Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20210125plCC
701-32 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: 1/25/ 2021 Document dates: 1/6/2021 – 1/13/2021 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Brettle, Jessica Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 5:08 PM To:Tom DuBois; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Filseth, Eric (external); Greer Stone; Stone, Greer; Greg Tanaka; Tanaka, Greg; Pat Burt; Pat Burt (pat@patburt.org); Burt, Patrick Cc:Minor, Beth; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Forwarded from Council Member Kou: RHNA Double Counting! Attachments:2020FEB Freddie Mac report - Housing Supply Shortage.pdf; 2020OCT EI Double-counting-in-the- Latest-Housing-Needs-Assessment.pdf; 2020 DOF population growth report (2020_07_28 16_54_47 UTC).pdf MayorandCityCouncil, PleaseseebelowandattachedfromCouncilMemberLydiaKou.Thankyou. Sincerely, Jessica JessicaBrettle AssistantCityClerk 250HamiltonAvenue|PaloAlto,CA94301 Phone:(650)329Ͳ2630 Email:Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org From:Kou,Lydia<Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent:Friday,January8,20215:04PM To:Minor,Beth<Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Brettle,Jessica<Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject:RHNADoubleCounting! DearBethandJessica, Pleaseforwardtheenclosedemailreferencedas"Subject:AddressingquestionsabouttheEmbarcadero Instituteanditsreport"andthethreeattachmentstotheCouncilMemberstoprepareforourCouncil meetingonJanuary11,2021,inparticularActionitemno.8. Attachmentsenclosed: x FreddieMacHousingSupplyreport x EmbarcaderoInstituteanalysis x DOFDemographicreport Thankyou, COUNCIL MEETING ✔ 5HFHLYHG%HIRUH0HHWLQJ 81-11-21 2 ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ LydiaKouͲCouncilMember ContactInfo:https://goo.gl/BcgCQS From:GabLayton<embarcadero.institute@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,November19,20204:15PM To:Council,City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;CityMgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>;Lait,Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>;CityAttorney<city.attorney@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc:Waldfogel,Asher<asher@waldfogel.us> Subject:AddressingquestionsabouttheEmbarcaderoInstituteanditsreport CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor, council members, and city staff, After attending the city council meeting on Monday, November 16, I felt I should clarify a couple of questions raised about the Embarcadero Institute and respond to Mr. Levy’s criticism of our report. To the question of who we are: Asher Waldfogel and I co-founded Embarcadero Institute (EI) almost five years ago. We founded the nonprofit with the intention of providing data-driven analysis on matters affecting housing and transportation policy. You will already be familiar with Asher and his background - founding three venture capital-backed start-ups in networks and high-performance computing and his service on Palo Alto’s Planning and Transportation Committee for several years. I am currently serving on the board of Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research. I have a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering and worked in scramjet engine design before working at McKinsey & Company. I have lived in Palo Alto since 2012. To the suggestion that we are anti-housing: Asher and I have both supported candidates locally who we think will do the best job of moving the dial on affordable housing and achieving a better job/housing balance. We are pro-housing, particularly pro-affordable housing. We're also pro-transparency. Wanting to understand the real size of the problem should not be 3 conflated with an anti-housing position. We want to understand the real size of the problem to better understand the causes, so when we make progress against real targets we will know what's working. Inflating the numbers doesn't help anyone. Labels don’t help either. Housing is a complex problem with many stakeholders; as a result, solutions will likely require compromise. Painting people into corners with labels like “pro” and “anti” isn’t particularly helpful. Re criticism of our report: EI recently produced a report on the Regional Housing Needs Assessments in which we identified a series of double-counting errors in the Dept. of Housing and Community Development’s new 6th cycle methodology that nearly double the housing targets over the 5th cycle methodology. I understand you all received a copy of the report. In preparing the report, we had the opportunity to speak to both Dr. Walter Schwarm, Chief Economist at the Department of Finance (DOF), and Tom Brinkhuis, Housing Policy Specialist at the Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD). I noted Mr. Levy’s email of November 8 in which he stated, “The EI report is wrong in both of its major claims” and wished to respond to his statement. 1. 2. Mr. Levy argues that: 3. “The first claim was that the HCD vacancy assumption is too high because it does not use the recent vacancy trend for owner-occupied housing.” To which he adds, “as the HCD letter points out 5% is their normal assumption for the total housing stock”. Response:To be clear, we did not argue that the vacancy assumption was too high because of recent vacancy trends in owner-occupied housing. Instead, our point was that HCD had deviated from their standard practice for the last two decades of separating owner-occupied and renter housing and applying two separate benchmarks to the different housing stocks. In the past, they have applied a benchmark of 1.5% for owner-occupied housing and 5% for renter-housing. This approach of treating the two types of housing as essentially two different markets is consistent with work produced by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies and consistent with the approach used by the American Housing Survey (AHS) managed by the Census Bureau. There is an abundance of official documentation on the HCD website to show that 5% is not the HCD’s “normal assumption for total housing stock”. The HCD staff themselves would not argue this point. I’ve attached a copy of the relevant page in HCD’s official letter to ABAG for the 5th cycle Housing Need Determination in which they outline the methodology used then - you’ll notice that they separate out owner-occupied and rental housing and separately apply a 1.5% and 5% benchmark. 4 2. 3. Mr. Levy states: 4. “Their second claim is that DOF already accounts for mitigating existing housing shortages. Their "evidence" for this is a quote from an ABAG staff member in 2006. The claim is false. DOF has published their housing projection methodology this year and notes a) that it does not reflect pent-up demand and starts with recent household headship rates (that reflect doubling up and overcrowding as a result of growing housing unaffordability for many residents).” EI Response: Mr. Levy is correct that the Dept of Finance’s (DOF) past approach did not adjust for household formation rates depressed by the Great Recession. However, he is incorrect in saying that the DOF starts with recent household headship rates. They start with 20-year household headship trends. Furthermore, since 2015, the DOF made a subsequent adjustment to their methodology. They were concerned that the impacts of the Great Recession would disproportionately affect their 20-year trend data. They convened a household formation expert panel and, out of those discussions, decided to include a recession adjustment that counteracted the overcrowding and cost-burdening effects of the economy. That adjustment added an explicit return to household formation rates of the early 2000s, that, as the DOF describes it, reflected socio-cultural norms of home-ownership and household size - this adjustment results in higher household projections. I spoke to Dr. Walter Schwarm at the DOF in July shortly after he had updated the “read me” notes that documented these household formation adjustments. They can be found with the Dept of Finance’s Household Projection Table -P4. 5 Per Dr. Walter Schwarm, June 2020, paragraph 5 (highlighted below) “Age- and race/ethnicity-specific headship rates were calculated based on 1990, 2000, and 2010 census information. Trends in headship rates over time by age and county are modeled and used to project future headship rates. In addition to trends, there is an explicit return to an average of 2000 and 2010 headship rates built into the model. This average of rates was the result of deliberations made by the expert panel during the previous HCD Statewide Housing Plan in 2015. The argument was that the Great Recession and the affordability crisis which impact recent trends in headship should not be allowed to dominate the projection, rather some return to underlying socio-cultural norms of homeownership/fewer roommates is a beneficial assumption that reflects the fact that those conditions were temporary”. In Summary: 1. 2. Mr. Levy argued that the Dept. of Housing and Community 3. Development (HCD) has always treated the total housing stock with a 5% rental vacancy rate. 4. That is not true and that fact is not in dispute. And since the owner-occupied vacancy barely reached 3% during the foreclosure crisis, a 5% benchmark for owner-occupancy seems high by any measure. 2. 3. Mr. Levy argued that 4. the Dept. of Finance household projections do not include an adjustment for overcrowding and cost- burdening. 5. In fact, they do, and the adjustment was authorized by a panel of experts following the HCD statewide Housing Plan in 2015. Mr. Levy may argue that the panel of experts got it wrong but he would have to take that up with the DOF and HCD. I hope that clarifies any misunderstandings. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Thanks for your service and time. 6 Sincerely Gab Layton https://embarcaderoinstitute.com/ © 2020 Freddie Mac www.freddiemac.com Economic & Housing Research Insight FEBRUARY 2020 The Housing Supply Shortage: State of the States The United States suffers from a severe housing shortage. In a recent study, The Major Challenge of Inadequate U.S. Housing Supply, we estimated that 2.5 million additional housing units will be needed to make up this shortage. Our earlier study used national statistics, treating the United States as a single market. What happens when we look closer, basing the analysis at the state level? When we account for state-level variations, the estimated housing deficit is even greater in some states because housing is a fixed asset. A surplus of housing in one area can do little to help faraway places. For example, vacant homes in Ohio make little difference to the housing markets in Texas. We estimate that there are currently 29 states that have a housing deficit, and when we consider only these states, the housing shortage grows from 2.5 million units to 3.3 million units. Unsurprisingly, the states with the most severe housing shortage are the states that have recently attempted to loosen zoning policy regulations. States like California, Oregon, and others have undertaken policy action to address this issue. California, for example, has been working on chipping away at single-use zoning while Texas has passed a density bonus program, an ordinance which amends the city code by loosening site restrictions and promoting construction of more units in affordable and mixed-income housing developments. Oregon was one of the first states to pass legislation to eliminate exclusive single-family zoning in much of the state. The Minneapolis City Council voted to get rid of single-family zoning and started allowing residential structures with up to three dwelling units in every neighborhood. We took a deep dive into the supply/demand dynamics to analyze state-level variations. We estimate that there are currently 29 states that have a housing deficit, and when we consider only these states, the housing shortage grows from 2.5 million units to 3.3 million units. February 2020 2 Economic & Housing Research Insight Accounting for housing supply/demand conditions To estimate housing supply, we rely on U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the total number of housing units in each state. These estimates include single-family homes, apartments, and manufactured housing. We compare supply to our estimates of housing demand. We first focus on static estimates of housing demand, and then we consider the impact of interstate migration. Our estimate of housing demand relies on two components. First, we need an estimate of long-term vacancy rates (). Second, we need an estimate of the target number of households ().1 The estimates of and give an estimate of housing demand () using the formula: = Vacancy rates As we discussed in our earlier study, for the housing market to function smoothly, year-round vacant units are needed. Vacancy rates are often used to track the vitality of the housing market. Too high of a vacancy rate reflects a moribund market, while too low of a rate means demand is outstripping supply. Our previous research estimated the average U.S. vacancy rate to be around 13%. For long-term vacancy rates (), we use historical estimates of vacancy rates in each state as well as the share of the state in the housing stock to obtain the state weight. We compute the weighted average national vacancy rate for the U.S. and then estimate the deviation of the state vacancy rate from the average national vacancy rate (see Appendix 1.1 for a detailed methodology). We use each state's average from 1970 to 2000 as the estimate for because this was the period before the boom and the bust in the housing market began. Historical vacancy rates vary dramatically by state. States like Vermont and Maine tend to have high vacancy rates because a large fraction of the housing stock serves as vacation/second homes. On the other hand, states like California tend to have very low vacancy rates. 1 The target number of households is the number of unconstrained households that would have formed if households did not face any constraints related to housing costs. February 2020 3 Economic & Housing Research Insight It is interesting to compare each state’s long-term vacancy rate () to recent estimates (). This measure estimates the number of housing units needed to close the gap between the current vacancy rate and long-term average rates. Exhibit 1 shows the difference between the estimated vacancy rate in 2018 and the long-term vacancy rate for each state. States like Oregon, California, and Minnesota have much lower current vacancy rates compared to their historical averages, while states like West Virginia, Alabama, North Dakota, and Ohio have witnessed an increase in the vacancy rates as the populations of these states have decreased. Source: Author’s calculations based on CPS, HVS, and Moody’s Analytics estimated data. CA -4.02 OR -6.50 WA -0.77 MT -0.51 ND 4.69 MN -3.79 IA 3.17 MO 2.42 KY 1.59 TN 3.17 DC -7.01 MD -2.26 NH -1.57VT 2.13 CT -1.27 DE 1.09 NC -2.16 AR 6.32 LA 0.65 CO -3.40 ID -2.21 NV -0.20 UT -0.83 AZ -2.28 NM 0.14 TX -3.14 GA 0.74 FL -3.43 SC 0.85 VA -0.62 PA 2.55 NY -1.10 ME 1.20 WV 6.72 AK -0.91 WY 2.11 SD 1.89 NE 2.74 KS 0.90 OK 1.92 MA -2.98 NJ 0.96 MS 1.01 IL 1.06 WI 0.88 MI 0.59 IN 0.04 OH 4.17 AL 4.69 HI 0.58 RI 0.37 < -3.00 -3.00 to 0.00 0.00 to 3.00 > 3.00 Exhibit 1 Difference between 2018 vacancy rate and historical vacancy rate States that are losing (gaining) population have high (low) vacancy rates. February 2020 4 Economic & Housing Research Insight Target households Our previous research has shown that high housing costs have constrained household formation. These high housing costs have hit the Millennial generation particularly hard. To overcome these cost barriers, some young adults have turned to shared living arrangements. Others have moved back home with parents. As a result, there are more than 400,000 missing households headed by 25- to 34-year-olds (households that would have formed except for higher housing costs). While high housing costs have hit young adults hardest, they have affected all age groups. If housing costs were lower, more households would form. We use our model estimates of the number of households reduced due to unusually high housing costs and add them back. We do this for each age group (see Appendix 1.2 for more details.) Due to different age profiles, the share of missing households varies by state. Exhibit 2 plots the share of missing households due to housing costs for each state. In general, states with relatively lower vacancy rates have proportionally more missing households. Source: Author’s calculations based on American Community Survey data. CA -0.16 OR -0.02 WA -0.03 MT 0.00 ND 0.00 MN -0.02 IA -0.01 MO -0.02 KY -0.02 TN -0.03 DC -0.02 MD -0.02 NH -0.01VT 0.00 CT -0.01 DE 0.00 NC -0.04 AR -0.01 LA -0.02 CO -0.02 ID -0.01 NV -0.01 UT -0.01 AZ -0.03 NM -0.01 TX -0.11 GA -0.04 FL -0.08 SC -0.02 VA -0.03 PA -0.05 NY -0.08 ME -0.01 WV -0.01 AK 0.00 WY 0.00 SD 0.00 NE -0.01 KS -0.01 OK -0.02 MA -0.03 NJ -0.04 MS -0.01 IL -0.05 WI -0.02 MI -0.04 IN -0.03 OH AL -0.02 HI -0.01 RI 0.00 -0.02 to 0.00 -0.04 to -0.02 -0.06 to -0.04 -0.08 to -0.06 < -0.08 Exhibit 2 Missing households due to high housing costs (millions) States with relatively lower (higher) vacancy rates have proportionally more (fewer) missing households. February 2020 5 Economic & Housing Research Insight Static estimate of housing deficit We combine our target vacancy rate and target households to estimate housing demand. Subtracting our estimated housing demand from the Census estimate of housing supply gives us the estimated housing deficit. Exhibit 3 shows our results by state. As a percent of the housing stock, the state housing supply deficit varies from -7 to 10%. Excluding the District of Columbia, Oregon has the largest deficit (nearly 9%) followed by California (nearly 6%).2 Some states have a negative deficit, meaning they are oversupplied. According to our estimate, 21 states are oversupplied, the largest being West Virginia, at more than 7%. 2 The District of Columbia had the highest deficit as a share of the existing housing stock at 9.7%. Source: Author’s calculations. CA 5.74 OR 8.80 WA 1.93 MT 0.77 ND -3.82 MN 5.37 IA -2.44 MO -1.86 KY -0.89 TN -2.46 DC 9.55 MD 3.40 NH 3.47VT -0.88 CT 2.49 DE 0.23 NC 3.66 AR -6.23 LA 0.17 CO 5.09 ID 3.13 NV 1.55 UT 2.48 AZ 3.71 NM 0.60 TX 4.81 GA 0.28 FL 5.13 SC -0.22 VA 1.65 PA -1.96 NY 2.33 ME -0.13 WV -7.12 AK 3.00 WY -0.98 SD -0.51 NE -2.61 KS 0.00 OK -1.27 MA 4.44 NJ -0.03 MS -0.21 IL -0.16 WI 0.13 MI 0.37 IN 1.04 OH -3.63 AL -4.45 HI 1.34 RI 1.09 < -5.0 -5.0 to 0.00 0.00 to 5.00 > 5.00 Exhibit 3 Housing stock deficit as proportion of a state’s housing stock (static estimate not considering interstate migration flows) A static view suggests that 29 states have a housing undersupply. February 2020 6 Economic & Housing Research Insight Impact of migration on the housing deficit of the states While houses stay in place, people do not. Job growth attracts in-migrants, while a dearth of opportunity drives out-migration. High housing costs also contribute to migration patterns. When the rents get too high, people move away. This dynamic can impact our estimates. It's helpful to consider the case of California. Our estimates indicate that California has a shortage of 820,000 housing units. But history suggests that California's shortage may be overestimated if interstate migration is considered. For more than four decades, California's state population has grown, but this increase has been driven primarily by international migration. High housing costs have driven many U.S. citizens and households out of California, driving housing demand higher in their destination states. A robust model of domestic migration flows between states is beyond the scope of this study. But we can approximate how migration may affect our estimates. We can use the historical average of state-to-state migration flows as a forecast of future flows. If the future interstate migration exactly matches past flows since 2001, we can create a rough, but useful approximation (Exhibit 4).3 3 We used the average net migration flows between states from 2001 to 2017 for the past flows. Source: Author’s calculations. CA 5.42 OR 9.23 WA 2.28 MT 1.13 ND -3.63 MN 5.30 IA -2.29 MO -1.89 KY -0.84 TN -2.16 DC 9.69 MD 3.26 NH 3.51VT -1.11 CT 2.01 DE 0.54 NC 4.11 AR -6.11 LA -0.28 CO 5.55 ID 3.65 NV 2.21 UT 2.76 AZ 4.31 NM 0.15 TX 5.16 GA 0.60 FL 5.51 SC 0.33 VA 1.65 PA -1.04 NY 1.51 ME -0.09 WV -7.76 AK 2.36 WY -0.88 SD -0.39 NE -2.64 KS -0.57 OK -1.16 MA 4.10 NJ -0.47 MS -0.46 IL -0.72 WI 0.08 MI -0.11 IN 0.96 OH -3.97 AL -4.34 HI 1.08 RI 0.06 < -5.0 -5.0 to 0.00 0.00 to 5.00 > 5.00 Exhibit 4 Housing stock deficit as proportion of state’s housing stock (dynamic estimate considering interstate migration flows) A dynamic view indicates that some states’ deficit is overestimated, like California, while others’ is underestimated, like Texas. Some states, like Michigan, move from a deficit to a surplus. February 2020 7 Economic & Housing Research Insight For example, when considering migration flows, the estimated housing demand in Michigan changes from deficit to surplus; Ohio's surplus increases; and Florida’s deficit increases (see Appendix 1.3 for details on our estimation method). Given the severity of the problem, states have started addressing the issue of supply shortages by taking legislative action. Some of these states such as California, Oregon, Minnesota, and North Carolina have passed legislation to eliminate exclusive single-family zoning. Removing these zoning restrictions will provide builders with the flexibility to build a range of housing options which could help alleviate some of the shortage. Conclusion A shortage of housing remains a major issue for the United States. Years of underbuilding has created a large deficit, particularly for states with strong economies that have attracted a lot of people from other states. The issue of undersupply will be further exacerbated as Millennials and younger generations enter the housing markets, especially as housing costs become more favorable. Dynamic estimates suggest that contrary to expectations, it isn’t only the larger states that have a higher housing supply shortage. Some of the smaller states, which have been attracting a lot of migrants from other states, also need to build more housing units to accommodate the needs of their growing population. February 2020 8 Economic & Housing Research Insight Appendix 1.1 Vacancy rate calculations We calculate the vacancy rate based on the historical vacancy rate. For this purpose, we obtain the historical vacancy rates by state from Moody’s analytics for the period from 1970 to 20004 and estimate the average vacancy rate for this period for each state. = for 1970–2000, where is the state. We then obtain the housing stock information by state from the Housing Stock (HVS) ('000s) U.S. Census Bureau (BOC): Housing Vacancies and Homeownership–Table 8–Quarterly Estimates of the Housing Inventory. From these data, the share of the state in the total housing stock is calculated to get the state weights. = The sum product of the vacancy rate of the state and the state’s weight in the housing stock gives us the U.S. average vacancy rate. U.S. average vacancy rate: =. We then compute the difference between the state vacancy rate and the average U.S. vacancy rate to see how far away the state is from the U.S. average. =. This deviation for the states is then applied to the long-run vacancy rate for the United States (which we estimated earlier to be 13%) to get the state-wise vacancy rate. State-wise Vacancy Rate = 13% + for each state. 1.2 Estimating target households We obtain the headship rates5 for the year 2018 by state and by age for all the 50 states and District of Columbia.6 We then estimate target households using this headship rate and adding back housing 4 Data is available from 1970:Q2 onward. We estimate the average for the period up to 2000:Q4. This corresponds to the period before the boom and bust in the housing market began. 5 Headship Rate = Number of Head of Households/Total Households. 6 Data source: Current Population Survey–Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS-ASEC) using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) (Steven Ruggles, Sarah Flood, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, Erin Meyer, Jose Pacas and Matthew Sobek. IPUMS USA: Version 9.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2019.) February 2020 9 Economic & Housing Research Insight costs assuming that housing costs become more favorable for household formation. The target headship rate would be = + . We then use this target headship rate and the population by five-year age buckets to compute the households in each state. = , where is the state and is the five-year age buckets. The product of headship rate and population by age gives the households by age group. Summing it up over all the ages gives the total households in the state.7 1.3 Domestic migration flows between states For the estimate of the states’ share of the deficit, we need to obtain the share of the migration flows between states by age. To get detailed age-wise distribution of population, we use the ACS data from 2001 to 2017. We obtain the population by age and by state for these years. We identify people who had a different state of residence from a year ago, which indicates that they migrated to a different state. We then get estimates of the in-migrants and out-migrants by state and age. We then estimate the net domestic migrants for each state as the difference between the in-migrants and out-migrants. = where i is the state, j is the five-year age buckets, I is the in-migrants, and is the outmigrants. To estimate the net outmigrants from states that have a <, we obtain the Moody’s historical net domestic migration data. We then apply these shares by state and age to the net migration data for 2018 to obtain the number of people leaving a state by the five-year age bucket. = , where is the total change in population (net out-migrants) for states that have net outmigration, 7 These households would be based on the Current Population survey (CPS). To make them consistent with estimates of housing supply from HVS, we apply a multiplier to this gap that is proportional to the gap between the CPS-ASEC and HVS household counts. The CPS-ASEC household estimate for 2018 was 127.6 million. The HVS estimate for that year was 121.3 million. We deflate our target households by a factor equal to 121.3/127.6, or 0.95. February 2020 10 Economic & Housing Research Insight is the net out-migrants by age group and state, is the sum of the total out-migrants for the state, and is the historical net domestic migration data from Moody. The ratio of gives the share of the five-year age group in the total out-migrants from the state. This pool of out-migrants ( ) is then divided among the in-migrating states, given that the net flows for the country are . We distribute these migrants according to the share of the state in the total in-migrants as well as by the share of the age group in the total in-migrants to the state. = where is the in-migrants to the state i from the outmigrants pool, is the share of the state in total in-migrants, is the share of the five-year age bucket in the total in-migrants, and is the total out-migrants. The population of each state is then adjusted according to the change in the population estimated above. =+ < =+ < The households are then computed based on this adjusted population for each state by applying the headship rates by age group. Then the housing stock is estimated as per equation (1). © 2020 Freddie Mac www.freddiemac.com Economic & Housing Research Insight Prepared by the Economic & Housing Research group Sam Khater, Chief Economist Len Kiefer, Deputy Chief Economist Venkataramana Yanamandra, Macro Housing Economics Senior www.freddiemac.com/finance Opinions, estimates, forecasts, and other views contained in this document are those of Freddie Mac's Economic & Housing Research group, do not necessarily represent the views of Freddie Mac or its management, and should not be construed as indicating Freddie Mac's business prospects or expected results. Although the Economic & Housing Research group attempts to provide reliable, useful information, it does not guarantee that the information or other content in this document is accurate, current or suitable for any particular purpose. All content is subject to change without notice. All content is provided on an “as is” basis, with no warranties of any kind whatsoever. Information from this document may be used with proper attribution. Alteration of this document or its content is strictly prohibited. © 2020 by Freddie Mac. Do the Math: The state has ordered more than 350 cities to prepare the way for more than 2 million homes by 2030. But what if the math is wrong? Senate Bill 828, co-sponsored by the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener in 2018, has inadvertently doubled the “Regional Housing Needs Assessment” in California. Use of an incorrect vacancy rate and double counting, inspired by SB-828, caused the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to exaggerate by more than 900,000 the units needed in SoCal, the Bay Area, and the Sacramento area. The state’s approach to determining the housing need must be defensible and reproducible if cities are to be held accountable. Inaccuracies on this scale mask the fact that cities and counties are surpassing the state’s market-rate housing targets but falling far short in meeting affordable housing targets. The inaccuracies obscure the real problem and the associated solution to the housing crisis—the funding of affordable housing. Author : Gab Layton PhD, President of the Embarcadero Institute Sierra DelNorte Humboldt Trinity Shasta Lassen Tehama Plumas Butte Nevada Placer Sonoma Napa Yolo Solano Stanislaus SantaClara SanBenito SanJoaquinContraCosta Alameda Marin San Francisco San Mateo Santa Cruz Monterey San LuisObispo Santa Barbara Ventura Los Angeles Orange San Bernardino Riverside San Diego Imperial Yuba GlennMendocino Lake Colusa Sutter Sacra-mento El Dorado Alpine Calaveras Tuolumne Mono Mariposa Madera Fresno Kings Kern Tulare Inyo Merced Amador Siskiyou Modoc 'XGT[ƓXGVQGKIJV[GCTUVJG&GRCTVOGPVQH*QWUKPICPF%QOOWPKV[&GXGNQROGPV *%& UWRGTXKUGUCPFRWDNKUJGUVJG TGUWNVUQHCRTQEGUUTGHGTTGFVQCUVJG4GIKQPCN*QWUKPI0GGFU#UUGUUOGPV 4*0# (QWTTGIKQPCNRNCPPKPICIGPEKGU EQXGTVJGOQUVWTDCPEQWPVKGUCPFCEEQWPVHQTQH%CNKHQTPKCũUJQWUKPI#NNHQWTTGIKQPUUCYCUKIPKƓECPVLWOR KPVJGUVCVGũUCUUGUUOGPVQHVJGKTJQWUKPIPGGFHQTVJG[GCTUVQ Double counting (not surprisingly) doubled the assessed housing need for the four major planning regions. Four Regions Contain 80% of the State’s HousingHousing Units Needed According to the State, (1996–2030) 0 0.5M 1.0M 1.5M 2.0M 2.5M Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 1996–2006 2005–2014 2013–2022 2021–2030 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Greater Sacramento San Diego Region Greater Bay Area Six SoCal Counties Southern CaliforniaAssociation ofGovernments(SCAG) 1 Impacted by Great Recession foreclosure crisis Made before COVID impact 0 500,000 1,000,000 Cost burdening double-count Overcrowding double-count Extra units needed to replace demolished units Extra units needed to achieve healthy vacancy rate Households needed as determined by the Dept. of Finance (factors in overcrowding and cost burdening) Conventional Economist Approach Conventional Economist Approach Conventional Economist Approach Conventional Economist Approach Six SoCal Counties Greater Bay Area San Diego Region Greater Sacramento %CNKHQTPKCRNCPUHQTKVUJQWUKPIPGGFUKPŬE[ENGUŭ6JGHQWTTGIKQPUCTGQPE[ENGUVJCVNCUVTQWIJN[GKIJV[GCTUYKVJ UVCIIGTGFUVCTVFCVGU+PVJGťJQWUKPIE[ENGGTTQTUKPVTQFWEGFD[NCPIWCIGKP5$PGCTN[GSWCNVJGGPVKTG /WPKVUQHPGYJQWUKPITGSWKTGFFWTKPIVJGťŬE[ENGŭ#UKNNWUVTCVGF5QWVJGTP%CNKHQTPKCCPFVJG$C[#TGC CTGVJGOQUVKORCEVGFD[VJGUVCVGũUOGVJQFQNQI[GTTQTU The double count, an unintended consequence of Senate Bill 828, has exaggerated the housing need by more than 900,000 units in the four regions below. Nu m b e r o f H o u s i n g U n i t s (1,341,827) (153,512)(122,000)(112,000) (283,000) (441,176) (171,687) (651,000) SB-828 Double Count SB-828 Double Count SB-828 Double Count SB-828 Double Count 2 Senate Bill 828 was drafted absent a detailed understanding of the Department of Finance’s methodology for developing household forecasts, and absent an understanding of the difference between rental and home-owner vacancies. These misunderstandings have unwittingly ensured a series of double counts. State’s erroneous benchmark of 5% Annual Homeowner Vacancy Rates for the United States and Regions: 1968º2019 Long term benchmarkis 1.5% 3 1. SB-828 wrongly assumed ‘existing housing need’ was not evaluated as part of California’s previous Regional Housing Need Assessments, or RHNA. There was an assumption that only future need had been taken into account in past assess-ments. (In fact, as detailed in The Reality section, the state’s existing housing need was fully evaluated in previous RHNA assessment cycles). 2. SB-828 wrongly assumed a 5% vacancy rate in owner-occupied housing is healthy (as explained in the column on the right, 5% vacancy in owner-occupied homes is never desir-able, and contradicts Government Code D ' YJKEJURGEKƓGUVJCVC5% vacancy rate applies only to the rental housing market). 3. SB-828 wrongly assumed overcrowding and cost-burdening had not been considered in Department of Finance projections of housing need. The bill sought to redress what it mistaken-ly thought had been left out by requiring regional planning agencies to report overcrowding and cost-burdening data to the Dept. of Housing and Community Development (as explained in the right column). SB-828 MISTAKENLY ASSUMED:THE REALITY IS: 1. Existing housing need has long been incorporated in California’s planning cycles. It has been evaluated by comparing existing vacancy rates with widely accepted benchmarks for healthy market vacancies (rental and owner-occupied). The difference between actual and benchmark is the measure of housing need/surplus in a housing market. Confusion about the inclusion of “existing need” may have arisen because vacancy rates at the time of the last assessment of housing need (”the 5th cycle”) were unusually high (higher than the healthy benchmarks) due to the foreclosure crisis of 2007–2010, and in fact, the vacancy rates suggested a surplus of housing. So, in the 5th cycle, the vacancy adjustment had the effect of lowering the total housing need. Correctly seeing the foreclosure crisis as temporary, the state Department of Finance did not apply the full weight of the surplus but instead assumed a percentage of the vacant housing would be absorbed by the time the 5th cycle began. The adjustment appears in the 5th cycle determinations, not as ‘Existing Housing Need’ but rather as “Adjustment for Absorption of Existing Excess Vacant Units.” 2. While 5% is a healthy benchmark for rental vacancies, it is unhealthy for owner-occupied housing (which typically represents half of existing housing). In the U.S. homeowner vacancy has hovered around 1.5% since VJGŨUDTKGƔ[TGCEJKPI3% during the foreclosure crisis. However, 5% is well outside any healthy norm, and thus does not appear on the Census chart (to the right) showing Annual Homeowner Vacancy Rates for the United States and Regions: 1968–2019. 3. Unknown to the authors of SB-828, the Department of Finance (DOF) has for years factored overcrowding and cost-burdening into their household projections. These projections are developed by multiplying the estimated population by the headship rate (the proportion of the population who will be head of a household). The Department of Finance (DOF), in conjunction with the Department of Housing and Community &GXGNQROGPV *%& JCUFQEWOGPVGFKVUFGNKDGTCVGFGEKUKQPVQWUGJKIJGTJGCFUJKRTCVGUVQTGƔGEVQRVKOCN conditions and intentionally “alleviate the burdens of high housing cost and overcrowding.” Unfortunately, SB-828 has caused the state to double count these important numbers. Five Percent 1. Incorrect use of a 5% benchmark vacancy rate for owner-occupied housing. The vacancy rate was incorrectly used for both existing and projected owner-occupied households. 2. Current vacancies were assumed to exist in household projections. This error is unrelated to SB-828, but is an accounting error introduced by HCD methodology. 3. Overcrowding and cost-burdening were double counted.** In addition to the household projection methodology outlined by the Department of Finance (shown to account for overcrowding and cost-burdening), the matter is also mentioned in meeting notes available on the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) website.*** Quote from ABAG’s Housing Methodology Committee Agenda Packet for the 4th RHNA Cycle, July 2006 “There was also a lot of discussion about the headship rates used by HCD/DOF. Several people commented that headship rates in the Bay Area are generally lower than the State’s estimates because the region’s high housing costs limit household formation. In response, Mr. Fassinger noted that HCD uses these higher headship rates because the RHNA process is intended to alleviate the burdens of high housing cost and overcrowding.” Despite this, overcrowding and cost-burdening were counted a second time as adjustment factors required by SB-828. + 229,000 housing units + 734,000 housing units – 22,000 housing units + 941,000 housing units 4 6JGHQTEGFFQWDNGEQWPVKPIGTTQTUCTGUKIPKƓECPV* #NNGTTQTUCTGTQWPFGFVQVJGPGCTGUVVJQWUCPF 1XGTETQYFKPIOGCUWTGUVJGPWODGTQHJQWUGJQNFUYKVJOQTGVJCPRGTUQPRGTTQQO%QUVDWTFGPKPIOGCUWTGUVJGPWODGTQHJQWUGJQNFUVJCVURGPFOQTGVJCPQHVJGJQWUGJQNFKPEQOGQPJQWUKPI%QUVDWTFGPKPIKUOGCUWTGFD[ƓXGKPEQOGNGXGNUŦǭGZVTGOGN[NQYXGT[NQYNQYOQFGTCVGCDQXGOQFGTCVG 2VCDNGUCTGETGCVGFD[VJG&GRCTVOGPVQH(KPCPEGŦ*QWUGJQNF2TQLGEVKQPVCDNGťCPFVJGKTOGVJQFQNQI[KUHWNN[GZRNCKPGFKPŨTGCFOGũPQVGUVJCVCEEQORCP[VJGVCDNG TOTAL: $CUGFQPRGTOKVRTQITGUUTGRQTVURWDNKUJGFD[VJG&GRVQH*QWUKPICPF%QOOWPKV[&GXGNQROGPVCPFWRFCVGF,WN[TGRQTVKPIRTQITGUUVJTQWIJ#RTKN 1PN[VJG$C[#TGCKUUJQYPDGECWUGQVJGTTGIKQPUJCXGPQVMGRVFGVCKNGFTGEQTFUQHRGTOKVRTQITGUUVJTQWIJVJGTFCPFVJE[ENGU 5th Cycle Targets (as of April 2019) 500K 250K Permit Progress in the 5th Cycle (2013-2022)* (all 4 regions) Very low + low income Market rate Permits Issued (as of April 2019) Affordable Housing Languishes as Market-Rate Housing Overachieves (Bay Area only)* 4th Cycle2007–2014 5th Cycle2014–20223rd Cycle1996–2006 +150% +100% +50% -50% 0% Very-low + Low Income PermitsMarket-Rate Permits 5 6JGUVCVGJCUUJQYPYKVJFGECFGUQHFCVCVJCVKVECPPQVFKEVCVGVQVJGOCTMGV6JGOCTMGVKUIQKPIVQVCMGECTGQHKVUGNH6JGUVCVGũUTGURQPUKDKNKV[KUVQ VCMGECTGQHVJQUGNGHVDGJKPFKPVJGOCTMGVũUYCMG$CUGFQPJQWUKPIRGTOKVRTQITGUUTGRQTVURWDNKUJGFD[VJG&GRVQH*QWUKPICPF%QOOWPKV[ &GXGNQROGPVKP,WN[EKVKGUCPFEQWPVKGUKPVJGHQWTOQUVRQRWNQWUTGIKQPUEQPVKPWGVQUVTQPIN[QWVRGTHQTOQPVJGUVCVGũUCUUKIPGFOCTMGVTCVG JQWUKPIVCTIGVUDWVHCKNVQCEJKGXGGXGPQHVJGKTNQYKPEQOGJQWUKPIVCTIGV+PVJG$C[#TGCYJGTGRGTOKVTGEQTFUJCXGDGGPMGRVUKPEGVJGTGKU GXKFGPEGVJCVVJKUJQWUKPIRGTOKVKODCNCPEGJCURTQRCICVGFVJTQWIJFGECFGUQHJQWUKPIE[ENGU The state’s exaggerated targets unfortunately mask the real story: Decades of overachieving in market-rate housing has not reduced housing costs for lower income households. Great Recession (2007–2010) impacted housing. Market-rate meets but does not exceed state target in the 4th cycle. %KVKGUCTGEJCTIGFD[VJGUVCVGVQDWKNFQPGOCTMGVTCVGJQOGHQTGXGT[QPGCHHQTFCDNGJQOG$WVUVCVGNCYUUWEJCUVJGFGPUKV[DQPWUNCYKPEGPVKXK\G FGXGNQRGTUVQDWKNFOCTMGVTCVGWPKVUCVCHCTJKIJGTTCVGVJCPCHHQTFCDNGWPKVU#UCTGUWNV%CNKHQTPKCJCUDGGPDWKNFKPIHQWTOCTMGVTCVGWPKVUHQTGXGT[ QPGCHHQTFCDNGWPKVHQTFGECFGU#PFYKVJVJGPGCTEQNNCRUGQHNGIKUNCVKXGHWPFKPIHQTNQYKPEQOGJQWUKPIKPVJCVTCVKQJCUITQYPVQUGXGPVQGKIJV OCTMGVTCVGWPKVUVQGCEJCHHQTFCDNGWPKV;GVYGPGGFQPGVQQPG6JKUYQTUGPKPIUKVWCVKQPECPũVDGƓZGFD[\QPKPIQTKPEGPVKXGUYJKEJCTGVJGHQEWUQH OCP[TGEGPVJQWUKPIDKNNUCPFQPN[TGKPHQTEGQTYQTUGPVJGGXGTJKIJGTOCTMGVTCVGJQWUKPITCVKQU(TQOVJGFCVCKVCRRGCTUVJCVVJGUJQTVCIGQHJQWUKPI TGUWNVGFPQVHTQOCHCKNWTGD[EKVKGUVQKUUWGJQWUKPIRGTOKVUDWVTCVJGTCHCKNWTGD[VJGUVCVGVQHWPFCPFUWRRQTVCHHQTFCDNGJQWUKPI(WVWTGNGIKUNCVKXG GHHQTVUUJQWNFVCMGPQVG Market-Rate to Low-Income Housing Permits in the Bay Area has grown from a ratio of 4 : 1 to 7 : 1 (Bay Area only)** 4th Cycle2006–2014 5th Cycle2014–20223rd Cycle1999–2006 6 Effect of reduced state funding for affordable housing. 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 The ratiomandated by the state State Funds for Affordable Housing, 2008–2019* $ Billion Actual ratio Redevelopmentagencies shuttered 6 It’s clear. Market-rate housing doesn’t need state incentives. Affordable housing needs state Ŭ6JG&GHWPFKPIQH#HHQTFCDNG*QWUKPIKP%CNKHQTPKCŭ'ODCTECFGTQ+PUVKVWVGWRFCVG,WPGYYYGODCTECFGTQKPUVKVWVGEQOTGRQTVU 1PN[$C[#TGCKUUJQYPDGECWUGQVJGTTGIKQPUJCXGPQVMGRVFGVCKNGFTGEQTFUQHRGTOKVRTQITGUUVJTQWIJVJGTFCPFVJE[ENGU&CVCKUHTQO#$#)ũURGTOKVRTQITGUUTGRQTVUHQTTFCPFVJE[ENGCPF&GRVQH*QWUKPICPF%QOOWPKV[&GXGNQROGPVũUVJE[ENG#PPWCN2TQITGUU4GRQTV Finally, since penalties are incurred for failing to reach state targets for housing permits, the methodology for developing these numbers must be transparent, rigorous and defensible. 0QPRGTHQTOCPEGKPCPKPEQOGECVGIQT[VTKIIGTUCUVTGCONKPGFCRRTQXCNRTQEGUURGT5GPCVG$KNN 6JGUG GZCIIGTCVGFVJE[ENGVCTIGVUYKNNOCMGKVKORQUUKDNGHQTEKVKGUCPFEQWPVKGUVQCVVCKPGXGPVJGKTOCTMGVTCVGVCTIGVU GPUWTKPIOCTMGVTCVGJQWUKPIYKNNSWCNKH[HQTKPEGPVKXGUCPFDQPWUGUOGCPVHQTNQYKPEQOGJQWUKPIYet again, low-income housing will lose out.6JGUVCVGPGGFUVQEQTTGEVVJGNCVGUVJQWUKPICUUGUUOGPVGTTQTUCPFUGVVNGQPC EQPUKUVGPVFGHGPUKDNGCRRTQCEJIQKPIHQTYCTF 1. ConventionalEconomist Approach 2. SB-828Double Count 3. McKinsey’s New YorkBenchmark 4. Jobs-to-Housing Ratio of 1.5 1.17M 2.11M 2.88M 0.23M 1The Conventional Economist Approach WUGUIQNFKNQEMU PQVVQQDKIPQVVQQUOCNNLWUVTKIJV DGPEJOCTMUHQT XCECPEKGUHQTQYPGTQEEWRKGFCPFHQTTGPVCNJQWUKPI 2. SB-828 Double Count KPEQTTGEVN[WUGUCDGPEJOCTMQH XCECPE[HQTQYPGTQEEWRKGFJQWUKPI+VCNUQFQWDNG EQWPVUQXGTETQYFKPICPFEQUVDWTFGPKPI 3. McKinsey’s New York Benchmark:VJGQXGTUKORNKƓGFCRRTQCEJIGPGTCVGFCPGZCIIGTCVGFJQWUKPIICRQH/KNNKQPHQT%CNKHQTPKC/E-KPUG[OWNVKRNKGF%CNKHQTPKCũU RQRWNCVKQPD[0GY;QTMũUJQWUKPIRGTECRKVCVQIGV/ 0GY;QTMKUPQVCRTQRGTDGPEJOCTMHQT%CNKHQTPKCCPF0;ũU JKIJGTJQWUKPIRGTECRKVCKUOQTGTGƔGEVKXGQH0;ũUFGENKPKPIRQRWNCVKQPTCVJGTVJCPCJGCNVJ[DGPEJOCTMHQTJQWUKPI 4. Jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.5 CEEQTFKPIVQUVCVGRNCPPKPI CIGPEKGUKUVJGQRVKOCNDGPEJOCTM'ORNQ[OGPVKPVJG HQWTTGIKQPUKUGUVKOCVGFVQITQYVQOKNNKQPD[ LQDITQYVJGUVKOCVGURTGRCTGFDGHQTG%18+& ** Forecast 2030 Housing Need for the Four RegionsAt Least Four Different Methodologies Have Been Used Simultaneously by the State to Discuss Housing Need: We Only Need One %CNKHQTPKCũU'ORNQ[OGPV&GXGNQROGPV&GRCTVOGPV '&& GUVKOCVGUGORNQ[OGPVD[EQWPV[VJTQWIJ7UKPICPPWCNK\GFITQYVJ VQ CUCDCUKUHQTHWVWTGITQYVJGORNQ[OGPVKUGUVKOCVGFHQTVJGHQWTTGIKQPU 6JGOKNNKQPKPENWFGUGUVKOCVGUQHUGNHGORNQ[GFRTKXCVGJQWUGJQNFYQTMGTUHCTOCPFPQPHCTOGORNQ[OGPV1EEWRCVKQPUYKVJGORNQ[OGPVDGNQYKPCTGGZENWFGF McKinsey’s 3.5 Million Housing Gap for California (New York as comparable) 7 McKinsey’s Housing Gap for the four regions Dept. of Finance (DOF) How it Works: A multi-agency collaborative effort has generated past state housing targets. However, KP5$CPQKPVGFVJG&GRVQH*QWUKPICPF%QOOWPKV[&GXGNQROGPVYKVJƓPCNXGVQRQYGTU STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) APPENDIX A-1 The Dept. of Finance (DOF) generates household forecasts by county based on population growth and headship rates. This is the step where overcrowding and cost-burdening are factored in . The Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) then takes the DOF household projections and adds in a healthy vacancy level (1.5% for owner-occupied, 5% for rental housing) to determine the number of housing units needed to comfortably accommodate the DOF household projections. Cities and Counties report annual progress on housing permits to the Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) The regional agencies allocate housing targets to cities and counties in their jurisdiction. These allocations collectively meet their RHNA assessments and are based on algorithms that may include employment, transit accessibility and local housing patterns + 229,000 housing units + 734,000 housing units – 22,000 housing units Six SoCal Counties = +578,000 Greater Bay Area = +104,000 San Diego Area = +39,000 Greater Sacramento = +13,000 5QWVJGTP%CNKHQTPKCCPFVJG$C[#TGCYGTGOQUVKORCEVGFD[VJGFQWDNGEQWPVKPI5CP&KGIQYCUPQVCUUGUUGFHQT EQUVDWTFGPKPICNVJQWIJKVKUOQTGEQUVDWTFGPGFVJCPVJG$C[#TGC+VYCURGTJCRUQXGTNQQMGFDGECWUGKVU CUUGUUOGPVE[ENGDGICPKP,WN[CHGYOQPVJUDGHQTG5$RCUUGFKPVQNCY Six SoCal Counties = -13,000 Greater Bay Area = -4,000 San Diego Area = -2,000 Greater Sacramento = -3,000 Six SoCal Counties = +126,000 Greater Bay Area = +59,000 San Diego Area = +23,000 Greater Sacramento = +21,000 A-2 APPENDIX SB-828 introduced errors in Step 2 (when the Dept. of Housing and Community Development made adjustments to the Dept. of Finance’s household projections). 1. Used a benchmark of 5% vacancy rate for BOTH owner-occupied and rental housing. The Department of Housing and Community and Development 2. Assumed vacancies in household projections * 3. Double counted overcrowding and cost-burdening 2VCDNGUCTGETGCVGFD[VJG&GRCTVOGPVQH(KPCPEGŦ*QWUGJQNF2TQLGEVKQPVCDNGťCPFVJGKTOGVJQFQNQI[KUHWNN[GZRNCKPGFKPŨTGCFOGũPQVGUVJCVCEEQORCP[VJGVCDNG 1XGTETQYFKPIOGCUWTGUVJGPWODGTQHJQWUGJQNFUYKVJOQTGVJCPRGTUQPRGTTQQO%QUVDWTFGPKPIOGCUWTGUVJGPWODGTQHJQWUGJQNFUVJCVURGPFOQTGVJCPQHVJGJQWUGJQNFKPEQOGQPJQWUKPI%QUVDWTFGPKPIKUOGCUWTGFD[ƓXGKPEQOGNGXGNUŦGZVTGOGN[NQYXGT[NQYNQYOQFGTCVGCDQXGOQFGTCVG (10,000) (39,000) 1YPGTQEEWRKGFJCUCNQYGTJGCNVJ[XCECPE[TCVGDGECWUGKVKUWUWCNN[QPN[XCECPVYJKNGCJQWUGKUHQTUCNG #NNPWODGTUCTGTQWPFGFVQVJGPGCTGUVVJQWUCPF 5GCUQPCN8CECPEKGUTGRTGUGPVUGEQPFJQOGUEQRTQTCVGJQWUKPICPFUJQTVVGTOTGPVCNUUWEJCU#+T$P$U EXISTING HOUSING: Six SoCal Counties 6JG&GRCTVOGPVQH*QWUKPICPF%QOOWPKV[&GXGNQROGPV *%& JCUVTCFKVKQPCNN[CTTKXGFCVCPWODGTHQTRGPVWRFGOCPFQT JQWUKPIUJQTVHCNND[EQORCTKPIXCECPE[TCVGUKPQYPGTQEEWRKGFCPFTGPVCNJQWUKPIVQJGCNVJ[DGPEJOCTMU HQT QYPGTQEEWRKGF*CPFHQTTGPVCNJQWUKPI 6JGNCTIGUVQHVJGHQWTTGIKQPUUKZ5Q%CN%QWPVKGU EQXGTKPI+ORGTKCN.QU#PIGNGU 1TCPIG4KXGTUKFG5CP$GTPCTFKPQCPF8GPVWTCEQWPVKGU KUEQPUKFGTGFKPVJGGZCORNGDGNQY** 1.2%Home-owned (3.3 Million) Vacant Housing Units Actual Vacancies (40,000) Healthy Benchmark (50,000)1.5% 3.7% 5.0% Existing Need Rentals (3 Million) Occupied Housing Units Actual Vacancies (111,000) Healthy Benchmark (150,000) Seasonal Vacancies (500,000)*** 1 circle = 10,000 households A-3 APPENDIX Detailed explanation of the errors using SoCal Counties as an example: First—the correct approach. PROJECTED HOUSING NEED: Six SoCal Counties Healthy Vacancy New Housing: Replacement Adjustment: Existing NeedAdditional HH by 2030 Home-owned (290,000) Rentals (261,000) Total Housing Need by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housing units 1 circle = 10,000 households A-4 APPENDIX The housing need also takes into account for future growth. (125,000) (39 ,000) EXISTING HOUSING: Six SoCal Counties +PUVGCFQHVJGV[RKECNDGPEJOCTMHQTQYPGTQEEWRKGFJQWUKPIVJG[WUGFCXCECPE[TCVGWUWCNN[TGUGTXGFHQT TGPVCNJQWUKPI#XCECPE[KPQYPGTQEEWRKGFJQWUKPIKUKPFKECVKXGQHCFKUVTGUUGFJQWUKPIOCTMGV#V5Q%CNũU GZKUVKPIJQWUKPIPGGFKUKPETGCUGFD[JQWUKPIWPKVU'ZKUVKPIPGGFHQTTGPVCNJQWUKPIKUWPEJCPIGF However, the Dept. of Housing and Community Development has adopted an unusual methodology in evaluating existing need in the 6th housing cycle. 1.2%Home-owned (3.3 Million) Vacant Housing Units Actual Vacancies (40,000) Healthy Benchmark (165,000)5.0% 3.7% 5.0% Existing Need Rentals (3 Million) Occupied Housing Units Actual Vacancies (110,000) Healthy Benchmark (149,000) Seasonal Vacancies (500,000) 1 circle = 10,000 households A-5 APPENDIX (34,000) PROJECTED HOUSING NEED: Six SoCal Counties Healthy Vacancy New Housing: Assumed Vacancy New Housing Replacement Adjustment: Existing Need Additional HH by 2030 Home-owned (290,000) Rentals (261,000) 5% (15,000)1.2% (3,000) (125,000) 5.0% (13,000)(39,000) #ICKPKPUVGCFQHWUKPIVJGUGRCTCVGDGPEJOCTMQHHQTQYPGTQEEWRKGFJQWUKPIYCUWUGFHQTCNNJQWUKPI+V YCUCNUQCUUWOGFVJCVPGYRTQLGEVGFJQWUGJQNFUJCFGZKUVKPIXCECPEKGU6JGHWNNDGPEJOCTMYCUPQVCRRNKGFVQPGY JQWUGJQNFU+PUVGCFVJGFKHHGTGPEGDGVYGGPVJGDGPEJOCTMCPFVJGEWTTGPVXCECPE[TCVGYCUCRRNKGF6JG TGRNCEGOGPVCFLWUVOGPVYCUCRRNKGFCUKVJCUDGGPKPVJGRCUV 3.7% (10,000) 764,000 housing units 1 circle = 10,000 households A-6 APPENDIX The Dept. of Housing and Community Development have also taken an unusual approach in evaluating projected housing need. (460,000) PROJECTED HOUSING NEED: Six SoCal Counties Overcrowding Adjustment* Additional HH by 2030 Home-owned (290,000) Rentals (261,000) (118,000) Cost Burdening Adjustment** 6YQPGYHCEVQTUYGTGKPVTQFWEGFKPVQVJGVJCUUGUUOGPVŦQXGTETQYFKPICPFEQUVDWTFGPKPI6JGUGHCEVQTUJCF CNTGCF[DGGPTQNNGFKPVQVJG&1(ũUJQWUGJQNFRTQLGEVKQPU6JG&1(GZRNKEKVN[TGEQIPK\GFVJCVTGIKQPCNJQWUGJQNF HQTOCVKQPTCVGUOKIJVDGFGRTGUUGF CU[ORVQOQHQXGTETQYFKPICPFEQUVDWTFGPKPI DGECWUGQHVJGCHHQTFCDNG JQWUKPIETKUKU6JGJQWUGJQNFHQTOCVKQPTCVGWUGFD[VJG&1(KUJKIJGTVJCPVJGCEVWCNTCVGGZRGTKGPEGF#UUWEJKV IGPGTCVGUCJKIJGTJQWUKPIVCTIGVOGCPVVQTGNKGXGQXGTETQYFKPICPFEQUVDWTFGPKPI Projected Households already factors in overcrowding and cost-burdening From the Department of Finance “The argument was that the Great Recession and the affordability crisis which impact recent trends in headship should not be allowed to solely dominate the projection, rather some return to underlying socio-cultural norms QHJQOGQYPGTUJKRHGYGTTQQOOCVGUKUCDGPGƓEKCNCUUWORVKQPŭ A DOUBLE COUNT 1 circle = 10,000 households A-7 APPENDIX Lastly, the Dept. of Housing and Community Development double counted by adding two new factors that had already been factored into household forecasts made by the Dept. of Finance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ealthy Vacancy New Housing: Assumed Vacancy New Housing Replacement Adjustment: Overcrowding Adjustment Existing Need Additional HH by 2030 Home-owned (290,000) Rentals (261,000) (118,000) Cost Burdening Adjustment Total Housing Need by 2030 5% (15,000)1.2% (3,000) (125,000) 5.0% (13,000)(39,000) 1,342,000 housing units TYPICAL METHODOLOGY Healthy Vacancy New Housing: Replacement Adjustment: Existing NeedAdditional HH by 2030 Home-owned (290,000) Rentals (261,000) Total Housing Need by 2030 1.5% (4,000)(10,000) 5.0% (13,000)(39,000) (34,000) 651,000 housing units 3.7% (10,000) 1 circle = 10,000 households A-8 APPENDIX The vacancy errors and double counting resulted in a doubling of the housing needs assessment for the six counties of SoCal. Complete data tables: www.embarcaderoinstitute.com References used in the analysis : Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) https://www.hcd.ca.gov Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements Regional Housing Needs Allocations for 6th Cycle Housing Elements: #UUQEKCVKQPQH$C[#TGC)QXGTPOGPVU4GIKQPCN*QWUKPI0GGF&GVGTOKPCVKQP2NCPHQTVJG5KZVJ*QWUKPI'NGOGPV7RFCVG 5CETCOGPVQ#TGC%QWPEKNQH)QXGTPOGPVU4GIKQPCN*QWUKPI0GGF&GVGTOKPCVKQPHQTVJG5KZVJ*QWUKPI'NGOGPV7RFCVG 5QWVJGTP%CNKHQTPKC#UUQEKCVKQPQH)QXGTPOGPVU4GIKQPCN*QWUKPI0GGF&GVGTOKPCVKQPHQTVJG5KZVJ*QWUKPI'NGOGPV7RFCVG 5CP&KGIQ#UUQEKCVKQPQH)QXGTPOGPVU4GIKQPCN*QWUKPI0GGF&GVGTOKPCVKQPCPF2NCPHQTVJG5KZVJ*QWUKPI'NGOGPV7RFCVG Allocations for 5th Cycle Housing Elements: #UUQEKCVKQPQH$C[#TGC)QXGTPOGPVU (GDTWCT[ 5CETCOGPVQ#TGC%QWPEKNQH)QXGTPOGPVU 5GRVGODGT 5CP&KGIQ#UUQEKCVKQPQH)QXGTPOGPVU 0QXGODGT 5QWVJGTP%CNKHQTPKC#UUQEKCVKQPQH)QXGTPOGPVU #WIWUV Annual Progress Reports #PPWCN2TQITGUU4GRQTV#24 VJ%[ENG#PPWCN2TQITGUU4GRQTV2GTOKV5WOOCT[ WRFCVGF Allocations for Earlier Cycles and Housing Element 4*0#*QWUKPI/GVJQFQNQI[%QOOKVVGG#IGPFC2CEMGV 4GIKQPCN*QWUKPI0GGFU2NCPVQ5#%1)(GDTWCT[ TFCPFVJ%[ENG4*0#CNNQECVKQPU FCVCUGPVKPRGTUQPCNEQOOWPKECVKQPYKVJVJG&GRCTVOGPVQH*QWUKPICPF%QOWPKV[&GXGNQROGPV Department of Finance Methodology for Household Forecasts Ŭ4GCF/Gŭ26CDNGU *QWUGJQNF2TQLGEVKQPUVQ #UUQEKCVKQPQH$C[#TGC)QXGTPOGPVU&KIKVCN.KDTCT[ 4*0#&QEWOGPVU4GIKQPCN*QWUKPI0GGFU#NNQECVKQP&QEWOGPVU 4*0#*QWUKPI/GVJQFQNQI[%QOOKVVGG#IGPFC2CEMGV4GIKQPCN*QWUKPI0GGF#NNQECVKQPR Other Housing Assessment Methodologies “Mckinsey & Company #611.-+661%.15'%#.+(140+#ũ5*175+0))#2 /+..+10*1/'5$;ŭ1EVQDGT Jobs to Housing 'ORNQ[OGPV&GXGNQROGPV&GRCTVOGPV5VCVGQH%CNKHQTPKC'ORNQ[OGPV2TQLGEVKQPU .QPI6GTO2TQLGEVKQPU JVVRU YYYNCDQTOCTMGVKPHQGFFECIQXFCVCGORNQ[OGPVRTQLGEVKQPUJVON END NOTES CALIFORNIA TOPS 39.8 MILLION RESIDENTS AT NEW YEAR PER NEW STATE DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Doug Kuczynski/Walter Schwarm/John Boyne May 1, 2020 (916) 323-4086 H.D. Palmer (916) 323-0648 SACRAMENTO— California added 87,494 residents to bring the state’s estimated total population to 39,782,870 people as of January 1st, 2020, according to new population estimates and housing data released today by the California Department of Finance. The report contains preliminary year over year January 2020 and revised January 2019 population data for California cities, counties, and the state. These estimates are based on information through January 1, 2020, and do not include adjustments for potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Key findings include: x California’s population grew by only 0.2 percent, continuing a historically slow growth trend since the Great Recession. x Growth remains strong in the interior counties of the Central Valley and the Inland Empire, while remaining modest in the Bay Area, and slowing to near zero and even negative in most of the coastal counties. x Los Angeles County, the state’s most populous county, has now lost population the last two years, dropping 0.3 percent in 2018 and 0.1 percent in 2019. Rural counties in the mountain regions of the state and counties impacted by wildfires experienced the most population loss. x Seven counties had growth rates over 1.0 percent. These counties include: Glenn (2.5 percent), Yuba (2.0 percent), Placer (2.0 percent), El Dorado (1.7 percent), San Benito (1.4 percent), San Joaquin (1.1 percent), and Kern (1.0 percent). San Benito County was the notable Bay Area exception gaining over 1.0 percent due to increased housing construction. x Changes in population rankings for cities reinforce the movement towards inland counties; Modesto is now the 17th largest city passing Santa Clarita. Elk Grove is now the 27th largest city passing Rancho Cucamonga, Garden Grove, and Santa Rosa. Roseville is now the 40th largest city passing Pasadena. x For population growth from housing production not related to wildfires, the top five cities include: Colma (14.1 percent) in San Mateo County, Calimesa (5.7 percent) in Riverside County, Lathrop (5.6 percent) in San Joaquin County, Wasco (5.5 percent) in Kern County, and Rio Vista (4.1 percent) in Solano County. x California's statewide housing growth, as measured by net unit growth in completed housing units for 2019, was 94,662 units making 2019 the first time the state has added more housing units than people. Total housing in California reached 14,329,863 units, a 0.7 -percent increase. – MORE – -2- Also of note in the report: x 256 cities gained population, 225 lost population and 1 had no change. x Of the ten largest cities in California, Bakersfield had the largest percentage gain in population (1.4 percent, or 5,500) with Sacramento (1.1 percent, or 5,700) a distant second. x Ranked by net housing gains, Los Angeles (17,533), San Francisco (4,792), San Diego (3,425), Irvine (2,964) and Oakland (2,717) added the most housing units in 2019. x Of the 14,329,863 housing units in California, 9,228,303 are single family and 4,540,850 are multi-family with 560,817 mobile homes. Multi-family housing growth outpaced single family housing by almost 8,695 net units (“net” refers to new construction minus demolition), continuing an eight-year trend. x Larger densely populated urban areas are building most of the multi-family housing throughout the state. Los Angeles led the state gaining 18,385 multi-family units, comprising 100 percent of their net housing growth, followed by San Francisco (4,708 for 98.3 percent), San Diego (3,013 for 88.0 percent), and Oakland (2,645 for 97.4 percent). x Conversely, single family housing is more likely to be built further inland in typically more suburban cities. Examples of cities with a high ratio of single family to multi-family growth include: Sacramento (73.2 percent single family), Bakersfield (99.0 percent single family), Fresno (81.1 percent single family), and Menifee (99.8 percent single family). x Group quarters account for about 2 percent of the total state population (853,000). This population includes, among others, those living in college dorms (243,000) and in correctional facilities (213,000). In 2019, the group quarters population grew by almost 2,500 people or 0.3 percent. The college dormitory population dropped for the first time since July 2016, losing a modest 504 (0.2 percent) due to renovations and remodeling from the University of California system at San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Davis. The military group quarters population increased by 4,200 (7.8 percent), local jails decreased by 364 (less than 1 percent), state prisons decreased by 1,307 (1.0 percent), and federal prisons decreased by 522 (2.9 percent). x State prisons are generally located in remote areas; as a result, increases or decreases in this population can account for significant changes in their respective locations. For example, state prison declines led to population decreases in McFarland, Taft, and California City in Kern County, while driving population increases in Norco in Riverside County, Victorville in San Bernardino County, Soledad in Monterey County, and Vacaville in Solano County. – MORE – -3- Background Information: These population estimates are produced annually by the Department of Finance for use by local areas to calculate their annual appropriations limit. The State Controller’s Office uses Finance's estimates to update their population figures for distribution of state subventions to cities and counties, and to comply with various state codes. Additionally, estimates are used for research and planning purposes by federal, state, and local agencies, the academic community, and the private sector. Changes to the housing stock are used in the preparation of the annual city population estimates. Estimated occupancy of housing units and the number of persons per household further determine population levels. Changes in city housing stock result from new construction, demolitions, housing unit conversions, and annexations. The sub-county population estimates are then adjusted to be consistent with independently produced county estimates. Domestic migration data has been updated for the 2017-2019 data series with the latest release from the Internal Revenue Service for data years 2016-17 and 2017-18. International student migration is grouped with overall net international migration for 2010-19, due to discontinuation of the data series previously provided by the Department of Homeland Security. All Finance population and housing estimates are benchmarked to the latest decennial census. The estimates in this report are benchmarked to the 2010 decennial census. The 2020 decennial census will produce a new Finance benchmark when the data are available for the 2022 estimates series. Related population reports are available on the Department’s website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/ # # # Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit Population Estimates for California Cities 10 Largest Cities City Population Percent Change January 1, 2020 2019-20 1. Los Angeles 4,010,684 -0.06 2. San Diego 1,430,489 0.1 3. San Jose 1,049,187 0.1 4. San Francisco 897,806 0.8 5. Fresno 545,769 0.7 6. Sacramento 510,931 1.1 7. Long Beach 472,217 -0.1 8. Oakland 433,697 0.7 9. Bakersfield 392,756 1.4 10. Anaheim 357,325 0.2 10 Fastest Growing Cities with Populations Over 30,000 City Population Percent Change January 1, 2020 2019-20 1. Beaumont 51,475 3.7 2. Folsom 81,610 3.1 3. Roseville 145,163 2.7 4. Menifee 97,093 2.5 5. Dublin 65,716 2.5 6. Merced 88,120 2.4 7. Los Gatos 31,439 2.3 8. Milpitas 77,961 2.3 9. Rocklin 70,350 2.2 10. Clovis 119,175 2.2 10 Cities Under 300,000 with the Largest Numeric Change City Population Numeric Change January 1, 2020 2019-20 1. Irvine 281,707 4,245 2. Roseville 145,163 3,864 3. Elk Grove 176,154 2,984 4. Clovis 119,175 2,566 5. Folsom 81,610 2,439 6. Ontario 182,871 2,377 7. Menifee 97,093 2,361 8. Modesto 222,335 2,209 9. Merced 88,120 2,039 10. Beaumont 51,475 1,845 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2019 and 2020 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change CALIFORNIA 39,695,376 39,782,870 0.2 Alameda 1,664,783 1,670,834 0.4 Alameda 81,618 81,312 -0.4 Albany 18,961 18,937 -0.1 Berkeley 122,358 122,580 0.2 Dublin 64,132 65,716 2.5 Emeryville 12,041 12,298 2.1 Fremont 233,404 234,220 0.3 Hayward 160,197 160,311 0.1 Livermore 91,436 91,861 0.5 Newark 48,164 48,966 1.7 Oakland 430,753 433,697 0.7 Piedmont 11,468 11,453 -0.1 Pleasanton 79,392 79,464 0.1 San Leandro 88,296 87,930 -0.4 Union City 73,661 73,637 0.0 Balance of County 148,902 148,452 -0.3 Alpine 1,149 1,142 -0.6 Amador 37,820 37,676 -0.4 Amador 168 166 -1.2 Ione 7,905 8,008 1.3 Jackson 4,844 4,860 0.3 Plymouth 1,006 998 -0.8 Sutter Creek 2,492 2,470 -0.9 Balance of County 21,405 21,174 -1.1 Butte 221,521 210,291 -5.1 Biggs 2,053 1,852 -9.8 Chico 109,688 110,326 0.6 Gridley 7,058 6,402 -9.3 Oroville 21,311 19,440 -8.8 Paradise 4,485 4,631 3.3 Balance of County 76,926 67,640 -12.1 Calaveras 45,085 45,023 -0.1 Angels City 4,095 4,123 0.7 Balance of County 40,990 40,900 -0.2 Colusa 21,990 21,902 -0.4 Colusa 6,227 6,175 -0.8 Williams 5,392 5,426 0.6 Balance of County 10,371 10,301 -0.7 Contra Costa 1,150,621 1,153,561 0.3 Antioch 112,423 112,520 0.1 Brentwood 64,365 65,118 1.2 Clayton 11,347 11,337 -0.1 Concord 130,435 130,143 -0.2 Danville 43,923 43,876 -0.1 El Cerrito 24,852 24,953 0.4 Hercules 25,488 25,530 0.2 Lafayette 25,644 25,604 -0.2 Martinez 37,424 37,106 -0.8 Moraga 16,939 16,946 0.0 Oakley 41,979 42,461 1.1 Orinda 18,911 19,009 0.5 Pinole 19,563 19,505 -0.3 Pittsburg 73,565 74,321 1.0 Pleasant Hill 34,286 34,267 -0.1 Richmond 110,793 111,217 0.4 San Pablo 31,481 31,413 -0.2 San Ramon 82,100 83,118 1.2 Walnut Creek 70,958 70,860 -0.1 Balance of County 174,145 174,257 0.1 Del Norte 27,127 27,298 0.6 Crescent City 6,605 6,673 1.0 Balance of County 20,522 20,625 0.5 El Dorado 190,018 193,227 1.7 Placerville 10,836 10,980 1.3 South Lake Tahoe 22,304 22,525 1.0 Balance of County 156,878 159,722 1.8 Fresno 1,015,195 1,023,358 0.8 Clovis 116,609 119,175 2.2 Coalinga 16,944 17,199 1.5 Firebaugh 7,980 7,981 0.0 Fowler 6,220 6,454 3.8 Fresno 542,012 545,769 0.7 Huron 7,302 7,299 0.0 Kerman 15,767 15,950 1.2 Kingsburg 12,551 12,883 2.6 Mendota 12,278 12,514 1.9 Orange Cove 9,460 9,456 0.0 Parlier 15,658 15,890 1.5 Reedley 25,873 25,917 0.2 Sanger 27,005 27,185 0.7 San Joaquin 4,144 4,142 0.0 Selma 24,402 24,436 0.1 Balance of County 170,990 171,108 0.1 Glenn 28,695 29,400 2.5 Orland 8,113 8,323 2.6 Willows 6,080 6,208 2.1 Balance of County 14,502 14,869 2.5 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2019 and 2020 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change Humboldt 133,996 133,302 -0.5 Arcata 18,223 17,963 -1.4 Blue Lake 1,285 1,277 -0.6 Eureka 26,820 26,699 -0.5 Ferndale 1,378 1,382 0.3 Fortuna 12,112 12,123 0.1 Rio Dell 3,308 3,287 -0.6 Trinidad 339 337 -0.6 Balance of County 70,531 70,234 -0.4 Imperial 188,821 188,777 0.0 Brawley 27,229 27,349 0.4 Calexico 41,032 40,896 -0.3 Calipatria 7,141 6,843 -4.2 El Centro 45,774 45,657 -0.3 Holtville 6,366 6,359 -0.1 Imperial 19,364 19,907 2.8 Westmorland 2,356 2,346 -0.4 Balance of County 39,559 39,420 -0.4 Inyo 18,572 18,584 0.1 Bishop 3,815 3,821 0.2 Balance of County 14,757 14,763 0.0 Kern 908,405 917,553 1.0 Arvin 21,314 21,677 1.7 Bakersfield 387,236 392,756 1.4 California City 14,423 14,161 -1.8 Delano 52,422 53,032 1.2 Maricopa 1,122 1,127 0.4 McFarland 14,984 14,388 -4.0 Ridgecrest 29,067 29,350 1.0 Shafter 19,849 20,441 3.0 Taft 9,417 8,680 -7.8 Tehachapi 13,054 12,758 -2.3 Wasco 27,548 28,884 4.8 Balance of County 317,969 320,299 0.7 Kings 152,995 153,608 0.4 Avenal 13,214 13,189 -0.2 Corcoran 21,595 21,302 -1.4 Hanford 58,907 59,349 0.8 Lemoore 26,254 26,509 1.0 Balance of County 33,025 33,259 0.7 Lake 64,268 64,040 -0.4 Clearlake 14,363 14,297 -0.5 Lakeport 4,698 4,677 -0.4 Balance of County 45,207 45,066 -0.3 Lassen 29,173 28,833 -1.2 Susanville 14,206 13,717 -3.4 Balance of County 14,967 15,116 1.0 Los Angeles 10,184,378 10,172,951 -0.1 Agoura Hills 20,622 20,566 -0.3 Alhambra 86,793 86,792 0.0 Arcadia 57,262 57,212 -0.1 Artesia 16,534 16,490 -0.3 Avalon 3,939 3,929 -0.3 Azusa 49,537 49,658 0.2 Baldwin Park 76,311 76,252 -0.1 Bell 36,510 36,531 0.1 Bellflower 78,239 78,110 -0.2 Bell Gardens 42,579 42,449 -0.3 Beverly Hills 33,926 33,775 -0.4 Bradbury 1,056 1,052 -0.4 Burbank 105,496 105,861 0.3 Calabasas 24,185 24,193 0.0 Carson 93,153 93,108 0.0 Cerritos 49,995 49,994 0.0 Claremont 35,872 35,807 -0.2 Commerce 12,929 12,868 -0.5 Compton 98,206 98,032 -0.2 Covina 48,683 48,846 0.3 Cudahy 24,227 24,172 -0.2 Culver City 39,493 39,705 0.5 Diamond Bar 57,308 57,177 -0.2 Downey 113,863 113,529 -0.3 Duarte 21,681 21,673 0.0 El Monte 116,563 116,675 0.1 El Segundo 16,812 16,777 -0.2 Gardena 60,892 60,937 0.1 Glendale 204,883 205,331 0.2 Glendora 51,840 52,067 0.4 Hawaiian Gardens 14,685 14,649 -0.2 Hawthorne 87,071 86,903 -0.2 Hermosa Beach 19,641 19,614 -0.1 Hidden Hills 1,862 1,868 0.3 Huntington Park 59,642 59,515 -0.2 Industry 427 427 0.0 Inglewood 112,345 111,971 -0.3 Irwindale 1,443 1,434 -0.6 La Canada Flintridge 20,497 20,461 -0.2 La Habra Heights 5,470 5,461 -0.2 Lakewood 80,168 79,919 -0.3 La Mirada 49,007 48,877 -0.3 Lancaster 161,505 161,699 0.1 La Puente 40,532 40,568 0.1 La Verne 33,289 33,300 0.0 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2019 and 2020 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change Lawndale 32,879 32,799 -0.2 Lomita 20,614 20,549 -0.3 Long Beach 472,802 472,217 -0.1 Los Angeles 4,013,170 4,010,684 -0.1 Lynwood 71,549 71,269 -0.4 Malibu 11,784 11,720 -0.5 Manhattan Beach 35,419 35,250 -0.5 Maywood 27,988 27,904 -0.3 Monrovia 37,956 37,935 -0.1 Montebello 63,742 63,544 -0.3 Monterey Park 60,943 60,734 -0.3 Norwalk 105,881 105,717 -0.2 Palmdale 157,117 156,737 -0.2 Palos Verdes Estates 13,230 13,190 -0.3 Paramount 55,569 55,461 -0.2 Pasadena 144,686 144,842 0.1 Pico Rivera 63,390 63,374 0.0 Pomona 154,675 154,817 0.1 Rancho Palos Verdes 41,838 41,731 -0.3 Redondo Beach 67,154 66,994 -0.2 Rolling Hills 1,880 1,874 -0.3 Rolling Hills Estates 8,035 8,066 0.4 Rosemead 54,198 54,363 0.3 San Dimas 34,042 33,945 -0.3 San Fernando 24,798 25,207 1.6 San Gabriel 40,194 40,104 -0.2 San Marino 13,106 13,087 -0.1 Santa Clarita 221,703 221,932 0.1 Santa Fe Springs 18,348 18,295 -0.3 Santa Monica 92,480 92,357 -0.1 Sierra Madre 10,843 10,816 -0.2 Signal Hill 11,744 11,712 -0.3 South El Monte 20,792 21,204 2.0 South Gate 97,211 97,003 -0.2 South Pasadena 25,524 25,458 -0.3 Temple City 36,098 36,150 0.1 Torrance 145,922 145,546 -0.3 Vernon 298 297 -0.3 Walnut 29,977 29,929 -0.2 West Covina 106,313 105,999 -0.3 West Hollywood 36,335 36,203 -0.4 Westlake Village 8,227 8,212 -0.2 Whittier 87,073 86,801 -0.3 Balance of County 1,039,878 1,034,689 -0.5 Madera 158,216 158,147 0.0 Chowchilla 18,553 18,196 -1.9 Madera 65,117 65,415 0.5 Balance of County 74,546 74,536 0.0 Marin 262,240 260,831 -0.5 Belvedere 2,139 2,124 -0.7 Corte Madera 10,138 10,114 -0.2 Fairfax 7,443 7,399 -0.6 Larkspur 12,331 12,253 -0.6 Mill Valley 14,743 14,674 -0.5 Novato 54,062 53,702 -0.7 Ross 2,548 2,550 0.1 San Anselmo 12,845 12,757 -0.7 San Rafael 60,207 59,807 -0.7 Sausalito 7,301 7,252 -0.7 Tiburon 9,581 9,540 -0.4 Balance of County 68,902 68,659 -0.4 Mariposa 18,066 18,067 0.0 Mendocino 88,388 87,946 -0.5 Fort Bragg 7,471 7,427 -0.6 Point Arena 441 451 2.3 Ukiah 16,029 16,061 0.2 Willits 5,117 5,072 -0.9 Balance of County 59,330 58,935 -0.7 Merced 280,735 283,521 1.0 Atwater 31,370 31,378 0.0 Dos Palos 5,549 5,546 -0.1 Gustine 5,867 5,875 0.1 Livingston 14,709 15,052 2.3 Los Banos 41,287 41,923 1.5 Merced 86,081 88,120 2.4 Balance of County 95,872 95,627 -0.3 Modoc 9,637 9,570 -0.7 Alturas 2,849 2,826 -0.8 Balance of County 6,788 6,744 -0.6 Mono 13,517 13,464 -0.4 Mammoth Lakes 7,887 7,859 -0.4 Balance of County 5,630 5,605 -0.4 Monterey 441,304 441,143 0.0 Carmel-by-the-Sea 3,939 3,949 0.3 Del Rey Oaks 1,674 1,662 -0.7 Gonzales 8,566 8,506 -0.7 Greenfield 18,109 18,284 1.0 King City 14,540 14,797 1.8 Marina 22,688 22,321 -1.6 Monterey 27,992 28,170 0.6 Pacific Grove 15,360 15,265 -0.6 Salinas 162,353 162,222 -0.1 Sand City 383 385 0.5 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2019 and 2020 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change Seaside 33,047 33,537 1.5 Soledad 25,745 25,301 -1.7 Balance of County 106,908 106,744 -0.2 Napa 139,970 139,088 -0.6 American Canyon 21,000 20,837 -0.8 Calistoga 5,378 5,348 -0.6 Napa 79,730 79,278 -0.6 St Helena 6,101 6,073 -0.5 Yountville 2,763 2,685 -2.8 Balance of County 24,998 24,867 -0.5 Nevada 97,820 98,114 0.3 Grass Valley 12,851 12,865 0.1 Nevada City 3,160 3,140 -0.6 Truckee 16,136 16,228 0.6 Balance of County 65,673 65,881 0.3 Orange 3,192,987 3,194,332 0.0 Aliso Viejo 49,815 50,044 0.5 Anaheim 356,669 357,325 0.2 Brea 44,879 45,629 1.7 Buena Park 82,422 81,998 -0.5 Costa Mesa 114,634 114,778 0.1 Cypress 48,976 49,272 0.6 Dana Point 33,212 33,146 -0.2 Fountain Valley 56,099 55,878 -0.4 Fullerton 141,931 141,863 0.0 Garden Grove 175,052 174,801 -0.1 Huntington Beach 201,239 201,281 0.0 Irvine 277,462 281,707 1.5 Laguna Beach 22,445 22,343 -0.5 Laguna Hills 31,674 31,508 -0.5 Laguna Niguel 65,363 65,316 -0.1 Laguna Woods 16,329 16,243 -0.5 La Habra 63,319 63,371 0.1 Lake Forest 84,576 84,711 0.2 La Palma 15,572 15,492 -0.5 Los Alamitos 11,576 11,567 -0.1 Mission Viejo 94,766 94,267 -0.5 Newport Beach 85,706 85,780 0.1 Orange 140,410 140,065 -0.2 Placentia 51,750 51,494 -0.5 Rancho Santa Margarita 49,051 48,793 -0.5 San Clemente 64,541 64,581 0.1 San Juan Capistrano 36,149 36,318 0.5 Santa Ana 337,639 335,052 -0.8 Seal Beach 25,080 24,992 -0.4 Stanton 39,097 39,077 -0.1 Tustin 80,491 80,382 -0.1 Villa Park 5,786 5,766 -0.3 Westminster 92,737 92,421 -0.3 Yorba Linda 68,458 68,650 0.3 Balance of County 128,082 128,421 0.3 Placer 395,978 403,711 2.0 Auburn 14,440 14,594 1.1 Colfax 2,121 2,152 1.5 Lincoln 48,679 49,317 1.3 Loomis 6,828 6,888 0.9 Rocklin 68,806 70,350 2.2 Roseville 141,299 145,163 2.7 Balance of County 113,805 115,247 1.3 Plumas 18,242 18,260 0.1 Portola 2,017 2,016 0.0 Balance of County 16,225 16,244 0.1 Riverside 2,422,146 2,442,304 0.8 Banning 31,142 31,125 -0.1 Beaumont 49,630 51,475 3.7 Blythe 19,256 19,255 0.0 Calimesa 8,830 9,329 5.7 Canyon Lake 10,995 11,000 0.0 Cathedral City 53,320 53,580 0.5 Coachella 46,885 47,186 0.6 Corona 166,723 168,248 0.9 Desert Hot Springs 29,683 29,660 -0.1 Eastvale 65,611 66,413 1.2 Hemet 85,159 85,175 0.0 Indian Wells 5,379 5,403 0.4 Indio 90,087 90,751 0.7 Jurupa Valley 106,115 107,083 0.9 Lake Elsinore 63,154 63,453 0.5 La Quinta 40,389 40,660 0.7 Menifee 94,732 97,093 2.5 Moreno Valley 207,181 208,838 0.8 Murrieta 114,193 115,561 1.2 Norco 26,426 27,564 4.3 Palm Desert 52,911 52,986 0.1 Palm Springs 47,296 47,427 0.3 Perris 79,856 80,201 0.4 Rancho Mirage 18,886 19,114 1.2 Riverside 326,427 328,155 0.5 San Jacinto 50,431 51,028 1.2 Temecula 111,879 111,970 0.1 Wildomar 37,126 37,183 0.2 Balance of County 382,444 385,388 0.8 Sacramento 1,541,301 1,555,365 0.9 Citrus Heights 87,731 87,811 0.1 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2019 and 2020 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change Elk Grove 173,170 176,154 1.7 Folsom 79,171 81,610 3.1 Galt 25,655 25,849 0.8 Isleton 827 828 0.1 Rancho Cordova 77,438 78,381 1.2 Sacramento 505,230 510,931 1.1 Balance of County 592,079 593,801 0.3 San Benito 61,513 62,353 1.4 Hollister 39,998 40,646 1.6 San Juan Bautista 2,098 2,112 0.7 Balance of County 19,417 19,595 0.9 San Bernardino 2,168,964 2,180,537 0.5 Adelanto 35,504 35,663 0.4 Apple Valley 74,140 74,394 0.3 Barstow 24,210 24,268 0.2 Big Bear Lake 5,191 5,206 0.3 Chino 87,594 89,109 1.7 Chino Hills 82,310 82,409 0.1 Colton 53,862 54,118 0.5 Fontana 212,304 213,000 0.3 Grand Terrace 12,362 12,426 0.5 Hesperia 95,509 96,393 0.9 Highland 55,222 55,323 0.2 Loma Linda 24,405 24,535 0.5 Montclair 39,452 39,490 0.1 Needles 5,289 5,248 -0.8 Ontario 180,494 182,871 1.3 Rancho Cucamonga 175,201 175,522 0.2 Redlands 70,700 70,952 0.4 Rialto 104,334 104,553 0.2 San Bernardino 217,642 217,946 0.1 Twentynine Palms 28,478 29,258 2.7 Upland 78,564 78,814 0.3 Victorville 124,642 126,432 1.4 Yucaipa 55,629 55,712 0.1 Yucca Valley 22,205 22,236 0.1 Balance of County 303,721 304,659 0.3 San Diego 3,340,312 3,343,355 0.1 Carlsbad 113,635 114,463 0.7 Chula Vista 271,032 272,202 0.4 Coronado 23,814 21,381 -10.2 Del Mar 4,275 4,268 -0.2 El Cajon 104,104 104,393 0.3 Encinitas 62,096 62,183 0.1 Escondido 152,391 153,008 0.4 Imperial Beach 27,934 28,055 0.4 La Mesa 59,827 59,966 0.2 Lemon Grove 26,426 26,526 0.4 National City 62,254 62,099 -0.2 Oceanside 177,242 177,335 0.1 Poway 49,298 49,338 0.1 San Diego 1,428,600 1,430,489 0.1 San Marcos 96,651 97,209 0.6 Santee 57,780 57,999 0.4 Solana Beach 13,786 13,838 0.4 Vista 102,098 102,928 0.8 Balance of County 507,069 505,675 -0.3 San Francisco 891,021 897,806 0.8 San Joaquin 765,556 773,632 1.1 Escalon 7,442 7,478 0.5 Lathrop 25,401 26,833 5.6 Lodi 67,430 67,930 0.7 Manteca 83,395 84,800 1.7 Ripon 15,688 15,930 1.5 Stockton 317,271 318,522 0.4 Tracy 94,586 95,931 1.4 Balance of County 154,343 156,208 1.2 San Luis Obispo 278,355 277,259 -0.4 Arroyo Grande 17,839 17,687 -0.9 Atascadero 30,348 30,057 -1.0 El Paso de Robles 31,136 31,221 0.3 Grover Beach 13,320 13,214 -0.8 Morro Bay 10,269 10,188 -0.8 Pismo Beach 8,237 8,139 -1.2 San Luis Obispo 45,937 45,920 0.0 Balance of County 121,269 120,833 -0.4 San Mateo 774,231 773,244 -0.1 Atherton 7,044 7,031 -0.2 Belmont 26,983 26,813 -0.6 Brisbane 4,659 4,633 -0.6 Burlingame 30,320 30,118 -0.7 Colma 1,516 1,729 14.1 Daly City 109,710 109,142 -0.5 East Palo Alto 30,979 30,794 -0.6 Foster City 33,211 33,033 -0.5 Half Moon Bay 12,480 12,431 -0.4 Hillsborough 11,421 11,418 0.0 Menlo Park 35,454 35,254 -0.6 Millbrae 22,983 22,832 -0.7 Pacifica 38,579 38,331 -0.6 Portola Valley 4,623 4,607 -0.3 Redwood City 86,139 86,754 0.7 San Bruno 45,542 45,454 -0.2 San Carlos 29,652 30,145 1.7 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2019 and 2020 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change San Mateo 103,569 103,087 -0.5 South San Francisco 67,221 67,879 1.0 Woodside 5,663 5,676 0.2 Balance of County 66,483 66,083 -0.6 Santa Barbara 450,839 451,840 0.2 Buellton 5,407 5,464 1.1 Carpinteria 13,366 13,335 -0.2 Goleta 31,920 32,223 0.9 Guadalupe 7,769 8,081 4.0 Lompoc 43,849 43,786 -0.1 Santa Barbara 93,108 93,511 0.4 Santa Maria 106,969 107,407 0.4 Solvang 5,575 5,562 -0.2 Balance of County 142,876 142,471 -0.3 Santa Clara 1,954,833 1,961,969 0.4 Campbell 42,168 42,288 0.3 Cupertino 59,504 59,549 0.1 Gilroy 56,854 57,084 0.4 Los Altos 30,881 30,876 0.0 Los Altos Hills 8,394 8,413 0.2 Los Gatos 30,720 31,439 2.3 Milpitas 76,211 77,961 2.3 Monte Sereno 3,586 3,594 0.2 Morgan Hill 45,745 46,454 1.5 Mountain View 81,639 82,272 0.8 Palo Alto 69,109 69,226 0.2 San Jose 1,047,871 1,049,187 0.1 Santa Clara 127,401 129,104 1.3 Saratoga 31,002 31,030 0.1 Sunnyvale 155,766 156,503 0.5 Balance of County 87,982 86,989 -1.1 Santa Cruz 272,501 271,233 -0.5 Capitola 10,130 10,108 -0.2 Santa Cruz 65,241 64,424 -1.3 Scotts Valley 11,646 11,693 0.4 Watsonville 51,672 51,515 -0.3 Balance of County 133,812 133,493 -0.2 Shasta 177,891 178,045 0.1 Anderson 10,604 10,671 0.6 Redding 91,756 91,743 0.0 Shasta Lake 10,593 10,657 0.6 Balance of County 64,938 64,974 0.1 Sierra 3,210 3,201 -0.3 Loyalton 784 781 -0.4 Balance of County 2,426 2,420 -0.2 Siskiyou 44,592 44,461 -0.3 Dorris 1,001 996 -0.5 Dunsmuir 1,641 1,634 -0.4 Etna 747 745 -0.3 Fort Jones 676 673 -0.4 Montague 1,370 1,363 -0.5 Mount Shasta 3,386 3,375 -0.3 Tulelake 914 910 -0.4 Weed 2,762 2,747 -0.5 Yreka 7,832 7,786 -0.6 Balance of County 24,263 24,232 -0.1 Solano 438,832 440,224 0.3 Benicia 27,263 27,175 -0.3 Dixon 19,920 19,972 0.3 Fairfield 116,319 116,981 0.6 Rio Vista 9,594 9,987 4.1 Suisun City 29,211 29,119 -0.3 Vacaville 98,066 98,855 0.8 Vallejo 119,349 119,063 -0.2 Balance of County 19,110 19,072 -0.2 Sonoma 496,947 492,980 -0.8 Cloverdale 9,279 9,213 -0.7 Cotati 7,628 7,533 -1.2 Healdsburg 12,166 12,089 -0.6 Petaluma 62,195 61,873 -0.5 Rohnert Park 43,134 43,069 -0.2 Santa Rosa 175,183 173,628 -0.9 Sebastopol 7,826 7,745 -1.0 Sonoma 11,164 11,050 -1.0 Windsor 28,596 28,248 -1.2 Balance of County 139,776 138,532 -0.9 Stanislaus 554,018 557,709 0.7 Ceres 48,027 48,430 0.8 Hughson 7,232 7,298 0.9 Modesto 220,126 222,335 1.0 Newman 11,860 11,912 0.4 Oakdale 22,838 22,997 0.7 Patterson 22,974 23,074 0.4 Riverbank 24,867 25,030 0.7 Turlock 73,874 74,297 0.6 Waterford 8,806 8,894 1.0 Balance of County 113,414 113,442 0.0 Sutter 102,914 100,750 -2.1 Live Oak 9,164 9,200 0.4 Yuba City 72,005 70,458 -2.1 Balance of County 21,745 21,092 -3.0 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2019 and 2020 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/19 1/1/20 Change Tehama 64,643 65,129 0.8 Corning 7,534 7,620 1.1 Red Bluff 14,166 14,245 0.6 Tehama 442 445 0.7 Balance of County 42,501 42,819 0.7 Trinity 13,637 13,548 -0.7 Tulare 476,588 479,977 0.7 Dinuba 25,689 25,994 1.2 Exeter 11,009 11,030 0.2 Farmersville 11,396 11,399 0.0 Lindsay 13,153 13,154 0.0 Porterville 59,490 59,655 0.3 Tulare 66,457 67,834 2.1 Visalia 137,696 138,649 0.7 Woodlake 7,691 7,773 1.1 Balance of County 144,007 144,489 0.3 Tuolumne 54,532 54,917 0.7 Sonora 4,725 4,717 -0.2 Balance of County 49,807 50,200 0.8 Ventura 846,050 842,886 -0.4 Camarillo 70,024 70,261 0.3 Fillmore 15,680 15,566 -0.7 Moorpark 36,649 36,278 -1.0 Ojai 7,591 7,557 -0.4 Oxnard 206,221 206,352 0.1 Port Hueneme 23,457 23,607 0.6 San Buenaventura 107,021 106,276 -0.7 Santa Paula 30,573 30,389 -0.6 Simi Valley 125,664 125,115 -0.4 Thousand Oaks 127,610 126,484 -0.9 Balance of County 95,560 95,001 -0.6 Yolo 220,896 221,705 0.4 Davis 69,179 69,183 0.0 West Sacramento 53,995 54,328 0.6 Winters 7,169 7,279 1.5 Woodland 60,068 60,742 1.1 Balance of County 30,485 30,173 -1.0 Yuba 77,342 78,887 2.0 Marysville 12,333 12,424 0.7 Wheatland 3,620 3,641 0.6 Balance of County 61,389 62,822 2.3 Top 10 Cities Based on Housing Unit Growth Total Numeric Housing Unit Growth Rank City County Total HU 1 Los Angeles Los Angeles 17,533 2 San Francisco San Francisco 4,792 3 San Diego San Diego 3,425 4 Irvine Orange 2,964 5 Oakland Alameda 2,717 6 Sacramento Sacramento 2,081 7 Chico Butte 1,360 8 Fresno Fresno 1,346 9 Chula Vista San Diego 1,250 10 Bakersfield Kern 1,241 Numeric Single-Family Housing Unit Growth Rank City County Total HU 1 Irvine Orange 1,680 2 Sacramento Sacramento 1,524 3 Bakersfield Kern 1,229 4 Fresno Fresno 1,092 5 Menifee Riverside 904 6 Chico Butte 901 7 Roseville Placer 813 8 Elk Grove Sacramento 799 9 Clovis Fresno 750 10 Beaumont Riverside 629 Numeric Multi-Family Housing Unit Growth Rank City County Total HU 1 Los Angeles Los Angeles 18,385 2 San Francisco San Francisco 4,708 3 San Diego San Diego 3,013 4 Oakland Alameda 2,645 5 Irvine Orange 1,284 6 Anaheim Orange 998 7 Chula Vista San Diego 803 8 Santa Clara Santa Clara 751 9 Oxnard Ventura 578 10 Ontario San Bernardino 567 Percent Total Housing Unit Growth Rank City County Total HU 1 Colma San Mateo 14.89% 2 Calimesa Riverside 5.80% 3 Lathrop San Joaquin 5.64% 4 Wasco Kern 4.94% 5 Rio Vista Solano 4.47% 6 Guadalupe Santa Barbara 4.34% 7 Beaumont Riverside 3.86% 8 Fowler Fresno 3.83% 9 Point Arena Mendocino 3.51% 10 Imperial Imperial 3.46% Percent Single-Family Housing Unit Growth Rank City County Total HU 1 Calimesa Riverside 5.82% 2 Lathrop San Joaquin 5.74% 3 Guadalupe Santa Barbara 5.39% 4 Rio Vista Solano 4.63% 5 Point Arena Mendocino 4.37% 6 Beaumont Riverside 4.28% 7 Imperial Imperial 4.18% 8 Chico Butte 3.58% 9 Paradise Butte 3.49% 10 Live Oak Sutter 3.46% Percent Multi-Family Housing Unit Growth Rank City County Total HU 1 Hillsborough San Mateo 133.33% 2 Colma San Mateo 55.93% 3 Villa Park Orange 50.00% 4 Wasco Kern 21.59% 5 Monte Sereno Santa Clara 21.05% 6 South El Monte Los Angeles 18.51% 7 Fowler Fresno 16.17% 8 Oakley Contra Costa 14.82% 9 Los Altos Hills Santa Clara 14.29% 10 Piedmont Alameda 12.64% 1 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 1:17 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:January 11, 2021 council item 8 Attachments:Jan 11, 2021 RHNA Item.doc; abag_draft_rhna_methodology_release_december2020.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. My comments and ABAG RHNA document ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | December 18, 2020 | Page 1 RELEASE OF ABAG DRAFT RHNA METHODOLOGY AND FINAL SUBREGIONAL SHARES December 18, 2020 What is RHNA? The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the state-mandated1 process to identify the share of the statewide housing need for which each community must plan. As the Council of Governments (COG) for the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for developing a methodology for allocating a share of the Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND) the Bay Area received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)2 to every local government in the Bay Area. The RHNA methodology is a formula that quantifies the number of housing units, separated into four income categories,3 that will be assigned to each city, town, and county in the region. The allocation must meet the statutory objectives identified in Housing Element Law4 and be consistent with the forecasted development pattern from Plan Bay Area 2050.5 Each local government must then update the Housing Element of its General Plan and its zoning to show how it can accommodate its RHNA allocation. How was the Draft RHNA Methodology for the 2023-2031 RHNA Cycle Developed? ABAG convened an ad hoc Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) from October 2019 to September 2020 to advise staff on the methodology for allocating a share of the region’s total housing need to every local government in the Bay Area. The HMC included local elected officials and staff as well as regional stakeholders to facilitate sharing of diverse viewpoints across multiple sectors.6 At its final meeting on September 18, the HMC voted to recommend Option 8A: High Opportunity Areas Emphasis & Job Proximity with the 2050 Households baseline allocation as the Proposed RHNA Methodology. On October 1, the ABAG Regional Planning Committee voted to recommend this methodology for approval by the Executive 1 See California Government Code Section 65584. 2 In a letter dated June 9, 2020, HCD provided ABAG with a total RHND of 441,176 units for the 2023-2031 RHNA. 3 State law defines the following RHNA income categories: • Very Low Income: households earning less than 50 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) • Low Income: households earning 50 - 80 percent of AMI • Moderate Income: households earning 80 - 120 percent of AMI • Above Moderate Income: households earning 120 percent or more of AMI 4 See California Government Code Section 65584(d). 5 See Government Code Section 65584.04(m)(1). 6 The HMC roster is available at https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/hmc_roster_06_16_2020_0.pdf. ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | December 18, 2020 | Page 2 Board, and the Board approved its release as the Proposed RHNA Methodology for public comment on October 15, 2020. Materials related to the Proposed RHNA Methodology have been posted on ABAG’s website since October 24 (https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation). As required by law, ABAG held a public comment period from October 25 to November 27 and conducted a public hearing at the November 12 meeting of the ABAG Regional Planning Committee. ABAG heard 29 oral comments and received 106 written comments on the Proposed Methodology during the public comment period. These comments provided perspectives from over 200 local government staff and elected officials, advocacy organizations, and members of the public, as some letters represented multiple signatories. Appendix 1 summarizes the public comments received and initial staff responses. What is the Draft RHNA Methodology for the 2023-2031 RHNA Cycle? ABAG-MTC staff considered the comments received during the public comment period and is not proposing to make any adjustments to the baseline allocation or factors and weights in the Draft RHNA Methodology. The components of the Draft RHNA Methodology are the same as the Proposed RHNA Methodology (Figure 1). However, the Draft RHNA Methodology incorporates future year 2050 households data generated from the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint, which is being released concurrently with the Draft RHNA Methodology. As noted in the Proposed Methodology, the illustrative allocations reflected baseline data on 2050 households from the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint, with updates slated throughout fall 2020 to reflect the revised Strategies and Growth Geographies approved by the ABAG Executive Board and Commission in September 2020 for the Final Blueprint. Integrating the updated data about future year 2050 households from the Final Blueprint into the Draft RHNA Methodology results in changes to the illustrative allocations to local jurisdictions. ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | December 18, 2020 | Page 3 Figure 1: Proposed RHNA Methodology Overview7 There are two primary components to the Draft RHNA Methodology: 1. Baseline allocation: 2050 Households (Blueprint) The baseline allocation is used to assign each jurisdiction a beginning share of the RHND. The baseline allocation is based on each jurisdiction’s share of the region’s total households in the year 2050 from the Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint.8 Using the 2050 Households baseline takes into consideration the number of households that are currently living in a jurisdiction as well as the number of households expected to be added over the next several decades. 2. Factors and weights for allocating units by income category: Table 1 shows the factors and weights in the Draft RHNA Methodology. Each factor represents data related to the methodology’s policy priorities: access to high opportunity areas and proximity to jobs. The factors and weights adjust a jurisdiction’s baseline allocation 7 The RHNA Proposed Methodology Report provides more details about the methodology. 8 Plan Bay Area 2050 is the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area. Table 1: Factors and Weights for Proposed RHNA Methodology Very Low and Low Units Moderate and Above Moderate Units 70% Access to High Opportunity Areas 15% Job Proximity – Auto 15% Job Proximity – Transit 40% Access to High Opportunity Areas 60% Job Proximity – Auto ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | December 18, 2020 | Page 4 up or down, depending on how a jurisdiction scores on a factor compared to other jurisdictions in the region. The weight assigned to each factor (i.e., the percentages shown in Table 1) determines the share of the region’s housing need that will be assigned by a factor. How do the Results from the Draft RHNA Methodology Compare to those from the Proposed RHNA Methodology? As noted above, the Draft RHNA Methodology uses data from the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint. Whereas the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint featured 25 strategies that influenced the location of future growth, the Final Blueprint features 35 revised strategies adopted by the ABAG Executive Board and Commission in fall 2020. These strategies shift the regional growth pattern, with generally small to moderate impacts on RHNA allocations. Additionally, the Final Blueprint features updated baseline data based on consultation with local jurisdictions in summer and fall 2020. Therefore, incorporating the Final Blueprint into the Draft RHNA Methodology results in changes to the illustrative allocations to local jurisdictions. ABAG-MTC staff has developed several resources to help local jurisdictions, stakeholders, and members of the public better understand how the illustrative allocations from the Draft RHNA Methodology (which uses the Final Blueprint as the baseline allocation) compare to those from the Proposed RHNA Methodology (which used the Draft Blueprint as the baseline allocation). The maps in Appendix 2 show each jurisdiction’s growth rate and total allocation and Appendix 3 shows illustrative allocations for each jurisdiction. Note: the allocation results for jurisdictions are only illustrative. Local governments will receive their final allocations in late 2021. As noted previously, Housing Element Law requires that the RHNA methodology meet the five statutory objectives of RHNA and that it be consistent with the forecasted development pattern from Plan Bay Area 2050. ABAG-MTC staff developed a set of performance metrics to evaluate how well a methodology does in meeting the RHNA objectives. Evaluation of the Draft RHNA Methodology shows that it furthers all of the RHNA objectives. Appendix 4 compares the results for the Draft RHNA Methodology and Proposed RHNA Methodology. ABAG-MTC staff also developed a framework for evaluating consistency between RHNA and Plan Bay Area 2050. RHNA and Plan Bay Area 2050 are determined to be consistent if the 8-year growth level from RHNA does not exceed the 35-year growth level at the county and sub- county geographies used in the Plan. Staff evaluated the Draft RHNA Methodology using this approach and determined that RHNA and Plan Bay Area 2050 remain consistent.9 9 The Draft RHNA Methodology and Plan Bay Area 2050 are consistent for all nine counties and in 33 of 34 superdistricts (i.e., sub-county areas) using the methodology developed during the HMC process. In the one superdistrict flagged during the consistency check, the Final Blueprint reflects the loss of more than 1,000 homes in ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | December 18, 2020 | Page 5 Final Subregional Shares Housing Element Law allows two or more neighboring jurisdictions to form a “subregion” to conduct a parallel RHNA process to allocate the subregion’s housing need among its members.10 ABAG must assign each subregion a share of the Bay Area’s RHND, which represents the total number of units, by income category, the subregion must allocate to its member jurisdictions. The ABAG Executive Board approved the release of Draft Subregional Shares for public comment on October 15, 2020. ABAG received no comments on the Draft Subregional Shares during the public comment period. The Final Subregional Shares have been updated based on the integration of the Final Blueprint into the Draft RHNA Methodology. Appendix 5 provides more details about the Final Subregional Shares. Winter Office Hours Local jurisdiction staff and partner organizations are invited to book office hours with MTC- ABAG planners to discuss the Final Blueprint outcomes and the Draft RHNA Methodology updates in more detail. Winter Office Hour appointments are available for booking from December 21, 2020 to January 15, 2021. Visit bit.ly/2VpczrC to book your appointment. Please note Winter Office Hour appointments are limited to local jurisdiction staff and partner organizations. Individual members of the public are encouraged to submit questions or comments via email to rhna@bayareametro.gov. RHNA Next Steps The ABAG Regional Planning Committee will consider the Draft RHNA Methodology and make a recommendation to the ABAG Executive Board at its meeting on January 14, 2021. The ABAG Executive Board is slated to take action on the Draft RHNA Methodology at the January 21, 2021 meeting. After a Draft RHNA Methodology is adopted by the Executive Board, ABAG will submit the methodology to HCD for review and then use the state agency’s feedback to develop a final methodology and draft RHNA allocation in spring 2021. Release of the draft allocation will be followed by an appeals period in the summer of 2021, with the final RHNA allocation assigned to each of the Bay Area’s local governments in late 2021. wildfires since 2015. Anticipated reconstruction of these units during the RHNA period does not yield significant net growth in housing units, making these allocations consistent with the Final Blueprint long-range projections. 10 Government Code Section 65584.03. ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 1 | December 18, 2020 | Page 1 Appendix 1: Summary of Public Comments Received and Preliminary Responses from ABAG-MTC Staff Public Comment Period for the Proposed RHNA Methodology Housing Element Law requires ABAG to hold a public comment period and conduct at least one public hearing to receive oral and written comments on the Proposed RHNA Methodology1 and Draft Subregional Shares2 prior to adoption of the Draft RHNA Methodology and Final Subregional Shares. The written public comment period began on October 25 and ended on November 27 per the Notice of Public Hearing published in newspapers and an ABAG press release. Additionally, ABAG held a public hearing at the November 12 meeting of the Regional Planning Committee, where 29 local government representatives, advocacy organizations, and members of the public provided oral comments on the proposed methodology. Geographic Representation and Respondent Types for Comments Received During the public comment period, ABAG received 106 written comments on the Proposed RHNA Methodology. These letters provided perspectives from over 200 local government staff and elected officials, advocacy organizations, and members of the public, as some letters represented multiple signatories. In total, 42 of ABAG’s 109 jurisdictions were signatories on letters received during the public comment period. Table 1 shows the number of written and oral comments received from advocacy organizations, members of the public, and various public agencies across the nine-county Bay Area.3 ABAG received no comments on the Draft Subregional Shares. 1 California Government Code 65584.04 (d) 2 California Government Code 65584.03 (c) 3 The sum of the number of letters received in Table 1 exceeds 106, as two letters had signatories from public agencies across multiple counties. Similarly, the sum of the number of oral comments in Table 1 exceeds 29 because one of comments came from a special district that represents both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 1 | December 18, 2020 | Page 2 Table 1. Share of public comments received from different types of respondents Type of Respondent Number of Letters Received Number of Oral Comments from Public Hearing Public Agency – Alameda 5 0 Public Agency – Contra Costa 3 0 Public Agency – Marin 11 1 Public Agency – Napa 2 0 Public Agency – San Francisco 0 0 Public Agency – San Mateo 11 2 Public Agency – Santa Clara 8 2 Public Agency – Solano 1 0 Public Agency – Sonoma 1 0 Advocacy Organizations 9 8 Members of the Public 57 17 Most Common Themes from Comments Received Table 2 below summarizes the key themes that are most prevalent across the comments received about the Proposed RHNA Methodology. The themes are ordered roughly in terms of how many letters and oral comments mentioned them, though it is worth noting that some letters represented comments from multiple jurisdictions, advocacy organizations, and/or individual members of the public. The table also includes a brief, preliminary response about the Draft RHNA Methodology (which incorporates data from the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint) from ABAG staff responding to the different topics in the comment letters. Comment letters on the Proposed RHNA Methodology will receive a more specific response in the coming weeks, with responses to local jurisdictions slated prior to the January ABAG Executive Board meeting. Table 2. Most common themes from written comments received 1. Jurisdiction is built out and/or lacks infrastructure to accommodate its allocation: Comments noted a lack of developable land and the inability to provide the services and infrastructure that would be needed as a result of growth from RHNA. Some residents objected to any new housing growth. Preliminary ABAG Response: Housing Element Law requires RHNA to increase the housing supply and mix of housing types for all jurisdictions. ABAG-MTC staff worked with local governments to gather information about local plans, zoning, physical characteristics and potential development opportunities and constraints. This information was used as an input into the Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint, which is used as the baseline allocation in the Draft RHNA Methodology. The Final Blueprint that was integrated into the Draft RHNA Methodology includes a number of updates based on corrections to local data provided by jurisdiction staff. The Blueprint allows additional feasible growth within the urban footprint by increasing allowable residential densities and expanding housing into select areas currently ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 1 | December 18, 2020 | Page 3 zoned for commercial and industrial uses. Ultimately, by law, ABAG cannot limit RHNA based on existing zoning or land use restrictions. The statute also requires ABAG to consider the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions. 2. The methodology should focus more on transit and jobs to better align with Plan Bay Area 2050 and the statutory RHNA objective to promote infill development and achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets: Comments suggested that proposed methodology directs too much RHNA to jurisdictions without adequate transit and/or with few jobs. These comments also argued that changing the RHNA methodology’s baseline allocation to household growth from the Blueprint would better align the methodology with Plan Bay Area 2050 and statutory goals related to greenhouse gas emission reductions and sustainability. Preliminary ABAG Response: The Draft RHNA Methodology directly incorporates the forecasted development pattern from the Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint as the baseline allocation. The Blueprint emphasizes growth near job centers and in locations near transit, as well as in high-resource areas, with the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The strategies incorporated into the Blueprint help improve the region’s jobs-housing balance, leading to shorter commutes—especially for low-income workers. The inclusion of job proximity by both automobile and transit as factors in the Draft RHNA Methodology also furthers the RHNA objective related to efficient development patterns and greenhouse gas emission reductions by encouraging shorter commutes for all modes of travel. The job proximity factors allocate nearly half of the total number of housing units assigned to the Bay Area by the State. This includes allocating 15% of the region’s lower-income units based on a jurisdiction’s proximity to jobs that can be accessed by public transit. Accordingly, the performance evaluation metrics indicate that the Draft RHNA Methodology performs well in meeting all five of the RHNA statutory objectives. This analysis shows that the draft methodology results in jurisdictions with the most access to jobs and transit as well as jurisdictions with the lowest vehicle miles traveled per resident experiencing higher growth rates from their RHNA allocations than other jurisdictions in the region. In contrast, the performance evaluation metrics also show that, while using Plan Bay Area 2050 household growth as the RHNA methodology’s baseline performs marginally better on the RHNA objective related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it may fall short in achieving statutory requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. Staff evaluated the 8-year allocations from the Draft RHNA Methodology and the 35-year housing growth from Plan Bay Area 2050 at the county and subcounty levels and determined that RHNA and the Plan are consistent.4 4 The Draft RHNA Methodology and Plan Bay Area 2050 are consistent for all nine counties and in 33 of 34 superdistricts (i.e., sub-county areas), using the methodology approved during the HMC process. Relatively unique circumstances exist in the one superdistrict flagged during the consistency check (superdistrict 28). In this superdistrict, net housing growth between 2015 and 2050 is less than the eight-year RHNA for the associated jurisdictions. However, wildfires prior to the 2023 to 2031 RHNA cycle destroyed more than 1,000 homes. Because of the loss in housing units early in the 35-year analysis period, the eight-year allocations remain consistent with the ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 1 | December 18, 2020 | Page 4 3. Methodology needs to directly incorporate hazard risk: Comments suggested the methodology allocated too much growth near areas with high wildfire risk and exposure to other natural hazards such as sea-level rise. Others felt the Blueprint needs to better incorporate hazard data, particularly related to wildland-urban interface (WUI) maps and FEMA floodways. Preliminary ABAG Response: Including the Blueprint in the RHNA methodology addresses concerns about natural hazards, as the Blueprint excludes areas with unmitigated high hazard risk from Growth Geographies. The Blueprint Growth Geographies exclude CAL FIRE designated “Very High” fire severity areas as well as county-designated WUIs where applicable. The Blueprint strategies focus future growth away from the highest fire risk zones, support increased wildland management programs, and support residential building upgrades that reduce the likelihood for damage when fires occur in the wildland urban interface. The Blueprint incorporates strategies to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, protecting nearly all communities at risk from two feet of permanent inundation. Riverine flooding is not yet integrated into the Blueprint because existing research does not provide guidance on how to model impacts of temporary riverine flooding to buildings and land value. Communities can choose to take these risks into consideration with where and how they site future development, either limiting growth in areas of higher hazard or by increasing building standards to cope with the hazard. 4. Support for proposed methodology: Comments from residents, local jurisdictions, and a diverse range of advocacy organizations supporting the methodology emphasized its importance for furthering regional equity. Preliminary ABAG Response: Staff’s analysis aligns with these comments and indicates the Draft RHNA Methodology successfully furthers all five of the statutory objectives of RHNA, including requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. 5. Need to account for impacts from COVID-19: Comments generally focused on the effects of the pandemic and suggest either delaying RHNA or reconsidering the focus on proximity to jobs. Preliminary ABAG Response: Staff appreciates concerns about the significant economic and societal changes resulting from COVID-19, and these concerns were relayed to the State in early summer. However, the Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND) from HCD has been finalized at this point in time. ABAG is obligated by state law to move forward with the RHNA process so jurisdictions can complete updates to their Housing Elements on time. Additionally, the eight-year RHNA cycle (which starts in 2023) represents a longer-term outlook than the current impacts of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. The potential impacts of the trend toward telecommuting in the longer term are incorporated into the RHNA methodology through the integration of the Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint, which includes long-range projections for this portion of the Bay Area, as the reconstruction of units during the RHNA period does not lead to significant net growth from 2015 levels. ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 1 | December 18, 2020 | Page 5 strategies to expand commute trip reduction programs through telecommuting and other sustainable modes of travel. 6. Concerns about allocation to unincorporated areas: Comments argued that the methodology allocates too much growth to unincorporated areas that are rural and lack infrastructure to support development. Preliminary ABAG Response: The Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint forecasts very little growth in unincorporated county areas, and that growth is focused inside urban growth boundaries. The RHNA allocations to these areas are driven, largely, by the number of existing households in unincorporated county areas, since the 2050 Households baseline in the Draft RHNA Methodology is the sum of existing households and forecasted household growth. Use of the Final Blueprint as the baseline allocation in the RHNA methodology resulted in smaller allocations for most of the counties in the region compared to the Proposed RHNA Methodology, which relied on the Draft Blueprint. ABAG-MTC will continue discussions with local jurisdictions about opportunities to direct additional RHNA units to incorporated areas, including the use of the provisions in Housing Element Law that allow a county to transfer a portion of its RHNA allocation to a city or town after it receives its RHNA allocation from ABAG.5 7. Support for adding the “equity adjustment” proposed by some HMC members to the methodology: Comments were generally supportive of the methodology but noted the HMC-proposed equity adjustment should be included to advance the statutory requirement to affirmatively further fair housing. Preliminary ABAG Response: Staff notes the importance of meeting all statutory requirements, including the mandate to affirmatively further fair housing. However, staff’s analysis indicates the Draft RHNA Methodology does successfully achieve all five statutory objectives of RHNA. At the final HMC meeting, staff recommended that the HMC not move forward with the proposed equity adjustment as this change would increase the complexity of the methodology for minimal impact on RHNA allocations. The proposed equity adjustment would shift less than 2 percent of the region’s lower-income RHNA to the jurisdictions identified by an HMC-proposed composite score as exhibiting above-average racial and socioeconomic exclusion. However, the underlying methodology for the composite score and adjustment approach would make it more difficult for local policy makers and members of the public to understand the RHNA methodology. Ultimately, the HMC chose not to move forward with the proposed equity adjustment in its recommended RHNA methodology. 8. Concern that HCD’s Regional RHND calculation was inaccurate and too high: Comments from several members of the public and one local jurisdiction expressed the belief that HCD’s RHND calculations may have been flawed and resulted in ABAG receiving an allocation from the state that was too large. Preliminary ABAG Response: The determination provided by HCD is based on a population forecast from the California Department of Finance (DOF), which is then modified by staff at DOF and HCD to tackle overcrowding and make other adjustments as specified in law. The 5 Government Code Section 65584.07. ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 1 | December 18, 2020 | Page 6 procedures for calculating the RHND are clearly specified in state law and the grounds for an appeal were narrowly designed by the Legislature. ABAG staff have reviewed HCD’s calculation methodology and believe it adheres to applicable legal requirements. The ABAG Board ultimately decided not to appeal the RHND in June 2020. At this time, the window of appeal of the RHND is now closed. Further feedback on this element of the process is most appropriately provided to HCD, rather than ABAG. 9. Jurisdiction-specific issues with Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint: Some jurisdictions had concerns about the accuracy of the Blueprint’s underlying data. Others felt the Blueprint needs to better incorporate hazard data, particularly related to wildland-urban interface (WUI) maps and FEMA floodways. Preliminary ABAG Response: Local jurisdiction staff were provided with several months to comment on the BASIS data used as the input for the Blueprint, as well as the additional public comment period on the Draft Blueprint during Summer 2020. ABAG-MTC staff appreciates jurisdictions’ feedback on Blueprint data and has worked directly with local jurisdiction staff to address these concerns. Next Steps Staff will consider comments and will recommend any necessary adjustments for integration into the Draft RHNA Methodology, which is scheduled for release in the next week. The ABAG Regional Planning Committee will consider the Draft RHNA Methodology and make a recommendation to the ABAG Executive Board the Draft RHNA Methodology at its meeting on January 14, 2021 and the ABAG Executive Board is slated to take action on the Draft RHNA Methodology at the January 21, 2021 meeting. After a Draft RHNA Methodology is adopted by the Executive Board, ABAG will submit the methodology to HCD for review and then use the state agency’s feedback to develop a final methodology and draft RHNA allocation in spring 2021. Release of the draft allocation will be followed by an appeals period in the summer of 2021, with the final RHNA allocation assigned to each of the Bay Area’s local governments in late 2021. Frfx 16% Unc Snm10% Mll Vlly13% Lrkspr17% Sn Anslm14% Unc Mrn 14% Sbstpl12% Hldsbrg8% Hlf MnBy8% Pcfc14% Clm37% SnFrncsc 19% Sslt18% Crt Mdr17% Rss 14% Nvt10% Ctt9% Snt Rs10% Clvrdl9% Wdsd16% Mllbr29% Sth SnFrncsc19% Dly Cty15% Blvdr17% Tbrn16% Sn Rfl12% Ptlm9% RhnrtPrk8% Wndsr8% Unc SnMt 14% Prtl Vlly14% Sn Mt 17% Hllsbrgh16% Sn Brn14% Brsbn 149% Snm7% St. Hln 7% Ls AltsHlls19% Athrtn 13% Rdwd Cty17% Brlngm28% Fstr Cty 16% Albny18% Rchmnd11% AmrcnCnyn8% Yntvll7% Clstg10% Srtg 19% Ls Alts20% Mnl Prk24% Sn Crls 20% Blmnt17% Almd15% Emryvll22% El Crrt11% Sn Pbl9% Vllj8% Np7% Unc Np 9% Mnt Srn15% Cprtn31% Pl Alt36% Est PlAlt 12% Oklnd17% Brkly 16% Lfytt17% Pnl8% Hrcls 8% Bnc8% Frfld9% Unc Sln 15% Ls Gts15% Cmpbll 24% Snnyvl22% Mntn Vw33% Unn Cty11% Sn Lndr 10% Pdmnt15% Mrg19% Ornd17% Mrtnz9% Ssn Cty7% Vcvll6% Mrgn Hll8% Sn Js20% Snt Clr26% Nwrk 13% Frmnt19% Hywrd9% Dnvll14% PlsntHll14% Cncrd9% Pttsbrg 7% R Vst5% Dxn6% Unc SntClr16% Glry9% Mlpts30% Plsntn18% Dbln 16% Sn Rmn 17% Wlnt Crk18% Clytn15% Antch7% Unc Almd 9% Lvrmr13% Unc CntrCst10% Brntwd7% Okly8% Frfx 15% Unc Snm7% Mll Vlly13% Lrkspr16% Sn Anslm16% Unc Mrn 13% Sbstpl6% Hldsbrg7% Hlf MnBy8% Pcfc14% Clm41% SnFrncsc 22% Sslt17% Crt Mdr18% Rss 13% Nvt10% Ctt8% Snt Rs7% Clvrdl8% Wdsd16% Mllbr27% Sth SnFrncsc19% Dly Cty14% Blvdr17% Tbrn16% Sn Rfl14% Ptlm8% RhnrtPrk10% Wndsr7% Unc SnMt 13% Prtl Vlly14% Sn Mt 18% Hllsbrgh15% Sn Brn20% Brsbn 85% Snm6% St. Hln 6% Ls AltsHlls17% Athrtn 14% Rdwd Cty15% Brlngm27% Fstr Cty 15% Albny17% Rchmnd10% AmrcnCnyn8% Yntvll7% Clstg6% Srtg 16% Ls Alts18% Mnl Prk23% Sn Crls 23% Blmnt17% Almd17% Emryvll27% El Crrt14% Sn Pbl8% Vllj7% Np7% Unc Np 9% Mnt Srn15% Cprtn23% Pl Alt22% Est PlAlt 11% Oklnd16% Brkly 19% Lfytt22% Pnl7% Hrcls 9% Bnc8% Frfld8% Unc Sln 13% Ls Gts16% Cmpbll 18% Snnyvl21% Mntn Vw33% Unn Cty11% Sn Lndr 13% Pdmnt15% Mrg20% Ornd20% Mrtnz9% Ssn Cty7% Vcvll6% Mrgn Hll7% Sn Js19% Snt Clr25% Nwrk 13% Frmnt17% Hywrd10% Dnvll14% PlsntHll12% Cncrd11% Pttsbrg 9% R Vst10% Dxn5% Unc SntClr12% Glry8% Mlpts31% Plsntn22% Dbln 17% Sn Rmn 18% Wlnt Crk18% Clytn14% Antch9% Unc Almd 10% Lvrmr14% Unc CntrCst13% Brntwd8% Okly9% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 150.0% Jurisdiction Growth Rate (Compared to 2020 Households) ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 2 | December 18, 2020 Proposed RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households (Draft Blueprint)) Draft RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households (Final Blueprint)) Appendix 2: Illustrative Results of Proposed RHNA Methodology (Draft Blueprint) and Draft RHNA Methodology (Final Blueprint) Note: the jurisdiction-specific allocations shown are for illustrative purposes only. ABAG will issue Final Allocations by the end of 2021. Almd4.9k Albny 1.2k Amrcn Cnyn0.5k Antch2.5k Athrtn0.3k Blmnt 1.8k Blvdr0.2k Bnc0.9k Brkly7.7k Brntwd1.5k Brsbn2.8k Brlngm3.4k Clstg0.2k Cmpbll 4.0k Clytn 0.6k Clvrdl0.3k Clm0.2k Cncrd3.9kCrt Mdr0.7k Ctt 0.3k Cprtn6.2k Dly Cty 4.8k Dnvll 2.2k Dxn 0.4k Dbln3.6k Est PlAlt0.9k El Crrt 1.2k Emryvll1.5k Frfx0.5k Frfld 3.6k Fstr Cty2.0k Frmnt14.3k Glry1.5k Hlf MnBy 0.3k Hywrd 4.2k Hldsbrg 0.4k Hrcls0.7k Hllsbrgh 0.6k Lfytt1.7k Lrkspr1.0k Lvrmr4.0k Ls Alts2.3kLs AltsHlls 0.5k Ls Gts1.9k Mrtnz1.4k Mnl Prk3.1k Mll Vlly0.8k Mllbr2.4k Mlpts6.6k Mnt Srn0.2k Mrg1.1k Mrgn Hll1.1k Mntn Vw11.4k Np 2.1k Nwrk1.8k Nvt2.1k Oklnd 27.3k Okly0.9kOrnd 1.1k Pcfc 1.9k Pl Alt 10.1k Ptlm2.1k Pdmnt0.6k Pnl0.6k Pttsbrg1.6k Plsnt Hll1.9k Plsntn 4.8k PrtlVlly0.3k Rdwd Cty5.2k Rchmnd4.2k R Vst0.2k RhnrtPrk 1.3k Rss0.1k Sn Anslm0.7k Sn Brn2.1k Sn Crls2.4k SnFrncsc 72.1k Sn Js 66.5k Sn Lndr3.1k Sn Mt6.7k Sn Pbl0.8k Sn Rfl2.8k Sn Rmn4.7k Snt Clr12.0k Snt Rs6.5k Srtg 2.1k Sslt 0.7k Sbstpl0.4k Snm 0.3k Sth SnFrncsc 4.0k St. Hln0.2k Ssn Cty0.6k Snnyvl13.0k Tbrn0.6k Unc Almd4.5k Unc CntrCst5.8k Unc Mrn 3.8k Unc Np0.8k Unc SnMt 2.9k Unc SntClr4.1k Unc Sln1.0kUnc Snm5.3k Unn Cty 2.2k Vcvll2.0k Vllj 3.2k Wlnt Crk5.7k Wndsr 0.7k Wdsd0.3k Yntvll0.1k Almd5.4k Albny 1.1k Amrcn Cnyn0.5k Antch3.0k Athrtn0.3k Blmnt 1.8k Blvdr0.2k Bnc0.8k Brkly9.0k Brntwd1.5k Brsbn1.6k Brlngm3.3k Clstg0.1k Cmpbll 3.0k Clytn 0.6k Clvrdl0.3k Clm0.2k Cncrd5.1kCrt Mdr0.7k Ctt 0.2k Cprtn4.6k Dly Cty 4.4k Dnvll 2.2k Dxn 0.4k Dbln3.7k Est PlAlt0.8k El Crrt 1.4k Emryvll1.8k Frfx0.5k Frfld 3.1k Fstr Cty1.9k Frmnt12.9k Glry1.3k Hlf MnBy 0.3k Hywrd 4.7k Hldsbrg 0.3k Hrcls0.7k Hllsbrgh 0.6k Lfytt2.1k Lrkspr1.0k Lvrmr4.4k Ls Alts2.0kLs AltsHlls 0.5k Ls Gts2.0k Mrtnz1.4k Mnl Prk2.9k Mll Vlly0.8k Mllbr2.2k Mlpts6.7k Mnt Srn0.2k Mrg1.1k Mrgn Hll1.0k Mntn Vw11.2k Np 2.0k Nwrk1.9k Nvt2.1k Oklnd 26.5k Okly1.1kOrnd 1.4k Pcfc 1.9k Pl Alt 6.1k Ptlm1.9k Pdmnt0.6k Pnl0.5k Pttsbrg2.0k Plsnt Hll1.6k Plsntn 6.0k PrtlVlly0.2k Rdwd Cty4.6k Rchmnd3.6k R Vst0.5k RhnrtPrk 1.6k Rss0.1k Sn Anslm0.8k Sn Brn3.2k Sn Crls2.7k SnFrncsc 82.8k Sn Js 62.8k Sn Lndr3.9k Sn Mt7.1k Sn Pbl0.8k Sn Rfl3.3k Sn Rmn5.1k Snt Clr11.7k Snt Rs4.7k Srtg 1.7k Sslt 0.7k Sbstpl0.2k Snm 0.3k Sth SnFrncsc 4.0k St. Hln0.2k Ssn Cty0.6k Snnyvl12.0k Tbrn0.6k Unc Almd4.8k Unc CntrCst7.7k Unc Mrn 3.5k Unc Np0.8k Unc SnMt 2.9k Unc SntClr3.2k Unc Sln0.9kUnc Snm3.9k Unn Cty 2.3k Vcvll1.9k Vllj 3.0k Wlnt Crk5.9k Wndsr 0.7k Wdsd0.3k Yntvll0.1k 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 20,000 100,000 Jurisdiction Growth (Units) Proposed RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households (Draft Blueprint)) Draft RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households (Final Blueprint)) ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 2 | December 18, 2020 Appendix 2: Illustrative Results of Proposed RHNA Methodology (Draft Blueprint) and Draft RHNA Methodology (Final Blueprint) Note: the jurisdiction-specific allocations shown are for illustrative purposes only. ABAG will issue Final Allocations by the end of 2021. Appendix 3: Jurisdiction Illustrative Allocations Draft RHNA Methodology (Final Blueprint) 2015-2023 RHNA (Cycle 5) Proposed RHNA Methodology(Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (Final Blueprint) Bay Area Households (2019)Bay Area Jobs (2017) Alameda 88,985 23%19%20%21%20% Contra Costa 48,932 11%10%11%14%10% Marin 14,380 1%3%3%4%3% Napa 3,523 1%1%1%2%2% San Francisco 82,840 15%16%19%13%19% San Mateo 47,321 9%11%11%10%10% Santa Clara 129,927 31%33%29%24%27% Solano 11,097 4%3%3%5%4% Sonoma 14,171 4%4%3%7%5% BAY AREA 441,176 100%100%100%100%100% ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 3 | December 18, 2020 Illustrative Allocations by County Jurisdiction Illustrative Allocations by Income Category Note: the jurisdiction-specific allocations shown are for illustrative purposes only. ABAG will issue Final Allocations by the end of 2021. Draft Blueprint Final Blueprint Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Unit Change from Proposed to Draft Percent Change from Proposed to Draft Alameda 0.994% 1.100%1,318 759 786 2,033 4,896 1,455 837 868 2,246 5,406 510 10% Albany 0.211% 0.206%324 187 180 464 1,155 315 182 175 453 1,125 (30) -3% Berkeley 1.452% 1.701%2,148 1,237 1,211 3,134 7,730 2,504 1,441 1,416 3,664 9,025 1,295 17% Dublin 0.687% 0.705%1,060 611 547 1,413 3,631 1,085 625 560 1,449 3,719 88 2% Emeryville 0.399% 0.493%377 217 249 646 1,489 462 265 308 797 1,832 343 23% Fremont 2.694% 2.434%4,040 2,326 2,214 5,728 14,308 3,640 2,096 1,996 5,165 12,897 (1,411) -10% Hayward 1.393% 1.571%980 564 726 1,880 4,150 1,100 632 817 2,115 4,664 514 12% Livermore 1.130% 1.269%1,109 639 620 1,606 3,974 1,240 714 696 1,799 4,449 475 12% Newark 0.578% 0.609%453 260 303 784 1,800 475 274 318 824 1,891 91 5% Oakland 6.503% 6.338%6,880 3,962 4,584 11,860 27,286 6,665 3,838 4,457 11,533 26,493 (793) -3% Piedmont 0.099% 0.098%166 96 94 243 599 163 94 92 238 587 (12) -2% Pleasanton 0.909% 1.135%1,405 810 717 1,855 4,787 1,750 1,008 894 2,313 5,965 1,178 25% San Leandro 0.913% 1.137%713 411 561 1,451 3,136 882 507 696 1,802 3,887 751 24% Unincorporated Alameda 1.347% 1.419%1,221 704 726 1,879 4,530 1,281 738 763 1,976 4,758 228 5% Union City 0.702%0.727%565 326 370 957 2,218 582 335 382 988 2,287 69 3% Alameda County 20.011% 20.942%22,759 13,109 13,888 35,933 85,689 23,599 13,586 14,438 37,362 88,985 3,296 4% Antioch 1.032% 1.270%661 380 402 1,038 2,481 811 467 493 1,275 3,046 565 23% Brentwood 0.618% 0.647%395 228 237 614 1,474 411 237 247 641 1,536 62 4% Clayton 0.115% 0.111%176 102 87 227 592 170 97 84 219 570 (22) -4% Concord 1.306% 1.725%1,006 579 643 1,662 3,890 1,322 762 847 2,190 5,121 1,231 32% Danville 0.410% 0.424%632 365 328 848 2,173 652 376 338 875 2,241 68 3% El Cerrito 0.339% 0.405%289 166 203 524 1,182 342 197 241 624 1,404 222 19% Hercules 0.240% 0.264%164 95 115 297 671 179 104 126 327 736 65 10% Lafayette 0.297% 0.382%468 269 255 659 1,651 599 344 326 845 2,114 463 28% Martinez 0.381% 0.383%357 205 220 569 1,351 358 206 221 573 1,358 7 1% Moraga 0.193% 0.204%302 174 163 422 1,061 318 183 172 445 1,118 57 5% Oakley 0.395% 0.450%251 145 152 393 941 286 165 172 446 1,069 128 14% Orinda 0.197% 0.235%313 180 181 468 1,142 372 215 215 557 1,359 217 19% Pinole 0.209% 0.183%142 82 99 256 579 124 71 87 223 505 (74) -13% Pittsburg 0.630% 0.787%419 242 273 707 1,641 518 298 340 880 2,036 395 24% Pleasant Hill 0.423% 0.368%522 300 293 758 1,873 451 261 254 657 1,623 (250) -13% Richmond 1.403% 1.227%988 569 731 1,891 4,179 860 496 638 1,651 3,645 (534) -13% San Pablo 0.261% 0.248%187 108 139 359 793 177 102 132 341 752 (41) -5% San Ramon 0.898% 0.975%1,382 796 708 1,830 4,716 1,497 862 767 1,985 5,111 395 8% Unincorporated Contra Costa 1.658% 2.203%1,609 928 917 2,373 5,827 2,131 1,227 1,217 3,147 7,722 1,895 33% Walnut Creek 1.118% 1.148%1,655 954 869 2,247 5,725 1,696 976 890 2,304 5,866 141 2% Contra Costa County 12.124% 13.638%11,918 6,867 7,015 18,142 43,942 13,274 7,646 7,807 20,205 48,932 4,990 11% Proposed RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households - Final Blueprint)Comparison of Total RHNA Jurisdiction Share of 2050 Households* Jurisdiction ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 3 | December 18, 2020 Jurisdiction Illustrative Allocations by Income Category Note: the jurisdiction-specific allocations shown are for illustrative purposes only. ABAG will issue Final Allocations by the end of 2021. Draft Blueprint Final Blueprint Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Unit Change from Proposed to Draft Percent Change from Proposed to Draft Proposed RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households - Final Blueprint) Comparison of Total RHNA Jurisdiction Share of 2050 Households* Jurisdiction Belvedere 0.033% 0.032%49 28 23 61 161 49 28 23 60 160 (1) -1% Corte Madera 0.135% 0.138%209 121 106 274 710 213 123 108 281 725 15 2% Fairfax 0.104% 0.098%158 91 75 195 519 149 86 71 184 490 (29) -6% Larkspur 0.197% 0.189%303 175 150 390 1,018 291 168 145 375 979 (39) -4% Mill Valley 0.161% 0.164%248 142 124 320 834 252 144 126 326 848 14 2% Novato 0.669% 0.672%582 335 332 858 2,107 583 336 332 860 2,111 4 0% Ross 0.023% 0.022%35 20 17 44 116 33 19 16 41 109 (7) -6% San Anselmo 0.149% 0.167%226 130 108 280 744 253 145 121 314 833 89 12% San Rafael 0.895% 1.048%752 433 446 1,154 2,785 877 504 521 1,350 3,252 467 17% Sausalito 0.125% 0.125%200 115 115 296 726 200 115 114 295 724 (2) 0% Tiburon 0.123% 0.126%186 107 91 236 620 193 110 93 243 639 19 3% Unincorporated Marin 0.893% 0.822%1,157 666 557 1,440 3,820 1,063 611 512 1,324 3,510 (310) -8% Marin County 3.507% 3.605%4,105 2,363 2,144 5,548 14,160 4,156 2,389 2,182 5,653 14,380 220 2% American Canyon 0.190% 0.176%124 72 81 209 486 115 67 75 194 451 (35) -7% Calistoga 0.090% 0.052%58 32 33 86 209 32 19 19 50 120 (89) -43% Napa 0.815% 0.769%550 317 339 876 2,082 516 298 319 825 1,958 (124) -6% St. Helena 0.073%0.068%46 27 27 71 171 43 24 26 66 159 (12) -7% Unincorporated Napa 0.288% 0.279%218 126 125 323 792 210 121 120 312 763 (29) -4% Yountville 0.031% 0.029%20 12 12 32 76 19 11 12 30 72 (4) -5% Napa County 1.487% 1.373%1,016 586 617 1,597 3,816 935 540 571 1,477 3,523 (293) -8% San Francisco 12.394% 14.304%18,637 10,717 11,910 30,816 72,080 21,359 12,294 13,717 35,470 82,840 10,760 15% Atherton 0.065% 0.072%74 43 51 130 298 81 47 56 144 328 30 10% Belmont 0.302% 0.305%485 280 282 728 1,775 488 281 283 733 1,785 10 1% Brisbane 0.742% 0.423%573 330 534 1,382 2,819 324 187 303 785 1,599 (1,220) -43% Burlingame 0.572% 0.546%926 534 555 1,434 3,449 883 509 529 1,368 3,289 (160) -5% Colma 0.047% 0.052%40 24 33 86 183 45 26 37 96 204 21 11% Daly City 1.040% 0.945%1,150 661 841 2,175 4,827 1,039 598 762 1,971 4,370 (457) -9% East Palo Alto 0.219% 0.206%179 104 169 437 889 169 97 159 410 835 (54) -6% Foster City 0.349% 0.327%556 320 321 831 2,028 520 299 300 777 1,896 (132) -7% Half Moon Bay 0.147% 0.149%93 54 54 141 342 93 54 54 141 342 - 0% Hillsborough 0.107% 0.097%169 97 95 245 606 153 88 87 223 551 (55) -9% Menlo Park 0.500% 0.481%773 445 517 1,340 3,075 740 426 496 1,284 2,946 (129) -4% Millbrae 0.375% 0.350%618 356 386 999 2,359 575 331 361 932 2,199 (160) -7% Pacifica 0.359% 0.356%557 321 294 761 1,933 551 317 291 753 1,912 (21) -1% Portola Valley 0.045% 0.045%70 41 39 101 251 70 40 39 99 248 (3) -1% Redwood City 1.102% 0.984%1,284 739 885 2,291 5,199 1,141 658 789 2,041 4,629 (570) -11% San Bruno 0.486% 0.730%481 278 382 989 2,130 721 415 573 1,483 3,192 1,062 50% San Carlos 0.398% 0.455%647 372 383 991 2,393 739 425 438 1,133 2,735 342 14% San Mateo 1.338% 1.419%1,722 991 1,111 2,873 6,697 1,819 1,047 1,175 3,040 7,081 384 6% South San Francisco 0.923% 0.929%892 513 717 1,856 3,978 892 514 720 1,863 3,989 11 0% Unincorporated San Mateo 0.827% 0.809%852 490 443 1,148 2,933 830 479 433 1,121 2,863 (70) -2% Woodside 0.057% 0.058%90 52 51 133 326 90 52 52 134 328 2 1% San Mateo County 10.002% 9.740%12,231 7,045 8,143 21,071 48,490 11,963 6,890 7,937 20,531 47,321 (1,169) -2% ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 3 | December 18, 2020 Jurisdiction Illustrative Allocations by Income Category Note: the jurisdiction-specific allocations shown are for illustrative purposes only. ABAG will issue Final Allocations by the end of 2021. Draft Blueprint Final Blueprint Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Total Unit Change from Proposed to Draft Percent Change from Proposed to Draft Proposed RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (Baseline: 2050 Households - Final Blueprint) Comparison of Total RHNA Jurisdiction Share of 2050 Households* Jurisdiction Campbell 0.741% 0.563%1,017 585 659 1,703 3,964 770 444 499 1,292 3,005 (959) -24% Cupertino 0.980% 0.724%1,619 932 1,023 2,648 6,222 1,193 687 755 1,953 4,588 (1,634) -26% Gilroy 0.523% 0.461%410 236 228 590 1,464 359 207 200 519 1,285 (179) -12% Los Altos 0.348% 0.301%580 333 377 977 2,267 501 288 326 843 1,958 (309) -14% Los Altos Hills 0.084% 0.076%139 81 91 234 545 125 72 82 210 489 (56) -10% Los Gatos 0.326% 0.335%523 301 311 804 1,939 537 310 320 826 1,993 54 3% Milpitas 1.228% 1.257%1,653 952 1,108 2,866 6,579 1,685 970 1,131 2,927 6,713 134 2% Monte Sereno 0.032% 0.032%51 30 31 80 192 51 30 31 79 191 (1) -1% Morgan Hill 0.444%0.410%291 168 189 488 1,136 268 155 174 450 1,047 (89) -8% Mountain View 1.772% 1.754%2,876 1,656 1,909 4,939 11,380 2,838 1,635 1,885 4,880 11,238 (142) -1% Palo Alto 1.541% 0.935%2,573 1,482 1,673 4,330 10,058 1,556 896 1,013 2,621 6,086 (3,972) -39% San Jose 15.242% 14.426%16,391 9,437 11,344 29,350 66,522 15,444 8,892 10,711 27,714 62,761 (3,761) -6% Santa Clara 2.184% 2.135%3,020 1,739 2,031 5,257 12,047 2,940 1,692 1,981 5,126 11,739 (308) -3% Saratoga 0.343% 0.280%556 321 341 882 2,100 454 261 278 719 1,712 (388) -18% Sunnyvale 2.262% 2.088%3,227 1,858 2,206 5,707 12,998 2,968 1,709 2,032 5,257 11,966 (1,032) -8% Unincorporated Santa Clara 1.065% 0.815%1,113 641 664 1,719 4,137 848 488 508 1,312 3,156 (981) -24% Santa Clara County 29.114% 26.591%36,039 20,752 24,185 62,574 143,550 32,537 18,736 21,926 56,728 129,927 (13,623) -9% Benicia 0.286% 0.271%222 127 143 370 862 208 120 135 351 814 (48) -6% Dixon 0.159% 0.146%103 58 62 159 382 93 54 57 146 350 (32) -8% Fairfield 1.438% 1.226%938 540 596 1,544 3,618 796 458 508 1,314 3,076 (542) -15% Rio Vista 0.098% 0.207%62 36 36 94 228 130 75 76 197 478 250 110% Suisun City 0.242% 0.246%158 91 101 260 610 160 92 101 264 617 7 1% Unincorporated Solano 0.420% 0.381%270 155 165 426 1,016 243 140 149 385 917 (99) -10% Vacaville 0.828% 0.775%535 308 328 848 2,019 498 286 305 791 1,880 (139) -7% Vallejo 1.190% 1.117%794 457 535 1,385 3,171 741 426 501 1,297 2,965 (206) -6% Solano County 4.662% 4.368%3,082 1,772 1,966 5,086 11,906 2,869 1,651 1,832 4,745 11,097 (809) -7% Cloverdale 0.126% 0.120%80 46 47 121 294 76 44 45 116 281 (13) -4% Cotati 0.105% 0.092%68 39 44 116 267 61 35 39 101 236 (31) -12% Healdsburg 0.145% 0.121%93 54 59 153 359 78 45 49 128 300 (59) -16% Petaluma 0.781% 0.716%560 323 342 885 2,110 511 295 313 810 1,929 (181) -9% Rohnert Park 0.492% 0.625%322 186 209 541 1,258 408 235 265 686 1,594 336 27% Santa Rosa 2.404% 1.745%1,727 993 1,064 2,754 6,538 1,247 718 771 1,995 4,731 (1,807) -28% Sebastopol 0.163% 0.086%106 61 67 175 409 56 32 35 92 215 (194) -47% Sonoma 0.143% 0.133%91 53 54 140 338 85 49 50 130 314 (24) -7% Unincorporated Sonoma 2.058% 1.540%1,424 820 840 2,173 5,257 1,060 610 627 1,622 3,919 (1,338) -25% Windsor 0.283% 0.260%184 106 118 305 713 168 97 108 279 652 (61) -9% Sonoma County 6.700% 5.440%4,655 2,681 2,844 7,363 17,543 3,750 2,160 2,302 5,959 14,171 (3,372) -19% 100.000% 100.000% 114,442 65,892 72,712 188,130 441,176 114,442 65,892 72,712 188,130 441,176 * Jurisdiction-level forecasts from Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint are intended solely for use in crafting the RHNA baseline allocation; official Plan Bay Area 2050 growth pattern focuses on county- and subcounty-level forecasts. ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 3 | December 18, 2020 ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 Appendix 4: Performance Evaluation Metrics The RHNA allocation methodology must meet five objectives identified in Housing Element Law.1 To help ensure that any proposed methodology will meet the statutory RHNA objectives and receive approval from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), ABAG-MTC staff developed a set of evaluation metrics to assess different methodology options. These metrics are based largely on the analytical framework used by HCD in evaluating the draft methodologies completed by other regions in California, as evidenced by the approval letters HCD provided to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).2 Other metrics reflect input from members of the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC). In the evaluation metrics, each statutory objective has been reframed as a question that reflects the language Housing Element Law uses to define the objectives. Each statutory objective is accompanied by quantitative metrics for evaluating the allocation produced by a methodology. The metrics are structured as a comparison between the allocations to the top jurisdictions in the region for a particular characteristic – such as jurisdictions with the most expensive housing costs – and the allocations to the rest of the jurisdictions in the region. Metrics Based on Lower-Income Unit Percentage vs. Metrics Based on Total Allocation Several of the metrics focus on whether jurisdictions with certain characteristics receive a significant share of their RHNA as lower-income units. These metrics reflect HCD’s analysis in its letters evaluating RHNA methodologies from other regions. However, HMC members advocated for metrics that also examine the total number of units assigned to a jurisdiction. These HMC members asserted that it is ultimately less impactful if a jurisdiction receives a high share of its RHNA as lower-income units if that same jurisdiction receives few units overall. Accordingly, each metric that focuses on the share of lower-income units assigned to jurisdictions with certain characteristics is paired with a complementary metric that examines whether those jurisdictions also receive a share of the regional housing need that is at least proportional to their share of the region’s households. A value of 1.0 for these complementary metrics means that the group of jurisdictions’ overall share of RHNA is proportional relative to its overall share of households in 2019, while a value below 1.0 is less than proportional. Evaluation of Draft RHNA Methodology Compared to Proposed RHNA Methodology The graphs below compare the performance of the Draft RHNA Methodology and Proposed RHNA Methodology in achieving the five statutory RHNA objectives based on the evaluation metrics. Although there are some variations on individual metrics, the results indicate that both the Proposed RHNA Methodology and the Draft RHNA Methodology perform well in advancing all of the statutory objectives. 1 See California Government Code Section 65584(d). 2 For copies of letters HCD sent to other regions, see this document from the January 2020 HMC meeting agenda packet. METRIC 1a.1: Do jurisdictions with the most expensive housing costs receive a significant percentage of their RHNA as lower-income units? Percent of RHNA as lower income units METRIC 1a.2: Do jurisdictions with the most expensive housing costs receive a share of the region's housing need that is at least proportional to their share of the region's households? Ratio of share of total RHNA to share of region's households Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 25 jurisdictions with most expensive housing costs All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with most expensive housing costs All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with most expensive housing costs Comparison between the top 25 jurisdictions with the most expensive housing costs and the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 1: Does the allocation increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 2a: Do jurisdictions with the largest share of the region's jobs have the highest growth rates resulting from RHNA? Average growth rate resulting from RHNA Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 25 jurisdictions with the largest share of regional jobs All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with the largest share of regional jobs All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with the largest share of regional jobs Comparison between the top 25 jurisdictions with the most jobs and the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 2: Does the allocation promote infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region's greenhouse gas reductions targets? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 2b: Do jurisdictions with the largest share of the region's Transit Priority Area acres have the highest growth rates resulting from RHNA? Average growth rate resulting from RHNA Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 25 jurisdictions with largest share of the regional Transit Priority Area acres All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with largest share of the regional Transit Priority Area acres All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with largest share of the regional Transit Priority Area acres Comparison between the top 25 jurisdictions with the most transit access and the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 2: Does the allocation promote infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region's greenhouse gas reductions targets? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 2c: Do jurisdictions whose residents drive the least have the highest growth rates resulting from RHNA? Average growth rate resulting from RHNA Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 25 jurisdictions with lowest VMT per resident All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with lowest VMT per resident All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with lowest VMT per resident Comparison between the top 25 jurisdictions with the lowest VMT per resident the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 2: Does the allocation promote infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region's greenhouse gas reductions targets? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 3a.1: Do jurisdictions with the most low-wage workers per housing unit affordable to low-wage workers receive a significant percentage of their RHNA as lower-income units? Percent of RHNA as lower income units METRIC 3a.2: Do jurisdictions with the most low-wage workers per housing unit affordable to low-wage workers receive a share of the region's housing need that is at least proportional to their share of the region's households? Ratio of share of total RHNA to share of region's households Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 25 jurisdictions with most low- wage jobs per housing unit affordable to low-wage workers All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with most low- wage jobs per housing unit affordable to low-wage workers All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with most low- wage jobs per housing unit affordable to low-wage workers Comparison between the top 25 jurisdictions with the most unbalanced jobs- housing fit and the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 3: Does the allocation promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 4: Do jurisdictions with the largest percentage of high-income residents receive a larger share of their RHNA as lower-income units than jurisdictions with the largest percentage of low-income residents? Percent of RHNA as lower income units Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households above 120% Area Median Income 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households below 80% Area Median Income 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households above 120% Area Median Income 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households below 80% Area Median Income Group 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households below 80% Area Median Income 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households above 120% Area Median Income Comparison between the top 25 most disproportionately high-income jurisdictions and top 25 most disproportionately low-income jurisdictions OBJECTIVE 4: Does the allocation direct a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 5a.1: Do jurisdictions with the largest percentage of households living in High or Highest Resource tracts receive a significant percentage of their RHNA as lower-income units? Percent of RHNA as lower income units METRIC 5a.2: Do jurisdictions with the largest percentage of households living in High or Highest Resource tracts receive a share of the region's housing need that is at least proportional to their share of the region's households? Ratio of share of total RHNA to share of region's households Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households in High Resource or Highest Resource Tracts All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households in High Resource or Highest Resource Tracts All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households in High Resource or Highest Resource Tracts Comparison between the top 25 jurisdictions with the most access to resources and the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 5: Does the allocation affirmatively further fair housing? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 5b: Do jurisdictions exhibiting racial and economic exclusion receive a share of the region's housing need that is at least proportional to their share of the region's households? Ratio of share of total RHNA to share of region's households Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 31 Jurisdictions with above- average divergence scores and % of households above 120% Area Median Income All Other Jurisdictions 31 Jurisdictions with above- average divergence scores and % of households above 120% Area Median Income All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 31 Jurisdictions with above- average divergence scores and % of households above 120% Area Median Income Comparison between jurisdictions that have both above-average divergence scores and disproportionately large shares of high-income residents and the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 5: Does the allocation affirmatively further fair housing? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 5c: Do jurisdictions with the largest percentage of high-income residents receive a share of the region's housing need that is at least proportional to their share of the region's households? Ratio of share of total RHNA to share of region's households Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households above 120% Area Median Income All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households above 120% Area Median Income All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 25 jurisdictions with largest % of households above 120% Area Median Income Comparison between the top 25 most disproportionately high-income jurisdictions and the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 5: Does the allocation affirmatively further fair housing? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 METRIC 5d.1: Do jurisdictions with levels of racial and socioeconomic exclusion above the regional average receive a total share of the region's very low- and low-income housing need that is at least proportional to their total share of the region's households? Ratio of share of lower-income RHNA to share of region's households METRIC 5d.2: Does each jurisdiction exhibiting racial and socioeconomic exclusion above the regional average receive a share of the region's very low- and low-income housing need that is at least proportional to its total share of the region's households? Jurisdictions receiving at least a proportional lower-income allocation Proposed RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Draft Blueprint) Draft RHNA Methodology (2050 Households - Final Blueprint) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 49 Jurisdictions with levels of racial and socioeconomic exclusion above the regional average All Other Jurisdictions 49 Jurisdictions with levels of racial and socioeconomic exclusion above the regional average All Other Jurisdictions Group All Other Jurisdictions 49 Jurisdictions with levels of racial and socioeconomic exclusion above the regional average Comparison between the top 49 jurisdictions exhibiting above average racial and socioeconomic exclusion and the rest of the region OBJECTIVE 5: Does the allocation affirmatively further fair housing? ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 4 | December 18, 2020 ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 5 | December 18, 2020 | Page 1 Appendix 5: Final Subregional Shares State Housing Element Law allows two or more neighboring jurisdictions to form a “subregion” to conduct a parallel RHNA process to allocate the subregion’s housing need among its members.1 A subregion is responsible for conducting its own RHNA process that meets all of the statutory requirements related to process and outcomes, including developing its own RHNA methodology, allocating a share of need to each member jurisdiction, and conducting its own appeals process. For the 2023–31 RHNA, subregions were formed in: 1. Napa County: includes City of American Canyon, City of Napa, Town of Yountville, and the County of Napa (does not include City of Calistoga or City of St. Helena) 2. Solano County: includes City of Benicia, City of Dixon, City of Fairfield, City of Rio Vista, City of Suisun City, City of Vacaville, City of Vallejo, and County of Solano ABAG must assign each subregion a share of the Bay Area’s Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND), which represents the total number of units, by income category, the subregion must allocate to its member jurisdictions. Each subregion’s portion of the RHND has been removed from the units allocated by ABAG’s process for the rest of the region’s jurisdictions. On May 21, 2020, the ABAG Executive Board adopted the methodology for assigning a subregion its share of the RHND. The adopted methodology stipulates that the share of the RHND for each subregion will be based on the sum of the default allocations, by income category, from the ABAG RHNA methodology for each jurisdiction in the subregion. Using ABAG’s RHNA methodology as the input into the subregion shares ensures every jurisdiction that is a member of a subregion receives the same allocation it would have received if it were not part of a subregion. This approach ensures that formation of a subregion does not confer any harm or benefit to member jurisdictions or to other jurisdictions in the region. On October 15, 2020, the ABAG Executive Board approved release of the Draft Subregional Shares.2 The Draft Subregional Shares were based on the Proposed RHNA Methodology, which reflected baseline data on 2050 households from the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint. Applying the subregional share methodology to the Bay Area’s RHND of 441,176, the Draft Subregional Share for the Napa County subregion is 0.78 percent of the region’s housing needs and the Draft Subregional Share for the Solano County subregion is 2.7 percent of the region’s housing needs. Table 1 shows each subregion’s draft share by income category. 1 Government Code Section 65584.03. 2 For more information, see https://mtc.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4665721&GUID=6B565EC3-A706-4695-8A87-277F6791A1DB&Options=&Search= ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 5 | December 18, 2020 | Page 2 Table 1: Draft Subregional Shares, Total Units by Income Category Subregion Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate TOTAL Napa County 912 527 557 1,440 3,436 Solano County 3,082 1,772 1,966 5,086 11,906 Housing Element Law requires ABAG to hold a public comment period and conduct at least one public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Subregional Shares3 prior to adoption of the Final Subregional Shares. The written public comment period began on October 25 and ended on November 27 per the Notice of Public Hearing published in newspapers and an ABAG press release. Additionally, ABAG held a public hearing at the November 12 meeting of the Regional Planning Committee. ABAG received no comments on the Draft Subregional Shares. The Final Subregional Shares are based on the Draft RHNA Methodology, which incorporates updates made throughout fall 2020 to reflect the revised Strategies and Growth Geographies approved by the ABAG Executive Board and Commission in September 2020 for the Final Blueprint. Integrating the updated data about future year 2050 households from the Final Blueprint into the Draft RHNA Methodology results in changes to the allocations to local jurisdictions, and thus the subregional shares. In December 2020, the jurisdictions who were members of the Napa Subregion decided to dissolve their subregion. As a result, these jurisdictions will participate in the RHNA process ABAG is conducting and will receive allocations based on the RHNA methodology adopted by ABAG. Accordingly, ABAG-MTC staff has only identified a Final Subregional Share for the Solano County subregion. Applying the subregional share methodology to the Bay Area’s RHND of 441,176, the Final Subregional Share for the Solano County subregion is 2.52 percent of the region’s housing needs. Table 2 shows the subregion’s final share by income category. Table 2: Final Subregional Shares, Total Units by Income Category Subregion Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate TOTAL Solano County 2,869 1,651 1,832 4,745 11,097 3 California Government Code 65584.03 (c) 1 CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 385 HOMER AVENUE • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 TELEPHONE: (650) 321-8550 FAX: (650) 321-5451 www.ccsce.com DATE: January 11, 2021 TO: Palo Alto City Council, Planning Commissio and Staff FROM: Stephen Levy SUBJECT: Agenda Item 8 on PBA 2050 and RHNA • I recommend that staff reach out and brief council and the PTC on the following items relevant to RHNA evaluation and enforcement: --The focus by HCD on units approved versus a good faith effort to identify sufficient sites and policies to support achieving the RHNA unit goal. My impression is that Housing Element sites and policies wil be the critical HCD evaluation foci. --What are current and newly planned (through the legislature enforcement tools available to HCD. --HCD’s position with regard to the implications of COVID and work from home on the RHNA targets and enforcement --What current actions by council if any wiol be taken into account by HCD in evaluating good faith efforts with regard to RHNA implementation. • With regard to the proposed staff letters, I make the following points: --The good news is that staff provided an accurage picture of the ABAG RHNA process and findings AND that recent council actions on housing will in my opinion be giewed positively by HCD. --However, many of the points raised in the letters were addressed by ABAG in the same document cited by staff in prearing their memo for tonight. Everyone should review the response to comments by ABAg staff starting on page 2 of the attached document. --The response to comment 5 addresses the impacts of COVID and telecommuting. It is important to remember that the RHNA implementation period for Palo Alto starts in 2023, well past the time when economic forecasts and vaccine implementation expect that the pandemic will be 2 behinf us. With regard to telecommuting, the future is uncertain past 2021 and it is the ABAG position that the PBA accounts for increasing telecommuting. Council and staff may wish to argue with ABAG but should in my opinion acknowledge that the city’s concerns have bveen addressed. • Residents in Palo Alto and other communitieds continue to raise objections to expanding housing supply and affordability that ai believie have already been dismissed by HCD and ABAG. Council and staff should pay particular attention to response 1 in the attached document. While this is not directly relevant to the proposed letters, it is directly relevant to objections normally raised in the planning, and project review priocess in Palo Alto. In this regard council and PTC will address two housing isssues this week and next that concern sites that will be in the new Housing Element revied by HCD. 1. Jurisdiction is built out and/or lacks infrastructure to accommodate its allocation: Comments noted a lack of developable land and the inability to provide the services and infrastructure that would be needed as a result of growth from RHNA. Some residents objected to any new housing growth. Preliminary ABAG Response: Housing Element Law requires RHNA to increase the housing supply and mix of housing types for all jurisdictions. ABAG-MTC staff worked with local governments to gather information about local plans, zoning, physical characteristics and potential development opportunities and constraints. This information was used as an input into the Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint, which is used as the baseline allocation in the Draft RHNA Methodology. The Final Blueprint that was integrated into the Draft RHNA Methodology includes a number of updates based on corrections to local data provided by jurisdiction staff. The Blueprint allows additional feasible growth within the urban footprint by increasing allowable residential densities and expanding housing into select areas currently ABAG Draft RHNA Methodology Release | Appendix 1 | December 18, 2020 | Page 3 zoned for commercial and industrial uses. Ultimately, by law, ABAG cannot limit RHNA based on existing zoning or land use restrictions. The statute also requires ABAG to consider the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions 1 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 12:13 AM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Filseth, Eric (external); Council, City; Alison Cormack; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com Subject:445 Bryant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Gentlemen and Madames‐ I was noticing in the digital version of the council packet there is an item coming up about a closed negotiation regarding 445 Bryant St. in Palo alto and Tesla. I live on Bryant Street and in fact worked briefly in the automobile industry as my family for two generations from 1919 to 1988 sold Chevy.* I noticed on the radio and then again here on the Internet that the market cap of this local corporation is $795 billion with a B and that its founder Mr. musk is now worth about 190 billion with a B and is therefore the worlds best driver. So having neglected to tax his company for many years as we have with easily $1 trillion worth of other companies why don’t we give them a hard “no” on renting our garage or whatever it is. Or maybe to show our progressiveness charging him $1 billion a year which would help us not have to lay off librarians and the like. Or maybe he could buy small homes for the homeless people who currently sleep there. I hope you get a charge out of my idea. There was a guy named “doc” who was in the fraternity I was blackballed from – – for my support of gay rights—at our small liberal arts college who is director of marketing there —I hope this makes his way to him —no offense, bro (imagine me flashing our secret handshakes...) Mark Weiss Bryant Street Sometimes wears a Manchester United jersey and or rides a bike— I am solar powered too *Permit me 30 more seconds and I am imagining myself calling in on my magic handheld Captain Kirk device—the one summer I sold cars one of my customers was the silicon Valley legend Bill Campbell — bought the ultimate middle‐ management car a four‐door maroon Chevy celebrity. it was his first week in town from Rochester and yes we compared our secret frat bro handshakes.... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2021‐01‐06/musk‐close‐to‐surpassing‐ bezos‐as‐world‐s‐richest‐person ← Lower East Side part II Memoir from the bygone five minutes → ‘Coach: how one footballer shaped 5 Billion Cellphones’ by Mark Bennett Weiss, with help from The Leon Levy Center Posted on December 2, 2018by markweiss86 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.E8906CC6-4E03-48A7-86EC-9143ED71E05A In addition to advising Steve Jobs and other high tech CEOs, former Columbia University Center and Linebacker and Coach William Campbell ‘61 also funded The Old Pro in Palo Alto where thousands of beers also fueled thousands more ideas: Facebook had a mixer there just this week, Friday, December 1, 2018. 2 I met Bill summer, 1983, his first week in Silicon Valley, when he bought a maroon Chevy Celebrity, from my dads lot, Key Chevrolet, 2 miles from Apple. The last time I spoke to him was at The Old Pro; I suggested a prize in honor of coach Ben Parks. I did not know him well enough to attend his wake but stood on the sidewalk outside the event, on Ramona Street and traded “good luck” with Al Gore, The would be President, as he slipped out after his eulogy. It would be interesting to get 100 takes on the Bill Campbell story and legend. I told a version of this yesterday to Mark and Will, two Northwestern /GSBs, there to watch Big Ten title game. We noted a similarity between Campbell and Pat Fitzgerald, the Wildcat living legend and coach. Their crew were camped under the Jim “Soupy” Campbell shrine. edit to add, the next day: if not Bill Campbell, how about a book about Paul J. Cohen? Sent from my iPhone 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Clive Hallatt <challatt@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 12:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Greg Tanaka Subject:fees for local residents for Foothills park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council members, I saw in the press the potential for the city to charge local residents for using foothills park. Don’t we already pay access fees in the form of local taxes? Why don’t you figure out the per capita cost to run the park and charge nonresidents a similar fee? I look forward to your comments. Regards Clive Hallatt Palo Alto resident since 1984 Cell 650 740 5909 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Mashhood Rassam <mrassam@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 7:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council. I am writing to you regarding Foothills Park. I have hiked the park's trails since 2009, including on Jan. 9 and 10, 2021. Since being opened to non‐Palo Alto residents the Park has been much busier than normal, with maybe 3, 4, or even 5 times more cars than I have normally seen. I don't think anyone can dispute that this surge of visitors to the park is having a negative environmental effect. Please take immediate action to reduce capacity at the Park. I realize this means that fewer people will be able to visit the Park (including perhaps me), but I think environmental considerations must be paramount. I would suggest the following two‐pronged approach: 1. Shutting Park gates between 10 am and 3 pm. This approach worked very well on Jan. 9, and I am disappointed that it was not implemented again on Jan. 10. Shutting the gates at 10 am reduced the number of visitors by noon and also reduced traffic on Page Mill, making that road safer for all. 2. Please charge a parking fee. This action may again reduce the number of visitors to the Park, and it will no doubt defray from the increased cost of maintaining the Park given all the new visitors. Best regards, Mashhood Rassam Palo Alto, CA 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Kat Adams Shannon <1kattams@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 3:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Consider reducing capacity at Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, Per this recent article on Palo Alto Online regarding capacity of Foothills Park and other proposals, I would like to voice my support for reducing capacity from 750 to 500 and implementing fees/annual passes or a reservation system. I would also like to suggest for your consideration adding one weekend a month/every few months that lifts the fees (as many museums do) so those who are deterred by the fee can also go at these specific times, but I would suggest a reservation system or some other mechanism to allow this to happen smoothly. This "open" day should of course be implemented with the reduced capacity in place. I also think it would be critical to implement online real time estimates of the park visitation numbers, so folks can see when it is near capacity. I will not be going back to Foothills Park, a place I dearly want others to experience as the peaceful nature preserve it has been for so many years, for a few months at least because I do not want to contribute to the congestion. I would feel much better about trying to go if I could see that my attendance wouldn't contribute to overcrowding (additional limits on capacity would certainly help with that). My sincere thanks for your careful consideration of these issues to ensure Foothills Park is not impacted too much by these changes in usage. Sincerely, Kat On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:10 PM Kat A <1kattams@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, I hope this email finds you well. I recognize this weekend is a time of transition for Foothills Park. But I write asking the governing body that supports the park to reduce the capacity. I went today at 3pm or so and the ranger told me that they had just reached capacity (I guess this is currently 750) and would likely close the gate to newcomers. I drove a lap around the park but left with a strong feeling that I’d much rather be denied entry than see it so crowded. Perhaps you could get data about what the typical use numbers were before (I’m sure it wasn’t remotely close to 750‐ 1000 at any given time for the vast majority of days) and set up capacity rules with that overarching ballpark in mind to preserve the park. I think the low (realized) capacity is what has made it an incredible nature preserve. I understand the number of folks visiting will go up quite a bit, but hopefully this can be flexibly monitored by the rangers, etc. with the goal of maintaining the health of the park as closely as possible as it has been. Also, new signage is needed to make sure folks don’t walk on the roads as it is quite unsafe. Families were getting stuck 4 trying to pass a line of cars on the vary narrow, winding road. Best wishes, Kat 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Brenda Jamrus <brendajamrus@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2021 10:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park Parking Suggestion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing regarding the recently expanded access to Foothills Park, and the challenges that has brought to the park itself, the park staff, community and visitors. I am not a resident of Palo Alto. I am a native Californian and have resided in the Bay Area for nearly 60 years. Change isn’t always easy, especially when it involves the transformation of one’s existence. Foothills Park is a beautiful place with hiking trails, wildlife and nice views. For years the residents of Palo Alto have had the exclusive privilege of its enjoyment. I am sure the opening of the park to non residents feels intrusive to some, but as a non resident, responsible adult who truly values and appreciates the opportunity to now visit the park I hope that soon guidelines are put in place that make everyone who visits feel welcomed, and that allow for a good experience to be had by all. When I recently visited the park there were many people and the park was near capacity. I am fortunate to be able to return during the week and so do not have to restrict my visits to weekends and holidays. That said, I visited the park on a busy Saturday and I was still able to find a designated parking place within the park grounds. What I would like to suggest is that the occupancy of the park be limited to the number of designated parking spots within the park grounds. Since it seemed there was designated parking in several areas this seems reasonable. If I am mistaken then perhaps some additional parking could be added. To help facilitate bicycle safety do not permit parking along the road inside the park boundaries, and count cars that enter and exit the park. Nearby streets outside the park boundaries where overflow parking was occurring could be designated and clearly marked as no parking areas, and these designations would need to be enforced. I would also note that since this is very early on in the process of offering expanded access, it’s likely things will settle down a bit. I hope the park will remain open without admission fees. I pay for a Santa Clara County Park’s annual parking pass, because even as a resident of Santa Clara County parking access to the county parks is not free. I also pay for a California State Park’s annual parking pass, because even as a resident of California parking access to the State Parks is not free. Both of these passes permit me paid access to a number of parks, and those parks are part of a much larger system. Best regards, Brenda Jamrus 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2:15 PM To:Stretch Brian (USACAN); raymond.hulser@usdoj.gov; cityattorney@santaclaraca.gov; bcc@dca.ca.gov; mc03100-11@yahoo.com; mcuban@axs.tv; admissions@calbar.ca.gov; dsun@cupertino.org; susan.lee@doj.ca.gov; srubenstein@sfchronicle.com; otaylor@sfchronicle.com; johanna.luerra@shf.sccgov.org; angelo.tom@hud.gov; district7@sanjoseca.gov; markhamplazata@gmail.com; moneal@pdo.sccgov.org; schatman@scscourt.org; donald.rocha@sanjoseca.gov; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; sylvia.macdonald@ido.sccgov.org; mary.murtagh@eahhousing.org; gary.goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; hwilliams@scscourt.org; Human Relations Commission; aleksandra.ridgeway@sheriff.sccgov.org; wbrown@sfchronicle.com; mturpin@bayareanewsgroup.com; publisher@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@siliconvalleyfreepress.com; eclendaniel@bayareanewsgroup.com; rkeith@bayareanewsgroup.com; sdussault@bayareanewsgroup.com; helbraun@helbraunlaw.com; jcanova@scusd.net; csanfilippo@scusd.net; asgonzalez@scusd.net; jmuirhead@scusd.net; vjfairchild@scusd.net; aratermann@scusd.net; mrichardson@scusd.net; mryan@scusd.net; pubworks@sunnyvale.ca.gov; joebravo@bravolaw.com; joe@piastalaw.biz; districtattorney@sfgov.org; 6th.district@jud.ca.gov; scottlargent38@gmail.com; will@crim-defense.com; anna@annaeshoo4congress.com; guardians@aclu.org; fdngift@aclu.org; chartley@sunnyvale.ca.gov; pubdef- mediarelations@sfgov.org; Council, City; patrick@sdpap.org; ukoffice@chinaculture.org; parmit.randhawa@georgehills.com; corrupt@brianmccomas.attorney; jdiaz@sfchronicle.com; 1guitard.as@gmail.com; paulette.altmaier@gmail.com; hotline@hudoig.gov; gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov; david.rose@doj.ca.gov; servesdap@sdap.org; john.bennett@ic.fbi.gov; mayorlondonbreed@sfgov.org; chesa@sfgov.org; mccomas.b.c@gmail.com; info@siliconvalleydebug.org; galaxy_454@yahoo.com; florestrisha09@gmail.com; Be Judged; Jeremy Schmidt; mike@mikegoldman4mayor.org; nsallings@scusd.net; mrichardsom@scusd.net; ndefreitas@scusd.com; radams@scu.k12.ca.us; jluyau@scu.k12.ca.us; amasur@scusd.net; adoptions@hssv.org; intake@hssv.org; education@hssv.org; comments@hssv.org; officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com; jrosen@dao.sccgov.org Subject:Re: KNOW JUSTICE ~ KNOW PEACE #14 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. BTW: If anyone should be held accountable for incitement of insurrection; perhaps it should be John Lydon working conspiratorially with the Sex Pistols... On Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 1:30:43 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Whether it is real or not it tells the truth in a roundabout way...And remember that my dad and I have been frustrated with SJ Mercury content being biased and full of outright lies for awhile now; what's the difference? On Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 1:28:06 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Here's Nancy Pelosi's letter to Tom Wheeler: 2 On Monday, January 11, 2021, 3:30:04 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: MESSAGE JUST SENT TO THE DOJ: "Between the democrats starting a race war last summer with violence and riots ensuing thereafter; starting an insurrection long before democrats were willing to use that term...Then trying to blame Mister Trump for the ball democrats started rolling long before last week...Then going after Trump regarding Russia when China loomed over the horizon waiting to destroy our culture -- when Hunter Biden was guilty...Years after the Obiden administration allowed $3.7 million US tax dollars to be given to China to create Covid back in 2012 before backing out...I'm done...I'm almost 60 years old now and I was always the smartest guy at the top of my class until dropping out to play drums in high school; and I obviously remain one of the smartest guys in the room to this day even without further education...So you may be able to fool many other dumb fools; but you can't fool this fool; and I've had just about enough of this liberal Tom Foolery for one lifetime...No matter how clever and intelligent think they are; I know better and have know better for a long long time..." On Monday, January 11, 2021, 1:14:30 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: From Facebook just now: "As far as I am concerned democrats have already blown it right out of the gates with the massive censorship/purge on Twitter that occurred last week...Not only are there major antitrust issues involving the subjugation of Parler by tech giants; but also obvious class-action First Amendment issues as well since the ACLU is now involved...And the statute of limitations for these new violations caused by emboldened democrats who just shot themselves in the foot again by telling people they disagree with to shut the fuck up is more than 4 years at the federal level as well...Therefore; since yet another illegal lawless enterprise has now been created with the latest highly questionable actions against Parler; the antitrust case against tech companies just expanded outward exponentially in a completely actionable fashion...Bottom line: Microsoft had a grip on power in the 1990s and it took moving mountains to come up with a competitive product from a corporation that could outsell it; and Apple was that corporation...So the way I see it is Parler is next in line for being the next big social media site; helped along by democrats...But big tech companies with monopolies on power and influence are trying desperately much like Microsoft did back in the 1990s to stem the exodus from their relatively restrictive social media sites...It's like Van Halen going on their first big tour and Richie Blackmore being jealous of Eddie Van Halen's abilities and turning his back on him when he offered to shake hands with Richie; when Van Halen went on to be as big or bigger than Deep Purple in the end..." On Monday, January 11, 2021, 8:02:24 AM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: "...this will backfire like banning alice cooper in the 70s trust me...that old "banning is good" law doesn't apply to many but it still does to trump...for instance; i recently migrated my account...it's a common thing...there are servers all over the world they just need to find a new home...all this will do is increase parler popularity as that old law applies to them too...this will affect amazon as well...they have many users...it's all connected to wearing masks i think believe it or not...when silence = violence for many desperate and left with no other choices...but maybe that's what 'they' want...other than that; antitrust laws are being broken here regardless or manufactured consent and there are statutes of limitations and these companies are under investigation right now whether there is a change of power or not...even if we are the main investigators as the watchful and financially reactive public...the media has already been impeached in the powerful high court of public opinion; with me acting as head justice of that high court of public opinion...i'm really high up right now...like a joint chief of staff..." 3 On Monday, January 11, 2021, 7:58:26 AM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: From Facebook today: "I'm an old fucker who has been watching this liberal democrat shit show for many years now...And since the beginning of the rise of decentralization of power with the world wide web; the democrats have liked to feel like they are the gatekeepers of truth...Back in the 1990s when children suddenly lost their civil rights and got night time curfews for gang violence they had absolutely zero connection to; Hillary Clinton was saying "What about the children!?"...Then when the democrats returned again it was Obama abridging speech based upon race...And there was always some incident and/or incidents the media used to generate consent for that speech abridgement...While Obama followers were often shit talking racists themselves; hate crime laws were and still are rarely applied to minorities by liberals in general...When whites are in fact minorities in many regions...Then part two of the Obiden shit show is now returning with night time curfews for adults now; and even more heavily-manufactured consent for speech abridgement once again; this time based upon boots on the ground liberal democratic operatives Antifa stirring the pot at the US Capitol last week causing pre-planned chaos and unrest to make the opposition look bad and allow Soros' media to have a fake news field day...I swear to God it's the same old shit show ramped up a notch or two with greater consequences than ever; but like I said it's better than NFL football right now and I know in my heart that truth always wins out in the end and that justice will prevail whether it is speedy or not regarding the real truth behind election results and many other pressing issues..." On Sunday, January 10, 2021, 7:49:26 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: "Big things are going down my friend...Since the media refuses to cover any of the things that have happened today, I’m happy to oblige. The FBI is raiding legislative offices and homes in Tennessee as we speak. Stay tuned for that. Google is censoring you from seeing what everyone is talking about on the other side of the world. An affidavit was handed to Congress at 1:12pm Wednesday (just before the breach) that proved our election WAS rigged. If you use DuckDuckGo and search for yourself, it is plastered all over the world. Billions of our tax dollars was sent to Italy to hack dominion and change Trump votes to Biden. ITALY rigged our election. They ADMITTED AND TESTIFIED. Check for yourself #italydidit One hour ago, Lindsey Graham was escorted out of an airport because patriots in the airport were chanting “traitor” at him. Poor Lindsey ᦔᦕᦖᦗ Lin Wood exposed extremely sensitive information on his Parler yesterday. Some examples include “a treasure trove” of video files that are most likely what got Isaac Kappy killed. He tried exposing everyone with these files, he then was found dead. Also, emails between Pence and Paul discussing Pence’s plot to take over as president. And James Bulger & Hunter Biden making deals with CCP company...a case for the FBI for sure lol But feel free to check those out on Parler. There is video evidence that Trump supporters were trying to stop ANTIFA from breaking into the capital. ANTIFA was trying to smash an emergency door and a patriot stepped in to stop it. There is also video evidence that police were in on the breach. They opened the gates and stepped aside to let “protestors” in. Witnesses all have matching stories of what happened but the media will not share it. A few witnesses heard antifa’s plan to “shake things up”. It was ANTIFA who stormed the capital, they were not Trump supporters. You can find this on Parler or in Facebook groups like ThePatriotParty. It’s all there on video that Facebook and YouTube keep trying to remove. Parler won’t delete them tho, try there. During the breach at the US capital building, 11 laptops were stolen. One of them was Nancy Pelosi’s. Safe to assume that the military and/or Trump has those laptops. Could explain why she’s trying so hard to invoke the 25th amendment and have Trump removed from office. She’s frantic. As soon as the lockdown was over and they realized the laptops were stolen, numerous members of the administration resigned. More continue to resign. With 12 days left, why wouldn’t they wait? That’s curious. Roughly 6000 troops were just deployed to DC. They are there as we speak, for the next 28 4 days or so. Also curious. None of this is speculation. This is all out there for you to check yourself. Proof. Evidence. But most people are lazy and won’t. The media knows that and takes advantage by covering whatever fits their agenda. MSM is biased and corrupt and fake. They aren’t telling us the truth. Google and social media are censoring what you can see. So it’s easy to believe what they want because they’re controlling what you see. With a little digging, it’s not hard to find the truth. The real truth. Use DuckDuckGo, oann news, RSBN, Parler, etc..." -- Anonymous On Saturday, January 9, 2021, 6:13:59 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: I'm an unstoppable force of nature... KNOW JUSTICE ~ KNOW PEACE # 14 KNOW JUSTICE ~ KNOW PEACE # 14 Staying on point: "FOLLOW THE MONEY! The Wuhan Lab has been demolished? The Chinese biological laboratory in Wuh... On Saturday, January 9, 2021, 4:57:00 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Umm one last thing...let's see...70 year old Biden is now saying Trump is unfit for office while my 94 year old Dad ihas been saying the exact same thing about Biden...But he did also say that people need to pray for Biden to have good health to avoid Kamala possibly becoming president...Remember that everything is relative and that everyone has an opinion just like everyone has a toilet or a refrigerator... On Saturday, January 9, 2021, 4:42:44 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: FOR INSTANCE; here's yet another essentially illegal, racist, divisive and just plain STUPID democratic party idea that not only goes against the will of the voters and common sense in general; but mainly aims to discriminate against high performing employees who truly deserve promotion over someone promoted for their gender or race... Race, gender would factor in promotions for California state workers under proposed law 5 Race, gender would factor in promotions for California state workers und... Allegations of racism at state departments led to a proposal to change hiring and promotions, lawmaker says. On Saturday, January 9, 2021, 4:18:08 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: You couldn't shut me up if you tried and I promise to not only outlive all of you artistically; but to also keep disrupting and dismantling the corporate/government monopoly I live underneath here in mono culturally dead Silicon Valley...Republicans allow democrats and/or liberals to say whatever they damn well please while democrats in control generally want to subjugate minds with forced silence and division and/or selective calculated social hatred...And the CEOs who do business with evil foreign dictators who set a lower bar of expectation end up in turn influencing CEO conduct ~ along with like-minded censoring democrats (What about the children? What if someone is offended? Who cares if you are offended? Fuck you! etc etc etc -- typical democratic shit -- what a fucking joke liberals are...) censoring the opposition with the same basic emotion that used to cause people to kill others for merely saying what they considered to be wrong...They used to be killed; now they are blocked on social media etc...And this is why I left the POS democratic political party long ago... Modern democrats are more often than not arrogant ideological elitists; delusional; violent; speech censoring; sexually emasculating; financially unrestrained; gun grabbing; globalist as opposed to decidedly American; half-truth telling; shifty; lying ass; 'classist' racist and/or 'genderist'; militarily de-funding (therefore a threat to national security); and a Covid-19 threat to international security as well by allowing the CCP to turn America into the socialist state that it has become and/or allowing Biden to be in financial cahoots with Chinese interests etc etc etc... On Saturday, January 9, 2021, 3:57:50 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Other than all of that... It's good that I had an outlet to write about the events of the tumultuous last 20 years of my life...After being so radicalized by police misconduct; misfeasance and overarching multifarious class/race/gender-based discrimination and multi-feasance with unrestrained RPF/BLM/ANTIFA violence etc etc etc...I can almost guarantee that if I did not have the safe outlet of this kind of legal Fisrt Amendment-protected government sanctioned free expression and/or federally protected online website/blogger journalism I would have likely perhaps resorted to some other very rash measures that could have been worse than any uncomfortable thought I might have conveyed through writing...As silence leads to violence...And remember that Mark Twain made some people uncomfortable too...Along with the fired Google engineer who was not totally correct all the time but made some great points regarding Darwin and random DNA distribution...It comes with the territory and it's old as the hills as people have a general tendency to want to kill the messenger...That is precisely why my next album will be the most controversial and hard-hitting protest recording in the history of inhumankind...There is nothing the techie geeks running local corporations can do about that...As art and music is the greatest form of balance and revenge that never dies even after the demise of the artist... On Saturday, January 9, 2021, 3:10:59 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: 6 Note: We are all judges in the court of public opinion; therefore this particular segment of the judiciary strongly believes the unrelenting hostilities of the last 6 months show a clear pattern and practice not only of unrestrained covert sedition through "smart justice" and/or allowed public violence and unrest threatening public safety and order -- but also of deep politically motivated cognitively dissonant denial regarding this axiomatic truth...The verdict is in; and the guilty are in a 'deep state' of denial...pardon the pun... On Saturday, January 9, 2021, 1:05:32 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Remember: The Great Roper once wrote: One who is controls ~ controls oneself..." And this applies directly over to the current situation as his wisdom is far-reaching and endless; spanning all generations and all time periods...So stop blaming others for your own actions democrats; your actions are your own and you all need to own up to this FACT... On Saturday, January 9, 2021, 1:00:49 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Ok this last message was called spam so I changed accounts and will add a huge email list provided by a friend that includes the Queen of England to get my message out even further...Demorats are back! The selfish silencing games have begun! Incitement of violence didn't matter 6 months ago with BLM/Antifa but now it does! When silencing people is what really incites violence more than anything else and I think democrats know this! Making me SO FUCKING GLAD Mister Trump held back you Free Speech Nazi motherfuckers for 4 years! Best of the last thread will go to blog! Stay tuned! Hahahaha... "For instance; I was the one who told Trump to start his own web site on Twitter right before he got illegally ejected (lawsuit pending no doubt) as he has been listening to me for awhile...And Twitter banned him right after that...HOW POWERFUL AM ?!?! :D I figured out Trump was paying attention right after I posted a used LA Guns CD called "cocked and loaded" haha...Trump totally cracks me up...I roadied for Jetboy playing a show with LA Guns once and they are still good friends of the band...Thanks for not taxing my poor ass Mister Trump! You saved my life! Slave driving demorats would have turned the screw and kept on allowing me to be tortured!..." 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:14 AM To:Hur, Mark; Police; Perron, Zachary; Planning Enforcement; City Mgr; Eggleston, Brad; Council, City Cc:Baird, Nathan; isabelle.lasalle@asm.ca.gov Subject:Re: El Camino RV's All, Yesterday I saw both Community Officers and the PAPD on El Camino talking with RV owners. It is a good first step, but also one that needs to be done on a regular basis in order to ensure that the laws are being enforced. This morning, however, when I drove along El Camino I saw many RV's still parked on the sidewalk hampering access to the sidewalk, as well as a variety of items being stored on the sidewalk. According to Palo Alto City Code Ordinance 9.48.020 Unlawful acts - Exceptions. (a) No person shall place or cause to be placed anywhere upon any street or sidewalk, and no person owning, occupying or having control of any premises, shall suffer to remain in front thereof upon the sidewalk of the street next to such premises, anything which shall restrict the public use thereof. Please note that in order for a sidewalk to be ADA compliant, there needs to be 36 inches of "clear width". (ADA 403.5.1 Clear Width) If, for some reason, you are unwilling to enforce local parking laws and enforce city codes, you are required to abide by federal ADA regulations. I will contact the Santa Clara County ADA office today in order to inform them of the ongoing violations. Finally, one week ago, I sent photos of the RV's parked between Churchill and Park/Serra. Today, three of those RV's are still there despite violating the 72-hour parking ordinance. The community service officer was talking with the owner of two of the RV's yesterday morning. The other RV is the one parked on the sidewalk (CA license 5KDB841). Note that the pair of RV's to the north have now installed a "Slow Children At Play" statue in the slow lane of El Camino. I expect that the city will be actively addressing these situations going forward. Keith On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:47 AM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: 2 Today, I tried to walk down El Camino from Churchill to Serra. I have attached photos of what I encountered. There are, as you can see, many issues. RV's parked on the sidewalk, trash and other "non‐vehicles" in the street and items blocking passage on the sidewalk. In order to get to Serra, I had to walk in the traffic lane on El Camino as the sidewalk was completely blocked. I called PAPD to report both the illegally parked vehicles and the sidewalk, however, they moved me on to Code Enforcement despite the fact that illegally parked cars is, I believe, under their umbrella of responsibility. But, as has been the case for many years, no one seems to want to claim responsibility for this area. I did see a few Stanford contractors out cleaning up some of the debris. Why hasn't Palo Alto sent a clean‐up crew out there to deal with the conditions that they are allowing to occur? This is what you have allowed the city to become. Ed Shikada, this is Palo Alto under your management. This is the road that the city wants to turn into a "Grand Boulevard" to rival the great streets of Europe. Does it really take residents to complain about something like this in order for city staff to act? Where is the leadership? As the saying goes, " A fish rots from the head down." Why isn't Ed Shikada doing anything to care for the city that he's being paid to manage? Keith On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 5:47 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: FYI, Two posts I just saw on Nextdoor in response to a women who was screamed at by a homeless man downtown: Rachel Mortimore • Downtown North Did you file a report to keep on police radar? Someone living in the RVs tried to pull a young woman from a bike a few weeks ago. Reports lead to awareness and… See more 2 hr ago Thank Reply To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 3 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.August Mozart August Mozart • Crescent Park I just drove down `El Camino and it's getting worse...old bikes, litter, people camping on the road ....police just sitting there. I'll retype that last part. POLICE JUST SITTING THERE. That's unacceptable. Keith On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:19 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Mark, Thanks for the response. A few follow up questions. Anyone on this email is free to respond: 1) You stated that the city paused "most of our timed and permit restrictions throughout the City until further notice." Which areas were not paused? 2) I contacted Caltrans and they told me that they could sweep the roadways in order to clean it. My question to you then is how can they clean the roadway if the city allows the vehicles to remain parked for weeks and months at a time? Given the city's lack of oversight, it is allowing the garbage to pile up and the unsanitary conditions to continue. The state can't do its job until the city does theirs. 3) Lydia Kou and Tom DuBois brought up safe parking options to city council in June of 2019. The RV issue has been around for 8‐10 years, at a minimum. What work exactly is staff doing to expedite this issues. Other cities, including neighboring Mountain View and East Palo Alto have already soared past City of Palo Alto staff in finding solutions, even if they are not 100% ideal. Most any option would be better than what the RV owners and community are currently experiencing. 4) Why do residents have to inform PAPD of an issue that both the city and the police know are issues on a case by case basis? Why isn't the city and PAPD actively addressing the situation? 5) Caltrans has also told me that the City of Palo Alto is in charge of the conditions of the sidewalks. Why are these not being cleared so pedestrians can safely walk down the streets of Palo Alto? Again, the residents should not need to inform the city of every issue they see, especially when the city and the police are well aware that the conditions exist. At some point we, as community members, expect our government to take care of both the citizens within the city as well as the conditions that exist within that city. I'm sure many city employees have seen the conditions on El Camino, are aware that something needs to be done, and then proceed along and look the other way. It's time to send people out and take care of the situation, both as a social service venture and an environmental cleanup. I look forward to your response. Keith On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:22 AM Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: 4 Mr. Ferrell, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your feedback is crucial in helping staff address immediate concerns in our community. Due to the ongoing and new stay‐at‐home orders, we have paused most of our timed and permit restrictions throughout the City until further notice. Please note that enforcement continues for concerns that present an immediate hazard. Restrictions for red curbs, spaces designated for persons with disabilities, and any other locations prohibited by law are always in effect. City Staff is working closely with the City Council to establish safe parking solutions and avenues to reduce the number of oversized vehicles city‐wide. Currently, we do not have the policies in place to remove these types of vehicles as they are parking on public and state‐owned roadways. There is a city‐wide ordinance that requires all vehicles to move within 72 hours; where PD is responding on a case by case basis. If you notice a vehicle parking for an extended period or present a public safety concern, please contact the Palo Alto Police Department. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329‐2453 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/trn/parking www.cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. 5 From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 10:31 AM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: El Camino RV's CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mark and Nathan, Are parking regulations being enforced on El Camino Real in Palo Alto? The is a continuing issues. It seems that nothing happens until people complain about the issue. The RV's parked along El Camino have become essentially a health hazard. However, taking that out of the equation, we expect our city government to enforce the laws that have been adopted by the elected officials. This would include active enforcement of parking regulations. The cars and RV's on El Camino park there for weeks/months at a time without any enforcement. At some point, they will be able to claim that they can't be moved because they've been "allowed" to stay for such an extended period. In addition, the area between Churchill and Park/Serra is part of the Southgate RPP and is a 2‐hour parking zone. There has been no enforcement of this area and due to that, cars and RV's are now entrenched there, as well. What does the city plan to do? I'm happy to show you pictures of the garbage and waste that litters the streets and blocks the sidewalks. I assume that you are well aware of the situation, but choose to look the other way. We expect the city staff to do what they are being paid to do and that includes enforcing parking regulations. Thanks Keith 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:10 AM To:The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo; Sara Cody Subject:Shots Don't Stop Transmission CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Be Informed -- before or after you vaccinate: (See last paragraph on may be 50 x worse than flu shot In Rush to Create Magic-Bullet COVID Vaccines, Have We Made Matters Worse? Study that found vaccines that don’t prevent viral transmission may accelerate evolution of more virulent strains could mean leading vaccine candidates may make COVID crisis worse. IN BRIEF: * These vaccinated hosts, while infected, shed and spread virus, causing further transmission of the disease. * Neither of the current COVID-19 vaccines in distribution (Pfizer and Moderna) has been shown to 'prevent transmission.' * More infectious forms of COVID-19, may prolong pandemic, rather than stop it * Without vaccination, most virulent strains die out; it's how natural selection works. * Rather than pathogenic subtypes dying naturally, their survival spreads and vaccination is worse than useless. ByBrian Hooker, Ph.D, P.E. (from childrenshealthdefense.org, The Defender Natural selection is the phenomenon where only the fittest individuals in an nvironment will survive. “Individuals” in this context can refer to any type of organism — from humans to bacteria and viruses — but the context here is the survival of viruses. When a virus infects a population of humans, only those viruses that have a living human host will survive. If a virus is so pathogenic that it kills the human it infected, it dies too.Therefore, mortality of the host kills the most severe forms of any virus over time. Infection rates may go up, but mortality goes down. In a 2015 study published in PLOS Biology, researchers hypothesized that vaccination can subvert this process by allowing more virulent (i.e., more pathogenic and potentially deadly) strains of viruses to live in vaccinated hosts for prolonged time periods without killing the hosts. These vaccinated hosts, while infected, shed and spread virus, causing further transmission of the disease. The researchers demonstrated this hypothesis with experiments on chickens vaccinated for a disease called Marek’s Disease, a viral pathogen known to 7 decimate poultry facilities. Vaccinated chickens infected with more virulent strains of Marek’s Disease virus became infected and carried the infection over longer time periods. They also became “super spreaders” of the virus and transmitted the virus to unvaccinated chickens co-housed with those that received the vaccine. Because of the higher virulence of the Marek’s Disease that was spread by the vaccinated chickens, the unvaccinated chickens usually died soon after infection. However, the partial immunity afforded to the vaccinated chickens prolonged their survival and extended the period in which they were infectious and could continue to spread the disease. Without vaccination, these more virulent strains of Marek’s Disease would die off with their host and would no longer circulate the virus in the population. Instead, vaccinated chickens became the perfect host to harbor the virus, allowing it to multiply and spread. This begs the question regarding the use of vaccines that do not prevent virus transmission or are not known to prevent virus transmission. Neither of the current COVID-19 vaccines in distribution (Pfizer and Moderna) has been shown to prevent transmission. In fact, this type of testing was not done in their rushed “warp speed” clinical studies. Instead, both vaccines were tested for their ability to prevent more severe ymptoms. In both instances, some vaccinated patients were still infected. Without prevention of transmission, these individuals spread the virus that was intended to be eradicated. As the authors of the 2015 research state in their summary: “When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist.” With the emergence of more infectious forms of COVID-19 circulating in Europe, it seems we may have created the perfect storm to prolong the pandemic, rather than curtail it — because the vaccines were developed and tested based on the original form of circulating COVID-19, not the new strains. In our rush to create magic-bullet vaccines, have we instead created a scenario to cause more pain and suffering? Let’s play this out. Many mutants of COVID-19 are circulating in the population today. We hear the news regarding new strains every day. Without vaccination, the most virulent strains die out — this is just how natural selection works. However, now comes a vaccinated army of human hosts, primed and ready to fight off the original version of COVID-19 but not the more virulent strains. Will they survive these new types of virus — yes, probably? However, in the process, they experience prolonged infections where they shed the more virulent strain to other human hosts. Rather than allowing these pathogenic subtypes of COVID-19 to die naturally, we enhance their survival and spread and vaccination becomes worse than 8 useless. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense. SUGGEST A CORRECTION Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission. ----------------- COVID Vaccine Adverse Reactions Are 50 Times Higher Than the Flu Shot * January 06, 2021 Reports of serious adverse reactions to the new COVID-19 vaccines are coming in — and some include deaths. In fact, early reports from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicate that these reactions may be as much as 50 times higher than those for flu shots. In a series of tweets, Alex Berenson, former New York Times reporter and author of numerous books, calls attention to VAERS data showing that COVID vaccine reports are steadily coming in at rates much higher than those the CDC is acknowledging. Even so, U.S. and British health authorities continue to insist the shots are “100% safe.” To show how safe they are, officials are busy shutting down anyone who dares to ask questions about it. “Everyone claiming otherwise is not only wrongheaded, but acting in a deliberately malicious manner,” is the message officials are sending to anyone expressing doubts about the vaccine’s safety, ZeroHedge said. VAERS. Vaccine Averse Event Report System (governmental gorup) has paid $4 billion in 10 yrs time to adults badly damaged by the flu shot. SOURCE: ZeroHedge January 5, 2021 Previous Article Professor Predicts: People Will Die After COVID-19 Vaccine Next Article The Deception of PCR Tests Artificially Inflates COVID-19 Numbers FORWARDED BY Arlene at No Toxins for Children-- or Adults 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 10:47 AM To:scscroundtable@gmail.com Cc:Karen.Chapman@mail.house.gov; Eric.Henshall@mail.house.gov; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Kristine.Zanardi@bos.sccgov.org; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Long awaited Neighborhoods study is finally out CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear SCSC Roundtable, In my public comment at the SCSC recent NEPA 101 meeting, I highlighted that FAA's NEPA thresholds of significance were in question and under challenge awaiting the results of FAA's Neighborhoods Study. You may also recall the time I brought in a Monopoly board to express how unrealistic the estimates were for communities farther from the airport which you represent. We don't need to wait anymore, see today's Federal Register about the NES here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR‐2021‐01‐13/pdf/2021‐00564.pdf I would like to note that thanks to Representative Anna Eshoo, the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals and the extraordinary efforts by Midpen cities ‐ from the day the FAA came to meet us in Palo Alto City Chambers in July 2015 committing to "research to make changes to understand where that (gap) is" in their noise standards, the study has been under way. It has taken too long to release this but now we must all work together to follow up. Please take a look at the implications for SCSC communities very closely. and when you respond I urge you to also please respond to FAA's generalizations about social media or that people suddenly like the outdoors more. You must please respond with our experience with what it means to brutally transform a previously quiet area to an airport runway. I also ask that you please solicit input from all cities and interested parties before you formulate a final response. Thank you Jennifer 10 11 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 10:35 AM To:Constantino, Mary Cc:Minor, Beth; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Re: HRC Meeting on Thursday, January 14, 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Mary, Thanks for sending out the attached letter. I have printed it out to review for Thursday’s meeting. I have also printed out the agenda with includes the meeting ID and a phone number to call in. I attend a fair number of Zoom meeting, legal meeting, legal seminars, etc. I have zero problem accessing these meetings. With both city council meeting and HRC meetings my ability to be recognized, even when my hand is raised, has consistently been problematic. Mary, is there a phone number I can call on Thursday if I am unable to be recognized by zoom or the 1‐(669)900‐6833 ? Ok, thanks to you ( Mary), Beth, and Minka in working with me in an effort to allow me equal access to city meetings on a regular basis. If you have additional suggestions re how I can consistently be recognized at city meeting, please let me know. It has been a very frustrating experience for me( to obtain consistent zoom access to city meetings ) and I am sure the experience is equally frustrating to each of you. I hope we can work together to solve this ongoing problem. Thanks to each of for your efforts on my behalf. Sincerely, Aram James Good Morning Aram, The attached document is the letter for Item #2. It was just uploaded to the agenda. Mary <image001.jpg> Mary Constantino | Program Assistant II | Office of Human Services Cubberley Community Center | 4000 Middlefield Road, T2 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 D: 650.463.4906 | E: mary.constantino@CityOfPaloAlto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! 12 <01‐14‐21 HRC Agenda ‐ Letter for Item 2.pdf> 13 Baumb, Nelly From:Martin J Sommer <martin@sommer.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 9:59 AM To:CalMod@caltrain.com Cc:Board (@caltrain.com); Council, City; Pat Burt Subject:Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Brent, Thanks for talking this morning. Yes, please try to put a number on repainting the top half of one or more poles at the University Ave station. Once we have this number, I will reach out to the City Of Palo Alto, for potential funding sources. Best regards, Martin On 12/22/20 7:49 PM, Martin J Sommer wrote: +cc: Pat Bert Brent, please take a look at the attached photo. I don't think this is what the City, nor the design engineers, had in mind. Please tell me, how I can help correct this situation. Thank you, Martin On 11/25/20 10:05 AM, martin@sommer.net wrote: Hi Brent, Perhaps your new funding source obtained on Nov 3rd can help this situation. Can you please look into this, and let me know? The visual impacts you are creating, are not good. Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer 14 "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2020‐11‐25 09:50, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote: Hi Martin, Unfortunately, the project budget does not accommodate camouflaging of the poles. Caltrain worked with Cities and regulatory agencies to mitigate the impacts of the infrastructure through the Project's Environmental Impact Report in 2014. Thanks, Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer SamTrans | Caltrain | TA 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 tietjenb@samtrans.com From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:55 PM To: CalMod@caltrain.com Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color Thanks Brent, What about the idea of camouflaging the upper part of the poles, similar to what is done with cell towers? For some reason, these poles have been created with an extremely hard industrial look. This is nothing like, the esthetics put into other electrified rails systems throughout the world. Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2020-11-13 10:09, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote: 15 Hi Martin, Thank you again for contacting Caltrain on this question. As Jim previously mentioned, the selection of the pole color was done in coordination with the City of Palo Alto and the Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board in 2019. These color selections are final and poles cannot be replaced or painted a different color after installation. Thanks, Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer SamTrans | Caltrain | TA 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 tietjenb@samtrans.com From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net] Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:20 AM To: CalMod@caltrain.com; Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com> Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color Dear Caltrain Board, The more beige poles that go up at University Ave station, the more unsightly it becomes. At ground level, you might think the beige color matches the station, but from the view of local buildings, you are completely destroying the view of our Santa Cruz Mountains, and local green vegetation on Stanford campus. Can you please look into a way to fix this? Perhaps, painting any height above 10 feet, to be the standard forest green? Telecom poles can be camouflaged, the same applies here. Please look in to it, and let me know some options. Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2020-09-30 12:05, calmod@caltrain.com wrote: 16 Dear Martin, Thank you for contacting Caltrain Electrification. The selection of the beige color was done in coordination with the City of Palo Alto and is a common color for poles located near stations. Most poles are a neutral chrome color along the project area but in some cases, such as near stations, Caltrain staff worked with local cities to identify pole colors that aligned with certain station areas. Once the poles have been procured and placed, we are not able to change the colors of those poles. Thank you again for reaching out to us. Best, The Caltrain Team On 2020-09-25T10:17:50-07:00, Martin J Sommer <martin@sommer.net> wrote: Good morning, Please see the attached picture, of a beige pole placed last night. This creates a real eye sore!! Questions: 1) Why are you using a beige color vs the std forest green (that blends with the trees), and 2) can these beige poles please be painted forest green, before electrification occurs? I know that this is a "big ask". Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net <mailto:martin@sommer.net>www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer <http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer> "Turn technical vision into reality." -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer 17 "Turn technical vision into reality." -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." 18 Baumb, Nelly From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 9:30 AM To:Hur, Mark Cc:Baird, Nathan; Council, City; Police; Perron, Zachary; isabelle.lasalle@asm.ca.gov; City Mgr Subject:Re: El Camino RV's Mark, I have yet to receive any responses to my questions. If you are not the proper person to address the questions, please let me know who at the city I can speak to in order to get my questions answered. Thanks Keith On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:19 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Mark, Thanks for the response. A few follow up questions. Anyone on this email is free to respond: 1) You stated that the city paused "most of our timed and permit restrictions throughout the City until further notice." Which areas were not paused? 2) I contacted Caltrans and they told me that they could sweep the roadways in order to clean it. My question to you then is how can they clean the roadway if the city allows the vehicles to remain parked for weeks and months at a time? Given the city's lack of oversight, it is allowing the garbage to pile up and the unsanitary conditions to continue. The state can't do its job until the city does theirs. 3) Lydia Kou and Tom DuBois brought up safe parking options to city council in June of 2019. The RV issue has been around for 8‐10 years, at a minimum. What work exactly is staff doing to expedite this issues. Other cities, including neighboring Mountain View and East Palo Alto have already soared past City of Palo Alto staff in finding solutions, even if they are not 100% ideal. Most any option would be better than what the RV owners and community are currently experiencing. 4) Why do residents have to inform PAPD of an issue that both the city and the police know are issues on a case by case basis? Why isn't the city and PAPD actively addressing the situation? 5) Caltrans has also told me that the City of Palo Alto is in charge of the conditions of the sidewalks. Why are these not being cleared so pedestrians can safely walk down the streets of Palo Alto? Again, the residents should not need to inform the city of every issue they see, especially when the city and the police are well aware that the conditions exist. At some point we, as community members, expect our government to take care of both the citizens within the city as well as the conditions that exist within that city. I'm sure many city employees have seen the conditions on El Camino, are aware that something needs to be done, and then proceed along and look the other way. It's time to send people out and take care of the situation, both as a social service venture and an environmental cleanup. I look forward to your response. Keith On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:22 AM Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Mr. Ferrell, 19 Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your feedback is crucial in helping staff address immediate concerns in our community. Due to the ongoing and new stay‐at‐home orders, we have paused most of our timed and permit restrictions throughout the City until further notice. Please note that enforcement continues for concerns that present an immediate hazard. Restrictions for red curbs, spaces designated for persons with disabilities, and any other locations prohibited by law are always in effect. City Staff is working closely with the City Council to establish safe parking solutions and avenues to reduce the number of oversized vehicles city‐wide. Currently, we do not have the policies in place to remove these types of vehicles as they are parking on public and state‐owned roadways. There is a city‐wide ordinance that requires all vehicles to move within 72 hours; where PD is responding on a case by case basis. If you notice a vehicle parking for an extended period or present a public safety concern, please contact the Palo Alto Police Department. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329‐2453 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/trn/parking www.cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 10:31 AM 20 To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: El Camino RV's CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mark and Nathan, Are parking regulations being enforced on El Camino Real in Palo Alto? The is a continuing issues. It seems that nothing happens until people complain about the issue. The RV's parked along El Camino have become essentially a health hazard. However, taking that out of the equation, we expect our city government to enforce the laws that have been adopted by the elected officials. This would include active enforcement of parking regulations. The cars and RV's on El Camino park there for weeks/months at a time without any enforcement. At some point, they will be able to claim that they can't be moved because they've been "allowed" to stay for such an extended period. In addition, the area between Churchill and Park/Serra is part of the Southgate RPP and is a 2‐hour parking zone. There has been no enforcement of this area and due to that, cars and RV's are now entrenched there, as well. What does the city plan to do? I'm happy to show you pictures of the garbage and waste that litters the streets and blocks the sidewalks. I assume that you are well aware of the situation, but choose to look the other way. We expect the city staff to do what they are being paid to do and that includes enforcing parking regulations. Thanks Keith 21 Baumb, Nelly From:Michelle Long Held <michelle@visitwidget.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Digital Needs Review CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Members of the City Council and Mayors Office for Palo Alto, Recently it looks like Palo Alto has left the San Mateo County CVB. Wanted to see if we could provide any technology support and connect with you on your upcoming digital needs for your next budget cycle. We create interactive maps for your existing website, mobile apps with push-messaging and we recently released our popular kiosk technology - great for the Visitor Centers, hotels, airports, festivals, etc. And can develop most anything you might be considering. Another great tool we design includes Augmented Reality, which is a great tool to help engage and entertain the visitor when they are in your area - maybe just let us show how that works on a quick demo. Who is the best person to contact to get a preliminary review to see if we can get a meeting with the hoteliers and the city council? Michelle To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Michelle Long Held | Business Development P: 512.608.3399 | E: michelle@visitwidget.com Here is a link to our apps that are part of the trip planning solution and a link about our visitor kiosk option. https://visitwidget.com/clients/ https://visitwidget.com/interactive-kiosk/ We are currently working with over 120 destinations in 21 states, and this includes 4 statewide instances. Check out our website at www.visitwidget.com Also, 2 case studies we created in the past: https://visitwidget.com/brenham-case-study/ https://visitwidget.com/travelok-case-study/ Here is a live client example: Widget: https://www.visitflorida.com/en-us.html (Click "Plan your visit" in bottom right) iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/visit-florida/id1468501064 Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.visitwidget.visitflorida (These applications can run in airplane mode; which is great for international visitors!) 22 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Michelle Long | Business Development P: 512.608.3399 | E: michelle@visitwidget.com 23 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:33 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4 @gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; leager; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; news@fresnobee.com Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell in UK on Tues. Jan. 12, 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:59 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell in UK on Tues. Jan. 12, 2021 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:41 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell in UK on Tues. Jan. 12, 2021 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:31 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell in UK on Tues. Jan. 12, 2021 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:31 PM 24 Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell in UK on Tues. Jan. 12, 2021 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:53 PM Subject: Dr. John Campbell in UK on Tues. Jan. 12, 2021 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Late Tues. Jan. 12, 2021 To all‐ Dr. Campbell in the UK for Tues. Jan. 12, 2021. 31:23 Update ‐ YouTube He said yesterday, or someone said, the following: In the Oxford vaccine trials, only 12% were over the age of 55, and they enrolled later in the trials. The only possible glitch re the Oxford vaccine I've heard of. So what to do as soon as Biden clears out the FDA and its vaccine advisory committee and gets the Oxford vaccine approved in the U.S.? I suggest giving the Oxford vaccine in the U.S. to persons under the age of 55 and giving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to persons above that age. We know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are effective on pts. over 55. We do NOT know that Oxford vaccine is not effective in those over 55, we just know that they were not well‐represented in the trials of the Oxford vaccine and that they enrolled later in the trials. Two items in the news in the U.S. today. 1) We are FINALLY, finally, requiring arrivals by air from the UK, I guess, and other places(?) to present evidence of having tested negative for Covid within some number of days of departure. By now both the Kent variant, for sure, in California, Florida, Colorado, New York and Texas, and the So. Africa variant, probably, are circulating in the U.S. due to the criminal stupidity of federal authorities in allowing flights from the UK and So. Africa into the U.S. since the variants were discovered. China barred flights outright from the UK as soon as the Kent variant was identified, at least two weeks ago. They barred flights from S. Africa about a week ago. No dicey test results permitted. Here is the U.S. State Department page saying that as of Dec. 28, 2020, persons arriving from the UK must provide evidence of having tested negative for Covid19 within three days of their departure from the UK: Dr. Campbell commented a few days ago that 72 hours is plenty of time to then get infected after having tested negative. So in they come with the Kent variant. We should bar all flights from the UK and from So. Africa. China did. COVID‐19 Information | U.S. Embassy & Consulates in the United Kingdom 2) Big news!!!!!!!! Finally, some common sense from the really big‐gun authorities in the U.S. re vaccine distribution. Secretary of HHS Azar, and that is a big‐gun authority, announced today that the federal government will release to the States all of its stockpile of Covid vaccines. None will be held back to be used as a second shot. This is what the UK has been doing, and I have stated the logic of that over and over in these mails. The feds are confident that we can produce enough vaccine to provide the second shots within the time frame when they will still be effictive. The Brits are saying 12 weeks is an OK time frame for that. Now we need another example of common sense and that will apparently require a good house‐cleaning of the FDA by Pres. Biden as soon as he lowers his right hand: Approve the Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine for use in the U.S.! It 25 has been in use in the UK for nine days now. Dr. Campbell expresses his utter disbelief in today's video at the stupidity of the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee in not even considering the Oxford vaccine at this point. I have cautioned repeatedly that anyone accepting bribes for keeping the Oxford vaccine out of the U.S. should expect to be charged criminally since their action is costing lives. I further recommend that they have a private jet ready to get them out of the country as soon as they are being investigated. The criminal charges might be the least of their problems if I know the American people. Keeping the Oxford vaccine out is killing some huge multiple of the number of people that the Manson gang killed. Now some things to note in Dr. Campbell's discussion today: At 11:00 minutes, It is now a race between the new variant‐ the Kent variant and the vaccines. At 12:00‐‐Why will the FDA not even comment on the Oxford vaccine? What is the delay? He can't believe it, and neither can I. Trump could earn some well‐needed points with the American people if he stepped in with the FDA here. Fly the British regulators over and have them tell him how they based their decision to approve the Oxfore vaccine for use in the UK. Have them tell that to Congress too, with good TV coverage. At 13:00 He lauds the decision to release all of the vaccine stockpile to the States by the feds now. Also, the feds now recommend that persons age 65 and over be given the vaccines now. This is a major change in tack, he says. At 23:00 he details the terrible situaton in Ireland and he uses that as a warning to the U.S. Ireland, BTW, is still part of the EU. The Kent variant is 55% more transmissible than the original Covid 19 virus. The U.S. is now in a crisis, he said yesterday. Yesterday the Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine people requested that the EU authorities authorize the use of their vaccine in the EU. The news said that those authorities may do so "as early as late January". Let them eat cake. At 27:00 he beats up good on Sweden! Stay home! Wear a mask, wash hands. Do social distancing. Avoid crowds. Lay into Congress via emails re the FDA delaying the Oxford vaccine for months into the future when people are dying in the parking lots of hospitals. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Heidi Yauman <heidi.yauman@outlook.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 9:39 PM To:Susan Davis Cc:Be Judged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. dear Susan Davis a man named Daniel found a pile of bones at Markham plaza and rhondi ophiem paid rent for the bones NI apartment 418 at 2010 Monterey road and they took the bones away in a bag and kept it a secret but Daniel toldpeple aBOUT The bones and investigators useD secret tape recorders and Special For ensic tools and tags fto mark things Down for what they mean and tracking why ky le got promoted to deputee county executive when vagobond inn attacks and fraud by Robert Rocco 2 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 7:16 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; vallesR1969@att.net; terry; leager; midge@thebarretts.com Subject:Fwd: B some Synopsis today. Opened way down, so I got it, then rose. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 4:37 PM Subject: Fwd: B some Synopsis today. Opened way down, so I got it, then rose. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 4:33 PM Subject: B some Synopsis today. Opened way down, so I got it, then rose. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Monday, January 11, 2021 To all‐ I B some Synopsys today, SNPS. It fell like a rock right at the open, my limit price was higher than the open, so my limit order executed. I paid $258.16 per share, the low for the day, and then the stock rose a little, giving me a small gain the first day I owned it. It c. at $260.50 today. Trade Notification ‐ Account ending in 130 ‐ loran.harding@alumni.stanford.edu ‐ Stanford Alumni Mail (google.com) 5 I have been watching SNPS for months. I paid $258.16 per share today. It closed at $227.50 on 11‐30‐20, for a gain since then of 14.5% in five weeks. WEEKS. It closed at $197 93 on Friday, Sept. 17, 2020, for a gain since then of 31.6% in four months. It closed at $189.6258 in mid‐July, for a gain of 33.36% in six months. It closed in March, 2020 at $104.90, for a gain of 75.42% in less than a year. That was after the crash in late February. I should have B then. Geez, 150 years of bank interest in less than a year. By today it became irresistable. SNPS is rated "B" by Schwab. Large cap‐ $40 billion mkt cap. Schwab is pretty stingy with "B" ratings. A narrow moat, better than no moat. No div. EPS $4.2599. No div. but plenty of earnings. Better than a large div,. and no earnings. Headquartered in Mountain View, Calif. Read on Schwab, et.al. about what they do. You won't rent space on Wednesday and go into competition with them. Here is their website. Plenty to look at there. A giant chip and software maker like Nvidia would know them well. If Nvidia has a future, then so does SNPS. BTW, I paid $204 per share for NVDA last March and it closed last Friday at $531.07, well over doubling in ten months. Synopsys | EDA Tools, Semiconductor IP and Application Security Solutions I foresee continuing great things for SNPS. I paid $57.443 per share for Square, SQ, on April 8, 2020. It closed last Friday at $241.45, an easy quadrupling of my investment nine months. Almost makes me feel guilty. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Bahram Atashband <bahram.atashband@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 7:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I am one of those people that council member Tanaka was talking about. My printed notice clearly says 250 Hamilton ave. At 6pm. I was at the doors of city hall from 5:55pm looking for an unlocked entry. Checking every entrance from garage to entrance on the surface. I intended to plead for exclusion but due to faulty communication, I failed. I don’t know when the other gentleman says “outreach” what is he referring to. I had no other communication from the city. The outreach was faulty from my standpoint. By the time I drove back home and got to watch the proceedings, the council was almost done with the matter. I congratulate council member Tanaka for his keen sense of reality and care. When only three people out of 119 object (and under abnormal situation) it should indicate a problem, the council failed to recognize. Bahram Atashband 443 Wilton Ave. Palo Alto 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 6:59 PM To:Council, City; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois Cc:Aram James Subject:Factual Backup to Dispute Pat Burt's out of order and ad hominem comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Pat: You spoke out of order at this meeting in order to discredit my research -- research which I already had vetted with numerous experts in the field. You spoke disrespectfully, attacking my character, which served in strong contrast to my criticisms - I criticized only your actions. When it comes to women, you inevitably attack character, having no actual wrongdoings to criticize. That is unprofessional and demonstrates an entrenched discriminatory attitude towards women -- an attitude backed also by your long record of pushing women out of leadership roles, like you have done with Alison Cormack, and failing to appoint women to leadership roles. Your bias is showing. In addition, despite the fact that this was your first "real" meeting as a city council member, your temper and need to attack the truth-teller was so strong that you spoke out of turn to attack me in the same unprofessional and unbecoming style that you have made famous. The fact that you could not go even a partial meeting without being able to restrain yourself from breaking the rules reflects your most common way of operating - out of control emotionally, and unable to follow very simple, fairly-applied rules - the same rules I adhered to when I followed the time limit and waited until I had an opportunity to speak. As an attorney for three decades and the daughter of a federal judge, I believe that rules serve a purpose. To see elected leadership act in disregard of the rules is something we all hoped to avoid in 2021. Please try to control your temper. Pat, you accused me of making claims that are unsubstantiated. I hope what I provide below shows a small portion of how well substantiated my claims are. They are so substantiated that I was willing to state these for the record. Pat, you are no environmentalist. Your company created 11 tons of unnecessary toxic waste and did not manage it. You created this waste just a few miles north of Palo Alto, in mostly Hispanic neighborhoods of Redwood City and San Carlos. I have personally visited these sites. Your accolades were a marketing sham of your own creation. You know well that metal plating is one of the most toxic industries on the planet. You said so on the public record when you drove your direct competitor out of Palo Alto, on the grounds that metal plating as an *industry* causes unmanageable pollution that should not be near residences. You may not have owned Acteron shares at the time that you drove CPI from Palo Alto, but did you have any interest in the company with which Acteron merged, Flextronics? Regardless, given the many millions of dollars that you made by operating a company that harmed our groundwater, especially those of the Hispanic factories that live near your plants, any reasonable person would expect you to mention this potential conflict when you led the campaign to drive a competitor out of town on toxic waste grounds. Finally, the information on the EPA website and elsewhere, only some of which is quoted below, makes it clear that you never even claimed to operate a clean company. You claimed to operate the most clean company that metal plating can be. You failed to mention that metal plating serves no economic, financial, industrial, or other purpose. The best you could say is that the 11 tons of deadly waste you dumped into the earth was LESS than any other company in an industry that was rendered obsolete decades ago. I do not applaud you. Warm regards, Rebecca Eisenberg rebecca@winwithrebecca.com www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg 415-235-8078 8 BACKUP SOURCES TOPLINE: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1009602.PDF?Dockey=P1009602.PDF RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION The EPA Report states that Acteron dumps 11 tons of hazardous waste into the environment a year And manages zero Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (defined below). BACKUP SOURCES. Burt’s Bio: https://ngn.org/channels/user/1278/ Patrick Burt School/Organization : |UNAFF|SwiftMile Inc.|Palo Alto Mayor| Title : Advisory Board Member Bio : Pat Burt has an extensive career as an entrepreneur, elected official and environmental policy advocate. He served for a decade as a city council member in Palo Alto, California and two terms as mayor. He led Palo Alto’s cutting-edge environmental initiatives, including their 100% carbon neutral electricity portfolio and leading Climate Action Plan. Pat founded and for over 20 years was CEO of Acteron, a prominent Silicon Valley provider of advanced technology manufacturing services, acquired by Flextronics in 2010. Pat served as an advisor on environmental policy at the regional, state and national levels. Subsequently, he was CEO of Vascular Access Technologies, acquired by Merit Medical, and was co-founder/CEO of Theradep Technologies. He is also an angel investor and an advisor to early stage companies. LOOKING AT ACTERON. Acteron has 2 facilities: (1) NXEDGE San Carlos (NOW FLEXTRONICS, the parent company): https://ofmpub.epa.gov/frs_public2/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000861023 Section 4. Facility Identification TRI Facility ID: 94070CTRNC1000C 4.1 Facility Name and Address. Facility Information If you scroll down, you do see that Pat Burt is creating tons of toxic waste. He claims he is treating it at his facility. There is reference to it entering the water. Most of the good stuff is at the bottom. And there are many places where he reports “Yes” but then “No data.” (Not a lot of enforcement by the EPA). It is unlikely that he broke the law. That said, the law allows for a HUGE amount of pollution and is very tolerant of risks to the surrounding communities, which in the case of Pat Burt — both of his facilities were located in majority-Latinx communities. This is his other facility: https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000784125 ACTERON CORP 851 SHASTA STREET, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 FRS ID: 110000784125 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 37.47907 Longitude: -122.22226 Locational Data Source: FRS Industry: Indian Country: N ACTERON INDUSTRY: METAL PLATING - CONSIDERED ONE OF THE MOST TOXIC OF ALL INDUSTRIES 9 This report gives a recent overview: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/metal-finishing_prelim-review_april-2018.pdf Key Takeaways: 1 - Metal plating creates huge amounts of toxic waste 2 - Metal plating creates so many different kinds of toxic waste that it exceeded the EPA’s budget to find out 3 - Almost all data is self-reported by the industry (and not double-checked) 4 - According to the EPA, almost no metal platers effectively treat their waste 5 - According to the EPA, it’s too expensive for the metal platers to treat their waste effectively 6 - Given the cost, rather than fund the cleanup or create payment plans, the EPA just lets them pollute (based on self- reports that it’s too expensive to comply with the law (sound familiar? Like how Palo Alto lets commercial developer avoid paying impact fees and also allows them to avoid building affordable housing) 7 - Obviously metal plating is extremely lucrative — Burt sold his company for a ton of money (I heard $30 million but that is not confirmed) and after that sale (per above), he diversified into real estate investment and venture capital. Given how much money this business made for Burt, query whether Acteron could not afford to clean up their toxic messes? 8 - To the extent that Pat Burt claims to have been one of the “best in the metal plating industry on environmental issues” that is like saying that he is the cleanest rat in the world’s most contaminated sewer. 9 - Query what kind of person chooses this industry - an industry known for its toxic waste. In Silicon Valley, home of the information industry, what kind of person chooses one of the most (if not the very most) toxicity-producing business? PAT BURT’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH A METAL PLATING COMPETITOR: https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/11/17/new-laws-could-force-cpi-out-of-palo-alto/ The City Council wanted to take action on CPI’s toxic waste. Burt is quoted as saying the following : "Councilman Pat Burt acknowledged that the council’s plan of action likely won’t sit well with either CPI or residents: The city is taking an aggressive approach that pushes the boundaries of what is legally permissible to reduce risk at the location more than any other time in the past 60 years, he said. Although CPI has reduced the volume of hazardous materials at the location, Burt said he still wouldn’t want to live next door." See also: https://patch.com/california/paloalto/toxic-showdown-at-city-hall - [ WHERE PAT BURT MAKES CLEAR THAT THE KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS HIS OWN COMPANY CREATES ARE FINE FOR THE HISPANICS WHO LIVE NEAR HIS FACILITY BUT NOT FINE FOR THE WHITE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR CPI -- Hence he even *introduced* the ordinance to get rid of his competitor in Palo Alto: Council Member Pat Burt introduced a motion calling on City staff to put together a budget and hire a consultant who will look at what options the City has for amortizing the plating facility. The motion passed unanimously with Mayor Yiaway Yeh absent. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/11/17/palo-alto-firms-up-rules-for-toxic-chemicals (council vote against CPI was unanimous, no one recused or abstaining) and https://www.thereporter.com/2016/03/01/palo-alto-cpis-metal-plating-shop-must-go-by-2031-council-decides/ (where Pat Burt successfully kicked his competitor out of Palo Alto, on the grounds that plating creates unacceptable health hazards for residents) TO NAVIGATE THE EPA WEBSITE, I RECOMMEND WATCHING THIS VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QQVJ6v53ZQ&feature=youtu.be RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION The EPA Report states that Acteron dumps 11 tons of hazardous waste into the environment a year 10 And manages zero https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1009602.PDF?Dockey=P1009602.PDF Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in partnership with the States1 , biennially collects information regarding the generation, management, and final disposition of hazardous wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended. The purpose of this 2009 National Biennial Report is to communicate the findings of EPA’s 2009 hazardous waste reporting data collection efforts to the public, government agencies, and the regulated community. The 2009 National Biennial Report consists of three volumes of data: • The National Analysis data presents a detailed look at waste-handling practices in the States, and largest facilities nationally, including (1) the quantity of waste generated, managed, shipped, and received, and interstate shipments and receipts, and (2) the number of generators and managing facilities, • The State Detail Analysis data is a detailed look at each State’s waste handling practices, including overall totals for generation, management, shipments, and receipts, as well as totals for the largest fifty facilities, and • The List of Reported RCRA Sites identifies every hazardous waste facility in the United States that submitted a hazardous waste report in 2009. RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE Throughout this Report, the term RCRA hazardous waste refers to solid waste assigned a Federal Hazardous Waste Code and regulated by RCRA. Some States elect to regulate wastes not specifically regulated by EPA; these wastes are assigned State Hazardous Waste Codes. For this Report, EPA asked States to exclude data for waste with only State Hazardous Waste Codes (the waste description does not include any Federal Hazardous Waste Codes). The reader can find a more detailed explanation in the RCRA Orientation Manual (www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/pubs/orientat/index.htm) and in the Code of Federal Regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261. Please refer to Appendix D of the National Analysis Report for a complete list of EPA Hazardous Waste Codes used by the regulated community for their 2009 Biennial Report submissions. Details about the information submitted by the regulated community can be found in the 2009 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms (www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm). Guidance provided to the regulated community regarding information to include or exclude from the National Report can be found in Appendix E of the National Analysis Report. CAR000014126 ACTERON CORPORATION SAN CARLOS 11 RCRA Tons Generated 0 RCRA Tons Managed https://www.lion.com/lion-news/july-2017/epa-may-delist-electroplating-sludge-from-rcra-haz What is Electroplating? Used since the 1800’s, electroplating is the process by which manufacturers add a layer of metal to a product, like jewelry, using electricity. In essence, the product is placed in an electrolyte bath with the plating metal, with both connected to charged electrodes. An electric current is applied, oxidizing and effectively dissolving the metal atoms in the bath. The dissolved metal is then reduced and placed on the piece. While on City Council made fellow plating company CPI move: https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/23/palo-alto-cpi-must-move-metal-plating-shop-by-2026-or-close/ PALO ALTO — A settlement agreement leaves Communications & Power Industries with two options for the future of its metal plating shop, which has been a safety concern of nearby residents for years. The agreement, which City Council members approved Monday, allows CPI to continue using non-conforming hazardous materials integral to its plating shop at 811 Hansen Way as long as it moves the shop to an area of its property at least 300 feet away from the nearest homes in the Barron Park neighborhood. If CPI chooses to relocate the plating shop and associated chemical storage area to another part of the property, it must establish the new building by 2026 or face an injunction to cease operations. City officials and residents have said they would rather see CPI stop using such hazardous altogether on its property or anywhere else in the city. 11 If CPI agrees to do so, it can keep operating the plating shop as its current location until 2031 and then must stop using the non-conforming hazardous materials anywhere within city limits. CPI has until Dec. 31, 2021 to notify the city which option it chooses. CPI President Bob Fickett has said that moving the plating shop 300 feet from homes would add “non-efficiencies and take away our competitiveness.” And phasing out the hazardous materials essentially would shutter the entire operation, he added. Resident Art Liberman urged the council to approve the agreement. “While we residents, understandably, are not entirely thrilled with the settlement, we will now have the assurance that the ‘clock is ticking’ on the presence of the toxic and highly toxic materials in CPI’s plating shop near our homes, and that brings us significant comfort,” Liberman said in an email to city officials. Residents’ safety concerns stem from an accidental release of nitric acid gas in 2005 and a hydrochloric acid and copper- and nickel-infused wastewater spill in 2008. Email Jacqueline Lee at jlee1@dailynewsgroup.com or call her at 650-391-1334; follow her at twitter.com/jleenews. https://p2infohouse.org/ref/32/31534.pdf In the file - a report about his toxic waste dumping https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1009602.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru+2010&D ocs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMo nth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10 %5CTxt%5C00000022%5CP1009602.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C- &MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage= x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x &ZyPURL https://www.purchasingnetwork.com/doc/acteron-corporation-0001 CEO Acteron Corporation Acteron Corporation. As the leading supplier of specialty plating and anodizing for high technology applications, Acteron is qualified to surpass your most exacting requirement. ... Our new 30,000 square foot state-of-the- art facility located in Silicon Valley includes computer controlled anodizing. Company Profile | March 14, 2001 Acteron Corporation Source: Acteron Corporation As the leading supplier of specialty plating and anodizing for high technology applications, Acteron is qualified to surpass your most exacting requirement. For over 15 years, we have responded to the need for rigid quality control plating and anodizing which exceeds military and commercial specifications. Our new 30,000 square foot state-of-the-art facility located in Silicon Valley includes computer controlled anodizing. We have developed unique and innovative proprietary processes for your critical applications. These processes enhance product value by improving life and performance while reducing costs. Acteron's Total Quality Management approach incorporates Statistical Process Control throughout. https://www.themetalmark.com/content/what-difference-between-plating-anodizing-and-enameling https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/custom-manufacturing-fabricating/anodizing-environmental/ The process of anodizing with a sulfuric acid bath produces two byproducts: degraded sulfuric acid and aluminum hydroxide. Aluminum hydroxide is a compound of aluminum from the anodized part, and hydrogen and oxygen from the acid. Classified by the EPA as hazardous, aluminum hydroxide wastewater cannot simply be dumped into a municipal wastewater system. The EPA has strict standards for the highest allowable aluminum concentration level upon disposal; degraded sulfuric acid must also be neutralized before disposal to a ph of between six and eight. 12 Through give and take between the industry and the EPA, the EPA sets up guidelines and standards called Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). BAT standards are then mandated for waste disposal. Some very innovative solutions to waste management have since been introduced that not only reduce the waste that needs disposal, but also reclamation and recycling of the aluminum metal itself. https://www.pfonline.com/articles/is-your-electroplating-waste-hazardous Processing of hazardous waste that contains precious metals is a challenge and responsibility that many electroplating companies face. Cyanide- and acid-based solutions, and materials such as plating bath filters and resins, all have the potential to cause injury and harm to our environment if not disposed of properly. Many companies may not realize that they are liable for how their precious-metal-bearing waste is handled and, ultimately, for the repercussions if a spill or similar incident were to occur. Because of the inherent risks associated with the processing of hazardous waste, a comprehensive processing plan is essential to protect the environment and individuals handling the materials, and to avoid potential fines or lawsuits. https://waste.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212352857 Wastes - Frequent Questions Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Identification The hazardous waste listing for F006 includes wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations. What types of electroplating operations are included in this listing? The F006 listing includes the wastewater treatment sludges from the following processes: (1) common and precious metals electroplating, except tin, zinc (segregated basis), aluminum and zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (2) anodizing, except sulfuric anodizing of aluminum; (3) chemical etching and milling, except when performed on aluminum; and (4) cleaning and stripping, except when associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel. Accordingly, the following processes are not included under the F006 listing: chemical conversion coating, electroless plating and printed circuit board manufacturing. However, wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board manufacturing that include any of the processes which are within the scope of the F006 listing (e.g., chemical etching) would be regulated as a F006 waste. Electroplating operations do not include electrowhinning and electrofinishing, electroless plating, chemical conversion coating, and printed circuit board manufacturing (51 FR 43350; December 2, 1986). Also, wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum are listed as F019 hazardous waste. See FR 43350, 43551: December 2, 1986. Additional guidance regarding the applicability of the F006 listing is available in the following documents: Memo, Dellinger to Zirch; February 12, 2004 (RCRA Online #14691) Memo, Bussard to Pucci; August 18, 1998 (RCRA Online #14482) Monthly Call Center Report Questions; June 1997 (RCRA Online #14108) Memo, Bussard to Dufour, January 21; 1997 (RCRA Online #14017) Memo, Shapiro to Rhodes; July 12, 1994 (RCRA Online #11851) Memo, Lowrance to Duprey; January 15, 1992 (RCRA Online #11663) Memo, Clay to Schafer; June 7, 1991 (RCRA Online #14322) Memo, Lowrance to Hopkins; August 15, 1990 (RCRA Online #11551) Memo, Barnes to Evans; August 21, 1989 (RCRA Online #11458) Memo, Lowrance to Meeks; April 14, 1988 (RCRA Online #11340) Memo, Williams to Lovgren; January 11, 1988 (RCRA Online #11315) Memo, Straus to Schiffman; July 28, 1987 (RCRA Online #11269) Memo, Abrams to Duncan; May 5, 1987 (RCRA Online #11244) These documents are available at the following URL: https://rcrapublic.epa.gov/rcraonline https://www.triumvirate.com/blog/the-sludgy-semantics-of-f006-waste-characterization 13 F006 Isn't Just About Electroplating, Here's Why You Should Double Check the Rule to Ensure Compliance POSTED BY PAT DOYLE DECEMBER 1, 2015 The RCRA F006 rule provides a list of exceptions to wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations (40 CFR 260.11). The list exempts sulfuric acid anodizing or tin-plating of steel, among other chemicals. This rule does a great job of explaining what is not F006 waste, but is pretty vague in regards to what is indeed covered under the F006 rule. Larger definitions of electroplating include any process that coats a metal in another metal, usually by chemical and electrical means according to the EPA definition. This seems straightforward enough, but this broad definition of electroplating might cover more processes than you think. Many businesses in the metal treating, finishing, and processing fields are subject to this regulation, even those that might not explicitly be involved in electroplating by common definitions. Overlooking or ignoring this regulation and subsequent improper disposal of waste can land you in hot water with the EPA, and can lead to fines if it's found you are out of compliance. In addition, waste that fits under this regulation is typically designated for special processing to recover the metals in that waste, and your business could benefit from certain compliance incentives if you can show the EPA that you're properly dealing with this waste. Here are some other processes that aren't electroplating by some definitions, but still generate waste which falls under the umbrella of F006: Alkaline Surface Cleaning Zinc Plating on Carbon Steel using Cyanides Zinc Plating on Gray Cast Iron Iron Plating on Aluminum PreCleaning activities prior to electroplating Ion-exchange resins from rinsewater treatment (assuming F006 precursor) Photoresist Stripping Cleaning and Stripping in the printing industry Bright Dipping Silicon water etching Spent Activated Carbon from rinse water treatment (assuming F006 precursor) If any of these processes occur onsite and the wastewater from the process is treated in a wastewater treatment system, then sludge from this treatment would be regulated under F006. Whether or not you can characterize your waste as F006 will determine how much you can keep onsite at a time, how you are required to dispose of this waste, and what kinds of provisions you are required to implement in order to stay compliant, like an additional level of pollution control or waste processing, for example. Proper characterization of your waste also helps your receiving facility deal with it in a way that is safe and environmentally conscious, ensuring they will continue to accept your waste rather than rejecting it because it hasn't been properly characterized. As a general rule of thumb, it is always better to over-code your waste system than risk overlooking an important regulation for a specific type of waste. One way to ensure compliance without completely restructuring your waste management plan is to minimize or eliminate generation of F006 if at all possible. A couple of ideas for minimizing or eliminating your F006 waste and being able to bypass these regulations are: Cleaning and drying your electroplated or etched components in a separate step to eliminate contaminants being carried into the waste water treatment system. If your company only generates low levels of these contaminants, you might be eligible to get your F006 de-listed or the requirement for 'timely removal' eased. Click the link below to learn more about how we can help you achieve 100% wastewater compliance. Case not closed 14 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 6:52 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City Subject:council efficiency CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I support the concept of early 5pm council meetings with a provision that special issues such as leading non-profit organizations can deliver concise reports on their activities. Investment of limited, but productive council time during the course of a year will create time efficiency and public understanding for mutual benefit of these organizations and citizens. I would like to nominate a topic which could expedite true affordable housing in Palo Alto. True affordable housing faces high hurdles. One of those hurdles is lack of funds for construction and operating expenses. Another hurdle is community acceptance of sites for this housing. This region has two positive forces in greater play now. First is philanthropic support. The potential for greater support is very high. The second force is the wealth of proven affordable housing developers and operators. I propose that City Manager and Mayor select expert affordable housing operators and "funders" to present semi-annual regional successes in process, outcomes and hurdles to overcome. This knowledge delivered by a series of proven, expert "hand-on" leaders could frame affordable housing very favorably to the general public. I believe success is contagious. Attached is a link to one of several organizations which can highlight new flows of capital which have been so challenging in the past. A pdf document is attached. Noni Ramos ready to embrace challenging times ahead as new Housing Trust CEO - San José Spotlight Noni Ramos ready to embrace challenging times ahead as new Housing Trust... Noni Ramos has some pretty big shoes to fill — and that may be the least of the challenges facing her. Ramos is ... 15 Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 16 Baumb, Nelly From:ANDREA B SMITH <andreabsmith@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 6:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:weed abatement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ The “gardeners” were allowed to return in April 2020 so the people who were not mowing their lawn could have borrowed a lawn mower from a neighbor or even rented one. unles they were so old and crippled. So, those people who got a citation May 1 should pay their fine. I did my gardening during that time. Andrea Smith AGE: 79 1/2 years old 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Cari Templeton <cari@caritempleton.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 4:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Street safety improvements to crosswalk on Middlefield at Walgreens CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. January 11, 2021 Dear Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, and honored Council Members, Although I am Chair of the Planning and Transportation Commission, I am writing tonight in my personal capacity to advocate for safety improvements to the crosswalk on Middlefield at Walgreens in Midtown. Last Friday, a boy was struck by a vehicle that did not stop for the red light while he was using the crosswalk, and the force of the car threw his body into the street, causing painful injuries from which he is thankfully expected to heal physically. I have known this boy and his family for over 10 years now, and they are a loving, vibrant part of our community. It’s painful to imagine what they have gone through and what they will go through over the coming months as they recover both physically and emotionally. Having experienced a collision on my home street a few years back, I know it will be a long time before they feel safe on our streets again. When my two children and I were hit by another car while we were driving to school, the one thing that gave me solace after the incident was the speed with which safety improvements were implemented by the City at the site of the collision. I am here tonight to encourage City leadership to consider urgent safety improvements at the site of this accident, too: Middlefield at Walgreens. Upon reaching out to Staff on Friday, I learned that visibility is a known issue at this site, especially this time of year when the sun is at a certain angle. Due to COVID related staffing issues, we do not yet have the exact collision history or statistics. Staff said that it would be most helpful if we report the incident through the Palo Alto 311 service so that we can track it, which I have done (#9360804). As of today, 30 comments have been added by members of the public who shared their anecdotes, near‐misses, concerns, ideas, and support for improvements to this site. Many of you campaigned on improving street safety, and that’s why I am confident that you will be allies in this endeavor to make shopping at Midtown by foot and by bike safer as soon as possible. Staff has the expertise and experience to advise the City on how best to address the visibility issues on this site, including how to account for visibility during winter light, a phenomenon that happens yearly. I’d also like to thank members of the community who aided this young man during the incident, and everyone who has taken the time and effort to share their experiences so that together we can make Palo Alto a little safer for our children. Sincerely, Cari Templeton 18 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 12:48 PM To:Evan Wasserman Cc:SCSC Roundtable; Chris Sequeira; Steven Alverson; Council, City Subject:Re: SCSC Roundtable - GBAS Information - Soliciting comments and questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear all, I would like to add some further references to JO 7100.41A, "dot 41" please see the following: Video replay of FAA presentation on procedure implementation and dot 41 June 2019 https://youtu.be/vOHVhSJsDu0?t=1546 Note that at the beginning of the presentation Favi refers to the Phase Two report to the Select Committee. Phase Two (Page 8) report is the first time we were given this info. The second time we were given info was in a presentation by FAA Julie Marks (joined at that meeting by the head of Airports). We reported on that meeting in this Sky Posse Update The Sky Posse March 2018 Update - Special Edition. BTW - at the 2018 FAA presentation to communities, I spoke with the head of airports and Julie and shared that this information has apparently not reached our area (others also said this is not working this way), and the airports person committed to let airports know. I believe the name of the person from airports whom I spoke with is Elliot Black. Thank you, Jennifer On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 16:28, Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Evan, SCSC, Steve, Chris, Thank you for soliciting input as the SCSC prepares to do outreach to SFO about GBAS. I have submitted various comments and questions which I hope will be considered. 11/19/20 GBAS Follow Up 12/15/20 GBAS and Environmental Review I have two additional questions 19 1) Will the eventual answers from SFO be discussed with Raquel Girvin who in her role as Ombudsman (pursuant to FAA Reauthorization 2018) should be facilitating answers and help us with our concerns? The most important answers we need of course is how the FAA declared a CATEX (if that is confirmed) ‐ we need to know everything, what calculations were used, methodology, and assumptions. Who and what informed that decision. 2) What role does the airport have in the JO 7100.41A process? Am sharing a video replay of my question to SFO at the SF Roundtable about this back in February 0f 2018. February 7, 2018 public comment on transparency and role of airport in JO 7100.41A? Again, thank you and wishing all Happy Holidays! Jennifer On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 18:47, Evan Wasserman <EWasserman@esassoc.com> wrote: Dear SCSC Roundtable Members and Interested Parties, On behalf of SCSC Roundtable Chairperson Bernald, and as discussed at the SCSC Roundtable Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting on 12/15/2020, the following information is being provided as a notification to SCSC Roundtable members, and members of the public regarding the use of the Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) procedure at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). This material on GBAS may be of interest to member jurisdictions of the SCSC Roundtable for future consideration as additional information becomes available. Please submit any comments or questions to the SCSC Roundtable regarding clarification from SFO on GBAS. The SCSC Roundtable will then submit to SFO. Please provide your comments and questions to the scscroundtable@gmail.com email address by Wednesday 12/23 for review and incorporation into a consolidated list of questions to be sent to SFO. The following information is being provided for your reference regarding GBAS. The link below is to the GBAS presentation given at the TWG of the SFO Roundtable on October 7, 2020. The video of the GBAS presentation can be found at this link starting approximately at video timestamp 1:10:50. For your information we suggest all members and interested parties to please review the recording of the presentation. Additional info is available on the SFO Community Roundtable website with a video recording from the November 19, 2020 meeting, and agenda materials. The GBAS presentation starts at approximately the 00:9:10 mark of the video timestamp and continues until about 01:33:30. Again, we suggest all members and interested parties to please review the materials/recording of these presentations for reference. 20 Thank you, Evan Wasserman Senior Associate - Community Development Group ESA | Environmental Science Associates Celebrating 50 Years of Work that Matters! 2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 main 916.231.1166 direct EWasserman@esassoc.com | esassoc.com Follow us on LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Vimeo 21 Baumb, Nelly From:alfaro.nancy@gmail.com Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 11:56 AM Cc:barcomm@calbar.ca.gov; Sbutler@calstrs.com; CRapolla@calstrs.com; WShuckell@calstrs.com; stong@calstrs.com; CAilman@calstrs.com; JDiedesch@calstrs.com; Atran@calstrs.com; mtoepel@calstrs.com; vchitchakkol@ci.irvine.ca.us; vbeatley@sealbeachca.gov; smontano@newportbeachca.gov; smontano@newportbeach.ca.gov; mmatsumoto@pico-rivera.org; Jeremy.Wolfson@ladwp.com; Fiona.Ma@treasurer.ca.gov; Ben.Meng@calpers.ca.gov; Jason.Perez@calpers.ca.gov; Lisa.Middleton@calpers.ca.gov; Erania.Ortega@calpers.ca.gov; Mona.PasquilRogers@gov.ca.gov; Mona.PasquilRogers@spb.ca.gov; Kselenski@sto.ca.gov; InvestorRelations@treasurer.ca.gov; Fiona.Ma@treasurer.ca.gov; Audrey.Noda@treasurer.ca.gov; Christina.SARRON@treasurer.ca.gov; Frank.Ruffino@treasurer.ca.gov; Frank.Moore@treasurer.ca.gov; Gloria.Li@treasurer.ca.gov; Gloria.Pulido@treasurer.ca.gov; Genevieve.Jopanda@treasurer.ca.gov; Judith.Blackwell@treasurer.ca.gov; Jovan.Agee@treasurer.ca.gov; Kristin.Szakaly@treasurer.ca.gov; Kathryn.Asprey@treasurer.ca.gov; Kasey.O'Connor@treasurer.ca.gov; Mark.Desio@treasurer.ca.gov; Noah.Starr@treasurer.ca.gov; Robert.Berry@treasurer.ca.gov; Seth.Doulton@treasurer.ca.gov; Tracey.Paine@treasurer.ca.gov; Tim.Schaefer@treasurer.ca.gov; inspectorgeneral@cpsoig.org; auditorgen@paauditor.gov; budget@pa.gov; RA-ethicsRTKL@pa.gov; Office of the CIO; Council, City; Yang, Albert; Patel, Raj; Auzenne, Tom Subject:Fwd: Herbalife Nutrition 7/25/2019 - Herbalife Summary 8.26.2019 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Warning to all: Refer to the below email trail. Only arrogant idiots would overlook or attempt to disregard numerous emails documenting [AS 3 ‐ Audit documentation standards, SOX] hitting IT systems and interfaces around the world. While the political circus in DC continues, so does an Audit an intelligence operation. Warning: only idiots would attempt to dismiss that elite lawyers inside/outside the DOJ and the SEC colluding to circumvent all oversight of US corporations and the crippled the entire US legal system in the process [Encroached in Auditors turf]. Let me guess..... why would the DOJ or supreme court (lawyers) would be engaging in bureaucratic red tape to delay and disregard actual investigations and real crimes. Auditors not lawyers would be the ones to confirm there was electoral fraud. I am a fraud Auditor and I am stating writing there not only was fraud, but the crimes are called Treason, Genocide and Domestic Terrorism. Regards, Nancy Begin forwarded message: From: "." <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com> Date: January 11, 2021 at 2:44:12 AM PST Cc: urgent‐action@ohchr.org, quejas@cdhcm.org.mx, cdhm@tlachinollan.org, cdhdf@cdhcm.org.mx, 22 contacto@senadomorena.com, SINDICATO@senado.gob.mx, sectec.despacho@michoacan.gob.mx, manuel.valencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx, pgjecomsoc@michoacan.gob.mx, silvanoaureoles@michoacan.gob.mx, Marco.Lagunas@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx, comunicacionesytransportes@senado.gob.mx, transparencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx, transparenciamorelia@morelia.gob.mx, gobiernodemorelia@morelia.gob.mx, fiscalgeneral@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, FOM.2@hotmail.com, Fiscal@morelia.fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, SINDICATO@senado.gob.mx, derechos.arco@funcionpublica.gob.mx, sectec_segob@michoacan.gob.mx, denuncialosaqui@ssedomex.gob.mx, hacienda@senado.gob.mx, justicia@senado.gob.mx, marina@senado.gob.mx, contacto@senadomorena.com, SINDICATO@senado.gob.mx, transparencia@senado.gob.mx, sindicato1969.transparencia@senado.gob.mx, gobernacion@senado.gob.mx, anticorrupcion@senado.gob.mx, justicia@senado.gob.mx, puntosconstitucionales@senado.gob.mx, derechoshumanos@senado.gob.mx, asuntosindigenas@senado.gob.mx, ninezyadolescencia@senado.gob.mx, salud@senado.gob.mx, comsegsocial@senado.gob.mx, educacion@senado.gob.mx, trabajoyprevision@senado.gob.mx, reformaagraria@senado.gob.mx, agriculturayganaderia@senado.gob.mx, energia@senado.gob.mx, hacienda@senado.gob.mx, GobiernoMichoacan2.0@gmail.com, asuntosfronterizos@senado.gob.mx, economia@senado.gob.mx, crpp@senado.gob.mx, defensanacional@senado.gob.mx, seguridadpublica@senado.gob.mx, seguridad.nacional@diputados.gob.mx, webmaster@semar.gob.mx, webmaster@congreso.gob.mx, cni@cni.gob.mx, derechos.arco@funcionpublica.gob.mx Subject: Fwd: Herbalife Nutrition 7/25/2019 ‐ Herbalife Summary 8.26.2019 Begin forwarded message: From: "." <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com> Date: January 11, 2021 at 2:42:25 AM PST To: Sebastian Barragan <sbarragan@aristeguinoticias.com>, redaccion@aristeguinoticias.com, Marc Wells <wells@wsws.org>, WikiL <courage.contact@couragefound.org>, Norissa@socialism2020.org, joe@socialism2020.org, careyshenkman@riseup.net, courage.contact@couragefound.org, transportandoamichoacan@live.com, periodicooficial@michoacan.gob.mx, buzon@poderjudicialmichoacan.gob.mx, newsdesk@afr.com, news@thelocal.it, autoworkers@wsws.org, sep@socialistequality.com, WorldsApart@rttv.ru, charles@russia‐insider.com, moderator@russia‐insider.com, Comercializacion@telesurtv.net, Albinocm6502@gmail.com, JuanJosedelCastillo@gmail.com, Borderlinebeat@gmail.com, Charropoliticoenvivo@gmail.com, Conexiononline1@hotmail.com, talk@npr.org, tips@zerohedge.com, radio@sputniknews.com, mediapartners@sputniknews.com, media@sputniknews.com, Christine.s.Richard@gmail.com, Aaron.Greenspan@plainsite.org, Digital@thenation.com, Ryan.Gallagher@theintercept.com, USinfo@theguardian.com, news@sky.com, kfsndesk@abc.com, kwalsh@kmaxtv.com, newsdesk@cbs47.tv, jcain@scng.com, Tabby.kinder@ft.com, Dan.mccrum@ft.com, tips@nypost.com, tips@propublica.org, joaquin.sapien@propublica.org, Alec.MacGillis@propublica.org, david.mcswane@propublica.org, Robert.Faturechi@propublica.org, Sebastian.Rotella@propublica.org, pamela.colloff@propublica.org, Pscaritas@iglesiacr.org, caritas@caritas.org.au, secretary@caritas.ru, caritas.Iran@gmail.com, caritas.info@caritas‐sy.com, caritas.iraq2015@gmail.com, Comunicacion.on@caritasnicaragua.com.ni, info@caritasvenezuela.org, Questions@caritas.org.au, caritasvenezuela@gmail.com, pscb@caritasbolivia.org, info@caritaselsalvador.org.sv, info@caritasecuador.org, caritas@pastoralcaritaspanama.org, administration@caritascyprus.org, caritaslac@caritas.org.ar, comisionacional@caritas.org.ar, info@caritas.org.lb, 23 executive@caritas.org.lb, caritas_de_honduras@caritas.hn, secretaria@communication‐caritashaiti.org, headoffice@caritasjordan.org.jo, direccion1@ceps.org.mx, snpscol@cec.org.coc, secretariaejecutiva@caritas.gt, caritasnorthamerica@gmail.com, info@caritas‐europa.org, caritasoceania@gmail.com, asiacaritas@caritas.asia, coord@caritas‐africa.org, info@devp.org, info@crs.org, info@catholiccharitiesusa.org, caritas.internationalis@caritas.va, postmaster@caritas.org.pe, secretaria@caritasuruguaya.org.uy, cep.pastoralsocialnacional@gmail.com, pscarcr@racsa.co.cr, caritas@caritas.org.br, caritasantilles@aocslu.org, bishoptripoli@gmail.com, cariteg@link.net, secretaire@caritas.mr, directeur@caritas.mr, caritas.djibouti@gmail.com, caritassomalia@gmail.com, caritasmig@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: Herbalife Nutrition 7/25/2019 ‐ Herbalife Summary 8.26.2019 Los Refiero al correo al calce. Con exception de las partes con texto recalcado o ᎆᎇ El texto no el correo no ha sido modificado. Les hago notar la fecha del correo. Les reitero que un Auditor Publico no es un reportero, abogado o burócrata. Yo no estoy haciendo algo fuera de donde yo soy la experta global o estoy perdiendo el tiempo quejándome de tonterías. Estar alegando entre abogados, dando opiniones secretas, espiado y saboteando mis comunicaciones haciéndose pasar por los inteligentes u los expertos en entender y manejar riesgos para beneficio propio y otra que este documentado [AS ‐3 Audit Evidence Documentation Standards. Leyes Federales Sarbanes ‐Oxley, PCAOB). Como he mencionado en varios correos en el el proceso de globalizacion y estandarización se convirtieron las empresas corporativas en copias exactas en varios procesos i.e. esquemas para evasion de impuestos, lavado de dinero, desfalcar al erario publico, pensiones, etc. Ojo con el lenguaje que uso Replica Companies = Copy Cat Corporate Structure Empresas replica = copias fotostaticas de structuras corporativas Systemic Material Weakness in internal controls = Significan System vulnerabilities in IT systems and infrastructure Yo no estoy negando las cosas, o que soy parte del gobierno global. Lo que esta ocurriendo con los ejecutivos altamente educados, crema y nata de silicon valley que viven en el edificio de San Francisco donde esta el problema relacionado al seguro con mi propiedad me apena hasta a mi misma. Ojo somos los Carteles de contadores y abogados elite quienes les vendemos copias fotostaicas de las mismas "estrategias y servicios" que se desarrollan en Walmart u otras empresas a Herbalife, Uber etc. y nivel global y manejan el sistema global. El esquema de la condonación de impuestos = evasión de impuestos Nadie que lava dinero va a reportar impuestos. Estarian delatando sus crimenes. 24 La evidencia es publica y les recuerdo que publique la clave/password a esta cuenta de correo electrónico el cual contiene documentos, investigaciones y correos con este tipo de conversaciones no solo acerca de Herbalife. Ojo con el lenguaje que utilizo en correo al calce. No les vaya a explotar en la cara como el ataque cibernético masivo a los sistemas de instituciones de govierno y privadas de USA e Israel.... o el desplome de un avión Boeing en Indonesia. Les recuerdo que Walmart resolvio su investigacion en Agosto del 2019, la firma de abogados Irell & Manella, LLP se desbarato en Septiembre del 2019, Las autoridades financieras admitieron que existia un problema systemic en Septiembre del 2019, La SEC y otros reguladores abrieron una investigaciones en Septiembre y Octubre, Me destruyeron la propiedad de San Francisco el 23 de Octubre, etc.... Slds, Nancy Alfaro Begin forwarded message: From: Nancy Alfaro <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com> Date: August 26, 2019 at 6:33:49 PM PDT To: Julia Bailey <juliaba@herbalife.com> Cc: Henry Wang <henryw@herbalife.com>, Patti Sabel <patti@herbalife.com>, jlinder@irell.com Subject: Herbalife Nutrition 7/25/2019 Dear Julia, First of all, happy anniversary. Is been a year since we came to a stand still on one of the most significant FCPA violations related to whistleblowers on the Mexican VAT tax audits which resulted on: 1) significant tax assessments in Mexico going back to 2005; 2) lobbying of Mexican Tax Officials to overturn HB’s the legal cases pending in the supreme court and 300 other legal VAT cases pending just in Mexico; 3) international money flows through HB’s offshore structures to the intermediaries secretly lobbying Senior Mexican Tax Officials and ultimately president PenaNieto; 4) the web of advisors structuring and facilitating the international money flows for such payments; 5) IT systems/entity work to avoid a)detection by the Mexican Tax Authorities and b) impacting the Mexican “budget” (segment reporting) on SEC filings. I believe HB’s primary focus has been to avoid discussing not just the FCPA violations inadvertently disclosed to me by Veronica Orijuela, Mexico’s Regulatory Affairs, with respect to the JV’s, Nutrition clubs and MoH, which was a similar scheme just disclosed on SEC filings about the ongoing SEJ/DOJ/Others investigations in China. 25 Before Herbalife, Ms. Orijuela was the Mexican IRS sub‐secretary‐ VAT, custom taxes. She is the Sister in law of the campaign manager that was running Meade PRI (presidential campaign), which President Obrador won. Veronica’s sister in law was also running and won a Senate position starting 2019 in addition to having direct access to president former PenaNieto. Mr. Riley, SVP Internal Audit, and Jarrell were present at the meetings where the secrecy around how Mrs. Orijuela was hired was discussed, the vendors that HB had engaged and that had structured a similar tax scheme for Walmart was also discussed. Mexican Executives discussed having brought up the issues to both CEO’s and being dismissed. Mr Riley was also present when the issues around customs tax problems were discussed. Mr. Riley kept dismissing significant red flags in the first two days of my fieldwork. There was an earnings call the third day of fieldwork. Mr. Riley and I discussed my previous experience working on companies where Mr. Icahn had a significant investment and typical exit strategies, which HB had announced prior to the earnings call. The above matters became the background of the work that culminated with US Senior executives whistleblowing, specifically, SVP of internal audit allegations against Henry, Mark, both CEO’s and “every one” else knowing about it too. Unfortunately, my work at HB is now conflicting with other projects in my industry. I have shared and discussed the situation around this matters, IT systems, internal audit reports, memos, e‐mails, invoices, entities and payments that were provided to me and other specific items with relevant EY National Executives/EY’s legal counsel given my involvement with entities that are impacted by this matter. I intend to work with Ernst & Young on this matter given other work I am engaged in with them. I have been forthcoming about my concerns that Herbalife’s approach to my work impacting my clients in the private equity or government projects.ᎆᎇᎆᎇ I have also been forthcoming about my understanding of PE’s offshore entity structuring, fraud investigations and specifically my familiarity with the Mexican culture around bribery and corruption. EY should be able to elaborate on my continuous focus on worldwide tax issues, systems and my involvement in training the Mexican Tax Authorities. The issue remains the negotiation of a severance package and the correction of my employment records at Herbalife. [READ: Whistle‐ blower is Non‐negotiable] 26 Regards, Nancy Initial Recipients [This section was added on January 11, 2021] sbarragan@aristeguinoticias.com, redaccion@aristeguinoticias.com, wells@wsws.org, courage.contact@couragefound.org, Norissa@socialism2020.org, joe@socialism2020.org, careyshenkman@riseup.net, courage.contact@couragefound.org, transportandoamichoacan@live.com, periodicooficial@michoacan.gob.mx, buzon@poderjudicialmichoacan.gob.mx, newsdesk@afr.com, news@thelocal.it, autoworkers@wsws.org, sep@socialistequality.com, WorldsApart@rttv.ru, charles@russia‐insider.com, moderator@russia‐insider.com, Comercializacion@telesurtv.net, Albinocm6502@gmail.com, JuanJosedelCastillo@gmail.com, Borderlinebeat@gmail.com, Charropoliticoenvivo@gmail.com, Conexiononline1@hotmail.com, talk@npr.org, tips@zerohedge.com, radio@sputniknews.com, mediapartners@sputniknews.com, media@sputniknews.com, Christine.s.Richard@gmail.com, Aaron.Greenspan@plainsite.org, Digital@thenation.com, Ryan.Gallagher@theintercept.com, USinfo@theguardian.com, news@sky.com, kfsndesk@abc.com, kwalsh@kmaxtv.com, newsdesk@cbs47.tv, jcain@scng.com, Tabby.kinder@ft.com, Dan.mccrum@ft.com, tips@nypost.com, tips@propublica.org, joaquin.sapien@propublica.org, Alec.MacGillis@propublica.org, david.mcswane@propublica.org, Robert.Faturechi@propublica.org, Sebastian.Rotella@propublica.org, pamela.colloff@propublica.org, Pscaritas@iglesiacr.org, caritas@caritas.org.au, secretary@caritas.ru, caritas.Iran@gmail.com, caritas.info@caritas‐sy.com, caritas.iraq2015@gmail.com, Comunicacion.on@caritasnicaragua.com.ni, info@caritasvenezuela.org, Questions@caritas.org.au, caritasvenezuela@gmail.com, pscb@caritasbolivia.org, info@caritaselsalvador.org.sv, info@caritasecuador.org, caritas@pastoralcaritaspanama.org, administration@caritascyprus.org, caritaslac@caritas.org.ar, comisionacional@caritas.org.ar, info@caritas.org.lb, executive@caritas.org.lb, caritas_de_honduras@caritas.hn, secretaria@communication‐caritashaiti.org, headoffice@caritasjordan.org.jo, direccion1@ceps.org.mx, snpscol@cec.org.coc, secretariaejecutiva@caritas.gt, caritasnorthamerica@gmail.com, info@caritas‐europa.org, caritasoceania@gmail.com, asiacaritas@caritas.asia, coord@caritas‐africa.org, info@devp.org, info@crs.org, info@catholiccharitiesusa.org, caritas.internationalis@caritas.va, postmaster@caritas.org.pe, secretaria@caritasuruguaya.org.uy, cep.pastoralsocialnacional@gmail.com, pscarcr@racsa.co.cr, caritas@caritas.org.br, caritasantilles@aocslu.org, bishoptripoli@gmail.com, cariteg@link.net, secretaire@caritas.mr, directeur@caritas.mr, caritas.djibouti@gmail.com, caritassomalia@gmail.com, caritasmig@gmail.com urgent‐action@ohchr.org, quejas@cdhcm.org.mx, cdhm@tlachinollan.org, cdhdf@cdhcm.org.mx, contacto@senadomorena.com, sindicato@senado.gob.mx, sectec.despacho@michoacan.gob.mx, manuel.valencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx, pgjecomsoc@michoacan.gob.mx, silvanoaureoles@michoacan.gob.mx, Marco.Lagunas@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx, comunicacionesytransportes@senado.gob.mx, 27 transparencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx, transparenciamorelia@morelia.gob.mx, gobiernodemorelia@morelia.gob.mx, fiscalgeneral@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, FOM.2@hotmail.com, Fiscal@morelia.fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, SINDICATO@senado.gob.mx, derechos.arco@funcionpublica.gob.mx, sectec_segob@michoacan.gob.mx, denuncialosaqui@ssedomex.gob.mx, hacienda@senado.gob.mx, justicia@senado.gob.mx, marina@senado.gob.mx, contacto@senadomorena.com, SINDICATO@senado.gob.mx, transparencia@senado.gob.mx, sindicato1969.transparencia@senado.gob.mx, gobernacion@senado.gob.mx, anticorrupcion@senado.gob.mx, justicia@senado.gob.mx, puntosconstitucionales@senado.gob.mx, derechoshumanos@senado.gob.mx, asuntosindigenas@senado.gob.mx, ninezyadolescencia@senado.gob.mx, salud@senado.gob.mx, comsegsocial@senado.gob.mx, educacion@senado.gob.mx, trabajoyprevision@senado.gob.mx, reformaagraria@senado.gob.mx, agriculturayganaderia@senado.gob.mx, energia@senado.gob.mx, hacienda@senado.gob.mx, GobiernoMichoacan2.0@gmail.com, asuntosfronterizos@senado.gob.mx, economia@senado.gob.mx, crpp@senado.gob.mx, defensanacional@senado.gob.mx, seguridadpublica@senado.gob.mx, seguridad.nacional@diputados.gob.mx, webmaster@semar.gob.mx, webmaster@congreso.gob.mx, cni@cni.gob.mx, derechos.arco@funcionpublica.gob.mx Second List of recipients added on January 11, 2021 at 9:41 AM Digital@thenation.com, Ryan.Gallagher@theintercept.com, USinfo@theguardian.com, news@sky.com, kfsndesk@abc.com, kwalsh@kmaxtv.com, newsdesk@cbs47.tv, jcain@scng.com, Tabby.kinder@ft.com, Dan.mccrum@ft.com, tips@nypost.com, TIPS@propublica.org, joaquin.sapien@propublica.org, Alec.MacGillis@propublica.org, david.mcswane@propublica.org, Robert.Faturechi@propublica.org, Sebastian.Rotella@propublica.org, pamela.colloff@propublica.org, suggestions@propublica.org, richard.winton@latimes.com, liam.dillon@latimes.com, melody.gutierrez@latimes.com, luke.money@latimes.com, alejandra.reyesvelarde@latimes.com, gustavo.arellano@latimes.com, jack.leonard@latimes.com, ruben.vives@latimes.com, Joseph.Cox@vice.com, Nina.Trentmann@wsj.com, Paul.Ziobro@wsj.com, Jean.Eaglesham@wsj.com, Robbie.Whelan@wsj.com, Katherine.Blunt@wsj.com, Alejandro.Lazo@wsj.com, Jean.Eaglesham@wsj.com, Michael.Rapoport@wsj.com, Mengqi.Sun@wsj.com, Marcelo.Prince@wsj.com, kkelly@bayareanewsgroup.com, jmyers@thenation.com, orly.taitz@gmail.com, tips@theverge.com, eiu_enquiries@eiu.com, poldep‐budg@europarl.europa.eu, jack.avent@euromoneyplc.com, anjana.haines@euromoneyplc.com, margaret.varela‐christie@euromoneyplc.com, mfazio@chicagotribune.com, emalagon@chicagotribune.com, gpratt@chicagotribune.com, helpdesk@itrinsight.com, news@whistleblowergov.org, whistleblowing@article19.org, editor@goingconcern.com, jaeger@complianceweek.com, walmartwalkout@gmail.com EMilligan11@bloomberg.net, Lisette.v@columbia.edu, Carleton.English@dowjones.com, Kashmir.hill@gizmodomedia.com, lprinsloo3@bloomberg.net, epfanner1@bloomberg.net, asguazzin@bloomberg.net, jkew4@bloomberg.net, jlsc.ua@gmail.com, publications@globalresearch.ca, Atiempomx@gmail.com, indicepolitico@gmail.com, Investigacion@elpais.es, opinion@elfinanciero.com.mx, denuncia@eluniversal.com.mx, contacto@eluniversal.com.mx, press@ccrjustice.org, info@insyde.org.mx, info@amnistia.org.mx, carlos.mendoza@amnesty.org, duncan.tucker@amnesty.org, marcel.theza@ulagos.cl, daniella.gac@ulagos.cl, asuntoscorporativos@clarochile.cl, tribunalpazecuador@yahoo.com, Victor.cabezas@estud.usfq.edu.ec, info@caritasecuador.org, jlsc.ua@gmail.com, publications@globalresearch.ca, Atiempomx@gmail.com, indicepolitico@gmail.com, Investigacion@elpais.es, opinion@elfinanciero.com.mx, denuncia@eluniversal.com.mx, contacto@eluniversal.com.mx, tips@forbes.com, ideas@forbes.com, readers@forbes.com, hcarosso@skyhorsepublishing.com, lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net, editor@swarajyamag.com, support@apnews.com, kevin.sieff@washpost.com, brian.moss@thomsonreuters.com, sumit2006@gmail.com, ed‐del‐rev@nic.in, 28 molegangwar@yahoo.com, secy‐labour@nic.in, farida.samsul@gov.in, igkonwar.acs@assam.gov.in, bopb1.clb@nic.in, registrar‐mum@nclt.gov.in, secretary@nclt.gov.in, registrar.jpr@nclt.gov.in OIG@gao.gov, Congrel@gao.gov, RussellC@gao.gov, RussellW@gao.gov, OIG@ftc.gov, Secretary@ftc.gov, Antitrust@ftc.gov, lsolis@ftc.gov, Dhanks@ftc.gov, Ctodaro@ftc.gov, Bchun@ftc.gov, Rjones@ftc.gov, Kwalsh@ftc.gov, nwhitehead@ftc.gov, asix@ftc.gov, ssheinberg@ftc.gov, vmusick@ftc.gov, tcarson@ftc.gov, kberg@ftc.gov, tkingsberry@ftc.gov, lsatine@ftc.gov, premerger@ftc.gov, hsrhelp@ftc.gov, OIG@sec.gov, FRAudGroup@sec.gov, 10ALetters@sec.gov, OCA@sec.gov, NYROBankruptcy@sec.gov, DERA@sec.gov, SanFrancisco@sec.gov, Publicinfo@sec.gov, LosAngeles@sec.gov, Chicago@sec.gov, NewYork@sec.gov, INFO@secwhistle.com, KaneP@sec.gov, KarrT@sec.gov, ReicherE@sec.gov, ShimpK@sec.gov, TIPS@pcaobus.org, Ethics@pcaobus.org, DwyerE@pcaobus.org, Info@pcaobus.org, Speeches@pcaobus.org, PublicAffairs@pcaobus.org, Asksipc@sipc.org, whistleblower@finra.org, ChairmanOffice@sec.gov, CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, CommissionerLee@sec.gov, CommissionerRoisman@sec.gov, OIGCounsel@oig.treas.gov, hotline@oig.treas.gov, SIGTARP‐GC@treasury.gov, sigtarp.hotline@do.treas.gov, Complaints@tigta.treas.gov, WhistleblowerProtection@tigta.treas.gov, FRC@fincen.gov, EDI.crd.ra@irs.gov, EDI.civil.rights.division@irs.gov, Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, FCPA.fraud@usdoj.gov, OPR.complaints@usdoj.gov, USACAC.CV‐CivilRights@usdoj.gov, National.FOIAPortal@usdoj.gov, oig.whistleblower.ombudsperson.program@usdoj.gov, Debora.Yang@doj.ca.gov, Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov, NSD.Public@usdoj.gov, USAVAE.NICS@usdoj.gov, Thomas.Traxler@usdoj.gov, Alexander.P.Berrang@usdoj.gov, Heather.Schmidt@usdoj.gov, Gordon.Kromberg@usdoj.gov, Peter.Duffey@usdoj.gov, Dennis.Barghaan@usdoj.gov, Daniel.S.Schwei@usdoj.gov, Trent.McCotter@usdoj.gov, Nathan.M.Swinton@usdoj.gov, Zia.Faruqui@usdoj.gov, Niall.ODonnell@usdoj.gov, Amy.Markopoulos@usdoj.gov, Faruqui_Chambers@dcd.uscourts.gov, Michael.Grady3@usdoj.gov, Brian.Rickers@usdoj.gov, Victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov, John.Marston@usdoj.gov, Ombudsman@frb.gov, info@gungalleryinc.com, OIGcompl@lapd.online, dale.bonner@lapd.online, n4967@lapd.lacity.org, N5449@lapd.online, n6220@lapd.online, n4964@lapd.online, bopc@lapd.online, lapdcms@lapd.online, bopcuseofforcepolicy@lapd.online, calganginput@lapd.online, communityrelationsoig@lacity.org, contact.lapdonline@gmail.com, ethics.commission@lacity.org, info@santamonica.gov, info@asp.arkansas.gov, sfpd.commission@sfgov.org, sfdpa@sfgov.org, LASERS.services@lacers.org, erb@lacity.org, info@insyde.org.mx, pra@calbar.ca.gov, clientsecurityfund@calbar.ca.gov, manager@cityofberkeley.info, kworthington@cityofberkeley.info, WPEAOmbuds@stateoig.gov, Secretary.Padilla@sos.ca.gov, Whistleblower@ronjohnson.senate.gov, Peters_Whistleblower@hsgac.senate.gov, Whistleblower@commerce.senate.gov, NORISSA@socialism2020.org, JOE@socialism2020.org, help@elizabethwarren.com, info@elizabethwarren.com, casework@feinstein.senate.gov, OIG@fec.gov, Pubrec@fec.gov, Lobby@sec.senate.gov, LobbyInfo@mail.house.gov, OCE@mail.house.gov, HouseIG@mail.house.gov, Hatchact@osc.gov, khendricks@osc.gov, FOIARequest@osc.gov, RMFSIMSST@nbib.gov, FOIPARequests@nbib.gov, ICIGHotline@dni.gov, IG_hotline@dodiis.mil, ighotline@exim.gov, DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov, Socr_Direct@state.gov, Secretary@hhs.gov, OCRPrivacy@hhs.gov, OCRmail@hhs.gov, OIGhotline@opm.gov, USCIS.FOIA@uscis.dhs.gov, FOIA.OIG@oig.dhs.gov, Whistleblower.Coordinator@oig.hhs.gov, Whistleblowerprotectioncoordinator@oig.dhs.gov, Mayor.Garcetti@lacity.org, Mayor@fresno.gov, Daniel.Zack@fresno.gov, Mark.Standriff@fresno.gov, Esmeralda.Soria@fresno.gov, Paul.Caprioglio@fresno.gov, Robert.Andersen@fresno.gov, Leager@fresnoedc.com, City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org, OfficeoftheCIO@cityofpaloalto.org, TomforCouncil@gmail.com, Judy.Ng@cityofpaloalto.org, LydiaKou@cityofpaloalto.org, Kane@cityofpaloalto.org, David.Carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org, Stephanie.Douglas@cityofpaloalto.org, Albert.Yang@cityofpaloalto.org, Raj.Patel@cityofpaloalto.org, Tom.Auzenne@cityofpaloalto.org, Assesor@sfgov.org, Arun.Bhatia@sfdwp.org, Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org, Commissions.Secretary@sfgov.org, Sotf@sfgov.org, Ethics.Commission@sfgov.org, glambing@fppc.ca.gov, CommAssist@fppc.ca.gov, Advice@fppc.ca.gov, Cpra@fppc.ca.gov, CHackert@fppc.ca.gov, Bridget.Hicks@sfgov.org, JFleming@metricus.net, Jreichental@gmail.com, jreichental@hotmail.com, Treichental@hotmail.com, Complaint@fppc.ca.gov, DCA@dca.ca.gov, Kimberly.Kirchmeyer@dca.ca.gov, Alexis.Podesta@dca.ca.gov, Enforcement@cslb.ca.gov, Classifications@cslb.ca.gov, Licensing@cslb.ca.gov, Info@cslb.ca.gov, Sheila.Daniels@cba.ca.gov, Enforcementinfo@cba.ca.gov, ComplianceUnit@cba.ca.gov, CitationsUnit@cba.ca.gov, oponline@nysed.gov, 29 Inspector.General@eeoc.gov, FOIA@eeoc.gov, OIGWhistleblower@oig.dol.gov, OIGHOTLINE@nlrb.gov, CRCExternalComplaints@dol.gov, EOC@dol.gov, CivilRightsCenter@dol.gov, LaborOIGinfo@oig.dol.gov, ofo.eeoc@eeoc.gov, Nicole.stgermain@eeoc.gov, linda.li@eeoc.gov, bryan.hoss@eeoc.gov, rosa.salazer@eeoc.gov, monica.colunga@eeoc.gov, michael.rojas@eeoc.gov, TalkTODO@dol.gov, Executivesecretariat@dol.gov BARcomm@calbar.ca.gov, Sbutler@calstrs.com, Crapolla@calstrs.com, WShuckell@calstrs.com, Stong@calstrs.com, CAilman@calstrs.com, JDiedesch@calstrs.com, Atran@calstrs.com, mtoepel@calstrs.com, vchitchakkol@ci.irvine.ca.us, vbeatley@sealbeachca.gov, smontano@newportbeachca.gov, smontano@newportbeach.ca.gov, mmatsumoto@pico‐ rivera.org, Jeremy.Wolfson@ladwp.com, Fiona.Ma@treasurer.ca.gov, Ben.Meng@calpers.ca.gov, Jason.Perez@calpers.ca.gov, Lisa.Middleton@calpers.ca.gov, Erania.Ortega@calpers.ca.gov, Mona.PasquilRogers@gov.ca.gov, Mona.PasquilRogers@spb.ca.gov, Kselenski@sto.ca.gov, InvestorRelations@treasurer.ca.gov, Fiona.Ma@treasurer.ca.gov, Audrey.Noda@treasurer.ca.gov, Christina.SARRON@treasurer.ca.gov, Frank.Ruffino@treasurer.ca.gov, Frank.Moore@treasurer.ca.gov, Gloria.Li@treasurer.ca.gov, Gloria.Pulido@treasurer.ca.gov, Genevieve.Jopanda@treasurer.ca.gov, Judith.Blackwell@treasurer.ca.gov, Jovan.Agee@treasurer.ca.gov, Kristin.Szakaly@treasurer.ca.gov, Kathryn.Asprey@treasurer.ca.gov, Kasey.O'Connor@treasurer.ca.gov, Mark.Desio@treasurer.ca.gov, Noah.Starr@treasurer.ca.gov, Robert.Berry@treasurer.ca.gov, Seth.Doulton@treasurer.ca.gov, Tracey.Paine@treasurer.ca.gov, Tim.Schaefer@treasurer.ca.gov, Inspectorgeneral@cpsoig.org, AuditorGen@paauditor.gov, Budget@pa.gov, RA‐ethicsRTKL@pa.gov, officeofthecio@cityofpaloalto.org, City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org, Albert.Yang@cityofpaloalto.org, Raj.Patel@cityofpaloalto.org, Tom.Auzenne@cityofpaloalto.org, ri@telmex.com, info@grupobmv.com.mx, vfueyo@homex.com.mx, ir@gruma.com, daniela.lecuona@americamovil.com, investor.relations@americamovil.com, anticorrupcion@americamovil.com, asuntoscorporativos@clarochile.cl, codigoetica@americamovil.com, derechoshumanos@americamovil.com, conflictointeres@americamovil.com, seguridadinformatica@americamovil.com, clientes@americamovil.com, investor@uber.com, Angela.Padilla@uber.com, raymond.galaviz@uber.com, tracey.merwise@uber.com, nbartow@uber.com, press@uber.com, social@uber.com, tradingcompliance@uber.com, ipteam@uber.com, competition@uber.com, dorkin@oaktreecapital.com, MCulp@oaktreecapital.com, losorio@oaktreecapital.com, Purrutia@clearlakecapital.com, NRedington@colonyinc.com, Jplaga@canyonpartners.com, smansfeld@canyonpartners.com, pprak@canyonpartners.com, Mpage@canyonpartners.com, Dmillman@canyonpartners.com, PRivera@shamrockcap.com, CPark@shamrockcap.com, AHoward@shamrockcap.com, SRoyer@shamrockcap.com, LHeld@shamrockcap.com, MDiLorenzo@shamrockcap.com, Peter.Viles@tcw.com, Lynn.kalbach@tcw.com, Fiona.huang@twc.com, Lindsey.Lennon@carlyle.com, Elizabeth.gill@carlyle.com, Irina.Rudnitsky@tcw.com, Patty.Dow@cbre.com, Bonnie.m.wong@jpmorgan.com, edwin.k‐w.chin@jpmorgan.com, REA_Finance_‐_Central@jpmorgan.com, IR@invesco.com, Company.Secretary@invesco.com, Contactus@invescomortgagecapital.com, jgange@dkpartners.com, mwheland@brentwood.com, Wsueiro@statestreet.com, abengoa@abengoa.com.mx, cam.espanola@camescom.com.mx, Fidelity.Investments@mail.fidelity.com, contacto@gmxt.mx, reportphish@wellsfargo.com 701-32 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: 1/25/ 2021 Document dates: 1/6/2021 – 1/13/2021 Set 2 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 30 Baumb, Nelly From:Win With Rebecca <hello@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 8:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Request a Delegate Ballot TODAY to have a say in the direction of the Democratic Party! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Delegate Election deadline TODAY! Dear Friend, TODAY, January 11 is the LAST DAY TO REGISTER to receive your ballot for the ADEM (Democratic party delegates) Elections in California. These elections allow you to select whom you want to represent you in your State Assembly District, so if you are in District 24 (Palo Alto, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, Half Moon Bay, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Sunnyvale) you can vote for me and my slate! Why is this important? Delegates vote on party endorsements, platforms, rules, and even sometimes replacements for open positions. Decisions that Delegates make will impact YOU! To have a say, you must register for a ballot TODAY at http://ademelections.com . One you receive the ballot, it must be returned by Monday, January 25, 2021. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Click to request your ballot today! 31 Vote for Rebecca Eisenberg and the Unity Slate to serve as your California Democratic Party Assembly District Delegates! You MUST sign up for a ballot by end of day TODAY January 11 http://ademelections.com CADEM Delegates wield power. They set agendas, platforms, and narratives for the controlling party in our state. I will continue our fight for fairness, transparency, accountability, & justice. Please Note: if you encounter errors while filling out the website to request a ballot, please email your information to adem@cadem.org Thank you, from the bottom of my heart! With love, Rebecca Eisenberg To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. We still have a few face masks left, not to mention some bills to pay! Make a "recurring donation" on our ActBlue page to receive your official face mask so you can stay safe in style! Make a donation to receive a free mask! My Values I am still working to make progressive and sustainable change in Palo Alto. As a mother, licensed attorney and social justice advocate, I know that our community deserves better! Read my letter explaining why I ran for Palo Alto City Council here. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 32 The Fight Continues! Please keep in touch: Website: www.winwithrebecca.com Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/WinWithRebecca Twitter: @RebeccaEisenbe4 and @rle LinkedIn: linked.com/in/eisenberg Paid for by Rebecca Eisenberg for City Council 2020 (winwithrebecca.com). FPPC 1427865 Contact Us To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InFacebook To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InTwitter To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InIn stagram To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.LinkedIn Win With Rebecca | 2345 Waverley St., Palo Alto , CA 94301 Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by hello@winwithrebecca.com powered by To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today. Try email marketing for free today! 33 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 1:30 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell- UK-- Sat. Jan. 9, 2021 Biden will change the FDA he predicts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:06 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell‐ UK‐‐ Sat. Jan. 9, 2021 Biden will change the FDA he predicts To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 10:14 PM Subject: Dr. John Campbell‐ UK‐‐ Sat. Jan. 9, 2021 Biden will change the FDA he predicts To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Late on Sunday night, Jan. 10, 2021 To all‐ Here is the vid from Dr. John Campbell in the UK for Saturday. 26:29. Well worth watching. Update ‐ YouTube He opens with information on the U.S. Dramatic increase in cases of Covid here. 310,080 new cases in the U.S. in ONE day. Can you believe what you are reading? Surely I heard him wrong. 13.8% positivity on tests. That means a LOT of community transmission which will lead to a LOT of cases which will lead to a LOT of hospitalizations which will lead to a LOT of deaths. Happy New Year. "With deaths near 400,00, the U.S. is in crisis." Notice he does not say "approaching a crisis" or "risking a crisis". Vaccines sent out in U.S.: 17.3 million doeses Vaccines given in the U.S.: 6,688,000. POOR! As of Friday, Jan. 8, 2021. 34 IMPORTANT: At 6:30 in the vid: "Biden plan: Send out ALL reserves of vaccines The ones being held back for the second shot will go out for the first shot! This is against CDC policy. We'll see fairly big changes in the CDC". We will go to a strategy similar to that used by the UK. In this emergency, we can go against the research guidelines. Biden can vaccinate with 100 million doses in the first 100 days. The single dose will do what we need. But cases will keep going up NOW". LH‐ Too bad we have to wait another ten days to have a President. In the UK, 30% in the ICU die. The 70% who survive will be disabled for years. 10:55 So huge impact on morbidity. Younger people are getting sicker in the UK with the Kent variant. People won't stay home. Australia has done VERY well. They have not even started vaccinating yet and they can easily get the Oxford vaccine. Very few cases. They banned flights from S. Africa ~five days ago. Now, of the hundreds of comments this vid got, I want to show one here. "My friend's husband is in critical care. 53 with no underlying health conditions. He's in a coma with failing liver and kidneys after having a leg amputated because of a blood clot. It's not just that this virus can kill, it's the manner in which it happens." "Stay home if you can". LH‐ As far as I know we are still importing the two highly transmissible variants of the virus from the UK and S. Africa. That is deliberate murder. Our federal government has fallen apart after an attempted over‐throw and is now murdering the American people. Flights from the UK and S. Africa should be banned. Great news above that Biden will get very, very tough with the FDA. ALL of the vaccines will be given out as a first shot with no reserves held back for the second shot. Reminder: This is what the UK is doing. The first shot of Pfizer or Oxford vaccine they are using gives very good immunity. Those people can still get sick, but not SERIOUSLY ill and so don't need hospitalizations. So this strategy is to address the hospitals being totally over‐run and just letting people die in the parking lot, as we are right on the verge of doing now in the U.S.‐ or are already doing. The FDA should give an EUA for the Oxford vaccine today. To delay that is costing lives. Biden should clean house at the FDA and you know he will. Those found to be taking bribes to keep the Oxford vaccine out should be charged with murder. If you're taking those bribes, have a private jet ready to get you out of the country. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 35 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2021 10:06 PM To:Van Der Zwaag, Minka; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Minor, Beth; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; Steven D. Lee; Raven Malone; Greer Stone; chuck jagoda; Ed Lauing; Council, City; Roberta Ahlquist; Cormack, Alison; Shikada, Ed; Tom DuBois; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Winter Dellenbach; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:Why we need a second great migration -by Charlie Blow-(NYT) describe at a deep level why racism in the north is at least as destructive of the soul ...as is segregation in the north.... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/opinion/georgia‐black‐political‐power.amp.html Sent from my iPhone 36 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2021 9:24 PM To:Honky Subject:URGENT THIS IS REAL ELECTION FRAUD OCCURED TRUTH OR DARE NOT GO VIRAL THIS IS AMERICA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.youtube.com/embed/sn2TothEC44 37 Baumb, Nelly From:E MILLER <miller1505@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2021 7:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Why no vaccine??? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Begin forwarded message: From: Edith Miller <ekmiller45@gmail.com> Subject: Why no vaccine??? Date: January 10, 2021 at 7:26:52 PM PST To: "news@padailypost.com" <news@padailypost.com> I am asking the City Council and Stanford to look into why we are not getting the vaccine. I understand that nurses at Stanford are working extra shifts to give shots BUT THERE ARE NO PATIENTS! ONE NURSE WAS SENT HOME EARLY BECAUSE “NO PATIENTS”. This is unacceptable. Channing House was able to arrange for shots‐ why can’t the city get organized? With schools closed ,there area plenty of gyms, multipurpose rooms etc. Why not just divide people into groups by zip code and give everyone shots? Willie Brown cited the efficiency of polio shots about 70 years ago‐ surely our leaders can match that. Even when I received notice of shots coming to Sutter Health, my own doctor did not know anything about it. Come, on, let’s get organized and show the world how it can be done! We are waiting‐ less patiently by each day. Edith Miller 38 Baumb, Nelly From:Temina Madon <> Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2021 11:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Complaint about lack of housing for homeless population CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I live in downtown (North) and would like to add my voice to the surge of concern for homeless community members in Palo Alto. I urge the city to: ‐ identify land to build supportive housing, in line with Measure A funding ‐ add financial support to existing non‐profits to expand services available to unhoused community members ‐ identify land for RV parking and equip with toilets and security services, ideally close to city services (eg along El Camino) ‐ provide rapid response vouchers for subsidized housing in redwood city, east palo alto, and other affordable neighboring cities for community members who are evicted or lose housing while employed. Try to prevent homelessness where possible... Finally, it would be great if you can include updates on homelessness in your city‐wide COVID reports, so we know these issues are being addressed seriously. This would create some accountability. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Temina Madon 39 Baumb, Nelly From:Sudhanshu Priyadarshi <sspriyadarshi@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 9, 2021 10:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:supporting Castilleja's Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, My name is Sudhanshu Priyadarshi and I have been a resident of Palo Alto for the last 3 years. We have 2 daughters and we moved to Palo Alto because of the reputation of the surrounding schools. Castilleja is one of the few all-girls schools in the area and one of the top-rated schools in the country. Castilleja is one of the reasons families like ours are attracted to Palo Alto. I am writing this email to support the expansion of Castilleja. The school has been transparent with the residents and worked with the city and the residents to find a common ground. The school has been very mindful about traffic congestion and I’m sure will take appropriate steps to ensure there isn’t any disruption to residents in the future. We should be proud of having such a fantastic school within walking distance. As residents, we should ensure Castilleja is able to renovate and increase enrollment, which will give several other girls the opportunity to be part of their fantastic community. Please email me if you have any questions. We will be very happy to attend any hearings in the future as well. Thanks in advance for your support to the expansion. Sudhanshu Priyadarshi 410 Marion Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 40 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 9, 2021 10:14 PM To:Honky Subject:Military intelligence grabs computers & Hammer and Scorecard CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mel K with Ann Vandersteel short clip - YouTube @WhyeatyurWryld - WhyeatyurWryld - @KayleighMcEnany @linwood @RudyG @SidneyPowell (parler.com) 41 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 9, 2021 12:05 AM To:Honky Subject:Banned.Video CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Banned.Video The most banned videos on the internet. With only 12 days to go, why would Democrats threaten to remove Trump by impeachment if the cabinet does not immediately remove him by use of the 25th Amendment? Nancy Pelosi claims that Trump inspired the demonstration on Jan 6 as an "armed insurrection" against the government of the United States. What was different about the demonstration on Jan 6 and the demonstrations last summer by Black Lives Matter? Did any Democrat come down on those hundreds of days when those BLM demonstrators burned down private businesses and shut down local governments all across America? Let's discuss a couple of facts: 1. There was no armed insurrection on Jan 6. Who had guns? Who got shot? By whom? 2. Trump said nothing to inspire an insurrection? Nothing. Listen to his speech at the rally. 3. Many police and federal security were sent home earlier in the day. Who ordered them to leave while knowing that a couple hundred thousand people were about to assemble for a demonstration? 4. The Capital security let demonstrators into the building. They guided them. Watch the videos. 5. Several demonstrators who were part of the Antifa demonstrations last year were leading the violence/destruction on Jan 6... not Trump supporters. 6. Less than 1/2% of those who attended the demonstration were part of the group who entered the capital building. Less than 1/2 of one percent. 7. There was no violence at any Trump rally for the last 5 years except for the rally in Chicago in 2016 that was done by paid operatives against Trump. 8. How much of the supposed Jan 6 insurrection is the media showing as compared to how much was shown of the hundreds of days of destruction by BLM last summer? How much of the Jan 6 shots are the same scenes over and over and over? So what could be other reasons that Pelosi and Democrats and establishment Republicans want Trump removed immediately with only 12 days to go? 1. To taint the Trump legacy one more time as part of the 4 year coup against Trump of obstruct, resist, investigate, impeach, and demonize. 2. To stop Trump from possibly completing investigations into wrong actions by the deep state, political leaders, outside influencers, and American oligarchs. The bad guys fear what Trump might get accomplished to expose them in his last 12 days. 42 Do you think the 2nd reason is far fetched? Well, watch and read what is in the rest of this email before you make a decision. https://gellerreport.com/2021/01/-sworn-affidavit-personnel-at-us-embassy-in-rome-engineered-voter- fraud-.html/ https://youtu.be/_CHdt2qRLj8 https://www.wnd.com/.../certification-congress-betrayed.../ To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In With certification, Congress has betrayed the nation Michael Master Michael Master notes how evil often happens in the middle of the night 43 Baumb, Nelly From:Lisa <lisa.leinbaugh@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 5:04 PM To:Transportation; Council, City Subject:Hazardous Intersection CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member or Transportation Person, A child was taken by ambulance to the hospital this morning (1/8) after being struck by a car running a red light. The child was crossing in a crosswalk with the light. The child was thrown out of the lane and sustained a head wound. This is the intersection at Middlefield in Midtown in front of the Walgreens. This intersection is a hazard to pedestrians. I know that other children have been struck by cars at this intersection in recent years. I have personally seen several cars run this particular red light. This light is not at an intersection. I believe that drivers just cannot see the light in this busy part of Midtown. Today the driver said that the sun was in her eyes, but I have seen it run at times of day where that is not the issue. What can be done to prevent a future child from being injured or killed by a car at this location? Can it be illuminated with lights lining the crosswalk as we see in other cities? Or can this light be removed altogether? or moved to an intersection? Please let me know what the next steps are to address this hazard intersection. Thank you! Lisa Leinbaugh Old Palo Alto resident 44 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 3:49 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Swanson, Andrew Subject:Save the date February 23-26, January 14 Registration discount for the 2021 Aviation Noise & Emissions Symposium CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Council, City Manager, Andy, Wishing that you are well and that 2021 brings peace, health, prosperity and joy, to you and yours and to our City. As you may know, I have been an active participant of the annual Aviation Noise & Emissions Symposium hosted by UC Davis and encouraging of City attendance and sponsorship because this is a unique forum that brings together FAA, industry, and communities to network and discuss the various topics that encompass managing aviation's environmental impacts. This year I'm co‐chairing a health session (co chairs are in charge of inviting speakers and then helping out during the session to coordinate Q&A). The format is that each presenter will have a 13 minute presentation, and then a 1/2 hr panel Q&A. I'm looking forward to this topic this year which will be held on February 24, 8:15 AM, and hope to see as many of you as can join in. Please see this invitation letter about the Symposium, feel free to share with all whom you work with that may have an interest in the topics. The 2021 Program due to Covid, it will be an all virtual program. Additionally, there is a one time discount going on until January 14 for reduced prices for community members and all who want to join. Register here: https://anesymposium.aqrc.ucdavis.edu/register Please be sure to take a look at the sponsorship opportunities and contribute to the program. I realize that budgets are tight but there is a range of ways to support this program which can enhance the City's role in caring about this issue. Am happy to answer any questions when you review. Sponsorship opportunities https://anesymposium.aqrc.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk3916/files/inline‐ files/Sponsor%20Benefit%20Options%20ANE%20Symposium%202021_0.pdf Join the email list https://anesymposium.aqrc.ucdavis.edu/contact‐us Thank you, Jennifer 45 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: UC Davis Air Quality Research Center <airqualityevents@ucdavis.edu> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 at 09:26 Subject: Holiday Registration Special! To: <jlandesmann@gmail.com> To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Current Speaker List So many new speakers you don't want to miss! Aircraft Noise and Emissions Legislation in the Next Congress: Priorities, Perspectives, and Predictions Peter J. Kirsch, Partner, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell Darlene Yaplee, Palo Alto Citizens Aviation Emissions: Reduction Efforts and Current Research Christiane Voigt, German Aerospace Center Doubling Down: Implementing Noise Reductions During Recovery Steve Alterman, Cargo Airlines Association Lynae Craig, Alaska Airlines Rich Swayze, Delta Airlines Aircraft Noise and Overflight Dispersion: Opportunities and Challenges Jim Allerdice, Managing Partner, ABCx2 Daniel Gardon, Noise Abatement Specialist, Charlotte Douglas International Airport Michele Cruz-Murner, Senior Advisor, Air Traffic Services, Western Service Area, FAA & Beth White, Senior Strategist for Public and Industry Engagement, Air Traffic Organization, FAA 46 Climate Change and Aviation: Opportunities in the Midst of Adversity Marylin Bastin, Head of Aviation Sustainability, Eurocontrol Erin Cooke, Director, Sustainability & Environmental Policy, San Francisco International Airport Tim Johnson, Aviation Environmental Federation Tim Pohle, Senior Managing Director, Environmental Affairs, Airlines for America The Direct and Indirect Impacts of Aviation on Human Health Susan Averett, Department of Economics, Lafayette College Neelakshi Hudda, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Tufts University Mathias Basner, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Holiday Registration Special One Week Left to Secure this Deal! As people hunker down for the winter, we would like to brighten your world a little by offering a one-time holiday special! We know the pandemic has made participation in extracurricular activities such as conferences and symposiums more out of reach for a large number of our attendees. So for the next 4 weeks we will host a registration special! Until January 14th, registration prices will be significantly reduced for all our attendees to allow you to still attend and gain valuable information from this symposium. December 17, 2020 - January 14, 2021 Community Member/Student Registration: $25 Government Employee Registration: $50 Industry/Consultant/General Registration: $100 Register Here! Please forward this invitation to your colleagues, industry partners and community groups. We would like to invite as many people as possible 47 to take advantage of this opportunity to participate in this esteemed UC Davis Symposium while it is virtual and easily accessible by all! Symposium Sponsorship Opportunities With lower registration prices, less time constraints and no travel barriers, we are expecting a higher than average attendance this year which translates to more eyes on your company! Take a look at our current attendee list and know that now is the time to join as a sponsor. Showcase your organization and stay in front of your clients without the large price tag of travel costs. Sponsorship Opportunities include: Session Sponsor: Give a welcome to attendees and share your organization on the live feed! Virtual Platform Exhibitor: Host a virtual space to answer questions of attendees via text or video chat - Includes specialty lead retrieval options! Direct Email Campaigns: Work with UCD to craft an email message directly to symposium participants. View the full list of Sponsorship Opportunities Reach out to Sandra Hall to discuss what would work best for your organization. Additional speakers and details will be announced in the coming days and weeks. For more information, please visit the Symposium website. Sincerely, Sandra Hall Symposium Manager Air Quality Research Center https://anesymposium.aqrc.ucdavis.edu/ University of California, Davis - https://aqrc.ucdavis.edu/ To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter 48 Baumb, Nelly From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 2:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:BAWSCA board representation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, Just over two years ago I and an overflow crowd of other Palo Altans begged you to voice your support for the Bay Delta Plan, an approach to managing California's water resources that is firmly grounded in science, and that puts long‐term common interests ahead of short‐term private gain. We were grateful when you responded by voting unanimously to endorse the Bay Delta Plan, and reject a city staff recommendation to support the alternative Tuolome River Voluntary Agreement whose purportedly scientific basis has since been shown to be flawed, as many of us advised you that it was when we testified. Two months ago, Alison Cormack, your designated representative to the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency testified in a workshop hosted by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, identifying herself as a Palo Alto City Council Member, and endorsing the Voluntary Agreement. If Councilmember Cormack was delegated by her BAWSCA board colleagues to represent them by expressing this opinion, I think she at least owed her Palo Alto City Council colleagues and the Palo Altans they represent a clarification in her testimony that Palo Alto rejected the TRVV in favor of the Bay Delta plan. If she was acting without official charge from BAWSCA, I consider her behavior even more disrespectful of those whom she represents. I think this flagrant disregard and implicit misrepresentation are sufficient reason for you to find another of your members to represent you, me, and other Palo Altans on the BAWSCA board. If we’re to reap the benefits of your past and future decisions made on the basis of extensive review of applicable science, we need an advocate who understands the responsibilities of fully and accurately upholding those decisions. Thank you for considering these views. With appreciation, David Schrom ************* Magic, 1979‐2021: forty‐two years of valuescience leadership ************** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one‐time or recurring gifts. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax‐deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (650) 323‐7333‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 50 Baumb, Nelly From:Catherine Martineau <catherine@canopy.org> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 1:57 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Passmore, Walter Cc:DuBois, Tom; Clerk, City; Indira Selvakumaraswamy Subject:Palo Alto Annual Mayor's Tree Planting Saturday 1/16 at 10 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, City Manager Shikada, and Urban Forester Passmore, Please join Mayor DuBois and Canopy for Palo Alto's 25th Annual Mayor's Ceremonial Tree Planting (COVID safe.) Saturday, January 16, at 10 AM Meet at Bol Park near the Play Area. For obvious reasons, access to the ceremony will be limited to a small number of participants and Canopy's COVID‐19 safety protocols will be strictly enforced. In particular, face masks will be mandatory and temperatures will be checked. We will film the tree planting and Mayor DuBois' remarks and incorporate the footage into a brief video of similar plantings in neighboring communities for wide distribution. I ask that you kindly RSVP by responding to this email. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to seeing you there, Catherine ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Catherine Martineau (she/her) Executive Director catherine@canopy.org Mobile: 650‐575‐5310 (preferred) Office: 650‐964‐6110 ext. 2 (I will get your voicemail via email) To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Flickr To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Great Nonprofits To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Guidestar To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Youtube 51 Baumb, Nelly From:Pam Mask <pinkipam@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, January 3, 2021 1:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pamela Mask/Mark Zuckerberg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from Pam 's iPhone. 52 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 4:09 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte Subject:Fwd: Dr. Johnson UK Virus came from that lab in China,, not web mkt. Smoking bad CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:22 PM Subject: Dr. Johnson UK Virus came from that lab in China,, not web mkt. Smoking bad To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Late Thurs. Jan. 7, 2021 Dr. Johnson in UK on Thursday, Jan. 7, 2021‐ He implies pretty strongly that the pandemic started with an escape from the big lab 11 miles from the supposed wet market in Wuhan. This email title says web mkt. I meant wet market. An American team had gone to that lab before the outbreak and noted that things could escape, he says. Then he gives good numbers for the rougher time that smokers have with Covid. They've proven it with numbers. Even if you don't smoke, the horrific wildfire season now lasts for ten months in California every single year, and we all breath smoke here for ten months. Then the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District here in the San Joaquin Valley of California allows fireplace burning most winter nights, so you decide if all of that is killing people who get Covid, or at least is making them sicker and longer‐termers. Ma, throw another log on. I don't like those new neighbors downwind, and have you seen his wife?! The legislature should outlaw fireplace burning year round in the Central Valley. I have suggested till I'm blue in the face that California aquire 10 to 50 of the 747 Super tankers that can deliver 19,200 gal. of retardant or water. Gov. Newsom has never once said one word about that. We rent the one from Colorado, the Global Supertanker, for $16,000 an hour every fire season. So we have that ONE of those and there is a DC‐10 they use in California. If the 747s cost $100 million each to buy and convert, 10 would cost $1 billion. Instead, we let the fires just consume California for months on end every year and destroy hundreds of homes and businesses and damage our health. We spend $2 BILLION per day per DAY to defend ourselves and all of Europe, Japan, and S. Korea‐ you know, those poor countries. Newsom has said they will add more fire crews and more trucks. That's it. I think that if California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico, and maybe Canada and Australia formed a consortium to buy the 747s, the cost could make sense. It would be a cost‐effective program given 53 the billions of dollars of damage the fires do to property. The damage they do to our health is harder to quantify, but not impossible to estimate. We just had a fire in the Sierra that ran from Sept. 1 to late Dec. ‐ four months. Just under 400,000 acres burned, the largest wild fire in Calif. history. I guess the people in Sacramento think it's a good joke on the suckers, the people of California, to just let the fires continue year after year. The bastards should get a come‐uppance for it. There is a well‐funded recall effort underway now to remove Newsom, e.g. Change the law so that local officials can be compelled to enforce State ordered lock‐downs. They just laugh at the Governor now. Get the vaccines into people's arms. What we have now is a complete screw‐up by State and local governments in doing the vaccinating. Allowing dentists to vaccinate is a great idea, if they have time to do it. Pay them! Who else could do it? How about veteranarians? They are injecting meds every day. Start negotiating a consortium with the above named governments to buy and share the 747's. It would just be unthinkable and border on treason for California, Oregon and Washington to work together in fighting the wildfires? Does it violate federal law for a State or group of States to enter into an agreement with a foreign country? If it is some military deal, I could see it. But buying tankers to fight wild fires? Use the UK trial data on the Oxford vaccine to approve its use here and roll it out. To wait till April to do that is just murder. Nearly 4,000 Americans died of Covid yesterday. The Brits started injecting it on Monday, and it has been approved for use in Argentina and India. The FDA has all of the data on Oxford that the UK regulators have and rolling data is coming to the FDA from the UK too. The Oxford vaccine has been licensed to be produced in Maryland and in Phoenix. It keeps at normal refrigerator temps, and so is far easier to handle than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Anyone taking bribes to hold up the Oxford vaccine till April had better retain a good criminal defense lawyer. Update ‐ YouTube Good vid. as usual. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 54 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 12:44 AM To:Honky Subject:Banned.Video UNARMED FEMALE KILLED SHAME ON USA(C) with your ARMORED CORPORATE POLICEMEN THUGS vs plain clothes woman? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Banned.Video The most banned videos on the internet. https://2020electioncenter.com/ Sent from Mail for Windows 10 55 Baumb, Nelly From:pennyellson12@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 8:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Police Department's Move to Encryption of Police Radio Transmissions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council, I’ll keep this short. This action (see CoPA announcement pasted below) should be halted until it has undergone public review by City Council. The action undermines transparency in a sector of government (enforcement) where we should require utmost transparency. Alternative methods for maintaining privacy of personal identifying information should be carefully considered in public meetings. Thank you for considering my comments. Penny Ellson Recent State Requirements and Palo Alto Police Department's Move to Encryption of Police Radio Transmissions Explained Recently, the Palo Alto Police Department encrypted its radio transmissions to comply with a mandate from the California Department of Justice that requires all California law enforcement agencies to protect personal identifying information. Given recent public and media discussions on this topic, this blog by Police Chief Robert Jonsen discusses this state requirement and how it does not change the Police Department's commitment to transparency and sharing of public information. Go here for more: http://bit.ly/2XfXJoi To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preautomatic download of this picture from the Intern Virus-free. www.avg.com 56 Baumb, Nelly From:CalMod@caltrain.com Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 2:03 PM To:martin@sommer.net; CalMod@caltrain.com Cc:Board (@caltrain.com); Council, City; Pat Burt Subject:RE: University Ave Beige Pole Color CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Martin, I’m free anytime between 9a‐12p tomorrow (1/8). You can reach me at 650‐295‐6877. I look forward to speaking with you. Brent From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net] Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:49 AM To: CalMod@caltrain.com Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat Burt <pat@patburt.org> Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color Thanks Brent, tomorrow (Friday) afternoon would work. Is there a number to reach you, and a best time to call? Just to be clear, you state "the pole cannot be repainted a different color". I disagree, it's just a matter of cost. Sure you could estimate some extraordinary amount, but I could counter that with my own sub- contractor. You also sated, "we worked with the City through both the Historic Resources Board(HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) in January 2019". Clearly, a wrong decision was made. If your power line was the wrong voltage, or your tracks were pointed in the wrong direction, would you not fix it? Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2021-01-06 16:23, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote: 57 Hi Mr. Sommer, Thanks again for your message. Unfortunately, the pole cannot be repainted a different color or replaced after installation. As mentioned previously, we worked with the City through both the Historic Resources Board(HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) in January 2019 to select the pole colors at the three station areas in Palo Alto. At the ARB/HRB meeting we provided photo simulations and paint chips to help inform their recommendation. I would be happy to discuss this more on the phone if you would like. If so, please let me know a few times that would work for you. Best, Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer SamTrans | Caltrain | TA 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 tietjenb@samtrans.com From: Martin J Sommer [mailto:martin@sommer.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 7:49 PM To: CalMod@caltrain.com Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat Burt <pat@patburt.org> Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color +cc: Pat Bert Brent, please take a look at the attached photo. I don't think this is what the City, nor the design engineers, had in mind. Please tell me, how I can help correct this situation. Thank you, Martin On 11/25/20 10:05 AM, martin@sommer.net wrote: Hi Brent, Perhaps your new funding source obtained on Nov 3rd can help this situation. Can you please look into this, and let me know? The visual impacts you are creating, are not good. Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 58 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2020-11-25 09:50, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote: Hi Martin, Unfortunately, the project budget does not accommodate camouflaging of the poles. Caltrain worked with Cities and regulatory agencies to mitigate the impacts of the infrastructure through the Project's Environmental Impact Report in 2014. Thanks, Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer SamTrans | Caltrain | TA 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 tietjenb@samtrans.com From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:55 PM To: CalMod@caltrain.com Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color Thanks Brent, What about the idea of camouflaging the upper part of the poles, similar to what is done with cell towers? For some reason, these poles have been created with an extremely hard industrial look. This is nothing like, the esthetics put into other electrified rails systems throughout the world. Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2020-11-13 10:09, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote: 59 Hi Martin, Thank you again for contacting Caltrain on this question. As Jim previously mentioned, the selection of the pole color was done in coordination with the City of Palo Alto and the Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board in 2019. These color selections are final and poles cannot be replaced or painted a different color after installation. Thanks, Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer SamTrans | Caltrain | TA 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 tietjenb@samtrans.com From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net] Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:20 AM To: CalMod@caltrain.com; Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com> Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color Dear Caltrain Board, The more beige poles that go up at University Ave station, the more unsightly it becomes. At ground level, you might think the beige color matches the station, but from the view of local buildings, you are completely destroying the view of our Santa Cruz Mountains, and local green vegetation on Stanford campus. Can you please look into a way to fix this? Perhaps, painting any height above 10 feet, to be the standard forest green? Telecom poles can be camouflaged, the same applies here. Please look in to it, and let me know some options. Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2020-09-30 12:05, calmod@caltrain.com wrote: Dear Martin, 60 Thank you for contacting Caltrain Electrification. The selection of the beige color was done in coordination with the City of Palo Alto and is a common color for poles located near stations. Most poles are a neutral chrome color along the project area but in some cases, such as near stations, Caltrain staff worked with local cities to identify pole colors that aligned with certain station areas. Once the poles have been procured and placed, we are not able to change the colors of those poles. Thank you again for reaching out to us. Best, The Caltrain Team On 2020-09-25T10:17:50-07:00, Martin J Sommer <martin@sommer.net> wrote: Good morning, Please see the attached picture, of a beige pole placed last night. This creates a real eye sore!! Questions: 1) Why are you using a beige color vs the std forest green (that blends with the trees), and 2) can these beige poles please be painted forest green, before electrification occurs? I know that this is a "big ask". Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net <mailto:martin@sommer.net>www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer <http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer> "Turn technical vision into reality." -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders. 61 Baumb, Nelly From:ron ito <wsrfr418@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 1:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:sidewalk maintenance......... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Who is responsible for keeping the sidewalks clean? The sidewalk on the south side of Encina Ave, across the street from Opportunity Center is covered with dead leaves and has been that way for several weeks. I also wrote Town and Country mgmt to no avail. Do I have the get out there with a rake and broom and do it myself? Also I never see anyone collecting shopping carts and rolling them back to their store. 62 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Wilson <richard.wilson@visitorsinformationdata.com> Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Visitors Info List Details_ Aerospace & Aviation Days CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I am just following up to see if you are interested in acquiring the Pre-registered Attendees list of Aerospace & Aviation Days 22 - 26 Feb 2020 California City, USA Counts = 2,684 Each record of the list contains : Contact Name, Email Address, Phone No, Title, Company Name, URL/Website, City, Country, Zip code. Let us know your thoughts, so that we can send you the cost and additional information. Best Regards, Richard Wilson 63 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 2:44 AM To:alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell- Wed. 1-6-21. Start at 10 min. Total 35 min. Important. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:31 AM Subject: Dr. John Campbell‐ Wed. 1‐6‐21. Start at 10 min. Total 35 min. Important. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Late on Wed. Jan. 6, 2021‐ To all‐ I spent most of the day watching the insurrection at the capitol. UKs Dr. John Campbell. He is a Ph.D and teaches nurses. One gets the impression that he is fairly familiar with the medical profession. This is good. First 10 min. re Ireland. If not interested, start at 10:00: Ireland and transatlantic differences ‐ YouTube IMPORTANT: Dosing strategies: He discusses the stringing out the second dose of vaccines to 12 weeks after the first in the UK, and how the FDA have decided to give the second dose at 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna. He says that in the UK they have no choice because otherwise the hospitals there will be overwhelmed. He says he won't comment here on the U.S.‐‐ IOW he won't comment on the stupidity of the FDA policy resulting in our hospitals now being absolutely over‐run. See next paragraph‐ He discusses a Washington Post article: Ambulance crews told to decide if any hope for pt. If THEY think no, IF THEY THEY THINK NO, don't take to hospital!!!. It has come to that. "Shows how serious things are in Los Angeles Co.", he says. Look at the injection gun he shows from 1976 when we vaccinated 50 million people in 10 weeks. Oct.1, 1976 we started using it during an influenze outbreak. An immunization world records. Listen to him here. 50 million in 10 64 weeks. So we are capable of that. Still, that would be 1/7 of the U.S. population in 2 1/2 months! At that rate it would take 17 1/2 months to vaccinate everybody in the U.S. So June, 2022. He recommends Vit. D again. "It is hard to see what is going to happen in January and February in the UK and U.S. It is not clear what is going to happen." Vaccination rates in U.S. and o. countries. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 65 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 6, 2021 10:47 PM To:Honky Subject:MEDIA ALERT: Off-Guardian publishes 3 reviews of the documentary SEVEN! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear 9/11 Activists, The Off-Guardian has published 3 excellent reviews of the documentary SEVEN. The links to each review are below for your convenience. Kevin Ryan's review: https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/29/a-review-of- seven/?fbclid=IwAR30RfOTpJSuKJUSsQd_cxKPy5kPRt4K0Pm0WR5ri6Sn-dJ0RIuyDLsd13I Piers Robinson's review: https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/02/good-science-vs-bad-science-and-propaganda-a-review- of-seven/?fbclid=IwAR3FzhKEk7_TGewXLhfrFpUzQyZmD3ITs9KlXdVL9YkvCZwBDYsED74TXB4 David Chandler's review: https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/05/david-chandler-on-seven/?fbclid=IwAR1dzUGpS-KDv67M- RCyZFcjhSgmUvpPHp2xkrMgVGzanenkcD2x9oafdOU You can rent or purchase SEVEN at https://www.ae911truth.org/news/721-new-film-seven-available-today-on-multiple- streaming-platforms. Thanks go to ae911Truth.org for their hard work on this important film which will contribute greatly to the credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement! Sincerely, Fran Shure 66 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 6, 2021 7:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Homeless and RVs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear city council, Please start looking at cleaning up our downtown. The stores that are empty are now homeless encampments. If we don’t do something soon it will be S F. Then their are the RVS they are getting worse and I think they have moved from mtn view to Palo Alto as Mtn View has banned RVs on their streets. Have any of you driven down EL Camino from Town and Country on down? It is disgusting. We have garbage, laundry and personal crap all around. Waste water being dumped on our ground. Please we need to have rules. We should have our transportation dept contact cal trans to get them to have no parking in El Camino. Stop turning the blind eye. Sent from my iPhone 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 3:04 PM To:Council, City Cc:BPA-News; Barron Park Messages; greenacres1@googlegroups.com Subject:Current and Proposed Housing Issues CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings City Council Members: First, I wish you all a Happy New Year. Second, congratulations to our new mayor Tom DuBois and Vice Mayor Pat Burk. This message has to do with the current housing issues being discussed by members of the state legislature. Some of the recent bills, either adopted or that are being considered, present reasonable solutions to the so called housing shortage throughout our state. Others may prove to be very harmful and counter productive. My overall concern is that in the long run, what the property developers want is what they will get, to the detriment of many existing neighborhoods. Palo Alto does not appear to be exempt form what is coming and may be coming down the pike. In my opinion, based on past and current operations, up to now I do not agree that past councils have acted in the overall best interests of our town and its residential neighborhoods, not to mention its public business areas. The article below calls attention to what I agree is a potential prospect of forever changing Palo Alto for the worse, if followed as described in a number of housing bills being considered in Sacramento. Before you direct your attention to the article below, here are a few examples which in my opinion and perspective, have brought lasting damage to our town: I. Stanford's two housing buildings on El Camino Real (ECR) near California Ave. These are just plain ugly, with literally no setback to allow reasonable street side landscaping. On its own campus, however, Stanford has constructed some buildings with outstanding architecture in garden like settings. 2. The site of the former Olive Garden has been given over to a massive office building, up to the curb, with little to no open space. This would have been an excellent site, once rezoned, for a delightful affordable housing complex with play space for children. 3. The new "Luxury Apartment" complex on Page Mill Road, just East of ECR with access bound to interrupt heavy East bound traffic on that main highway. I recall that prior to this construction the city owned the property that had four small houses on it. This should have been zoned for an affordable housing development. 4. The most current utter disaster of a building at the corner of ECR and Page Mill Road, adjacent to the Sunrise Senior Residential facility. This new building is so close to Sunrise that I doubt that even trees can be planted in the space between buildings. It is also going to be somewhat higher than the 2 Sunrise building, blocking out light to the residents' apartments on that side of the complex. My mother spent the last year of her life in that facility on the South side. She enjoyed the light and the view from her windows in her apartment. In each one of these cases, the developers won, and no doubt won enormously. Finally, to be fair to past City Councils, Park Avenue is a striking contrast to ECR. The buildings are mostly good to excellent architecture, and all along the roadway there is plenty of landscaping. ECR could have been the same, had prior council members acted on behalf of the residents rather than the developers. Now for the article below, which I have reproduced from a longer e-mail I recently received. Thank you for your attention to this long read. Richard C. Placone 601 Chimalus Drive Palo Alto/Barron Park Resident here since 1962 ********************************************************************************************************** Dropping the Hammer on YIMBYism Los Angeles Tenants Union March 19, 2019 This statement is from a group of organizers associated with the LA Tenants Union, DSA-LA, and/or the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, in response to an event hosted by the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles on March 19, 2019 titled “The Growing YIMBY Movement.” We also organized a protest inside/outside of the event. As Angelenos committed to housing as a human right, we are disappointed that the Hammer Museum would provide a fawning and uncritical platform to Sonja Trauss and other spokespeople of YIMBYism. It is not simply that we disagree with their ideology, or recognize it as an astroturf campaign; YIMBYs undermine the true movement for housing justice and tenant power. “Yes In My BackYard” advocates a deregulatory, trickle-down framework for housing policy that does more harm than good. The thread uniting YIMBYs is that we should just “build baby build” to solve our housing crisis, despite abundant evidence — including studies by MIT academics and the Federal reserve, in addition to historical evidence from cities that have pursued this approach — showing that merely adding market-rate supply does not lead to lower housing prices, but rather spurs gentrification and displacement. By empowering the real estate industry, which has long served as a vanguard of structural racism and segregation, YIMBY policies hasten the construction of cities only accessible to the rich. YIMBYs view the nightmares of housing and homelessness as a matter of supply and demand, ignoring the basic human right to shelter. Indeed, what they don’t fight for speaks volumes. YIMBYs do not support communities of color that have been fighting a permanent housing crisis for decades. YIMBYs do not support empowering and protecting tenants through policies like right to legal council, just-cause eviction, and rent control. They overwhelmingly ignore the possibility of increasing supply 3 with public or social housing. They do not support redistributions of power and wealth. Fundamentally, they are not on the side of the working class and people of color, and they are not guided by a commitment to housing as a human right. They have also been notably quiet on the subject of vacancy and speculation. They continue to ignore that there are 100,000 vacant homes in San Francisco and 268,000 vacant homes across the L.A. metro area. These staggering numbers can only fail to be relevant to those who are steadfastly committed to housing as a profit-making commodity. Their deference to the free market is why someone like Ben Carson, Secretary of HUD in the Trump Administration, feels comfortable enthusiastically declaring himself a YIMBY. With advocates in the Trump White House, the Governor’s Office, and the chair of California State Senate’s Housing Committee, the YIMBYs are not at all a “grassroots movement,” as the Hammer event ridiculously describes them. From the beginning, YIMBYs have benefitted from robust funding from the tech and real estate sectors. In 2015 Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman helped get YIMBYism off the ground with a $100,000 donation to a Sonja Strauss-led group. According to a more recent investigation by In These Times, among the YIMBY PACs that disclose their donors, over half their money comes from employees of tech or real estate firms. Indeed, last March, the LA Times wrote that “California YIMBY has raised more than $1 million and has a registered lobbyist on its payroll. The group hopes to collect another $1.5 million this year, Hanlon says. He estimates that about 90% of the money has come from technology executives.” This was reported before a $1 million donation from the tech company Stripe. Despite occasional claims to the contrary, YIMBYs do not support the burgeoning tenants movement, and do not take the problems of gentrification seriously. Last year the YIMBYs relentlessly pushed the upzoning bill SB 827 in the face of vehement statewide opposition from tenants groups and anti- gentrification organizations rooted in communities of color that were arguing the bill would intensify displacement. This year, they are again allying with anti-tenant groups like the California Apartment Association (the landlord lobby who have been leading the fight against rent control in California for years) and various Chambers of Commerce to push essentially the same bill. Prop 10 is another good example. This was a massive priority for tenants and the biggest push for an expansion of rent control in California in decades, yet the YIMBYs were nowhere to be found. Instead, they ignore or downplay the need for tenant protections with their laser-like focus on increasing market-rate supply. Sonja Trauss, the invited speaker to this event, has gone out of her way to represent the most nefarious qualities of the aggressively anti-poor, anti-immigrant, and anti-POC mindset of YIMBYism. She has claimed that gentrification is actually a net good for urban land equity because it’s “the revaluation of black land to its correct price.” She has also cited Edward Banfield, who popularized racist ideas like culture-of-poverty theory and broken-windows policing, as a “huge influence.” Even worse, Trauss has has compared Latinx anti-gentrification activists fighting to block luxury development in their neighborhoods to Trump supporters who demonize immigrants. YIMBYs often claim that all opposing them are reactionary NIMBYs opposed to low-income housing and diversity. This framing forecloses and ignores — intentionally, we think — ideas from the volunteer-run, tenant-led housing movements who are often their critics. We support more housing, as long as it’s affordable for the poor and the working class. We want social housing for all, whether owned by the state or by communities. We thus call ourselves PHIMBYs, advocating “Public Housing 4 In My BackYard.” YIMBYism is a dangerous ideology that is funded by the powerful to serve the powerful. We, as advocates for tenants (not housing units), for the human rights of working, poor, and people of color, must push back and provide alternatives to their narrow views. We hope this statement and our action does so, and invite you to join us. Written by LA Tenants Union https://join.latenantsunion.org 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Bahram Atashband <bahram.atashband@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received - 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. This was in regards to 1/11/2021 session for weed abatement program. Bahram Atashband On Jan 11, 2021, at 7:12 PM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:45 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Steven Feinstein; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret- sasaki@live.com; midge@thebarretts.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969 @att.net; leager Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Mon. Jan. 11, 2021 Men hit harder in all age grps. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 8:33 PM Subject: Dr. John Campbell, Mon. Jan. 11, 2021 Men hit harder in all age grps. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Late Monday, Jan. 11, 2021 To all‐ More grim news, but worth knowing. Dr. Campbell released this video today. No comment by him on FDA still not approving the Oxford vaccine. Borders on criminal conduct. The FDA and its Vaccine Advisory Committee have all of the data that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, had when they approved the Oxford vaccine in the UK. It has now been being injected for one week in the UK. If they were seeing untoward reactions, they would tell the world. One shot of the Oxford vaccine is highly efficacious. Pts. receiving one shot and then waiting 12 weeks for the second shot may still get sick from Covid, but they do not get seriously ill, requiring hospitalization. That is what we should be doing, and with the Oxford vaccine. When Biden cleans house at the FDA, you know that the Oxford vaccine will soon be in use in the U.S. We could do the one shot approach with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that have been approved for use in the U.S., and that is apparently what the Biden people also plan to do. Update ‐ YouTube He shows a chart. Men are hit harder than women in all age groups. He says that the average age of diagnosed cases or hospital admissions (?) has fallen to age 60. That took a lot of people in their 30s, 40s and 50s added to the mix. So, it looks like the Kent variant is sickening younger people in the UK than the original virus did in the UK. 7 Shortage of O2 in some hospitals in Britain. He says to bottle the vaccines in bigger bottles. One could then get 50 syringes loaded and vaccinate people faster. He asks why the drug makers use such small bottles. LH‐ I say again, authorize dentists, veteranarians, podiatrists, chiropractors and podiatrists to administer the shots. My podiatrist at Kaiser does surgery on feet in a hospital. Bet he knows his way around a syringe. Here's an idea. Diabetics who are on insulin inject themselves with insulin. Could they be trained to give vaccine shots? You'd screen them for middle age or younger, sane, stable, responsible, normal, willing, able to learn, willing to be trained and to have to pass tests before being allowed to inject humans. Do background checks. Bet you'd get plenty of volunteers. Rather radical? So is 4,000 people per day dying of Covid. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 4:04 PM To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Council, City; Tom DuBois; Aram James; Greer Stone Subject:Re: Factual Backup to Dispute Pat Burt's out of order and ad hominem comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I called in last night zoom to oppose Pat Burt's nomination to the regional VTA board, and was disappointed that by 5-2 he was approved nonetheless, with only Alison Cormack and Greg Tanaka opposing. I noted that former council member (and VTA rep) Gail Price called in with a similar complaint. I said that I have lived in this community since 1974, have met more than 50 members of Palo Alto leadership and am concerned with Pat Burt's nomination to the board. Further, I am concerned that it was a coup de etat in that there seemed to be some deal making -- between Pat, Tom Dubois and Greer Stone, to displace and embarass Alison Cormack, who council had already duly nominated. This is a foreboding start to the legislative year. Should I be following up with Mountain View and San Jose to warn them and seek remedy? I am concerned that Pat would, earlier in the meeting, the tape of which I have just now studied or reviewed, take two minutes "personal privilege" to rebut Rebecca's Eisenberg fair comment on a related matter, our new policy on conflict of interest, a consent calendar item. Pat, we do not live, as you claim falsely, in a "post-truth world". The fact that Bill Johnson of the Palo Alto Weekly goes out of his way to create a misleading version of you -- and literally deletes any mention of your flaws -- and this issue -- that you both led a company that was a major polluter and then failed to recuse yourself regarding CPI -- after stalling the discussion for 10 years -- is another matter. Sullivan V. The New York Times protects criticism of leadership from citizens like Rebecca Eisenberg and myself -- shame on you for seeking "privilege" as a substitute. Truth is a defense in supposed slander of public figures and electeds, That's a fact. More Facts: 1) Pat Burt worked for, perhaps founded or led, a company called Acteron; 2) Acteron is listed by the US Government EPA as a leading polluter; 3) CPI is a corporation in Palo Alto that was the focus of complaints about the release of poison gas - -Burt was in the same industry, did not recuse, and cut a bad deal. 4) Only 1 of 7 fellow council members of that era endorsed Pat Burt in 2020 -- Karen Holman. Ones who did not include: Greg Schmid, Gail Price, Nancy Shepherd, Yiaway Yeh. (Why is that? That's a call for opinion, but even so..) 5) Pat Burt as a council member, during a particular term of time, voted only for white males in terms of his choices for leadership, for boards, for commissions. Maybe that is or is not equivalent to "white supremacy" but is concerning, especially during an era of Black Lives Matter and #MeToo. As Rebecca also pointed out, we should be checking to see if any Palo Alto Police joined the insurrection in Washington, DC on Jan. 6 even off- duty; 2 6) Pat Burt met secretly with billionaire John Arrillaga and discussed a 7.7 acre parcel of land he was leasing from We the People and wished to purchase, and he wanted to build an office tower at 27 University, park land and national landmark -- the taxpayers wasted $500,000 enabling this. 7) A grand jury report says that Pat's actions in that case - or those two cases --indeed, I can list 100 facts about the case but still have no idea what is the relationship between buying the land and building the towers -- is a corruption of the government function. And betrayal of our community. I watched the tape — a public record — to see if Rebecca’s account is fair and accurate. To my estimation, we need her in leadership and we don’t need Pat. Eight-thousand voters agree with the first part of that statement. Regarding fact #4 above, my understanding is that his fellows considered him a bully; so its foreboding if that's what happened again last night in his first meeting. Welcome aboard, Rebecca: you’ve been ‘burted’!! Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Coda: The Weekly reports that Gail Price called in to oppose the coup I reference. It quotes her slightly out of context: she said Alison is not a bully to mean that she, like myself and Rebecca and numerous others consider Pat Burt to be a bully. He does not represent me. He subjects me. Please censure Pat Burt. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2021, at 6:59 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Case not closed 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:16 PM To:Van Der Zwaag, Minka Cc:Human Relations Commission Subject:Thursday’s HRC meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. 1/12/2021 Hi Minka, Please no need to be defensive.... but I have NOT received city notice of Thursday HRC meeting. Even if u sent it before can u....as a favor... send it once more. I intend to speak at the meeting. I already know I’m not a favorite of the HRC commissioners —but still... I have a right to exercise my 1st amendment rights on the critical issues you have on Thursday’s agenda. There is nothing in the constitution to suggest that those with disfavored view points should not be allowed to speak...at least not yet.....thanks as always for your consideration. Hope you are well. Sincerely, Aram James Begin forwarded message: From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Date: January 10, 2021 at 10:05:35 PM PST To: Minka Van Der Zwaag <Minka.VanDerZwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>, supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org, Beth Minor <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org>, Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>, hrc@cityofpaloalto.org, "Steven D. Lee" <stevendlee@gmail.com>, Raven Malone <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com>, Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, Ed Lauing <ed@edlauingforcitycouncil.com>, city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, Alison Cormack <alison.cormack@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@gmail.com>, eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com, Joe Simitian <supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org, rebecca@winwithrebecca.com, greg@gregtanaka.org, Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Subject: Why we need a second great migration ‐by Charlie Blow‐(NYT) describe at a deep level why racism in the north is at least as destructive of the soul ...as is segregation in the north.... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/opinion/georgia‐black‐political‐power.amp.html Sent from my iPhone From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:18 PM To: Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>; Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@embarcaderopublishing.com>; Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Jesse Gary <jesse.gary@foxtv.com> Subject: Pat Burt - official complainte CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor, Molly, and Beth: I am writing to make an official complaint about the actions of Pat Burt at last night's City Council Meeting - Monday January 12. In brief, Pat Burt spoke out of turn, and during his inappropriate diatribe, he slandered me - speaking false statements about me, as well as misrepresentations about my well- documented claims. The entire time that Pat Burt spoke, my name was shown clearly and conspicuously on the screen. As you know, a legislator can raise a point of personal privilege to address a matter unique to that legislator, but only to the extent that the matter is urgent and cannot be addressed later. Additionally, although legislators can use a point of personal privilege to defend themselves from attack by another legislator, they can do so only when the matter is urgent, and only when the alleged attack came from a different legislator. See, e.g., https://jurassicparliament.com/roberts-rules-point-of-personal-privilege/ Clearly none of these requirements were present when Pat Burt spoke out of order to attack my personal integrity. In calling me a liar, Pat Burt committed slander per se, as I am not a public figure. Even though malicious intent is not a necessary factor in this analysis, it also was clear that Pat Burt did, in fact, act with malice when he publicly disparaged me and made false statements to attack me in a public setting. As demonstrated by this email, as well as the additional research I sent yesterday and repeat below, I had ample factual evidence to make the claims I stated at the City Council meeting on Monday, January 11, 2021. As to the substance of the matter Pat Burt continues to misrepresent his history of toxic waste production. As the EPA states in numerous documents, the metal plating business is an out of date and highly toxic industry. As one of countless examples, just three months, ago, the EPA won yet another lawsuit against a metal plating company for irreparable harm caused by the metal plating's deadly toxic sludge. In the EPA's Official News Release, dated September 21, 2020, the EPA states: "Metal finishers use a plating or anodizing process to coat industrial metal, and typically generate hazardous wastes including: sludges containing heavy metals such as chromium, cadmium, and lead; spent plating solutions containing metals or cyanides; flammable liquids; and both alkaline and acidic corrosive liquids. U.S. law requires metal finishing companies to properly manage hazardous waste to prevent harm to human health and the environment and to prevent costly cleanups." It is simply indisputable that the company that Pat Burt operated created toxic waste. The EPA says it did, and Pat did not and cannot provide evidence to the contrary. Instead of attempting to try to portray Pat's metal plating business as non-toxic, Burt points to "many awards." Yet Burt actually can point to only one award: the Acterra Award, given to Burt by former Palo Alto Mayor Drekmeier, to whom Pat Burt had made large campaign contributions, and whom Pat lists as his own supporter on his website. Not only did Burt's company Acteron receive the Acterra Award during Acterra's very first year in existence, it received that award a full 31 years ago. Most importantly, Burt misrepresented the nature of the award his friend and political partner Peter Drekmeier gave him in 1990. The award was one specifically for corporations. Corporate awards of this type usually are accompanied by donations and therefore often can be purchased by recipients. They usually constitute little more than paid advertising. Notably, other recipients of the same Acterra award which Pat Burt calls his "proudest achievement" include notorious toxic polluters such as LSI Logic, Applied Materials, Apple Computer, and Hewlett-Packard -- the company that permanently contaminated miles of rolling foothills by creating the Hewlett-Packard Superfund Site at Stanford Research Park - one of the worst Superfund Sites in the country . Notably, the fact that Pat Burt continues to advocate to put low income housing on contaminated land at Stanford Research Park - in violation of state and federal housing law -- demonstrates Burt's disregard for the deadly impact of his industry's toxic waste production. (Here is an overview from National Geographic.) In sum: the award to which Pat refers as his "proudest achievement" was most likely a pay-to-play accolade given by a brand-new organization founded by a politician to whom Pat had made large campaign contributions,during its first year of existence. Not surprisingly, Pat Burt has little to say in his defense. Although I sent my email below in response to Burt's promise that he would explain away my alleged lies a full day ago, Pat Burt has not responded. Pat Burt's silence on the matter confirms that my statements were truthful. Accordingly I demand a public apology for the malicious attacks that Pat Burt made on my character. His actions were out of line and illegal -- and he made them while my name appeared on the screen (see attached) in order to make clear that he was speaking about me. As a reminder, the City Council meeting is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHarF- fvm8w My 3-minute comment starts at approximately 1:14:20 Pat Burt's out-of-order and deceitful personal attack against me starts at 1:29:30 -- in which he speaks approximately the same amount of time as I was given, without any right to do so. In Pat Burt's out of order statement, Pat makes the following falsehoods: - Pat says, "I had no business interest at the time" he went after CPI. Pat Burt's Form 700 refutes that claim, as he did have numerous business interests at the time. - Pat says, "I had no business interest with my former company"- but fails to clarify whether he had any business interest with the successor-in-fact and successor-in-law of Acteron, specifically Flextronics. Pat's statement is misleading and irrelevant. - Pat claims he received "multiple environmental awards," but only listed one (Acterrra, per above). - Pat fails to mention that he also testified under oath that his industry was unavoidably toxic - Pat fails to clarify that his renown in his industry was due to the fact that he was able to convince regulators: (1) that metal plating was an essential process (it is not); (2) that metal plating cannot be done without creating toxic waste (unproven); and (3) that the economics of metal plating make it impossible for metal plating companies to clean up their toxic waste (which Pat's alleged $30 million payday from his company belies) - Pat claims that his industry (not actual environmental) accolades were his "proudest achievement," yet he never denies that his company created tons of toxic waste each year. - Pat claims that he had "zero discharge" but that is not the correct terminology. According to the EPA, his company created 11 tons of toxic waste a year. "Discharge" may be a thing, but per above, that is not the kind of toxic waste produced by metal platers. - Pat claimed he had "no idea" where the figures came from, yet they are published on the EPA's website: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1009602.PDF?Dockey=P1009602.PDF . It is inconceivable that even Pat Burt was not aware that his company and industry were actively regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. - Pat is well aware that the EPA provides almost no enforcement, and that industry figures are generally self-reported yet suggested otherwise when he promised he would offer "records." - Pat claimed that his company received the Acterra Award yet neither Acteron nor Pat Burt's name appears in the Acterra Award Database for any accollade in the past 13 years:: http://52.53.242.122/#/main . The award to which Pat points was given to his company 30 years ago, in 1990 - and no award can be found in the record in the past 30 years. - Pat claimed that the awards were given by the "environmental community" which is misleading. The award was given by 31 years ago, by a brand-new organization founded by a politician to whom Pat had made large campaign contributions, during its first year of establishment. Per above and below (containing additional backup support), my statements were truthful, and Pat Burt deserves an official censure for speaking out of turn in order to slander me personally. He also owes me a public apology, and should come clean on his history of false statements. Sincerely, Rebecca Eisenberg www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg 415-235-8078 Key Takeaways from the research provided below: 1 - Metal plating creates huge amounts of toxic waste 2 - Metal plating creates so many different kinds of toxic waste that it exceeded the EPA’s budget to find out 3 - Almost all data is self-reported by the industry (and not double-checked) 4 - According to the EPA, almost no metal platers effectively treat their waste 5 - According to the EPA, it’s too expensive for the metal platers to treat their waste effectively 6 - Given the cost, rather than fund the cleanup or create payment plans, the EPA just lets them pollute (based on self-reports that it’s too expensive to comply with the law (sound familiar? Like how Palo Alto lets commercial developer avoid paying impact fees and also allows them to avoid building affordable housing) 7 - Obviously metal plating is extremely lucrative — Burt sold his company for a ton of money (I heard $30 million but that is not confirmed) and after that sale (per above), he diversified into real estate investment and venture capital. Given how much money this business made for Burt, query whether Acteron could not afford to clean up their toxic messes? 8 - To the extent that Pat Burt claims to have been one of the “best in the metal plating industry on environmental issues” that is like saying that he is the cleanest rat in the world’s most contaminated sewer. 9 - Query what kind of person chooses this industry - an industry known for its toxic waste. In Silicon Valley, home of the information industry, what kind of person chooses one of the most (if not the very most) toxicity-producing business? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:58 PM Subject: Factual Backup to Dispute Pat Burt's out of order and ad hominem comments To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Pat Burt <patburt11@gmail.com>, Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Cc: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Dear Pat: You spoke out of order at this meeting in order to discredit my research -- research which I already had vetted with numerous experts in the field. You spoke disrespectfully, attacking my character, which served in strong contrast to my criticisms - I criticized only your actions. When it comes to women, you inevitably attack character, having no actual wrongdoings to criticize. That is unprofessional and demonstrates an entrenched discriminatory attitude towards women -- an attitude backed also by your long record of pushing women out of leadership roles, like you have done with Alison Cormack, and failing to appoint women to leadership roles. Your bias is showing. In addition, despite the fact that this was your first "real" meeting as a city council member, your temper and need to attack the truth-teller was so strong that you spoke out of turn to attack me in the same unprofessional and unbecoming style that you have made famous. The fact that you could not go even a partial meeting without being able to restrain yourself from breaking the rules reflects your most common way of operating - out of control emotionally, and unable to follow very simple, fairly-applied rules - the same rules I adhered to when I followed the time limit and waited until I had an opportunity to speak. As an attorney for three decades and the daughter of a federal judge, I believe that rules serve a purpose. To see elected leadership act in disregard of the rules is something we all hoped to avoid in 2021. Please try to control your temper. Pat, you accused me of making claims that are unsubstantiated. I hope what I provide below shows a small portion of how well substantiated my claims are. They are so substantiated that I was willing to state these for the record. Pat, you are no environmentalist. Your company created 11 tons of unnecessary toxic waste and did not manage it. You created this waste just a few miles north of Palo Alto, in mostly Hispanic neighborhoods of Redwood City and San Carlos. I have personally visited these sites. Your accolades were a marketing sham of your own creation. You know well that metal plating is one of the most toxic industries on the planet. You said so on the public record when you drove your direct competitor out of Palo Alto, on the grounds that metal plating as an *industry* causes unmanageable pollution that should not be near residences. You may not have owned Acteron shares at the time that you drove CPI from Palo Alto, but did you have any interest in the company with which Acteron merged, Flextronics? Regardless, given the many millions of dollars that you made by operating a company that harmed our groundwater, especially those of the Hispanic families that live near your plants, any reasonable person would expect you to mention this potential conflict when you led the campaign to drive a competitor out of town on toxic waste grounds. Finally, the information on the EPA website and elsewhere, only some of which is quoted below, makes it clear that you never even claimed to operate a clean company. You claimed to operate the most clean company that metal plating can be. You failed to mention that metal plating serves no economic, financial, industrial, or other purpose. The best you could say is that the 11 tons of deadly waste you dumped into the earth was LESS than any other company in an industry that was rendered obsolete decades ago. I do not applaud you. Warm regards, Rebecca Eisenberg rebecca@winwithrebecca.com www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg 415-235-8078 BACKUP SOURCES TOPLINE: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1009602.PDF?Dockey=P1009602.PDF RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION The EPA Report states that Acteron dumps 11 tons of hazardous waste into the environment a year And manages zero Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (defined below). BACKUP SOURCES. Burt’s Bio: https://ngn.org/channels/user/1278/ Patrick Burt School/Organization : |UNAFF|SwiftMile Inc.|Palo Alto Mayor| Title : Advisory Board Member Bio : Pat Burt has an extensive career as an entrepreneur, elected official and environmental policy advocate. He served for a decade as a city council member in Palo Alto, California and two terms as mayor. He led Palo Alto’s cutting-edge environmental initiatives, including their 100% carbon neutral electricity portfolio and leading Climate Action Plan. Pat founded and for over 20 years was CEO of Acteron, a prominent Silicon Valley provider of advanced technology manufacturing services, acquired by Flextronics in 2010. Pat served as an advisor on environmental policy at the regional, state and national levels. Subsequently, he was CEO of Vascular Access Technologies, acquired by Merit Medical, and was co-founder/CEO of Theradep Technologies. He is also an angel investor and an advisor to early stage companies. LOOKING AT ACTERON. Acteron has 2 facilities: (1) NXEDGE San Carlos (NOW FLEXTRONICS, the parent company): https://ofmpub.epa.gov/frs_public2/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000861023 Section 4. Facility Identification TRI Facility ID: 94070CTRNC1000C 4.1 Facility Name and Address. Facility Information If you scroll down, you do see that Pat Burt is creating tons of toxic waste. He claims he is treating it at his facility. There is reference to it entering the water. Most of the good stuff is at the bottom. And there are many places where he reports “Yes” but then “No data.” (Not a lot of enforcement by the EPA). It is unlikely that he broke the law. That said, the law allows for a HUGE amount of pollution and is very tolerant of risks to the surrounding communities, which in the case of Pat Burt — both of his facilities were located in majority-Latinx communities. This is his other facility: https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110000784125 ACTERON CORP 851 SHASTA STREET, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 FRS ID: 110000784125 EPA Region: 09 Latitude: 37.47907 Longitude: -122.22226 Locational Data Source: FRS Industry: Indian Country: N ACTERON INDUSTRY: METAL PLATING - CONSIDERED ONE OF THE MOST TOXIC OF ALL INDUSTRIES This report gives a recent overview: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/metal-finishing_prelim-review_april- 2018.pdf Key Takeaways: 1 - Metal plating creates huge amounts of toxic waste 2 - Metal plating creates so many different kinds of toxic waste that it exceeded the EPA’s budget to find out 3 - Almost all data is self-reported by the industry (and not double-checked) 4 - According to the EPA, almost no metal platers effectively treat their waste 5 - According to the EPA, it’s too expensive for the metal platers to treat their waste effectively 6 - Given the cost, rather than fund the cleanup or create payment plans, the EPA just lets them pollute (based on self-reports that it’s too expensive to comply with the law (sound familiar? Like how Palo Alto lets commercial developer avoid paying impact fees and also allows them to avoid building affordable housing) 7 - Obviously metal plating is extremely lucrative — Burt sold his company for a ton of money (I heard $30 million but that is not confirmed) and after that sale (per above), he diversified into real estate investment and venture capital. Given how much money this business made for Burt, query whether Acteron could not afford to clean up their toxic messes? 8 - To the extent that Pat Burt claims to have been one of the “best in the metal plating industry on environmental issues” that is like saying that he is the cleanest rat in the world’s most contaminated sewer. 9 - Query what kind of person chooses this industry - an industry known for its toxic waste. In Silicon Valley, home of the information industry, what kind of person chooses one of the most (if not the very most) toxicity-producing business? PAT BURT’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH A METAL PLATING COMPETITOR: https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/11/17/new-laws-could-force-cpi-out-of-palo-alto/ The City Council wanted to take action on CPI’s toxic waste. Burt is quoted as saying the following : "Councilman Pat Burt acknowledged that the council’s plan of action likely won’t sit well with either CPI or residents: The city is taking an aggressive approach that pushes the boundaries of what is legally permissible to reduce risk at the location more than any other time in the past 60 years, he said. Although CPI has reduced the volume of hazardous materials at the location, Burt said he still wouldn’t want to live next door." See also: https://patch.com/california/paloalto/toxic-showdown-at-city-hall - [ WHERE PAT BURT MAKES CLEAR THAT THE KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS HIS OWN COMPANY CREATES ARE FINE FOR THE HISPANICS WHO LIVE NEAR HIS FACILITY BUT NOT FINE FOR THE WHITE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR CPI -- Hence he even *introduced* the ordinance to get rid of his competitor in Palo Alto: Council Member Pat Burt introduced a motion calling on City staff to put together a budget and hire a consultant who will look at what options the City has for amortizing the plating facility. The motion passed unanimously with Mayor Yiaway Yeh absent. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/11/17/palo-alto-firms-up-rules-for-toxic-chemicals (council vote against CPI was unanimous, no one recused or abstaining) and https://www.thereporter.com/2016/03/01/palo-alto-cpis-metal-plating-shop-must-go-by-2031-council- decides/ (where Pat Burt successfully kicked his competitor out of Palo Alto, on the grounds that plating creates unacceptable health hazards for residents) TO NAVIGATE THE EPA WEBSITE, I RECOMMEND WATCHING THIS VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QQVJ6v53ZQ&feature=youtu.be RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION The EPA Report states that Acteron dumps 11 tons of hazardous waste into the environment a year And manages zero https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1009602.PDF?Dockey=P1009602.PDF Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in partnership with the States1 , biennially collects information regarding the generation, management, and final disposition of hazardous wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended. The purpose of this 2009 National Biennial Report is to communicate the findings of EPA’s 2009 hazardous waste reporting data collection efforts to the public, government agencies, and the regulated community. The 2009 National Biennial Report consists of three volumes of data: • The National Analysis data presents a detailed look at waste-handling practices in the States, and largest facilities nationally, including (1) the quantity of waste generated, managed, shipped, and received, and interstate shipments and receipts, and (2) the number of generators and managing facilities, • The State Detail Analysis data is a detailed look at each State’s waste handling practices, including overall totals for generation, management, shipments, and receipts, as well as totals for the largest fifty facilities, and • The List of Reported RCRA Sites identifies every hazardous waste facility in the United States that submitted a hazardous waste report in 2009. RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE Throughout this Report, the term RCRA hazardous waste refers to solid waste assigned a Federal Hazardous Waste Code and regulated by RCRA. Some States elect to regulate wastes not specifically regulated by EPA; these wastes are assigned State Hazardous Waste Codes. For this Report, EPA asked States to exclude data for waste with only State Hazardous Waste Codes (the waste description does not include any Federal Hazardous Waste Codes). The reader can find a more detailed explanation in the RCRA Orientation Manual (www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/pubs/orientat/index.htm) and in the Code of Federal Regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261. Please refer to Appendix D of the National Analysis Report for a complete list of EPA Hazardous Waste Codes used by the regulated community for their 2009 Biennial Report submissions. Details about the information submitted by the regulated community can be found in the 2009 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms (www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm). Guidance provided to the regulated community regarding information to include or exclude from the National Report can be found in Appendix E of the National Analysis Report. CAR000014126 ACTERON CORPORATION SAN CARLOS 11 RCRA Tons Generated 0 RCRA Tons Managed https://www.lion.com/lion-news/july-2017/epa-may-delist-electroplating-sludge-from-rcra-haz What is Electroplating? Used since the 1800’s, electroplating is the process by which manufacturers add a layer of metal to a product, like jewelry, using electricity. In essence, the product is placed in an electrolyte bath with the plating metal, with both connected to charged electrodes. An electric current is applied, oxidizing and effectively dissolving the metal atoms in the bath. The dissolved metal is then reduced and placed on the piece. While on City Council made fellow plating company CPI move: https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/23/palo-alto-cpi-must-move-metal-plating-shop-by-2026-or-close/ PALO ALTO — A settlement agreement leaves Communications & Power Industries with two options for the future of its metal plating shop, which has been a safety concern of nearby residents for years. The agreement, which City Council members approved Monday, allows CPI to continue using non- conforming hazardous materials integral to its plating shop at 811 Hansen Way as long as it moves the shop to an area of its property at least 300 feet away from the nearest homes in the Barron Park neighborhood. If CPI chooses to relocate the plating shop and associated chemical storage area to another part of the property, it must establish the new building by 2026 or face an injunction to cease operations. City officials and residents have said they would rather see CPI stop using such hazardous altogether on its property or anywhere else in the city. If CPI agrees to do so, it can keep operating the plating shop as its current location until 2031 and then must stop using the non-conforming hazardous materials anywhere within city limits. CPI has until Dec. 31, 2021 to notify the city which option it chooses. CPI President Bob Fickett has said that moving the plating shop 300 feet from homes would add “non- efficiencies and take away our competitiveness.” And phasing out the hazardous materials essentially would shutter the entire operation, he added. Resident Art Liberman urged the council to approve the agreement. “While we residents, understandably, are not entirely thrilled with the settlement, we will now have the assurance that the ‘clock is ticking’ on the presence of the toxic and highly toxic materials in CPI’s plating shop near our homes, and that brings us significant comfort,” Liberman said in an email to city officials. Residents’ safety concerns stem from an accidental release of nitric acid gas in 2005 and a hydrochloric acid and copper-and nickel-infused wastewater spill in 2008. Email Jacqueline Lee at jlee1@dailynewsgroup.com or call her at 650-391-1334; follow her at twitter.com/jleenews. https://p2infohouse.org/ref/32/31534.pdf In the file - a report about his toxic waste dumping https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1009602.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006 +Thru+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&Q Field=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D %3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000022%5CP1009602.txt&User=ANON YMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C- &MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr &DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPa ges=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL https://www.purchasingnetwork.com/doc/acteron-corporation-0001 CEO Acteron Corporation Acteron Corporation. As the leading supplier of specialty plating and anodizing for high technology applications, Acteron is qualified to surpass your most exacting requirement. ... Our new 30,000 square foot state-of-the-art facility located in Silicon Valley includes computer controlled anodizing. Company Profile | March 14, 2001 Acteron Corporation Source: Acteron Corporation As the leading supplier of specialty plating and anodizing for high technology applications, Acteron is qualified to surpass your most exacting requirement. For over 15 years, we have responded to the need for rigid quality control plating and anodizing which exceeds military and commercial specifications. Our new 30,000 square foot state-of-the-art facility located in Silicon Valley includes computer controlled anodizing. We have developed unique and innovative proprietary processes for your critical applications. These processes enhance product value by improving life and performance while reducing costs. Acteron's Total Quality Management approach incorporates Statistical Process Control throughout. https://www.themetalmark.com/content/what-difference-between-plating-anodizing-and-enameling https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/custom-manufacturing-fabricating/anodizing-environmental/ The process of anodizing with a sulfuric acid bath produces two byproducts: degraded sulfuric acid and aluminum hydroxide. Aluminum hydroxide is a compound of aluminum from the anodized part, and hydrogen and oxygen from the acid. Classified by the EPA as hazardous, aluminum hydroxide wastewater cannot simply be dumped into a municipal wastewater system. The EPA has strict standards for the highest allowable aluminum concentration level upon disposal; degraded sulfuric acid must also be neutralized before disposal to a ph of between six and eight. Through give and take between the industry and the EPA, the EPA sets up guidelines and standards called Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). BAT standards are then mandated for waste disposal. Some very innovative solutions to waste management have since been introduced that not only reduce the waste that needs disposal, but also reclamation and recycling of the aluminum metal itself. https://www.pfonline.com/articles/is-your-electroplating-waste-hazardous Processing of hazardous waste that contains precious metals is a challenge and responsibility that many electroplating companies face. Cyanide- and acid-based solutions, and materials such as plating bath filters and resins, all have the potential to cause injury and harm to our environment if not disposed of properly. Many companies may not realize that they are liable for how their precious-metal-bearing waste is handled and, ultimately, for the repercussions if a spill or similar incident were to occur. Because of the inherent risks associated with the processing of hazardous waste, a comprehensive processing plan is essential to protect the environment and individuals handling the materials, and to avoid potential fines or lawsuits. https://waste.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212352857 • Wastes - Frequent Questions Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Identification The hazardous waste listing for F006 includes wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations. What types of electroplating operations are included in this listing? The F006 listing includes the wastewater treatment sludges from the following processes: (1) common and precious metals electroplating, except tin, zinc (segregated basis), aluminum and zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel; (2) anodizing, except sulfuric anodizing of aluminum; (3) chemical etching and milling, except when performed on aluminum; and (4) cleaning and stripping, except when associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel. Accordingly, the following processes are not included under the F006 listing: chemical conversion coating, electroless plating and printed circuit board manufacturing. However, wastewater treatment sludges from printed circuit board manufacturing that include any of the processes which are within the scope of the F006 listing (e.g., chemical etching) would be regulated as a F006 waste. Electroplating operations do not include electrowhinning and electrofinishing, electroless plating, chemical conversion coating, and printed circuit board manufacturing (51 FR 43350; December 2, 1986). Also, wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum are listed as F019 hazardous waste. See FR 43350, 43551: December 2, 1986. Additional guidance regarding the applicability of the F006 listing is available in the following documents: Memo, Dellinger to Zirch; February 12, 2004 (RCRA Online #14691) Memo, Bussard to Pucci; August 18, 1998 (RCRA Online #14482) Monthly Call Center Report Questions; June 1997 (RCRA Online #14108) Memo, Bussard to Dufour, January 21; 1997 (RCRA Online #14017) Memo, Shapiro to Rhodes; July 12, 1994 (RCRA Online #11851) Memo, Lowrance to Duprey; January 15, 1992 (RCRA Online #11663) Memo, Clay to Schafer; June 7, 1991 (RCRA Online #14322) Memo, Lowrance to Hopkins; August 15, 1990 (RCRA Online #11551) Memo, Barnes to Evans; August 21, 1989 (RCRA Online #11458) Memo, Lowrance to Meeks; April 14, 1988 (RCRA Online #11340) Memo, Williams to Lovgren; January 11, 1988 (RCRA Online #11315) Memo, Straus to Schiffman; July 28, 1987 (RCRA Online #11269) Memo, Abrams to Duncan; May 5, 1987 (RCRA Online #11244) These documents are available at the following URL: https://rcrapublic.epa.gov/rcraonline https://www.triumvirate.com/blog/the-sludgy-semantics-of-f006-waste-characterization F006 Isn't Just About Electroplating, Here's Why You Should Double Check the Rule to Ensure Compliance POSTED BY PAT DOYLE DECEMBER 1, 2015 The RCRA F006 rule provides a list of exceptions to wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations (40 CFR 260.11). The list exempts sulfuric acid anodizing or tin-plating of steel, among other chemicals. This rule does a great job of explaining what is not F006 waste, but is pretty vague in regards to what is indeed covered under the F006 rule. Larger definitions of electroplating include any process that coats a metal in another metal, usually by chemical and electrical means according to the EPA definition. This seems straightforward enough, but this broad definition of electroplating might cover more processes than you think. Many businesses in the metal treating, finishing, and processing fields are subject to this regulation, even those that might not explicitly be involved in electroplating by common definitions. Overlooking or ignoring this regulation and subsequent improper disposal of waste can land you in hot water with the EPA, and can lead to fines if it's found you are out of compliance. In addition, waste that fits under this regulation is typically designated for special processing to recover the metals in that waste, and your business could benefit from certain compliance incentives if you can show the EPA that you're properly dealing with this waste. Here are some other processes that aren't electroplating by some definitions, but still generate waste which falls under the umbrella of F006: • Alkaline Surface Cleaning Zinc Plating on Carbon Steel using Cyanides Zinc Plating on Gray Cast Iron Iron Plating on Aluminum PreCleaning activities prior to electroplating Ion-exchange resins from rinsewater treatment (assuming F006 precursor) Photoresist Stripping Cleaning and Stripping in the printing industry Bright Dipping Silicon water etching Spent Activated Carbon from rinse water treatment (assuming F006 precursor) If any of these processes occur onsite and the wastewater from the process is treated in a wastewater treatment system, then sludge from this treatment would be regulated under F006. Whether or not you can characterize your waste as F006 will determine how much you can keep onsite at a time, how you are required to dispose of this waste, and what kinds of provisions you are required to implement in order to stay compliant, like an additional level of pollution control or waste processing, for example. Proper characterization of your waste also helps your receiving facility deal with it in a way that is safe and environmentally conscious, ensuring they will continue to accept your waste rather than rejecting it because it hasn't been properly characterized. As a general rule of thumb, it is always better to over-code your waste system than risk overlooking an important regulation for a specific type of waste. One way to ensure compliance without completely restructuring your waste management plan is to minimize or eliminate generation of F006 if at all possible. A couple of ideas for minimizing or eliminating your F006 waste and being able to bypass these regulations are: • Cleaning and drying your electroplated or etched components in a separate step to eliminate contaminants being carried into the waste water treatment system. If your company only generates low levels of these contaminants, you might be eligible to get your F006 de-listed or the requirement for 'timely removal' eased. Click the link below to learn more about how we can help you achieve 100% wastewater compliance. Case not closed 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Drekmeier <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 3:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Plan Letters Were Sent Attachments:Bay Delta Plan letters.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council Members: At yesterday’s meeting, I commented that I was not aware of a record of letters regarding Council’s vote on the Bay Delta Plan having been sent. Today, City Manager Shikada followed up with me and sent me copies of the letters, which are attached. Mr. Shikada also forwarded the City’s email response to my request, which I then found in my inbox (impressively, sent the same day as my request). The link to the documents from that email didn’t work for me (perhaps a problem on my end), which might have caused me some confusion, but regardless, the matter has been settled. I appreciate Mr. Shikada’s quick response. ‐Peter ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Peter Drekmeier pdrekmeier@earthlink.net (650) 223‐3333 2 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:54 AM To:Steve Levy Subject:Analysis of New Population Estimates for California and counties Attachments:Numbers-Jan2021_Population-Estimates-Implications.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Looking forward to a better year in 2021 for all of us, Attached is an overview (link below also) of recent DOF population estimates for 2020 and revisions for recent years. Below are highlights and my thoughts on future trends and their determinants. http://ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-Jan2021_Population-Estimates-Implications.pdf "In December 2020 the California Department of Finance (DOF) released new population estimates for counties as of July 1, 2020 and revisions to recent year estimates. These estimates will be replaced in the coming months by 2020 Census estimates where there are unknown issues with potential undercounts and the inclusion of all unauthorized immigrants. The July 1, 2020 estimates show a pattern of sharply slowing population growth throughout California. Highlights from these estimates include: All regions had falling levels of births and rising levels of deaths. All regions had falling levels of immigration. Sacramento was the only region that had positive net migration for each year between 2915 and 2020. The largest levels of domestic outmigration were in the Coastal regions with high and rising housing costs. Thoughts About Future Trends o The trend of declining population growth from natural increase will continue. Fertility rates are expected to remain low or decline further and an aging population will lead to rising levels of deaths. o Immigration levels are likely to rebound as the new administration will likely welcome more immigrants—foreign students, needed workers including less restrictive H1-B visas, a more welcoming attitude for foreign tourism combined with a return to air travel and potentially a more welcoming attitude toward refugees and asylum seekers. o The big unknown is what will happen with domestic migration and state economic competitiveness and job growth. This will depend on how successful regions are in 3 expanding housing supply and affordability, trends in working from home and the foundations for continued job growth and broadly shared prosperity." 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 1 January 2021 New Population Estimates and Implications In December 2020 the California Department of Finance (DOF) released new population estimates for counties as of July 1, 2020 and revisions to recent year estimates. These estimates will be replaced in the coming months by 2020 Census estimates where there are unknown issues with potential undercounts and the inclusion of all unauthorized immigrants. The July 1, 2020 estimates show a pattern of sharply slowing population growth throughout California. The county composition of these regions is shown is shown below in this report. The Bay Area, Sacramento region. L.A. Basin and San Diego regions correspond to the ABAG, SACOG, SCAG and SANDAG regional planning agency areas. All estimates in this report are for July 1 from DOF. Population on July 1 (Thousands) Regions 2015 2019 2020 2015‐20 2019‐20 Bay Area 7,634.2 7,786.2 7,787.9 2.0% 0.0% Sacramento 2,427.0 2,533.8 2,553.7 5.2% 0.8% San Joaquin Valley 4,160.5 4,320.8 4,350.4 4.6% 0.7% Los Angeles Basin 18,789.3 19,044.0 19,025.4 1.3% ‐0.1% San Diego 3,275.0 3,346.9 3,352.1 2.4% 0.2% Rest of State 2,791.1 2,799.8 2,782.6 ‐0.3% ‐0.6% Mountain 473.3 471.2 468.9 ‐0.9% ‐0.5% Sacramento Valley 515.8 508.4 500.9 ‐2.9% ‐1.5% North Coast 314.2 313.2 311.2 ‐1.0% ‐0.7% Coast 1,487.8 1,507.0 1,501.6 0.9% ‐0.4% California 39,007.1 39,761.2 39,782.4 2.0% 0.1% The state added fewer than 1 million residents between 2015 and 2020 (+2.0%) and had virtually no growth in the latest year. Highlights from these estimates include: All regions had falling levels of births and rising levels of deaths. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 2 All regions had falling levels of immigration. Sacramento was the only region that had positive net migration for each year between 2915 and 2020. The largest levels of domestic outmigration were in the Coastal regions with high and rising housing costs. The rest of state region (28 counties) lost population between 2015 and 2020 and had rising out migration from the high housing cost coastal counties of Monterey, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. Thoughts About Future Trends The trend of declining population growth from natural increase will continue. Fertility rates are expected to remain low or decline further and an aging population will lead to rising levels of deaths. Immigration levels are likely to rebound as the new administration will likely welcome more immigrants—foreign students, needed workers including less restrictive H1-B visas, a more welcoming attitude for foreign tourism combined with a return to air travel and potentially a more welcoming attitude toward refugees and asylum seekers. The big unknown is what will happen with domestic migration and state economic competitiveness and job growth. This will depend on how successful regions are in expanding housing supply and affordability, trends in working from home and the foundations for continued job growth and broadly shared prosperity. California Estimates Natural increase contributed less to state growth each year during the past decade but the larger change was in the move from positive to negative net migration. This change pushed stat population growth lower each year until it was virtually zero in 2019-20. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 3 The decline in net migration was the result of recent declines in immigration and the sharp increase in domestic out-migration mostly from the L.A. Basin and Bay Area regions. At the state level, domestic migration means into and out of the state though at the county level migration includes between counties within the state. The changes in birth and death levels are gradual but their continuation in this decade will decrease natural increase each year. ‐200,000 ‐100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 California Components of Population Change 2011‐2020 Change Natural Increase Net Migration ‐300,000 ‐200,000 ‐100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 California Components of Net Migration 2011‐2020 Immigation Domestic Migration Net Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 4 Los Angeles Basin Estimates Regional population growth was led by /riverside and San Bernardino counties where housing costs and availability are best in the region. Los Angeles and Ventura counties had the slowest % growth since 2015. All counties except Riverside and San Bernardino lost population in 2019-2020. Population on July 1 (Thousands) 2015 2019 2020 2015‐20 2019‐20 Imperial 184.5 189.0 188.1 2.0% ‐0.5% Los Angeles 10,156.0 10,211.0 10,171.6 0.2% ‐0.4% Orange 3,154.4 3,195.2 3,190.8 1.2% ‐0.1% Riverside 2,327.1 2,428.5 2,449.3 5.3% 0.9% San Bernardino 2,118.7 2,176.2 2,184.1 3.1% 0.4% Ventura 848.7 844.2 841.4 ‐0.9% ‐0.3% Los Angeles Basin 18,789.3 19,044.0 19,025.4 1.3% ‐0.1% The Basin is the state’s largest region with 19 million residents. Population growth slowed during recent years ending with a small decline in 2019-20. As with most regions the biggest change was the sharp decline in migration combined with smaller contributions from natural increase. 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 California Components of Natural Increase 2011‐2020 Births Deaths Natural Increase 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 5 Immigration rose and then declined in recent years with little change over the decade. The big change was the sharp decline in domestic migration with 2/3 of that from Los Angeles County and most of the rest from Orange County. These counties have the highest an fastest growing housing costs in recent years. The pattern of natural increase is similar to that in the state and other regions. ‐150,000 ‐100,000 ‐50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 L.A. Basin Components of Population Change 2011‐2020 Change Natural Increase Net Migration ‐200,000 ‐150,000 ‐100,000 ‐50,000 0 50,000 100,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 L.A. Basin Components of Net Migration 2011‐2020 Immigation Domestic Migration Net Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 6 San Francisco Bay Area The Bay Area had modest (2%) population growth between 2015 and 2020 with no growth in 2019-20. The 2019-2020 results cover only a small portion of the pandemic activity restrictions and early work from home impacts. On the other hand, pandemic effects should slowly disappear in the near term except for the unknown of lasting work from home effects. Population on July 1 (Thousands) 2015 2019 2020 2015‐20 2019‐20 Alameda 1,622.4 1,669.0 1,671.9 3.0% 0.2% Contra Costa 1,118.7 1,147.3 1,149.8 2.8% 0.2% Marin 262.0 261.0 259.0 ‐1.2% ‐0.8% Napa 141.4 139.9 138.7 ‐1.9% ‐0.8% San Francisco 869.4 897.1 899.9 3.5% 0.3% San Mateo 765.8 776.0 775.1 1.2% ‐0.1% Santa Clara 1,924.1 1,960.9 1,962.3 2.0% 0.1% Solano 428.9 440.0 440.2 2.6% 0.0% Sonoma 501.5 495.1 491.1 ‐2.1% ‐0.8% San Francisco Bay Area 7,634.2 7,786.2 7,787.9 2.0% 0.0% 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 L.A. Basin Components of Natural Increase 2011‐2020 Births Deaths Natural Increase 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 7 Sonoma and Napa county growth were restrained by people relocating at least temporarily after the fires. Most of the other counties had similar growth rates. The contribution of natural increase was a small and declining positive while the big change in the region was the sharp decline in net migration. Net out-migration has been increasing since 2015 and is probably attributable to the region’s high and rising housing costs and low levels of building relative to demand. Immigration levels were fairly stable since 2015 while domestic out- migration increased in every year causing net migration to go negative. ‐40,000 ‐20,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Bay Area Components of Population Change 2011‐2020 Change Natural Increase Net Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 8 The pattern of natural increase was similar to all regions with declining birth levels and increasing death levels. San Joaquin Valley The Valley was the state’s second fastest growing region between 2015 and 2020 trailing only the Sacramento region. The region has two of the state’s fastest growing counties—San Joaquin and Merced and two of the state’s larger counties—Fresno and kern. All Valley counties added at least some population in 2019-20. ‐80,000 ‐60,000 ‐40,000 ‐20,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Bay Area Components of Net Migration 2011‐2020 Immigation Domestic Migration Net Migration 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Bay Area Components of Natural Increase 2011‐2020 Births Deaths Natural Increase 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 9 Population on July 1 (Thousands) 2015 2019 2020 2015‐20 2019‐20 Fresno 979.6 1,018.4 1,026.4 4.8% 0.8% Kern 881.1 909.7 913.0 3.6% 0.4% Kings 149.5 153.5 154.7 3.5% 0.8% Madera 154.2 157.7 158.8 3.0% 0.7% Merced 268.8 281.6 284.8 5.9% 1.1% San Joaquin 727.0 767.9 776.1 6.7% 1.1% Stanislaus 536.5 554.2 556.0 3.6% 0.3% Tulare 463.7 477.7 480.8 3.7% 0.6% San Joaquin Valley 4,160.5 4,320.8 4,350.4 4.6% 0.7% Natural increase was the major contributor to growth in recent years with some small contributions from net migration—though both declined in 2019-20. Even though residents from other regions moved to the Valley in search of more affordable housing, this was matched by residents leaving including possibly immigrants returning to their home country. The result was that net migration was not an important factor in Valley growth since 2015. ‐10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Valley Components of Population Change 2011‐2020 Change Natural Increase Net Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 10 The Valley pattern of natural increase is similar to that in other regions—falling birth levels and rising death levels. San Diego Region San Diego is the only large region comprised of just one county. San Diego County as shown in the report’s opening table, grew just slightly faster (2.4%) than the state average (2.0%) between 2015 and 2020 making it California’s third fastest growing region. ‐20,000 ‐15,000 ‐10,000 ‐5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Valley Components of Net Migration 2011‐2020 Immigation Domestic Migration Net Migration 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Valley Components of Natural Increase 2011‐2020 Births Deaths Natural Increase 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 11 Net migration has been negative since 2015 dragging population growth downward and offsetting small positive natural increase. San Diego has one of the most expensive housing markets in the state. As a result, the region has experienced domestic out-migration that has offset small positive immigration levels and pushed net migration negative after 2015. The pattern of natural increase is similar to that in other regions with falling birth levels and rising death levels. ‐20,000 ‐10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 San Diego Components of Population Change 2011‐2020 Change Natural Increase Net Migration ‐30,000 ‐20,000 ‐10,000 0 10,000 20,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 San Diego Components of Net Migration 2011‐2020 Immigation Domestic Migration Net Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 12 Sacramento Region Sacramento was the state’s fastest growing region between 2015 and 2020 led by Placer County. The region’s growth rate (5.2%) was more than double the state average (2.0%). Population on July 1 (Thousands) 2015 2019 2020 2015‐20 2019‐20 El Dorado 182.6 188.8 192.0 5.2% 1.7% Placer 371.9 394.6 397.5 6.9% 0.7% Sacramento 1,488.9 1,548.8 1,562.2 4.9% 0.9% Sutter 96.8 102.8 101.2 4.5% ‐1.6% Yolo 212.4 220.7 221.7 4.4% 0.5% Yuba 74.4 78.1 79.1 6.2% 1.3% Sacramento Region 2,427.0 2,533.8 2,553.7 5.2% 0.8% Sacramento is the only region in the state to experience positive net migration in every year since 2011 though net migration has declined in the past two years. Natural increase has declined here as in other regions across the state. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 San Diego Components of Natural Increase 2011‐2020 Births Deaths Natural Increase 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 13 Sacramento is also the only region to experience positive domestic migration in every year since 2015. Part of the explanation is the movement of some Bay Area residents to the region in search of more affordable housing while also maintaining Bay Area jobs. Immigration has remained near 10,000 per year adding to the positive net migration trend. The Sacramento region pattern of natural increase is similar to that in other regions with falling birth levels and rising death levels. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Sac. Region Components of Population Change 2011‐2020 Change Natural Increase Net Migration ‐5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Sac. Region Components of Net Migration 2011‐2020 Immigation Domestic Migration Net Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 14 Rest of State Region The region consists of 25 relatively small rural and mountain counties and three largest coastal counties—Monterey, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. Population growth was small and positive until 2019 led by small natural increase. In 2019 and 2020 population levels fell pushed down by large out migration as explained below. Immigration levels have remained small but steady during the past decade. Domestic migration was negative but small until 2019 and was influenced by reductions in prison populations in the region. In 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Sac. Region Components of Natural Increase 2011‐2020 Births Deaths Natural Increase ‐25,000 ‐20,000 ‐15,000 ‐10,000 ‐5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Rest of State Components of Population Change 2011‐2020 Change Natural Increase Net Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 15 2019 and 2020 domestic migration declined sharply led by the three coastal counties. In 2019-2020 domestic migration in Monterey County was -6,092, in Santa Barbara County -3,599 and In Santa Cruz County -3,085. Several years ago, it was thought that the less urban counties might attract new residents in search of lower housing costs and a less stressful life. While this may have happened for a few residents, this region has been the state’s slowest growing region throughout the decade. The final chart shows that the pattern of natural increase in the Rest of State region is similar to that in other regions with falling birth levels and increasing death levels. ‐30,000 ‐25,000 ‐20,000 ‐15,000 ‐10,000 ‐5,000 0 5,000 10,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Rest of State Components of Net Migration 2011‐2020 Immigation Domestic Migration Net Migration 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 16 Here are the counties in the Rest of State Region Alpine Amador Calaveras Inyo Lassen Mariposa Modoc Mono Nevada Plumas Sierra Siskiyou Trinity Tuolumne Mountain Region Butte Colusa Glenn Shasta Tehama Sacramento Valley Region Del Norte Humboldt Lake Mendocino North Coast Region 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Rest of State Components of Natural Increase 2011‐2020 Births Deaths Natural Increase 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 17 Monterey San Benito San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Coast Region 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 8:58 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Liz Kniss; Adrian Fine Subject:Downtown Streets Team retraction at tonight's meeting Attachments:Letter to Owen Byrd re defamation.pdf; DST apology to City Council FINAL as presented at 1-11-2021 council meeting.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. For additional details and background regarding the retraction and apology made tonight by Downtown Streets Team I wanted to share with you the letter we sent Dec. 24 requesting this action. It includes relevant excerpts from the meeting which show how you were misled by Mr. Byrd's comments about our reporting and the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge in the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board proceeding. William S. Johnson Publisher, Palo Alto Weekly President & CEO, Embarcadero Media 450 Cambridge Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.326.8210 650.223.6505 (direct) 450 Cambridge Ave. | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | 650.326.8210 December 24, 2020 Owen Byrd, Chairperson of the Board Downtown Streets Team, Inc. 1671 The Alameda San Jose CA 95126 Re: Demand for Retraction Dear Mr. Byrd: On December 7, 2020 you addressed the Palo Alto City Council in your capacity as chairperson of the board of directors of Downtown Streets Team, Inc. (“DST”) to urge its approval of a three-year contract with DST and to answer questions regarding allegations of sexual harassment on the part of senior executives. In response to a question, you claimed the Palo Alto Weekly “got it wrong” when it reported that the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board made findings of fact that DST Chief Executive Officer Eileen Richardson and her son, Chris Richardson, had engaged in sexual harassment of a former DST employee. Your statement was demonstrably false and defamatory, and I believe you made it with full knowledge of its falsity. By your public statement you and Downtown Streets Team, Inc. have damaged our reputation and standing in the community. In addition, you created the false impression with the city council and the public that the allegations of sexual harassment by former employees were made exclusively through the media and not in any government proceeding. By withholding the fact that there had been two rulings made in a case before the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board based on evidence presented, including sworn testimony, you also misled the city council and city attorney to believe they had no means of obtaining further information about the harassment, when in fact there is a written record in the case. (In fact, one of the two rulings was posted with the Palo Alto Weekly’s January 22, 2020 story.) Since you have failed to respond to any of my three emails to you requesting that you publicly retract and correct your statement, I am writing to put you and the DST board on notice of potential legal claims against you and DST. Background On January 22, 2020, the Palo Alto Weekly and Palo Alto Online published a story entitled, “Downtown Streets Team executives accused of sexual harassment, creating drinking culture.” The story reported on the allegations of six former employees of DST regarding behavior by CEO Eileen Richardson and her son, Chris Richardson, including sexual harassment, and of an organizational culture that created a hostile work environment. In addition to these allegations, the story also reported on a case (CUIAB #6024010) brought before the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board by a former female DST employee challenging a decision denying her unemployment insurance benefits after she quit her job at DST. The case was important because it resulted in findings of fact by an Administrative Law Judge about the alleged sexual harassment. - 2 - 450 Cambridge Ave. | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | 650.326.8210 On November 17, 2017, after receiving sworn testimony from the employee claimant and DST CEO Eileen Richardson at a hearing on November 14, 2017, the ALJ who heard the case, Robert M. Lofgren, issued a written decision that found the employee had been sexually harassed by both Eileen and Chris Richardson: “The claimant was subjected to sexual harassment by the CEO when the claimant was advised that she was interested in a female coworker, but not her. She was also subjected to sexual banter by the CEO’s son at a party attended by the claimant.” (Page 3, paragraph 1 of ALJ decision in Case No. 6024010, Nov. 17, 2017) “Based on the claimant’s sworn testimony, which was provided in a manner which caused the administrative law judge to conclude her testimony credible, it is found that the claimant was subjected to incidences of sexual harassment as result of being subjected to sexual banter. A reasonable person generally desirous of retaining their employment if confronted in similar circumstances that confronted the claimant would have elected to quit the employment as a consequence of the sexual harassment.” (Page 3, paragraph 8) “The claimant’s sworn testimony about the issue is accorded greater evidentiary weight and probative value than the sworn testimony of the employer witness which was lacking in conviction and frequently nonresponsive to questions posed to her regarding the issue of sexual harassment.” (Page 4, paragraph 2) But while finding that the former employee had just cause for quitting, the judge ruled that she was not eligible for unemployment benefits because she failed “to take reasonable steps to preserve the employment prior to doing so.” “The claimant knew she had the ability to complain to the third- party HR administrator and to the CEO but neglected to do so because she wished to avoid a potential conflict.” (Page 4, paragraph 8) The former employee appealed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On January 16, 2018, the board reversed the eligibility decision of the ALJ and awarded the former employee unemployment insurance benefits. The two-person appeals panel found that the claimant had, in fact, made “a reasonable effort to resolve his or her dissatisfactions.” (Page 4, paragraph 10, Case AO-410803) “The claimant was in regular communication with her supervisor about the working environment. The claimant also complained to the person second in command about the way in which she had been treated by the CEO’s son. Nothing was done. The complaints did not change the work environment.” (Page 1, paragraph 6) The panel agreed with and restated the findings of fact made by the ALJ regarding the sexual harassment claims and added additional findings, including the following: “The claimant did not specifically report the sexual harassment [to her supervisor] because she did not believe anything would be done because persons responsible for the sexual harassment and creating the hostile work environment were the CEO and the CEO’s son, because of the close knit relationship of the management team members, and because of the employer’s unwillingness to address other concerns the claimant had expressed.” (Page 3, paragraph 2) - 3 - 450 Cambridge Ave. | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | 650.326.8210 “Thus, the claimant was reasonable in her belief that complaining about the highest levels of management would not have resulted in a change in the working environment or preserved the employment.” (Page 5, paragraph 3) DST chose not to seek court review of the ruling by petitioning in Superior Court for a Writ of Mandate against the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. As you know, prior to publishing the January 22, 2020 story, the Palo Alto Weekly requested interviews or comment from Eileen and Chris Richardson and you in your role as board chair. The Richardsons declined to comment or answer questions, but you responded to our reporter’s questions on behalf of DST and were quoted in the story. You stated at the time that you were aware of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board case and explained that DST’s attorney had failed to appear for the hearing. At no time since the story was published 11 months ago have you, nor anyone else associated with DST, brought to our attention any errors in the story, requested any correction or retraction, nor submitted any clarifying or additional comments for publication. December 7, 2020 Palo Alto City Council Meeting On December 7, 2020, the Palo Alto City Council met to consider whether to approve a new three- year $323,000 contract between the city and DST. You were present at the meeting representing DST. The meeting was held virtually with council members, the city attorney and other city staff participating from their homes or offices. It was publicly accessible through Zoom, YouTube and on local public access television through the Midpeninsula Media Center, which also maintains and archives complete recordings of the meetings for public viewing (and from which the transcripts below were prepared.) During the discussion, the public and council members raised questions and sought clarification about the allegations of sexual harassment and of a hostile work environment by former employees and the results of a DST-commissioned investigation into those allegations. In your responses, you stated that the sexual harassment allegations by former employees had only been made through the media. When asked specifically about the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board case and the Palo Alto Weekly’s reporting on the ruling in the case, you attempted to deflect the question by referencing a completely unrelated pending class action lawsuit filed by a former employee against DST over wage and hour practices. You correctly stated that the case had nothing to do with the allegations of sexual harassment, leaving the impression that the Palo Alto Weekly story had incorrectly made that connection, which it had not. In fact, the story in the Palo Alto Weekly made no reference to the wage and hour litigation. In addition, the claimant in the unemployment appeals case is not the named plaintiff in the wage and hour lawsuit, as you stated to the City Council. While the claimant is likely within the class of employees on whose behalf the litigation is being brought, to suggest that there was “confusion” due to that individual being “involved” in both matters was disingenuous and obfuscated the issue. While you have every right to obfuscate, you do not have the right to do so at the expense of the Palo Alto Weekly’s reputation. Here is a transcript of your exchange with Councilman Tom DuBois (at 3:42:45): - 4 - 450 Cambridge Ave. | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | 650.326.8210 COUNCILMAN TOM DUBOIS: “Just one question for Mr. Byrd. So one of the speakers mentioned the ruling by the Administrative Law Judge. Was that essentially settling a lawsuit or how would you characterize that?” OWEN BYRD: “Two completely different things. There was, and the confusion is that the same person is involved in both matters. So there are all these allegations that were brought that were revealed in the press and were brought to us that have never been the subject of any civil or criminal matter. Separately, there is a wage and hour investigation about whether or not we did our record-keeping correctly around hourly employees and that matter is before a judge and is going to mediation next month and there has been no finding of fact in that matter. The judge said that the claimant alleged facts that, if proved, would substantiate a claim. But there hasn’t been any fact-finding in it yet so there hasn’t even yet been a claim substantiated.” DUBOIS: I think we’re talking about two different things. I’m referring to what was in the Palo Alto Weekly. It said the California Unemployment Insurance Board… BYRD (INTERUPTING): Two different things. DUBOIS: …in 2018 they made a ruling. BYRD: That’s a wage and hour dispute that is separate from these allegations of harassment. DUBOIS: OK, so the Weekly got it wrong you’re saying. It said they ruled the Richardsons engaged in sexual harassment. BYRD: Yes, the Weekly got it wrong. There are two possible explanations for your false statement. One is that you had forgotten about the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board proceeding and its rulings. That is simply not credible. You have been deeply involved in responding to the media coverage of the allegations of sexual harassment and commented directly to our reporter about that proceeding. In addition, if you had simply forgotten, as a licensed attorney and officer of the court I would have expected you to promptly apologize and retract your false statement after receiving my first email the day after the meeting and after refreshing your memory of the details. You did neither, nor even respond. The only other explanation is that you deliberately withheld the truth from the City Council while knowingly making a false accusation against the Palo Alto Weekly. When Councilmember DuBois asked for confirmation that you were stating that the Palo Alto Weekly got it wrong when it reported the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ruled the Richardsons engaged in sexual harassment, your response was, “Yes, the Weekly got it wrong.” Finally, as the transcript below shows, you listened while councilmembers and the city attorney struggled over how the city attorney might look further into proceedings that might shed light on the sexual harassment allegations. Instead of helping clear up their confusion by acknowledging that there was indeed a case and a written ruling on the sexual harassment allegations by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, you remained silent about the case. Amidst the confusion that you helped create, the council then proceeded to - 5 - 450 Cambridge Ave. | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | 650.326.8210 approve a new contract with DST (albeit for only one year), accomplishing just what you had come to achieve. Here is a transcript of the final discussion (at 4:03:15) prior to the council voting 6-0 to approve the one-year contract: COUNCILWOMAN LYDIA KOU: “What was said about the Administrative Law Judge-- that sexual harassment was found and that it was a hostile workplace. That should be public record, right Molly?” CITY ATTORNEY MOLLY STUMP: “I’m sorry Councilmember. I am not familiar with the proceedings that occurred and I’m not sure any of us are. It might be that we are only reading materials in the local press and those are not original sources. So I think at this point the best source of information about the proceedings is Mr. Byrd. And in general it is the case that courts are open forums but some administrative agencies are not. It can depend on various stages of proceedings.” KOU: “So that would be something that you can obtain from the courts, or wherever this resides?” STUMP: “If I’m understanding Mr. Byrd, there is no court case.” BYRD: “No, there is a court case. The court case is a wage and hour dispute having nothing to do with the allegations of harassment that were the subject of the press coverage.” STUMP: “Thank you for that clarification. So in that case we can get copies of the public pleadings in that case. Yes.” KOU: “So that would be one, if the maker and seconder would be willing to put on your motion.” STUMP: “So Councilmember, what you’d be looking for is someone from my office to look at the pleadings in that case and summarize the matter for the Council?” KOU: “Or if Downtown Streets Team would be willing to provide, you know. Actually, I take that back. I would like your office to provide that, to obtain that.” STUMP: “And what you’re looking for is a summary of a court proceeding?” KOU: “Yes, I think we have a due diligence at this point, you know, to make sure that since we’re not getting the report on the investigation, we want to make sure that this practice that we find public records of what is available since we’re not able to ascertain. And I think we have a duty to due diligence and we have a fiduciary responsibility, especially it’s in our contract and also in our updated mission statement for the recent equity mission statement which we say that we want to achieve the equity in Palo Alto and it’s not just the responsibility of our residents but also of the organization, governments and other institutions. Now this agency, while it has a very valuable mission, it is also a public supplier, as Councilmember Filseth said, and also provides a public social good. And it is getting public money, general funds money. And if that’s the case then we as a Council do need to step up and ensure transparency and accountability for everyone involved. And that includes the employees, the 11 women, and it also includes the people that work over there, their members, which are a vulnerable population and they might be scared to speak up if they are in any way harmed, fearing retaliation or anything else. So we need to have more due diligence in all of this matter. I wish - 6 - 450 Cambridge Ave. | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | 650.326.8210 that you could help out more in terms of providing the necessary documentation to see impartiality.” COUNCILMAN TOM DUBOIS: “So Lydia, if I understand, if your motion is to ask the city attorney’s office to summarize the proceeding I would support that.” STUMP: “Yes, and there’s no problem in us doing that. We’re happy to do that. We might give Downtown Streets a call and ask them to assist us with copies of key pleadings and any court rulings but otherwise we have access to that material because it’s publicly filed in court and we’re happy to review it and provide a summary for you.” KOU: “So, Ms. Stump, it’s not only going to be requesting the documentation from Downtown Streets Team but also obtaining those from the court.” STUMP: “That’s fine.” MAYOR ADRIAN FINE: “Councilmember Kou, do you want to make that part of the motion or just as an advisory to staff.” KOU: “I’d like to make that as part of the motion, because we’re extending the contract for a year again but there needs to be an ask. We need to put in place what we want to see from them in order for us to be comfortable to extend further beyond that one year.” FINE: “OK. Does the proposed language here fit what you’re looking for? “To direct the City Attorney’s Office to review and summarize legal documents relating to the ongoing lawsuit with Downtown Streets Team.” KOU: “Ongoing and concluded, perhaps. Because, as I understand this was a year ago according to Mr. Byrd.” BYRD: “No, it’s not concluded. It’s going to mediation next month. It’s a separate wage and hour dispute that is completely independent from what hit the press a year ago.” FINE: “So Councilmember Kou, do you want to distinguish between those two or do both?” KOU: “I need to distinguish, because there is the ongoing wage and hour but then you know we are specifically also looking for, to ensure there is no sexual harassment or harassment otherwise going on. So, if Ms. Stump you could help with that?” STUMP: “Assuming that when we look we agree with the description Mr. Byrd has provided which is that that there is a public law suit that concerns wage and hour issues that aren’t related to harassment or discrimination, then I’m happy to review the public filings and summarize them for you. They won’t have any information about discrimination or harassment, assuming we agree with the description Mr. Byrd has provided. It sounds like the documents that Downtown Streets have that address those issues are internal, retained third party investigation and internal documents and those are not something that I am able to have access to unless Downtown Streets wishes to provide them.” COUNCILWOMAN LIZ KNISS: “They are the ones we’ve been asking for.” STUMP: “Right.” FINE: “What I would suggest is “direct the City Attorney’s Office to review and summarize legal documents related to Downtown Streets” and I think we’ve discussed those.” - 7 - 450 Cambridge Ave. | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | 650.326.8210 STUMP: “Actually, can we keep it the way it is. Because I don’t want there to be false expectations that I am able to review investigative reports that are not in the city’s possession and are not being provided.” FINE: “Understood. It’s things in the public legal domain.” STUMP: “Correct.” FINE: “Councilmember Kou, is that acceptable to you?” KOU: “Yes.” FINE: “Councilmember Kniss. Do you accept this?” KNISS: “Yes, but I have one question. The ongoing wage and hour lawsuit, is that for those who have taken a job that essentially leads to rehabilitation or is this people who work in the office. Who are the wage and hour folks we’re discussing?” BYRD: “Our staff. Our employees.” KNISS: “So no one who would be, no one who we’re used to seeing on a daily basis, right?” BYRD: “I’m not following you.” KNISS: “So no one would we see as a Downtown Streets Team?” BYRD: “There is an ongoing wage and hour lawsuit. It’s about whether or not we’ve done the paperwork correctly to keep track of our hourly employees. It’s an administrative inquiry. It’s about recordkeeping. It has nothing to do with the other stuff that hit the press a year ago. Other than there are people involved in both.” KNISS: “I understand that. But I wanted to know who are the people, who are the wage and hourly people?” BYRD: “Employees of Downtown Streets Team. Former employees actually.” FINE: “OK.” Defamation of the Palo Alto Weekly The success of every professional news organization depends on its reputation for truthful and responsible reporting. The Palo Alto Weekly is no exception. Our integrity is the only “product” we have. Our success depends on readers, public officials, news sources and the business community believing that we consistently engage in accurate reporting and that they can trust and rely on us to fully carry out that defining mission. Anything that undermines that reputation directly threatens a news organization’s ability to work with news sources and obtain and keep subscribers and advertisers. Without that, a news organization cannot survive. It is especially threatening when a prominent community leader and attorney stands before an elected governing body of a city, at a public meeting that is being broadcast, and makes a false claim that our reporting on a subject as sensitive as sexual harassment in the workplace was wrong. You have every right to publicly state that you don’t like the Palo Alto Weekly, don’t think we should have published the story and don’t think the decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board was correct. But you don’t have the right to knowingly make a false statement that the Palo Alto Weekly was wrong when it accurately reported on the outcome of a state agency’s administrative proceeding. - 8 - 450 Cambridge Ave. | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | 650.326.8210 The fact that this comes at a time when the credibility of responsible media organizations and their journalists across the nation is under malicious attack by those who seek to delegitimize their important work makes the damage done even greater since it plays directly into a false narrative. We do not believe that you or DST had or has any good faith basis for the statements you have made regarding the accuracy of the Palo Alto Weekly’s reporting. Your actions qualify as either knowingly making factually inaccurate statements or a reckless disregard for the truth. They undermine our reputation for reliability and truthful reporting that we have spent more than 40 years building, and it has wrongly harmed the reputations of reporter Sue Dremann, editor Jocelyn Dong and other employees involved in researching, editing and carefully fact-checking our January 22, 2020 story, including me. It is now your responsibility to correct the record. We demand that you, speaking for yourself and for DST, make a full written public retraction of your February 7, 2020 statement and an apology to the Palo Alto Weekly and its staff and send it to each member of the Palo Alto City Council, City Manager Ed Shikada and City Attorney Molly Stump and read it aloud during public comments at a January Palo Alto City Council meeting. Such a statement must make clear that contrary to your statement to the city council on December 7, 2020, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board did in fact issue two rulings that concluded a former employee of Downtown Streets Team was subjected to sexual harassment by Eileen and Chris Richardson, and that the Palo Alto Weekly story was correct in its characterization of the board’s actions. As the chairperson of the DST board and a practicing attorney, we expect you and the DST board of directors to treat this retraction and the issues raised in this letter with the attention and seriousness that any reputable business deserves. We and the individual Palo Alto Weekly employees responsible for the reporting of this story reserve the right to pursue defamation and disparagement claims against you and DST. Please confirm by January 4, 2021 that you, as board chair of Downtown Streets Team, Inc. and on behalf of yourself and the agency, will issue the requested retraction and apology. Sincerely, /s/ William S Johnson William S. Johnson President & CEO Cc: Owen Byrd (via email to obyrd@lexmachina.com) Michael Boulton (via email to mike.boulton@armaninollp.com) Carol Hubenthal (via email to carolhubenthal@mac.com) Matthew Bahls (via email to mbahls@stanford.edu and matthew.bahls@gmail.com) Eileen Richardson (via email to eileen@streetsteam.org) Elaine Wood (via email to elainewood3000@gmail.com) Norm Robinson (via email to normanr@stanford.edu and norm.robinson@stanford.edu) Tom DuBois, Mayor Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor DuBois, Mr. Shikada and Members of the City Council: On December 7, 2020, Downtown Streets Team (DST) board chair Owen Byrd appeared before the City Council to urge approval of a three-year contract renewal between the City and DST. At that meeting, Mr. Byrd made incorrect statements of fact and asserted that reporting by the Palo Alto Weekly relating to allegations of sexual harassment against DST were in error. In response to direct questions from then-Vice Mayor DuBois, Mr. Byrd told the City Council and the public that there was no civil or criminal matter, therefore, giving the impression that no administrative ruling that sexual harassment by senior DST executives had occurred, as the Palo Alto Weekly reported in January, 2020. These statements were wrong. Mr. Byrd and the board of Downtown Streets Team wish to retract these statements, correct the record and apologize to the City Council, city staff, the Palo Alto Weekly and the public. Mr. Byrd’s statement that the Weekly “got it wrong” was incorrect when he was asked about the reporting on how an Administrative Law Judge had ruled on November 17, 2017. As the Weekly correctly reported, the judge made such a finding, as did the two-person panel that reviewed the final employee appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Compensation Board. The written decisions are enclosed. Downtown Streets Team and Mr. Byrd deeply regret Mr. Byrd’s inaccurate answer to Vice Mayor DuBois’ questions and for impugning the accuracy of the Palo Alto Weekly’s reporting. We also regret any damage to the Weekly’s reputation that may have resulted from Mr. Byrd’s statement. To be clear, we do not believe the Palo Alto Weekly was inaccurate in any of its reporting on DST and the claims of sexual harassment by a former employee. It got nothing “wrong.” A member of our board of directors will be appearing during public comments at your next meeting in order to read this statement publicly. We hope this letter and that public statement will adequately correct the record. Sincerely, Owen Byrd, Board Chair Eileen Richardson, President & CEO And the full DST board of directors Cc: William Johnson, Publisher, Palo Alto Weekly Jocelyn Dong, Editor, Palo Alto Weekly Sue Dremann, Staff Writer, Palo Alto Weekly Molly Stump, Palo Alto City Attorney Attachment: Decisions of the California Unemployment Insurance Compensation Board dated November 17, 2017 and January 16, 2018 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Eileen Richardson - DST <Eileen@streetsteam.org> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 4:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Bill Johnson; jdong@paweekly.com; Sue Dremann Subject:Owen Byrd/DST apology Attachments:DST apology to City Council FINAL 011120.pdf; Zia-EDD 11.2017.pdf; EDD appeal decision 011618 .pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see enclosed documents as backup for the record as read aloud during oral communications at the City Council meeting on January 11, 2020. Sincerely, Eileen Richardson Eileen Richardson PRESIDENT & CEO 1671 The Alameda, Suite 306 • San Jose, CA 95126 Main: (408) 899-7350 • Mobile: (650) 462-1795 Video: We'll Lift You Up • Video: The Environment & Us www.streetsteam.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Tom DuBois, Mayor Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor DuBois, Mr. Shikada and Members of the City Council: On December 7, 2020, Downtown Streets Team (DST) board chair Owen Byrd appeared before the City Council to urge approval of a three-year contract renewal between the City and DST. At that meeting, Mr. Byrd made incorrect statements of fact and asserted that reporting by the Palo Alto Weekly relating to allegations of sexual harassment against DST were in error. In response to direct questions from then-Vice Mayor DuBois, Mr. Byrd told the City Council and the public that there was no civil or criminal matter, therefore, giving the impression that no administrative ruling that sexual harassment by senior DST executives had occurred, as the Palo Alto Weekly reported in January, 2020. These statements were wrong. Mr. Byrd and the board of Downtown Streets Team wish to retract these statements, correct the record and apologize to the City Council, city staff, the Palo Alto Weekly and the public. Mr. Byrd’s statement that the Weekly “got it wrong” was incorrect when he was asked about the reporting on how an Administrative Law Judge had ruled on November 17, 2017. As the Weekly correctly reported, the judge made such a finding, as did the two-person panel that reviewed the final employee appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Compensation Board. The written decisions are enclosed. Downtown Streets Team and Mr. Byrd deeply regret Mr. Byrd’s inaccurate answer to Vice Mayor DuBois’ questions and for impugning the accuracy of the Palo Alto Weekly’s reporting. We also regret any damage to the Weekly’s reputation that may have resulted from Mr. Byrd’s statement. To be clear, we do not believe the Palo Alto Weekly was inaccurate in any of its reporting on DST and the claims of sexual harassment by a former employee. It got nothing “wrong.” A member of our board of directors will be appearing during public comments at your next meeting in order to read this statement publicly. We hope this letter and that public statement will adequately correct the record. Sincerely, Owen Byrd, Board Chair Eileen Richardson, President & CEO And the full DST board of directors Cc: William Johnson, Publisher, Palo Alto Weekly Jocelyn Dong, Editor, Palo Alto Weekly Sue Dremann, Staff Writer, Palo Alto Weekly Molly Stump, Palo Alto City Attorney Attachment: Decisions of the California Unemployment Insurance Compensation Board dated November 17, 2017 and January 16, 2018 Case No.: A0-410803 Claimant: ZIA W MACWILLIAMS REV The claimant appealed from the decision of the administrative law judge that held the claimant disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits under section 1256 of the Unemployment Insurance Code. The employer's reserve account was relieved of benefit charges. ISSUE STATEMENT We adopt the administrative law judge's issue statement. FINDINGS OF FACT The claimant established a benefit year claim beginning July 30, 2017. Prior to filing the claim, she was most recently employed by the respondent employer, Downtown Streets T earn, as a project manager. The claimant's employment ended on August 1, 2017. The claimant quit her job. The claimant quit the employment for multiple reasons including; her health, her belief that she was being subjected to discriminatory pay practices by the employer based upon gender, because she had been subjected to sexual harassment, and because she believed that she did not have any opportunity to advance in the company based upon representations of the CEO who reported to her that raises would not be provided to her because she was underperforming the other project managers and because the CEO was generally dismissive of her during a meeting in May. The claimant was suffering anxiety symptoms which resulted in her being prescribed medication. Her physician on multiple occasions questioned the viability of her continued employment because of the working conditions. The claimant reported to her immediate supervisor that she was feeling stressed. The claimant was in regular communication with her supervisor about the working environment. The claimant also complained to the person second in command about the way in which she had been treated by the CEO's son. Nothing was done. The complaints did not change the working environment. The claimant received information that she was being paid less than her counterparts which caused her to believe that she was being subjected to gender A0-410803 2 based discrimination. The claimant raised her concerns with the employer which denied that there was gender based pay discrimination. The claimant was subjected to sexual harassment by the CEO when the claimant was advised that she was interested in a female coworker, but not her. The claimant was also subjected to unwanted and inappropriate sexual banter by the CEO's son at a party attended by the claimant. The claimant did not specifically report the sexual harassment because she did not believe anything would be done because persons responsible for the sexual harassment and creating the hostile work environment were the CEO and the CEO's son; because of the close knit relationship of the management team members, and because of the employer's unwillingness to address other concerns the claimant had expressed. At the time the claimant orally quit the employment, she reported that she was doing so to return to West Virginia to contemplate a new direction in her life and to address medical issues. Subsequently, the claimant submitted a written resignation. REASONS FOR DECISION An individual is disqualified for benefits if he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause. (Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256.) An employer's reserve account may be relieved of charges if the claimant left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause. (Unemployment Insurance Code, sections 1030 and 1032.) Although there may be more than one reason to quit, the claimant is entitled to benefits if one reason which constitutes good cause is a substantial motivating factor in the decision to quit. (Rabago v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 200.) Based upon the evidence received herein, it is found that the claimant voluntarily quit her most recent work for reasons constituting could cause. Based upon the claimant's sworn testimony, which was provided in a manner which caused the administrative law judge to conclude her testimony credible, it is found that the claimant was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. A reasonable person generally desirous of retaining their employment if confronted with similar circumstances that confronted the claimant would have A0-410803 3 elected to quit the employment as a consequence of the sexual harassment and hostile work environment. There is good cause for voluntarily leaving work where the facts disclose a real, substantial and compelling reason of such nature as would cause a reasonable person genuinely desirous of retaining employment to take similar action. (Precedent Decision P-B-27.) The claimant's sworn testimony about the issue is accorded greater evidentiary weight and probative value than the sworn testimony of the employer witness which was lacking in conviction and frequently nonresponsive to questions posed to her regarding the issue of sexual harassment. The direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact. (Evidence Code, section 411.) Although the claimant contended that she was the victim of pay discrimination based on gender, the claimant has failed to produce compelling evidence on that point other than the fact the claimant raised the issue of receiving a proposed raise one month after a male subordinate received his wage increase despite both pay increase requests being submitted to the employer on the same date. Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Evidence Code, section 115.) Preponderance of the evidence simply requires proof that a matter in question is more likely to be true than not true. (Precedent Decision P-T-493.) The claimant's testimony that she was suffering anxiety which resulted from her employment, which caused her to seek medical intervention, is determined to be compelling evidence that the claimant had a good faith fear that continued employment was injurious to her emotional health and physical well-being. Such also constitutes good cause for electing to quit her most recent work. A reasonable, good faith and honest fear of harm to one's health or safety from the work environment constitutes good cause for quitting. (Rabago v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 200.) An individual who quits without attempting to resolve the work-related dissatisfactions which prompted the leaving is disqualified for benefits. This rule does not require that all possible remedies be exhausted. It is sufficient that the claimant made a reasonable effort to resolve his or her dissatisfactions. (Precedent Decision P-B-457.) A0-410803 4 Although there may be more than one reason to quit, the claimant is entitled to benefits if one reason which constitutes good cause is a substantial motivating factor in the decision to quit. The claimant's stress constituted good cause to quit. On a regular basis, the claimant complained to her supervisor about the working environment and the stress she was suffering. A claimant is not required to exhaust every remedy to satisfy the requirement that a claimant make efforts to preserve her employment. Section 1256.5 (formerly section 1256.7) of the Unemployment Insurance Code provides that sexual harassment is good cause for leaving employment if a reasonable effort is made to preserve the employment relationship in cases in which such effort would not be futile. "Sexual harassment" includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and any other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature when any of the following occur: (1) Submission to the conduct is either explicitly or implicitly made a condition of the employment. (2) Submission to or rejection of the conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the individual. (3) The conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering unreasonably with the individual's job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. In this case, because the persons engaging in the conduct were the CEO and the CEO's son, complaining about their conduct would have been futile, this is so especially given the fact that when the claimant had complained about the other working conditions, including the pay disparity, and her issues were not adequately addressed. The claimant had also specifically complained to the person second in command about the treatment she was subjected to by the CEO's son and nothing was done. Thus, the claimant was reasonable in her belief that complaining about the highest level of management would not have resulted in a change in the working environment or preserved the employment. The claimant left her most recent employment voluntarily with good cause and is not disqualified for benefits under code section 1256. The employer's reserve account is subject to benefit charges under code sections 1030 and 1032. DECISION The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. The claimant is not disqualified for benefits under code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided A0-410803 5 the claimant is otherwise eligible. The employer's reserve account is subject to charges. A0-410803 6 FURTHER APPEAL INFORMATION The Appeals Board's decision is final and can be changed only by action of a judicial court. (Unemp. Ins. Code§ 410). The Appeals Board cannot reconsider or set aside the enclosed decision. (37 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 133.) If you wish to appeal the enclosed decision, you may seek review in Superior Court by filing a Petition for Writ of Mandate against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Appeals Board) pursuant to section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Appeals Board does not process petitions for court review. You must file such petitions directly with the Superior Court not later than six (6) months after the date of the decision of the Appeals Board. You must also serve a copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandate on the Appeals Board at its headquarter, 2400 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100, Sacramento, California 95833. Service of the Petition must comply with legal requirements set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, sections 414 to 415.95. The Appeals Board does not pay benefits, handle claims or claim forms, or collect overpayments. If you have questions about these matters, you must contact the Employment Development Department (EDD), not the Appeals Board. It is important that you notify the appropriate EDD office of any change in your address. You may contact EDD at (800) 300-5616 for further information. If you are a claimant, you are reminded to continue to file weekly claim forms with the EDD while seeking a writ of mandate. If you prevail in court, you will only be paid for those weeks in which you file weekly claim forms and meet other eligibility requirements. Further Appeal Information Sheet (Rev. 8-12) Case No. A0-410803 ZIA W MACWILLIAMS 1220 TASMAN DR SPC 42 SUNNYVALE, CA 94089-2451 DOWNTOWN STREETS TEAM 1671 THE ALAMEDA SAN JOSE, CA 95126 DECISIONS SENT TO COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO AL ATTN: SCOTT HOCHBERG 1861 BAY ROAD EAST PALO AL TO, CA 94303 P 0 Box 944275 SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2750 Telephone: (916) 263-6619 Fax: (916) 263-6836 CALIFORNIA~ ~MPLOYMENT INSURANCE AF4J· '.S BOARD =====·m··· ·~ ____..:.. I . r·1 _;,;:,_:_ ---------. ..--- C·U·l·A·B ~IA W MACWILLIAMS Claimant-Appellant )0WNTOWN STREETS TEAM Account No: 419-0947 Employer Date and Place of Hearing(s): (1) 11/14/2017 SANJOSE SAN JOSE OFFICE OF APPEALS 2665 N FIRST ST STE 100 SAN JOSE CA 95134 Case No. 6024010 lssue(s): 1256, 1030/32 (408) 232-3036 Date Appeal Filed: 10/03/2017 EDD: 1210 BYB: 07/30/2017 Parties Appearing: Claimant, Employer DECISION The decision in the above-captioned case appears on the following page(s). The decision is final unless appealed within 30 calendar days from the date of mailing shown below. See the attached "Notice to Parties" for further information on how to file an appeal. If you are entitled to benefits and have a question regarding the payment of benefits, call EDD at 1-800-300-5616. Robert M. Lofgren, Administrative Law Judge FILE COPY Date Mailed: NOV 1.,7 ?811 Case No.: 6024010 CLT/PET: Zia W. McWilliams Parties Appearing: Claimant, Employer Parties Appearing by Written Statement: ISSUE STATEMENT San Jose Office of Appeals ALJ: Robert M. Lofgren None The claimant appealed from a Notice of Determination and Ruling which disqualified her for unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256. A ruling held the employer's reserve account was not subject to charges. The issue in this case is whether the claimant left the most recent employment voluntarily without good cause. FINDINGS OF FACT The claimant established a benefit year claim beginning July 30, 2017. Prior.to filing the claim, she was most recently employed by the respondent employer, Downtown Streets Team, as a project manager. The claimant's employment ended on August 1, 2017 as a result of the claimant electing to quit the employment. The claimant quit the employment for multiple reasons including; her health, her belief that she was being subjected to discriminatory pay practices by the employer based upon gender, because she had been subjected to sexual harassment, and because she believed that she did not have any opportunity to advance in the company based upon representations of the CEO who reported to her that raises would not be provided to her because she was underperforming the other project managers and because the CEO was generally dismissive of her during a meeting in May. The claimant was suffering anxiety symptoms which resulted in her being prescribed medication. Her physician on multiple occasions questioned the viability of her continued employment in light of the claimant's subjective response to her perceptions of harassment. The claimant .reported to her immediate supervisor that she ~as feeling stressed but did not articulate that the stress was occasioned by her work. The claimant did not contact the employer's HR department or complain to any of the management personnel about the issues because she wished to avoid a potential conflict. The claimant received information that she was being paid less than her counterparts which caused her to believe that she was being subjected to gender based discrimination. The claimant raised her concerns with the employer which denied that there was gender based pay discrimination. 6024010-171117.doc 2 The claimant was subjected to sexual harassment by the CEO when the claimant was advised that she was interested in a female coworker, but not her. She was also subjected to sexual banter by the CEOs son at a party attended by the claimant. At no time did the claimant complain about the issue of sexual harassment to the employer despite being offended by it. The claimant elected not to address the issue to the employer because she believed that to do so would be unavailing because of the close knit relationship of the management team members. Had the claimant raised the issue of her medical condition with the employer, the employer would have granted a leave of absence for that purpose. At the time the claimant orally quit the employment, she reported that she was doing so to return to West Virginia to contemplate a new direction in her life and to address medical issues which were not clarified. Subsequently, the claimant submitted a written resignation prior to the end of her employment citing the reason for her decision as the inability to transfer, the inability to secure a promotion, and the inability to secure any salary increases, and because she was told that her job performance was sub-par. Since separating from the employment the claimant has not returned to new employment. REASONS FOR DECISION An individual is disqualified for benefits if he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause. (Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256.) An employer's reserve account may be relieved of charges if the claimant left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause. (Unemployment Insurance Code, sections 1030 and 1032.) Based upon the evidence received herein, it is found that the claimant voluntarily quit her most recent work for reasons constituting could cause. Based upon the claimant's sworn testimony, which was provided in a manner which caused the administrative law judge to conclude her testimony credible, it is found that the claimant was subjected to incidences of sexual harassment as result of being subjected to sexual banter. A reasonable person generally desirous of retaining their employment if confronted with similar circumstances that confronted the claimant would have elected to quit the employment as a consequence of the sexual harassment. 6024010-171117.doc 3 There is good cause for voluntarily leaving work where the facts disclose a real, substantial, and compelling reason of such nature as would cause a reasonable person genuinely desirous of retaining employment to take similar action. (Precedent Decision P-B-27.) The claimant's sworn testimony about the issue is accorded greater evidentiary weight and probative value than the sworn testimony of the employer witness which was lacking in conviction and frequently nonresponsive to questions posed to her regarding the issue of sexual harassment. The direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact. (Evidence Code, section 411.) Although the claimant contended that she was the victim of pay discrimination based on gend~r. the claimant has failed to produce compelling evidence on that point other than the fact the claimant raised the issue of receiving a proposed raise one month after a male subordinate received his wage increase despite both pay increase requests being submitted to the employer on the same date. Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Evidence Code, section 115.) Preponderance of the evidence simply requires proof that a matter in question is more likely to be true than not true. (Precedent Decision P-T-493.) The claimant's testimony that she was suffering anxiety which resulted from her employment, which caused her to seek medical intervention, is determined to be compelling evidence that the claimant had a good faith fear that continued employment was injurious to her emotional health and physical well-being. Such also constitutes good cause for electing to quit her most recent work. A reasonable, good faith and honest fear of harm to one's health or safety from the work environment constitutes good cause for quitting. (Rabago v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 200.) However, the claimant negated her good cause for quitting by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve the employment prior to doing so. The claimant knew that she had the ability to complain to the third-party HR administrator and to the CEO but neglected to do so because she wished to avoid a potential conflict. The evidence received compels a finding that the claimant did not make her health issues known to the employer and that had the claimant requested a leave of absence one would've been granted to her for health-related reasons. Similarly, the claimant confirmed that she had not complained about the issue of sexual harassment/banter because of her desire to avoid conflict. Although the claimant feared that she would be discharged if she complained about the issues 6024010-171117.doc 4 to the employer, the claimant should nonetheless have endeavored to confront the employer directly about the issues prior to quitting in an attempt to preserve her employment, which she generally found rewarding in light of her work performed as a homeless liaison. Good cause for leaving employment may be negated if the claimant failed to give the employer an opportunity to correct working conditions by complaining about them. (Precedent Decision P-B-8.) Based on the foregoing, the Notice of Determination and Ruling will be affirmed and modified DECISION The Notice of Determination and Ruling is affirmed and modified. The claimant voluntarily quit her most recent work for reasons constituting good cause. The claimant negated such good cause by failing to take reasonable efforts to preserve her employment prior to quitting. The claimant is disqualified for benefits under section 1256 of the Unemployment Insurance Code. To purge the disqualification under section 1260 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, the claimant is required to contact the EDD to reopen her claim after earning at least $2250 in bona fide employment, and be otherwise eligible. The employer's reserve account is relieved of benefit charge under sections 1030 and 1032 of the Unemployment Insurance Code. RML (2/1) 6024010-171117.doc 5 ::;ase 'No. 6024010 ~IA W MACWILLIAMS 1220 TASMAN DR SPC 42 :>UNNYVALE, CA 94089-2451 )OWNTOWN STREETS TEAM 1671 THE ALAMEDA :>AN JOSE, CA 95126 DECISIONS SENT TO 121 -LOS ANGELES ADJUDICATION CTR :> 0 BOX 15014 _os ANGELES, CA 90015-0014 ,.. SA.. JOSE OFFICE OF APPEALS 2665 N FIRST ST STE 100 SAN JOSE CA 95134 Telephone: (408) 232-3036 Fax: (408) 232-3049 Case No.: 6024010 CLT/PET: Zia W. McWilliams Parties Appearing: Claimant, Employer Parties Appearing by Written Statement: ISSUE STATEMENT San Jose Office of Appeals ALJ: Robert M. Lofgren None The claimant appealed from a Notice of Determination and Ruling which disqualified her for unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256. A ruling held the employer's reserve account was not subject to charges. The issue in this case is whether the claimant left the most recent employment voluntarily without good cause. FINDINGS OF FACT The claimant established a benefit year claim beginning July 30, 2017. Prior to filing the claim, she was most recently employed by the respondent employer, Downtown Streets Team, as a project manager. The claimant's employment ended on August 1, 2017 as a result of the claimant electing to quit the employment. The claimant quit the employment for multiple reasons including; her health, her belief that she was being subjected to discriminatory pay practices by the employer based upon gender, because she had been subjected to sexual harassment, and because she believed that she did not have any opportunity to advance in the company based upon representations of the CEO who reported to her that raises would not be provided to her because she was underperforming the other project managers and because the CEO was generally dismissive of her during a meeting in May. The claimant was suffering anxiety symptoms which resulted in her being prescribed medication. Her physician on multiple occasions questioned the viability of her continued employment in light of the claimant's subjective response to her perceptions of harassment. The claimant reported to her immediate supervisor that she was feeling stressed but did not articulate that the stress was occasioned by her work. The claimant did not contact the employer's HR department or complain to any of the management personnel about the issues because she wished to avoid a potential conflict. The claimant received information that she was being paid less than her counterparts which caused her to believe that she was being subjected to gender based discrimination. The claimant raised her concerns with the employer which denied that there was gender based pay discrimination. 6024010-171117.doc 2 The claimant was subjected to sexual harassment by the CEO when the claimant was advised that she was interested in a female coworker, but not her. She was also subjected to sexual banter by the CEOs son at a party attended by the claimant. At no time did the claimant complain about the issue of sexual harassment to the employer despite being offended by it. The claimant elected not to address the issue to the employer because she believed that to do so would be unavailing because of the close knit relationship of the management team members. Had the claimant raised the issue of her medical condition with the employer, the employer would have granted a leave of absence for that purpose. At the time the claimant orally quit the employment, she reported that she was doing so to return to West Virginia to contemplate a new direction in her life and to address medical issues which were not clarified. Subsequently, the claimant submitted a written resignation prior to the end of her employment citing the reason for her decision as the inability to transfer, the inability to secure a promotion, and the inability to secure any salary increases, and because she was told that her job performance was sub-par. Since separating from the employment the claimant has not returned to new employment. REASONS FOR DECISION An individual is disqualified for benefits if he or she left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause. (Unemployment Insurance Code, section 1256.) An employer's reserve account may be relieved of charges if the claimant left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause. (Unemployment Insurance Code, sections 1030 and 1032.) Based upon the evidence received herein, it is found that the claimant voluntarily quit her most recent work for reasons constituting could cause. Based upon the claimant's sworn testimony, which was provided in a manner which caused the administrative law judge to conclude her testimony credible, it is found that the claimant was subjected to incidences of sexual harassment as result of being subjected to sexual banter. A reasonable person generally desirous of retaining their employment if confronted with similar circumstances that confronted the claimant would have elected to quit the employment as a consequence of the sexual harassment. 6024010-171117.doc 3 There is good cause for voluntarily leaving work where the facts disclose a real, substantial, and compelling reason of such nature as would cause a reasonable person genuinely desirous of retaining employment to take similar action. (Precedent Decision P-B-27.) The claimant's sworn testimony about the issue is accorded greater evidentiary weight and probative value than the sworn testimony of the employer witness which was lacking in conviction and frequently nonresponsive to questions posed to her regarding the issue of sexual harassment. The direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact. (Evidence Code, section 411.) Although the claimant contended that she was the victim of pay discrimination based on gender, the claimant has failed to produce compelling evidence on that point other than the fact the claimant raised the issue of receiving a proposed raise one month after a male subordinate received his wage increase despite both pay increase requests being submitted to the employer on the same date. Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Evidence Code, section 115.) Preponderance of the evidence simply requires proof that a matter in question is more likely to be true than not true. (Precedent Decision P-T-493.) The claimant's testimony that she was suffering anxiety which resulted from her employment, which caused her to seek medical intervention, is determined to be compelling evidence that the claimant had a good faith fear that continued employment was injurious to her emotional health and physical well-being. Such also constitutes good cause for electing to quit her most recent work. A reasonable, good faith and honest fear of harm to one's health or safety from the work environment constitutes good cause for quitting. (Rabago v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 200.) However, the claimant negated her good cause for quitting by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve the employment prior to doing so. The claimant knew that she had the ability to complain to the third-party HR administrator and to the CEO but neglected to do so because she wished to avoid a potential conflict. The evidence received compels a finding that the claimant did not make her health issues known to the employer and that had the claimant requested a leave of absence one would've been granted to her for health-related reasons. Similarly, the claimant confirmed that she had not complained about the issue of sexual harassmenUbanter because of her desire to avoid conflict. Although the claimant feared that she would be discharged if she complained about the issues 6024010-171117.doc 4 to the employer, the claimant should nonetheless have endeavored to confront the employer directly about the issues prior to quitting in an attempt to preserve her employment, which she generally found rewarding in light of her work performed as a homeless liaison. Good cause for leaving employment may be negated if the claimant failed to give the employer an opportunity to correct working conditions by complaining about them. (Precedent Decision P-B-8.) Based on the foregoing, the Notice of Determination and Ruling will be affirmed and modified DECISION The Notice of Determination and Ruling is affirmed and modified. The claimant voluntarily quit her most recent work for reasons constituting good cause. The claimant negated such good cause by failing to take reasonable efforts to preserve her employment prior to quitting. The claimant is disqualified for benefits under section 1256 of the Unemployment Insurance Code. To purge the disqualification under section 1260 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, the claimant is required to contact the EDD to reopen her claim after earning at least $2250 in bona fide employment, and be otherwise eligible. The employer's reserve account is relieved of benefit charge under sections 1030 and 1032 of the Unemployment Insurance Code. RML (2/1) 6024010-171117.doc 5 ~~ ·-'--1 ' CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT ---"' -"' INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD ~ ~ C · U ·I· A· B NOTICE TO PARTIES Board Appeal If Lhe enclosed decision is unfavorable, you may appea l it to Lhe Appeals Board (Board). The Board genera lly decides the case on the record of the hearing before lhe Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) without a new hearing, so no subpoenas will be issued. You must mail, fax or deliver your written board appeal within 30 days (including weekends and holidays) from the mailing date stamped on the front of the ALJ's decision. Your board appeal musl be in wriling, signed, and include your name and aclclress, the name of any clai mant who is a parly to Lhe case, the case number of the ALJ's decision and your account number if you are an employer. If a representative files your board appeal, il must include th e representative's name and address. You may include olher information such as your telephone, cell and fax numbers, your e-mail address and a sta temenl of w hy you disagree with Lhe ALJ's decision (writlen argumenl). Submitling a timely board appea l is the only requirement to obtain a review and decision in your case. When you file your board appeal, you may reques t the Board to send you a copy of the record of the hearing held by the ALJ if it is needed for your written argumenl. If you are the claimanl o r claimant representative, th ere is no payment required for a copy of the record. If you are an employer or employer representative, you must specify whal item(s) you want and send a check or mo ney order payable to EDD: $5 for a CD, $5 for ex hibils, and $5 for a transcript if ava ilab le. If you ask for a copy of the record with your board appea l, you will be given a new clue dale to sub mit a written argument after th e board appea l is filed. With your board appeal, you may also request the Board to accept new or additional evidence. The Board rarely accepts new or add itional evidence. If you make a requesl, you musl: (a) attach the evidence with your board appeal; (b) explain why the evidence was not given to the ALJ at the hea ring; and (c) explain why lhe evidence is important lo the case. New Hearing Request If you did not appear in the hearing and the ALJ's decision is unfavorable, or you withdrew your appeal, you may request a new hearing and decision in your case within 20 clays from the mailing dale stamped on the front of the ALJ 's decision. You must make your request and give your reasons in writing. If warranted, a hearing will be scheduled before an ALJ who will decide if there is good cause to grant your request. Deadline and Address You must submit your board appea l, new hea ring req uesl, written argument, and any other requests within the time limits nolecl above. M ail, fax or deliver your board appeal or requests to: CUIAB -San Jose Office of Appeals 2665 North First Street, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95134 Fax: (408) 232-3048 For mo~e information call the Appeals Board: (916) 263-6803 If you miss the deadline, you must explain the reasons for your delay. AN UNTIMELY BOARD APPEAL OR UNTIMELY REQUEST WILL BE DISMISSED OR DENIED UNLESS GOOD CAUSE IS FOUND TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING. Claim Forms If you are the claimant and still unemployed or disab led, you must file claim forms while your appea l is pending as requ ired by Lhe EDD. If you do nol have claim forms, contact EDD at: http://www.ecld.ca.gov and follow the links to Contacl EDD. Disability Insurance Claimanls: Ca ll (800) 480-3287; Paid Fami ly Leave Claimants: Ca ll (877) 238-4373. Governing Procedure This notice gives genera l informalion. The governing procedi..ire is in Title 22, Ca lifornia Code of Regulations, Seclions 5000-5200, ava ilable on the internet at http://ccr.oa l.ca.gov or from the Office of Appeals without charge. -Espanol al reverso - 0[ 6401 Rev. 33 (S-1 '.;) St.i te of C:i lilorni.1 cu ~~f.,I 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: ABAG -- Call for Nominations for Appointment to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Attachments:SFBRA Notice of Vacancy All Seats 20210107.pdf Thanks and stay healthy. BETH MINOR City Clerk (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Fred Castro <fcastro@bayareametro.gov> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 2:57 PM Subject: ABAG ‐‐ Call for Nominations for Appointment to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. PLEASE DISTRIBUTE Supervisors, Mayors and Councilmembers: On behalf of President Jesse Arreguin and the Executive Board of the Association of Bay Area Governments, a call for nominations is here issued to fill all seven seats on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority which will become vacant in early 2021 and which will be filled following an application process, as described below. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a regional government entity created in 2008 with jurisdiction extending throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Its mission is to raise and allocate funds for the restoration, enhancement, protection and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. In June of 2016, Bay Area voters approved a regional parcel tax expected to generate $25 million per year for 20 years for this purpose. More information about the Restoration Authority is available at http://sfbayrestore.org/ The Governing Board of the Restoration Authority consists of seven members appointed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Chair shall be an elected official of a bayside city or county, or an elected member of a special district, with expertise in the implementation of Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 311160) of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code. 7 Four members shall be an elected official of a bayside city or county in the North Bay, East Bay, South Bay, or West Bay. North Bay consists of the Counties of Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma. East Bay consists of Contra Costa County and the portion of Alameda County that is north of the southern boundary of the City of Hayward, excluding the Delta primary zone. South Bay consists of Santa Clara County, the portion of Alameda County that is south of the southern boundary of the City of Hayward, and the portion of San Mateo County that is south of the northern boundary of Redwood City. West Bay consists of the City and County of San Francisco and the portion of San Mateo County that is north of the northern boundary of Redwood City. Two members shall be elected officials of one or more of the following: a bayside city or county; or a regional park district, regional open space district, or regional park and open space district formed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code that owns or operates one or more San Francisco shoreline parcels. Each member shall serve at the pleasure of the Association of Bay Area Governments. ABAG is interested in appointing someone who: Has a demonstrated interest in the restoration and conservation of San Francisco Bay; Is willing to make funding decisions that are in the best interest of the Bay Area region as a whole; Will work collegially with elected officials from outside their own jurisdiction; and Has the time and interest to be an active member of the Governing Board and who can regularly attend board meetings as well as take on occasional tasks requiring work between board meetings. Term Appointments will be for the four‐year term beginning April 1, 2021 and ending March 31, 2025. Application If you would like to be considered for appointment, please prepare a letter of interest addressed to ABAG President Jesse Arreguin, Association of Bay Area Governments, 375 Beale Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, California 94105 Letters of interest should also be emailed as an attachment to Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, fcastro@bayareametro.gov Include a statement about your interest in serving on the Governing Board, a description of your experience with wetlands restoration, and your experience working at a regional level or other related collaborative efforts. Following a review of letters of interests, individuals may be invited to interview with a selection panel and/or the ABAG President. The appointment of the ABAG President will be ratified by the ABAG Executive Board. Please submit your letter of interest by January 29, 2021. For information, contact Karen McDowell, San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority/San Francisco Estuary Partnership at karen.mcdowell@sfestuary.org Fred Castro Clerk of the Board Association of Bay Area Governments fcastro@bayareametro.gov 8 BAY AREA METRO | BayAreaMetro.gov Association of Bay Area Governments Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Area Metro Center 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 Office (415) 820‐7913 Cell (415) 690‐0529 Clerks Boards of Supervisors City and Town Clerks A SSOCIATION OF B AY A REA G OVERNMENTS Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area Page 1 Notice of Vacancy on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority All seven seats on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority will become vacant in early 2021 and will be filled following an application process, as described below. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a regional government entity created in 2008 with jurisdiction extending throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Its mission is to raise and allocate funds for the restoration, enhancement, protection and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. In June of 2016, Bay Area voters approved a regional parcel tax expected to generate $25 million per year for 20 years for this purpose. More information about the Restoration Authority is available at http://sfbayrestore.org/ The Governing Board of the Restoration Authority consists of seven members appointed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. • The Chair shall be an elected official of a bayside city or county, or an elected member of a special district, with expertise in the implementation of Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 311160) of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code. • Four members shall be an elected official of a bayside city or county in the North Bay, East Bay, South Bay, or West Bay. • North Bay consists of the Counties of Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma. • East Bay consists of Contra Costa County and the portion of Alameda County that is north of the southern boundary of the City of Hayward, excluding the Delta primary zone. • South Bay consists of Santa Clara County, the portion of Alameda County that is south of the southern boundary of the City of Hayward, and the portion of San Mateo County that is south of the northern boundary of Redwood City. • West Bay consists of the City and County of San Francisco and the portion of San Mateo County that is north of the northern boundary of Redwood City. • Two members shall be elected officials of one or more of the following: a bayside city or county; or a regional park district, regional open space district, or regional park and open space district formed pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code that owns or operates one or more San Francisco shoreline parcels. • Each member shall serve at the pleasure of the Association of Bay Area Governments. (Continued Next Page) Notice of Vacancy on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Page 2 ABAG is interested in appointing someone who: Has a demonstrated interest in the restoration and conservation of San Francisco Bay; Is willing to make funding decisions that are in the best interest of the Bay Area region as a whole; Will work collegially with elected officials from outside their own jurisdiction; and Has the time and interest to be an active member of the Governing Board and who can regularly attend board meetings as well as take on occasional tasks requiring work between board meetings. Term Appointments will be for the four-year term beginning April 1, 2021 and ending March 31, 2025. Application If you would like to be considered for appointment, please prepare a letter of interest addressed to ABAG President Jesse Arreguin, Association of Bay Area Governments, 375 Beale Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, California 94105 Letters of interest should also be emailed as an attachment to Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, fcastro@bayareametro.gov Include a statement about your interest in serving on the Governing Board, a description of your experience with wetlands restoration, and your experience working at a regional level or other related collaborative efforts. Following a review of letters of interests, individuals may be invited to interview with a selection panel and/or the ABAG President. The appointment of the ABAG President will be ratified by the ABAG Executive Board. Please submit your letter of interest by January 29, 2021. For information, contact Karen McDowell, San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority/San Francisco Estuary Partnership at karen.mcdowell@sfestuary.org 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:49 AM To:Davis, Susan Cc:bill@sdap.org; jramirez@sunnyvaleca.gov; knguyen@sunnyvaleca.gov; cmontgomery@sunnyvaleca.gov; pngo@cityofsunnyvale.org; joe.simitian@bos.sscourt.org; vagabondinnsunnyvale@gmail.com; debra.ryan@scscourt.org; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov Subject:UPDATE: Civil Grand Jury tampering ( Fake court case - docket: C1493022 ) Attachments:Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil Grand Jury Public Guardian.pdf; Whistleblower- Complaint.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Be advised that the Civil Grand Jury member who was county employee under supervision of County Executives office referred to below has been identified as Elaine K. Larson ‐ Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. Regards, Cary Andrew Crittenden On December 16, 2020 at 11:38 AM, Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote: Hi Susan, From what I understand, investigators have uncovered new information or obtained documentation which suggests that SVSP may have gotten tangled up somehow with the Corruption investigation into the Santa Clara County Sheriff's department & out of fear of indictment by Criminal Grand Jury , SVSP management may have agreed to work in collusion with District Attorneys office in the extortion / entrapment scandal at Vagabond Inn to cover up Grand Jury Tampering on Civil Grand Jury investigations from 2013‐2015. Additionally, someone from Civil Grand Jury investigations from 2012‐2015 appears to have been deliberately planted as member of Grand Jury by county executives office & I know very little of te specific details except to say that the individual was a county employee who, like Ky Le was under supervision of County Executive's office and employed at the "Berger drive county office. This person was possibly employed by "County of Santa Clara Finance Agency Fiscal Services Division" ‐ It is noted that civil grand jury findings incorrexctky stated that "There was no Fiscal Impact". 10 I ·1&rt1GlYJUDGl COM CEmRFOBJUDIClll ,_...a.ICEWNCE.OBG__.;:i~ 11 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020‐11‐23/apple‐chief‐security‐officer‐charged‐with‐ bribery‐firearm‐permit Best Regards, Caru Andrew Crittenden 13 On January 15, 2020 at 1:19 PM, Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote: Thanks Susan, BTW, Heidi had interactions with State Department / U.S. Consul officials last night in Palo Alto & they googled her. Was kind of funny the way it happened as 2 days ago, Heidi was outside the Apple computer store with her sign that said “Google Heidi Yauman” and HeidiYauman.com and the security guards told her she would have to leave or they would call police. I told them to go ahead and call whoever they wanted but Heidi was not going anywhere. I told them to leave her alone & video taped the interaction. Later, I was approached by one of the security guards who apologised to me and he confessed that he was new and did not understand the law. He also said he Googled Heidi and learned about Markham Plaza and the Grand Jury cover up i & that he had heard from Apple employees and Palo Alto Police that Heidi’s story on the internet was true. Apple Employees directed their security guards to leave Heidi alone. She returned to the same location yesterday and the same group of security guards were present. There other guards present who we assumed were Apple Computer security guards & they were talking with Heidi about her situation after googling her & the Apple Security Guard’s told the well dressed guards that they had confirmed though PAPD sand Apple Computer employees that Heidi’s story was true and that Tim Cook was witness. They were all very nice and courteous to her and inquired if there was any current litigation or investigation in progress. Then shortly thereafter, there was heavy police presence CHP officers and cars with tinted windows and US. Consul license plates. US. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo then came out of the Burma Ruby restaurant next door at 326 University Avenue next to the Apple Computer Store making direct eye contact with Heidi and he was ushered into Black Suburban SUV by security while Heidi stood there with her sign saying to “Google Heidi Yauman” and HeidiYauman.com and held it up Michael Pomeo. The “extra guards” then got into other vehicles with US Consul license plates and left. I videotaped this also. Cary Andrew Crittenden. |. 408‐318‐1105 On Jan 15, 2020, at 12:17 PM, Davis, Susan <Susan.Davis@ssa.sccgov.org> wrote: Hi Cary, If I am not here, the officer of the day will have the funds. 14 I appreciate the update, thank you. Kind regards, Susan Davis Deputy Public Guardian Conservator Office of Public Administrator Social Services Agency Department of Aging and Adult Services P.O. Box 760, San Jose, CA 95106‐0760 Email: susan.davis@ssa.sccgov.org Desk Phone: (408) 755‐7621 Facsimile: (408) 755‐7950 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication contains legal privileged and confidential information sent solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication you are not authorized to use it in any manner, except to immediately destroy it and notify the sender. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 12:14 PM To: Davis, Susan <Susan.Davis@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: Royal, Carlotta <Carlotta.Royal@ssa.sccgov.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] APPT Hello Susan, Heidi & I are just finishing up at court in Palo Alto & need to charge phone for about 1 hour. We will be leaving for San Jose at around 1:30 or so and heading to Public Guardian’s office so that Heidi can pick up her funds. 15 We expect to arrive no later than 3:00 Please let me know if this does not work for you & we can try to adjust. Thank you, Cary Andrew Crittenden |. 408‐318‐1105 16 Baumb, Nelly From:Sandeep Bhat <bhat.sandeep.k@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 6:48 PM To:Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; mchoube@gmail.com; musalemugdha@gmail.com Subject:Sun Salutation Yogathon 2021 - Request for Proclamation Attachments:SNY Proclamation Template 2021.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Hon. Mayor Adrian Fine and Hon. Vice Mayor Tom DuBois, Hope this email finds you, your family and everyone in your team in good health and spirits. I am a resident of Palo Alto and a volunteer of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, USA Inc (HSS) a non‐profit socio‐cultural organization for the entire family ranging from kids, adults and senior citizens. We offer a structured value education program aimed at character building, honing leadership skills and community service. We are conducting a "Health for Humanity Yogathon" from January 16‐31, 2021 and would like to request a proclamation from your office in support of that. This year has been challenging for people all around the globe and especially in America. We thank you for the leadership and support you have been providing to our community in this trying time. We would all agree now it is all the more important for all citizens to have a good overall health by increasing wellness quotient. We would like to request a proclamation from your office supporting our national campaign, “Health for Humanity ‐ Yogathon” also known as “Surya Namaskar Yajna” (Sun Salutation Yogathon) running from January 16th to January 31st, 2021. This campaign encourages persons from all corners of the country regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, faith, nationality etc. to participate and achieve personal goals of a healthy lifestyle. Proclamation template is attached to this email. HSS launched the Health for Humanity Yogathon as an annual event in 2007 to create awareness about yoga and its advantages in achieving a healthy body, mind, and spirit. The Surya Namaskar (Sun Salutation) yoga routine integrates simple postures of well‐balanced movements in ten steps with an easy breathing technique to provide immense health benefits for everyone, from beginners to yoga enthusiasts. Over the past several years, 10,000+ participants from 38 States took part. In the year 2019, we conducted many programs in different locations across Pennsylvania, including an elementary school in Devon, PA, to encourage more people to participate. More than 300 students benefited from this program in 2019. You can find more information about this initiative and its success over the years at http://www.hssus.org/sny/ Please have your office contact me at 916.201.7381 (Cell) or bhat.sandeep.k@gmail.com if you would like additional information. Thank you in advance and I look forward to hearing from you. Sandeep Bhat 916.201.7381 (Cell) Mountain View Chapter, HSS Proclamation In Recognition of the Health for Humanity Yogathon Organized by Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh USA [25/11/2020] WHEREAS, YOGA is an ancient Hindu practice developed thousands of years ago in the Indian subcontinent for maintaining spiritual, mental, and physical wellbeing; WHEREAS, SURYA NAMASKARA, or Sun Salutation, is a traditional yogic practice combining a sequence of postures with breathing exercises; WHEREAS, HINDU SWAYAMSEVAK SANGH, or HSS, is a nonprofit charitable organization with over 235 branches in 173 cities and in 32 states including 9 branches in the state of Massachuesttss, through which it conducts a Hindu values education program and community service activities such as food drives, providing hot meals to shelters and providing PPE to first responders in several cities across MA. WHEREAS, HSS is organizing its annual Health for Humanity Yogathon with the goal of having 1000 individual participants cumulatively complete 11,000 repetitions of Surya Namaskara to promote the spiritual, mental, and physical wellbeing of all members of the community; and WHEREAS, YOGA enthusiasts, yoga studios, local schools, and other community organizations are participating in the HSS Health for Humanity Yogathon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the < > do hereby recognize HSS for organizing its annual Health for Humanity Yogathon to promote the spiritual, mental, and physical wellbeing of all members of the community. 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Laura Lauese <llauese@seq.org> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 3:59 PM To:Laura Lauese Subject:INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A VIRTUAL CONFERENCE SESSION / SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH FIRM CONSULTANTS Attachments:Supt Search-Input Session Schedule 2021 SUHSDv.3_final.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings! On behalf of the Sequoia Union High School District Board of Trustees, this is to inform you that a time has been scheduled for you to confer with consultants from Leadership Associates to provide input about the desired personal and professional qualities anticipated in the incoming superintendent. Your comments will be used to develop the candidate profile, recruitment process, and reference checking. The consultants will also compile a summary of all comments received during these sessions and share the report with the Board and with the new superintendent. These sessions will be conducted virtually on Zoom, and you will be assigned a specific time to participate. Please see the attached schedule for your specific group and assigned call‐in time. During your conference call, consultants will share an overview of the process and then ask two primary questions: What are the desirable qualities, characteristics, background, and professional and personal experiences for the next superintendent? What do you see as the strengths of the district and the major challenges facing the district in years ahead? If your scheduled time presents a conflict, you may provide your feedback via our online survey posted on the District's Superintendent Search webpage; click here to view the page. If you are not able to access the online survey, you may forward your written responses to the above questions to: Becky Banning Executive Assistant, Leadership Associates Email: bbanning@leadershipassociates.org NOTE: Feel free to contact Becky Banning directly at the above email address for any questions regarding the input sessions, survey, the search process, and if you wish to request to speak with a consultant directly. Thank you for your time. Best Regards, Laura Lauese Executive Assistant to the Superintendent/Board of Trustees Sequoia Union High School District 480 James Avenue, Redwood City, CA 94062 (650) 369-1411, Ext. 22213 www.seq.org Page 1 of 2 Tuesday, January 12, 2021 (Full Day) Thursday, January 14, 2021 (Half-Day- PM Only) PLEASE JOIN USING THE FOLLOWING ZOOM LINK AT THE APPOINTED TIME BELOW: https://seq-org.zoom.us/j/91392945030 Meeting ID: 913 9294 5030 Passcode: 987088 January 12, 2020 (Day 1) – Leadership Associates Consultants: David Verdugo; Eric Andrew Time / AM GROUP / STAKEHOLDER(S) DESCRIPTION 8:20-8:50 AM Classified Staff/Union Reps 9:00-9:30 AM City Council Members, City Staff, City Police Chiefs, Chamber of Commerce 9:40-10:10 AM Business Partners/CTE Mentor Partnerships/Boys & Girls Club, Live in Peace, etc. 10:20-10:50 AM Neighboring/Feeder District Superintendents (incl. Community College, Palo Alto Union HSD and San Mateo Union HSD) 11:00-11:30 AM District Leadership Team (Directors, Managers, Supervisors, Coordinators) 12:30-1:15 PM Executive Cabinet Time / PM GROUP / STAKEHOLDER(S) DESCRIPTION 1:30-2:00 PM Assistant Vice-Principals (AVPs) and Instructional Vice Principals (IVPs) 2:10-2:40 PM Certificated Staff/Union Reps 2:50-3:20 PM Community Partners, Churches, RWC 2020, etc. 3:30-4:00 PM Parent Advisory Committee 4:10-4:40 PM Equity Task Force 4:50-5:20 PM Parents/Parent Leadership (PTSA) Page 2 of 2 PLEASE JOIN USING THE FOLLOWING ZOOM LINK AT THE APPOINTED TIME BELOW: https://seq-org.zoom.us/j/91392945030 Meeting ID: 913 9294 5030 Passcode: 987088 January 14, 2020 (Day 2) – Leadership Associates Consultants: David Verdugo; Eric Andrew Time (PM only) GROUP / STAKEHOLDER(S) DESCRIPTION 1:00-1:30 PM District/Site Administrative Secretaries & Confidentials 1:40-2:10 PM Classified Staff/Union Reps 2:20-2:50 PM Principals (all schools including Adult School) 3:00-3:30 PM District English Learner Advisory Committee (DELAC)/English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC) 3:40-4:10 PM Student Advisory Council (SAC)/ Student Club Representatives (Black Student Union, Pacific Islander, Dream Club, etc.) 4:20-4:50 PM Certificated Staff/Union Reps 19 Baumb, Nelly From:Thomas Tayeri <tayeri@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 10:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:Motor homes on El Camino Attachments:PXL_20210108_174120836.jpg; PXL_20210108_174102123.jpg; PXL_20210108_174045397.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council Members, I am attaching some pictures I took on El Camino near Park Blvd. this morning. This is one location I could safely pull over to take pictures; there were other similar sites further north and south on El Camino. Can you please tell me if you are comfortable with this state of affairs in our city? I realize the people who live in these motor homes need a place to live, but there has to be a better solution. El Camino Real is not a free motor home park and the situation shown in my photos is not the answer to the region's housing problems. For reasons of safety and sanitation, I hope you will take action to remove these motor homes as soon as possible. Sincerely, Thomas Tayeri 20 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org> Sent:Thursday, January 7, 2021 3:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:BAWSCA Appointment Attachments:Letter to PACC re- BAWSCA.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Dubois and Council Members: Please see the attached letter. Thank you. ‐Peter ----------------------- Peter Drekmeier Policy Director Tuolumne River Trust peter@tuolumne.org (415) 882-7252 OFFICES 57 Post Street, Suite 711 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 882-7252 1031 15th Street, Suite 6 Modesto, CA 95354 (209) 236-0330 67 Linoberg Street Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 588-8636 www.tuolumne.org BOARD MEMBERS John Kreiter, Chair Harrison “Hap” Dunning, Vice Chair Cindy Charles, Treasurer Kerstyn Crumb, Secretary Eric Heitz, Chair Emeritus Eddie Corwin Kerstyn Crumb Bob Hackamack Camille King Bill Maher Len Materman Marty McDonnell John Nimmons Eric Riemer Bart Westcott January 7, 2021 Mayor Tom Dubois and Council Members Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Via Email Dear Mayor Dubois and Council Members: I write to request that Council Member Alison Cormack be replaced as Palo Alto’s representative on the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Board of Directors. Palo Alto deserves a representative who respects and advocates for the City’s official position on issues such as the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Council Member Cormack has failed to do so. On August 20, 2018, Council unanimously approved the following motion: MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to support the State Water Resources Control Board’s Bay Delta Plan to have 30-50 percent of unimpaired flow in the San Joaquin Valley to enter the Delta from February to June and associated Southern Delta salinity objectives; and send a letter expressing this policy position to Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), California State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and other stakeholders Staff believes should receive the letter. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-01 On November 30, 2020, the SFPUC hosted a workshop focusing on the science behind the Bay Delta Plan and the competing Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement (TRVA). Rather than present Palo Alto’s position, Council Member Cormack, identifying herself as a Palo Alto City Council Member and BAWSCA Board Member, instead expressed support for the TRVA. The meeting minutes report the following: Alison Cormack, Palo Alto City Council, BAWSCA Board, expressed support for the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement based on the science-based Tuolumne River Management Plan, which will provide more water for the 1 Palo Alto City Council Action Minutes, August 20, 2018 – https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=1912.049&BlobID=66680 fish in the river and protect the water supply for residents, business, and communities. She provided a full written comment for the record.2 Council Member Cormack clearly misrepresented the City’s position. The full transcript of her statement is posted on the BAWSCA website,3 and a recording is posted on SFGovTV.4 It should be noted that Council Member Cormack made her statement prior to any science being presented, and her claim that the Tuolumne River Management Plan (TRMP) is “science-based” has been called into question. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with protecting and restoring salmon and other anadromous fish populations, recently commissioned a peer review of the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts’ fish models, upon which the TRMP is based. This peer review found major flaws in the models, and was a driver for the SFPUC to host the science workshop. Since making her statement, Council Member Cormack has defended her action by saying she did not oppose the Bay Delta Plan. However, it was very clear to Council that the vote in 2018 was an either/or – whether to support the Bay Delta Plan or the TRVA (then referred to as a “negotiated voluntary settlement”). By supporting one, Council would not be supporting the other. In fact, the staff recommendation encouraged Council to support the TRVA, a recommendation Council did not embrace. Action Item 5 read: Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the Objective of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Bay Delta Plan and a Negotiated Voluntary Settlement of Water Issues on the Tuolumne River.5 After two hours of deliberation, having received presentations from the SFPUC, BAWSCA, City staff, the Tuolumne River Trust and the public, Council clearly and unequivocally elected to endorse the Bay Delta Plan over the TRVA. Palo Alto Online reported: Palo Alto plunged into the fierce debate over California's water policies on Monday night, when the City Council voiced unanimous support for the amended Bay-Delta Plan despite objections from the city's water suppliers and its own Utilities Department.6 2 Minutes of the November 30, 2020 SFPUC science workshop – https://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=16750 3 Statement by Alison Cormack, BAWSCA Director and Palo Alto City Council Member – https://bawsca.org/uploads/news/2020_1130_BAWSCA%20Statements_Commission%20Bay%20Delta%20Wo rkshop_Final_as%20Delivered.pdf 4 SFGovTV, November 30, 2020 – https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=37186 (Council Member Cormack comments at 36:25). 5 See supra note 1. And: After hearing from both sides, Councilman Greg Scharff made the motion to reject the staff recommendation and to take Drekmeier's side. At least three of his colleagues immediately seconded his motion. The history of the environmental movement, Scharff said, is that there is "always a dire prediction for everything." Despite these predictions, Californians adopted measures to make the air cleaner, protect open space and restore marshes.7 I look forward to working with you to remedy this situation. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Policy Director 6 Palo Alto Online, Defying water suppliers, Palo Alto backs Bay-Delta Plan, August 21, 2018 – https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/08/21/defying-water-suppliers-palo-alto-backs-bay-delta-plan 7 Ibid.