the question, whether there would be a way to model the idea of kind of ramping - - starting with more outsourcing, and then ramping down the outsourcing over time? 2:04:12: John Honker: Yeah. Absolutely, Vice Chari. We can do that. And we suggest it, because we -- You know, our recommendation is to actually move in that direction right now. That's the way we see most municipal utilities doing it. So, we think that should be one of the options that we model out for you as we get a little closer here. You know. And, to add some color to that, you know, when you're building a broadband utility, you're really building two companies at the same time. One is focused purely on the construction project. Right? You're building a -- potentially a $100 million network. And all efforts have to be focused on making sure that that network is built on time, on budget, that the community is protected, and services ready when you say it's going to be ready. 2:05:06: The second business is the operations business. Right? Making sure that all the processes are in place, and all the people are in place, to turn on ** [Zoom gap] without a blip, and without having any quality issues. Or, minimal quality issues. Or, being able to deal with those quality issues effectively when they come up. So, what does really become challenging in the field is when a utility is trying to manage both of those simultaneously. Right? And that definitely is where see the opportunity to outsource, on the front-end, the construction management, inspections, engineering, while Palo Alto Fiber is building its -- getting its legs under it. And on the operations business, that takes a huge headache away from the utility. 2:05:57: Vice Chair Johnston: So, if you could model that, and we could look at that, kind of with these other financial models, I think that would be very helpful. Because my instinct is that that is the way we're going to want to go. 2:06:09: John Honker: OK. Yes, sir. We'll do that for you. 2:06:12: Vice Chair Johnston: All right. Thank you. So, any further questions at this point? Or should we get into the numbers? OK. Thank you. 2:06:25: ### Slide 16: Financial Plan John Honker: Great. So, looking at the most recent estimates, we'll start first with the capital costs for the network. Compared to what we had seen sort of in 2021. If you remember, last year, as we were going through the first leg of the design process, we did come up with estimates, utilizing, again, local contractors, for pricing on the construction of the network. And as we did that, we saw that we had a cost for each piece of the network. The fiber backbone, which we had talked about as the network that's going to serve the City needs: the utility, other departments, everything that the City will need operationally for itself, internally, to continue to grow and have its OWN connectivity. About $22 million. The fiber-to-the-home network estimates are about $86 million. We saw that about -- as we looked at the engineering design, if those two networks are built together, there's about a $4.5 million savings. We also identified the fact that you'll need about $12.5 million of start-up funding. Right? Start-up capital. That gives us about $116 million of total costs. The late -- The most recent cost estimates went up a bit, from $116 million to about $128 million. And that's, frankly, the result of materials shortages in the market, and some labor dislocations. We've seen more inflation in materials than we have in labor. Anything that has plastic in it -- such as conduit, fiber jackets, boxes, vaults, splice cases -- any of the technical material that, you know, is used to build a fiber network, we have seen inflation in that. And some supply chain issues. So, as late as last -- the end of last year, we were looking at about $128 million total for the project -- up from $116 [million]. So, it's -- You know, the inflation -- We had some pretty significant contingencies in our original '21 estimates. We increased those a bit, based on that new pricing, and added some additional contingency, given the environment that we're in. Right? There are still a lot of unknowns out there, as far as fiber materials and supply. What we've seen recently, over probably the last 60 days, is a little bit of loosening in the supply chain market, and a bit more loosening in material availability. Which is good. We're going to continue to track that, because we think that, as that market opens up, some of these prices will come down a bit. 2:09:30: So, overall total project, which includes the fiber backbone and fiber-to-the-home, assuming they're built together, to -- you know, with the potential $8.5 million of savings, is about $128 million in total cost. As we look at the funding, if you all remember, the -- as we worked with City staff, the concept was to leverage the existing Fiber Fund, which had a balance of about $32.5 million in it, along with about a $10 million contribution from electric toward the fiber backbone. Because the electric -- CPAU will be one of the beneficiaries of the backbone. The fiber backbone. So that contribution from electric will be used to support a portion of that financing. That gives us a balance of $42.5 million in total financing -- or, total funding that's available today. So, if we take that $42 [million] off of the $128 [million], we need about eighty -- a little less than $86 million in new funding required. For the backbone and the fiber-to-the-home together. Now, over the next couple weeks, as we get additional pricing estimates back from contractors, we'll see if this number changes. We have two local contractors that we're still waiting for pricing back from. So, if we see them come back, it may change these averages. But we feel that these are safe numbers right now. We don't expect them to be -- ah -- to increase from where we're at today. 2:11:22: As we get into the financials, I realize that it's -- there probably will be more questions. So, yeah, please interrupt me at any time. I think Commissioner Smith has a question. 2:11:30: Commissioner Smith: Thanks, John. I appreciate that. And I do indeed. And my questions might be for staff. If I look at the existing Fiber Fund of $32.5 [million], it's my understanding that that was the Fiber Fund balance as of January. What do we anticipate, or forecast, for the Fiber Fund to be in December of this year? Can I assume it's going to be $36.5 [million]? An additional $4 million? Or is that too high? 2:12:02: Dave Yuan: That's a little bit high. I think for FY'22, I think the net income is about $1.2 million. Whereas, previously, it was more like $2.5 million. So, there has been a drop in revenues. So, I will be conservative, and say maybe $1.5 million a year. ### Is $1.5 million per year the "new normal" for the dark fiber network? It used to be more like $4 million per year. What changed? 2:12:18: Commissioner Smith: OK. So, roughly $34 million. In December. 2:12:22: Dave Yuan: Correct. 2:12:23: Commissioner Smith: OK. And the contribution from the electric to fiber backbone, Dave, is that a -- How do I say this -- is that a loan from the electric fund? Or is that a contribution to the fund, because we're using the fiber backbone to support electric? 2:12:40: Dave Yuan: It's a contribution. That part of the backbone will be owned by the electric, and we wouldn't lease the fiber to them. So, they would own that fiber to the substations. 2:12:49: Commissioner Smith: OK. That -- Those are my questions. Thank you. 2:12:57: Vice Chair Johnston: OK, John. Why don't you keep going here. 2:13:00: ### Slide 17: Sample Pricing Bands John Honker: OK. So, as we look at this, again -- This is a -- This slide gives us kind of an understanding of the pricing bands. And it may look a little funny, coming after our capital slide, but this kind of sets up our revenue modeling for the network. So, some of the survey data gave us some good preliminary information on where pricing bands should land, for different speed services. And I think, Vice Chair, this is what you were asking for before. You know, as we looked at that survey data, we're thinking that, right now, you know, these would be the typical packages for Palo Alto Fiber service. So, we're starting -- We've got residential and commercial, broken out here separately. And we'd be looking at 4, maybe 5, pricing bands. Now, at the top level, you'll see this 10-gigabit [per second] and 2-gigabit [per second] service. These are really the top-tier services that are available today. Very few utilities -- Well, I should say, some utilities are offering them, but they are sort of the next cutting edge. So, we think it's important for your to have these, because they'll be available in the network that's being built. Meaning, they'll be -- Base on the network that's being built, you'll be able to offer faster than 1-gigabit [per second] speeds. You can offer 2 [gigabit per second] or even 10 [gigabit per second], which is 2 times faster than today's gold standard speed, all the way up to a 10 gigabit [per second]. And, at this point, usability of that, by customers -- Right? There's not a lot of applications that may warrant a 2-gig or a 10-gig speed. But, you know, the competition is offering 2 [Gbps] today, and potentially could offer 10 [Gbps] in the future. So, it's important to get ahead of that, and say that the network is ready for the next generation broadband. And we can support these services natively, if customers want them. We may only have a handful of customers that are going to want them. But it's important to be at that leading edge, so that Palo Alto Fiber is ready to serve those customers when -- And is also marketing itself as, you know, a provider of the future. In the City. ### Chattanooga, TN, has been offering 10 Gbps symmetrical service since 2015. https://muninetworks.org/content/chattanooga-crushes-it-marketing-technology-and-nearby-communities-community-broadband-bits So has Salisbury, NC. As of last September, more than 30 municipal FTTP networks had 10 Gbps symmetrical service. https://muninetworks.org/communitymap 1:15:17: So, we would be looking at the top tier, you know, 2-gigs, somewhere in the $95-$150 [per month] range. Again, that's a relatively arbitrary pricing right now, because there's so few of these services out. The core services are really your internet -- we'll call it Gold. But we'll brand it. You know, come up with good branding for it, specific to Palo Alto. So, a Gold service, which would be 1-gig -- between $80 and $95 a month. ### Don't forget to talk about upload speeds. A 600-megabit package, between $60 and $80 [a month]. And then a basic package between $40 and $60 [a month], at 200-meg. And that's an important speed tier. Because, as you look at the FCC's -- the national definition of broadband, we are moving to 100 megagits [per second], as our standard, from what used to be 25 [Mbps]. ### Don't forget to talk about upload speeds. FCC's current definition of broadband is 25 Mbps down but only 3 Mbps up. FCC Chair Rosenworcel proposes that FCC raise that to 100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/fcc-chair-proposes-new-us-broadband-standard-of-100mbps-down-20mbps-up/ But she might not get enough FCC commissioners to vote to do that. She also wants to define a national goal of 1000 Mbps down and 500 Mbps up. ### There's no reason Palo Alto Fiber ought to be limited by FCC's definition of broadband, whatever it is. So, the question is, does Palo Alto want to offer just the bare minimum? Right? The FCC definition of broadband? Or do we want to offer 200 [Mbps] as the first tier? Showing that you're giving, you know, a lot more to the community than what the bare-bones definition of broadband is. It's also important to realize, as you go up in speed, the marginal cost of providing a 200 megabit [per second] versus a 100 megabit [per second] is close to zero. So, it doesn't cost you any more to offer a 200 megabit [per second] than it does a 100 megabit [per second]. We will also -- We do want to be careful not to cannibalize services. Meaning we don't offer too much speed for too little price. Right? The pricing -- The price line in the market has to be set correctly, so that you're delivering the value proposition, and you're also getting a fair value for that. 2:17:05: So, these will be refined over the coming weeks, as that survey data is finalized. And then, on the commercial side, you've got similar packages. A Premier dedicated, between $500 and $1,000 [per month]. A 500 megabit [per second] package, between $300 and $500 [per month]. A 250 meg between $200 and $250 [per month]. And then a 100 [Mbps] between $100 and $150 [per month]. You'll see that on these, the speeds are different than on the residential. Because business broadband works a little bit differently. Business broadband pricing and speed tiers -- typically you're getting, you know, higher prices. It's always been the way the business market has worked. The business market understands that it's a higher-priced service, typically. Business broadband is more essential to a business' survival than residential, as well. The value proposition is different. So, these are typical speed tiers. We see this in most markets. And, again, these will be refined as we work with you on that final survey data. 2:18:14: ### Slide 18: Financial Plan -- Insource So, this preliminary data will feed into the pro-formas, to help us understand what our revenues will look like. Top-line revenues. And take rates. So, for example, very, very -- um -- very, very high-level pro-forma. For the insource model, again, we're looking at this at a 32 percent take rate over the first 5 years. So, you're achieving -- Well, it's actually 33 percent, but it's a rounding error. But over the first 5-6 years, you're looking at achieving that 32-33 percent take rate. Which yields you about 10,000 residential subscribers. About $14 million in gross revenues. Minus your cost of providing services of $5 million. Give you a gross profit margin of about 67 percent. And we're just looking at this 2028 column, 'cause it's a good annualized run rate. That 67 percent margin -- gross margin -- is right in the sort of the sweet spot where most ISPs operate right now. Typically, gross margins for ISPs are in the 65-75 percent range. So, if you're in that range, you know, the gross margin as a barometer for successful operations is usually pretty strong. 2:19:42: Before I move on, I think Commissioner Bowie has a question. 2:19:48: Commissioner Bowie: Yes. So, in these service packages, it just -- It's my understanding that many broadband residential and business providers have data caps, that are often far too high to hit. But is that something that has been considered here? You know, is there a data cap that has been packaged into some of these future projections of the 12-gigabit [per second] ### Did he mean 2 Gbps? and 10-gigabit [per second] settings? You know, we might be looking at applications that can hit those. And is that something that would be a differentiator? Will Palo Alto Fiber NOT have a data cap? 2:20:26: John Honker: Great question, Commissioner Bowie. And, absolutely. "No data caps" is a marketing tool. But it's also a value to the customer. Because those applications will come. We've already seen applications push over 1-gig now. And there will be more of those. So, you know, Palo Alto Fiber should always market itself as "no data caps." Most municipal utilities do, and have done that for years. Because the marginal cost of providing more service, and the marginal cost of you having to buy more bandwidth -- So, if customers are using more -- Just like with electric. If they're using more service, you have to buy more supply. In the broadband world, it's exactly the same. If they're using the internet more, that means you have to buy wholesale from your suppliers -- You have to buy more wholesale from your suppliers. But for every megabit that you buy -- just like every kilowatt -- well, in some cases -- your price goes down. In the broadband world. In the supply -- In the electric world, it may go up. You may have to buy at peak. ### I think the comparison with electric is not helpful. In the broadband, it's the complete opposite. Your price, for every additional meg, goes down. So, when we talk about the opportunity to not use data caps, it's not just a marketing message. It's not just, you know -- It's not something that's going to cost you. It's actually a benefit of the broadband business model that, as you're growing, as you're adding more wholesale supply, your costs are going down. So, we definitely think you should be marketing "no data caps" as part of the service. 2:22:04: Commissioner Bowie: And so, with that, as these applications are coming online, and ** [Zoom glitch] to those, that may impact the rate calculations. Because, presumably, it would be becoming more competitive ... 2:22:20: John Honker: Correct. That's right. 2:22:20: Commissioner Bowie: ... as time goes on. And data caps become real -- 2:22:23: John Honker: That's right. And it's hard to quantify that right now. So, we don't -- We wouldn't say, well, you know, marketing your data service with no data caps will increase your take rate by 10 percent. That may be a little challenging, but we know it helps. Right? And it's just building that, for the combined value proposition to say, if we do these things, we know that customers like them. We know that customers don't like data caps. Right? So, if we can just market, "Hey, no data caps," this is a net-neutral network. And we are -- It's open to everyone at the same speeds, that goes a long way with citizens. 2:23:03: Commissioner Bowie: OK. I think that's it for now. Thank you. 2:23:07: John Honker. Yeah. You're welcome. 2:23:10: ### Slide 19: Financial Plan -- Outsource Um, so, as we look at the outsourced model, you know, the numbers are relatively similar in the outsource model. We see, you know, relatively similar margins across outsourcing versus insourcing. What's going to be really important, as we look at the final numbers in all of these preliminary pro- formas is, you know, what's the best mix of -- What's the best business model mix that's going to drive the highest take rate? Because, at the end of the day, more customers, and higher take rates, will offset higher operational costs. So, I think as you think about this, and you start to look at the data, over the coming weeks, as we get final pro-formas put together, it's really important to assess, you know, which business model is going to drive the highest take rate. Because take rates will offset a lot of the cost challenges. Right? Meaning, higher take rates will give us a better opportunity for much higher revenues. And then we can have more flexibility in how we manage our operating costs over time. So, we'll start to work with you on that, here in the coming weeks, as we finalize these. And then, also, what's really important is look at our sensitivity analysis ... 2:24:33: ### Slide 20: Financial Plan -- Comparison 2:24:36: ### Slide 21: Sensitivity Analysis -- Take Rates ... in the key variables. So, as we start to look at business decisions around Palo Alto Fiber, what are the decisions, and what are the outcomes of different scenarios? Meaning, what if competition drops prices 20 percent? How do we respond to that? And what sensitivities does that have on the business models. For example, this is just a very simple graph. We have a whole run of these that use a Monte Carlo analysis, to identify the most sensitive variables, that we have to track. But this sensitivity analysis just looks at the balance of funds at different take rates, over the first 10 years of the network. So, for example, what's really important here is to look at how the cash balances change. And in each year, the numbers here represent the cash balance at the end of the year for Palo Alto Fiber. And the slope of this curve is really typical for most broadband networks. Meaning that we have beginning cash that 's coming in. $17.5 million from the Fiber Fund. $15 million contribution from the Fiber Fund. And the Electric Fund. ### I don't see the contribution from the Electric Fund. (Commissioner Smith also mentions this at 2:43:21.) I also don't see any debt financing. Which will give us a strong balance of cash in a build-up. But in the first couple of years, as you're operating, you're going to be using those reserves. Right? You're going to be using that cash to operate. And, you know, you'll be in a declining balance. Because your expenses are going typically higher than your revenues. 2:26:17: Dave Yuan: John? I'm sorry. There's a couple questions. I think it was Commissioner Forssell, and then Vice Chair Johnston, and then Commissioner Metz. 2:26:24: Vice Chair Johnston: Yeah, I wanted to make sure that Commissioner Forsell and Commissioner Metz got a chance. I'm sorry to interrupt you, John. 2:26:30: John Honker: Yeah. No, no, I apologize. I'm not able to see the hands on my Zoom. So, just interrupt me at any time. 2:26:36: Vice Chair Johnston: Neither am I. So, -- 2:26:38: John Honker: [laughs] 2:26:42: Vice Chair Johnston: Commissioner Forssell. 2:26:44: Commissioner Forssell: Commissioner Metz will go first. 2:26:46: Vice Chair Johnston: OK. 2:26:47: Commissioner Metz: The tricky bit is that here we have to use actual hands. We're not electronic. 2:26:53: John Honker: Yeah. Right. I can see those. 2:26:56: Commissioner Metz: They don't show up so well. Um. Well, first of all, thank you very much for the presentation. Also for the discussion on July 20th. The subcommittee discussion. 2:27:09: I guess the main question I have is, you know, depending on -- a little bit on the scenario, at the end of the day, this has a negative net income for about 10 years. So -- And also, the cash balance pretty much declines under most scenarios. So, the question is, you know, how do we pay -- I mean, this is a real loss. How do we pay for this loss? Or, ideally, eliminate it? 2:27:36: I had one other question that I think is important to the finances. This is something that Director Batchelor raised in the subcommittee meeting. Namely, that borrowing this amount of money for this business impacts the Utility's borrowing in other businesses. The electric business, for example. So, you know, obviously, the interest rate. So, -- But I think my main question -- I'd appreciate it if you could address that either now or in future presentations. But especially, you know, what are your thoughts on how we pay for -- or eliminate -- losses that are shown here? 2:28:16: John Honker: So, that portion of the question, Commissioner Metz, is really what the business plan should define. Right? So, as we look at -- In ANY broadband business, we're going to have -- we're going to have working capital needs in the front end of the operation. Meaning, we've got to -- Palo Alto Fiber's is going to have to hire, is going to have to have operational expenses in the first couple of years. And those operational expenses are going to be higher than revenues. Right? As you start to bring on your first customers. At a point that -- revenues have to exceed expenses. Right? Otherwise, you don't have a sustainable utility. So, the question becomes, how do we accelerate that? How do we get revenues above expenses as quickly as possible? And, again, it comes -- why I like to show this slide -- It's all about take rate. What can we do to drive higher take rates in the early years of the project? Because it creates much higher sustainability for the long term, versus, you know, having these declining cash flows over a much longer term. So, we've been talking about, you know, 32 percent as sort of the conservative business case. We look at most utilities. The average take rate is around 40-45 percent. ### Is this for municipal utilities, or all utilities? So, you know, if we're aiming low, in terms of our estimates, and being very conservative, we are also, then -- we expect higher take rates, but let's put in the strategies to build Palo Alto Fiber as quickly as you can, and connect customers as quickly as you can. And that gets into -- that gets back to overall management strategy, potentially, of outsourcing the front end of this to a firm that allows Palo Alto Fiber to focus more on the operational side, but then even bring in those strategic vendors for the first couple of years, to really accelerate growth. Because it's all about -- Like I said before, take rate will dominate, and will really help control the finances. Right? More customers will always give us an opportunity to drive more revenue. And if we can do that in the early years, it's going to carry through the rest of the system in the later years. So, we really would want to focus on '23, '24, '25, and '26. Those are the crucial years, where we need to get as high as we can in take rates. Of course, being cognizant -- it's a business that has to be managed from an expense perspective. But everything has to be focused on achieving those targeted take rates in the first few years of the business. Which means making sure that your sales and marketing team is doing what they need to do, to drive enough customer connections per day to meet their quotas. Once they do that, it's great to be able to, you know, sign those customers up, but then those customers actually have to be connected. Right? So, sales order is generated, processed, provided to operational staff, that then has to go build a service drop. Right? Connect a customer. Turn that service up, and make sure it's functioning to the customer. In the shortest amount of time possible. So, this is the part where it gets very -- It's very important to have a very well-oiled machine, that Palo Alto is building, to be able to not only sign up customers but be able to turn them on in a very high velocity over a short amount of time. So, I can get into more of the details of how that has to happen. But, effectively, that machine -- sales and marketing, construction, operations, you know, customer service -- that has to all be synergized in a way that is moving as quickly as possible, efficient, and has no impact to the end customer. 2:32:19: Commissioner Metz: OK. Yeah, I would definitely like to see the plan. And, you know, even looking at the chart that you're showing now, you know, to -- even over a period of 10 years, to get the capital balance back to where it started takes -- requires a take rate of about 35 percent. And -- Or, higher. And I think the remark that you just made -- I think it's important, you know, in terms of going from order to customer paying -- you know, paying a monthly fee for the service, again raises the technical question, whether we should be considering wireless, you know, drops, instead of fiber drops, to accelerate that process -- accelerate, you know, our receiving revenue. ### I don't think that makes any sense. Wireless drops are less reliable than fiber drops, increasing operating expenses. I'm also not convinced that wireless drops are less expensive. So, anyway, I'd appreciate that be address in future presentations. 2:33:17: John Honker: Absolutely. 2:33:20: Vice Chair Johnston: Commissioner Forssell, do you have a question as well? 2:33:25: Commissioner Forssell: A quick one, hopefully. It wasn't deep or insightful. It was -- If I'm looking at like the financial plan -- the spread sheet -- on packet page 71, ### Back to Slide 18: Financial Plan -- Insource (eventually) can you help me understand why, when the take rate is zero, there are revenues of $1.7 million? Just in 2023? 2:33:45: John Honker: I'm sorry. Which slide number was that, Chair Forssell? 2:33:50: Commissioner Forssell: Go back. Hit the "back" button twice. Yup. 2023. Revenues of $1.7 million. With a take rate of zero. 2:34:00: John Honker: Sure. So -- 2:34:00: Commissioner Forssell: What are the other revenues, besides revenues from customers? 2:34:02: John Honker: Yup. So, those are revenues -- include the existing revenues coming in from the fiber business. ### That is, the DARK fiber business. 2:34:08: Commissioner Forssell: Oh. I see. Got it. So, that's all rolled in here as well. 2:34:12: John Honker: Exactly. So, think of this as an expansion of the existing fiber business. Albeit different. But those -- that revenue stream that was coming in from -- the net revenue stream that was -- 2:34:24: Commissioner Forssell: That makes complete sense. 2:34:25: John Honker: OK. Great. Is included. 2:34:27: Commissioner Forssell: Yeah. And then -- I just forgot about that. And then, also, it's a super-small difference. But why are the revenues different on the insource versus the outsource financial plan? 2:34:38: ### Ping-ponging between Slide 18: Financial Plan -- Insource and Slide 19: Financial Plan -- Outsource John Honker: The revenues are different -- yeah, by about -- 2:34:41: Commissioner Forssell: Year 2024, 2025, and so on. 2:34:45: John Honker: Yeah. By about $0.02 [million]. ### Outsource is greater than insource, by $0.02 million in 2024, $0.08 million in 2025, $0.22 million in 2026, $0.34 million in 2027, $0.40 million in 2028, $0.42 million in 2029, $0.44 million in 2030, $0.45 million in 2031, and $0.46 in 2032. It may just have been a rounding issue in the model. But they should effectively be the same. 2:34:55: Commissioner Forssell: Got it. That was it for me. Thank you. 2:35:00: ### Back to Slide 21 Dave Yuan: Council Member Cormack has a question. 2:35:04: Vice Chair Johnston: OK. 2:35:05: Council Member Cormack: OK. Thanks, Chair Johnston. Um. I want to up-level this for just a moment, 'cause I think that the point of this was to prepare for the study session with the Council. Is that what I heard? 2:35:20: Dave Yuan: Yes. That, and also to give them -- the UAC -- a preview of what we're presenting. ### Ideally, UAC could advise Council on the FTTP issue. 2:35:24: Council Member Cormack: OK. Um. So, in our other utilities, which are more regulated than, you know, Mr. Honker describing this would be, we have cost-of-service issues. And we cannot cross-subsidize between the different classes. And we can't charge certain things. So, when this comes forward, we need to highlight that, and explain it. Because it's not going to be intuitive -- to, I would say, at least five of the Council members. One is familiar with it, and I'm getting up to speed, 'cause I'm sitting here. So, I just want -- When we're sort of blithely going through -- like, oh, we charge this different thing, and blah blah blah, we just need to be really clear on that. Because this will be -- feel very different to the Council and to the community. ### I'm not sure about what Council Member Cormack is thinking here, but is it about pricing the various speed tiers? Is she saying that Council should consider not cross-subsidizing among the speed tiers, even if not required to do so by regulation.? Would this mean that the per-connection revenues minus expenses for the various tiers should all be equal? ### Note that take rate, per se, is not a precise measure of revenues minus expenses whenever some tiers are more "profitable" than others. 2:36:17: And I'm appreciating the emphasis on take rate. And this -- I feel like we're spending an awful lot of time on the insourcing and outsourcing, and not very -- But I guess one thing I'm thinking is that if price is at the top, just slightly above speed, at least in your survey, I would contest your belief that this is a random sample. I think the people who answered this survey are more likely to be interested. ### That's a possibility, although more than half of respondents said they were "somewhat satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their current ISP. So, I'm not convinced at all that the people who answered are representative of the entire group. So, I'm just going to say that. 2:36:59: If, in this survey, speed is -- sorry, price is at the top, is one way we could "adjust" these results in the financial models is vary the pricing based on the expenses? Or, is it that you believe the pricing should be flat, and we just get whatever financial result we get? Which of those two, do you think, is most appropriate in this environment? Because this is not my area. I don't run these kind of businesses. 2:37:31: John Honker: So, we always look at it sort of from the bottom up. Right? We have to build the financial model -- And you want to think about the financial model for broadband as both. Right? It has to be a bottom-up model, where you're building up from your expenses to determine your minimum pricing. But you also, then, have to set your market pricing, based on what the customer is willing to pay, and what the competition charges. Right? And adjust that as appropriate. So, we think about the cost -- the bottom-up cost model -- meaning that we have to build that first. Because you can't sell below your cost. Right? You have to be able to 1) -- as a utility, you have to be able to sell for more than your cost. And you have to be able to eventually earn a profit. Or, earn a break-even in the business, to make it sustainable. I mean, we don't want Palo Alto Fiber to have to continuously have capital infusions, because -- 2:38:30: Council Member Cormack: From who knows where. 2:38:32: John Honker: Right. 2:38:32: Council Member Cormack: No, I get that. And -- Yeah, maybe I wasn't clear with my question. If we have two different expense models, as you've shown -- well, three, but let's say two, the insource and the outsource, for the time being -- should we be making our decision more based on the expenses driving the price, or -- I guess I'm not following the interactions. 2:39:03: John Honker: No, no. I think that makes sense. So, if we look at the two models, your question is, should we be price -- should we be rate-setting based on -- 2:39:17: Council Member Cormack: Our expenses. Yes. Yes. Yes. 2:39:19: John Honker: And we could look -- We can look at it that way. The question will be -- I think that will remain -- is, what does that mean from a market perspective? Right? Meaning, in those two models, let's say we utilize "cost plus," -- "cost plus" percentage -- 2:39:38: Council Member Cormack: Yeah. 2:39:38: John Honker: How do we test that from a market perspective then? Does that make sense? So, we can do that, I think. That's an easy exercise to do. I think you're still going to want to set your pricing based on market, to be -- to ensure you're competitive. Right? To ensure you're as competitive as you can be. However, it's a good exercise to say, well, here's our expenses. Almost like you do your utility rate studies. Here's our expense load. And then, here's our margin on top of that. For each one of the business models. 2:40:17: Council Member Cormack: OK. The other thing that will be important to cover, whenever it is that we have more information on it is the funding for the $85 million. Which I asked about last time. And now, of course, it's more. [laughs] So, you know, in real detail. Because we do this all the time in Council. Um. You know. Who exactly is issuing it? You know. What's the rate? How long? What -- Is it being bonded against something? Like what's the -- It will be extremely important to me. ### Great point. In 2004, the City's FTTP plans fell apart over this issue. 2:40:46: And while I have the floor, I'm just going to take a moment to say that we've gotten a lot of emails about this survey. And not all of them have been very complimentary. I've gotten some emails from people who were very supportive of this project over the past couple years and are less so now. So, personally, I'm going to be taking a much harder look, you know, at these numbers. And -- um -- you know, when we're making this decision. So, I wanted to share that -- that we're going to need to up-level this a little bit for the discussion with the Council. And I appreciate the -- all the time that the commissioners, you know, have spent on these details. But we will not have anywhere this amount of time. And much of this is going to need to be in the staff report, you know, at -- ahead of time. And then, the slides are going to not be the meat. ### I think UAC deserves "real" staff reports too. I know the staff understands this, but I'm saying this for the benefit of our consultants, and for commissioners, who don't spend as much quality time on Monday nights as some of the rest of us do. So, you know, I mean these to be helpful, constructive comments. And I'm sure I'll have more as we go on. 2:42:14: Dave Yuan: We appreciate the feedback, Council Member Cormack. I think, for the $85 million, it is built into the model, John. Correct me if I'm wrong. There is the assumption that we will bond-finance the $85 million. And then, depreciation, it's either 10 or 20 years, depending on -- ### The next staff report should say more about depreciation. The fiber infrastructure, if designed correctly, won't need to be replaced for decades. How long will 10-Gbps (symmetrical) electronics be good enough for most people? It should be possible to upgrade electronics only for the people who want a speed increase. 2:42:28: Council Member Cormack: We, the City? We, the utilities? We, the fiber company, that doesn't have a governance structure yet? 2:42:34: Dave Yuan: Yeah, we haven't gone that far yet. But the assumption of 5 percent return. Interest rate. 2:42:37: Council Member Cormack: Yeah. But that's going to matter. Right? 2:42:39: Dave Yuan: Right. 2:42:40: Council Member Cormack: It's going to matter what ratings we get. Depending on how we structure it. It's not apparent -- I mean -- You know, I don't know enough about this to know. But I can imagine a scenario under which, if it's not actually the City -- if it's some new governance structure, we won't necessarily have the City's bond rating. And then, you know, what are you going to have? 2:43:03: Dave Yuan: And we're also exploring, still, federal loans and whatnot, to see if that's available or if we're qualified. 2:43:06: Council Member Cormack: Yeah. 2:43:06: Dave Yuan: So, hopefully, we'll have that information by September. 2:43:11: Council Member Cormack: OK. 2:43:15: Vice Chair Johnston: Commissioner Smith, do you have a question? 2:43:21: Commissioner Smith: I do. I have both questions and a couple of comments. The question is, on this particular chart, in particular, I see the $32.5 million contribution from the Fiber Fund. But I don't see the $10 million contribution from the Electric Fund. Is that missing? 2:43:40: John Honker: Yeah. No, this will be -- The $10 million was in -- was set aside in capital for the fiber backbone. So, it's already in the capital number. So, it's not showing up here on the cash. In this -- So, that's the -- 2:43:53: Commissioner Smith: $10 million on day one? 2:43:55: John Honker: Correct. 2:43:55: Commissioner Smith: OK. OK. So, these are end-of-year -- or end-of-fiscal-year -- capital available. Correct? From 2023 to 2033. Correct? 2:44:11: John Honker: That's right, Commissioner Smith. So, basically, end-of-year fund balance. 2:44:16: Commissioner Smith: Have we established a base by which -- that is that working capital base that we need to be at? As -- Just a reminder to everyone: this is a public entity. We're not driven by a profit margin. ### Yes. We are driven by our ability to deliver this service -- the best quality service -- at a marginable rate, that we can maintain the service, and maintain the business. Just like we do with our electric. ### Well, our electric utility transfers money to the General Fund. Is that what we want Palo Alto Fiber to do? I had been assuming not. At least that's my opinion. Now, if I'm alone in that, I welcome comment. We don't need to make a significant amount of profit in order to make it a viable business. So, to that, I would argue that some of these working capital values that are here at the end of the year -- or the end of the fiscal year -- may be too high. And our assumptions should be closer to break-even, not necessarily into bankrolling $46 million by the end of year 10. What would we do with $46 million that we couldn't spend on anything else other than fiber? That would be my question and comment. 2:45:16: The other comment I have is: I appreciate Council Member Cormack's comment about emails from the public. Personally, I'm thrilled. One of my greatest concerns -- and, in fact, one of the greatest concerns of the UAC from three years ago -- was that we would not get public participation in the discussion about doing fiber-to-the-home. And I am thrilled -- both pro and against --that we are getting public commentary. And if they are indeed emailing City Council members, I would hope that the City Council would make that available for discussion in the final report. So, thank you. 2:45:59: Council Member Cormack: Let me just interrupt. Commissioner Smith, those public records. If they go to the City Council, anyone can see them. They're up on the website. ### Yes, emails sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org go a place linked to from Council agendas. ### Emails sent to individual Council members aren't public records, but we're not talking about them. Right? 2:46:08: Commissioner Smith: Brilliant. Thank you so much. Again, just reemphasizing the point, public discourse on this subject, given the great value that we're talking about bringing to the City, I think is incredibly important and necessary. Thank you. 2:46:27: Vice Chair Johnston: So, I had a comment to kind of follow up on Commissioner Smith's comment about the, you know, building up $45 million in the fund. Am I right that if we are building up, you know, amounts like that, we can use it to pay down the debt faster. ### Great point. 2:46:53: John Honker: And from our perspective, absolutely. I mean, retiring -- You know, if there are no principal repayment penalties on the debt, and there's a fund balance available, after reserves, then retiring the debt early is always an option. 2:47:10: Vice Chair Johnston: And I would think that would help us with, you know, other -- financing for other projects. So -- I mean, just as a comment, what I have gotten out of the discussion, both tonight and the discussion we had at the fiber subcommittee -- First of all, John, thank you for all that you've put together for us. I think it's very helpful to see this. I appreciate Council Member Cormack's point that this is going to -- It's a lot of information to dump on people who haven't been following this as closely. And we do look to you to make this simple. But I -- To me, what I get out of it is that there are lots of opportunities for us here if we can design the system and set the pricing so that we can really get a significant take rate. This chart shows what a difference it makes, even between a 32 percent take rate and a 50 percent take rate. We've got half the people in the community who have already said they've cut the cord. It seems to me that if we can provide, you know, faster speeds at lower prices -- or -- which we should be able to do, since we're not -- we don't have to make a profit, you know, we really have an opportunity to capture a significant share of the market. And I don't want to minimize the challenges that we're going to face, running a business which, unlike the rest of the businesses -- This has got competition. You know. We're in a commercial business. We have the advantage that we're not under some of the same constraints -- the cost of service constraints -- that we are under the -- in the regulated utilities. But we also have competitors, which we haven't had to deal with before. ### The electric utility had competitors during the days of electric deregulation in California, and it survived. In fact, the electric utility created a special fund to cope with competitors. After the competitive threat disappeared, Council repurposed this fund as the Electric Special Projects Reserve. That's where the $10 million will come from. So, I think there are a lot of challenges here. But if we can manage this, I think there's really some upside for us. And that's my comment. 2:49:48: Council Member Cormack: Chair Johnston. I'm so sorry. Council Member Cormack. Can I ask one more thing, that I -- perhaps I missed it. But when could this service be available? If somebody wants to buy it, when -- how soon will it be before they can buy it? 2:50:09: John Honker: Commissioner, was that question for me? Or was that for -- 2:50:12: Council Member Cormack: Staff, or you, Mr. Honker. 2:50:16: John Honker: Yeah. I can answer that . So, under our assumptions, you know, engineering is complete by the end of the year, this year. You would go into construction next year. And you would be looking at, potentially, being able to connect the first customers, really, by the end of CALENDAR year 2023. So, you know, that would be an aggressive goal, but doable goal. If, you know, the City can move forward in a relatively rapid progression from today. 2:50:50: Council Member Cormack: And how long would it take until everyone in the City had the opportunity to purchase this service? 2:50:58: John Honker: We would anticipate a 3-4 year construction project. You know, a citywide construction project, about -- 2:51:07: Council Member Cormack: Yeah. It makes me sick to my stomach to think about that. But keep going. [laughs] 2:51:10: John Honker: Yeah. We stress about it as well. 'Cause we do a lot of construction projects this size, and we know how hard it is. But, typically, a city Palo Alto's size, we would say 3-4 years. We want to be conservative. You know, closer to 4. The benefit on the aerial -- The benefit of having some aerial construction is that that could go quicker, if the make-ready and pole prep work is done relatively efficiently. So, you know, you have that going for you, as far as that aerial construction. The underground construction is hard work. It's going to be difficult. We can't sugar-coat that. But, you know, cities do it all the time. It's just a process of making sure City departments are aligned, and you have a very high-quality construction contractor, and you have a high-quality construction manager who is overseeing that construction contractor and the schedule and production. ### Fort Collins, CO, started building its citywide municipal FTTP network in February 2019. https://fcconnexion.com/construction-map/ It expects to be done by the end of 2022. Fort Collins Connexion releases 'find your address' feature, construction map The fiber infrastructure is all underground. They can't build year-round because of winter weather. COVID was an issue. 2:52:17: Council Member Cormack: One of the things we're talking about in our electrification process is whether or not we would target certain areas to begin with. Is that something that you would contemplate if we did this? That there would be a focused area, wherever, you know, speeds are worse, or competitors aren't offering something? 2:52:37: John Honker: Commissioner, there's really a couple different dynamics there. So, from a pure physics perspective, construction of the aerial plant will be relatively easier than underground. Meaning that you could build more for less money, and connect more customers. So, think about that as one of the dynamics, as we work toward the phasing. Right? Which areas should be built first. But you'll also have really granular data on where customers have the most interest. So, that may not line up with 2:53:13: Council Member Cormack: Right. Yeah. 2:53:15: John Honker: So, we'll look at different dynamics. Our gut suspicion would be that you want to build in aerial areas first, where you have the most customer sign-ups today. ### Is Honker talking about the $50 deposits? 2:53:30: Council Member Cormack: OK. Um. You know, the sorts of questions I'm asking -- the more high-level things that are about the -- you know, whether or not to move forward -- not the specifics of the various financial plans -- let's just be sure we've got those, you know, asked and answered before we get to the study session. I've just seen too many of these be unhelpful, you know, for commissions. And I don't want that to happen with this. So, open to thoughts about how I can be helpful, you know, in preparing the staff report. I realize that's not usually done. Maybe, you know -- However it is that we want to do it. But, you know, the UAC has -- it's such a wonderful commission. I love being the Council Liaison here. But we're not going to be able to operate in the same way, when we get to the study session. Just thinking out loud. You know, lots of times we do questions that need to be answered. Sometimes we do this in Finance. You know, the staff will come forward and say, you know, here are the five questions we need answers to. And that might be, you know, one way to think about this. Just to structure it in advance. Um. OK. Um. Thank you. 2:55:04: Vice Chair Johnston: So, any more questions or comments for John or for staff? John, we didn't let you get all the way through your presentation. But is there anything else you think you need to -- 2:55:18: ### Slide 22: Financial Takeaways John Honker: No. I think we've summarized the last slide pretty well. So, we really just -- You know, I think comments from the Commission have been great tonight. Around the financials. And also, I think, one of our takeaways to work with staff on is, as Commissioner Cormack said, leveling up the presentation. Because it is -- I mean, we sit in front of a lot of city councils, and we know how hard it is to get them to digest so much information in such a short amount of time. So, feedback from the UAC and staff is welcome. Absolutely. 2:55:52: Council Member Cormack: Mr. Honker, it may not be quite clear to you, 'cause you're not here, but I actually am a Council member. [laughs] 2:55:57: John Honker. Oh, I'm sorry. [laughs] 2:55:58: Council Member Cormack: No worries. No worries. I just wanted to explain that. 2:56:02: John Honker: Great. Appreciate the clarification. 2:56:07: Vice Chair Johnston: OK. Are we -- Sounds like we are done on this item. Great. Thank you, John. I really appreciate. I know it's -- You're not on the West Coast, so it's even later for you. So, we appreciate it. 2:56:23: John Honker: Absolutely. Thank you, everyone. And, any questions, please let us know. 2:56:29: Dave Yuan: Thanks, John. 2:56:30: Director Batchelor: Thanks, John. ========================================================================================== View this email in your browser From:LWV Palo Alto (Action Alert) To:Council, City Subject:Write or Call the City Council To Support Safe Parking Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 4:41:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Write or Call the City Councilto Support Safe Parking! Photo courtesy of Palo Alto Online. Please Write or Call the City Council Today to Support FCCPA's Safe Parking Program Application In 2020, responding to the crisis of people sleeping in their vehicles on the streets of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto City Council established a Safe Parking Program (SPP). This program allows churches and religious institutions to host on their parking lots up to four vehicles and their owners, providing a safe place to spend the night and connecting them to support for finding permanent housing. The program would be managed and operated by a nonprofit experienced in connecting the unhoused to housing and other services. The First Congregational Church of Palo Alto (FCCPA) has submitted a Safe Parking application to the City which has been approved by City Staff and is on the Council’s Consent Agenda for the August 22nd meeting. A neighbor of the church, acting on behalf of a group of Palo Alto residents, has filed an appeal, objecting to the permit on the grounds that the program will jeopardize community safety because MOVE MV, the nonprofit who will manage and operate the program, insufficiently screens clients. There is no evidence to support the appeal. MOVE MV operates four other congregational safe parking lots (two in Mountain View and two in Palo Alto). None of these existing programs has received complaints from neighbors or community members nor have there been any incidents jeopardizing community safety. MOVE MV’s screening complies with the rules of Santa Clara County, which funds the program. The County prohibits the additional screening as an unnecessary barrier to assistance. The League of Women Voters of California’s Homelessness Action Policy supports actions to reduce and eliminate homelessness. LWVC also supports venues which meet the basic needs of people experiencing homelessness for personal hygiene, storage, trash removal, as well as for safe spaces in which to live. The LWV Palo Alto Board has recently written in support of the FCCPA’s application. Please see more information about FCCPA's Safe Parking Application as part of the agenda for the August 22nd Council meeting starting on p. 134. Click HERE to download a copy. Please write to the City Council to support FCCPA's Safe Parking Program application. Your letter can include these points: The First Congregational Church of Palo Alto's (FCCPA) application to the City has been approved by the Planning Director and meets all the regulations of the city ordinance. The program will be managed and operated by MOVE MV, an experienced nonprofit specializing in connecting the unhoused to find safe places to stay and ultimately to permanent housing. There is no evidence to support the appeal which claims the program will jeopardize community safety because clients are insufficiently vetted. MOVE MV operates four other church SPPs, two in Mountain View and two in Palo Alto, using the same vetting criteria (required by the funding agency, the County of Santa Clara) that will be used in the FCCPA lot. None of these current programs has received any complaints from neighbors or community members nor have there been any incidents jeopardizing community safety. Santa Clara County prohibits the vetting requested in the appeal as an unnecessary barrier to urgent assistance. Safe Parking participants must: Have a car, driver’s license, valid automobile registration, & insurance Agree to work with a case manager to secure permanent housing Check in on a regular basis with the case manager Consent to personal and car identification information being shared with the Palo Alto Police Department Be prepared for a security guard to randomly check on them throughout the night Agree to behavior standards (exit and entry times, no loud noise, violence, guns, or alcohol) You can email the entire council at: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. You can call the city council at: Mayor Pat Burt Pat.Burt@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 892-0925 Vice Mayor Lydia Kou Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 308-9893 Alison Cormack Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2480 Tom DuBois Tom.DuBois@cityofpaloalto.org (415) 377-8455 Eric Filseth Eric.Filseth@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2162 Greer Stone Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 575-0405 PLEASE WRITE OR CALL THE CITY COUNCIL TODAY! ACTION NEEDED BY 8/20. Facebook Twitter Website Copyright © 2022 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Democracy is not a spectator sport! DONATE This email was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences League of Women Voters Palo Alto · 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 · Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 · USA From:Angela He To:Council, City Subject:Support of Safe Parking at First Congregational Church of Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 3:14:16 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from angelahe101@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am writing to express my support for the plan for safe parking at First Congregational Church of Palo Alto. The basis for the recent appeal does not seem reasonable to me--there have no incidents been reported from the current safe parking sites in Palo Alto, and there is rarely "extreme" weather in temperate Palo Alto that would warrant idling of vehicles. Sincerely, Angela He From:Connie Cavanaugh To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking program at First Congregational Church, Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 2:51:40 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chcavanaugh123@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Safe Parking program at First Congregational Church, Palo Alto My family has lived 935 Elsinore Drive since 1990. This is a wonderful neighborhood and we are blessed to be part of it. We raised our son here and are fortunate to have met wonderful neighbors and friends. I am writing to support the Safe Parking Program at First Congressional Church that is on the Consent Agenda for August 22. We are very pleased that, through the efforts of FCC and the Safe Parking Program, our neighborhood can help a few families at a time get connected to supportive services and have a safe reliable parking spot for a short time. Compassion rules as far as we are concerned. None of the objections in the appeal letter outweigh the need to help families, one at a time, get housed. I think the track record of NO COMPLAINTS in other neighborhoods committed to this program speaks well for the program management. This problem is close to home for our family. My husband and I been providing support of various kinds to a single friend who has been living in her van for over a year. We know the problems homeless individuals face daily just to ensure personal safety, cleanliness and meals. Many situations are more complicated than we will ever know. The time and energy expended to just get food, park in a safe place and maintain personal cleanliness takes away from time needed to find a job and a more permanent place to live. Homeless can happen to anyone. I urge the Council to approve this program application so we can start helping our homeless neighbors as soon as possible. Thank you. Connie Cavanaugh 935 Elsinore Drive Sent from my iPhone From:Rita Giles To:Council, City Subject:In support of First Congregational Church"s Application to be a Safe Parking Site Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 2:44:10 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from ritalgiles@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council Members, I am a member of Palo Alto Congregation Etz Chayim. I enthusiastically support the efforts of the Palo Alto City Council to provide a pathways to stable housing for unhoused members of our community. The Safe Parking Program serves as such a pathway and allows local houses of worship to provide safe parking for individuals who have been sleeping in cars on city streets. In addition to providing a safe place to sleep, the programs helps to connect them with more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is structured in such a way as to protect the safety of nearby residents while respecting the privacy and dignity of the people served. I write to support the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto in its Safe Parking permit application, which is on the Consent Agenda for the Council’s August 22 meeting. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church currently host Safe Parking programs successfully and without complaints from neighbors or community members. First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s application is in full compliance with the City of Palo Alto regulations and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. I urge you to support this Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Agenda at your August 22nd meeting. Thank you, Rita L Giles From:Tran, Joanna Cc:Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal; Milton, Lesley; Blanch, Sandra; Stump, Molly Subject:Upcoming Council and Board and Commission Training Opportunities: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 12:35:01 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png Flyer - City of Palo Alto - Diversity Uncovered Training Flyer - August 25th 2022.pdf Flyer - City of Palo Alto - Diversity Uncovered Training Flyer - September 15th 2022.pdf Flyer - City of Palo Alto - Diversity Uncovered Training Flyer - October 19th 2022.pdf image009.png Hi City Council and Board/Commissioners, I hope this email finds you well. I am sending this email on behalf of the City Manager— Thank you again for all the service you do for the City in your various roles. I’d like to take a moment to follow up on the continued progress the City has made on the race and equity workplan the City Council adopted in November 2020. As you may recall, one of the actions was to do continue citywide diversity and inclusion efforts related to our workforce and boards and commissions. As we mentioned last year during the Board/Commissioner trainings, we have organized our first training related to microaggressions for our Boards and Commission members and staff liaisons. We are excited to offer this training for you. A few logistical notes/tasks: 1. You have the choice to attend 1 of 3 virtual trainings. We are offering the same training 3 times to maximize schedules and to spread commissioners and the City Council among the 3 dates. Please note that we will organize attendance to avoid having a quorum of any body at a session. Please follow this link (https://us.openforms.com/Form/c6bcb981-6156-4466-976f- b3e2ef570545) and let us know which training dates work for you and we will send you a confirmation for your confirmed date. The 3 possible dates/times are below with the first being next week: a. August 25 from 4-7pm b. September 15 from 5-8pm c. October 19 from 5-8pm 2. A training description is included in the attached document to this email. 3. The trainings are being provided by CircleUp Education. This organization has trained local government leaders all throughout the Bay Area. If you have any questions or feedback throughout this experience, please feel free to contact either me or Chantal Cotton Gaines, Chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Building Common Language To Discuss & Understand Unconscious & Unintentional Workplace Discrimination Diversity Uncovered™ Training An Interactive Introduction to Implicit Bias, Microaggressions, and Inclusion Hello Palo Alto Council, Boards, & Commissions! My name is Tiffany Hoang, Co-founder and Trainer at CircleUp Education. I am so excited to be facilitating the Diversity Uncovered™ Training for you! This training is an interactive introduction to unconscious bias, microaggressions and inclusion within workplaces. During the training, we will be engaging in fun, reflective, and thought provoking activities that will ensure you learn how to identify, discuss, and better understand what unconscious, unintentional bias and discrimination are. I look forward to working with you at one of our trainings and please reach out to me if you have any questions. Warmly, Tiffany H Date Thursday, August 25 2022 4:00 – 7:00pm Location https://circleuped-org.zoom.us/j/84174699890?p- wd=bnhDNTZ5bjBBYmpBVGF3SE9lUkRLdz09 Meeting ID: 841 7469 9890 Passcode: 597521 WANT MORE DETAILS? Check out the next page! Tiffany Hoang Co-founder CircleUp Education tiffany@circleuped.org 510-470-0825 CAN'T MAKE THIS DATE? Join us on either September 15 or October 19 Diversity Uncovered™ A section by section SNEAK PEAK into your upcoming training! What to expect Interactive This training is a group learning experience meaning that you will be learning, sharing, exploring, and growing through partner and small group activities and reflections. Engaging This training may seem long, but time goes by very fast! We designed the training to be exciting, thought provoking, and most importantly, FUN! Relevant We custom designed this training by using situations and examples related to the work you do and the people you serve. Every activity and reflection is grounded within the context of the people you interact in your workplace. Useful You will leave this training with tools to help promote inclusion and interrupt discrimination through simple and respectful approaches. 1.The “Elephant In The Room” Discuss fears and concerns around racism, sexism, ableism and other forms of discrimination in the workplace. 2. Stereotypes and Perceptions Develop key terms within diversity education while, exploring relationship building strategies that promote inclusion. 3. Implicit Bias & Microaggressions Uncover the relationship between implicit bias and microaggressions and how they negatively impact clients and coworkers. 4. Interrupting Microaggressions Get tips to interrupt microaggressions and bring awareness to implicit bias as you return to the workplace. “Honestly, I was frightened to sit in a room and talk about bias and microaggressions with my staff. I almost called in sick to this training. My nervousness went away during the first activity when I realized that they were not here to yell at us and make us feel guilty. They wanted us to learn together and see each other in a new way. I left feeling like I actually learned something, which is not typically the case during these trainings. I felt like there was an openness from everyone to support each other and walk together on this path of growth.” Testimonial Building Common Language To Discuss & Understand Unconscious & Unintentional Workplace Discrimination Diversity Uncovered™ Training An Interactive Introduction to Implicit Bias, Microaggressions, and Inclusion Hello Palo Alto Council, Boards, & Commissions! My name is Tiffany Hoang, Co-founder and Trainer at CircleUp Education. I am so excited to be facilitating the Diversity Uncovered™ Training for you! This training is an interactive introduction to unconscious bias, microaggressions and inclusion within workplaces. During the training, we will be engaging in fun, reflective, and thought provoking activities that will ensure you learn how to identify, discuss, and better understand what unconscious, unintentional bias and discrimination are. I look forward to working with you and please reach out to me if you have any questions. Warmly, Tiffany H Date Thursday, September 15 5:00 – 8:00pm Location https://circleuped-org.zoom.us/j/88142531056?p- wd=WDhLbU9scitlNFpGaHJwaWZhbkthdz09 Meeting ID: 881 4253 1056 Passcode: 581506 WANT MORE DETAILS? Check out the next page! Tiffany Hoang Co-founder CircleUp Education tiffany@circleuped.org 510-470-0825 Diversity Uncovered™ A section by section SNEAK PEAK into your upcoming training! What to expect Interactive This training is a group learning experience meaning that you will be learning, sharing, exploring, and growing through partner and small group activities and reflections. Engaging This training may seem long, but time goes by very fast! We designed the training to be exciting, thought provoking, and most importantly, FUN! Relevant We custom designed this training by using situations and examples related to the work you do and the people you serve. Every activity and reflection is grounded within the context of the people you interact in your workplace. Useful You will leave this training with tools to help promote inclusion and interrupt discrimination through simple and respectful approaches. 1. The “Elephant In The Room” Discuss fears and concerns around racism, sexism, ableism and other forms of discrimination in the workplace. 2. Stereotypes and Perceptions Develop key terms within diversity education while, exploring relationship building strategies that promote inclusion. 3. Implicit Bias & Microaggressions Uncover the relationship between implicit bias and microaggressions and how they negatively impact clients and coworkers. 4. Interrupting Microaggressions Get tips to interrupt microaggressions and bring awareness to implicit bias as you return to the workplace. “Honestly, I was frightened to sit in a room and talk about bias and microaggressions with my staff. I almost called in sick to this training. My nervousness went away during the first activity when I realized that they were not here to yell at us and make us feel guilty. They wanted us to learn together and see each other in a new way. I left feeling like I actually learned something, which is not typically the case during these trainings. I felt like there was an openness from everyone to support each other and walk together on this path of growth.” Testimonial Building Common Language To Discuss & Understand Unconscious & Unintentional Workplace Discrimination Diversity Uncovered™ Training An Interactive Introduction to Implicit Bias, Microaggressions, and Inclusion Hello Palo Alto Council, Boards, & Commissions! My name is Tiffany Hoang, Co-founder and Trainer at CircleUp Education. I am so excited to be facilitating the Diversity Uncovered™ Training for you! This training is an interactive introduction to unconscious bias, microaggressions and inclusion within workplaces. During the training, we will be engaging in fun, reflective, and thought provoking activities that will ensure you learn how to identify, discuss, and better understand what unconscious, unintentional bias and discrimination are. I look forward to working with you and please reach out to me if you have any questions. Warmly, Tiffany H Date Wednesday, October 19 5:00 – 8:00pm Location https://circleuped-org.zoom.us/j/86540272196?p- wd=QnpkV2cwOTNSZWxFR2pUVjZQZFd5UT09 Meeting ID: 865 4027 2196 Passcode: 216874 WANT MORE DETAILS? Check out the next page! Tiffany Hoang Co-founder CircleUp Education tiffany@circleuped.org 510-470-0825 Diversity Uncovered™ A section by section SNEAK PEAK into your upcoming training! What to expect Interactive This training is a group learning experience meaning that you will be learning, sharing, exploring, and growing through partner and small group activities and reflections. Engaging This training may seem long, but time goes by very fast! We designed the training to be exciting, thought provoking, and most importantly, FUN! Relevant We custom designed this training by using situations and examples related to the work you do and the people you serve. Every activity and reflection is grounded within the context of the people you interact in your workplace. Useful You will leave this training with tools to help promote inclusion and interrupt discrimination through simple and respectful approaches. 1. The “Elephant In The Room” Discuss fears and concerns around racism, sexism, ableism and other forms of discrimination in the workplace. 2. Stereotypes and Perceptions Develop key terms within diversity education while, exploring relationship building strategies that promote inclusion. 3. Implicit Bias & Microaggressions Uncover the relationship between implicit bias and microaggressions and how they negatively impact clients and coworkers. 4. Interrupting Microaggressions Get tips to interrupt microaggressions and bring awareness to implicit bias as you return to the workplace. “Honestly, I was frightened to sit in a room and talk about bias and microaggressions with my staff. I almost called in sick to this training. My nervousness went away during the first activity when I realized that they were not here to yell at us and make us feel guilty. They wanted us to learn together and see each other in a new way. I left feeling like I actually learned something, which is not typically the case during these trainings. I felt like there was an openness from everyone to support each other and walk together on this path of growth.” Testimonial From:Lena Chow To:Council, City Subject:In Support of First Congregational Church’s Safe Parking Program Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:55:45 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lenalchow@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a long-time Palo Alto resident and business owner, I am writing in support of the First Congressional Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application, which is on the Consent Agenda of your August 22 Council meeting. First Congregational Church has followed Palo Alto Safe Parking Program guidelines, as unanimously approved by the City Council in February 2020. First Congregational Church has set up its program in a way that protects the safety of nearby residents while respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church currently operate Safe Parking Programs. Both programs are operating successfully, and neither church has received complaints of any kind from neighbors or community members. I am gratified to learn that Palo Alto city staff recommends approval of the application. This is the right thing to do for Palo Alto, a city that has abundant resources compared to many of our neighbors, and it is one way to demonstrate that Palo Alto cares about the broader issue of homelessness. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lena Chow Kuhar Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Ramirez, Jennifer To:Council, City Subject:EMS Rates or Contracts Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:45:24 AM Attachments:image001.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from jennifer.ramirez@vhp.sccgov.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning, Can you please guide me as to where I can locate the EMS contract & rates within the City of Palo Alto website? If you could send the link or any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Jennifer Ramirez, M.P.A. (pronouns: she, her, hers) Sr. Management Analyst Disputes and Grievances ~ Valley Health Plan WFH Mobile: (669) 288-2218 ~ Fax: (408) 885-5921 ~ Available Via Teams NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. From:Alice Smith To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking at First Congregational Church Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 10:38:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I wholeheartedly support the proposal to house the unhoused who are in vehicles at First Congregational Church. In addition and not instead: why shouldn't the City house them in our Municipal Garage and have toilets and showers there as well. In at 10 pm and out at 7 am . This solution should include a vehicle for showers, washing clothes and toilets and could be completed in the amount of time it takes to order the same .... An additional easy solutions taken with so little effort and cost. We need to address the unhoused with thoughtful approaches which are mindful that we need to find solutions not block them. Alice Schaffer Smith 850 Webster Street #520 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 283 2822 From:Patti Schaffer To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Yes! Date:Wednesday, August 17, 2022 7:19:07 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from pika3345@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ As a citizen of Palo Alto I strongly support the ‘Safe Parking’ program wherever it is offered. RV dwellers are part of our community. Thanking you in advance for doing the right thing. Patti Schaffer From:David B. Cohen To:Council, City Subject:support for First Congregational Church’s Safe Parking Program Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:46:49 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cohen.davidb@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application which is on the Consent Agenda of your August 22nd Council meeting. As both a resident and teacher in Palo Alto for over 20 years, I'm committed to policies and practices that make our community more humane, and more supportive of people in need. The frequent "othering" of people who are unhoused does not reflect well on anyone, and I'm proud to be part of a community that can get behind these small steps to make a positive difference. I appreciate Council's unanimous approval of the Safe Parking Program in February 2020 as small and welcome step to mitigate our regional homelessness crisis. The rules and regulations for this program, and its success at other sites, should be more than sufficient to address resident concerns. There will always be some people who object, offering dire predictions and worst case scenarios which I hope will not sway you from advancing this program and giving needed support to people who are unhoused. In my neighborhood, and near my school, I see people struggling to get by, living out of cars, vans, and RVs. It is the right thing to do for Palo Alto to adopt humane policies that help people stay safe and access services. The safe parking program includes multiple safeguards that address any reasonable concerns from residents, and in fact, adopting the policy should have beneficial effects even beyond the individuals and families directly accessing the services. I encourage your approval of the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your August 22nd Council meeting. Thank you for reading this message. Sincerely, David Cohen From:michelle higgins To:Council, City Subject:First Congregational Safe Parking Program Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 6:23:53 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mich_higgins@hotmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, I am a Palo Alto resident and live near Lucie Stern Community Center, not far from First Congregational Church. I have 4 children, 2 graduates of PAUSD and 2 currently attending Paly. I moved here with my family 11 years ago from Sydney, Australia and love being a part of this community. While not members of First Congregational Church, I have many friends who are and appreciate the Church’s very visible support for Black Lives Matters and the LGBTQ community. They are clearly a Church who put their values of justice, care and inclusivity into action in ways that are tangible and meaningful. As a community member, I am writing in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application which is on the Consent Agenda of your August 22nd Council meeting. In recent years I have become very conscious of the related issues of poverty and homelessness in Palo Alto and specifically concerned that there are students attending PAUSD who lack the security of permanent housing, including those living in RVs on El Camino or cars on residential streets around Palo Alto. I was part of a working group at the onset of the pandemic, made up of parents, who worked with district personnel to ensure that all families — including families living out of their vehicles — had access to wifi, computers, meals and other resources when schools shut down. It was eye opening to learn the extent of these issues in our community and gratifying to see so many pulling together to find ways to maximize support for all in our community. Closer to home, during this period I noticed that a family was clearly living out of their small sedan, parking in and around Lucie Stern. They never created any sort of disturbance and my only concern was for their safety. My hope is that families like this one, short of being able to access affordable housing, are provided with safe and supportive refuge in a program like that being proposed at First Congregational Church. I feel that a community as well-resourced as Palo Alto should be doing far more to ensure that we are not only a town for the ‘haves.’ I fear that attitudes like those expressed by opponents of the safe parking program take us further away from living up to the progressive inclusive values of the community I chose to become a part of just over a decade ago. I want my children to see themselves as having a future that includes the possibility of remaining in Palo Alto as adults if they wish, and that this does not depend on them becoming tech entrepreneurs or hedge fund managers. Whether or not they can afford to live here in the future will not be the only criteria that attracts or repels new generations. It will also be whether they see a vibrant diverse community or one whose defining characteristic is wealth and its maintenance. In the midst of a serious Bay Area wide housing crisis, providing overnight parking and support services for the occupants of four cars in a church parking lot should be completely non-controversial. In fact, rather than opposing the program my hope would be that the need for such a program would see our community asking why we aren’t doing more. I urge you to approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your August 22nd Council meeting. Sincerely, Michelle Higgins From:Kwanza Price To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Permit Program Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 5:23:20 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kwanzaprice@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Honorable City Council Members: I am writing to express my support for the Safe Parking Program permit application by First Congregational Church, and to ask you to leave the item on the Consent calendar so that it can be approved and start helping people immediately, and so that you can go on to the urgent business of the Housing Element Draft Goals, Policies and Programs. As you are already very aware, homeless people are here, in Palo Alto and more than 40% are renters from my understanding. As you know, some are already sleeping in their cars in our community in various locations around town. Many of them have jobs, friends, family members, and children in school in Palo Alto. Moreover, many of them are directly serving our community as civil servants, nannies, housekeepers, etc. We need them here and we need to support them by allowing them, if nothing else, to take up dwelling in their own vehicles. Is it better for them to be on the street? Or in a dangerous shelter? In order to help get people out of sleeping in their cars and into more stable housing, everyone who was on the Council on February 24, 2020 voted unanimously to approve the formation of the program, including Council Members Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Kou, and Tanaka, and now-former members Fine and Kniss. As you know, when we move these folks into Safe Parking Programs, they are connected to services, and they are subject to enforceable rules about idling their cars. The Safe Parking Program keeps us all safer in these ways: The people in the program are professionally screened and then connected to programs and services that help them; Rules about any car idling can be enforced; The vehicle dwellers form ongoing, accountable relationships with case workers, which helps them move back into stable housing, and if not already employed, to get jobs. As to the car exhaust issue raised by the appellant, Mr. Todor Ganev, it would seem likely that he would keep his windows closed on nights when the temperature is expected to go below 40 degrees between 7 PM and 7 AM. If that is the case, that would mitigate any exhaust that might potentially come from the parked cars. It would also mitigate the ongoing exhaust already coming from the cars on Embarcadero Road, which is closer to his house than the proposed parking spaces. The parked cars are also allowed to idle briefly if the overnight (7 PM to 7 AM) temperature is above 85 degrees, but that has not happened in any records I can find. This issue would seem to be resolvable with good faith efforts from both parties, and need not be a roadblock to allowing the program to proceed at this time. As to the safety/background check issue, the Council had a robust discussion about that at its meeting on August 30, 2021, when Council was considering Stevenson House’s appeal of the Unitarian Universalist Church’s Safe Parking Permit Program. Mr. Ganev has raised the exact same concerns as Stevenson House, using the exact same language as was used in the Stevenson House appeal letter. Stevenson House dropped their appeal before the item was brought back to Council, indicating that they resolved their concerns. They’ve been given the opportunity to voice their concerns once the program started operating, and they have not registered even one concern. Additionally, we have evidence from both the Unitarian Universalist Church’s and Highway Church’s programs. Neither church has experienced any safety issues of any kind. Zero. There are multiple ways for neighbors to register their concerns, and not one person has registered even one concern about either program. None. This spotless safety record must be taken for what it is - evidence that the program as constructed by the City Council, and as implemented by Move Mountain View, is safe. To sum up, the Safe Parking Program is safe for neighbors and for vehicle dwellers, and it works. We are grateful to you for approving the program. We look forward to seeing First Congregational Church’s program succeed, just as the ones at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church’s programs are already succeeding. Regards, Kwanza Price Palo Alto resident and caregiver From:Sheri Morrison To:Council, City Subject:In support of First Congregational Church"s application to be a Safe Parking site Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 5:01:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from morrison.sheri@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Council Members, I am a member of Congregation Etz Chayim in Palo Alto and am in full support of FCC's application for the Safe Parking Program which is on the Council's Consent Agenda for August 22. The concern voiced by some residents about public safety seems to be based on unfounded fears. The Safe Parking Program has regulations about who is eligible to utilize it and has good safety measures in place. Two other local churches have already been offering this program at their sites and have had no problems. This is a very important program for the community and well worth supporting. Thank you for your consideration. Sheri From:D Martell To:Hoyt, George Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly Subject:MOST URGENT ... NINETH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 4:47:35 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png George E. Hoyt ADA Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: The link you supplied is irrelevant and nonsensical. I can NOT file a grievance with our City Attorney Office if I am NOT afforded an opportunity to make a formal request with the proper form. Again, please answer my question DIRECTLY: Does my City have a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request Form" for Citizens? ... AS LAW REQUIRES. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 3:02 PMSubject: RE: MOST URGENT ... EIGHTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, French, Amy <Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org>, Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>, Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@cityofpaloalto.org>, ADA <ada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Dr. Danielle Martell, Our Special Accommodations (ADA) Request or Grievance procedure is outlined at this web link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Accessibility/Report-ADA-Grievance George E. Hoyt, CBO Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:46 PM To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: MOST URGENT ... EIGHTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto George E. Hoyt ADA Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: Your email is nonsense. You have failed to follow your own response; my City has not done what you wrote you have done. Please provide clarity: - Does my City have a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request Form" for Citizens? ... AS LAW REQUIRES. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 PS: You should know that regarding your copied response to me, your two supervisors (1.) Rachael Tanner hasn't worked for our City since July and has yet to be replaced, and (2.) Jonathan Lait's email was incorrectly addressed; his correct email is "Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org" NOT "Johathan.Lait@cityofPaloAlto.org". ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org> Hoyt, George Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 7:03 AM Subject: RE: MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org <johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org>, Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>, Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@cityofpaloalto.org>, ADA <ada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Dr. Danielle Martell, We have provided you with hard copies of the items that you have requested along with outside resources that could assist you in completing the forms. George E. Hoyt, CBO Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 10:03 PM To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto Some people who received this message don't often get email from dmpaloalto@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. George E. Hoyt Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: This is my seventh request to you and my City Attorney's office to offer me a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" form. - I have an injury preventing use of my hands; I need help filling out a claims form against my City. I do not want, and I am NOT asking for advocacy or answers to the claims form's questions. Please immediately send this one page document by email, and by regular post. Find my contact information below. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 From:Bill Hilton To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking at First Congregational Church Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 4:38:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from billhilton@mac.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto (UUCPA). I write in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking Permit as agendized on the Consent Calendar of your August 22nd Council meeting. UUCPA has been operating Safe Parking on our church campus for the past 10 months and we are strong supporters of the program expanding to other church sites. Why? Because Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The UUCPA program has operated successfully and has not received complaints from neighbors or community members. We have discovered first-hand that Safe Parking helps move vulnerable people into permanent housing while giving them a safe and predictable place to sleep as they are awaiting new options. This makes our entire community safer, cleaner, and healthier. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with the regulations established by the City of Palo Alto and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. I urge you to approve FCCPA’s Safe Parking Permit in your August 22nd Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Bill Hilton From:Hoyt, George To:D Martell Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly; ADA; Stump, Molly Subject:RE: MOST URGENT ... EIGHTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 3:02:05 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png Dr. Danielle Martell, Our Special Accommodations (ADA) Request or Grievance procedure is outlined at this web link https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Accessibility/Report-ADA-Grievance George E. Hoyt, CBO Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:46 PM To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: MOST URGENT ... EIGHTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto George E. Hoyt ADA Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: Your email is nonsense. You have failed to follow your own response; my City has not done what you wrote you have done. Please provide clarity: - Does my City have a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request Form" for Citizens? ... AS LAW REQUIRES. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 PS: You should know that regarding your copied response to me, your two supervisors (1.) Rachael Tanner hasn't worked for our City since July and has yet to be replaced, and (2.) Jonathan Lait's email was incorrectly addressed; his correct email is "Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org" NOT "Johathan.Lait@cityofPaloAlto.org". ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 7:03 AM Subject: RE: MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org <johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org>, Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>, Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@cityofpaloalto.org>, ADA <ada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Dr. Danielle Martell, We have provided you with hard copies of the items that you have requested along with outside resources that could assist you in completing the forms. George E. Hoyt, CBO Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org Some people who received this message don't often get email from dmpaloalto@gmail.com. Learn why this is important https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 10:03 PM To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. George E. Hoyt Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: This is my seventh request to you and my City Attorney's office to offer me a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" form. - I have an injury preventing use of my hands; I need help filling out a claims form against my City. I do not want, and I am NOT asking for advocacy or answers to the claims form's questions. Please immediately send this one page document by email, and by regular post. Find my contact information below. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 From:D Martell To:Hoyt, George Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly Subject:MOST URGENT ... EIGHTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 2:46:07 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png George E. Hoyt ADA Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: Your email is nonsense. You have failed to follow your own response; my City has not done what you wrote you have done. Please provide clarity: - Does my City have a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request Form" for Citizens? ... AS LAW REQUIRES. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 PS: You should know that regarding your copied response to me, your two supervisors (1.) Rachael Tanner hasn't worked for our City since July and has yet to be replaced, and (2.) Jonathan Lait's email was incorrectly addressed; his correct email is "Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org" NOT "Johathan.Lait@cityofPaloAlto.org". ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 7:03 AM Subject: RE: MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org <johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org>, Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@cityofpaloalto.org>, Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@cityofpaloalto.org>, ADA <ada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Dr. Danielle Martell, Some people who received this message don't often get email from dmpaloalto@gmail.com. Learn why this is important We have provided you with hard copies of the items that you have requested along with outside resources that could assist you in completing the forms. George E. Hoyt, CBO Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 10:03 PMTo: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. George E. Hoyt Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: This is my seventh request to you and my City Attorney's office to offer me a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" form. - I have an injury preventing use of my hands; I need help filling out a claims form against my City. I do not want, and I am NOT asking for advocacy or answers to the claims form's questions. Please immediately send this one page document by email, and by regular post. Find my contact information below. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 From:Wendie Lash To:Council, City Subject:Support the First Congregational Church"s Safe Parking Site Application Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:48:01 PM Attachments:YouTube-icon.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from wendie@bambi.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Council Members, I am long time resident of the area and my family has been in Palo Alto for many decades. In fact my father-in-law founded the plastic surgery department at the Palo Alto Clinic, my husband went to Palo Alto schools from K-12, and I am a spiritual director, a meditation teacher, and a service leader at Congregation Etz Chayim in Palo Alto. When I moved here 43 years ago for college, Palo Alto had so many more affordable housing options than they do now. In fact our son, who is in high tech and makes a good salary, moved from Palo Alto to Sacramento with his wife, a Stanford PhD, because of the housing costs and now works remotely. So many people do not have the opportunity to work remotely like my family does. This is why I support the First Congregational Church’s Safe Parking Permit application on the agenda for the August 22 council meeting. I worked in high tech and know how Palo Alto has changed a lot in the past few decades. Unfortunately that means that house costs have priced the average working out of living in the area. We need to have open hearts about how to support people who are not wishing to be unhoused but finding their only alternative is to live in their cars. We need to strike down NIMBY-ism and support the local faith communities that are opening up their support to find a safe place for people to live in their cars and to get them plugged into support so they can move into housing. Safe Parking does just that. The Safe Parking Program is designed to protect the safety of nearby residents while respecting the dignity of those who are unhoused. You should know that other faith communities are doing this successfully in Palo Alto in in surrounding areas, but we need more safe parking options to get cars that people are living in into places where they are meant to be. I urge you to support First Congregational Church’s Safe Parking application. Thank you, Wendie Bernstein Lash, M.S. (she/her) Spiritual Entrepreneur spiritual guidance and supervision ~ meditation ~ chanting www.wendielash.com ~ 650-365-6093 Subscribe to my email list YouTube meditations Courage is an inner resolution to go forward despite obstacles. Cowardice is submissive surrender to circumstances. Courage breeds creativity; Cowardice represses fear and is mastered by it. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr It’s our insides that make us who we are, that allow us to dream and wonder and feel for others. That’s what’s essential. That’s what will always make the biggest difference in our world. - Fred Rogers From:Elizabeth Beheler To:Council, City Subject:First Congregational Church Safe Parking Program Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:42:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from elizabeth.beheler@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, Thank you for your time and work for the city. I'm writing in support of allowing 4 cars to park overnight in the church parking lot. It's only 4 cars, we can see how it works out, and it's a very small thing we can do for a very big problem. From:Elizabeth Ratner To:Council, City Subject:Re: August 22 Council meeting, consent agenda item 4: FCCPA Safe Parking Application Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 1:02:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am a long-time Palo Alto resident writing to support the application of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto to host a safe parking program for up to four vehicles. The need for this short-term solution to our housing shortage has been recognized by the city council in the ordinance establishing the program which states: "The number of households dwelling in vehicles has grown substantially in the past decade. The lack of stable, affordable housing and other life circumstances have contributed to this growth. B. On thoroughfares throughout the city, individuals, families, and households of many kinds can be found dwelling in recreational vehicles, trucks, vans, cars, and other motorized vehicles. C. The City must, for the health, safety, and welfare of the community, identify and implement short-term and long-term solutions that support these households as they pursue and ultimately secure affordable, stable housing. Safe parking programs, which offer off-street, authorized parking spots in parking lots for households dwelling in their vehicles, represent a short-term solution." The Safe Parking Program will relieve vehicle dwellers from the fear and anxiety of sleeping on the streets, connect them with case workers who will help them find permanent housing, and make our neighborhoods safer. The nonprofit MOVE MV, the operator of the program, has experience with two church SPP in Mountain View and two in Palo Alto. None of these programs have received complaints from the neighborhoods in which they are located. The major reason people are sleeping in their vehicles in Palo Alto is because the rents are too high. Many are elderly, single parents with children, or disabled. These people are our neighbors and many have been so for years. The FCCPA application meets all the requirements of the city's ordinance. Please approve the application and deny the appeal. Sincerely, Lisa Ratner From:Emily Young To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Programs at Congregations in Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:43:18 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from emilyjeanyoung@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I am writing in support of allowing safe parking programs at congregations in Palo Alto. I am a member at Etz Chayim and we are interested in supporting Safe Parking Programs in the city. Two churches have moved forward with programs and there have been no problems. Now First Congregational Church has had some objections from a couple neighbors but we feel the council should support the program and help to quell neighbors' groundless fears. Folks who are in the Safe Parking program are working with Move Mountain View and social workers to find permanent housing. These people (who need help) are members of our community and would be parking on streets anyway. But they could be in less safe situations and not in a program that will help them to obtain more permanent housing. Please support the First Congregational proposal and help a few more individuals to cross the bridge to temporary and then more permanent housing. This is a humanitarian issue and Palo Alto must step up to be a leader!!!! Sincerely, Emily Young and Stephen Branz 42 year residents of Palo Alto and members of Etz Chayim. -- Emily Young 402 El Verano Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 home: 650-856-9571 From:Sally Ahnger To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Program Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:40:27 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sahnger@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi City Council Members, I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto (UUCPA) and am writing to urge you to approve the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking Permit which is on the Consent Calendar of your August 22nd Council meeting. It doesn't need another public hearing. I attended the one that was held a while ago and all the stated concerns were addressed. UUCPA has operated a Safe Parking program for the last 10 months and we have had no problems at all. Giving vehicle dwellers a safe place to park allows them to focus on finding permanent housing instead of worrying every day about where they are going to park that night. The participants in this program are well-screened and pose no danger to the neighborhood. Thanks for your consideration, Sally Ahnger From:Joy Sleizer To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:09:17 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from joy.sleizer142@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member, I strongly support the efforts of the Palo Alto City Council to provide a pathway to stable housing for those in our community who are unhoused. The Safe Parking Program is one such pathway and offers local churches the option of providing safe parking for individuals who have been sleeping in their cars on city streets. I write today in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application which is on the Consent Agenda of the August 22nd Council meeting. Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church currently host Safe Parking Programs. Both programs are operating successfully and neither church has received complaints from neighbors or community members. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with the regulations established by the City of Palo Alto and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. I urge you to approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your August 22nd Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Joy Sleizer 850 Webster St #706 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-324-425 From:David Bergen To:Council, City Subject:In support of safe parking at First Congregational Church Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:06:10 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bergen.david@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilpersons, I am a Palo Alto resident and live in Leland Manor, just a short walk away from First Congregational Church. I am writing to strongly urge you to approve FCC’s permit for an overnight safe parking program for unhoused vehicle dwellers on their site. The overnight safe parking programs at church lots have proven to be a safe way to get vehicle dwellers off of the streets and into a managed program where they are helped to find more permanent housing. The lot operator for this program is already managing overnight safe parking programs at four churches, including two in Palo Alto, and I understand they have had no incidents with safety or crime. Faith-based communities should be encouraged to use their resources for programs like this to better serve those who live in their midst. I strongly encourage you to uphold the Planning Department decision to approve FCC’S permit. Thank you for your consideration, David Bergen From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Sean Webby Cc:James Aram; Jeff Rosen; Reifschneider, James; Jay Boyarsky; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Wagner, April Subject:Rosen soft on police crimes Screenshot 2022-08-16 at 12.50.23 PM Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:52:48 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2022-08-16 at 12.50.23 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:Cynthia Chin-Lee To:Council, City; Cynthia Chin-Lee Subject:Writing in Support of First Cong of Palo Alto (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:36:22 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cynthiachinlee@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council members, I'm an elder at First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto and strongly support the efforts of the Palo Alto City Council to provide a pathway to stable housing for those in our community who are unhoused. The Safe Parking Program is one such pathway and offers local churches the option of providing safe parking for individuals who have been sleeping in their cars on city streets. We write today in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application which is on the Consent Agenda of the August 22nd Council meeting. Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church currently host Safe Parking Programs. Both programs are operating successfully and neither church has received complaints from neighbors or community members. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with the regulations established by the City of Palo Alto and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. We urge you to approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your August 22nd Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Cynthia Chin-Lee -- Cynthia (Cyndi) Chin-Lee (She/Her) Speaker, Author, and Diversity Change Agent Author: Amelia to Zora: Twenty-six Women Who Changed the World Living on Muwekma, Ohlone, and Ramaytush land cynthiachinlee.com Dear GREG BELL, Your payment of $509.25 for MyCPAU Account XXXX2503 was due yesterday i.e., 08/15/2022. To view/pay your bill click here to log in to MyCPAU. If you have enrolled in AutoPay or made a one-time payment during this billing period; no action is required on your part. If you need further assistance, please contact our customer service at utilitiescustomerservice@cityofpaloalto.org; or (650) 329-2161. Thank you, City of Palo Alto Utilities This is an automatically generated email. Please do not reply to this message. From:Gregory Bell To:Burt, Patrick; Council, City Subject:Re: MyCPAU Bill Payment Past Due. The payment system is not functioning. Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:20:51 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from gxbell@me.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This is the third time I have called PA utilities to pay my bill. The payment system here is SOOOOO BROKEN. Please fix it. —— I type less and talk more by phone. Greg M. Bell Simple Home Energy Advice —— On Aug 16, 2022, at 11:03 AM, noreply@cityofpaloalto.org wrote: From:LWV of Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:August 22 Council meeting, consent calendar item 4-FCCPA Safe Parking Application Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:56:05 AM Attachments:LWVPAsafeparkingltr (1).docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto writes in support of the FCCPA's Safe Parking Application, item 4 on the Consent Calendar. Our letter of support is attached. Thank you. -- League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: (650) 903-0600 Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/ Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto From:Barbara Susco To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Permit Program Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:51:00 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bsusco@gmail.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Honorable City Council Members, I am writing to express my support for the Safe Parking Program permit application by First Congregational Church, and to ask you to leave the item on the Consent calendar so that it can be approved and start helping people immediately. I consider myself a neighbor of this church, living on Primrose Way for 32 years. As I see it - churches in general hold large events and do community outreach. Living near a church, one should expect that. First Congregational Church has participated in Hotel de Zink from its inception. This is a program that works with a similar population of people giving emergency housing for 15 people for a month a year. This church has shown its commitment to help with the housing crisis we are currently in. Bigger solutions are required, but in the meantime I appreciate First Congo's willingness to help these people in need. Thank you, Barbara Susco From:Betsy Hart Rosoff To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Support for First Congregational Church’s Safe Parking Program Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:40:15 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from betsyhartrosoff@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my support for the Safe Parking Program at First Congregational Church which is on the Consent Agenda of your August 22nd Council meeting We have been in Palo Alto since 2013. I live nearby, a 5 minutes walk (.3 miles), on El Cajon Way with my 2 small children. I feel that the Safe Parking Program does not pose any danger to myself or my neighborhood. I appreciate the thoughtful plans that First Congregation Church have made that offers safety and support to these vulnerable people living in their cars. The Safe Parking Program currently at The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church are operating successfully without incident nor any complaints from neighbors or community members. Thank you for unanimously approving the Safe Parking Program in February 2020. I am proud of the commitment that Palo Alto has made to help the less fortunate members of our community. I urge you to approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your upcoming council meeting. Sincerely, Betsy Rosoff From:susan chamberlain To:Council, City Subject:Support of FCCPA Safe Parking permit Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:25:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers. First Presbyterian Church Palo Alto strongly supports the efforts of the Palo Alto City Council to provide a pathway to stable housing for those in our community who are unhoused. The Safe Parking Program is one such pathway and offers local churches the option of providing safe parking for individuals who have been sleeping in their cars on city streets. I write today in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application which is on the Consent Agenda of the August 22nd Council meeting. Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church currently host Safe Parking Programs. Both programs are operating successfully and neither church has received complaints from neighbors or community members. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with the regulations established by the City of Palo Alto and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. I urge you to approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your August 22nd Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Susan Chamberlain From:mark weiss To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; Summa, Doria; ladoris@judgecordell.com; Tom DuBois; Alison Cormack; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Aram James Subject:Re: Us vs the billionaires Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:22:28 AM Attachments:image002.png image003.png What if we promise to distribute the $90 million “wealth tax” or “tax on excess“ or “recently horded high tech market cap earnings and payroll” directly to the voters, by my math that would be $6,000 sent out to 15,000 Palo Alto voters. Each. I think citizens would absolutely welcome this rebate or redistribution and/or capturing any benefit from being so close to so much capital. We would exclude any entity worth less than $1 billion. Maybe we could exclude anything formed before 1998, grandfather them in so to speak. Palo Alto could have $1 million per business business license that excludes everyone but billionaires and trillionaires. (charge them all $1 million each and then let the unicorns complain that Tesla and Amazon and Google can afford more—- tax anyone with 10 or more employees here a flat fee, to start). I am riffing off of Paul Krugman in today’s times. The Nobel Laureate. To wit: Why we don’t have a carbon tax? Three and a half years ago, an open letter that more than 3,600 economists eventually signed declared that “climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action.” The signatories included 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, more than half of whom served under Republican presidents — a display of bipartisanship that contrasts sharply with the lock-step opposition of Republicans in Congress to the national action we’re finally taking in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act (which, despite its name, is mainly a climate bill) that President Biden is expected to sign today. While we’re getting action, however, that action isn’t taking the form called for in the letter. That huge array of economists agreed that climate change mitigation should take the form of a carbon tax — a fee levied on businesses and individuals who emit greenhouse gases. This, the letter argued, was the remedy recommended by “sound economic principles.” But the I.R.A. doesn’t include a carbon tax, nor does it introduce a system of tradable emissions permits, which would provide similar incentives. Instead, the act relies almost entirely on subsidies intended to promote clean energy, offering tax credits for renewable energy, aid to keep nuclear plants operating, incentives to buy electric vehicles and make homes more energy efficient and more. So what happened to the carbon tax idea? Biden administration officials are well aware of the Econ 101 case for emission taxes. Indeed, Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary, and Cecilia Rouse, the current C.E.A. chair, were among the letter’s signatories. I also understand that logic — in fact, the introductory economics textbook I wrote with Robin Wells makes that argument in some detail. But a few months after the letter was released I made the case in a Twitter thread against being a “carbon tax purist,” arguing that an exclusive focus on carbon taxes was “dubious economics and bad political economy.” And in practice Democrats ignored the carbon tax route. Why? One answer is that as I suggested, the economic case for the superiority of emission taxes over other policies isn’t as solid as it may appear — because it relies on the implicit assumption that the set of available technologies can be taken as given. If the cost of renewable energy is what it is, and the same is true of other approaches to climate mitigation like improving building insulation, a carbon tax has the virtue of giving people the incentive to reduce emissions as cheaply as possible. But a carbon tax may not give the right incentives for the development of new technologies; for that, you may need targeted subsidies in promising areas. Now, this is an old argument — basically the argument over whether we should have a deliberate industrial policy rather than just letting the market do its thing. And the technological case for industrial policy can easily be abused to justify wasteful intervention. But the recent history of energy technology — revolutionary cost reductions for renewable energy that seem to have been jump-started by government aid — suggests that at least for now, with low-emission technologies still in their infancy, there’s a strong case for industrial policy as opposed to, or in addition to, carbon pricing. And beyond the straight economics, there are overwhelming political arguments against making carbon taxes the centerpiece of climate policy. The economists’ letter asserted that the political downsides of a carbon tax — Higher taxes! Big government! — could be neutralized by promising to rebate the proceeds to taxpayers, “to avoid debates over the size of government.” This was naïve, even setting aside the certainty that conservatives would have relentlessly demagogued the tax increase no matter what the government promised to do with the revenues Note: I suggested that our failure to answer “why don’t we have a business tax ?”precludes us from actually coming up with a good plan Mbw Sitting 50 feet from Larry klein and Alison Cormack at a Ramona st café but giving them physical space Sent from my iPhone On Aug 12, 2022, at 7:51 AM, Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Hi Mark – I’ll respond to your one-word message with a few more than*. I hope you know I always respect and appreciate your perspective, which is why I’d like to explain a bit. I take from your messages that you feel we should be taxing the rich – totally get that. At the same time, I’d have to note that a business tax is at best an indirect way to do that. Irrespective of how a tax is structured, the executives and owners of a business can still get their returns; a tax expense can be filtered and spread through the business in many ways. But nonetheless worth pursuing. Other cities’ tax structures like payroll may sound better, but note that information on the actual payroll used to determine tax amounts is proprietary so the public (and other agencies like us) have no transparency to the actual amounts businesses are paying. On the other hand, our square footage basis is very transparent. Note: Actually for unicorns pre-IPO’s and publicly traded company they publish all the data we need to tax them progressively One other consideration is that the business reps really pushed us on clarity and reporting on how much money is collected and how its spent, and in response we added to more detailed reporting to the ordinance. They also made the case that we don’t have a clear plan for how the new funds will be spent. I’ve publicly stated that we’ll be able to make a much stronger case for more funding once we have plans for more affordable housing projects as well as designs for rail grade separations. Both of these are points that I’d expect many residents to agree with. So the measure approved by council to go on November’s ballot is huge in establishing the foundation for us to demonstrate that a business tax makes sense – but it’s certainly not the end of the story. For shizzle Hope that helps. --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 12:45 PM To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Fwd: Us vs the billionaires CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Shame Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Date: August 11, 2022 at 12:27:54 PM PDT To: Charlie Weidanz <charlie@paloaltochamber.com> Cc: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Subject: Re: Us vs the billionaires  Charlie: Rebecca Eisenberg and I and few others are advocates of a fair tax on Palo Alto‘s billionaires, centi-billionaires, trillionaires and I’m sure by the time this gets articulated there will be multi-trillionaires to contend with. We want a tax similar to what Mountain View or East Palo Alto or basically everyone else is doing which is a Nexus of their earnings, their payroll their profitability and or their market cap. We would exclude any entity with evaluation below $1 billion. We would enroll unicorns; we would tax venture capital transactions of which there are in recent years more than 2 billion coming and going here. My question is simple: how many of your constituents at the Chamber of Commerce even qualify? I would guess there are close to no billionaires or trillionaires among your ranks. I own a small business here (and a home and commercial real estate) — and I know it is unfair to me to give the billionaires and trillionaires this gift. This holiday. Someone like Tanaka is way too (zip) to even deal with, but why do you let your constituents oppose something that is in their best interests to support? Small business BENEFITS from the tax on big business, or capital. Similar question: how many (zip)??? The recent result show how truly corrupt Palo Alto is, it is so far from a democracy we might as well be in Venezuela, Hungary or Russia. And if you are American born or American educated I am surprised by your stance. (PS for the record, you or one of your funds gave me $xxxx last year “Palo Alto together again” but I personally spent more than $xxxx —I do a lot more for Palo Alto than —zip— do!!!) Mark Weiss * Actually I think I’ve written at least 10 times and more like 20,000 words but “Shame”, singularly, seemed to fit the bill. Sent from my Scorpio Rising From:Pat Kinney To:Council, City Subject:Please Support the Safe Parking Program at First Congregational Church Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 9:15:41 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from pkinney48235@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I strongly support the efforts of the Palo Alto City Council to provide a pathway to stable housing for those in our community who are unhoused. The Safe Parking Program is one such pathway and offers local churches the option of providing safe parking for individuals who have been sleeping in their cars on city streets. I write today in support of the First Congregational Church of Palo Alto’s (FCCPA) Safe Parking permit application which is on the Consent Agenda of the August 22nd Council meeting. Safe Parking provides a safe place to sleep for individuals living in their cars and helps connect them to more permanent housing options. The Safe Parking Program is set up in a way to protect the safety of all nearby residents while at the same time respecting the privacy and dignity of the people it will help. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto and the Highway Church currently host Safe Parking Programs. Both programs are operating successfully and neither church has received complaints from neighbors or community members. FCCPA’s application is in full compliance with the regulations established by the City of Palo Alto and has been recommended for approval by the City’s Planning Department. I urge you to approve the FCCPA Safe Parking Application as part of the Consent Calendar at your August 22nd Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Patricia Kinney Wildwood Lane, Palo Alto Some people who received this message don't often get email from dmpaloalto@gmail.com. Learn why this is From:Hoyt, George To:D Martell Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org; Tanner, Rachael; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly; ADA; Stump, Molly Subject:RE: MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 7:03:30 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image008.png image009.png image010.png image011.png Dr. Danielle Martell, We have provided you with hard copies of the items that you have requested along with outside resources that could assist you in completing the forms. George E. Hoyt, CBO Chief Building Official / ADA Coordinator Planning & Development Services (650) 329-2368 | George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 10:03 PM To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. George E. Hoyt Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: This is my seventh request to you and my City Attorney's office to offer me a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" form. - I have an injury preventing use of my hands; I need help filling out a claims form against my City. I do not want, and I am NOT asking for advocacy or answers to the claims form's questions. Please immediately send this one page document by email, and by regular post. Find my contact information below. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Perron, Zachary; Sean Allen; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Enberg, Nicholas; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; Jethroe Moore; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Joe Simitian; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; ladoris cordell; Council, City; Greer Stone; Human Relations Commission; Josh Becker; Raj; Yolanda G. Trevino; Cindy Chavez; melissa caswell; gmah@sccoe.org Subject:Re: Cop Who Shot Roderick Brooks In Back Of Head Has Obscene History Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 11:28:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Extremely, disturbing…unfortunately it is this same culture that exists within the rank and file of the Palo Alto Police department. Sent from my iPad > On Aug 15, 2022, at 10:23 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://youtu.be/IdXE5p5TO98 > > > Sent from my iPhone From:D Martell To:Stump, Molly Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly; Lait, Jonathan; Tanner, Rachael Subject:MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for Photograph | Claim against the City of Palo Alto Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 10:07:34 PM Attachments:image003.png image004.png image007.png image008.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Molly Stump, JD Palo Alto City Attorney Dear Attorney Stump: Please just write the date on the photograph and sign it. - The photographer told me that you do know the date the photo was taken because it is in the system, and you forbid him to reveal that date to me. (The photographer is Public Works Department's lead tree trimmer Bill Croft.) - Our City's independent claims adjustment agency, George Hills Company, Inc., told me all photo exhibits require a date. Again, please just do the following. - Write the date on the photo. - Sign it to verify that it came from you. - Call me, at (650) 856-0700, when it is ready. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 2:51 AMSubject: URGENT ... SIXTH request for Photograph | Claim against the City of Palo Alto To: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Molly Stump, JD Palo Alto City Attorney Dear Attorney Stump: It is unacceptable that you have not provided me with a photograph with a date and time stamp. This is a City negligence issue, which has caused damage to a resident. Shouldn't you show more concern? - Since May, you continue to give me the runaround. "Runaround" is a term created to describe how civilians are dealt with by the government from time to time. - The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "Runaround" as "Evasive or delaying action especially in response to a request". Please do your job that I need you to do, and locate a photograph with a date and time stamp, or offer a written statement as to the date and time the photograph was taken. Photograph exhibits require proof of date and time. Please immediately supply me with a Court appropriate photograph for my Claim against my City. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 5:02 PM Subject: RE: URGENT ... Claim against the City of Palo Alto | Request for Photograph To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> Hello Dr. Martell – The City has provided you with a copy of the only photograph that we have. We do not have a photograph with a time and date stamp. The photograph was taken by Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer Lead Bill Croft. My office will mail two copies of Mr. Croft’s business card to you in the next few days. Regards, Molly Stump MOLLY S. STUMP City Attorney Office of the City Attorney (650) 329 - 2171 | Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 11:22 AM Subject: URGENT ... Claim against the City of Palo Alto | Request for Photograph To: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> Molly Stump, JD Palo Alto City Attorney Dear Attorney Stump: Re the photograph of the City's tree branch which recently fell on me while sitting on a University Avenue City bench, this is my FIFTH request to receive this color photograph with the following validation. (1.) Date and time stamp (2.) Contact information for the City's photographer Please send this to my email address and a second copy to my mailing address. My email address remains dmPaloAlto@gmail.com; my mailing address is P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301. Be sure to include two of the City photographer's business cards. ------------------------ Your office has sent me three color copies of the photograph, but none have the usual date and time stamp, and I have yet to receive the contact information for the photographer. -------------------- Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 From:D Martell To:Hoyt, George Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; johathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org; Tanner, Rachael; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly Subject:MOST URGENT ... SEVENTH Request for "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" Form | Claim against the City of Palo Alto Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 10:02:54 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from dmpaloalto@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. George E. Hoyt Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Hoyt: This is my seventh request to you and my City Attorney's office to offer me a "Special Accommodations (ADA) Request" form. - I have an injury preventing use of my hands; I need help filling out a claims form against my City. I do not want, and I am NOT asking for advocacy or answers to the claims form's questions. Please immediately send this one page document by email, and by regular post. Find my contact information below. Yours truly, Danielle Martell, PhD Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com P.O. Box 265, Palo Alto, California 94301 From:Richard Hallsted To:Council, City Cc:Cormack, Alison; City Mgr Subject:Fw: Failure Notice for Greenbuildings@cityofpaloalto.org Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 9:55:49 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mysemite@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. So we were sending in a comment to the Green Building e-mail address, but no matter how many times I send it or check the spelling, I get a failed delivery message. If you wonder why people get frustrated in trying to deal with government (at whatever level), here is a local example. We cannot attend the meetings, zoom or not, this Tuesday or Thursday. Climate Change demands compromises and quick action, but I will stop my rant here. thanks for listening, Richard Hallsted ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: MAILER-DAEMON@yahoo.com <mailer-daemon@yahoo.com> To: "mysemite@yahoo.com" <mysemite@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 at 09:37:06 PM PDT Subject: Failure Notice Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <Greenbuildings@cityofpaloalto.org>: 550: 5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. AS(201806281) [DM3GCC02FT032.eop- gcc02.prod.protection.outlook.com] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Late 2021 we were going to put in an electric heat pump system (and heat pump water heater) to replace the existing gas appliances in our house, but we ran into an issue with the setback rules for the outdoor heat pump unit. For whatever reason, our house is zoned for eight-foot setbacks on the side but where the units would have been placed was six feet from the fence. For these very low decibel units, whether the unit is six feet or eight feet from the fence makes no difference in the noise generated. Every contractor who came through to bid on the project agreed it was "stupid" but that was the Palo Alto rules so eventually our project was scrapped (for now). We asked our Palo Alto architect friends and they said that everyone knows these setbacks are no longer relevant and that the rules will be changed at some point. Hopefully that some point is now. If you really want people to replace their gas appliances with electric heat pump units, old rules need to be updated now. To our understanding, ADU rules have shorter setbacks for all sorts of aspects including things like heat pump units. And as we live on East Meadow, which for some reason is a "special" setback street, looking at setback maps houses behind us have only six feet side setbacks, but we have eight feet side setbacks. No bureaucratic reasoning would convince me as to why that difference exists in the first place. And as a final comment, none of this makes any economic sense as the cost to put in a heat pump system is several times that of just replacing our gas furnace (which we may need to do this winter) regardless of any bill passed in Washington. You need to make it easy to do this, not the usual Palo Alto runaround for permitting and inspections as we have experienced on several jobs on our house over the years. Thanks for listening, Richard Hallsted 890 East Meadow From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Enberg, Nicholas; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; chuck jagoda; Rebecca Eisenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; Jethroe Moore; Jay Boyarsky; Pat Burt; Tony Dixon; Perron, Zachary; Foley, Michael; Foley, Michael; Tannock, Julie; Josh Becker; Greer Stone; Cindy Chavez; Raj Subject:Ex-Cop Involved In Breonna Taylor"s Death Takes Plea Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 9:48:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/85iCr2TDLI0 Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Binder, Andrew; Jethroe Moore; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; Jeff Rosen; Shikada, Ed; Enberg, Nicholas; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; Raj; Winter Dellenbach; Perron, Zachary; Tannock, Julie; Greer Stone; Josh Becker; Cindy Chavez; Foley, Michael; Cecilia Taylor Subject:Top cops say Phoenix Police Chief Williams misled public about protest s... Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 9:41:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/q3xG_4E9hjM Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Binder, Andrew; city.council@menlopark.org; Council, City; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jethroe Moore; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Josh Becker; Rebecca Eisenberg; Cindy Chavez; Raj; Vara Ramakrishnan; Human Relations Commission Subject:“I Thought We Were Going to Be Executed”: Police Held Family at Gunpoint... Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 9:37:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/nLTZ_eRk3AQ Sent from my iPhone From:Richard Hallsted To:Greenbuildings@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City Subject:setbacks and side yard setbacks and special setbacks Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 9:26:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Late 2021 we were going to put in a heat pump system (and heat pump water heater) to replace the existing gas appliances in our house, but we ran into an issue with the setback rules for the outdoor heat pump unit. For whatever reason, our house is zoned for eight-foot setbacks on the side but where the units would have been placed was six feet from the fence. For these very low decibel units, whether the unit is six feet or eight feet from the fence makes no difference in the noise generated. Every contractor who came through to bid on the project agreed it was "stupid" but that was the Palo Alto rules so eventually our project was scrapped (for now). We asked our Palo Alto architect friends and they said that everyone knows these setbacks are no longer relevant and that the rules will be changed at some point. Hopefully that some point is now. If you really want people to replace their gas appliances with electric heat pump units, old rules need to be updated now. To our understanding, ADU rules have shorter setbacks for all sorts of aspects including things like heat pump units. And as we live on East Meadow, which for some reason is a "special" setback street, looking at setback maps houses behind us have only six feet side setbacks but we have eight feet side setbacks. No bureaucratic reasoning would convince me as to why that difference exists in the first place. And as a final comment, none of this makes any economic sense as the cost to put in a heat pump system is several times that of just replacing our gas furnace (which we may need to do this winter) regardless of any bill passed in Washington. You need to make it easy to do this, not the usual Palo Alto runaround for permitting and inspections as we have experienced on several jobs on our house over the years. Thanks for listening, Richard Hallsted 890 East Meadow From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary; Sean Allen; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Enberg, Nicholas; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; Jethroe Moore; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Joe Simitian; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; ladoris cordell; Council, City; Greer Stone; Human Relations Commission; Josh Becker; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Raj; Yolanda G. Trevino; Cindy Chavez; melissa caswell; gmah@sccoe.org Subject:Cop Who Shot Roderick Brooks In Back Of Head Has Obscene History Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 9:23:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/IdXE5p5TO98 Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary; epatoday@epatoday.org; Greer Stone; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; darylsavage@gmail.com; Tony Dixon; Sean Allen; Tannock, Julie; Rebecca Eisenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; Foley, Michael; Foley, Michael; Enberg, Nicholas; Doug Fort; Cecilia Taylor; Josh Becker; Betsy Nash Subject:Black Police Chief Fired For Reforming Racist Charlottesville Department Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 9:12:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/YDNJ59YS0mE Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Burt, Patrick; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:I wanted to speak to the action item 10–but I was not called on Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 8:47:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Enberg, Nicholas Cc:Binder, Andrew Subject:Re: Hi Nick— Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 8:21:21 PM Hi Nick, Get the kids down for the night. Let me know if you recall a canine incident in October of 2021 -that involves you as the canine handler? If so did you have any body-worn footage of the incident? Was the alleged victim of the alleged canine attack injured? Is the district attorney pursuing a possible prosecution? Any other comments you can share regarding the alleged incident? Thanks, aram > On Aug 15, 2022, at 7:57 PM, Enberg, Nicholas <Nicholas.Enberg@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: > > So I just got the kids down and I’ll watch it on YouTube in a minute and I’ll email. I misread the first email but I’m curious who the community member was as well. > > Nick > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 15, 2022, at 19:53, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. >> ________________________________ >> >> Hi Nick, >> Any comment on my email and brief comments to the city council? >> >> Thanks, aram >> >> Sent from my iPhone From:lchiapella@juno.com To:Council, City Subject:616 ramona Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 7:51:25 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lchiapella@juno.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: Although I raised my hand for 616 Ramona item above, it did not register. Apparently, my hand registered for Oral Communications, rather than the prior item. Changing the zoning code to accommodate one developer for his proposed project with out due consideration of all qualifying properties within the area is a slippery slope. The unintended consequences are considerable and staff clearly does not have time and expertise to take on the zoning code at this time. The project will likely exacerbate the housing problem in Palo Alto and surely will not improve the problem. Also this item has the potential to encourage other developers to make similar tweaks to the zoning code. If the applicant has a really worthy project, Palo Alto has a process in which an applicant may request a conditional use permit. Sincerely, Lynn Chiapella From:Aram James To:Council, City; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; ladoris cordell; Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Rosen; Jethroe Moore; Sean Allen; Jay Boyarsky; Raj; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Planning Commission; chuck jagoda; ParkRec Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Cindy Chavez; Lewis. james Subject:PAPD working weaponized canine free since June 2022. Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 7:15:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ > August 15, 2022 > > California Public Records Request for any video footage of a canine attack that is alleged to have occurred in October 2021 —the dog handler alleged to have released the canine on the alleged victim is alleged to have been officer or agent Nicholas Enberg. > > Per the Daily Post piece of Thursday August 11 ( by Braden Cartwright) both PAPD canines are now retired —but there is NO PLAN to permanently shut down the use of weaponized canines used to attack community members like Joel Alejo in June 2020, that resulted in a $135,000 settlement and unknown attorney fees. > > Based on information I received yesterday by a community member walking by my house —while I was outside —this person after seeing the signage on my fence including a sign reading NO CANINE UNITS —spontaneously blurred out the name Enberg — I responded I was familier with Officer Enberg —the person went on to say: that someone they know had been attacked in October of 2021 ( well after the Alejo matter) by a weaponized canine released by Officer Nicholas Enberg. > > The person advised that there exists video footage of the incident —that tonight I am asking Police Chief Andrew Binder to release( assuming of course that the information I received was accurate). And assuming the PAPD is in possession of video footage of the incident. > > Per the person the injuries were substantial and the person attacked by the canine is seeking Justice. Per the person the DA has not acted on the case. I left a message with the District Attorney today — no response yet—to see what the DA knows about the case, if anything. > > I emailed officer Enberg last night regarding whether he wished to speak with me about something. He responded that we could in fact talk but so far we have not been able to set up a time to speak. > > The person who was walking by my house was accompanied by another walker they were in a rush —so I did not receive the name of the attorney handling the case or the journalist the person mentioned who is apparently writing about the incident. I did give the person who spoke to me my email > address and hope that person reaches out to me with additional information in the near future. I have contacted a member of the local press in hopes they can assist in investigating this matter. > > I would be extremely disappointed if it turns out the PAPD has been in possession of video footage of this alleged incident and has NOT released to the press and community. > > Sincerely, > > Aram James From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Binder, Andrew; James Aram; Wagner, April; Shikada, Ed; Milton, Lesley; Council, City; Maloney, Con; Cody@salfenlaw.com; Stump, Molly; Sean Webby; Sue Dremann; Bill Johnson; Reifschneider, James; Stump, Molly; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com Subject:Robert Parham Blocking Public emails - Notifications Twitter Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 6:53:06 PM Attachments:Notifications Twitter.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPad From:Chris Colohan To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking at First Congregational Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 6:15:11 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chris@colohan.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to urge the city council to support the application for a Safe Parking Program permit at First Congregational Church. Our community desperately needs more affordable housing. This is graphically illustrated by the fact that we have residents sleeping in cars, vans, and camper vehicles. Clearly these folks have ties to the community, as they would use those vehicles to go somewhere less expensive to sleep and eat without such ties. Are better solutions necessary to house our car sleeping residents? Absolutely. Is this a stop- gap solution until such solutions exist? Yes. Would it be cruel to add yet more delay to the start of this badly needed program? Yes again. The choice is not between welcoming these four cars into the church parking lot or having them not be here. The choice is between having these residents park in a safe, controlled environment, or having them park where they choose on our streets. Given these alternatives, this program seems obviously beneficial. Safe Parking Programs at two other churches in our city have run without a hitch so far. There have been no complaints that I'm aware of. The First Congregational Church has been engaging with the local community, and appear to be willing to work with neighbours and hear their fears and concerns. I once again urge you -- please approve this permit application so it can be implemented without delay. Thank you! Chris Colohan From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Steve Levy Subject:A Welcome Uptick in Housing Permits Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 4:44:32 PM Attachments:Numbers-Aug2022-Welcome-Uptick-in-Housing-Permits.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi All, This is the first in a new series of Numbers in the News. The report looks at housing permits thru June of 2022 and compares those to previous periods. It covers the state, five major regions and counties within them. If the pace through June is continues, the state will record the largest number of permits since 2006, though in most regions still well below their new housing targets. The report ends with some personal comments. Steve 650-814-8553 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 1 August 2022 A Welcome Uptick in Housing Permits California recorded 71,236 residential building permits in the first six months of 2022—a 15.5% increase over the 2021 comparable figure of 61,684. The state is on pace to record the largest number of housing permits since 2006, though the level is still below the state’s target for correcting the persistent recent undersupply of housing. In 2022 the permits were evenly split between single-family and multi-family units though the split varies substantially among individual counties and regions. 52,903 45,226 61,684 71,236 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Residential Building Permits in California First Six Months of the Year 27,641 24,868 34,653 35,894 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single-Family Permits in Caliofornia First Six Months of the Year 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 2 Regional Overview Data from the California Homebuilding Foundation (CHF) and the Construction Industry Research Board (CIRB) show that all regions participated in the 2022 uptick in housing permits. Regional Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Southern California 2019 22,101 San Francisco Bay Area 2,019 13,201 2021 25,350 2,021 13,511 2022 28,470 2,022 14,838 San Diego 2019 3,924 Sacramento Region 2,019 4,705 2021 4,958 2,021 6,551 2022 6,015 2,022 8,268 San Joaquin Valley 2019 6,520 Rest of State 2,019 2,452 2021 7,937 2,021 3,377 2022 8,480 2,022 5,165 California 2019 52,903 2021 61,684 2022 71,236 25,262 20,358 27,031 35,342 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Mulit-Family Permits in California First Six Months of the Year 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 3 Source: CHF and CIRB All regions also posted increases compared to the first six months of 2019 though the gains varied by region with the lowest % gain in the Bay Area. Southern California Trends Riverside County accounted for most of the increase between 2021 and 2022 followed by Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Orange County is the only Southern California county that trails 2021 permit levels at mid-year. Southern California communities are in the process of updating their Housing Elements in response to California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) review and numerous letters outlining deficiencies in their original draft updates. Southern California Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Year Permits Los Angeles 2019 10234 Orange 2019 4313 2021 12428 2021 4460 2022 13556 2022 3650 Riverside 2019 4398 San Bernardino 2019 2266 2021 4157 2021 3465 2022 6405 2022 3984 Ventura 2019 890 Southern California 2019 22101 2021 840 2021 25350 2022 875 2022 28470 Source: CHF and CIRB Bay Area Trends The Bay Area recorded modest gains in housing permits in the first six months of 2022 with decreases in the East Bay offset by gains on the peninsula led by Santa Clara County and gains in the North Bay. More increases seem likely as there are stories every week about new housing proposals and approvals. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 4 Bay Area communities are finishing their draft Housing Element updates this year and will then respond to expected responses from HCD requesting revisions. Bay Area Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Year Permits Year Permits Alameda 2019 3309 Contra Costa 2019 1546 2021 3592 2021 2070 2022 2344 2022 1455 Marin 2019 149 Napa 2019 99 2021 118 2021 170 2022 200 2022 561 San Francisco 2019 1995 San Mateo 2019 945 2021 1294 2021 732 2022 2399 2022 1242 Santa Clara 2019 2527 Solano 2019 612 2021 2650 2021 864 2022 3589 2022 1026 Sonoma 2019 1216 Bay Area 2019 13201 2021 972 2021 13511 2022 1331 2022 14838 Source: CHF and CIRB Sacramento Region Trends The Sacramento region has seen a sharp increase in housing permits since 2019. The 2022 level is only slightly below the annual level for the region in their 6th cycle RHNA needs determination. Of course, total permits could still fall short of the requirements for units affordable to low- and moderate-income residents as is true in all regions. Part of the increase in permits is probably the result of Bay Area residents moving to the less expensive region as work from home opportunities increased. Regional home prices and rents have increased recently though still below levels in the Bay Area and Southern California. The majority of the permit increases were in Sacramento and Placer counties. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 5 Sacramento Region Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Year Permits Year Permits El Dorado 2019 288 Placer 2019 1038 2021 248 2021 2280 2022 279 2022 2713 Sacramento 2019 2615 Sutter 2019 69 2021 3435 2021 40 2022 4224 2022 95 Yolo 2019 446 Yuba 2019 249 2021 494 2021 54 2022 539 2022 418 Sacramento region 2019 4705 2021 6551 2022 8268 Source: CHF and CIRB San Joaquin Valley Trends San Joaquin Valley housing permits have trended up modestly since 2019. For the first six months of 2022, the region has a similar permit level to the Sacramento region though the Valley population is much higher. Valley regional planning agencies are among the last to get their 6th cycle RHNA needs determinations and are among the last areas to update their Housing Elements. The 2022 permit level if continued will be below the Valley’s annual permit target though less so than in the Bay Area and Southern California. Permit increases in San Joaquin County (adjacent to the Bay area) and Tulare County have offset small declines in Fresno, Kern and Merced counties so far in 2022. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 6 San Joaquin Valley Region Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Thru June Year Permits Year Permits Fresno 2019 1452 Kern 2019 1648 2021 2215 2021 1281 2022 1989 2022 1109 Kings 2019 226 Madera 2019 299 2021 110 2021 604 2022 147 2022 543 Merced 2019 502 San Joaquin 2019 1311 2021 647 2021 1756 2022 452 2022 2240 Stanislaus 2019 325 Tulare 2019 757 2021 485 2021 839 2022 487 2022 1513 San Joaquin Valley 2019 6520 2021 7937 2022 8480 Source: CHF and CIRB Comments The future of housing permit growth faces strong but opposing forces. In the short-term the recent increase in permit levels goes counter to 1) rising costs for producing housing, rising mortgage interest rates, a potential economic slowdown of unknown depth and length and continued high home prices and rents. However, there are strong positive forces. Property owners and public agencies are increasingly seeing opportunities in converting underutilized or vacant office and retail space to housing as well as more opportunities to convert unneeded public properties like parking lots to housing. And even in the short-term new housing proposals are seen weekly despite the obstacles mentions above. The RHNA targets, recent state laws and a series of court decisions are prompting more cities to take the housing requirements seriously and take steps in zoning, development standards and reducing application review time. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 7 Funding and city rules are still barriers to greatly increasing the number of subsidized units for low-income residents. Events in 2023 will shed more light on how quickly permit levels will increase throughout the state. From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Steve Levy Subject:A Welcome Uptick in Housing Permits Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 4:39:54 PM Attachments:Numbers-Aug2022-Welcome-Uptick-in-Housing-Permits.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi All, This is the first in a new series of Numbers in the News. The report looks at housing permits thru June of 2022 and compares those to previous periods. It covers the state, five major regions and counties within them. If the pace through June is continues, the state will record the largest number of permits since 2006, though in most regions still well below their new housing targets. The report ends with some personal comments. Steve 650-814-8553 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 1 August 2022 A Welcome Uptick in Housing Permits California recorded 71,236 residential building permits in the first six months of 2022—a 15.5% increase over the 2021 comparable figure of 61,684. The state is on pace to record the largest number of housing permits since 2006, though the level is still below the state’s target for correcting the persistent recent undersupply of housing. In 2022 the permits were evenly split between single-family and multi-family units though the split varies substantially among individual counties and regions. 52,903 45,226 61,684 71,236 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Residential Building Permits in California First Six Months of the Year 27,641 24,868 34,653 35,894 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single-Family Permits in Caliofornia First Six Months of the Year 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 2 Regional Overview Data from the California Homebuilding Foundation (CHF) and the Construction Industry Research Board (CIRB) show that all regions participated in the 2022 uptick in housing permits. Regional Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Southern California 2019 22,101 San Francisco Bay Area 2,019 13,201 2021 25,350 2,021 13,511 2022 28,470 2,022 14,838 San Diego 2019 3,924 Sacramento Region 2,019 4,705 2021 4,958 2,021 6,551 2022 6,015 2,022 8,268 San Joaquin Valley 2019 6,520 Rest of State 2,019 2,452 2021 7,937 2,021 3,377 2022 8,480 2,022 5,165 California 2019 52,903 2021 61,684 2022 71,236 25,262 20,358 27,031 35,342 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Mulit-Family Permits in California First Six Months of the Year 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 3 Source: CHF and CIRB All regions also posted increases compared to the first six months of 2019 though the gains varied by region with the lowest % gain in the Bay Area. Southern California Trends Riverside County accounted for most of the increase between 2021 and 2022 followed by Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Orange County is the only Southern California county that trails 2021 permit levels at mid-year. Southern California communities are in the process of updating their Housing Elements in response to California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) review and numerous letters outlining deficiencies in their original draft updates. Southern California Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Year Permits Los Angeles 2019 10234 Orange 2019 4313 2021 12428 2021 4460 2022 13556 2022 3650 Riverside 2019 4398 San Bernardino 2019 2266 2021 4157 2021 3465 2022 6405 2022 3984 Ventura 2019 890 Southern California 2019 22101 2021 840 2021 25350 2022 875 2022 28470 Source: CHF and CIRB Bay Area Trends The Bay Area recorded modest gains in housing permits in the first six months of 2022 with decreases in the East Bay offset by gains on the peninsula led by Santa Clara County and gains in the North Bay. More increases seem likely as there are stories every week about new housing proposals and approvals. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 4 Bay Area communities are finishing their draft Housing Element updates this year and will then respond to expected responses from HCD requesting revisions. Bay Area Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Year Permits Year Permits Alameda 2019 3309 Contra Costa 2019 1546 2021 3592 2021 2070 2022 2344 2022 1455 Marin 2019 149 Napa 2019 99 2021 118 2021 170 2022 200 2022 561 San Francisco 2019 1995 San Mateo 2019 945 2021 1294 2021 732 2022 2399 2022 1242 Santa Clara 2019 2527 Solano 2019 612 2021 2650 2021 864 2022 3589 2022 1026 Sonoma 2019 1216 Bay Area 2019 13201 2021 972 2021 13511 2022 1331 2022 14838 Source: CHF and CIRB Sacramento Region Trends The Sacramento region has seen a sharp increase in housing permits since 2019. The 2022 level is only slightly below the annual level for the region in their 6th cycle RHNA needs determination. Of course, total permits could still fall short of the requirements for units affordable to low- and moderate-income residents as is true in all regions. Part of the increase in permits is probably the result of Bay Area residents moving to the less expensive region as work from home opportunities increased. Regional home prices and rents have increased recently though still below levels in the Bay Area and Southern California. The majority of the permit increases were in Sacramento and Placer counties. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 5 Sacramento Region Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Year Permits Year Permits El Dorado 2019 288 Placer 2019 1038 2021 248 2021 2280 2022 279 2022 2713 Sacramento 2019 2615 Sutter 2019 69 2021 3435 2021 40 2022 4224 2022 95 Yolo 2019 446 Yuba 2019 249 2021 494 2021 54 2022 539 2022 418 Sacramento region 2019 4705 2021 6551 2022 8268 Source: CHF and CIRB San Joaquin Valley Trends San Joaquin Valley housing permits have trended up modestly since 2019. For the first six months of 2022, the region has a similar permit level to the Sacramento region though the Valley population is much higher. Valley regional planning agencies are among the last to get their 6th cycle RHNA needs determinations and are among the last areas to update their Housing Elements. The 2022 permit level if continued will be below the Valley’s annual permit target though less so than in the Bay Area and Southern California. Permit increases in San Joaquin County (adjacent to the Bay area) and Tulare County have offset small declines in Fresno, Kern and Merced counties so far in 2022. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 6 San Joaquin Valley Region Housing Building Permits First Six Months of the Year Thru June Year Permits Year Permits Fresno 2019 1452 Kern 2019 1648 2021 2215 2021 1281 2022 1989 2022 1109 Kings 2019 226 Madera 2019 299 2021 110 2021 604 2022 147 2022 543 Merced 2019 502 San Joaquin 2019 1311 2021 647 2021 1756 2022 452 2022 2240 Stanislaus 2019 325 Tulare 2019 757 2021 485 2021 839 2022 487 2022 1513 San Joaquin Valley 2019 6520 2021 7937 2022 8480 Source: CHF and CIRB Comments The future of housing permit growth faces strong but opposing forces. In the short-term the recent increase in permit levels goes counter to 1) rising costs for producing housing, rising mortgage interest rates, a potential economic slowdown of unknown depth and length and continued high home prices and rents. However, there are strong positive forces. Property owners and public agencies are increasingly seeing opportunities in converting underutilized or vacant office and retail space to housing as well as more opportunities to convert unneeded public properties like parking lots to housing. And even in the short-term new housing proposals are seen weekly despite the obstacles mentions above. The RHNA targets, recent state laws and a series of court decisions are prompting more cities to take the housing requirements seriously and take steps in zoning, development standards and reducing application review time. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 7 Funding and city rules are still barriers to greatly increasing the number of subsidized units for low-income residents. Events in 2023 will shed more light on how quickly permit levels will increase throughout the state. From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely; ORG - Clerk"s Office; Executive Leadership Team; North, Karin; Boyd, Holly; Boyle Rodriguez, Pam; Paras, Christine Subject:UPDATE: Council Consent Questions Item 5, 7, and 8 (8/15/22) Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 2:43:25 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png image011.png Hello Mayor and Councilmembers, An update was made to the staff responses to consent questions for tonight’s meeting. Please note the addition of a question from Mayor Burt and Vice Mayor Kou to consent item 7 in the amended agenda link and document below: August 15 Amended Agenda Staff response to Items 5, 7 and 8 Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Tran, Joanna Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 4:37 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Executive Leadership Team <ExecutiveLeadershipTeam@cityofpaloalto.org>; North, Karin <Karin.North@cityofpaloalto.org>; Boyd, Holly <Holly.Boyd@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Boyle Rodriguez, Pam <Pamela.BoyleRodriguez@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Paras, Christine <Christine.Paras@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Council Consent Questions Item 5 and 8: 8/15/22 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff responses to questions from Councilmember Tanaka regarding Monday night’s Council Meeting: August 15 Amended Agenda Staff response to Items 5 and 8 Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Canopy To:Council, City Subject: Take Action for Trees! Enroll in Community Forestry School Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 2:20:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Community Forestry School Online Zoom Classes: Wednesdays, September 14 - November 9, 2022 from 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. Outdoor Field Experiences: Saturdays, October 15 - 29, 2022 from 9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Various locations In California, 80% of the population lives in urban areas, making trees a vital part of daily life in cities. Trees are key to environmental justice, improved quality of life, and public health — yet our urban trees are under compounding threats from development, budgetary pressures, and global climate change. Now more than ever, we must come together to preserve and renew our urban forests. Become a Canopy-certified Community Forester! This 9-week Zoom course, with in-person field experiences on weekends, will equip you with the knowledge, skills, and training you need to take action in your community right away. As a Community Forestry School graduate, you will be equipped to identify trees, plant and prune effectively, explain the value of the urban forest to others, and advocate for trees in your community. ENROLL NOW This program is made possible by a generous grant from the County of Santa Clara Office of Sustainability. Testimonials “After attending this Community Forester program, I feel that I am in a position to truly affect the growth and the health of our urban forest. The logical progression from basic knowledge to a hands-on application to continued action seems to be a grand approach to helping our community grow in the right direction!” “The class is informative and brings in guest lecturers with local talent and experience. I find the course informative, relevant, and interesting.” - Community Forestry School graduates Topics explored in-depth include: Tree selection and placement taught by experienced arborists with local expertise Canopy’s expert tree planting methods for establishment and survival in the urban landscape Locally relevant tree care and pruning techniques that promote longevity and good structure Advocating for tree-friendly policies, resources, and master plans that support a thriving urban forest Find the detailed course schedule and more information at canopy.org/community-forestry-school. Certification Requirements: Attend at least 8 out of 9 classes on Wednesdays Participate in all 3 of the outdoor field experiences offered during the course Volunteer at least 15 hours with Canopy by the end of 2023 Maintain certification by volunteering at least 15 hours per year with Canopy or other community forestry groups LEARN MORE Canopy's mission is to grow the urban forest in Midpeninsula communities for the benefit of all. Our vision is a day when every resident of the Midpeninsula can step outside to walk, play, and thrive under the shade of healthy trees. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ Canopy | 3921 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by info@canopy.org powered by Try email marketing for free today!