Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20210201plCC
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: 2/1/ 2021 Document dates: 1/13/2021 – 1/20/2021 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 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 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Minor, Beth Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: January 19, 2021 Proposed Closed Session Attachments:Mayor Dubois and City Council (Proposed Closed Session) 1.19.21.pdf; Exhibit A - Encinitas.pdf; Exhibit B - Pasadena.pdf Thanks and stay healthy. BETH MINOR City Clerk (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: William Ross <wross@lawross.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:19 PM To: DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: January 19, 2021 Proposed Closed Session CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see attached communication and Exhibits. Thank you. William D. Ross, Esq. Law Offices of William D. Ross A Professional Corporation 400 Lambert Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94306 Tel: (650) 843-8080; Fax: (650) 843-8093 E-Mail: wross@lawross.com EXHIBIT “A” MEETING DATE: August 9, 2017 PREPARED BY: Bob McSeveney Sr. Management Analyst DEPT. DIRECTOR: Karen P. Brust DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Karen P. Brust SUBJECT: Three-year Licensing Agreement with Corridor Power for electric vehicle charging stations on City Hall lower parking lot at 505 S. Vulcan Avenue RECOMMENDED ACTION: That City Council: 1. Approves the three-year licensing agreement, in substantially final form, with Corridor Power for electric vehicle charging stations on City Hall lower parking lot at 505 S. Vulcan Avenue; 2. Authorizes the City Manager, in conjunction with the City Attorney, to execute the agreement; 3. Provides staff direction, if desired, with respect to any further licensing conditions for inclusion prior to final agreement execution. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is consistent with the Environment focus area of the Strategic Plan, facilitating the reduction of greenhouse gas in accordance with the Climate Action Plan (CAP). This item is also consistent with the Organizational Effectiveness & Efficiency focus area by helping to maintain the City’s financial health through collecting space rental for the duration of the licensing agreement. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: The City will be paid $18,581 for the first year of the agreement, for the use of 17 parking spaces. The City will be paid $19,138 for the second year of the agreement, a 3% license fee increase. The City will be paid $19,713 for the third year of the agreement, a 3% license fee increase. Over three years, the City will collect $57,432 in license fees for the use of the City’s property. The licensing agreement provides for free electric vehicle charging for Encinitas residents, City of Encinitas employees, and City of Encinitas vehicles, for the duration of the agreement. The cost of electric vehicle charging is approximately $3.00 for twenty minutes, the average charging time at the proposed station. Residents, employees and City vehicle users would be issued a card, essentially a free pass. Assuming one charge per week, the benefit would be about $150 per free pass user per year. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 1 of 80 BACKGROUND: The City was approached in 2012 by representatives of the Clinton Foundation and a working group consortium, to introduce the concept of a multi-station, electric vehicle (EV) fast-charging facility project. In January, 2013, while at the Clinton Foundation, Mr. Steven Crolius sent the Encinitas Mayor a letter requesting consideration of the lower City Hall parking lot, on the northeast corner of Vulcan Avenue and E Street, for use as a demonstration project for fast-charging electric vehicles, thereby promoting the spread of EV charging infrastructure. More available EV charging would help stimulate the use of electric vehicles in lieu of internal combustion vehicles, and help reduce greenhouse gas associated with internal combustion engines. In April, 2013, this concept was presented to Council, Attachment 1. On April 10, 2013, Council adopted Resolution 2013-17, Attachment 2, expressing the intent to consider the use of City property for an EV fast-charging plaza demonstration project. This Council resolution facilitated the working group consortium to apply for and receive a grant from the California Energy Commission to help cover the cost of constructing the project. A battery storage unit will also be located on-site to store electricity generated from solar panels, reducing the carbon footprint of the facility. On December 17, 2014, Corridor Power, Inc., an entity representing the project working group, submitted an application request for a Minor Use Permit, an Administrative Design Review Permit and a Coastal Development Permit (Case No. 14-335 MIN/DR/CDP) for an EV fast- charging demonstration project to be located in the lower City Hall overflow parking lot. On January 13, 2016, Council was given a project report for consideration of licensing the use of the lower parking lot for this project, Attachment 3. Council had many questions, and referred the project to the Planning Commission to evaluate all the land use aspects of this project. The Planning Commission required a parking supply analysis, due to the loss of public parking in the lower parking lot. On May 4, 2017, the Planning Commission heard and approved the project for three years with a Minor Use Permit, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-16, Attachment 4. As one of the conditions of the Minor Use Permit, Corridor Power must obtain a licensing agreement for the use of the City’s property in the lower City Hall parking lot, Attachment 5. ANALYSIS: Loss of Parking The lower City Hall parking lot currently has 25 parking spaces available. The addition of the project’s driver lounge building will require the removal of seven existing parking spaces leaving 18 remaining parking spaces. Of these 18 spaces, 10 will be EV fast-charging spaces where drivers can park to recharge their electric vehicles. These 10 EV parking spaces will be available for use by the general public when not being used by a charging EV vehicle. The remaining eight parking spaces will be available for use by the public. The parking supply analysis revealed that there are “mini-peaks” in parking demand on the lower City Hall parking lot from downtown between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Peak demand for fast-charging is anticipated to be 6:30 am to 9:00 am and 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm Monday through Friday, so the peak times do not overlap and there should be opportunity to accommodate parking demand. In addition, the charging stations have cables long enough to charge double parked vehicles, if handled by the site manager. The site manager would also assist in facilitating parking during special City events, such as the Holiday Parade. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 2 of 80 Benefits to City and Residents Adding a charging station to the infrastructure for electric vehicles will make recharging more convenient and encourage more electric vehicle usage. EV drivers utilize mobile apps to locate EV charging stations, and this station would be displayed accordingly. Electric vehicle usage has the benefit of reducing greenhouse gas production, the byproduct of internal combustion engines. Corridor Power will provide data to the City regarding emission reduction, real data for use in the CAP. The power storage unit, funded by the Foundation grant, is site specific and will remain on site after the license agreement is terminated. At such time, Public Works Facilities would assess the potential use at City Hall. City residents and employees will receive free EV charging for the duration of the licensing agreement. This may be an incentive for residents or employees to use zero-emission vehicles, thereby reducing greenhouse gas production in Encinitas, a goal of the CAP. This is also true for City-owned vehicles, should the City purchase them. In addition to the 10 car chargers, there are 30 plug points for electric bicycles. Driver’s Lounge The waiting area is intended for use as a driver’s lounge, not as a convenience store. Ready- made snacks and bottled beverages will be available for purchase in the lounge for drivers who are waiting for their vehicles to recharge, and a WiFi access point will also be available. The business hours for the driver’s lounge and restroom facilities will be seven days a week from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. If the driver remains on-site, the turnaround time for the parking spot is minimized. Fast-charging stations lend themselves to quick turnaround times, since the vehicle can be charged in an average of 20 minutes. However, if drivers want to go downtown while waiting, the site manager will obtain the car keys so the vehicle may be moved if a charging station parking space is needed. Licensing Agreement Duration The use of the property is temporary, with an estimated three-year timeline. The approved minor use permit is for three years. No later than one year prior to expiration of the licensing agreement, staff will return to Council with a status report regarding the operational effectiveness of the project, for discussion about whether it should be continued. At the end of the lease term, absent Council direction to continue the project, it is anticipated that the site will be restored to its previous condition. Fair Market Value of the Parking Spaces In February, 2014, Voit Real Estate Services (Voit) provided the City with an appraisal for the fair market value of the annual rental for each parking space in the subject lot, Attachment 6. The appraisal was based on the City’s lease agreement with North County Transit District (NCTD) for Parking Lot B, located diagonally from City Hall lower parking lot. The value was $1,000 per parking space per year, with a recommended 3% annual rent escalation. Using that escalation factor, and considering the three intervening years, in the first year of the this agreement the City should charge $1,093 per parking space, then $1,125.79 per parking space the second year and $1,159.56 per parking space the third year. Staff contacted Voit, who re- examined the NCTD lease agreement and said the appraisal was still valid. Impact on Housing Element When staff briefed Council on this project in January, 2016, there was a question about the impact of this project on the Housing Element with respect to the use of that site. This project does not preclude the City from including this site as a future housing site. In reviewing a proposed housing element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development 2017-08-09 Item 10A 3 of 80 (HCD) would look at the current use of the property to determine viability of the site as future housing. With the short duration of the proposed licensing agreement, there should not be an issue with this temporary use during an HCD review of a City Housing Element. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” under Section 15378(b)(5) of CEQA Guidelines. The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The action being considered by Council is related to the Transportation Strategy of the Climate Action Plan. The action would promote the use of electric vehicles and reduce greenhouse gasemissions. The licensee would provide measurable data to the City, regarding the contribution of this use to the City’s reduction in greenhouse gases. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Agenda Report dated April 10, 2013 2. City Council Resolution 2013-17 , titled “A resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas expressing the intent to consider use of City property for an electric vehicle fast-charging plaza demonstration project” 3. Agenda Report dated January 13, 2016 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-16, Case No. 14-335 MIN/DR/CDP dated May 4, 2017 5. Draft License Agreement between the City of Encinitas and Corridor Power regarding use and utilization of space at the Encinitas City Hall lower parking lot for electric vehicle charging 6. Estimate of rent and value for overflow City parking lot / EV charging station, dated February 14, 2014 2017-08-09 Item 10A 4 of 80 CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: April 10, 2013 TO: Mayor and City Council VIA: Gus Vina, City Manager FROM: Richard Phillips, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of Resolution 2013-17 Expressing the Intent to Consider Use of Portions of City Property for an Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza Demonstration Project. BACKGROUND: The City of Encinitas is the owner of a 9,800 square foot portion of real property at the north east corner of Vulcan Avenue and E Street. The site is part of the larger civic center parcel and developed as a public parking lot designated for overflow City Hall patrons parking (Attachment A"). The site was a former service station prior to the City's purchase of the land in 1992. In 2009, the former service station structure was demolished and the site developed into a public parking lot containing 24 parking stalls. The Clinton Foundation was founded in 2001 by former President William J. Clinton. The Foundation's mission is to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among governments, businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private citizens. A major initiative of the Clinton Foundation is the Clinton Climate Initiative. The initiative targets root causes of climate change using the successful partnership model of other Clinton Foundation initiatives to facilitate and develop solutions to help address the challenges of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through promoting low or no carbon alternative transportation. The City was approached in 2012 by representatives of the Clinton Foundation and a working group consortium to introduce the concept of a multi-station, electric vehicle (EV) fast-charging facility project. The working group conducted site visits in the targeted I-5 north corridor in San Diego and Orange Counties to evaluate sites and assess agencies' interest in considering an EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project. The City-owned parking lot at Vulcan Avenue and E Street is considered a favorable location for the EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project and a letter to the Mayor requesting the City to consider a potential lease arrangement for use of the property is contained as Attachment`B." 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 1 2017-08-09 Item 10A 5 of 80 ANALYSIS: The objective of the EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project is to design and deploy an economically viable fast-charging facility that will be used as a pilot project model for other deployments. The working group is composed of non-profit and public firms whose business model for an EV Fast-Charging Plaza entails a facility that includes multiple fast-charging stations, on-site electrical generation and storage infrastructure, a rental fleet of EVs (similar to the Car2Go service implemented in the City of San Diego) and a retail service facility to provide ancillary services such as coffee, snacks, internet services and staffing for operations. Facilities on an EV Fast-Charging Plaza would include placement of a modular building for the retail and services facility, electrical generation (solar panels) and electrical transformer and storage facilities. The working group is seeking funding from the California Energy Commission for implementation of the project and seeks to have a site designed for the pilot project. Resolution 2013-17 provides the City's authorization of intent to consider a short-term lease for an EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project at the City Hall overflow parking lot and the City, as the owner of the property, authorizes the working group to submit local permitting applications for land use review and permitting for an EV charging facility on the site. If terms of a site use between the parties are achieved, a lease agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)would return for Council's approval. FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACTS: Terms of a proposed lease or MOU would need to be negotiated. Revenues are anticipated to be modest. RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of Resolution 2013-17 expressing intent to consider use of portions of City property for an Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment"A"City Hall overflow parking lot site map Attachment"B" Correspondence to Mayor Barth from Stephen Crolius, Transportation Program Director, dated January 17, 2013 Attachment"C"Resolution 2013-17 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 2 2017-08-09 Item 10A 6 of 80 J r 11 ! I J For i e R• 1 fm I.1 s U or r• iS a^ty I" 1 t q i tl t a r y low irh itl All A p, tiR• Rt s 1• gal d ', Ib us Ile d t w r.t 3 1 i saw, i too So p r+ 2017-08-09 Item 10A 7 of 80 ATTACHMENT "B" aLINT January 17, 2013 Mayor Teresa Barth City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan St. Encinitas CA 92024 Dear Mayor Barth: On June 19th last year, my project partner Angus Clark and I met with Mr. Vina and members of City staff to discuss a project we are sponsoring related to electric vehicles. The project, formally known as the Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza Project, entails demonstration of a technically and economically optimized charging facility that we believe can materially promote mainstream adoption of electric cars. The Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) acts as an orchestrator of tangible projects that showcase " good ideas"that, if applied widely enough, could lead to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. CCI's Transportation Program has a major focus on electric vehicles. We believe EVs could penetrate the automotive market much more quickly than is commonly appreciated. Our EV-oriented efforts are directed toward eliminating barriers that stand in the way of this outcome. The barriers that relate to obtaining a sufficiency of on-board electrical power("range anxiety", "the multi-unit dwelling problem", etc.) could all be addressed through a network of fast-charging service plazas. The hypothesis we propose to test is that optimized stations can generate a favorable return on capital and are therefore appropriate recipients of private-and public-sector investment. The membership of our Project Working Group consists of EVOasis (of which Mr. Clark, mentioned above, is the founder); the Electric Power Research Institute; the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences; Fuji Electric; San Diego Gas & Electric; and Three Squares, Inc. We have determined that the Interstate 5 corridor in northern San Diego or southern Orange County would be a favorable location for a demonstration facility. During the meeting with Mr. Vina, we learned that the City of Encinitas owns a lot on Vulcan Avenue that could possibly be made available for the use of our Project. I am writing now to provide formal indication of the Project's interest in this option. The lot has several attributes that make it attractive from our perspective. One, of course, is its proximity to Interstate 5. A second is the fact that it is just a block from the Coaster Station. This opens up the possibility that the charging plaza could be integrated with an EV car-sharing hub. The Project is being conducted on a not-for-profit basis. We intend to seek support for the demonstration facility's capital and operating costs from public-sector agencies. It is our hope, therefore, that the City would lease the lot to the Project at a nominal annual rate. The Project would bear the cost of all leasehold improvements. At the end of the demonstration period (currently anticipated to be two years from the date of commissioning), the Project would be prepared WHIIAM J. r;;IANv ON Ftk1J[' PAI ION-_1177Wu Fit Srtlu,H.i, :' irwYol,K,NY 1174)05 WWW.CJ1N d( Nd11kINIDAY R65PLORG 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 4 2017-08-09 Item 10A 8 of 80 Mayor Teresa Barth—Page 2 to work with the City on a transfer to a business entity interested in continuing operation of the plaza; or to restore, at Project expense, the site to its original condition. Vulcan Avenue is one of several sites we are assessing. Our intention is to complete site evaluation next month and to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with a site donor in advance of submitting an application for funding to the California Energy Commission in the spring. Lease execution could occur in the same time frame as the commitment of project funding. Please let me know what steps we can take with the City to allow full consideration of our request. Sincerely, 1C Stephen H. Crolius Transportation Program Director, Clinton Climate Initiative WQL,4_IAM J. CIANI'ON F01 IN PA I(N--1177WmjtS r,i, :' it%,Yoi,K,NY 117005 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 5 2017-08-09 Item 10A 9 of 80 ATTACHMENT "C" RESOLUTION 2013-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA EXPRESSING THE INTENT TO CONSIDER USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE FAST-CHARGING PLAZA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHEREAS,the Clinton Climate Initiative facilitates projects that could lead to meaningful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with a major focus on electric vehicles (EVs) and promoting implementation of EV facilities that can lead to mainstream adoption of EVs as means of transportation; and WHEREAS, a Project Working Group consisting of the Clinton Foundation,the Electric Power Research Institute, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, EVOasis Corporation, Fuji Electric,Three Squares Inc. and San Diego Gas and Electric are working on business plans for the development of an EV Fast-Charging Plaza and are seeking sites to potentially implement an EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project; and WHEREAS, a primary purpose of the 2009-10 EV Project was to identify and establish public infrastructure necessary to support the introduction of EVs in the region, provide a level of confidence with consumers in the viability of EVs and establish ground work to meet the near-term needs and plan for the long-term needs for EV charging stations and market expansion in the region; and WHEREAS,the City's Climate Action Plan identifies GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector as the dominant factor in community-wide GHG emissions with the main form of travel within the community being single-occupant vehicles; and WHEREAS,the Project Working Group has identified the Interstate 5 corridor in Northern San Diego County as favorable for potential location of an EV fast charging service plaza demonstration facility and has held preliminary meetings with City staff to gather information and conducted preliminary site evaluation; and WHEREAS the Project Work Group has identified the north-east corner at Vulcan Avenue and E Street, identified as City Hall overflow parking lot, as a potential site for an EV Fast Charging plaza, EV car-sharing hub and auxiliary services demonstration project; and WHEREAS,the City of Encinitas is the owner of real property at north-east corner of Vulcan Ave. and E Street, known as the City Hall overflow parking lot, consisting of 24 space parking lot approximately 9,800 sq. feet in size; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the Encinitas expresses the intention to negotiate a potential short-term land lease for an EV Fast Charging Plaza demonstration project, authorizes the City to undertake local permitting requirement review, conduct due diligence and enter into discussions for a potential lease arrangement with an appropriate entity representing the Project Working Group. 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 6 2017-08-09 Item 10A 10 of 80 PASSED AND ADOPTED, this_t"day of April, 2013 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Teresa Arballo Barth, Mayor City of Encinitas ATTEST: Kathy Hollywood, City Clerk 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 7 2017-08-09 Item 10A 11 of 80 C Ck4vC0 __T f-e_4ti1 : 1 (o I t 2 U ccu-'-1d'CITY o A 2013 APR I 0 P" 5:5: 53 MEMO Date: April 10, 2013 To: City of Encinitas Mayor and Council RE: Submittal for the Record—Encinitas Council Meeting—Agenda Item#7—Electric Vehicle Plaza Consideration of Adoption of Resolution 2013-17 Expressing the Intent to Consider Use of Portions of City Property for an Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza Demonstration Project. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Encinitas City Council, Regrettably I am unable to join you for tonight's City Council meeting where you will be considering the adoption of a resolution to consider an electric vehicle plaza in the City of Encinitas on city property. I would like to share my support for the application and inform you that I have had the pleasure of working with Stephen H. Crolius,Transportation Program Director, Clinton Climate Initiative,Angus Clark, Peder Norby and several other parties interested in this endeavor. This project and others like it from the Clinton Climate Initiative could lead to meaningful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. I respectfully submit my support and commitment to ongoing collaboration with the project team. Respectfully, Amber Starbuck San Diego Gas& Electric 2017-08-09 Item 10A 12 of 80 RESOLUTION 2013-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA EXPRESSING THE INTENT TO CONSIDER USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE FAST-CHARGING PLAZA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHEREAS,the Clinton Climate Initiative facilitates projects that could lead to meaningful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with a major focus on electric vehicles (EVs) and promoting implementation of EV facilities that can lead to mainstream adoption of EVs as means of transportation; and WHEREAS, a Project Working Group consisting of the Clinton Foundation,the Electric Power Research Institute, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, EVOasis Corporation, Fuji Electric,Three Squares Inc.and San Diego Gas and Electric are working on business plans for the development of an EV Fast-Charging Plaza and are seeking sites to potentially implement an EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project; and WHEREAS, a primary purpose of the 2009-10 EV Project was to identify and establish public infrastructure necessary to support the introduction of EVs in the region, provide a level of confidence with consumers in the viability of EVs and establish ground work to meet the near-term needs and plan for the long-term needs for EV charging stations and market expansion in the region, and WHEREAS,the City's Climate Action Plan identifies GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector as the dominant factor in community-wide GHG emissions with the main form of travel within the community being single-occupant vehicles; and WHEREAS, the Project Working Group has identified the Interstate S corridor in Northern San Diego County as favorable for potential location of an EV fast charging service plaza demonstration facility and has held preliminary meetings with City staff to gather information and conducted preliminary site evaluation, and WHEREAS the Project Work Group has identified the north-east corner at Vulcan Avenue and E Street, identified as City Hall overflow parking lot, as a potential site for an EV Fast Charging plaza, EV car-sharing hub and auxiliary services demonstration project; and WHEREAS,the City of Encinitas is the owner of real property at north-east corner of Vulcan Ave. and E Street, known as the City Hall overflow parking lot, consisting of 24 space parking lot approximately 9,800 sq feet in size, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the Encinitas expresses the intention to negotiate a potential short-term land lease for an EV Fast Charging Plaza demonstration project, authorizes the City to undertake local permitting requirement review, conduct due diligence and enter into discussions for a potential lease arrangement with an appropriate entity representing the Project Working Group. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 13 of 80 PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 10`h day of April, 2013 by the following vote, to wit: AYES Barth, Gaspar, Kranz, Muir, Shaffer. NAYS- None. ABSENT. None ABSTAIN- None. Teresa Arballo Barth, Mayor City of Encinitas ATTEST- Kathy H woo , City Clerk 2017-08-09 Item 10A 14 of 80 AGENDA REPORT City Council MEETING DATE: January 13, 2016 PREPARED BY: Katie Innes, Associate DEPT. ACTING Manjeet Ranu, AICP Planner DIRECTOR: DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building CITY MANAGER: Karen P. Brust SUBJECT: Discussion of an electric vehicle (EV) fast-charging station facility proposed at the City Hall overflow parking lot located on the corner of Vulcan Avenue and E Street. PROJECT SUMMARY The project proposes the construction of an electric vehicle (EV) fast-charging station facility consisting of covered shade canopies, 10 EV charging towers, and a 480-square foot driver's lounge building. The proposed driver's lounge will function similar to an ancillary convenience market where pre-packaged drinks or snacks will be available for purchase. Additionally, the driver's lounge will provide indoor and outdoor seating areas and restroom facilities. The proposed EV charging station facility's operation is similar to a self-service gas station with a small convenience market. The operation of the site is anticipated to have frequent turn-over of EV vehicles coming and going as they are re-charged, similar to those visiting a gas station to re-fuel. The use of the property will be authorized by a future lease agreement between the facility operator and the City of Encinitas. The required discretionary permits will be acted upon by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council takes the following actions: 1. Receive report; and 2. Receive and consider public testimony; and 3. Provide direction to staff, as appropriate. STRATEGIC PLAN: This agenda report relates to the Environment Focus Area of the City's Strategic Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the City's goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as outlined in the Climate Action Plan. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with this overview. 2016-01-13 Item 11C 1 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 15 of 80 Since the property is City-owned, the use of the property will require a separate future action by the City Council to consider a lease agreement. The future lease agreement will define the terms and consideration for the use of the property. BACKGROUND: In 2012, the City of Encinitas was approached by a representative of the Clinton Foundation, as well as an associated working group consortium to introduce the concept of an electric vehicle EV) fast-charging station facility. The working group consisted of the Clinton Foundation, the Electric Power Research Institute, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, EVOasis Corporation, Fuji Electric, Three Squares Inc., and San Diego Gas and Electric. The objective of this working group was to evaluate potential EV fast-charging station sites, and to also assess the individual municipality's interest in considering the siting of an EV fast-charging station demonstration project in their jurisdiction. Site visits for possible project sites within the target I-5 corridor between San Diego and Orange Counties were conducted by the working group. A number of potential locations and jurisdictions were considered. As a result of the various site analyses, the City-owned overflow parking lot located at the north-east corner of Vulcan Avenue and E Street was found to be a favorable location for an EV fast-charging station demonstration project. On April 10, 2013, the City of Encinitas City Council considered a request from the working group to authorize an EV fast-charging station demonstration project at the City-owned property at the northeast corner of Vulcan Avenue and E Street. The City Council received presentations from both staff and a representative from the working group/Clinton Foundation (Stephen Crolius). The City Council deliberated and adopted Resolution 2013-17 (Attachment 2). The Resolution expressed the Council's intent for two actions: 1) To authorize the City to undertake local permitting requirement review; and 2) To negotiate a potential short-term land lease with the appropriate entity to formally authorize the use of the property for an EV fast-charging station. The use of the property by the applicant is anticipated to be temporary (3 years). Upon expiration of the lease agreement it is anticipated that the site will be restored to its previous condition. On December 17, 2014, Corridor Power, Inc., an entity representing the project working group, submitted an application request for an Administrative Design Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit (Case No. 14-335 ADR/CDP) for an EV fast-charging demonstration project to be located in the City Hall overflow parking lot. The scope of the proposed project includes the following: Construction of an electric vehicle (EV) fast-charging station facility with covered shade canopies and a Driver's Lounge building totaling 480-square feet. The existing parking lot contains 25 parking spaces and will be reconfigured as follows: o Seven existing parking stalls will be removed to accommodate the Driver's Lounge building. (25 parking spaces exist on the site and 18 parking spaces will remain as a result of the project). 0 10 parking stalls will be dedicated as EV fast-charging spaces. o Eight parking stalls will remain for non-EV vehicles/public parking. Solar panels will be installed on the Driver's Lounge building. The proposed EV charging station facility's operation is similar to a self-service gas station with a small convenience market. The operation of the site is anticipated to have frequent turn-over of EV vehicles coming and going as they are re-charged, similar to those visiting a gas station to 2016-01-13 Item 11C 2 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 16 of 80 re-fuel. The project will provide EV charging stations that are available for public use 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. The proposed driver's lounge will function similar to an ancillary convenience market where pre- packaged drinks or snacks will be available for purchase. Additionally, the driver's lounge will provide indoor and outdoor seating areas and restroom facilities. In order to have the restroom facility available, a lateral sewer line is proposed to connect to the existing sewer line on Vulcan Avenue. Two employees (one lounge attendant and one forecourt attendant/concierge) are anticipated to run the driver's lounge operation. The Driver's Lounge is proposed to be open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Although, the driver's lounge building will not be open 24 hours a day, the site will be continuously occupied (24/7/365) by an employee (forecourt attendant) who will ensure that late arrivals and any individuals with disabilities are assisted in charging their vehicle. The continuous presence of the forecourt attendant will maintain a high-level of security as a result. The facility is also to be equipped with multiple camera points which will be recording for play- back, if security is ever compromised. In addition to the services available as part of the Driver's Lounge, the operation of a car-share service known as HulaCar (High-Utilization Local-Access) may be considered for the site in the future. This one-way car sharing service allows for HulaCar users to pick up a vehicle at one location, and drop it off at another location, once their transportation needs have been met. It is anticipated that approximately 60 HulaCars will be in operation between Carlsbad and Sorrento/Carmel Valley by early 2017. It is anticipated that HulaCars could intermittently utilize the proposed EV fast-charging facility at the project site and some of the vehicles may be recharged in this location at night. Once charged, they will be moved back into normal circulation all over the northern San Diego County region where they can be utilized by HulaCar patrons who unlock them via Smartphone App. The car share (HulaCar) operation is not being considered as part of the proposed Administrative Design Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit request. However, the consideration of the use of the site by a car share operator (HulaCar) could be considered as part of the potential lease/licensing agreement for the site. If the HulaCar operation is included as part of the licensing agreement, an amendment to the project would be required, as well as a land use interpretation by the Planning Commission to allow for a car sharing operation at this location. There is no commitment at this time to have HulaCars available at this location, however, if they are in operation around the County they can re-charge at this facility. Upon construction of the project, the EV charging station will be the only one of its kind in the country. The Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission have been the sole providers of grants for EV infrastructure. Corridor Power, Inc. was an awardee, along with the City of San Diego and County of San Diego. The City of San Diego and the County of San Diego received similar grant award amounts ($500,000) for their proposed project. Their grants are also intended to deploy EV chargers on City and County property. Additional Supplemental Background Information is provided in Attachment 9. ANALYSIS: The project is located within the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan area in the Downtown Civic Center (D-CC) zone. The Downtown Civic Center (D-CC) zone is intended to provide activities operated by the City or other governmental agencies. 2016-01-13 Item 11C 3 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 17 of 80 Surrounding Neighborhood The project site and the immediately surrounding area are developed with a mix of civic, residential and office uses. Public/civic facilities including City Hall, the Encinitas Public Library, and Viewpoint Park are located to the east and northeast of the project site. The North County Transit District transit/coaster station is located to the west of the project site across Vulcan Avenue. Attached and detached single and multi-family dwellings are located to the north of the project site and a small office development is located immediately to the south of the project site across E Street. Zoning and Land Use The City Hall overflow parking lot is located in the Downtown Civic Center (D-CC) zone within the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan area. This zone is unique in that it recognizes the functions of the City's main offices as a principal use within this zone. Currently the project site operates as a public parking lot, which is ancillary to the existing principal use on the property City Hall). The D-CC zone lists a number of principal land uses that are either permitted, permitted with a use permit, or prohibited. Government Administrative Offices are listed as a permitted principal land use in the D-CC zone. However, an electric vehicle (EV) charging facility is not specifically listed as a principal land use in this zone. Since the EV charging station is not listed as a principal land use within the D-CC zone, a land use interpretation needs to be made by the Planning Commission in order to authorize the proposed use in this location. (Please see Attachment 7: D-CC Zoning/ Principal Land Uses for more detailed information). The retail portion of the driver's lounge operation, which includes a small retail food market, is a permitted use in the D-CC zone. Climate Action Plan The City of Encinitas Climate Action Plan (CAP) outlines a course of action for identifying and implementing strategies to achieve citywide reductions in greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions for both municipal and community operations. Non-municipal community-wide emissions are those associated with the operation of buildings, land, or other such items not owned and operated by the City of Encinitas, such as building- related energy use, transportation, and solid waste. In order to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals established in the Climate Action Plan, broad- based participation and reduction efforts are necessary from not only by the City, but by the larger community. The proposed project will contribute to GHG emission reduction goals. The project provides the necessary infrastructure that will support the use of zero emission, electric vehicles within the community and surrounding region. Additionally, the driver's lounge building proposes the installation of a roof-mounted photovoltaic system (solar) which will reduce building-related energy use during the operational phase of the project. NEXT STEPS/DISCUSSION Staff is requesting additional City Council direction related to the suitability of the project and desired outcome for the construction and operation of the EV fast-charging station within the City Hall overflow parking lot. Issues: A land use interpretation is required to be made by the Planning Commission. The entire project (Administrative Design Review and Coastal Development Permit) will be elevated to the Planning Commission for a decision. 2016-01-13 Item 11C 4 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 18 of 80 The parking at City Hall is non-conforming and does not meet the current parking requirement. Approval of the project will increase the site's non-conformity. The project site is included in the Housing Element site inventory yield (if the City Hall site is selected). Approval of the project will reduce the potential housing yield if selected as a housing site in the Housing Element. Following the Planning Commission's land use interpretation and approval of the Administrative Design Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit, the draft lease agreement will need to be approved by the City Council, prior to the use of the site as proposed. Considerations: Re-confirm that the project description and use of the City Hall overflow lot for an EV charging station with a driver's lounge is the intent of the City Council. Is the proposed use compatible with Downtown Encinitas and the City Hall site? ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: There are no environmental considerations associated with this agenda report. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378, this agenda item is not a "project," as defined by the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Section 15378 indicates that a "project" does not include administrative activities of the government that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment. This item is an informational item only and involves the discussion of the proposed EV fast-charging station. A direct or indirect change in the environment will not occur as a result of this informational item. Separate environmental analysis, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be considered in the future for the discretionary permits associated with the EV fast-charging station demonstration project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. April 10, 2013-City Council Agenda Report and Attachments and Meeting Minutes 2. City Council Resolution 2013-17, entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas Expressing the Intent to Consider Use of City Property for an Electric-Vehicle Fast Charging Plaza Demonstration Project," dated April 10, 2013. 3. City of Encinitas Letter of Support to the California Energy Commission 4. Letters of Support from SANDAG and SDG&E 5. Proposed Site Plan, Civil Plan and Elevations 6. Applicant Letter of Intent/Project Description 7. Downtown Civic Center (D-CC) Zoning/ Principal Land Uses 8. City of Encinitas Level 4 Planning Commission Process Guide and Flow Chart 9. Supplemental Background Information 2016-01-13 Item 11C 5 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 19 of 80 Attachment 1: April 10, 2013-City Council Agenda Report and Attachments and Meeting Minutes 2016-01-13 Item 11C 6 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 20 of 80 J CITY OF ENCINITAS I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT r Meeting Date: April 10, 2013 TO: Mayor and City Council VIA: Gus Vina, City Manager FROM: Richard Phillips, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of Resolution 2013-17 Expressing the Intent to Consider Use of Portions of City Property for an Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza Demonstration Project. BACKGROUND: The City of Encinitas is the owner of a 9,800 square foot portion of real property at the north east corner of Vulcan Avenue and E Street. The site is part of the larger civic center parcel and developed as a public parking lot designated for overflow City Hall patrons parking ( Attachment A"). The site was a former service station prior to the City's purchase of the land in 1992. In 2009, the former service station structure was demolished and the site developed into a public parking lot containing 24 parking stalls. The Clinton Foundation was founded in 2001 by former President William J. Clinton. The Foundation's mission is to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among governments, businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private citizens. A major initiative of the Clinton Foundation is the Clinton Climate Initiative. The initiative targets root causes of climate change using the successful partnership model of other Clinton Foundation initiatives to facilitate and develop solutions to help address the challenges of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through promoting low or no carbon alternative transportation. The City was approached in 2012 by representatives of the Clinton Foundation and a working group consortium to introduce the concept of a multi-station, electric vehicle (EV) fast-charging facility project. The working group conducted site visits in the targeted I-5 north corridor in San Diego and Orange Counties to evaluate sites and assess agencies' interest in considering an EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project. The City-owned parking lot at Vulcan Avenue and E Street is considered a favorable location for the EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project and a letter to the Mayor requesting the City to consider a potential lease arrangement for use of the property is contained as Attachment`B." 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 1 2016-01-13 Item 11C 7 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 21 of 80 ANALYSIS: The objective of the EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project is to design and deploy an economically viable fast-charging facility that will be used as a pilot project model for other deployments. The working group is composed of non-profit and public firms whose business model for an EV Fast-Charging Plaza entails a facility that includes multiple fast-charging stations, on-site electrical generation and storage infrastructure, a rental fleet of Evs (similar to the Car2Go service implemented in the City of San Diego) and a retail service facility to provide ancillary services such as coffee, snacks, internet services and staffing for operations. Facilities on an EV Fast-Charging Plaza would include placement of a modular building for the retail and services facility, electrical generation (solar panels) and electrical transformer and storage facilities. The working group is seeking funding from the California Energy Commission for implementation of the project and seeks to have a site designed for the pilot project. Resolution 2013-17 provides the City's authorization of intent to consider a short-term lease for an EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project at the City Hall overflow parking lot and the City, as the owner of the property, authorizes the working group to submit local permitting applications for land use review and permitting for an EV charging facility on the site. If terms of a site use between the parties are achieved, a lease agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU))would return for Council's approval. FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACTS: Terms of a proposed lease or MOU would need to be negotiated. Revenues are anticipated to be modest. RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of Resolution 2013-17 expressing intent to consider use of portions of City property for an Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A"City Hall overflow parking lot site map Attachment"B"Correspondence to Mayor Barth from Stephen Crolius, Transportation Program Director, dated January 17, 2013 Attachment "C"Resolution 2013-17 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 2 2016-01-13 Item 11C 8 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 22 of 80 ns L k.L L., 16 4 « IF 7TTk222E\? "A" 4 46 2017-08-09 Item 10A 23 of 80 ATTACHMENT "B" CLTNTON FOUNDATION January 17, 2013 Mayor Teresa Barth City of Encinitas 505 S.Vulcan St. Encinitas CA 92024 Dear Mayor Barth: On June 19th last year, my project partner Angus Clark and I met with Mr.Vina and members of City staff to discuss a project we are sponsoring related to electric vehicles. The project,formally known as the Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza Project,entails demonstration of a technically and economically optimized charging facility that we believe can materially promote mainstream adoption of electric cars. The Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) acts as an orchestrator of tangible projects that showcase"good ideas"that, if applied widely enough, could lead to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. CCI's Transportation Program has a major focus on electric vehicles. We believe EVs could penetrate the automotive market much more quickly than is commonly appreciated. Our EV-oriented efforts are directed toward eliminating barriers that stand in the way of this outcome. The barriers that relate to obtaining a sufficiency of on-board electrical power("range anxiety", "the multi-unit dwelling problem", etc.) could all be addressed through a network of fast-charging service plazas. The hypothesis we propose to test is that optimized stations can generate a favorable return on capital and are therefore appropriate recipients of private-and public-sector investment. The membership of our Project Working Group consists of EVOasis(of which Mr. Clark, mentioned above, is the founder);the Electric Power Research Institute; the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences; Fuji Electric; San Diego Gas & Electric; and Three Squares, Inc. We have determined that the Interstate 5 corridor in northern San Diego or southern Orange County would be a favorable location for a demonstration facility. During the meeting with Mr.Vina, we learned that the City of Encinitas owns a lot on Vulcan Avenue that could possibly be made available for the use of our Project. I am writing now to provide formal indication of the Project's interest in this option. The lot has several attributes that make it attractive from our perspective. One,of course, is its proximity to Interstate 5. A second is the fact that it is just a block from the Coaster Station. This opens up the possibility that the charging plaza could be integrated with an EV car-sharing hub. The Project is being conducted on a not-for-profit basis. We intend to seek support for the demonstration facility's capital and operating costs from public-sector agencies. It is our hope, therefore,that the City would lease the lot to the Project at a nominal annual rate. The Project would bear the cost of all leasehold improvements. At the end of the demonstration period (currently anticipated to be two years from the date of commissioning),the Project would be prepared WILLIAM J.CLINFON FOUNDA1'ION•77WNiF.RSla}Ia, NIW YORK,NY10005 WW\R'.(!LIN ION FOUNUAI ION.ONO 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 4 2016-01-13 Item 11C 10 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 24 of 80 Mayor Teresa Barth—Page 2 to work with the City on a transfer to a business entity interested in continuing operation of the plaza; or to restore,at Project expense, the site to its original condition. Vulcan Avenue is one of several sites we are assessing. Our intention is to complete site evaluation next month and to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with a site donor in advance of submitting an application for funding to the California Energy Commission in the spring. Lease execution could occur in the same time frame as the commitment of project funding. Please let me know what steps we can take with the City to allow full consideration of our request. Sincerely, E'ep/1-'II VI - ( W 11 Vs Stephen H.Crolius Transportation Program Director, Clinton Climate Initiative WILLIA,&I J.C:LIN'FON FOUNDATION•77 WNIER SIREE1, NEW YORK,NY [0005 W WW.CLIN'LON EOUNDAI I0N.OH(7 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 5 2016-01-13 Item 11C 11 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 25 of 80 ATTACHMENT "C" RESOLUTION 2013-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA EXPRESSING THE INTENT TO CONSIDER USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE FAST-CHARGING PLAZA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHEREAS,the Clinton Climate Initiative facilitates projects that could lead to meaningful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with a major focus on electric vehicles (EVs) and promoting implementation of EV facilities that can lead to mainstream adoption of EVs as means of transportation; and WHEREAS, a Project Working Group consisting of the Clinton Foundation,the Electric Power Research Institute, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, EVOasis Corporation, Fuji Electric, Three Squares Inc.and San Diego Gas and Electric are working on business plans for the development of an EV Fast-Charging Plaza and are seeking sites to potentially implement an EV Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project; and WHEREAS, a primary purpose of the 2009-10 EV Project was to identify and establish public infrastructure necessary to support the introduction of EVs in the region, provide a level of confidence with consumers in the viability of EVs and establish ground work to meet the near-term needs and plan for the long-term needs for EV charging stations and market expansion in the region; and WHEREAS,the City's Climate Action Plan identifies GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector as the dominant factor in community-wide GHG emissions with the main form of travel within the community being single-occupant vehicles;and WHEREAS,the Project Working Group has identified the Interstate 5 corridor in Northern San Diego County as favorable for potential location of an EV fast charging service plaza demonstration facility and has held preliminary meetings with City staff to gather information and conducted preliminary site evaluation; and WHEREAS the Project Work Group has identified the north-east corner at Vulcan Avenue and E Street, identified as City Hall overflow parking lot, as a potential site for an EV Fast Charging plaza, EV car-sharing hub and auxiliary services demonstration project; and WHEREAS,the City of Encinitas is the owner of real property at north-east corner of Vulcan Ave. and E Street, known as the City Hall overflow parking lot, consisting of 24 space parking lot approximately 9,800 sq.feet in size; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the Encinitas expresses the intention to negotiate a potential short-term land lease for an EV Fast Charging Plaza demonstration project, authorizes the City to undertake local permitting requirement review, conduct due diligence and enter into discussions for a potential lease arrangement with an appropriate entity representing the Project Working Group. 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 6 2016-01-13 Item 11C 12 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 26 of 80 PASSED AND ADOPTED,this_th day of April, 2013 by the following vote,to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Teresa Arballo Barth, Mayor City of Encinitas ATTEST: Kathy Hollywood, City Clerk 04/10/2013 Item #07 Page 7 2016-01-13 Item 11C 13 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 27 of 80 I ((A _: w C'Gun c'CITY OFiuClr'I'1 t,r C, 2013 APR 10 P"I 5: 53 MEMO Date: April 10, 2013 To: City of Encinitas Mayor and Council RE: Submittal for the Record—Encinitas Council Meeting—Agenda Item#7—Electric Vehicle Plaza Consideration of Adoption of Resolution 2013-17 Expressing the Intent to Consider Use of Portions of City Property for an Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza Demonstration Project. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Encinitas City Council, Regrettably I am unable to join you for tonight's City Council meeting where you will be considering the adoption of a resolution to consider an electric vehicle plaza in the City of Encinitas on city property. I would like to share my support for the application and inform you that I have had the pleasure of working with Stephen H.Crolius,Transportation Program Director,Clinton Climate Initiative,Angus Clark, Peder Norby and several other parties interested in this endeavor. This project and others like it from the Clinton Climate Initiative could lead to meaningful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. I respectfully submit my support and commitment to ongoing collaboration with the project team. Respectfully, Amber Starbuck San Diego Gas& Electric 2016-01-13 Item 11C 14 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 28 of 80 04/10/13 Regular Meeting COUNCIL CONSENSUS: There was Council Consensus to direct Mayor Barth to return to council for direction on writing letters of support for the nominations. 7. Consideration of adoption of Resolution 2013-17 expressing the intent to consider use of portions of City property for an Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Plaza Demonstration Project. Contact Person: Deputy City Manager Phillips STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of Resolution 2013-17 expressing intent to consider use of portions of City property for an Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project. ACTION: Shaffer moved, Muir seconded to adopt Resolution 2013-17 expressing intent to consider use of portions of City property for an Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Plaza demonstration project. Motion carried. Ayes: Barth,Gaspar,Kranz, Muir, Shaffer. Nays: None. Mayor Barth declared a recess from 7:56 P.M. to 8:08 P.M. 8. Encinitas Union School District ("EUSD") correspondence regarding sale of former Pacific View School Site ("PACIFIC VIEW") Contact Person: City Attorney Sabine. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting that the Council provide direction in response to the Correspondence. The options for Council action include the following: a. Direct Staff to agendize consideration of the possible purchase of PACIFIC VIEW; b. Direct Staff to work with EUSD to restart the application process for a General Plan Amendment ("GPA"), Local Coastal Plan Program Land Use Amendment ("LCPA") and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan Amendment SPA") necessary to rezone PACIFIC VIEW as proposed; c. Provide alternative direction to Staff in response to the Correspondence; or d. Take no action as this time. Disclosures: Council Members Gaspar and Muir and Deputy Mayor Shaffer stated that they did not have anydiscussionswithEUSDregardingthecurrentcorrespondence. Council Member Kranz stated that he had spoken for many years in support of the purchase of the property. Mayor Barth stated that her votes on this issue are a matter ofpublic record and she has had no discussions with EUSD regarding the current correspondence. 04/10/13 Reg. Mtg.Page 5 Mtg. #2013- , Bk#27, Page 2016-01-13 Item 11C 15 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 29 of 80 Attachment 2: City Council Resolution 2013-17, entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas Expressing the Intent to Consider Use of City Property for an Electric-Vehicle Fast Charging Plaza Demonstration Project," dated April 10, 2013. 2016-01-13 Item 11C 16 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 30 of 80 RESOLUTION 2013-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA EXPRESSING THE INTENT TO CONSIDER USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE FAST-CHARGING PLAZA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the Clinton Climate Initiative facilitates projects that could lead to meaningful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions with a major focus on electric vehicles (EVs) and promoting implementation of EV facilities that can lead to mainstream adoption of EVs as means of transportation; and WHEREAS, a Project Working Group consisting of the Clinton Foundation, the Electric Power Research Institute, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, EVOasis Corporation, Fuji Electric, Three Squares Inc.and San Diego Gas and Electric are working on business plans for the development of an EV Fast-Charging Plaza and are seeking sites to potentially implement an EVFast-Charging Plaza demonstration project; and WHEREAS, a primary purpose of the 2009-10 EV Project was to identify and establish public infrastructure necessary to support the introduction of EVs in the region, provide a level of confidence with consumers in the viability of EVs and establish ground work to meet the near-term needs and plan for the long-term needs for EV charging stations and market expansion in the region, and WHEREAS,the City's Climate Action Plan identifies GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector as the dominant factor in community-wide GHG emissions with the main form of travel within the community being single-occupant vehicles; and WHEREAS,the Project Working Group has identified the Interstate 5 corridor in Northern San Diego County as favorable for potential location of an EV fast charging service plaza demonstration facility and has held preliminary meetings with City staff to gather information and conducted preliminary site evaluation, and WHEREAS the Project Work Group has identified the north-east corner at Vulcan Avenue and E Street, identified as City Hall overflow parking lot, as a potential site for an EV Fast Charging plaza, EV car-sharing hub and auxiliary services demonstration project; and WHEREAS,the City of Encinitas is the owner of real property at north-east corner of Vulcan Ave. and E Street, known as the City Hall overflow parking lot, consisting of 24 space parking lot approximately 9,800 sq feet in size, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the Encinitas expresses the intention to negotiate a potential short-term land lease for an EV Fast Charging Plaza demonstration project, authorizes the City to undertake local permitting requirement review, conduct due diligence and enter into discussions for a potential lease arrangement with an appropriate entity representing the Project Working Group. 2016-01-13 Item 11C 17 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 31 of 80 PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 10`h day of April, 2013 by the following vote, to wit: AYES Barth, Gaspar, Kranz, Muir, Shaffer. NAYS None. ABSENT. None ABSTAIN- None. Teresa Arballo Barth, Mayor City of Encinitas ATTEST, t4 Kattly F bt wWDC , City Clerk 2016-01-13 Item 11C 18 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 32 of 80 Attachment 3: City of Encinitas Letter of Support to the California Energy Commission 2016-01-13 Item 11C 19 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 33 of 80 City OfEnci 21 tas January 22, 2014 Tatyana Yaksina, Commission Agreement Officer California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-18 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Support of Corridor Power Inc.'s Application for Electric Vehicle ChargingInfrastructureProgramOpportunityNotice (PON)#13-606 Dear Tatyana Yaksina: The City of Encinitas is pleased to support the Corridor Power Inc.'s application for the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Program (PON 13-606). The City approved a resolution of intent to allow the use of a city-owned parking lot for implementation of a multi-station EV fast-charging and auxiliary services demonstration project. The Encinitas City Council adopted Resolution 2013-17 in April 2013 expressing its intention to enter into a use agreement and providing consent to undertaking any necessary permitting requirements. Funding support from Energy Commission's program will provide capital to support the development of a fast-charging plaza, EV car-sharing hub and auxiliary services facilitytosupportEVinfrastructureneedsforthegrowingEVownershipandutilizationofcar- share zero emissions vehicles for transportation needs. The designed site is a short distance from the busy 1-5 corridor which is a major transportation corridor between the metropolitan areas in San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties. Northern San Diego County's 1-5 has an average daily traffic count of 200,000 vehicles which is projected to increase to more than 300,000 by 2030. The San Diego region was selected area for the 2009 "EV Project" supporting the earlyconsumerintroductionofcommerciallyavailableEVsandimplementationofsupportive infrastructure. The City participated in the EV Project by hosting two Level 2 (240 volt) public charging stations. The needed next steps for EV infrastructure support are implementation of Fast-Charging stations, support facilities and alternative transportation options to meet the needs of longer-distance EV drivers, short-term zero emission car share programs and continued market acceptance. The implementation of Tel 7607133-2600 FAX 760'633-2879.505 South Vulcan .A\euue. Encinitas.CA 92024 TDD 760/ 633-2700 2016-01-13 Item 11C 20 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 34 of 80 the multi-station fast-charging facility and supportive services facilities help provide the next steps" of infrastructure to support he EV market adoption. The City is pleased to support this endeavor and strongly supports Corridor Power Inc.' s application for the funding opportunity. Sincerely, Richard Phillips Deputy City Manager Attachment—City of Encinitas Resolution 2013-17 cc. City Council City Manager Anna Lowe,San Diego Association of Governments 1 el 7601633-2000 FAX 760/ 633-2627.305 South Vulcan AN'enue, Encinitas.CA 92024 1 DD 7601633-2700 2016-01-13 Item 11C 21 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 35 of 80 Attachment 4: Letters of Support from SANDAG and SDG&E 2016-01-13 Item 11C 22 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 36 of 80 401 B Street,Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231 January 24, 2014 3200300 619)699-1900 Fax(619)699-1905 www.sandag.org Tatyana Yakshina, Commission Agreement Officer California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-18 Sacramento, California 95814 MEMBER AGENCIES Cities of Dear Tatyana Yakshina: Carlsbad Chula Vista SUBJECT: Corridor Power Coordination with San Diego Regional PEVCC Coronado Del Mar In accordance with the PON-13-606,the Corridor Power team of Angus Clark El Cajon and Stephen Crolius reached out to me as Chair of the San Diego Regional Encinitas Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (REVI)Working Group (our region's PEVCC). In Escondido December 2013 SANDAL, the City of Encinitas and the project applicants sat Imperial Beach down to discuss the Corridor Power Fast-Charging Plaza proposal, site logisticsLaMesa Lemon Grove and their larger EV charging business plan. National City Oceanside The Corridor Power project would align with our San Diego Regional PEV Poway Readiness Plan, as well as SANDAG's Regional Energy Strategy and Sustainable San Diego Communities Strategy. Mr. Clark has been an active participant in several REVI San Marcos working group meetings over the past two years at which EVSE siting issues Santee and priorities were discussed. Solana Beach Vista and County of San Diego Sincerely, ADVISORY MEMBERS Imperialcounty SUSAN FREEDMAN California Department Chair, San Diego Regional Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Working Group of Transportation Senior Regional Energy Planner, SANDAL Metropolitan TransitSystem sfr/ North County Transit District cc. Richard Phillips, City of Encinitas United states Angus Clark, EVOasis Departmentof Defense Stephen Crolius, Alliance Consulting Group San Diego UnifiedPort District San Diego County WaterAuthority Southern California tribal Chairmen'sAssociation Mexico 2016-01-13 Item 11C 23 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 37 of 80 Lee S.i andDirector,Smart Griddand Clean Transportation 101 Ash St.. A aj Sempra liner ttt6 ity' Mail Code:SD1174 SanDiego,0A 92101 Tel:858-503-5497 Fax:858-541-5798 Mobile:619-987-1220 I.Kreva*semprautilities.com January 29,201.4 California Energy Commission Grants and Loans Office Attn:PON-13-606 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure 1516 Ninth Street,MS-18 Sacramento,CA 95814 RE: SDG&E Commitment Letter for PON-13-606 (Corridor Power,Inc) To Whom It May Concern: This letter declares the intent of San Diego Gas&Electric Company(SDG&E)to collaborate with Corridor Power,Inc.and other partners on the California Energy Commission(CEC)PON- 13-606 grant entitled"Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure"should Corridor Power,Inc.be awarded a grant. SDG&E will commit in-kind support of a Project:Manager in its Clean Transportation group to provide up to$22,500 per year ofin-kind contribution for up to.three years, as outlined below. The in-kind contribution consists of support equivalent to 10%of a Project Manager's time in the Clean Transportation group to assist with deployment of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment EVSE)installations benefiting SDG&E customers, including DC Fast Charge and Level 2 charging equipment installed in the City of Encinitas. SDG&E's commitment is dependent on Corridor Power,Inc.successfully executing the grant's CEC ARFVI?agreement(s). Sincerely, +. Lee Krevait Director Smart Grid&Clean Transportation 2016-01-13 Item 11C 24 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 38 of 80 Attachment 5- Proposed Site Plan, Civil Plan and Elevations 2016-01-13 Item 11C 25 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 39 of 80 Site Plan cz rr I 9 p Proposed monument Sign location l 64 1554 II West Elevation Proposed window sign location on i_I glass door Proposed window sign location on sass door 2016-01-13 Item 11C 26 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 40 of 80 O O N 4 0 h 11 DRAINAGE&BMP PLAN FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONS AT SE CORNER OF PROPERTY WIN wl t MW2W4W43 3-1C Zdd Y1 4p U- pm, IU FEWAM 4, A EASTESTREET 0 to 20 30 7 r%j- FBI iI M- MW—TZ&A IXIIIm mango EM OW ru C3 iiY ca cn p zC) O uw 1 DRAM.GE&IWAP PLAN M-1 C2.01 M—A 2017-08-09 Item 10A 41 of 80 N O O O 7-71 N N JUL 1 0 '015 2017-08-09 Item 10A 42 of 80 lim mom,, 1 NEST ELEVATION 2017-08-09 Item 10A 43 of 80 phi II !IIIIIII!II II!I Now. SOUTH,.E 2017-08-09 Item 10A 44 of 80 N O O O I lei n w 0 N 2017-08-09 Item 10A 45 of 80 w mmm P NORTH ELEVATION 2017-08-09 Item 10A 46 of 80 Attachment 6- Applicant Letter of Intent/Project Description 2016-01-13 Item 11C 33 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 47 of 80 CORRIDOR POWER INC . - A NON - PROFIT CORPORATION The Corridor Power facility in Encinitas, CA will fulfill a number of electric mobility enabling technologies . Electric mobility is now defined as everything from electric cars, vans, buses, all the way down to scooters, cycles and other electric conveyances. The Vulcan site is ideally situated to support local, intra-city and inter-city drivers traveling between Los Angeles and San Diego as well as LYFT, Uber, HULA and other emerging car-share services operating zero-emission electric vehicles. The growing number of electric mobility options increases the need for additional quick-charging infrastructure supporting the burgeoning population of EV owners transiting or living in San Diego North County. There are over 220,000 vehicles passing daily on Interstate 5 at Encinitas Blvd. and an ever- increasing percentage of them are plug-in cars. The existing single and dual-plug quick- charging points installed in the North County over the last 4 years are quickly becoming overwhelmed at peak times of the day. Single-plug quick-charge units are fast becoming notorious among EV drivers, who all too often arrive at a station to discover a queue of waiting cars. By contrast, the Vulcan Ave. Corridor facility allows an EV driver with a low battery to pull up with confidence that a charging head will be available (or that the charging concierge will make one available with little delay). In fact, the central goal will be not merely to drain the charging experience of stress and chagrin, but to make the time spent at the facility predictable, pleasant, and productive. The amenities in place to achieve this goal will include an on-site refreshments, restrooms, and robust Wi-Fi service. Energy conservation will be highlighted by the stations use of over 500 KwH (kilowatt hours) of battery energy storage. The Vulcan site has been designed to serve any and all electric vehicles, support car-sharing, public and fleet charging. The California Energy Commission awarded Corridor Power, Inc., a Grant in the amount of $499,937.00 to build and operate the facility for 3 years (Short-Term Lease) as part of an Encinitas Public/Private Partnership. When built, it will be the first and largest full service, multi-point quick charging facility in the country. Corridor Holdings, Inc. Parent company of Corridor Power), has specialized in EV quick-charging since it began in 2010, successfully delivering thousands of safe EV Quick-Charge cycles on its host properties located throughout the state. The company Founder is an Encinitas resident. Corridor lower Incorporated 329 Fulvia St Encinitas CA 92024 Tel 858 342 9672 2016-01-13 Item 11C 34 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 48 of 80 Attachment 7- Downtown Civic Center (D-CC) Zoning/Principal Land Uses 2016-01-13 Item 11C 35 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 49 of 80 Use and Development Regulations I Civic center JD-CC) _ 3.2.4 Public/Semi-Public Zones A. Zone: Civic Center (D-CC) This zone district is intended to provide for activities operated by the City,County, or other governmental agencies such as the Encinitas Fire Protection District, school districts, water districts, and sewer districts. It applies to the site of the City's central administrative offices and Council Chambers acquired in 1992 (the previous "Vulcan Square" commercial center) and the adjacent water district and County library sites on Cornish Drive (the full block bounded by Cornish Drive, D and E Streets and Vulcan Avenue). This Zone is unique among public/semi-public zones in the City, in that it recognizes the functions of the City's main public offices, "City Hall." The development standards are tailored to this district's specific setting, topography, and potentialities; for example, protective setbacks from adjacent residential districts;and specialized lot coverage and floor area ratio provisions. It also uniquely recognizes the appropriateness of a limited number and type of private local commercial opportunities, restricted to the immediate frontage of Vulcan Avenue, conveniently located to serve the proposed transit center facilities, for any future redevelopment of this site. The following principal uses shall be permitted in the D-CC Zone and are •` identified as either a permitted, minor use permit or major use permit. All other i principal uses are prohibited. 1.Permitted Uses: Auditorium,public Bakery (Retail)' Bicycle Sales, Rental and Service' Book Sales' Candy and Confectionery Sales' Day Care Center Delicatessen' Educational Institution, Public Fire Station Florist Shop' Government Administrative Offices Gift Shop' Health Food Store' Ice Cream Parlor' Library Market (food)' Museum Meeting Facilities,public Newsstand' Parks and Recreational Areas Pharmacy' Photocopy Shop' Police/ Sheriff Station/Jail Post Office Limited to Vulcan Avenue frontage only,per limitations under this zone. DOWNTOWN ENCINITAS SPECIFIC PLAN 3 66 2016-01-13 Item 11C 36 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 50 of 80 Use and Development Regulations Civic Center ID-CC) Postal Annex, Private Ownership' Public Utilities: Office Recreational Facilities Public Shoe Repair/Sales' Stationery Store' Places of Public Assembly 2.Minor Use Permits: Charitable Bins and Depositories (accessory) 3.Major Use Permits: Cellular Facility (Ord.91-03) Electrical Distribution Substation Garage, Public parking Open Air Theater Public Utility Service Yards Limited to Vulcan Avenue frontage only, per limitations under this zone. 4.Development Standards:Except as specified below,the development standards specified under Chapter 30.28 of the Encinitas Municipal Code (P/ S-P Zone) shall apply under the D-CC Zone. In case of conflict, the standards specified below shall prevail. a.Vulcan Avenue Setback: 0 feet b.D Street Setback: 20 feet C.E Street Setback: 20 feet d. Cornish Avenue Setback: 20 feet e.Interior Yard Setback: 0 feet f.Building Height: Building height shall be limited to one story or 12 ft., for that portion of the zone district fronting Cornish Drive and extending westward 230 ft. from the street right-of-way along Cornish Drive. Westward from there, building height shall be limited to a horizontal extension of the height limit established above, and in addition shall not exceed 30 ft. In addition, any proposal for new development, building additions, or structure remodels which would increase existing building heights, shall be subject to design review to determine that no private views from adjacent residential properties or significant public views will be blocked. g.General Site Planning: It is intended that all development and uses on all parcels under the D-CC Zone be integrated under a unified civic center site design. A proposal for development on a portion of the DOWNTOWN ENCINITAS SPECIFIC PLAN 3 67 2016-01-13 Item 11C 37 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 51 of 80 Attachment 8- City of Encinitas Level 4 Planning Commission Process Guide and Flow Chart 2016-01-13 Item 11C 38 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 52 of 80 City of Encinitas Permit and Service Delivery—Performance Standards+Process Guide Level 4 Planning ominission Discretionary Permits Decision-Maker Planning Commission Appeal City Council Type Coastal Development Permit—public hearing Design Review— public hearing Major Use Permit Minor Use Permit—alcohol-related Resolution Amendment Tentative Subdivision Map Variance—public hearing Timeline 4-12 months 5-18 months if not exempt from CEQA* ROUNDS OF REVIEW TOTAL CITY AND APPLICANT PROCESSING TIME One Cycle Review 4 months Two Cycle Reviews 6 months Three Cycle Reviews 9 months Four Cycle Reviews 12 months Additional Time if Not 1-6 months Exempt from CEQA* 75%ofLevel 4 projects ore exempt) Applicable to Mitigated/Negative Declarations and similar CEQA documents only.An M/ND that does not extend beyond the permit cycle reviews and does not involve responses to significant public comments will take about one month longer to process. An M/ND that takes the maximum allotted review cycles and involves responses to significant public comments could take an additional six months to process.Most M/NDs will be processed in between these minimum and maximum additional times.A custom project schedule, subject to review and approval of the Deputy Director,will be prepared for projects requiring an EIR and similar CEQA documents.The goal will be to achieve a 12-month process to adoption/certification concurrent with discretionary project action after the project is deemed complete with an acceptable project description. 32 2016-01-13 Item 11C 39 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 53 of 80 Permit and Service Delivery—Performance Standards+Process Guide City of Encinitas Level 4 Flow hart PERMIT PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS City Review Time City Time Applicant Response Time Applicant Time rApp,Iica:jo7n --CYCLE REVIEW Submittal R Begin CEQA CYCLE REVIEW Process When YES— Ready for Decision? Application is Complete Conduct I Environmental NO Initial Study Ready to DraftM/ND? ---NO CYCLE REVIEW # _ Exempt from NO YES CEQA? YES Prepare Draft I Mitigated/Negative YES - Ready for Decision? Prepare Declaration 16 I CEQA Nj Exemption Ready for Public Review? — ND— CYCLE REVIEW YES Public Review Draft M/ND I YES— Ready for Decision? NO I Prepare Final M/ND rn CYCLE REVIEW I Ready for Decision? — NO I YES PROCESS 33 2016-01-13 Item 11C 40 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 54 of 80 Attachment 9- Supplemental Background Information 2016-01-13 Item 11C 41 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 55 of 80 Supplemental Background Information Corridor Power, Inc. Corridor Power, Inc. is a non-profit that was formed for the sole purpose of receiving the grant funding from the California Energy Commission. Corridor Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of Corridor Power, Inc. Corridor Holdings, Inc. comprises four operating units: EVoasis, ChargeXpress, Corridor Power, and HulaCar. EVOasis participated as part of the Clinton Foundation working group. The Clinton Foundation supported the business model for the EV charging station demonstration project. Stephen Crolius of the Clinton Foundation was also part of the working group for this project. He presented the concept of the project to the City Council at the April 10, 2013 City Council meeting. After spending 7 years with the Clinton Foundation, Crolius left the Clinton Foundation and returned to his firm, Alliance Consulting in Boston, where he is a Partner. Alliance Consulting, and Stephen specifically, manages the relationship (funds) remitted by the California Energy Commission to Corridor Power, Inc. Corridor Power's role is therefore to apply the funds to build the project, via the approved budget line items. Grant Funding/Match Contribution: The California Energy Commission awarded the applicant, Corridor Power, Inc. with a grant in the amount of approximately $500,000 to build and operate the facility. Corridor Holdings, Inc. (the parent company of Corridor Power, Inc.) will contribute 700,000 dollars to the project. Of this amount, $400,000 will be in the form of donated equipment (10 DC Quick-Chargers). The remaining capital ($300,000) is part of the match funding requirement to the California Energy Commission and will be provided by Corridor Holdings, Inc. EV Char_ ing Fees: Encinitas residents and City vehicles/city employees will be provided free charging access on the Vulcan facility. All other members of the public will be charged a fee to use the EV charging towers. Source: Angus Clark, Corridor Power, Inc. 2016-01-13 Item 11C 42 of 42 2017-08-09 Item 10A 56 of 80 RESOLUTION NO. PC 2017 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MINOR USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) FAST - CHARGING STATION FACILITY WITH COVERED SHADE CANOPIES, A DRIVER'S LOUNGE BUILDING, AND ASSOCIATED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRAILER, WITHIN AN EXISTING CITY -OWNED PARKING LOT, LOCATED AT 561 S. VULCAN AVENUE. CASE NO. 14 -335 MIN /DR/CDP; APN: 258 - 090 -43) WHEREAS, Corridor Power, Inc. submitted an application for a Minor Use Permit, Design Review Permit and Coastal Development to authorize the reduction in parking spaces through a parking study and for the construction of an electric vehicle (EV) fast - charging station facility with covered shade canopies, driver's lounge building, and associated temporary construction trailer, within an existing city -owned parking lot located at 561 S. Vulcan avenue, legally described in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 4th 2017; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Encinitas Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Case No. 14 -335 MIN /DR/CDP based on the following Environmental Determination and Findings: Section 1. California Environmental Quality Act Determination The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts the construction of small structures or facilities not exceeding 2,500 square feet in area and does not involve the use of hazardous materials. The proposed project qualifies for this exemption. The project does not exceed 2,500 square feet in area and does not involve the use of hazardous materials. None of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 exist. Section 2. Discretionary Action(s) Findings FINDINGS Based on the findings for a Use Permit Encinitas Municipal Code Section 30.74.070 and the aforementioned analysis, the Planning Commission has made the following findings to support the approval. Finding for Use Permit Explanation of Finding 1. The location, size, design or The location, size, design and operating operating characteristics of the characteristics of the project will be compatible with proposed project will be incompatible adjacent uses, residences, building structures and with or will adversely affect or will be natural resources. The project site is surrounded by materially detrimental to adjacent developed properties and all public utilities and uses, residences, buildings, services are currently in place to serve the project structures or natural resources, with site. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 57 of 80 Finding for Use Permit Explanation of Finding consideration given to, but not limited to: a. The inadequacy of public facilities, services and utilities to serve the proposed project, b. The unsuitability of the site for the The project site is suitable for the type and intensity type and intensity of use or of use. The Parking Supply Analysis that has been development which is proposed, prepared for the project has shown that the existing and parking supply is adequate to serve both the existing City Hall use and the proposed electric vehicle charging station use. c. The harmful effect, if any, upon The site is surrounded by previously developed environmental quality and natural properties. There are no environmental issues resources of the City; associated with the project. The project will not have a harmful effect on environmental quality or natural resources. It has been determined that the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts the construction of small structures or facilities not exceeding 2,500 square feet in area and does not involve the use of hazardous materials. The proposed project qualifies for this exemption. 2. The impacts of the proposed project The proposed use, as conditioned, is consistent with will adversely affect the policies of the policies of the General Plan and the Downtown the Encinitas General Plan or the Encinitas Specific Plan. The proposed design of the provisions of this Code; or electric vehicle charging station demonstrates compliance with the Downtown Encinitas Design Guidelines and the zoning standards, including land use, setbacks, building height, siting requirements, and landscaping, for the Civic Center (D -CC) zone. Additionally, the project meets the Encinitas Municipal Code requirements for parking and signage. Further, a site specific Parking Supply Analysis has been prepared for the project and it has determined that the existing parking supply is adequate to support both the existing City Hall use and the proposed electric vehicle charging station. 3. The project fails to comply with any The project complies with all applicable regulations, other regulations, conditions or conditions and /or policies outlined in the Downtown policies imposed by this Code. Encinitas Specific Plan and Encinitas Municipal Code. Additionally, due to the temporary nature of the project, the project is conditioned to require that upon expiration of the lease agreement that the site be restored to its previous condition as a parking lot. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 58 of 80 Based on the findings for a Design Review Permit per Encinitas Municipal Code Section 23.08.080 (Design Review) and the aforementioned analysis, the Planning Commission has made the following findings to support the approval, with conditions: Finding for Design Review Permit Explanation of Finding The project design is inconsistent with the The project design respects the low -scale General Plan, Downtown Encinitas Specific residential form and character that exists Plan, and /or the provisions of the Municipal within the surrounding area. The landscape Code. and parking lot improvements are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and community. The proposed signage is in scale and proportion with the size and architectural design of the building. All improvements associated with the project are consistent with the General Plan, the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan, and the provisions of the Municipal Code. The project design is substantially inconsistent The Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan with the Design Review Guidelines. provides Design Review recommendations for new buildings. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. The proposed building design uses a variety of colors and materials to visually harmonize with the existing colors, materials, and metal roof of the City Hall building. The colors and materials of the trash enclosure and battery enclosure structures will complement the driver's lounge building. New landscape improvements will soften the parking lot area and building facade. The size and design of the new signage is compatible with the building facade. The project is substantially consistent with the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan Design Guideline recommendations. The project would adversely affect the health, The new driver's lounge building, canopies, safety, or general welfare of the community. parking lot/landscape improvements, and signage will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Design Recommendations contained within the Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan. The project also meets all applicable Municipal Code requirements. Compliance with all of these standards will maintain the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 59 of 80 Finding for Design Review Permit Explanation of Finding 1. The project is consistent with the certified The project site is located in the Downtown The project would cause the surrounding The project has been designed to respect the neighborhood to depreciate materially in low -scale residential form and character that appearance or value. exists within the surrounding area. The project will not cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. Based on the findings for a Coastal Development Permit as per Encinitas Municipal Code Section 30.80.090and the aforementioned analysis, the Planning Commission has made the following findings to support the approval, with conditions: Finding for Coastal Development Permit Explanation of Finding 1. The project is consistent with the certified The project site is located in the Downtown Local Coastal Program of the City of Encinitas Specific Plan Downtown Civic Encinitas; and Center (D -CC) Zone and within the Coastal Zone. The project proposes the construction of a new 480 square foot driver's lounge building with associated outdoor decks, the installation of 10 electric vehicle (EV) fast - charging stations, covered canopy shade structures, associated parking lot/landscape improvements and project signage within an existing parking lot. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies, and complies with all Municipal Code and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan development standards. The sign area proposed for all signage would not exceed the sign area allowed by the Municipal Code and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan standards and guidelines. 2. The proposed development conforms with The site is surrounded by previously Public Resources Code Section 21000 and developed properties. There are no following (CEQA) in that there are no environmental issues associated with the feasible mitigation measures or feasible project. The project will not have a harmful alternatives available which would effect on environmental quality or natural substantially lessen any significant adverse resources. It has been determined that the impact that the activity may have on the project is exempt from environmental review environment; and pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts the 2017-08-09 Item 10A 60 of 80 Finding for Coastal Development Permit Explanation of Finding construction of small structures or facilities not exceeding 2,500 square feet in area and does not involve the use of hazardous materials. The proposed project qualifies for this exemption. 3. For projects involving development This finding is not applicable because the between the sea or other body of water property is not located between the sea and and the nearest public road, approval shall the nearest public road. include a specific finding that such development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Section 30200 et. seq. of the Coastal Act. The above environmental determination and findings are supported by the minutes, maps, and exhibits, all of which are herein incorporated by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the Environmental Determination and Findings hereinbefore adopted by the Planning Commission, Case No. 14 -335 MIN /DR/CDP is hereby APPROVED subject to the conditions in Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of May, 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Apuzzo, Doyle, Drakos, Ehlers, O'Grady NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. ATTEST: tPy/w Ro pa'u Secret ry f chael lenn O' rady, Chair NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies time limits for legal challenges. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 61 of 80 EXHIBIT "A" Resolution No. PC 2017 -16 Case No. 14335 MIN /DR/CDP ALL THAT PORTION OF EAST BLOCK 5 OF ENCINITAS, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 148, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 16, 1883, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID EAST BLOCK 5, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 2 DEGREES 17'30" EAST, 202.43 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 2 DEGREES 17'30" EAST ALOND SAID EASTERLY LINE, 202.43 FEET, MORE OF LESS, THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID EAST BLOCK 5; THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 23'30" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF, 232.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 200.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF A LINE WHICH BEARS SOUTH 83 DEGREES 23'30" WEST, 222.00 FEET FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 83 DEGREES 23'30" EAST, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF EAST D STREET ADJOINING SAID PORTION OF EAST BLOCK 5 ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE, AS VACATED AND CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ON MAY 23, 1961 BY RESOLUTION NO. 140, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON JUNE 1, 1961 AS FILE NO. 94253 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WESTERLY 6 FEET THEREOF. APN: 258 - 090 -15 -00 2017-08-09 Item 10A 62 of 80 EXHIBIT "B" Resolution No. PC 2017 -16 Case No. 14-335 MIN /DR/CDP Applicant: Corridor Power, Inc. Location: 561 S. Vulcan Avenue (APN: 258 - 090 -43) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SC1 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: SC2 At any time after two years from the date of this approval, on May 4, 2017, at 5 p.m., or the expiration date of any extension granted in accordance with the Municipal Code, the City may require a noticed public hearing to be scheduled before the authorized agency to determine if there has been demonstrated a good faith intent to proceed in reliance on this approval. If the authorized agency finds that a good faith intent to proceed has not been demonstrated, the application shall be deemed expired as of the above date (or the expiration date of any extension). The determination of the authorized agency may be appealed to the City Council within 15 days of the date of the determination. SC3 This project is conditionally approved as set forth on the application and project drawings stamped received by the City on April 14, 2017, consisting of 9 sheets including Sheet T.10 Title Sheet), Sheet C1.0 (Partial Site Plan /Existing Conditions), Sheet C2.0 (Drainage and BMP Plan), Sheet L1.0 (Landscape Concept Plan), Sheet A1.0 (Site Plan and Details), Sheet A1.1 (Enlarged Parking Plan and Elevations), A2.0 (Floor Plan), Sheet A2.0 (Trellis Plan and Restroom Plan), Sheet A3.0 (Exterior Elevations), and signage plan, all designated as approved by the Planning Commission on May 4, 2017, and shall not be altered without express authorization by the Planning and Building Department. SCA The following conditions shall be completed /fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department: 1. Prior to building permit issuance, the exterior color of the EV fast - charging towers shall be shown on the building construction plans for review and approval by the Planning and Building Department. The color scheme for the fast - charging towers shall complement the color palette selected for the primary structure on the site. 2. The fabric canopies shall be continuously maintained in good conditions to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. 3. The approval of this discretionary action is contingent upon the approval of the licensing agreement for the use of the site by the Encinitas City Council. Prior to the issuance of building /grading permits for the project, a licensing agreement shall be approved and executed by the Encinitas City Council to establish the terms and conditions of the use of the subject property for the electric vehicle fast - charging station demonstration project. 4. The project shall comply with all requirements and conditions outlined in the licensing agreement. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 63 of 80 5. Upon expiration of the licensing agreement or any extensions of such agreement, the project site shall be returned to its original condition to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. 6. The visual impact of the proposed solar panels shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. 7. The temporary construction trailer associated with the project shall be removed upon completion of the project. 8. Prior to building permit issuance, the landscape plan shall be revised to eliminate the Nerium Oleander" from the plant palette list and replace it with a non - invasive plant species. 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the plans shall be revised to reflect the relocation of the battery enclosure out of the required 20 -foot street side yard setback. 10. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall install public parking signs within the lower City Hall parking lot, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, to clarify that the entire parking lot is available for public use. SCB The following conditions shall be completed and /or fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Fire Department: 1. Battery storage shall comply with the Fire Code and Building Code. SCC The following conditions shall be completed and /or fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division: All proposed trash enclosures and battery storage areas shall be fitted to comply with Storm Water Best Management Practice requirements. The enclosures shall have an impervious, non - combustible roof that will not allow rain water to enter the enclosure. The enclosure shall be lockable and locked when not in use. A berm shall be installed at all openings to hold in any liquids that escape from the areas and to prevent any flow of storm water through the trash enclosure area. The berm can be designed wide and flat to allow rolling of the dumpster in and out. The enclosure shall be self- contained OR may have a drain that discharges through an adequately sized oil/ grease separator and then is filtered through a City- approved hydrocarbon filter and discharged into the public sanitary sewer system not to planters or the storm drain system. A separate building permit may be required for these structures. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of traffic mitigation fees associated with the proposed use. The fee shall be based on the project's traffic engineer's Trip Generation Study, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City's traffic engineering staff. The applicant may receive a traffic credit for the historic site use as a gas station. The fee shall be paid prior to final certificate of occupancy. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of sewer capacity fees associated with the proposed use on the vacant site. Such fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit for the project. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 64 of 80 4. The applicant shall provide permanent storm water quality treatment BMP facilities to collect and treat the runoff generated by any new and /or removed and replaced impervious surfaces. SCD The following conditions shall be included on the building and /or grading plans and performed to specification of the San Dieguito Water District (SDWD): 1. A backflow preventer shall be installed directly after the water meter prior to occupancy. 2. The developer shall show all existing and proposed water facilities on improvement or grading plans for SDWD Approval. G1 STANDARD CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): G2 This approval may be appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code. G5 Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Municipal Code and all other applicable City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived herein. G9 Trash enclosure(s) shall be constructed of masonry with an exterior compatible with that of the building(s), and shall be provided with view - obstructing solid metal gates as approved by the authorized agency. Adequate space for recyclable materials shall be provided within the enclosure in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. The applicant shall review the design of the trash enclosure with the service provider and receive approval prior to building permit issuance. G11 All roof - mounted equipment and appurtenances, including air conditioners and their associated vents, conduits and other mechanical and electrical equipment, shall be architecturally integrated, and shall be shielded from view and sound buffered to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. Note: All rooftop equipment shall be assumed visible unless demonstrated otherwise to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, and adequate structural support shall be incorporated into building design. Rooftop vent pipes shall be combined below the roof, and shall utilize decorative caps where visible from any point. Ground - mounted mechanical and electrical equipment shall also be screened through use of a wall, fence, landscaping, berm, or combination thereof to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. All exterior accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary building's exterior to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. G12 Prior to any use of the project site pursuant to this permit, all conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed or secured to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department. G13 The applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, School Fees, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Flood Control Mitigation Fees, Park Mitigation Fees, 2017-08-09 Item 10A 65 of 80 and Fire Mitigation /Cost Recovery Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to building permit issuance /initiating use in reliance on this permit to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building and Engineering Services Departments. The applicant is advised to contact the Planning and Building Department regarding Park Mitigation Fees, the Engineering Services Department regarding Flood Control and Traffic Fees, applicable School District(s) regarding School Fees, the Fire Department regarding Fire Mitigation /Cost Recovery Fees, and the applicable Utility Departments or Districts regarding Water and /or Sewer Fees. G14 A plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Building Department, the Engineering Services Department, and the Fire Department regarding the security treatment of the site during the construction phase, the on- and off -site circulation and parking of construction workers' vehicles, and any heavy equipment needed for the construction of the project. G16 Parking lot layout shall meet the standards of the Municipal Code and the Off Street Parking Design Manual. G17 In accordance with the provisions of the Off - Street Parking Design Manual, all parking spaces (except handicapped spaces) shall be delineated by double -line striping consisting of 4 -inch wide painted white lines 1 to 2 feet apart, and all parking areas with more than one row of parking spaces shall have directional signs or painted directional arrows where one way travel is necessary to guide traffic, all of which shall be indicated in building plans and found satisfactory by the Planning and Building Department prior to final approval of the project's building permit. Adjacent to the sides of the parking lot landscape islands, stalls shall be provided with a 12 -inch wide concrete strip adjacent to the island's curb. G18 Parking area shall be screened from adjacent properties and /or public view with decorative wall(s) and /or landscaping. Said screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Department prior to building permit issuance. G20 Decorative use of neon or LED tubing or banding, such as tubing around windows or doors or banding around the building exterior, shall not be allowed unless approved through subsequent design review permit modification(s). Temporary window signs are limited to 25% of window area in accordance with Section 30.60.060 (N) of the Municipal Code. G21 All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of the site so as not to be exposed except where necessary. Locations of pad mounted transformers, meter boxes, and other utility related items shall be included in the site plan submitted with the building permit application with an appropriate screening treatment. Transformers, terminal boxes, meter cabinets, pedestals, ducts and other facilities may be placed above ground provided they are screened with landscaping. G23 Any wall, fence or combination thereof exceeding 6 ft. in height and facing any neighboring property or visible from the public right -of -way shall be subject to design review pursuant to Section 23.08.040.A.1 of the Encinitas Municipal Code. Where a minimum 2 ft. horizontal offset is provided, within which screening vegetation is provided to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, the fence /wall may not be considered one continuous structure for purpose of measuring height and may be exempted from design review provided none of the offset fences or walls exceed 6 ft. in height pursuant to Section 23.08.030. B.1. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 66 of 80 LANDSCAPING L1 The project is subject to Chapter 23.26 of the Municipal Code (Water Efficient Landscape Program), which requires a landscape and irrigation plan to be prepared by a State licensed landscape designer. The requirements for the plans are listed in Chapter 23.26. The landscape and irrigation plans including the required signature block of the State licensed landscape designer must be submitted as part of the building permit application for the project. L2 All required plantings and automated irrigation systems shall be in place prior to use or occupancy of new buildings or structures. All required plantings and automated irrigation systems shall be maintained in good condition, and whenever necessary, shall be replaced with new materials to ensure continued compliance with applicable landscaping, buffering, and screening requirements. All landscaping and irrigation systems shall be maintained in a manner that will not depreciate adjacent property values and otherwise adversely affect adjacent properties. All irrigation lines shall be installed and maintained underground except drip irrigation systems). L3 All parking areas and driveways shall conform with Chapter 30.54 of the Municipal Code and the City's Offstreet Parking and Design Manual incorporated by reference therein. L4(a) All landscaping, fences, walls, etc. on the site, in any adjoining public parkways (the area between the front property line and the street) shall be permanently maintained by the owner, assigns or any successors in interest in the property. The maintenance program shall include normal care and irrigation of the landscaping; repair and replacement of plant materials and irrigation systems as necessary; and general cleanup of the landscaped and open areas, parking lots and walkways, walls, fences, etc. Failure to maintain landscaping and the site in general may result in the setting of a public hearing to revoke or modify the approval. This condition shall be recorded with the covenant required by this Resolution. SIG L S1 Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed and approved in conformance with Encinitas Municipal Code Chapter 30.60. S3 Signs are approved as submitted and as shown in the approved project plans. Any alteration /addition to the approved signs not exempted in Municipal Code Chapter 30.60 may require a permit amendment, and the applicant should contact the Planning and Building Department prior to undertaking any such modification. DESIGN REVIEW DR1 Any future modifications to the approved project will be reviewed relative to the findings for substantial conformance with a design review permit contained in Section 23.08.140 of the Municipal Code. Modifications beyond the scope described therein may require submittal of an amendment to the design review permit and approval by the authorized agency. DR3 All project grading shall conform with the approved plans. If no grading is proposed on the approved plans, or subsequent grading plans are inconsistent with the grading shown on 2017-08-09 Item 10A 67 of 80 F1 the approved plans, a design review permit for such grading shall be obtained from the authorized agency of the City prior to issuance of grading or building permits. BUILDING CONDITION(S): CONTACT THE ENCINITAS BUILDING DIVISION REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): B2 The applicant shall submit a complete set of construction plans to the Building Division for plancheck processing. The submittal shall include a Soils /Geotechnical Report, structural calculations, and State Energy compliance documentation (Title 24). Construction plans shall include a site plan, a foundation plan, floor and roof framing plans, floor plan(s), section details, exterior elevations, and materials specifications. Submitted plans must show compliance with the latest adopted editions of the California Building Code (The Uniform Building Code with California Amendments, the California Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Codes). Commercial and Multi- residential construction must also contain details and notes to show compliance with State disabled accessibility mandates. These comments are preliminary only. A comprehensive plancheck will be completed prior to permit issuance and additional technical code requirements may be identified and changes to the originally submitted plans may be required. FIRE CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): F13 ADDRESS NUMBERS: STREET NUMBERS: Approved numbers and /or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property from either direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast with their background, and shall meet the following minimum standards as to size: 4 inches high with a '/2- inch stroke width for residential buildings, 8 inches high with a '/2 -inch stroke for commercial and multi - family residential buildings, 12 inches high with a 1 -inch stroke for industrial buildings. Additional numbers shall be required where deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, building corners, and entrances to commercial centers. F21 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATIONS (Solar Panels): Solar Photovoltaic systems shall be installed per the California Fire Code and Encinitas Fire Department requirements. E1 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS: CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): E2 All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building /grading permit issuance shall apply. E3 All drawings submitted for Engineering permits are required to reference the NAVD 88 datum; the NGVD 29 datum will not be accepted. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 68 of 80 EG1 Grading Conditions EG14 A grading permit shall be obtained for this project unless the proposed grading is exempt under section 23.24.090 of the Municipal Code. If the proposed grading is exempt from permit requirement, the Owner shall provide a precise site plan prior to approval of a building permit. The building site plan shall provide design for drainage improvements, erosion control, storm water pollution control, and on -site pavement. ED1 Drainage Conditions ED2A An erosion control system shall be designed and installed onsite during all construction activity. The system shall prevent discharge of sediment and all other pollutants onto adjacent streets and into the storm drain system. The City of Encinitas Best Management Practice Manual shall be employed to determine appropriate storm water pollution control practices during construction. ES1 Street Conditions ES5 Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, a right -of -way construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Director and appropriate fees paid, in addition to any other permits required. EU1 Utilities Conditions EU4 All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including existing utilities unless exempt by the Municipal Code. ESW1 Storm Water Pollution Control Conditions ESW9 For storm water pollution control purposes, all runoff from all roof drains shall discharge onto grass and landscape areas prior to collection and discharge onto the street and /or into the public storm drain system. Grass and landscape areas designated for storm water pollution control shall not be modified without a permit from the City. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Permit Site plan. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 69 of 80 LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS AND CORRIDOR POWER, A CALIFORNIA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, REGARDING USE AND UTILIZATION OF SPACE AT THE ENCINITAS CITY HALL LOWER PARKING LOT FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING 1.0 PARTIES THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, dated ____________ is made and entered into and between the City of Encinitas, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY”, and Corridor Power, a California not-for-profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “LICENSEE” (“LICENSE AGREEMENT”). 2.0 RECITALS WHEREAS, the CITY is the owner of the lower City Hall parking lot at 501 South Vulcan Avenue located specifically on the northeast corner of Vulcan Avenue and E Street and holds fee title to said real property (the “Premises”); WHEREAS, the Premises is used for overflow parking for City Hall and designed to be utilized for purposes compatible with, and supportive of, City Hall; WHEREAS, the CITY is also supportive of environmental initiatives and recognizes the lack of public charging stations for electric vehicles in the City; WHEREAS, the LICENSEE is proposing a three-year pilot project showcasing new fast- charging technology; WHEREAS, subject to certain terms and conditions, the CITY desires to allow the use of the Premises by LICENSEE for an electric vehicle charging station business. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the CITY and LICENSEE agree to enter into this Agreement for use of the Premises subject to the following terms and conditions: 3.0 TERMS 3.1 Authorization for Use. The CITY authorizes the use of the Premises subject to all of the restrictions, terms and conditions established pursuant to Case No. 14-335 MIN/DR/CDP, titled Corridor Power Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” “Case No. 14-335.” 3.2 Term. The term of this AGREEMENT shall be for 36 months commencing on the effective date of this LICENSE AGREEMENT. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 70 of 80 T:\Licensing Agreements\Corridor Power License Agreement 8-3-17.doc 2 3.3 Use. The CITY shall allow the LICENSEE use of the Premises for constructing a pre-manufactured building and two wooden decks on the eastern side of the property, and installing ten (10) electric vehicle charging stations on the north, south and east sides of the property, for the purpose of operating an electric vehicle charging station business. Seventeen (17) of twenty-five (25) parking stalls will be occupied by LICENSEE. The remaining eight (8) parking stalls on the west side of the premises shall remain public parking, pursuant to Case No. 14-335. 4.0 LICENSE FEE 4.1.1 Consideration. LICENSEE shall pay the CITY fair market value of $18,581 for the first year of operation (17 parking stalls @ $1,093/year), due on the execution day of this AGREEMENT. On the one-year anniversary of the execution date of this AGREEMENT, LICENSEE shall pay the CITY $19,138 for the second year of operation (17 parking stalls @ $1,125.79/year). On the two-year anniversary of the execution date of this AGREEMENT, LICENSEE shall pay the CITY $19,713 for the third year of operation (17 parking stalls @ $1,159.56/year). 4.1.2 Late Fee. LICENSEE shall pay a 10% late fee if payment not received within 15 days of the due date. 5.0 OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Obligations of the CITY 5.1.1 The CITY authorizes the use of the Premises pursuant to Case No. 14-335. 5.2 Obligations of the LICENSEE 5.2.1 LICENSEE shall provide the CITY with facilities and services pursuant to Case No. 14-335. 5.2.2 LICENSEE shall provide the CITY with a copy of its Articles of Incorporation if LICENSEE is a corporation, or any other documentation deemed by the CITY to be valid proof that the signatory(s) to this License Agreement possess the legal authority to contractually bind LICENSEE. 5.2.3 LICENSEE shall comply with Case No. 14-335 and maintain a CITY business registration. 6.0 COMPLIANCE 6.1 LICENSEE shall comply with all federal, state, county and local laws, rules and regulations and the orders and decrees of any courts or administrative bodies in any manner affecting performance of activities conducted on the Premises. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 71 of 80 T:\Licensing Agreements\Corridor Power License Agreement 8-3-17.doc 3 6.2 Hazardous Materials. LICENSEE, or its agents, employees or contractors shall not store, use or dispose of or transport any Hazardous Materials, on, in, under or about the Premises. (As used herein, “Hazardous Materials” shall include but not be limited to substances defined as "hazardous substance," "hazardous materials," or `toxic substances" in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C, Section 9601 et seq.; the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1801, et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901, et seq.; and those substances defined as "hazardous wastes” in Section 25117 in the California Health and Safety Code or as "hazardous substances" in Section 25316 of the California Health and Safety Code. Hazardous materials shall not include herbicides and pesticides used pursuant to this Agreement.) LICENSEE shall be solely responsible for and shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, defend, with counsel acceptable to the CITY, indemnify, release and hold the CITY and its elected officials, employees, contractors and agents harmless from and against all claims, losses imposed upon or incurred by or asserted against the CITY, costs and liabilities, including attorney's fees and costs, directly or indirectly arising out of or in connection with its use or disposal of hazardous materials in violation of this Section 6.2. LICENSEE shall further be solely responsible for and shall protect, defend, indemnify, release and hold the CITY harmless from and against any and all claims, costs and liabilities, including attorney's fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the removal, cleanup and restoration work and materials necessary to return the Premises to the condition existing prior to LICENSEE's storage, use or disposal of hazardous material on the Premises. LICENSEE's obligations pursuant to this Section 6.2 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, LICENSEE shall, at its sole cost and expense, be solely responsible for and shall protect, defend, with counsel acceptable to the CITY, indemnify and hold the CITY and its elected officials, employees, contractors and agents harmless from and against all claims, costs and liabilities, including attorney's fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with hazardous materials, of any type, which are located or discovered on the Premises due to LICENSEE’s activities on the same. The defense, release, hold harmless and indemnification obligations of LICENSEE set forth in this Section 6.2 shall apply, to the fullest extent allowed by law, without any right of LICENSEE to seek contribution by the CITY, to any claim, suit or proceeding, whether administrative or judicial in nature, including but not limited to administrative clean up orders, fines, penalties, demands, letters or other directives issued by any Federal, State or other administrative agency with jurisdiction over hazardous materials. Losses, costs, expenses and liabilities to be borne solely by LICENSEE shall include, without limitation, (i) collectively, all damages, losses, costs, expenses, fines, liabilities (including, without limitation, any strict liability), obligations, settlements, awards, penalties, assessments, citations, directives, claims, litigations, demands, response costs (including, without limitation, investigation, removal, remediation, mitigation, containment, post-closure and monitoring costs), defenses, judgments, suits, proceedings, laboratory fees, disbursements and expenses of any kind or nature whatsoever (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys', consultants' and experts' fees and disbursements) and 2017-08-09 Item 10A 72 of 80 T:\Licensing Agreements\Corridor Power License Agreement 8-3-17.doc 4 (ii) any future reduction in value of, or unmarketability and consequent inability of the CITY to sell, the Premises or any portion thereof, and the lost opportunity costs resulting from the inability at the CITY to develop, use, sell or dispose of its interest in the Premises or any portion thereof, all as a consequence of any event described in this Section 6.2. 7.0 REPRESENTATIVES The Chief Executive Officer of LICENSEE, shall represent LICENSEE in all matters pertaining to this AGREEMENT. The City Manager shall represent the CITY in all matters pertaining to this LICENSE AGREEMENT. 8.0 ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT /NON-POSSESSORY INTEREST 8.1 Assignment of License. LICENSEE shall not assign this LICENSE AGREEMENT or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the CITY. 8.2 Non-Possessory Interest. LICENSEE shall have no permanent or possessory interest in the Premises based upon this LICENSE AGREEMENT or any activities that LICENSEE may conduct on the Premises. 9.0 ASSUMPTION OF RISKS LICENSEE assumes all risk of loss or damage to LICENSEE property within the Premises, except damage or loss through the negligent acts, omissions, or intentional misconduct of the CITY. The CITY shall not be liable to LICENSEE, or those claiming through the CITY, for injury, death, or property damage occurring on the Premises. 10.0 INDEMNITY LICENSEE shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, damages, expenses, fees, fines, penalties, suits, proceedings, actions and causes of action of any and every kind and nature arising or growing out of or in any way connected with LICENSEE, its agents’, employees’, volunteers’ or contractors’ use, occupancy, management, control, operations, and activities in or in conjunction with the Premises. LICENSEE shall keep the Premises free from all encumbrances and liens of whatever nature involved in its activities on the Premises. LICENSEE shall defend and hold harmless and indemnify the CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any and all such encumbrances and/or liens (including all costs and attorneys’ fees in defending any claim or liability in any way connected with the LICENSEE’s activities), which claim or liability may be instituted or filed against the CITY. The rights and obligations hereunder shall survive termination of this Agreement. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 73 of 80 T:\Licensing Agreements\Corridor Power License Agreement 8-3-17.doc 5 11.0 INSURANCE 11.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Licensee shall obtain and for the full term of this Agreement maintain in full force and effect, comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance, or commercial general liability insurance, from an insurance company approved by City having a Best Rating of A-: VII or better and licensed and authorized by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California Department of Insurance to be transacting business in the State of California, in the following minimum limits: A. General liability (Including operations, products and completed operations) Combined Single Limit Per Occurrence $2,000,000 General Aggregate $5,000,000 B. Automobile Liability Combined Single Limit Per Occurrence $1,000,000 (For bodily injury and property damage) Such policy shall comply with all the requirements of this Article. The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability. Further, the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve Licensee from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit Licensee’s indemnification obligations to City, and shall not preclude City from taking such other actions available to City under other provisions of the Agreement or law. Licensee shall make certain that any and all contractors and subcontractors hired by Licensee are insured in accordance with this Agreement. If any contractors and subcontractor’s coverage does not comply with the foregoing provisions, Licensee shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any damage, loss, cost, or expense, including attorney’s fees, incurred by City as a result thereof. All general liability policies provided pursuant to the provisions of this Article shall comply with the provisions of the Agreement. 11.2 Automobile Liability Insurance. Such insurance shall provide coverage for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to City. Such insurance shall comply with the form and coverage requirements as set forth in this Agreement. 11.3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance. Licensee shall provide, during the life of this Agreement, workers’ compensation insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for all of the employees engaged in Work under this Agreement. Contractor shall assume the immediate defense of and indemnify and save harmless City and its officers and employees, agents, and consultants from all claims, loss, damage, injury, and liability of every kind, nature, and description brought by any person employed or used by Licensee, or any of its contractor and subcontractors, to perform the scope of work under this Agreement regardless of responsibility or negligence. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 74 of 80 T:\Licensing Agreements\Corridor Power License Agreement 8-3-17.doc 6 11.4 Employer’s Liability Insurance. Licensee shall provide during the life of this Agreement, Employer’s Liability Insurance, including Occupational Disease, in the amount of, at least, one million dollars ($1,000,000) per person per accident. Licensee shall provide City with a certificate of Employer’s Liability Insurance. Such insurance shall comply with the provisions of the Agreement. The policy shall be endorsed a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of City. 11.5 Form, Proof Of Insurance. Any insurance carrier providing insurance coverage required by the Agreement shall be admitted to and authorized to do business in the State of California unless waived, in writing, by City’s Risk Manager. Carrier(s) shall have an A.M. Best rating of not less than an A-: VII or better. Insurance deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared by the Licensee. 11.6 Additional Insured Requirement. City, its officers, elected officials, employees, contractors, construction managers, architects and volunteers are to be covered as insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of Licensee; and with respect to liability arising out of the Work or operations performed by or on behalf of Licensee including, but not limited to, materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage shall be provided in the form of an endorsement to Licensee’s insurance, and City, its officers, agents, and employees shall be named as additional named insureds on Licensee’s policies, evidenced by an additional insured endorsement, using form ISO CG 20-10-10-01 and GC 20-37-10-01 or the exact equivalent. 11.7 Other Insurance Requirements. Further, said Certificates(s) and policies of insurance shall contain the covenant of the insurance carrier(s) that shall provide no less than thirty (30) days written notice be given to City prior to any material modification or cancellation of such insurance. In the event of a material modification or cancellation of coverage, City may terminate this Agreement, unless City receives, prior to such effective date, another properly executed original Certificate of Insurance and original copies of endorsements. 12.0 TERMINATION 12.1 If LICENSEE is in default in the performance of this LICENSE AGREEMENT or breaches any of its provisions, the CITY at its option may terminate this LICENSE AGREEMENT upon providing written notice to LICENSEE. 12.2 If the CITY defaults in the performance of the LICENSE AGREEMENT or breaches any of its provisions, LICENSEE, at its option, may terminate this LICENSE AGREEMENT upon providing written notice to the CITY. 12.3 Either party may terminate this LICENSE AGREEMENT, for convenience, without cause, upon providing sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party. 2017-08-09 Item 10A 75 of 80 T:\Licensing Agreements\Corridor Power License Agreement 8-3-17.doc 7 13.0 RETURN OF POSSESSION TO CITY On expiration of the term or earlier termination of this LICENSE AGREEMENT, LICENSEE shall return possession of the Premises to the CITY in good order and condition. Except as otherwise authorized by the CITY, LICENSEE shall remove all of LICENSEE’s property and/or improvements including merchandise, supplies, furnishings and equipment owned or leased by LICENSEE, at LICENSEE’s expense, and return the use of the real property to CITY as an overflow parking lot with the original painted parking lot configuration. 14.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENT This writing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relating to the terms and conditions hereunder. No modification of this LICENSE AGREEMENT shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by writing signed by all parties. 15.0 GOVERNING LAW; VENUE. The existence, validity, construction, operation and effect of this LICENSE AGREEMENT shall be determined in accordance with laws of the State of California. Venue shall be established in the County of San Diego in the event of a dispute between the parties. 16.0 ATTORNEYS' FEES In the event that CITY incurs expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, in enforcing the provisions of this LICENSE AGREEMENT, CITY shall be entitled to recover from the LICENSEE reimbursement for those costs. 17.0 NOTICES Notices and requests to CITY or LICENSEE shall be delivered at the following address served upon CITY or LICENSEE or any person hereafter authorized to either in writing and may be delivered personally or by U.S. Postal Service or other delivery services receive such notices or mailing; CITY: City Manager City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 CITY Contact: Sr. Management Analyst Phone: (760) 633-2613 FAX: (760) 633-2627 Email: bmcseveney@encinitasca.gov 2017-08-09 Item 10A 76 of 80 T:\Licensing Agreements\Corridor Power License Agreement 8-3-17.doc 8 LICENSEE Corridor Power, Inc. LICENSEE Contact: Angus Clark __________________ __________________ __________________ Email: hulacar@icloud.com 2017-08-09 Item 10A 77 of 80 T:\Licensing Agreements\Corridor Power License Agreement 8-3-17.doc 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this LICENSE AGREEMENT to be executed as of the last date written below. CITY OF ENCINITAS (“CITY”), a municipal corporation By Approved as to Form _______________________________ _____________________________ Karen P. Brust, City Manager Glenn Sabine, City Attorney Date: _______________ Date: ______________ CORRIDOR POWER (“LICENSEE”), a California not-for-profit corporation By Approved as to Form ________________________________ ____________________________ Angus Clark, Chief Executive Officer Legal Counsel for LICENSEE Date: _______________ Date: _______________ 2017-08-09 Item 10A 78 of 80 P:\HMERCADO\Misc\2-10-14_Est Rent_Richard Phillips.docx 4747 Executive Dr., Ste. 800 San Diego, CA 92121 PH (858) 453-0505 FX (858) 408-3976 Lic. #01333376 voitco.com Newport Beach (Corporate Office) | Anaheim Metro | Inland Empire | Irvine | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Phoenix | Sacramento | San Diego February 14, 2014 Mr. Richard Phillips Deputy City Manager City of Encinitas 160 Calle Magdalena Encinitas, California 92024-3721 Re: Estimate of Rent and Value for overflow City Parking lot / EV Charging Station Mr. Richard Phillips, Thank you for consideration of myself to provide an estimation of Market Rent for the above-referenced property approximating 9,800 square feet and fully improved with 25 parking stalls. (Please see my resume as first attachment). Estimation of Rent for the Property: Annual Rent: $25,000.00 annually Term: 3 years Rent Escalations: 3% annually Property Expenses: Tenant pays all expense for operation and maintenance. The annual rent per parking stall is $1,000.00 which I believe is market. Comparable Properties: 1. Downtown 101 Retail Properties The mixed use downtown Specific Plan Ordinance for Coast Highway 101 provides a wide range of uses. The goods and services offered downtown within our beach environment provide an attractive experience for people. Whole Foods, Ace Hardware, boutique shops, great restaurants, and bars all work together to create cross merchandising and a synergistic atmosphere that brings people back often. That experience creates rents and values that far exceed those of the Property. (see lease comps in second attachment). 2. Eighty ( 80 ) stall parking lot leased from NCTD The referenced parking lot leased by the city at the SWC of Vulcan & E Streets is located diagonally across the intersection from the property. The parking lot was in its natural state when leased then fully improved with 80 parking stalls. Its use restricts the city from generating income but the long term lease and escalations enhances its value. Annual Rent: $71,147.00 Lease Term: 30 years 2017-08-09 Item 10A 79 of 80 voitco.com Name Company February 14, 2014 Page 2 of 2 P:\HMERCADO\Misc\2-10-14_Est Rent_Richard Phillips.docx Newport Beach (Corporate Office) | Anaheim Metro | Inland Empire | Irvine | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Phoenix | Sacramento | San Diego Rent Escalations: CPI annually, with market adjustments in the tenth and twentieth year. Property Expense: City pays all expense of operations and maintenance The annual rent per parking stall is $889.34 which makes the comp below market (see city description as third attachment). 3. The Property The market rent for the Property is less than Downtown rents while greater than the rent for the 80 parking stall lot at same intersection. See below. The rents in Downtown Encinitas on Coast Highway 101 are not considered comps as demand is generated through strong retail cross merchandising and a synergistic atmosphere. The rent for the parking lot leased and improved for 80 stalls by the City would be perfect except it was negotiated between a public (tenant) and semi-public (Landlord) and its use is restricted to a parking lot. See my estimation of "Property Rent" shown in the first paragraph. Should you have questions or comments relative to my assessment of rents and value for the property, please contact me at 619-203-4621 or hmercado@voitco.com. Respectfully, VOIT REAL ESTATE SERVICES Hil Mercado Vice President hmercado@voitco.com 858.458.3325 [Direct] License #00493081 2017-08-09 Item 10A 80 of 80 March 11, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Water and Power Department THROUGH: Municipal Services Committee (February 26, 2019) SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT WITH TESLA, INC., OBA TESLA MOTORS, INC., FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TWENTY-FOUR TESLA CHARGING STATIONS IN THE CITY·OWNED MARENGO PARKING GARAGE LOCATED AT 155 E. GREEN STREET, PASADENA, CA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed actio'n is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facilities) and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstance; 2. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Agreement (all documents and instruments), without competitive bidding pursuant to City Charter Section 1002(F), contr-acts for professional or unique services with Tesla Motors, Inc. ("Tesla"), for a five-year term with an option for two five-year extensions, for the installation of charging stations located in the Marengo parking garage, 155 East Green Street, Pasadena, CA; and, 3. It is further recommended that the City Council grant the proposed contract an exemption from the Competitive Selection process pursuant to Pasadena Municipal Code Section 4.08.049(8) contracts for which the City's best interests are served . BACKGROUND: The City of Pasadena is promoting electric vehicles and associated charging infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas and other air emissions consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan. One of the most advanced electric vehicle charger technologies, known as Direct Current Fast Charger ("DCF.C"), can charge an electric vehicle typically 80% in 20 -30 minutes. Fast charging has high demand but the availability of such chargers is scarce. The City of Pasadena has only one DCFC located at the Del Mar Parking Garage that is available to all electric vehicle ("EV") drivers. The Del Mar DCFC installed in December 2015 is one of the highest used charging stations in the City. I J ~-~M_E_ET_l_N_G_o_F~~~-o-_3-:..._/-:..._l-=._l-=._/-=._Z_o __ 1 __ 9~~~~~~~A_G_E_N_D_A_IT_E_M_N_o_.===-S-=----_-_-_-_~~~~I Authorize Tesla Agreement March 11, 2019 Page 2 of 4 The proposed Agreement between the City of Pasadena and Tesla will add twenty-four Tesla EV fast charging stations in the Civic Center area for charging Tesla vehicles. In addition, Tesla will install electric infrastructure at their expense to enable Pasadena Water and Power ("PWP") to install up to twenty DCFC EV charging stations for non- Tesla vehicles, creating what would be the largest fast EV charging site in the western United States. The proposed "Marengo Charging Plaza" will be installed on the top level of the Marengo parking garage, a multi-level parking structure consisting of 715 parking spaces serving both patrons of businesses located in the Paseo Colorado shopping mall and surrounding areas, and visitors of the Pasadena Convention Center. The garage is connected to the Paseo Colorado mall through a pedestrian overpass bridge. The proposed Marengo Charging Plaza will enhance EV charging infrastructure in Pasadena and act as a catalyst for increased visits to businesses located in Old Pasadena and Paseo Colorado as marketed through the Tesla vehicle owner digital platform. The parking spaces that will be used for the Marengo Charging Plaza are not assigned to any tenants, often underutilized, and considered non-prime parking spots, as they are located on the top level of the garage. These spaces were strategically selected at this location to avoid monopolizing prime parking spaces predominantly utilized by the businesses located adjacent to the charging plaza. EV drivers using the Marengo Charging Plaza will be subject to prevailing parking fees in addition to any fees for use of the EV chargers. Initial project planning between City of Pasadena and representatives from Tesla's Team began in early 2018 to discuss the possibility of installing Tesla charging stations in Old Pasadena. As part of PWP's due diligence process, staff determined the project's viability by reviewing all City-owned garages and available power infrastructure in the area. After the initial assessment review period and multiple meetings with the Tesla Team, it was determined that the Marengo parking structure would be the optimal ,location for installation of the charging stations based on several factors including Tesla's site selection criteria. Under the proposed agreement, Tesla will be responsible for all costs of electric service upgrades, equipment procurement, installation, maintenance and electricity use associated with the Tesla charging stations. Due to Tesla's electrical equipment requirements, three existing spaces could potentially be lost. The Tesla charging stations will be separately metered, and Tesla will be responsible for the associated electric bills. As consideration for use of the parking spaces part of the agreement, Tesla has agreed to pay for the electrical infrastructure improvements needed to supply PWP's planned EV charging stations in addition to its own. No other compensation will be provided to Pasadena for the access and use of the spaces. The recommended agreement is in the City's best interest because it will attract Tesla and other electric vehicle drivers to Pasadena who would likely visit local businesses while their cars are charged, motivate others to buy electric vehicles and also increase electricity sales. In addition, Tesla will pay for all of the electrical infrastructure Authorize Tesla Agreement March 11, 2019 Page 3 of 4 improvements to the garage that would be necessary to install additional City-owned EV charging stations, saving the City an estimated $140,000 in capital improvements. COUNCIL POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action supports the City Council Strategic Planning Goals, Pasadena's Climate Action Plan ("CAP"), the Urban Environmental Accords, and the General Plan, in reducing greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions by expanding the use of EVs and related infrastructure. It supports expanding sustainable mobility and land use, and the City's commitment to a more sustainable community. It further supports Governor Brown's goal of installing 250,000 charging stations in the state by 2025 and his Executive Order to help accelerate the market to 5 million zero-emission vehicles on California's roads by 2030. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The recommended action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facilities). Class 1 exempts from environmental review "the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." The proposed project consists of a minor alteration of an existing parking facility to add electric vehicle charging capabilities. The proposed project would not increase the number of parking spaces and, therefore, would result in negligible, if any, expansion of use. There are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances. Authorize Tesla Agreement March 11 , 2019 Page 4 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of this action and it will not have any indirect or support cost requirement. Under the proposed agreement, Tesla will be responsible for all costs associated with electric service upgrades, equipment procurement, installation, maintenance, operation, and electricity use associated with the Tesla charging stations. PWP estimates $500,000 to $750,000 in additional electric revenue from Tesla over the five-year term of the agreement. Parking fee revenues from EV drivers that otherwise would not have used the garage will more than compensate for the potential loss of three parking spaces at the top level of the garage. Furthermore, the EV charging stations are expected to enhance the asset value of the garage and increase economic opportunities for surrounding businesses. As consideration for use of the parking spaces, Tesla has agreed to pay for the electrical infrastructure improvements needed to supply PWP's planned EV charging stations in addition to its own, saving the City an estimated $140,000 in capital investment funds that would otherwise be required for PWP to install EV charging infrastructure. The anticipated impact to other operational programs or capital projects as a result of this action will be none. Prepared by: Maurie o ejia Electrification Program Manager Water and Power Department Approved by: J~ STEVE MERMELL City Manager Respectfully submitted, GURCHARAN S. BAWA General Manager Water and Power Department Concurred by FREDERICK C. DOCK Director Department of Transportation Agenda Report July 22, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Water and Power Department SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT WITH ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS, LLC IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $756,066 TO FURNISH AND DELIVER ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed a<:;tion is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances; 2. Accept the bid dated July 9, 2019, submitted by OneSource Distributors, LLC in response to Specification LD-19-05 Marengo Garage Electric Vehicle Chargers; reject all other bids received; and, authorize the issuance of a Purchase Order ("PO") contract with OneSource Distributors, LLC in an amount not to exceed $756,066, which includes the base contract amount of $687,332 and a 10% contingency ($68, 734) to provide for any necessary change orders. BACKGROUND: The City of Pasadena is engaged in a coordinated citywide effort to encourage the adoption and use of plug-in electric vehicles ("EVs") by residents, businesses, employees, and visitors. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gases and other air emissions consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan by replacing transportation- related fossil fuels with cleaner electricity provided by Pasadena Water and Power ("PWP"). The utility has set goals to provide 40% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 60% by 2030. PWP is pursuing a number of strategies to promote the use of EVs. While the majority of vehicle charging is done at home during off-peak hours, public fast charging will provide extended range for EV commuters, support green fleets for shared mobility companies, and provide charging opportunities for those in multi-family dwellings that may have difficulty charging at home. It also helps alleviate the "range anxiety" of new EV drivers MEETING OF 07/22/2019 AGENDA ITEM NO. -~3 __ _ Authorize Contract with OneSource Distributors, LLC for EV Charging Equipment July 22, 2019 Page 2 of 4 concerned with the challenges associated with limited or unavailable charging opportunities. · Direct Current Fast Charging ("DCFC") is one of the most advanced EV charging technologies that requires only 20-30 minutes to charge a typical EV up to 80%. Fast charging is in high demand but availability is scarce. There is only one City owned, . publicly available DCFC which is located in the Del Mar Parking Garage and it is one of the highest used charging stations in Pasadena. Adding more DCFC charging stations will increase the supply and satisfy the demand for EV charging stations. On March 11 , 2019, City Council authorized an agreement with Tesla to co-develop the Marengo Charging Plaza, which is expected to be the largest fast-charging facility in the western United States. Tesla will add 24 Tesla EV fast-charging stations in addition to absorbing infrastructure costs that will enable PWP to install up to 20 EV DCFC stations for non-Tesla vehicles. Tesla anticipates that its chargers could be operational by November 2019 and PWP seeks to procure and install the non-Tesla DCFC stations concurrently in order to maximize the availability and visibility impact for the grand opening of the Marengo Charging Plaza. An additional ten DCFC stations will be procured for near-term future projects. PWP issued Specification LD-19-05 for Marengo Garage Electric Vehicle Chargers. The Specification was advertised in the Pasadena Journal and available for download via PlanetBids on June 20, 2019. No other local outreach was done. Forty-two vendors received electronic notification (one local) and 37 vendors downloaded the Specification (one local). No local vendors submitted bids. Seven bids were received on July 9, 2019 as required by the Specifications. Bid results are summarized in Table I as follows: Table I: Summary of Bids Bidder Name Office Location Bid Amount OneSource Distributors, LLC Garden G·rove, CA $687 ,331 .58 Tritium Technologies LLC Torrance, CA $692,094.38 TC Energy Group Park Ridge, IL $876,487 .50 National Car Charging LLC Denver, CO $886, 773.83 Zeco Systems Inc. Los Angeles, CA $946,556.19 Marubeni America Corporation Los Angeles, CA $1 ,495,872.00 Technology International, Inc. Lake Mary, FL $1 ,961 ,986.95 OneSource Distributors, LLC was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder that met the requirements of the Specification. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize. the PO Contract with OneSource Distributors, LLC, for electric vehicle chargers in an amount not to exceed $756,066 which includes a 10% contingency amount of $68,734. Authorize Contract with OneSource Distributors, LLC for EV Charging Equipment July 22, 2019 Page 3of4 The proposed contract with OneSource Distributors, LLC fully complies with the Competitive Bidding and Purchasing Ordinance, Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 4.08 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Staff is aware of one local Pasadena supplier of DCFC supply equipment, Prime Electric Wholesale Corp. The local vendor did not submit a bid because they were not able to acquire the resources to match the requirements of the specification. OneSource Distributors, LLC, has been awarded three contracts since 2016, for a total not to exceed amount of $20,007,682. COUNCIL .POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action supports the City Council Strategic Planning Goals, Pasadena's Climate Action Plan ("CAP"), the Urban Environmental Accords, and the General Plan in reducing greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions by expanding the use of EVs and related infrastructure. It supports expanding sustainable mobility and land use, and the City's commitment to a more sustainable community. It further supports California's goal of installing 250,000 cha.rging stations in the state by 2025 and the Executive Order to help accelerate the market to five million zero-emission vehicles on California's roads by 2030. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The recommended action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 -Existing Facilities). Class 1 exempts from environmental review "the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." The proposed projects consist of minor alterations of existing parking facilities and would not increase the number of parking spaces, resulting in negligible, if any, expansion of use. There. are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances. Authorize Contract with OneSource Distributors, LLC for EV Charging Equipment July 22, 2019 Page 4 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT: The maximum cost of this action is $756,066. Funding for this action will be addressed by the utilization of existing appropriations in the Power Capital Fund 411 , Capital Improvement Project 3225 -Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Base Contract Amount $687,332 Contingency Amount (10%) $68,734 Total Contract Not-to-Exceed Amount $756,066 In additiop to new revenues from EV charging fees , staff anticipates that revenues from Low Carbon Fuel Standard rLCFS") credit sales, grants and other incentives provided by various sources will be used to reimburse or supplement some of these expenditures. The anticipated impact to other operational programs or capital projects as a result of this action will be minimal. Prepared by: i<tv~Mo5N~~ Assistant General Manager Water and Power Department Approved by: J~CL STEVE MERMELL City Manager Respectfully submitted, ~~)~ GURCHARAN S. BAWA General Manager Water and Power Department William D. Ross David Schwarz Kypros G. Hostetter Law Offices of William D. Ross 400 Lambert Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 Facsimile: (650) 843-8093 Los Angeles Office: 11420 Santa Monica Blvd #25532 Los Angeles, CA 90025 File No: 1.010 January 19, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org The Honorable Tom Dubois, Mayor and Members of the City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Beth Minor, City Clerk beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Public Comment Prior to Closed Session; Proposed Closed Session Matter; Conference with Real Property Negotiators Authority; Government Code Section 54956.8 Property; 445 Bryant Street; Rescheduled Regular City Council Meeting January 19, 2021 Dear Mayor Dubois and Council Members: This communication comments on the proposed Closed Session for today’s rescheduled Regular Meeting which reads as follows: 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 445 Bryant Street, Assessor’s Parcel Number 120-15-107 Negotiating Party: Tesla, Inc., a Delaware corporation City Negotiators: Ed Shikada, Kiely Nose Subject of Potential Negotiations: Lease Price and Terms of Payment Mayor Dubois and Council Members January 19, 2021 Page 2 The Agenda after being published was the subject of further communication on the website which reads as follows: Based on recent community interest on this agendized closed session, the City Council will consider and provide direction to staff regarding the price and terms of payment of a proposed license agreement with Tesla for a super charging station at the Bryan/Lytton Garage (445 Bryant Street). The agreement is intended to support community and business recovery efforts and further the City’s sustainability goals in the downtown core providing an additional amenity for residents and visitors alike. Further review of this matter as to whether it should be held in Closed Session is appropriate. First, it is important to realize that the real property involved is property of the City of Palo Alto (“City”), which would be the subject of a Licensed Agreement. Any determination about the “price and terms of payment” of the proposed license must first be proceeded by an appraisal in order to ensure that there is fair market value. There is no mention of an appraisal in either the agendized notice or in the subsequent statement. This is a matter of public concern. The appraisal is necessary to determine the fair market value of the terms of any lease or payment. Otherwise, the potential for the action violating the Constitutional Prohibition of a Gift of Public Funds, Cal. Const. XVI, § 6 exists. There are specific exceptions to the Constitutional Prohibition of a Gift of Public Funds, none of which are applicable to a proposed Licensed Agreement of public property where the appraisal has not been made public. Ironically, where this matter has been faced by other jurisdictions—the City of Encinitas in San Diego County (enclosed as Exhibit A) and the City of Pasadena in Los Angeles (enclosed as Exhibit B), the matters associated with determining the license amount were matters considered Open Session. Indeed, in Pasadena, the matter was a subject of a public bid proceeding concerning the installation of electrical chargers. Mayor Dubois and Council Members January 19, 2021 Page 3 At a minimum, additional explanation is needed as to why this matter should be held in Closed Session. Your timely consideration of this matter prior to adjourning to Closed Session is requested. Very truly yours, William D. Ross WDR/as cc: Molly Stump, City Attorney molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org Enclosures: Agreements (City of Encinitas and City of Pasadena) 1 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 6:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tax Tesla CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Re 445 Bryant St agenda item: The price to Tesla is $1,000,000,000 per year, whatever they are asking. Why did we not tax the trillions of dollars worth of tech companies locating here in recent years? Mark Weiss Downtown North Sent from my iPhone 2 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 6:19 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:January 19, 2020 Council Meeting, Item #1: 445 Bryant Street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302 January 17, 2020 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 JANUARY 11, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1 CLOSED SESSION, 445 BRYANT STREET, LEASE PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT Dear City Council: The subject property is governed by Ordinance NO. 4611 that amended the zoning of the property to "PC Planned Community". The Closed Session cannot be used to discuss changes to the public benefits, permitted uses, or site development regulations for the property. Any of those changes can only be the subject of properly noticed open public hearings to consider a planning application for making any changes to PC 4611. "The primary purpose and the major public benefit of the development is to provide much needed public parking, which will reduce the current parking deficit in the downtown area." [Ordinance No. 4611, Section 3(b).] "1) the parking structure will provide public parking to support commercial uses in the area; 2) the leased space will be one or more of the following: (i) a ground floor retail or other pedestrian-oriented use; (ii) a teen center; and (iii) office use." [Ordinance 4611, Section 3(c).] Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 3 Sincerely, Herb Borock 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 12:21 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:445 Bryant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Per a recent news article, 445 Bryant is being considered as a location for a Tesla super charging station. Council observer Herb Borock points out that 445 Bryant is a PC and that the benefit provided is parking and that CC is prohibited from meeting in closed session to discuss changes to public benefits. How is it that a member of the community is raising this concern and not the City Attorney? Shouldn’t the community be able to rely on the City Attorney to advise against potential infractions of the Brown Act? Also, by now the City Attorney should know that actions such as this inevitably raise red flags. The past few years have given the community many good reasons to be skeptical of what goes on at City Hall. A few examples: the would‐be development of 27 University, Edgewood Plaza, 2180 El Camino, Hotel President, the pursuit of commercial development despite the jobs:housing imbalance, overlooking dense occupancy rates, not enforcing public benefits in exchange for PC up‐zoning, and the current big fiasco: opening Foothills without a plan in place to protect that preserve. The City Attorney had a hand in that, too. We should be able to rely on City Staff to solve problems, not make problems. Is a new problem in the making at 445 Bryant? The revelation that a closed session is planned prompts one to ask what is really going on. Did Tesla approach the City or did the City approach Tesla? It’s hard to imagine that Tesla would take on a downtown rent obligation if there wasn’t a benefit for Tesla. Are Tesla sales in Palo Alto or for Palo Alto‐bound commuters expected to be so high that this is a strategic move? Maybe the deal that’s being considered is a win‐win. If that is the case, why not inform the public? Annette Ross Palo Alto 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 2:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:No LEASE to TESLA without full City Council open discussion and input from residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The City Council agenda for the upcoming meeting has an item of a Real Estate Property negotiation about which the citizens of the City of Palo Alto have had no input and about which there has been no public information. The newspaper report alluded to the City owned garage opposite Avenidas on Bryant St. being involved in this discussion. I strongly urge the Council not to take any action on a lease of this or of any City of Palo Alto property without full and complete disclosure to the citizens of Palo Alto and to provide an opportunity for their comments and responses. Arthur Liberman 751 Chimalus Drive 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:20 PM To:Council, City; city.manager@cityofpaloalto.com Subject:Fw: 2951 El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> To: City Council <city.council@paloalto.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 3:39:50 PM PST Subject: Fw: 2951 El Camino ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> To: City Council <city.council@paloalto.org>; Planning Commission <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 3:07:12 PM PST Subject: 2951 El Camino Greetings to All of You! I am writing to you about my, and many others, concerns about the potential structure, at 2951 El Camino. It violates of the City's Zoning Code. It violates OUR Comprehensive Plan to change xoning this way. Exceeds the 35ft Height Limit within the 150 ft. of a Low-Density Residential Neighborhood. It exceeds other height limits, from 35ft to 58ft. It exceeds, other height limits, floor area, allowed foot print, and eliminates the current ban on underground garages. The up-zoning along ECR disproportionately affects Residences in South Palo Alto. Since upzoning is not allowed in other neighborhoods, why would it be allowed here? Are these homes, not as 'valuable' as those in other areas of the city? I would hope that our Council would consider, strongly the livability, and diversity of our city, not providing developers with massive giveaways. It does not solving the need for more affordable housing, because these giveaways drive up the prices of land. 2951, does not abide by our laws but makes it harder to supply the amount of affordable housing we need. 2 Please deny this proposal, it will start a trend, with developers wanting more and more. We need to think about NOT covering up all the land, forgetting trees, water/drought, etc. for somebodies short term gain that does NOT solve our housing needs. Thank You, Suzanne Keehn 94306 3 Baumb, Nelly From:David <david@ecomagic.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 12:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item #2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, Reading the details of these project proposals, I've renewed appreciation for the plight of colonized peoples everywhere, who endure the destruction of the places they live for the benefit of others, and who have this destruction thrust upon them with all the power inherent to government. To those who claim that ours is a democratic government I recommend the evidence in published peer‐reviewed scientific literature that we are an oligarchy. When those who profit from intensification of land use divert a small fraction of their profits to buy legislated privilege, they reap a greater return on investment than they do from any other expenditure. Increasing density here will increase our ecological footprint. Rising real—read matter and energy—costs of density are evident in human settlements from jungle villages to high‐rise metropoli. If density creates affordable housing, why do cities like Manhattan and San Francisco have such a shortage? Proponents of density have recruited well‐meaning people with false claims and shaming. We need science‐based policy, where we base action on evidence and reason sufficient to accurately predict its consequences. Approving these projects is a step further away from such policy, and will burden Palo Altans present and future. Please reject them. Thank you for considering these thoughts. David Schrom To: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org From: Sheri Furman Re: January 19, 2021, Agenda Item #2 Dear Council Members: Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) fully supports truly affordable housing, but 2951 El Camino Real is not an example of how to achieve it. This complex’s height, density and massing: A. Violate current zoning Laws B. Are out of proportion to the character of the adjacent single-family neighborhood C. Exceed what the City’s own development tools to incentivize housing allow (namely HIP and PHZ) The Council should say NO to 2951 because it: 1. Violates the law of the City. 2. Encourages other developers to keep asking for more and more beyond what our laws allow. 3. Disincentivizes other developers to build now and instead to wait for yet more giveaways. 4. Makes developers unequal before the law. “Compadres” and “Olive Garden” complied, but 2951 doesn’t want to. 5. Victimizes homeowners and renters. Anyone who lives within 150 feet of a commercial or mixed- use zone anywhere in the City could confront new height and massing. 6. Drives up the price of commercial/mixed-use land and even R-1 sites because giveaways add value to the land. 7. Higher prices make it harder for non-profits like Alta Housing to buy land. It will make it harder for the City to create affordable housing, as is being proposed by many residents. What if we want to issue bonds or use a proposed new business tax to build BMR housing and address the camper crisis? The value of the upzoned land will make it very hard for beneficial builders to acquire land. 8. Steady up-zoning of properties along El Camino Real disproportionately affects neighborhoods nestled behind El Camino Real in South Palo Alto. Upzoning is not allowed in other neighborhoods, why in these neighborhoods? 9. Municipalities are obligated to look after the long-term health, diversity and viability of its community; therefore, providing developers with massive giveaways is not compatible with sustaining a robust civic life nor solving the problem at hand, the need for more affordable housing. 10. Furthermore, the housing crisis was not caused by the residents, but by the previous Council Members and City Manager who encouraged runaway office development as a source of funds for the city. Palo Alto now suffers from a 3-1 jobs-to-housing imbalance, the highest housing costs in the land, and high property values. 2951 El Camino Real not only does not abide by our laws, but makes it harder to supply large amounts of affordable housing. Here are some of the specific ways 2951 ECR violates the City’s Zoning Code including HIP and PHZ tools: Upzones R-1 to Dense PC ○ Violates our Comprehensive Plan to change zoning in this manner ○ Violates the NVCAP consensus to preserve or only slightly upzone R-1 Exceeds 35 ft. Height Limit within 150 Ft. of Low-Density Residential ○ Violates §18.13.150(b) for PCs ○ Violates the NVCAP consensus to retain the 35 ft. transition zone Exceeds Other Height Limits (proposes 58 ft. maximum) ○ Violates CS Zone general 50 foot height limit per §18.16.060(b) ○ Violates R-1 Zone 30 foot height limit per §18.12.040(a) Exceeds Allowed Floor Area (proposes 2.55 FAR) ○ CS Zone allows 1.0 FAR per §18.16.060(b) ○ R-1 Zone allows 0.43 FAR per §18.12.040(a) for the sites in the project Exceeds Allowed Footprint (proposes 63%) ○ CS Zone allows 50% per §18.16.060(b) ○ R-1 Zone allows 35% for multistory homes per §18.12.040(a) Eliminates Current Ban on Underground Garages in R-1 per §18.12.060(e) We respectfully request that Council insist that developers adhere to the zoning codes and make use of the tools that the city has provided to incentivize housing development. Thank you. Sheri Furman Becky Sanders PAN Co-Chairs 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:2951 El Camino Real CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, Having studied the revised proposal made by Acclaim for the development of 2951 El Camino, and having heard directly from the developers, I am impressed with the good faith efforts they have made to satisfy the neighbors’ concerns ‐‐ although I am not sure that the neighbors themselves actually feel satisfied. However, I am dismayed that the situation requires the developers to ask for yet another waiver of the city’s development standards, especially as regards height and setbacks. In fact, a great many housing proposals in Palo Alto require the city to waive the standards that currently exist so that they can “pencil out.” This suggests that something is seriously wrong with the process. As Orwell pointed out, if there are no laws (or if the laws are constantly waived, which is the same as having no laws) then the citizens are subject to the whims of the government. Even the developers are dismayed by the piecemeal and haphazard way that the rules are (not) enforced here in Palo Alto. Unpredictability discourages business. Perhaps Acclaim will make enough concessions, and speak to the right people, and the neighbors directly adjacent to 2951 will agree to this building ‐‐ but that will not protect the neighbors of the next proposal from the grasp of the developers or from the whims of the government. There is a reason that the city council created the NVCAP Working Group: to consider and coordinate the area as a whole, rather than in a piecemeal fashion that will reward those squeaky wheels who have the greatest behind‐the‐scenes influence. The city council should protect its citizens, and encourage housing developers, by courageously declaring what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to building standards. Then they should stick to the rules they create. Those rules should take into consideration the insupportable jobs/housing imbalance in Palo Alto, as well as the desperate need for low and moderate income housing. It should not force sacrifices on the residents of south Palo Alto (traffic, property values, parking) without offering valuable mitigation (parks, neighborhood‐serving retail, schools, bike boulevards, pedestrian‐only areas, trees, a re‐naturalized creek). Until the city council is willing to take such steps, it should abide by the rules as they exist now, rather than capriciously grant favors and privilege to those who can figure out how to play by the council's unwritten, undisclosed, and inconsistent, code. Thank you for your earnest work on behalf of Palo Alto's citizens. Angela Dellaporta 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Anupa Bajwa <anupabajwa@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:2951 El Camino: behemoth of luxury rentals CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Esteemed Members of the Palo Alto City Council. You have a rare opportunity to implement a master plan that sets an admirable precedent for other neighborhoods in Palo Alto. As Councilmember Filseth has stated this proposed design should not be considered in isolation but as one corner piece of the full NVCAP jigsaw puzzle. Under the guise of building "affordable" housing the developer is proposing luxury rentals that will overlook the backyards, bedrooms, and bathrooms of adjacent single‐family homes in Palo Alto. This behemoth, with its gigantic FAR, will diminish R‐1 families' privacy, natural light, and fresh air. Forever. It will impact this entire Pepper‐Olive block with increased cut‐through traffic and street parking overflow. Is it your desire to design our city so more people can live here in expensive rentals? City council members please remember that other neighborhoods are watching this "giveaway" very closely. Anupa Bajwa 450 Olive Ave., Palo Alto, CA 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Matthew Bryant <vacationmatt@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:48 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:vacationcandy@yahoo.com Subject:2951 El Camino Real - Public Comment Attachments:PA city council letter re 2951 ECR - Matt Bryant and Candy Tsourounis.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Attached, please find the comments for tonight’s meeting. Thank you, Matt Bryant January 19, 2021 Dear City of Palo Alto council members, We would like to express our concern regarding the development plan for 2951 El Camino Real Boulevard. While we appreciate the need for housing and development, this project proposal violates Palo Alto building codes and will significantly impact our neighborhood. Please consider the following points: - The project requires rezoning of two R-1 residential housing properties to commercial zones. This is unheard of, not reasonable and would set a precedent across Palo Alto that allows any residential property to be rezoned to a commercial property. Allowing commercial properties in the middle of a residential zone disregards the original intent of planned city zoning for residential, commercial, and industrial areas. - As a 5-story building at 58 feet tall, this large project violates the current building codes which limit commercial building height to 35 feet within 150 feet of an R-1 zone. When considering the exorbitant height, the walls next door to the residential houses exceed building code heights. The out of compliance height will impact the next door residential solar roof panels by casting shadows on the roofs. In addition, it will impact the gardens in the neighboring yards. - Residents in the Olive and Pepper Avenue neighborhoods bought houses here based on the existing development plan. Changing the zoning and allowing illegal buildings may negatively impact the value of the neighborhood. Imagine adding a commercial building directly next to any private residence in Crescent Park or other residential zoned neighborhood. This would never be allowed to happen. - The developers will be taking 3 commercial properties plus 2 residential properties and combining them to build the 119-unit residential, commercial and retail building. One of the residential properties is owned by an elderly, retired City of Palo Alto employee who initially had no idea that his home would be rezoned and included in this development plan (R-1, 132-37-028, Steve Alban). The other residential property has a large structure on it that has been out of zoning compliance for years and the City has yet to collect the fines for the out of compliance property (R-1, 132-37-029, Agramonte Property). - The proposed building encroaches on required setbacks of commercial buildings next door to residential homes. As stated above, loss of sunlight and shadows cast by this tall building will impact our gardens and solar roof panels. - The new building results in a loss of privacy for neighbors’ since it has multiple windows and balconies that look directly into the neighboring homes. - The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) has a long-term plan for the neighborhood which designates Pepper and Olive Avenues as residential zones. The plan has been vetted by the City Council and members of our community. We should follow our development plans with residential zoning as is and not change the recommended community plan. - The building is much larger than other new buildings along El Camino Real near California Avenue. There should be a consistent building code applied to every project in Palo Alto and along the El Camino Real Boulevard corridor. - Our director of the Palo Alto Planning department, Jonathan Lait, indicated during the first discussion of this project that there is enough commercial zoning in downtown Palo Alto to meet the Palo Alto housing needs as required by the State of California. We should utilize the existing City zoning and plans for this commercial zone area and others before we consider proposals that change and violate building codes with this project. - The environmental impact on the Ventura neighborhood should also be considered. This 119-unit residential, office and retail building will significantly impact traffic and street parking. Today, many drivers including cars, trucks and commercial vehicles cut- through Olive and Pepper Avenues to Ash Street to avoid the traffic light at El Camino Real and Page Mill Avenue. Residents have to keep an eye out for speeding cars that cut-through our streets to save time from waiting at a traffic light. - Our Pepper and Olive Avenue residential neighborhood already share the neighborhood with commercial and light manufacturing nearby. More than half of the area in our neighborhood is comprised of commercial and light manufacturing, so if we continue to remove any more residential lots, there will be no more families in our neighborhood. The new building offers a majority of studio and 1-bedroom rental units that do not accommodate or attract families. - There is also an environmental impact of construction pollution and noise pollution given many projects underway along El Camino Real. There needs to be careful consideration of the environmental impact of street and sidewalk closures in addition to construction employee parking on the nearby streets. - Many approved projects along El Camino Real were approved, however developers have stopped these projects. The City Council and Planning Staff should work with these existing approved projects to provide pull-through before approving new projects that violate existing building codes and require illegal rezoning such as this project. Thank you City Council members for hearing our concerns. We invite you to personally visit Pepper and Olive Avenues to see for yourself how our residential neighborhood would be negatively impacted by this large commercial building that violates the City of Palo Alto building codes. Best regards, Drs. Candy Tsourounis and Matt Bryant 471 Pepper Avenue, Palo Alto 415-846-1239 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Kieschnick <mkieschnick@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:I am writing concerning the proposed project at 2951 El Camino Real CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear members of the city council: I am a long time resident of Palo Alto (since 1991). My two adult children, each of whom is working in the local public sector in Northern California, are unable to even consider living in the community in which they were raised. And of even more importance, this is true for thousands of their peers. Palo Alto is a less interesting and less vibrant community when only a narrow slice of our citizens can live here. It is with this in mind that I write in support of the proposed housing and office project at 2951 El Camino Real. I am intimately familiar with that area, having frequented the previous bicycle store for many years. It is time that Palo Alto step up to our regional allocation for housing ‐ it is shameful that we are so consistently failing to meet our assignments. And, Palo Alto will be better for it. Thank you, Michael Kieschnick 1467 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Scott O'Neil <scottoneil@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please support the project at 2951 El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I’m 40. I have two kids, 11 and 8. I want two things out of this council: 1) Keep Palo Alto a great place to live for the rest of my life. 2) Build enough housing that my kids can afford to live here, so I don’t need to move to be close to my grandchildren. Too many grandparents around here seem sad and lonely and even angry, and it seems very likely that the social destruction that Bay Area housing policy has wrought over the last several decades is to blame, as families and social networks disintegrate in the wake of housing‐driven emigration. I don’t plan being a victim of that kind of social atomization. If my kids have to form their households in Phoenix or Portland or Chapel Hill, then that’s where I’ll be in fifteen years. I don’t think they’ll want to ‐kids usually don’t‐ but they will if they have to, as most longtime Palo Alto residents can surely attest. ‐Scott O’Neil 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:2951 El Camino Real CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Councilmembers: Please adhere to our zoning laws and do not allow projects like 2951 El Camino Real to exceed our long-standing 35 foot height limit near low-density residences nor convert single-family parcels into dense housing. After all, we've opposed having the state mandate such things broadly, and so for us to force it upon our own residents who are politically weak or live in "less desirable" neighborhoods would make Palo Alto the poster child of municipal hypocrisy. Please also reject arguments that projects under five stories do not "pencil out." Two and three story residential and mixed-use projects are under construction and being proposed elsewhere in our town. For example, the all-residential 24-unit building proposed for Wellesley in College Terrace is just three stories and the mixed-use project replacing Compadres on El Camino and Curtner is mostly two stories with three stories along El Camino. If these pencil out, then so too can a three story building just blocks away at 2951 El Camino. Your predecessors decided to stop allowing PCs because these led to outsized gains for developers, with little to no tangible benefits for the greater community, and epitomized a governmental culture of backroom favoritism and special deals. It would be appalling if by allowing new PCs you resurrected these known evils. Please prevent that tonight and protect our residents in North Ventura by insisting that new PCs adhere to our height laws and not upzoning long-established R-1 areas. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Eric Nee <enee@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:re. project at 2951 El Camino Real 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 to give my strong support to the project that you will be reviewing this evening at 2951 El Camino Real in Palo Alto. I also want to indicate that I support building the project in its entirety, with the 113 new units, 23 of which would be affordable. There is a tremendous need for more housing, particularly affordable housing, in Palo Alto and the Bay Area generally. And this site on El Camino is an ideal place to build a multi-unit project. It is on a major bus line, near the CalTrain station, near the California Avenue commercial district, and across the street from two, existing 10-story buildings. If not here, where? I have lived in Palo Alto since 1998, and the Bay Area since the mid 1970s, and like many other residents I love our community and wish that it would never change. But we must change to accommodate the growing population, and building affordable housing where it is possible is the best way that Palo Alto can help do that. Eric Nee 567 Kingsley Ave. Palo Alto, Calif. 94301 650-776-4450 enee@yahoo.com 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Devon Elizabeth Ryan <devonr@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:In support of 113 homes in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am writing to express my support for moving forward with the housing project described in Agenda Item #2 for tonight’s meeting at 2951 El Camino Real. The proposal for 113 new homes at this location, 23 of which would be affordable, is a wonderful opportunity for our city and would increase desperately needed housing supply. This area is only a mile walk to Caltrain. It is within biking distance of major employers in the area. It is the perfect location to increase our housing density and contribute to the housing solution for our city and the region. I fully support moving forward and hope you will as well. Thank you, Devon Ryan Palo Alto Resident 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kerry Spear <kerry.spear@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 8:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:What good is a building code if you don't require it to be followed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council: NO to the overbuilding proposal on El Camino and Olive/Pepper. The plan doesn't come close to current code compliance. Kerry Spear 370 Oxford Ave 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Statement about HRC Report, 1/20/21 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Statement from Angie Evans, Palo Alto City Council, 1/19/21—- Item 3 Human Relations Commission Report “Black and Brown Palo Alto-- History and Current Experience” First, I want to thank the Human Relations Commission for taking on this important work. For too long, cities like Palo Alto have brushed our history under the rug and ignored changes that we could be making to ensure a more fair and equitable future. Mistakes of the past do not need to be the mistakes of our future. Martin Luther King, Junior said in his letters from jail that the white moderate is more devoted to order than justice. He chided the white moderate’s discomfort with tension. MLK wrote in those letters, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” THIS is why the progressive bastion of the bay area is often described as more racist than the South. Tension is hard - but it’s also what is necessary for change. Palo Alto wants to come together; we need dedicated and diverse leadership in order to get there. The HRC points out that young people of color need positive role models in Palo Alto. If we want future generations to have more role models, we need a serious commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in every level of our city government: council, commissions, advisory boards. We have wonderful residents and community members who could be role models - but only if current leaders make the space for them. Thank you. 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: 2/1/ 2021 Document dates: 1/13/2021 – 1/20/2021 Set 2 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 8:39 PM To:Council, City; Info, Plandiv Subject:2023-2030 Housing Element Community Panel Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and Planning Staff, It is good to see the Housing Element process begin for the 2023‐2030 cycle. Housing is still a major challenge here in Palo Alto, especially affordable housing for lower incomes. But home prices and rents are so astronomical, even middle income residents are also getting squeezed. We do not have a good track record to achieve the 1988 units for our current Housing Element cycle, nor have we as a city done a clear and comprehensive job of tracking and communicating our housing progress. The 2015‐2023 Housing Element website does not have progress reports for years 2019 or 2020 and the most recent housing tracker I could find was from a February 2020 staff report. While the city did approve some bigger housing projects last year, permitting a couple hundred units of housing in 2020 doesn't get us close to meeting our targets. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.image.png As you move forward with this process, please encourage a collegial community panel that is more representative of Palo Alto residents as a whole. I had the honor of serving on the last community panel and felt the size of the panel and frequency of those meetings was good. However, the group was significantly under‐represented in several areas and as you consider the makeup for the next panel, please encourage robust recruitment for the following perspectives: Renters ‐ 45% of Palo Alto residents are renters. PAUSD has some info and at least 50% of PAUSD families are renters. We should understand the housing needs and preferences within the rental stock or barriers to homeownership. Our community panel working group should have a makeup that reflects our community. Having only one renter on a community panel, as we did for the Comprehensive Plan, is not at all representative. Residents under age 41.8 ‐ in 2020, the median age for Palo Alto was 41.8, yet Palo Altans younger than 41.8 are consistently underrepresented in long range planning processes, despite being 1/2 of our population. Ironically, this population will be most impacted by longer term Housing Element policies. We need to 2 activately recruit younger participants including high school or college aged individuals and young professionals as they will may have a longer term outlook. BMR applicants ‐ There are many long‐term BMR lists but so little BMR housing has been created in Palo Alto, these lists continue to grow. Why not invite applicants to participate in this process and give them a voice in Housing Element policies? Thanks for your consideration and I hope council will direct staff to create an equitable and more representative Housing Element Community Panel. Sincerely, Elaine Uang 2015 -2023 5th Housing Element cycle -Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Total Units Permitted by Year YEAR 011 YEAR 02 YEAR 03 YEAR 04 YEAR 05 YEAR 06 YEAR 07 YEAR08 RHNA Allocation by Total Units Total Remaining %of RHNA Income level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Permitted by RHNA by Income level Permitted Income level Income Level Very Low Deed Restricted 691 43 43 648 6.22% Non-Deed Restricted 0 Low Deed Restricted 432 58 5 2 65 367 15.05% - Non-Deed Restricted 0 Moderate Deed Restricted 278 0 252 9.35% Non-Deed Restricted 11 3 12 26 Above Moderate 587 421 166 71.72% 174 15 72 54 105 1 TOTALS 1988 286 18 89 54 107 1 0 0 555 1433 27.92% . SB35 50% Affordability Requirements 73 147 220 294 367 440 514 587 Above Mod DU Need 5835 50% Affordability Requirements CPA 174 189 261 315 420 Above Mod DU Permitted (Cumulat ive) SB35 50% Affordability Requirements Met Met Met Met Met Pending Pending Pending Met/Not Met ADU Per mitted by Year 11 3 12 36 62 ' 1 Baumb, Nelly From:John Lewis <jlewis@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:02 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Pressing safety concern at Foothills Park 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 John Lewis, and my wife and I own the property at 27985 Central Drive in Los Altos Hills. The property is located across Page Mill Road from Foothills Park. I am writing to inform you of two serious and pressing safety concerns that have resulted from the opening of Foothills Park to the general public. First, the lack of parking within Foothills Park is causing people to park illegally on the pathway at the corner of Page Mill and Altamont Road. This has resulted in pedestrians walking in the street. Additionally, due to the narrowness of the pathway and lack of shoulder to the road, there is no way for people to safely enter and exit their vehicles. This leads to car doors opening into oncoming traffic. As I’m sure you’re aware, the intersection at Page Mill and Altamont is heavily trafficked with bicycles and cars, both of which take the corner at a high rate of speed. To complicate matters, the visibility on this corner is obscured due to large trees and a telephone pole. Secondly, and even more dangerously, pedestrians are using the pathway on the edge of my property, bordering Page Mill Road, to walk from their parked vehicles to Foothills Park. To get to Foothills Park from this location, pedestrians must cross Page Mill Road to access a trail that goes into the park. There is a hairpin corner here and low visibility from both directions. In 2015, a pedestrian was killed crossing the street at this very location. Since then, signs prohibiting pedestrian crossing have been posted on both sides of the street. Due to the demand to enter Foothills Park, people are completely disregarding these signs and crossing in large numbers. In the short time that the park has been open to the public, we have witnessed several near accidents, some of which have involved children. Most recently, we witnessed a small boy who seemed to be around three years old break free from his parents and run across the street without looking. This situation is a tragedy waiting to happen. We noticed that your staff report relating to fees at Foothills Park suggested allowing pedestrians to enter the park for free. However, allowing pedestrians to enter the park for free will only exacerbate the safety issues I have outlined above. It is irresponsible for the Palo Alto City Council to allow pedestrians to enter the park from this location until there is a safe way to do so, and we ask that you prohibit such access until then. By bringing this to your attention, we hope to prevent another needless tragedy. Sincerely, John Lewis 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:Article on Foothill park in Daily CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi I think the city council opened Foothill Park way too soon without any plan and now we are in crisis mode. I think Tinaka was correct don't open until you have staff and a plan. I am not sure who is still on the council that allowed this to happen but I don't think the Palo Alto residents need to suffer for the council shortcomings. If you are going to charge the PA residents who already pay, I think you should charge different amounts. 5/10 for the non residents. I like the idea also of a paying a yearly fee but again how about 60 for residents and 100 for non. The council should not have rolled over so quickly without having any staff in place. I don't think Palo Alto has enough Park rangers to staff Foothill correctly before the flood of open gates and now you really don't. We also could use more rangers at Palo Alto baylands. The baylands has way more people than usual also. Amy Keohane 650‐346‐5306 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:54 AM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Cc:Anderson, Daren; O'Kane, Kristen Subject:Foothills Success CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of City Council and Palo Alto leadership and management: Success and Pride Residents and neighbors are impressed and pleased that Palo Alto has taken the recent action to open Foothill Reserve. City leadership should be proud of City staff for their effective welcome of visitors and protection and maintenance of the Reserve. The "newness" of the Reserve, the restrictions from COVID, the interest in being outdoors meant the Reserve has been very popular since its opening. The Reserve has provided a valuable, healthful opportunity for residents and neighbors alike. Data Driven Is it important to immediately react to the success of the Reserve? Several if not all council members have frequently stated the importance of using appropriate data within considered context to make decisions. The City has years of visitor data that was used to make the original Commission recommendations, but only a few days of experience, in unusual circumstances, informing the current deliberations. Attendance and Fees After considering more data, if changes are made, attendance limits should not be made for the sake of discouraging visitation to the Reserve. Fees should be reasonable “parking fees” and specifically designated for Reserve purposes. Partnerships Separately, it should be noted that the partnership activities encouraged by City management have already begun. Environmental Volunteers has had the information and nature interpretation presence that was discussed and City leadership and staff should be congratulated on creating this impressive partnership. Thank you Thank you for providing this valuable access to nature and thank you for listening and thank you for giving consideration to slowing attendance and or fee changes. Don McDougall 1499 Oak Grove Ave. Burlingame, CA 650 815 1455 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Taylor <annet52@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Alas, poor decisions and lack of planning has now compromised Foothills Park. I had strongly opposed the blanket opening of our park, and thank Council Members Tanaka and Kou for their support of maintaining this asset as a city open space. Now what can be done after the rushed settlement with the ACLU on behalf of the local NAACP? At a minimum, I hope council and city staff will: —take time to make policies to minimize/eliminate further damage to the park —make infrastructure upgrades/repairs, including bathroom facilities and bridge to the island on Boronda Lake —minimize cost to Palo Alto residents and if fees are necessary, charge less to residents than non‐residents —consider car traffic both inside the park and the street routes leading to the park —change the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Preserve It is ironic Council caved so quickly to the threat of a lawsuit at a time when the City of Palo Alto faced large deficits and threats to businesses during the pandemic. And isn’t one of Palo Alto’s top goals Sustainability and Climate Action? So please, moving forward, be thoughtful and consider the interests of Palo Alto residents and our environment. Respectfully, Anne Taylor 1415 Hamilton Avenue 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Sue Welch <welchs841@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. TO: Palo Alto City Council SUBJECT: Foothills Park Ordinance I am writing to ask that you reconsider your recent ordinance changing regulations for access to Foothills Park and to close the park to all users until an environmental assessment and an appropriate use plan are developed. It is well documented that park access has been restricted to Palo Alto residents not because of discrimination, but because ALL OTHER CITIES (including my own) REFUSED TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDS to support the park when it was established. Foothills Park has been maintained for decades as a nature preserve. Palo Alto has spent millions in tax dollars, and stewardship volunteers (myself among them) have contributed thousands of hours of labor to protect and maintain this nature preserve and the wildlife that live there. Expanding park access has resulted in massive overcrowding and adverse effects, including: • Traffic jams and dangerous and illegal driving on Page Mill Road and nearby streets • Grid‐locked traffic idling in the park, congested parking lots and illegal parking in inappropriate locations • Trash discarded throughout the park • Over‐crowded trails with visitors not wearing masks or maintaining physical distancing • Dozens of visitors walking off trails into sensitive habitat • Trash tossed all over the field and trails • Off‐leash dogs and speeding bicycles on trails • Dogs and children harassing wildlife 6 Changing the city ordinance regulating operation of Foothills Park likely meets criteria for a “project” under CEQA. In August, 2019, a California Supreme Court decision expanded the definition of a project to include public agency activities (such as zoning code changes) that were previously considered exempt. If this ordinance change is considered a project, the city must prepare an environmental assessment and propose appropriate mitigation for any impacts that are identified. There is no question that the new access ordinance "has potential for resulting in a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment”. Numerous letters to Council have reported potentially significant adverse impacts on traffic, biological resources (wildlife), noise, and air quality—all subjects that require assessment under CEQA. Please revisit your decision. Restricting the park to Palo Alto residents has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with managing irreplaceable public lands in an environmentally responsible manner. Thank you for your consideration. S. Welch Los Altos Hills 7 Baumb, Nelly From:George Clifford <george@clifford.net> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 8:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park traffic CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ To the Palo Alto City Council: As a user of Page Mill and Altamont Roads, I am distressed by the increased traffic clogging these roads by cars to and from Foothills Park, especially on the weekend. Now that park is open to everyone, there has been a huge jump in this traffic. I don't have a solution to the problem, but further restrictions on the park's capacity might help. George Clifford 26789 Tanglewood Lane Los Altos Hills 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Steve Beitler <noelandsteve@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 3:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please reduce the traffic in Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The park is packed with cars by 10:00 on weekends and holidays. Cars cruise around looking for a space to open up. It is just awful. When people are turned away, they park on Los Altos Hills side streets which enrage the neighbors. This is so dispiriting and sad. The lawn surrounding the lake is already trampled. The bathrooms are impacted. Masks and water bottles are carelessly left wherever. I've encountered two off-road bikes on the trails, both yesterday and today. Dogs run off-leash with impunity. There are no rangers walking the trails, issuing citations. They're very busy, it seems, counting cars. Please limit the number of cars to 150. The current number at around 30o, for such a fragile ecology is just too many, way too many. If you have not visited the park on a Saturday or Sunday, please make the drive up there and see for yourself. I implore all the members of the Council to do this, Then. when you understand the magnitude of the challenge, make a long-range plan that truly does protect our lovely fragile open space. This is what you're paid to do. We're waiting. Sincerely, Noel Beitler 1829 Channing Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Karen Sundback <sundback@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 2:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park Entrance Fee and Visitor Capacity Limit CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, On MLK holiday, I drove down Page Mill Road. On this day, Foothills Park was closed to vehicles, so hikers jammed nearby streets in order to access the park. Unfortunately, others parked unsafely on Page Mill Road and walked on the street, gravely endangering themselves. Page Mill Road is a very twisty road with limited visibility. We shouldn't encourage pedestrians into this reckless behavior. However, the proposed fee schedule does just that by allowing pedestrians in for free. The Botanical Gardens of SF has a fee schedule that doesn't allow for free entry for pedestrians. Please see below: Admission for Non-Residents: Adults - Weekend $12 Adults $9 Youth & Seniors (Ages 12-17 and 65+) $7 Children (Ages 5-11) $3 Toddler (Ages 4 and under) Free I encourage you to charge an entry fee to pedestrians walking in from Page Mill Road in order to prevent hikers from jamming up nearby neighborhood streets with their cars and from parking unsafely on Page Mill Road. Thank you for your consideration. Karen Sundback Ben Lomond Drive Palo Alto 10 Baumb, Nelly From:Albert Henning <albertkhenning@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 11:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:19 January 2021 Council Agenda Item 6, regarding Foothills Park vehicle fees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members, Regarding your Agenda Item #6 for tomorrow, 19 January 2021: I have read the 15 January 2021 memo to you from City Manager Shikada, regarding this agenda item. I offer the following comments and, and criticisms which I intend to be constructive. First, regarding context, and my anecdotal experience: I believe the City and its citizens should open Foothills Park to all, both residents and non-residents. Leaving aside threats of First Amendment lawsuits, such action was, and remains, the right thing to do. Anecdotally, residents of the Greater Bay Area appear to be using outdoor recreation resources at at least twice the level prior to the advent of the pandemic crisis. In that context, more opportunities for safe recreation are needed. Broadening access to Foothills Park comprises one responsible reaction to this unequivocal need. That said, there have been anecdotal complaints regarding overuse since the Park was opened to all in December. As well, Park Staff have no doubt been monitoring vehicle traffic quantitatively, beyond anecdotal experience. However, I do not know whether Staff have also monitored the number of individuals using the Park. Against that uncertainty, I offer my own anecdotal experience and observations. My wife and I have been using Foothills Park more than usual, since 16 March 2020. When parking was forbidden, we entered the Park on foot, from Arastradero. On a number of occasions during Spring 2020, we saw few if any humans, and much wildlife (deer and turkeys in particular). We did see mountain bikers on the upper portions of Los Trancos Trail, and reported them to Staff; I have written earlier regarding the degradation of Park trails by mountain bikers traveling through the Park, and the need to address this problem. Since unrestricted access was granted in December -- and, since this access has become restricted from 10am to the afternoon on weekends -- our anecdotal experience says there are very many more vehicles in the Park; there are very many more users of Boronda Lake; there are very many more visitors at Vista Hill; but the number of hikers from Arastradero to the Interpretive Center, and from the Interpretive Center up to the higher elevations via either Los Trancos Trail, or the trails out of Wildhorse Valley, has not grown perceptibly. Setting one-way hiking directions on some trails has been successful in dealing with pandemic concerns, in my opinion; a secondary effect has been to reduce the sense of crowding; so, my anecdotal perception could, arguably, understate the actual number of trail users. 11 So, it appears to me that, in the narrow context of trail use, the broadening of access to the Park has not been detrimental to the resource. Second, against that last statement, I offer a first criticism of the proposed change to the Municipal Code. While access, for now, must and should be limited in my opinion, to protect the resource against overuse; yet, we do not know, quantitatively, what constitutes 'use', and what constitutes 'overuse'. Rather than controlling access, by controlling arbitrarily the number of vehicles which enter -- it is my strong opinion that the City government should undertake to evaluate what uses, and how much of each use, are consistent with sustainable existence of the Park. To my knowledge, there is no source of information which presents such an evaluation, comparing and contrasting levels of use against long-term sustainability. If I'm wrong, I'd like a reference to such information. If I'm right, however, then developing that information source seems imperative to me. A second criticism regards the specifics of control of access. The proposed Code change asks for vehicle entry fees, without distinguishing residents from non-residents. I believe it is appropriate for the fee schedule to distinguish between residents and non-residents. Many other local, State, and Federal parks make Constitutional/non-discriminatory distinctions in fee schedules based upon residency; Palo Alto should at least consider such distinctions. In closing, my wife and I draw tremendous enjoyment from our City parks, and from other regional open spaces: in our County, and in San Mateo County, and in East Bay and North Bay Counties; across city, county, State, and Federal jurisdictions. We are blessed with so many resources, and for them I am most grateful. My purpose in writing is, above all, to urge you to take direct actions to sustain such resources, for those alive today, and for those in generations to come. Sincerely, Al Henning ======= Albert K Henning, PhD 199 Heather Lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-380-5309 (mobile) albertkhenning@yahoo.com 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Phil Metz <philmetz@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 5:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park Proposed Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I oppose imposition of fees for Foothill Park admission for Palo Alto residents. Due to an unwise and poorly executed decision by PA City Council, Foothills Park is now overwhelmed with people. Palo Alto taxpayers, as a result, receive diminished service from the park and the City incurs additional costs to maintain and police the park. Though the proposed fee is small, it is outrageous to charge an admission to Palo Alto residents – who have paid for the maintenance of the park for decades. Instead fund Foothills Park at the current level as done now through the City budget. And charge non-residents admission fees to make up the additional costs the City now incurs to maintain and police the park. Sincerely, Phil Metz Phil Metz philmetz@gmail.com +1 (408) 821-8059 13 Baumb, Nelly From:garigene <garigene@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 8:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Save Foothills Park NOW CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ To the CIty Council of Palo Alto: Our beautiful Foothills Nature Preserve is being trashed!! There are too many people being allowed into that small precious area. Even 500 is too many! 750 is a destructive mob. How incredibly irresponsible of you to allow our City's valuable land to be treated in this manner. I am very disappointed with all of you. You knew that this was going to happen and yet you did not set a reasonable daily visitor maximum before the damage began. I expect my City Council to be proactive, not re‐active. I ask you TODAY to set a much lower visitor limit. As so many other people have already asked you, set the maximum to the historical usage of 400 or fewer visitors on any single day. Do something to regain my respect and trust in you ! Sincerely, Gari Gene (Resident of Palo Alto since 1979) 14 Baumb, Nelly From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 2:24 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Foothill Park Input CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I just got back from another hike at Foothill Park and as a regular user wanted to share my input to your updates to the Park entrance policy: * I support an entrance/parking fee. However, given that Palo Alto residents pay for the park upkeep with our taxes, I requested the maximum discount possible (which I believe is 25% per the ACLU agreement) * I strongly support a reduced maximum number of occupants to the park. I think 420 car occupants at one time, especially since folks with reservations, on bike or foot will still be able to enter the park. Any more and it is no longer a preserve. * I really like the idea of closing the gate on weekends and holidays once the maximum park occupants is reached. For folks who object to this, one solution could be to reopen them at 2 pm instead of 3 pm (during the winter). * I'd like to see amplified music banned and mountain biker bans enforced to make it more hiker/wildlife friendly. Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings 15 Baumb, Nelly From:Kristen Zuraek <kristenzuraek@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park Open to the Public - Safety concerns from nearby resident CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern, The recent opening of Foothill Park to the public has created great safety concerns for our neighborhood. Obviously, you have been made aware of many of these concerns, as the hours have been changed, metal beam guardrail is being installed, etc. Being a resident directly across the street from the park, I have had an up close and personal experience with the masses trying to enter, being turned around, trying to park in every nook and cranny in our neighborhood, pedestrians on both sides of Page Mill crossing at all different places, cars making u turns illegally on side streets and on Page Mill, cars stopping in my driveway to drop people off so they don't have to walk so far, many people stopping out front my property to visit with my horses along the way, walking up my driveway thinking it is a pathway, mail theft (mailbox and front gate), bicyclists mixed in with this traffic, orange delineators all along the private drive, the list goes on. The 10-3 no entrance slowed this during these hours, but come 3pm it is no different. So, that alleviated a portion of the hazard, but only during those hours. A fee, if imposed, must be for vehicular and pedestrian access or the vehicles will be trying to park everywhere in the Town of Los Altos Hills. Enforcing pedestrian fees will be a challenge as fences are low and easily traversed. A reservation system might be more lucrative to manage the masses. This will control the numbers entering the area. Only those with a reservation will be arriving. That seems manageable. I thank you for addressing these concerns. I am available to discuss any questions, thoughts, concerns. Again, I am on Page Mill Road directly across from the park and have witnessed the opening from day 1. I have walked down to discuss my safety concerns with the park rangers. I am neither for or against opening the park to the public, but opening the park to the public has opened my property to the public. That has had a large negative impact upon me and my neighbors. Thank you and I look forward to working with the City of Palo Alto to resolve these safety concerns. Sincerely, Kristen Zuraek 11854 Page Mill Road 16 Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 408-460-7226 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Waidy Lee <waidy@waidy.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Propose Vehicle entrance fee for Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council: I am a resident of Los Altos Hills. I live on Central Drive, a street that is across from Foothills Park. We appreciate you are addressing the over‐crowd situation at Foothills Park, creating an unsafe situation. I support the recommendations put forward on the City Council Staff report (ID # 11917). However, I am concern that the cash box will be vandalized. We have mail thief in the neighborhood. Given the estimated revenue that will be generated, I believe putting in a $20K machine would be a better choice. Best Regards, Waidy Lee 18 Baumb, Nelly From:Julia Zarcone <julia@zarpatmo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Impact of Foothills Park opening on safety of Los Altos Hills residents in surrounding neighborhood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: I am writing today to bring an issue to your attention that needs some immediate action. The opening of Foothills Park to non‐Palo Alto residents is a long overdue action and one I support‐so that is not what I am writing about. Rather‐the need for Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto and the County to acknowledge and address the safety issues that arise when so many people attempt to use a fairly limited resource all at once. For the past two weekends residents on Central Drive, Altamont and surrounding streets have had cars parked illegally on pathways, blocking roads and walking/horse passage and generally causing dangerous conditions. I live on Central Drive‐the private road nearest to the entrance to Foothills Park along Page Mill Road. This past several weekends and the holiday week saw many people attempt to use the park‐it was full and closed to cars by around 10:30 AM many days. I called the Sheriff on three separate days and let them know that we had 6 cars parked on Central each day by around 1 PM On one of the days the Sheriff did come by and he did cite at least one car that I saw. But that is not going to be enough. There were about 20 cars parked along Altamont between Page Mill and Zappetini Ct in the pathway‐so walkers were forced into the road and cars were making illegal U turns along Altamont to park. Cars also made illegal U turns on PAGE MILL!. This simply has to stop‐they will injure or kill a cyclist or pedestrian. I had to wait 3 minutes (I timed it) to make the left turn into Central from Page Mill to get home. During that time I witnessed cars speeding down Page Mill, an illegal U turn on Page Mill and many cars veering and swerving as they came around the corner by Central. It is a blind left turn and is completely unmarked in terms of signage on Page Mill that might help people know a car could be turning left there. SO‐we need help. Again‐I support people being able to use the park and open spaces in general‐that is not the issue. The issue is that the Town of LAH, the city of Palo Alto and the County need to take up the safety issues that arise when a change like this is made and address them immediately before someone gets hurt. We will continue to call the Sheriff when we see cars parked illegally‐but citing is not going to solve the problem. And we could use some help with signage along the head of Central and along the road that would help people understand they cannot park there‐likewaise along Altamont as well‐those areas are not posted and once one car parks, they all do. Someone took out the fire hydrant by the barn as well‐there were about 35 cars parked there as well as in the Westwind parking lot on many of the last few weekends. Thanks for your consideration. I hope there will be a mutually agreeable resolution to these issues that invites people to visit and enjoy the park safely and insures the safety of the residents who live around the park. 19 Best Regards, Julia 20 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Newman <ann.m.newman@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park Observations and Suggestions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hi, Since you are in transition and undoubtedly making some decisions for the future (short and long term) of the park use I thought I’d add some suggestions/observations. 1). The giant influx of visitors is a result of the newness, curiosity of previously forbidden fruit, and opening coinciding with the Christmas holidays. People have been coming from as far as Manteca, Marin, and East Bay (I ask folks) as this was and is a big local Bay Area news story. I believe the hordes will die down once the novelty wears off and once word gets out that access is currently volume limited. It may take many months (even more with COVID as more people continue to seek the outdoors) to see what the new use patterns will actually be so I caution against adopting any hasty permanent measures until a true picture of the situation evolves. I applaud the city’s and park staff's efforts to deal with this all and the forbearance needed to deal with the public and neighbors and strong emotions generated regarding the reopening. 2) When planning for the long term future does occur, consider making the Los Trancos Trail permanently one way, even post COVID. Even when the novelty wears off, there will be more usage on this trail as humans/dogs passing each other on the trail create environmental damage and danger to all on the steep narrow trails which characterize most of the Los Trancos Trail. One way traffic greatly mitigates the impact. 3) Thanks to the park staff for I appreciate their quick response to my comments and trail maintenance concerns as well as the increase in "no stopping" signs and cones to help guide people on where to safely park and the education efforts (postings and tape) to keep people off the hillside when accessing the lake. Best regards, Ann Newman 21 Baumb, Nelly From:A Sakamoto <as2021q1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments to Palo Alto City Council: Agenda Item ID # 11917 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members, I am submitting a letter originally written last November regarding Foothills Park concerns. November, 7, 2020 Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members, As a non-resident and therefore one who is not able to visit Foothills Park, I am disappointed that the ACLU and others cited discrimination as the reason for exclusion of non-residents from the park. Whatever may have occurred in the 1950s and 60s, my perception is that Palo Alto has made great efforts to be sensitive to discrimination and socio-economic issues. Risks of Increased Use I believe the only way to prevent major disruption, is to limit the hours and/or number of non-resident vehicles allowed in the park. Opening it up with no restrictions will create many more problems than it will solve. Page Mill Road currently presents major dangers to drivers, pedestrians and wildlife, to the point that some local drivers avoid it and take alternate routes. Anyone within earshot can hear drivers who use Page Mill Road as their personal racecourse. As one who periodically travels that windy road, avoiding it when I can, I have been passed by impatient drivers to the point that I felt it necessary to buy a car camera, to document in case of an accident. There is absolutely no safe place to pass on that stretch of road but it occurs all too frequently. A number of people have 22 been killed on that stretch of Page Mill Road, including pedestrians. An increase in traffic will unquestionably cause an increase in injuries and fatalities to wildlife and it also increases a risk to drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. Law enforcement patrols have been infrequent and it’s imperative that they be increased, despite the additional cost. Opening the park, unrestricted, puts additional pressure on the resident wildlife for which I hope serious consideration is given and will continue to be given as plans move forward. Adjacent Los Altos Hills’ residents are also not permitted to enter Foothills Park. Should those residents claim discrimination? The ACLU’s allegation and the contentions by others, seems like an attempt to take advantage of a situation that by doing so, damages the reputation of many Palo Altans. Summary In my opinion it is vital to limit the number of visitors, both for the sake of drivers and wildlife in the area, for example with permits and it is equally important to add regular SCC Sheriff or Palo Alto Police patrols to the area. The ACLU may claim this as a victory but I think it is a sad day for those who live and travel along that stretch of road and for the resident wildlife in the park itself. I hope everything will be done to mitigate the impact. Sincerely, A. Sakamoto 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:Irina Beylin <irina.beylin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills park -today's meeting agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi City Council members, The changes to the Ordinance: Adding a Foothills Park Fee to the FY21 Municipal Fee Schedule and Amending Section 22.04.150(k) to Limit Maximum Park Attendance is finally a step in the right directions after multiple missteps that led to Foothills disaster. There are a few comments: 1. Citizens Advisory Committee should be convened to oversight the protection and natural ecosystem of the preserve. 2. The budget information to target the endeavor as revenue neutral should be public, on the website to ensure Palo Alto residents and businesses are not taxed twice for preserve upkeep and maintenance 3. The proposed system of fees is complex and requires presence at the gate/honor system on weekdays. The latter proved to be faulty, as non‐residents were regularly visiting the park on weekdays when the gate wasn’t attended. 4. The handicap parking and updated bathrooms must be addressed immediately to avoid costly lawsuits and mess in the preserve The gate attendance is costly, the honor system for people to leave cash in the box is not reliable. There are options that would not require attendance at the gate and ensure compliance. Though these options would require initial investment, it will pay for itself with low maintenance cost as compared to the permanent cost of gate attendance.: a. On‐line reservation system with the mobile application, so people can reserve ahead or just in time (example parking system at Northstar Tahoe) with tiers for non‐residents and residents (senior discount 25%, low income discount 50%) and correspondingly tiered annual permits b. $10 daily fee with parking meter for all, tiered annual permits, ‐ example parking at Poplar street in Half Moon Bay c. Suggest your own. Sincerely, Irina Beylin LOS ALTOS HILLS • CALIFORNIA January 14, 2021 Via Emai l to Ed.S h1 kada@CityofPaloAlto.org and First-Class Mail Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA, 94301 1 _;,__/£0 Dear Mr.Sl7mt: The City of Palo Alto and the Town of Los Altos Hills have perioctically come together to address issues that affect both jurisctictions. ft has become apparent that the opening of Foothills Park has become another circumstance that requires pa11nership. The Park's main entrance abuts Los Altos Hills residential streets. IJ1 recent weeks, Foothills Park has been overwhelmed with visitors causing mass vehicle parking along Page Mill Road, Central Drive, Altamont Road and other residential side-streets. (See attached photos). We understand that the City of Palo Alto is attempting to find ways to manage the overwhelming visitor situation at Foothills Park. The Palo Alto staff report recommends implementing a vehicle entTance fee to address increase visitation. However, we think that this recommendation will incentivize many Park visitors to park on adjacent Town residential streets in order to avoid paying the parking fee. Los Altos Hills suggests implementing a no-charge reservation system for park users. Such a system would eliminate cars being turned away at the gate, limit overflow parking, and unsafe conditions for pedestrian and bicyclists. The Town of Los Altos Hills is committed to an ongoing partnership with the City of Palo Alto to best handle Foothills Park's opening to the general public. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to my staff or me. 26379 Fremont Road Los Alt os Hills C alifo rnia 9 4022 6 5 0/9 41 -7222 Fax 650 /941-3160 In partnership, UCJJ1- Carl Cahill City Manager Los Altos Hills Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto January 14, 2021 Page Two Foothill Park Visitors Blockin Resident Drivewa s Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto January I 4, 202 l Page Three 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sharlene Carlson <carlsonsharlene@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 3:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Foothills Preserve unsafe Attachments:Day 307 Shelter in Place 011721.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members, I have lived in Palo Alto for almost 50 years and am very distressed by what I consider lack of safety at Foothills Park/Preserve, especially for elderly people like me (nearly 73 with a knee replacement). I have walked or hiked in the park most Sundays for years, but my experience today deeply saddens me and makes me feel this beautiful resource is no longer available to me or safe for me. Since the park opened to all I have been turned away 3 times, but this morning I arrived early and got in. However, I experienced more people on trails and cars on roads than ever before in the past 50 years. Some people were behaving badly ‐ riding bikes on trails and walking on hillsides fenced off as sensitive habitat. None of the large groups I encountered on trails stepped off to let me pass ‐ I had to be the one taking precarious steps to let them pass. In the past I always experienced trail etiquette even when I was much younger, but that does not seem to exist any more. Trails are not safe for me any more, nor are roads that have a steady stream of vehicles. You have a mess on your hands, but I suggest that every person allowed must register and sign a paper that they understand the rules. Something has to be done better. I truly feel for the rangers. Perhaps you need an online reservation system like I now use to swim at an outdoor YMCA pool. Since Shelter in Place orders went into effect I have compiled a daily post that I share with many. I attach the one for today so you can see the photos I got with my iPhone and hear my sadness and distress. Sharlene Carlson 4250 El Camino Real, Unit B112 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Day 307 Shelter in Place 1/17/21 (2 days to inauguration) "Nature is painting for us, day after day, pictures of infinite beauty.” John Ruskin, English writer, art critic Today was unseasonably warm and sunny (77 degrees high) so I ventured out early to Foothills Park/Preserve with the goal of getting exercise and taking photos. Foothills historically was only available to Palo Alto Residents and their guests but recently opened to all with limits on the number of people who can be there at a time. People from neighboring cities are flocking there and on weekends and holidays entry is not permitted between 10am and 3pm to control numbers. Sadly rangers have to be nature cops. I arrived at 9am and got in, but the place was packed with more people on trails and cars on roads than I have experienced in 50 years. Some newcomers don't seem to follow rules or grasp "park etiquette", so they ride bikes on trails and tromp through areas fenced off as "sensitive habitat-no entry". Groups I encountered on trails forged ahead and made elderly me step off precariously to let them pass. I won't go back on weekends - sad as it has been my Sunday treat for decades and I always felt the animals and I were safe. On a positive note, I got nice photos of Boronda Lake and trail views that show blue sky. My favorite is the Great Egret walking around on a hillside hunting for critters on the ground to grab and eat. Egrets are usually in or near water, so this one was a maverick scouting new cuisine. "We have forgotten how to be good guests, how to walk lightly on the earth as its other creatures do.” Barbara Ward, British writer, economist 2 Baumb, Nelly From:CA ParksforAll <caparksforall@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 2:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:ParkRec Commission; Shikada, Ed; O'Kane, Kristen; Anderson, Daren Subject:January 19 Council Meeting: Foothills Park Fees and Attendance Limits Attachments:parks4all letter jan 18 2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: Attached is a letter from Parks for All, a California non-profit corporation committed to advocating for access to, education about, and preservation of parks and open spaces. We write to you concerning proposed fees for Foothills Park. The opening of Foothills Park has been a great success. There are growing pains to be worked out, but Palo Alto has the means and the information to move forward in a thoughtful and targeted way. These management questions are complex, but entirely solvable. We encourage you to consider the full complement of management tools and carefully tailor them to responsibly ensure public access to this gem. As described in the attached letter, we make the following recommendations as you debate implementing fees: Any fee should be a “parking fee”—not an entry fee. Not only is that the most accurate description, it sends an important signal that the City is working to manage parking and motor vehicle traffic, not discourage entry. Fees drastically impact visitation—that impact should not fall disproportionately on less-wealthy community members. Fees are not new to Foothills Park. For nearly 20 years, Palo Alto charged a $2 fee (about $4 today when adjusted for inflation). That modest fee drove a steady, ten-fold decline in visitation at the park from its high in the 1970s (372,000 persons per year) to its low in the 1990s (fewer than 30,000 persons per year). Matching the $6 daily fee charged by Santa Clara and San Mateo Countys’ park systems is reasonable ($4 or $5 would be better), but a higher fee would be counterproductive and exclude the families, seniors and young people for whom access to public spaces is particularly important. The City’s own data from past experience strongly counsels against any fee higher than $6. Fees should be tailored to promote management and educational objectives. To ensure access for all, we strongly advocate for keeping fees reasonable and using them in a targeted way. Two specific steps to accomplish this tailoring are to: o provide for several fee-free days, which are common at national and state parks, museums, and zoos, to ensure that there are opportunities to visit without incurring a charge (e.g., MLK Day, Earth Day, the anniversary of Palo Alto’s founding, etc.), and o incentivize beneficial volunteer and educational programs by exempting them from fees. 3 Fee revenues should be earmarked for Foothills Park and educational programs. Revenues should go to the maintenance and capital needs at Foothills Park and to Palo Alto’s broader nature education and inclusion programs. Many new visitors—young and old—have explored and learned about Foothills Park since its opening last month. Parks for All has actively sought feedback on the park’s opening and has heard from folks from Palo Alto and across the Bay Area: their experiences have been very positive, fauna is abundant, City staff have been welcoming, and visitors have been mindful of their surroundings and thoughtful in their interactions with other users. The opening has also brought deeper partnerships with Environmental Volunteers and Grassroots Ecology—two organizations bringing volunteers from around the Bay Area to do great, on-the-ground work at the park—and presents many opportunities to harness the enthusiasm of the park’s newest devotees. As the Council considers changes, we urge you to build upon this success by keeping fees and other barriers to access as low as possible. Sincere regards, Parks for All Learn more about Parks for All at www.CAparksforall.org. www.CAparksforall.org City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 January 18, 2021 Dear Councilmembers: Parks for All is a California non-profit corporation committed to advocating for access to, education about, and preservation of parks and open spaces. We write to you to address the Council’s upcoming discussion of potential fees and attendance limits for Foothills Park. We offer three guiding principles and several specific recommendations for your consideration: Guiding Principles A. The opening of Foothills Park is a proud moment for Palo Alto. We are incredibly proud of Palo Alto’s opening of Foothills Park. Major news organizations, including KPIX and SFGate, have called the park’s opening one of the best things to happen in the Bay Area in 2020. Indeed, a leading environmental group estimates that the opening of Foothills Park is the most significant Bay Area expansion of public access to open space in decades. The opening has been a great success, with many new visitors—young and old— exploring and learning about this gem since its opening last month. Parks for All has actively sought feedback on the park’s opening and has heard from folks from Palo Alto and across the Bay Area: their experiences have been very positive, fauna is abundant, City staff have been welcoming, and visitors have been mindful of their surroundings and thoughtful in their interactions with other users. The opening has also brought deeper partnerships with Environmental Volunteers and Grassroots Ecology—two organizations bringing volunteers from around the Bay Area to do great, on-the-ground work at the park—and presents many opportunities to harness the enthusiasm of the park’s newest devotees. As the Council considers fees and attendance limits, we urge you to step carefully so as to not detract from this success. B. Context and data-based decision making is imperative. There is no question that the park has been busy in the past three weeks. One widely reported, but very isolated, datapoint is that the park’s opening weekend saw more than 4,000 visitors, versus more than 600 for that same weekend in 2019. We strongly caution against making any decisions based on a single 2 datapoint like this. Multiple layers of context are important to better understand this recent level of interest. First, the outdoors has been humanity’s refuge throughout this pandemic. Like every other park and open space preserve, Foothills Park has seen astronomically high rates of visitation in 2020. This was true long before it opened to the general public in the last two weeks of the year. And it is something to plan for during the coming months, but it should not be confused for a long-term trend. Second, there has been extensive media coverage of Foothills Park and its opening, with more than 45 articles in national, regional and local media in the past six months. The policy changes that the Council is considering should take the long view—not be a reaction to increased visitation in the past few weeks (which capture only the opening weekend and the holiday period—a busy time at the park every year). Third, the City has decades of daily visitation data that serves as a strong baseline for understanding historic trends. Some of this data is counterintuitive. For example, numerous non-holiday weekdays in the summer months tend to be busier than many weekends in winter months when the park saw only dozens of visitors. The City should study and make use of this data to inform the specific contours of any policy changes. C. Fees and attendance limits should be closely tailored to management goals. These policy changes should not be taken simply for the sake of discouraging visitation to the park or to raise revenue. Rather, Palo Alto should establish clear management goals, policy changes should follow after careful analysis, and there should be a process for assessing whether these changes meet the goals. In implementing any policy changes, we request that you establish a process to take these steps. This process would ideally involve the Parks & Recreation Commission, which has the time and resources to delve deep, and provide flexibility for staff to experiment with different policy tools. Specific Recommendations With these guiding principles in mind, we offer several pieces of specific feedback on the Council’s proposed actions: Proposed Fees. It is indisputable that fees moderate visitation, but fees should not be prohibitive for our less-wealthy neighbors. Fees should be tailored to the management strategy for Foothills Park and not used as a general disincentive. To this end, we offer the following specific comments on the fee proposal: 1. Any fee should be a “parking fee”—not an entry fee. Not only is that the most accurate description, it sends an important signal that the City is working to manage parking and motor vehicle traffic, not discourage entry. 2. Fees drastically impact visitation—that impact should not fall disproportionately on less-wealthy community members. Fees are not new to Foothills Park. For nearly 20 3 years, Palo Alto charged a $2 fee (about $4 today when adjusted for inflation). That modest fee drove a steady, ten-fold decline in visitation at the park from its high in the 1970s (372,000 persons per year) to its low in the 1990s (fewer than 30,000 persons per year). Matching the $6 daily fee charged by Santa Clara and San Mateo Countys’ park systems is reasonable, but a higher fee would be counterproductive and exclude the families, seniors and young people for whom access to public spaces is particularly important. A data-based approach strongly counsels against any fee higher than $6. 3. Fees should be tailored to promote management and educational objectives. To ensure access for all, we strongly advocate for keeping fees reasonable and using them in a targeted way that (1) provides for fee-free days and (2) exempts beneficial volunteer and educational programs. First, fee-free days are common at national and state parks, museums, and zoos. Whether a particular day each month (e.g., the last Saturday each month), or set to several important days each year (e.g., MLK Day, the anniversary of Palo Alto’s founding, etc.), allowing fee-free access is important to ensure that Foothills Park fulfills its promise to all community members. Second, there are numerous volunteer and educational activities that we want to encourage at Foothills Park. The proposal allows for fee-free volunteer access. In addition to a waiver for the day of volunteering, the City should allow for an additional fee-free future visit for each volunteer. Similarly, fees should be waived for organized youth educational groups. The City should not erect any barriers to educating young people about nature. 4. Fee revenues should be earmarked for Foothills Park and educational programs. Fee revenue has the potential to be significant. These revenues should go to the maintenance and capital needs at Foothills Park and to Palo Alto’s broader nature education and inclusion programs, not used as a means to generate revenue for the City’s general fund. Attendance Limits. The proposal before the Council provides flexibility to adjust the number of visitors in the park at one time. Parks for All does not disagree with providing that flexibility, but we have two concerns: (1) the staff memo suggests that the City is contemplating a drastic reduction in the number of persons allowed in the park, and (2) the more appropriate limit should be for motor vehicles, not the number of park users. Significantly reducing the number of allowed visitors would be detrimental to the broader community and inevitably result in the denial of entry to many Palo Altans. Again, historical context is helpful here: when the park first opened to Palo Altans in the 1960s, and throughout its period of historically high visitation in the 1970s, the visitor limit was 2,000 persons. It was subsequently reduced to the current limit of 1,000 persons (resulting in an impressive 1.4 acres of park space per person). As the number of persons allowed in the park decreased, the available parking has actually increased, but the number of low-occupancy trips to the park has also increased over time. As noted by the staff report, there are particular areas of the park that are (and have always been) popular. For example, Boronda Lake is a major draw for young families, but there is limited parking near to the lake. However, the congestion around Boronda Lake does not translate to crowding in other parts of the park. On the opening weekend, we had many 4 representatives at the park, all of whom were able to find ample parking near to where they sought to recreate at Orchard Glen and Vista Hill, and none of whom encountered crowds on trails. The management goal should be to reduce the number of vehicles in the park generally and the congestion at the entry and Boronda Lake specifically. That relates to the number of visitors, but it need not be a direct correlation. There are alternative management tools to drive toward this goal. For example, the City could offer reduced parking fees for those who carpool. Staff is already planning improvements to communicate parking status to the public with online tools. It may also be appropriate to consider reconfiguring traffic patterns within the park. On a longer-term basis, the City should consider whether community partners may be able to support a shuttle program during busy summer weekends. In short, there are many tools in the toolbox: a blunt cap on the number of visitors is not the best one for the job. * * * In summary, the opening of Foothills Park has been a great success. There are growing pains to be worked out, but Palo Alto has the means and the information to move forward in a thoughtful and targeted way. These management questions are complex, but entirely solvable. We encourage you to consider the full complement of management tools and carefully tailor them to responsibly ensure public access to this special place. Sincere regards, Parks for All cc: Mr. Ed Shikada, City Manager Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Elliott Wright <elliott@evols.org> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 10:09 PM To:Shikada, Ed; O'Kane, Kristen; Anderson, Daren; Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Environmental Volunteers at Foothills Nature Preserve: thank you! Attachments:EV Annual Report 2018-2019.pdf; EV update letter on Foothills Preserve support.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Shikada, members of City Council, colleagues and Parks and Recreation Commissioners: It looks like attendance is going to be pretty full tomorrow night for the City Council meeting, so I thought I would share a few thoughts by email. Families are getting outside a lot more than normal right now, and Foothills Nature Preserve is no exception. We need to realize that with restaurants, theatres, sports, churches, synagogues, local campus', and almost all other activities closed, families are eager to find things to do.... and our parks / open natural areas have been the welcomed hero of the day! All of the local land managing agencies and municipalities are reporting HUGE, record attendance...not just Foothill Preserve. We should recognize that these numbers are (a) similar to the demand we are seeing across all preserves of like proximity, (b) likely to reduce once more of daily life can resume, and (c) requiring some additional management and care right now. That is why I want to congratulate the City of Palo Alto for doing a great job with the opening month of Foothills Nature Preserve this last month! The team of rangers and staff that helped should be congratulated for the countless smart moves and wins in conveying nature safely through this tricky time. There are indeed some big 5 decisions ahead for us to support safe, fun, and meaningful experiences for all, and we at Environmental Volunteers want to continue to be helpful. I'm writing partly to report on a successful test location for our volunteer support for Foothill visitors. With safety and health protocols observed this weekend, we connected with 112 people in two hours at Baronda Lake on Saturday. The test went well. People appreciate having an opportunity to ask questions, and it is clear that presence is helpful. Many of the questions we answered were related to parking, trails, rules, clarifications around hours, and upcoming programs. We had LNT (Leave No Trace) and #recreateresponsibly messaging out alongside our nature and identification materials, and we also spoke with a number of people who were interested in finding new volunteering opportunities. Thank you Daren and Angie for facilitating this opportunity for visitors. We will be doing these every Saturday for the spring rotating from the gate house, vista point, and Baronda Lake. 6 One opportunity: we are looking at building a short series of programs for park visitors. Some topics that I've been considering: outdoor photography, foothills flora and fauna, Leave No Trace, navigation, stargazing, timely programs on natural phenomena, and lots of nature and science programs for kids. Our January Nature Science program online attracted 142 registrants, and we are looking forward to a fun year ahead. I've attached a letter about EV including thoughts about our work at Foothills Nature Preserve. I have also attached our most recent Annual Report. We hope to be a helpful steward and welcomer at the Preserve, and we also hope to dramatically expand the number of volunteers supporting our parks and preserves. Our role as Environmental Volunteers can be to help, and we stand ready to hear how that might best support the City and our partners in providing safe, fun, and meaningful experiences at Foothill Nature Preserve. Sorry that the Council meeting is too full for me to attend. I hope you have a great meeting! Sincerely and respectfully, Elliott ‐‐ Elliott Wright Executive Director Environmental Volunteers EcoCenter 650-493-8000 x1 Cell 650-704-3823 www.EVols.org He/him/his P.S. Curious about what we do? Check out these videos that show what we do and how our volunteers make it happen. INSPIRING A LOVE OF SCIENCE AND NATURE ENVIRONMENTALVOLUNTEERS ANNUAL REPORT TO OUR COMMUNITY Fiscal Year 2018-2019 DEAR FRIENDS, In this time of profound threats to our environment and our childrens’ future, the Environmental Volunteers is committed to developing the next generation of stewards of our natural world. We have done this since 1972 by delivering hands-on science and nature education to over 440,000 students in grades K-6. This past year we continued reaching large numbers of students with our programs, particularly those from low-income families. We delivered over 10,500 individual student learning experiences through our direct education programs. We enabled an additional 7,415 experiences through our Field Trip Transportation Fund program and another 17,270 through our District-Wide Collaboration programs. Generous gifts from our donors enabled us to grow our capacity and to develop new programs such as our classes for homeschool kids. This coming year approximately 83% of our budget will be devoted to our existing programs, increasing their strength, capacity, and quality. These programs will remain central to our mission. In addition, this year we are welcoming a program called Sprout Up, which brings together a consortium of volunteer college student clubs to deliver award-winning science and nature education to low-income 1st and 2nd graders. We expect this year’s Sprout Up program to deliver at least 14,000 individual education experiences, and we plan to increase the number of colleges that have Sprout Up chapters from five to at least eight. The Sprout Up program will allow us to utilize our expertise to grow science and nature education for kids. We are excited to have these inspiring opportunities before us. Thank you for your generous support and commitment to our mission! We hope that you will join us in making the coming year our best ever. Sincerely, John Armstrong Hazel Watson Elliott Wright Board Co-Chair Board Co-Chair Executive Director The low student to volunteer ratio in classroom programs and on field trips creates an engaging experience for kids. Environmental Volunteers promotes the understanding of and responsibility for the environment through hands-on science education. Our trained volunteers deliver high-quality programs that develop science skills and promote environmental stewardship. We are a national leader in environmental education reaching over INVESTING IN OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE through innovative programs 440,000 KIDS SINCE 1972. 1 Welcome Welcome | 1 WHY ENVIRONMENTAL VOLUNTEERS IS IMPORTANT Kids need early science learning and access to nature so that they can understand their world. Access to science and nature helps students build critical thinking and problem-solving skills and, as studies have shown, translates into a greater likelihood that, as adults, they will become good stewards of our environment. Unfortunately, many of our local schools are under severe budgetary strain, and outdoor and science learning opportunities are being reduced or eliminated. This perpetuates a troubling trend in California that is not often shared: • California is a laggard among states in science education. In two different studies, California was ranked 47th and 39th out of all states in science education. • In a 2009 fourth-grade science assessment, California students’ scores were among the lowest, along with Arizona, Mississippi, and Hawaii. • A large ethnic disparity exists in science test scores. Alarmingly, fewer than 10% of African American and Hispanic fourth-graders tested “proficient” in science, compared with 41% and 45% of their white and Asian peers, respectively. • Over half of California’s elementary teachers have one hour or less per week available for teaching science. In a recent survey of underserved classrooms, 13% of teachers spend 30 minutes or less teaching science. Our programs work - evaluation results show that EV programs increase students’ environmental science knowledge and their love for the natural world. Every kid deserves TO SEE THE REDWOODS AND THE OCEAN GETTING STUDENTS INTERESTED in and engaged in a science lesson is easy if you enhance it with hands on activities and games that illustrate the concepts. This approach goes a long way to bringing science ideas to life. Elizabeth Blank at McCollam Elementary experienced how a single program by Environmental Volunteers helped her first graders learn about birds. Small groups of students, taught by trained volunteers, used a hands-on approach to make abstract concepts concrete. At different stations, the kids could touch bird skins, solve puzzles, or play a game. During the 90 minute program, Elizabeth noticed that “my students were completely engaged the entire time,” and Natalie, in her classroom, said, “I really like to learn about birds so much.” Teachers like Elizabeth use our program to illustrate their lessons and help their students build on the material they learned throughout the year. We are asked to come back to their classrooms year after year. NURTURING A FUTURE GENERATION that believes in science and the power of nature 2 | Why EV is Important Why EV is Important | 3 Kids are fascinated by mysteries like these pinecones and who ate them. Environmental Volunteers takes them outside to explore real questions in nature. District Collaborations We are leading a collaboration of eight environmental education organizations to deliver science and nature education to 100% of the K-6 schools in the Mountain View Whisman School District and the Ravenswood School District, both of which serve large proportions of low-income children. Field trip Transportation Fund The Transportation Fund, launched in 2011, provides grants for transportation to science and nature education field trips for low-income youth (K-12) throughout the nine counties of the Bay Area. Major sponsors of this innovative program include the Applied Materials Foundation, the Sand Hill Foundation, and the Environmental Education Funders Collaborative. College Internship Program Students at Bay area colleges who participate in our internship program work in the classroom and in curriculum and materials design. Baylands Restoration Volunteer groups work with us on restoration and maintenance projects in the Bayland. Ecocenter Docents welcome, educate, and delight visitors during open hours and special events. K-6 Education Program10,228 individual student learning experiences delivered to 7,279 students. Teaching Volunteers 156 volunteer educators contributed over 5,367 hours. Homeschool Science 308 individual student learning experiences delivered to 78 home school students. Community Organizations 273 individual student learning experiences delivered to 165 students. Transportation Fund7,018 individual student field trip experiences in science and nature. District Collaborations17,270 individual student learning experiences delivered. Outreach Events1,930 individuals joined us for over 16 events College Internships36 Bay Area college students have worked for EV as science and nature education interns over the past 10 years, seven in 2018-19. Baylands Restoration & Maintenance221 volunteers contributed 894 hours. PROGRAMS EDUCATION PROGRAMS Education Programs deliver science and nature education directly to students. Science and nature education programs Our education volunteers deliver hands-on, inquiry-based science and nature education programs to children in grades K-6. Lessons are tailored to specific subject areas and align with state science standards for each grade level. The volunteer to student ratio averages 1:5. Homeschool Science The content and approach of the homeschool program are similar to the K-6 Education program but are adapted for mixed-age groups of students. Community Education and Events We deliver science and nature education programs to kids in after school programs and in partnership with local camps. We host a wide variety of events, such as educational programs, conservation talks, and nature journaling lessons for adults and children at our EcoCenter. LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS Leadership Programs leverage our expertise to enable other organizations to deliver science and nature education in innovative ways. We also provide opportunities for college students to learn leadership skills and develop and share a passion for science and nature education. Sprout Up This coming year, we are taking on the role of nationwide coordinator for an program called “Sprout Up.” This exciting program leverages the power of college-student volunteers by training them to teach environmental science lessons in underserved 1st and 2nd grade classrooms. Each Sprout Up chapter is student-run and managed and the students are responsible for raising the funds necessary to support their chapter. Sprout Up chapters include: Children enjoy exploring the rocky shoreline at low tide and finding diverse life in crags, and shallow pools. CLOSING THE OPPORTUNITY GAP in low-income communities Local and intergenerational IMPACT New York University Barnard/Columbia UC Davis UC Santa Barbara Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 4 | Programs Programs | 5 EXPENSESTotal Operating Expenses $824,147 REVENUE SOURCES CONTRIBUTED SUPPORT Individual contributions $587,784 Corporate/business grants $61,028 Foundation/trust grants $286,654 Government grants $25,000 Total Contributed Support $960,465 FEES AND OTHER REVENUES Program revenue $176,599 EcoCenter rental and other misc. fees. $11,837 TOTAL FEES AND OTHER REVENUES $188,437 TOTAL REVENUES $1,148,902 TOTAL NET (REVENUES MINUS EXPENSES) $324,755 Peninsula Schools Addison Elementary School Belle Haven Elementary School Cesar Chavez Elementary School College Park Elementary School Connect Community Charter School Costano Elementary School East Palo Alto Charter School Encinal Elementary School Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School Green Oaks Academy Hawes Elementary School Henry Ford Elementary School Herbert Hoover Elementary School International School of the Peninsula International School of the Peninsula - Cowper Campus Las Lomitas Elementary School Laurel Elementary School Los Robles Magnet Academy Oak Knoll Elementary School Our Lady of Angels School Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton Sunnybrae Elementary School Taft Elementary School West Hillsborough Elementary & Preschool Willow Oaks School Woodside Priory School San Francisco 49ERS Academy South Bay Schools Aptitud Community Academy At Goss Bachrodt Elementary School Bishop Elementary SchoolBlackford Elementary School Booksin Elementary School Briarwood Elementary School Captain Jason M. Dahl Elementary School L.P. Collins Elementary SchoolCountry Lane Elementary School Cumberland Elementary School Eaton Elementary School Fairwood Elementary School Franklin Elementary SchoolGeorge Mayne Elementary School Jeanne R. Meadows Elementary School Laneview Elementary School Lexington Elementary School Abraham Lincoln Elementary SchoolLos Arboles Elementary School Luther Burbank School Millard McCollam Elementary School McKinley Elementary School Merryhill Elementary School Mid-Peninsula Schools Almond Elementary School Benjamin Bubb Elementary School Covington Elementary School Edith Landels Elementary School Gabriela Mistral Elementary School Gardner Bullis Elementary School Frank L. Huff Elementary School Mariano Castro Elementary School Monta Loma Elementary School Oak Avenue Elementary School Pinewood School-Middle Campus Santa Rita Elementary School Stevenson Elementary School Theuerkauf Elementary School OUR SCHOOLSFINANCIALS 2018-19 OPERATING EXPENSES 2018-19 OPERATING REVENUES Program delivery (83%) Individual contributions (51.2%) Fundraising (12%) Administrative (5%)not related to fundraising Government grants (12%) Corporate/business grants (5.3%) School and Program revenues (16.4%) Foundation or trust grants (25%) (More detailed financial information will be made available upon request following completion of our 2018-19 audited financials at the end of 2019.) IMPACT & GROWTH 6x 3xmore Program Fee Waivers granted to Title I schools Tripled the Mountain View Whisman District Collaboration Impact Increased Collaborations with partners 3x Tripled the Field Trip Transportation fund 3x Tripled funding by Foundations, Grants and Corporate Gifts Increased Active Volunteers to 156 293 TEACHERS supplemented their science curriculum San Jose Palo Alto San Mateo Redwood City FY17-18 TO FY18-19 6 | Financials Schools | 7 VOLUNTEERS FROM 2018-PRESENT Thank you to the following volunteers who have dedicated their time and passion to the environmental volunteers in a variety of ways throughout the year. You are the heart and soul of the EV! Dania Akheel Julianne Alvares Joe Andrews Evan Arbolante John Armstrong Isa Avila Ruhi Baichwal Marni Barnes Fran Bennett Kristina Blouch Kathy Boone Catherine Brooker * Nina Brooks Laura Butcher Sapphira Butler Barbara Callison Lindsey Catoni Cassidy Chang Brian Carlo Chuapoco Laura Cohen Joelle Compeau Bob Connors Joan Coston Lee Ann Crager * Andie Creager Susan Dansker Caroline DeBruine Anya Desai Emily Dial Stan Dirks Susan Dorsky Jack Dubin Susan Dubrow Sreya Dutta Marsha Dyslin Michael Eldredge Jeff Englander Savannah Enriquez Kathi Fay Jim Feichtl Jan Fenwick Mellicent Fraticelli Joyce Friedrichs Sandra Gant Jeanne Gary Kathy Goforth * Kelly Graham Margie Gray Amandeep Grover HaoBin Guan Jeanette Guthart Susan Hahn Bente Hammer * Kalena Harris Ada He Carmen He Shefali Heblikar Sheryl Heckmann Dick Heermance Carol Heermance Etta Herbach Alison Hlady Neil Hornor Marilyn Hornor Tim Huang Caryn Huberman Yacowitz * Jan Hustler Carole Hutchinson Sue Irvine Kumi Ishida Mia Iuchi Nishika Ivaturi Jer Jager May Jiang Anna Johansen Deepali Joshi Purvi Karelia * Rose Keszei Afzal Khan Kalyani Khodke Nathan Kim Audrey Kim Tony Kramer Marion Krause Frosty Krieger Manali Kunte Kathy Lauer Gloria Leitstein Audrey Lemoine Bonnie Libby Ryan Liou Maggie Long Vivek Madasu Mahati Manda Alice Mansell Nancy Mayo Matthew McClain Diane McCoy Don McDougall Jeanne McGinnis Tom McNeal Mary Lou Meeks Jane Meier Barbara Millin * Christine Nagel Taneesha Negi Kelly Neylon Esther Nio * Sally Norman Kathleen Nugent * Audrey Packer Anne Page Emma Paradise Maria Parlante Anna Perlmutter Kaitlyn Pham Toby Pollock Alan Ray Joyce Rice Pam Riola Dune * Luane Robinson * Maya Ronen Deborah Sanderson Arabelle Sauvé * Irwin Seltzer Ramita Setty John Seyfarth Divya Shenoy Agnes Shiu-Wong Betty Ann Sills Divya Sivaraman Sandra Slater Cindy Slothower Nancy Smith Sue So Larry Spivak Natasha Spradlin * Tonia Spyridi Shreyas Srikanth Alison Takata Peter Thurston Alexander Tse Alicia Tsung Ellen Turbow Thresia Vazhaeparambil Agnes Veith * Jacqui Vogel Ruth Wachob Feng Wang Hazel Watson Kathryn Watts Joan Weagle Michelle White Jahmal White Helen Wiant * Agnes Wong * Patricia Wood Maya Xu *Newly Trained School Programs Volunteers CORPORATE VOLUNTEER GROUPS Apple Audi Kiwanis Club Ascend.io DiDi Labs Google (Battery) Armor Blox Kohls Ascend.io McAfee HP Robinhood Google (Marketing) DONORS IN FISCAL YEAR 2018-2019 INDIVIDUALS, FOUNDATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS $50,000 and above Applied Materials Foundation Ralph Eschenbach and Dr. Carol Provan Fairweather Foundation Morgan Family Foundation $25,000 to $49,999 County of Santa Clara Ben and Ruth Hammett Th San Francisco Foundation The Sand Hill Foundation The Bohannon Foundation $10,000 to $24,999 Alexander Aghassipour Joyce and Jay Friedrichs Clinton and Mary Gilliland Heising-Simons Foundation Bay Area Environmental Education Funders Collaborative Andy Rumer Scandling Family Foundation Paul Simon The Kimball Foundation Youth Outside Anonymous $5,000 to $9,999 Atkinson Foundation Shawn and Brook Byers Robert and Mary Dodge Art and Joanne Hall Noble and Lorraine Hancock Roger Hine John and Marcia Goldman Foundation Marion and Charles Krause Kathy and Al Lauer Lee Lockie Nancy and Tor Lund Don and Mary McDougall Nancy Mueller John and Anne Page Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund Guy and Jeanine Saperstein Silicon Valley Community Foundation Hazel and Greg Watson $1,000 to $4,999 Elaine and Dudley Andersen Bill Graham Supporting Foundation John Bingham Alex Chan Charles B. Kuhn Memorial Fund Clif Bar Family Foundation Erin Craig and Richard Dvorak Carolyn and Gordon Davidson Cree and Jennifer Edwards Facebook Local Community Fund Noel and Sally Fenton Fenton Family Foundation Judith Ford Jay and Kristy Friedrichs Markus Fromherz and Heike Schmitz Garden Club of Palo Alto Kate Godfrey and Rob Colley Elaine Hahn Bruce and Eleanor Heister Mel Hodge Christy and Chuck Holloway Drs. Mary Hufty and Daniel Alegria Janet and James Hustler Julie Jerome Franklin P. Johnson Doug Kalish and Donna Bohling Christina Kenrick Susan Lang and Robert Levenson Janet Larson Sue and Peter LaTourrette Jean Ann and Charles Luckhardt Ryan McCauley and Shelly Goldberg Robert and Myung Sook McIntyre Debra and Bryan McLaughlin Brad and Judith O’Brien The Orion Fund Ward and Mary Paine Palo Alto Rotary Club Palo Alto University Rotary Club Gerald Patrick Hugh and Julie Pearce Susie Richardson Robert Brownlee Foundation Ross Stores Foundation Rotary Club of Menlo Park Foundation Rotary Club of Woodside/ Portola Valley Pearl Anne Seipp John and Carolyn Seyfarth Andrea and David Shearn Roger Smith Smith Borota Family Greg and Alison Takata Sally and Timothy Tomlinson John and Tashia Morgridge Ellen and Mike Turbow Woodside-Atherton Garden Club Mila Zelkha Anonymous $1 to $999 The Aaron Family Golnaz Abdoli Susan Adams Charles Adams Judy Alberts Rodrigo Alfaro Serena Alvarez Barbara Anderson Paul Anderson Elaine and Ron Andrews Leslie Anido Rosemary Arca and John Germano Nicole Ardoin and Greg Hawkins John and Polly Armstrong Marty and David Arscott Peg Austin Jane Bagley Kathleen Baker Moorefield Joel and Sherri Bakos As always, our dedicated volunteers made our programs possible. Not accounted for in the financial summary, the total value of their contribution can be estimated at close to 6,600 volunteer hours x $29.95 = $197,670 8 | Volunteers Donors | 9 Barbara Barnum Gwendolyn Barry Irene Beardsley and Dan Bloomberg Stuart and Louise Beattie George and Betsy Bechtel Lori and Matt Beninger Alan and Frances Bennett Barbara and Bud Bennigson Allan and Mindy Berkowitz Mary Bernstein Ann Bilodeau Patricia and Pete Biocini Bishop Pine Fund Olle and Monika Bjorkman Graham Black Elizabeth Blois Helen and Art Bobrove Andrea K Boehmer Marcy Bolotin and Larry Paull Monica Bowditch Carolyn Brennan Terese Brennan-Marquez Elissa Brown Sukey Bryan Erika Buck Patrick Burt and Sarah Bemus Rosemary Busher Laura Butcher William Butler Bobbi Callison and Paul Anderson Mimi Campbell Julie Cardillo Barbara Carlitz Letitia Carper Long Nancy and John Cassidy Wanda Cavanaugh Susan Chamberlain Ina and Harvey Checkman Children and Nature Network Robert and Susan Christiansen Nadezhda Chuprina Diane and Stephen Ciesinski Nancy C. Clark Sarah and Tom Clark Jennifer Clemenza Neal and Janet Coberly Arthur and Laura Cohen Jeff Colvard and Sreya Dutta Alison L. Cormack Laureen Cortez Joan and Charles Coston Lawrence Cowles Doug Cox Lee and Michael Peter and Melanie Cross Susan Dansker Anne Dauer Dexter and Jean Dawes Dennis Debroeck and Nancy Heinen Judy and Marty Deggeller Laurie Ann Deghetaldi Nadezhda Derugin Marge DeStaebler Dennis and Cynthia Dillon Stan Dirks and Linda Fenney Judie Dodson Susan and Al Dorsky The Doves Peter Drekmeier and Amy Adams Jack Dubin Kathleen and Terry Duryea Edmonds Family Dee Eduardo and Karl Gohl Michael Eldredge Linda and Jerome Elkind Leif and Sharon Erickson Irene Estelle and Ed Logg Bruce and Vivian Euzent Marie and Eric Evitt Madeleine and Steve Fackler Rhonda E. Farber James Feichtl Drs S.S and M.W. Feldman Darryl Fenwick and Celine Scheidt Sally Ferejohn Tom and Nancy Fiene Judi and Jerry Finch Daphne Forrest Smith Foster Art and Wilderness Foundation Lois and William Fowkes Marybeth Fox Mellicent and David Fraticelli Margaret and Ed Friedrichs Addie Fukuda Anne and Stephen Galli Sandy Gant and Mike Nelson Diana Garcia Michele Garside, Ph.D Rebecca Geraldi Dr. and Mrs. James Gibbons Betsy Gifford Dexter Girton K. Goforth Chetan Gokhale Judith Goldberg Srinivasa Gopaladhine, Aparna Rao and Sanjana Reddy Janice Grady Rosaline Graham Jeanette and Harold Guthart Susan and Michael Hahn Kathryn Hall Steve Halprin Jon Halsey Paul Hammes Sonya Hanna Margaret and Robert B. Harrington Hartzell Family Fund Nancy and Howard Hassen Joan and Ted Haynes Raymond and Elsa Heald Jerry Hearn and Rebecca Reynolds Sheryl Heckmann Carol and Dick Heermance Cindy Heitzman Sue Hessel and Karen Dahle Henry Heubach Steven R Hibshman John Hickson and Sarah Babin Marian and Tom Hill Harvey and Margaret Hinman Jan Z. Hintermeister Robin Holbrook Karen C. Holman Marilyn and Neil Hornor Caryn Huberman Yacowitz Laurie Hunter Barbara N. Hurley and Kevin A. Sawyer The Ibars-Suarez Family Matthew and Connie Ives Veda Jadcherla Patricia Jager Anna and Rudy Jaklitsch Nico and Craig Janik May Jiang W B Johnson Kathryn and A.C. Johnston Aileen and Alvin Jong Nancy Julien Fred and Wendy Kahn Heather Kantor Dan and Rory Kaplan Rosie Kaplan and Harvey Goldenberg Ruth and Arnie Kaufman Marilyn L. Keller Lisa C. Van Dusen and John Kelley Jan Kilner Barbara Kingsley Ms. Barbara Klein and Mr. Stan Schrier Elizabeth and Rick Kniss Pete and Ann Knopf Phyllis and Eric Knudsen Iris and Hal Korol Tony and Judy Kramer Catherine Krieger Bobby and Art Kushner Nancy Kux Jazmin LeBlanc and Matthew McClain Jennifer Lee Mrs. Harold Leitstein John and Karen Lemes Richard Lenon and Leslie Hsu Douglas and Ginger Levick Leland D. Levy and Judy Huey Shoshana and Ronald Levy Ann and George Limbach Shirlann and Harvey Lindenberg Barbara Mackraz Peggie MacLeod Ellie Mansfield Stan Mantell Connie Mariottini Ann Markevitch Jane and Michael Marmor Ann Marsh-Meigs and Eric Meigs Joanna Martin Janet Martin Frances and John Martin Catherine Martineau Joseph Mason Mary Anna Matasumoto Nancy Mayo Doreen and Robert Mazzei Megan McCaslin Gloria McClain Diane McCoy Walter and Mary McCullough Katherine and Ryan McDougall John McGaraghan Judith McGovern Evelyn McGown Kimberly and John McMorrow Bill and Mimi Meffert Jane Meier Daniel R. Merians Roger Mertz James Migdal and Victoria Thorp Brian and Beverly Miller Wilma Milligan Susann and Richard Mirabella Mary-Mignon Mitchell Linda Monosson Nancy Montague Vicki Moore and Scott Chan Betsy Morgenthaler David and Jane Moss Carol B. Muller and Albert K. Henning Esra Mutlugun Lisette and Ray Narragon Marty and Nancy Newman Ann and Sam Ng Liz and Gary Nielsen Jan Nix Maureen R. O’Kicki Carol and Steve Olson Andrew Page David and Karen Paradise Michael Patrick Karen Pauls Enid Pearson Sandra and Scott Pearson Peters Family Trust Fund Gloria Pfister ON A WARM MORNING, a busload of third graders explored the oak woodland at Stevens Creek Park. One of them noticed that there were a lot of holes in a tree. It looked like there was something in them! What could make these holes? People? Bugs? Are squirrels stashing acorns in them? Shikhar was one of the students who noticed the distinct holes for the first time. He was amazed to learn they were a granary made by an acorn woodpecker to store acorns. Shikhar was so excited about all of the discoveries he made that day that he couldn’t wait to tell his mom everything about that field trip. Shikhar is one of the many students who go home and invite their family to come back to the park. Experiences like these inspire young students to encourage their families to get outdoors. Experiencing the local parks and appreciating nature are the first steps to protecting it.10 | Donors Donors | 11 HERITAGE OAKS CIRCLE Our Heritage Oaks Circle honors the dedicated people who share our commitment to lasting environmental education and stewardship and have included Environmental Volunteers in their will, living trust or another part of their estate plan. If you have included a gift in your estate plan, please let us know so that we can thank you for your special commitment. We have attempted to create an accurate listing of EV’s supporters and volunteers. Should there be any error or omission, please email development@EVols.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS John Armstrong, Co-Chair Hazel Watson, Co-Chair Rodrigo Alfaro Dudley Anderson Alex Chan Michael Eldridge Joyce Friedrichs Diana Garcia Kate Godfrey Jan Hustler Marion Krause Don McDougall Debra McLaughlin Kimberly McMorrow Jerry Patrick Michael Patrick Larry Spivak Rupesh Shah Maya Watts STAFF Elliott Wright, Executive Director Toby Goldberg Molly Landrith Arlene Mitchell Susan Phung Brittany Sabol Jacqueline Steenhuis Montserrat Suarez Drew Thompson Christine Zack COLLEGE TEACHING INTERNS Katherine Allan Marisa Dobkins Catherine Golinvaux Allison Ngo Drew Thompson (promoted to staff) The Environmental Volunteers are a CLOSE KNIT AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY Kaitlyn Pham Barbara and Stuart Phillips Susan Phung Nancy and Steve Player Toby Pollock Charles and Maritere Preuss Charles F. and Barbara Preuss Deborah and Richard Probst Jonathan Prosnit Dan and Helen Quinn Kevin Raftory Mr. and Mrs. Hy Ramm Christine Rammler Ann Rando Margot and Mark Rawlins Alan Ray Julie Reis Shirley Reith Joyce Rice Robert E. and Marge Rice Diane and Joe Rolfe T.Meredith Ross Margaret and Robert Row Martha Rubin and Dick Tingey Jeff and Ellen Rudy Victoria Rundorff Steve Rutledge Susan and Mike Sabes Robin Sabes John and Kitti Salera Jennifer Saltzman James and Andrea Sandstrom Jan and Vic Schachter Greg Scharff Suzanne and J. Robert Schauwecker In Memory Of Alexander H. Schilling Kathy Schmidt Susan Schoenung Leslie Schroeder Science from Scientists Katie and Eric Seedman Barbara Seipp Edward and Linda Selden Irwin Seltzer Sempervirens Fund Barbara and Skip Shapiro Carol Sheetz Nancy Shepherd Phyllis Sherlock, PhD. Charles Sieloff Wendy Sinton Jerry and Dick Smallwood The Stephen S. Smith and Paula K. Smith Family Foundation Dennis and Ellen Smith Marilyn Smith Susan and Yuen So Gail and Ernie Solomon Sophie and Arthur Brody Foundation Bonnie and Peter Sorenson Larry Spivak Spyridi Stanford 9-Hole Golf Kathy Stark and Chris Aoki Brian Steen and Sandra Wilson Jacqueline Steenhuis Isaac and Madeline Stein Noel and Carol Stevens Lynne and Eric Stietzel Michal Strutin and Michael Sinensky James Sutherland Marilyn Sutorius Julia Teitelbaum Richard Tejeda Donna Terman and William Brown Nancy Thomas Chuck and Jean Thompson Carl and Susan Thomsen Diane and Ian Thomson Peter Thurston Barbara Thurston Tiny Treks Kathy and Mike Torgersen Sunny Toy Bruce and Mary Beth Train Cammie Vail Ellen and David Vanderwilt Patricia Vautrinot Chris and Karen Wagner Jeanne Waite Barbara Waldeck Carrie Walker and Rick Kubelka Celia Walker Anna Waring Clare Warner Roger and Joan Warnke Cindy and Jay Watkins Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Watt Don Weden Al Whaley and Davy Davidson Sallie and Jay Whaley Wheel Kids Bicycle Club, Inc. Beth R. Whitmore Helen and Jim Wiant Kristi and Judson Wilson Linda Winkle Cory Wolbach Pat Worthington and Jim Dehnert Elliott and Rachel Wright Chet and Ruth Ann Wrucke Laurie Yessick Cathy Yu Yongke Zhang and Jie Liu Monique Le Conge Ziesenhenne Anonymous CORPORATE $10,000 and up HP Symantec Corporation Western Digital Corporation Anonymous $5,000 to $9,999 Kohls Department Store, Inc $1,000 to $4,999 Apple Corporate Grants Audi Palo Alto Cody Anderson Wasney Architects Holman Automotive Group, Inc McAfee Nintendo of America Inc. Plaza Deli Presidio Bank, Palo Alto REI Outdoor School Vista Capital Partners $1 to $999 Agilent Technologies ArmorBlox Ascend.io Google Donations for Doers Network for Good On Demand Publishing LLC Robinhood TRIBUTE GIFTS In Honor of: Bob Dodge Don and Mary McDougall Dudley and Elaine Anderson Ellen and Mike Turbow Elliott Wright Frosty Krieger Jan Fenwick Jan Hustler Jeff and Susan Englander Joyce Friedrichs Julie Jerome Kate Godfrey Marilyn and Neil Hornor Marion Krause Mary Paine Mr. and Mrs. R. Watt Naomi Friedland Patricia Jager Rand Ginn Susan and Michael Hahn Toby Pollock In Memory of: Adelyn “Addie” Fukuda Alba R. deJesus Alexander H. Schilling Audrey Kass Joanne Greenwald Karen Nilsson Lisabeth Kaplan and Gara Nyberg Lu Bingham Mary Martin Michelle Mazzei Suzanne Mantell Vivian Graham-Barcic LEADERSHIP 12 | Donors Leadership | 13 ALL ILLUSTRATIONS John (Jack) Muir Laws is a naturalist, artist, and educator who has dedicated his work to connecting people to nature through art and science. From an early age, his parents instilled in him a deep love and respect for nature. Over the years, that love has grown to a commitment to stewardship and a passion to share the delight of exploring nature with others. As both a scientist and an artist, Laws has developed interdisciplinary programs that train students to observe with rigor and to refine techniques to become intentionally curious. Every month he teaches a nature drawing workshop around the San Francisco Bay Area, including at the EcoCenter. All of us at EV are excited to continue our partnership with John Muir Laws. After a year of Nature Journaling Programs, we have big plans ahead. BY JOHN MUIR LAWS John Muir Laws teaching Nature journaling at the Eco Center. More than 160 nature lovers have participated EV’s Nature Journaling Program. Environmental Volunteers • www.EVols.org 2560 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 • (650) 493-8000 1210 Homestead Road · Santa Clara, CA 95050 • (408) 244-2449 To find out how you can support Environmental Education visit us at www.evols.org/support. You can also call us at 650-493 8000 or email us development@evols.org. Environmental Volunteers is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Tax ID number: 94-2550385 To: City of Palo Alto RE: EV Volunteer Support Program for Foothills Nature Preserve From: Elliott Wright, Executive Director Date: January 18, 2021 Dear Mr. Shikada, members of City Council, colleagues and Parks and Recreation Commissioners: People are getting outside a lot more than normal right now, and Foothills Nature Preserve is no exception. All of the major land managing agencies alongside municipal parks and local open space preserves are reporting record attendance. That is why I want to congratulate the City of Palo Alto for doing a great job with the opening month of Foothills Nature Preserve. There are some key decisions ahead, and we want to be helpful. I'm writing partly to report on a successful new location for our volunteer support program for Foothill Park visitors. With safety and health protocols observed, we connected with 112 people in two hours at Baronda Lake on Saturday. The test went well. People appreciate having an opportunity to ask questions, and it is clear that mere presence is helpful. Many of the questions we answered were related to parking, trails, rules, clarifications around hours, and upcoming programs. We had LNT and #recreateresponsibly messaging out alongside our nature and identification materials, and we also spoke with a number of people who were interested in finding new volunteering opportunities. It is clear that we will be able to source additional people to volunteer for Foothills Nature Preserve from this sort of activity. We had 142 registered guests at our last nature program online, and we are actively building a monthly program that many Foothills visitors will be interested in attending. The Environmental Volunteers is pleased to partner with the City of Palo Alto to assure safe, fun, and meaningful nature experiences at all of the City’s parks and natural areas. This is especially true at Foothills Nature Preserve and Baylands Nature Preserve. As described in a report to our working group, Environmental Volunteers have made good progress on the implementation of a new volunteer program to support Foothills Nature Preserve despite challenges through COVID-19. ORGANIZATION MISSION Founded in 1972, the mission of the Environmental Volunteers (the EV) is to promote the understanding of and responsibility for the environment through hands-on environmental science education. Our vision is that all people will learn about and be inspired by the natural world so that they become responsible stewards of the Earth. BRIEF HISTORY INCLUDING FOOTHILLS PARK The EV was founded in 1972 by a group of citizens concerned about preserving the nature for future generations. Together they created a small, hands-on program and recruited volunteers to take elementary school children into nature so they could experience it, understand it, enjoy it, and grow to take care of it. More than 49 years later, the EV has earned its status as a leading science and nature education provider that engages thousands of students and community members each year. For the past ten years we have averaged about 125 field trips each year for local schools. In conversations with several volunteers, Foothills Nature Preserve is a site that we once visited but it became more difficult to manage because it was something that we could only access with PAUSD. Moving forward, and in line with the six additional sites that we have in our regular rotation, we would eventually like to return to Foothills Preserve for docent led interpretive programs. As an organization that hosts hundreds of field trips each year, we are also looking forward to re-establishing more programs in the coming years. RECENT PROGRAMS We have worked very hard during the past several months to be responsive, innovative and flexible in our approach to program delivery by creating a wide variety of new programming to accommodate the diverse needs of students, parents, teachers and schools during these unprecedented times. New programs include: Nature Discovery (NOW AT FOOTHILLS PRESERVE) Throughout the last decade and the majority of 2020 we have hosted tables of volunteer docents in local preserves. At the Baylands preserve we have focused on site-specific information to get people curious before or after their hikes. We like to share “rad facts” but also neat information about the ways we can help steward and protect our natural resources. Self-guided nature walks (IN DEVELOPMENT FOR FOOTHILLS PRESERVE) These small group trips are designed to help students get to know our local city parks and open space areas without having to get on a bus or other communal transportation. These are also being developed for self-guided exploration. The trips are currently being offered to individual families and will be offered when some in- person instruction resumes. Virtual Synchronous Programs (FEATURING FOOTHILLS ECOLOGY) We have created a broad selection of live, interactive virtual science programs designed to support Next Generation Science Standard topics delivered remotely by our trained volunteers. Asynchronous Programs A selection of pre-recorded science lessons and take-home activities teachers can select to fit their curriculum needs that do not require an outside instructor. Sprout Up Explores An engaging environmental science video curriculum for K-4 students consisting of twice-weekly lessons with corresponding worksheets, activities, and experiments designed to be fun, engaging and meaningful. This is our 49th Anniversary, and I am personally so grateful to everyone at the City of Palo Alto. Your founding and longstanding support for the EV has made a tremendous impact to more than 450,000 children in our community over the past nearly five decades. Looking forward into 2021, we hope to support more volunteer programs to welcome future visitors at the preserve with relevant information, guidance, and support to assure a positive experience for all at Foothill and Bayland Preserves. The City of Palo Alto is a founding partner of EV, a driving force in making possible our EcoCenter, supportive of our programs in nearly 400 classrooms and field locations. Many City staff are also the hands of our Volunteers, and are truly a source of inspiration to move our mission forward. Please let me know if I can answer any questions, and I look forward to seeing you all soon. Sincerely and respectfully, Elliott Wright Executive Director 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Kristen Zuraek <kristenzuraek@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:38 AM To:Council, City Cc:Sarah Robustelli Subject:Re: Foothill Park Open to the Public - Safety concerns from nearby resident Attachments:foothill park opening.jpg; foothill park 7.jpg; foothill park opening 3.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning City Council Members of Palo Alto, My name is Kristen Zuraek. I have been a resident of the town of Los Altos Hills since 2006. My residence is at the epicenter of this Foothill Park opening chaos. My property, 11854 Page Mill Road, is directly across from Foothill Park. As tonight's meeting approaches, my issues and position as stated in the attached previous email have not changed. However, I have listed some new observations and concerns. Thus, I have additional suggestions to rectify these issues. I greatly thank you for this opportunity to address them. This weekend's beautiful weather proved to deliver more public masses yet again. I would like to invite you to meet on my property - in my arena or in my driveway - to witness first hand the disruption, the unsafe driving and crossing, the sheer numbers entering and exiting. The following are items to which I have given much thought. I would appreciate and welcome your time to meet and address these items proactively so restrictions implemented are appropriate and effective. 10-3 closure ineffective: During the 10-3 closure, visitors cannot park in Foothill Park. We have put delineators along Central Drive, a private drive, to temporarily handle the no parking situation. Therefore, the public has resorted to illegally pulling into my driveway and the corners of and the middle of Central Drive to drop off their party, often blocking the roads and/or pedestrian pathway. The driver then makes an illegal u-turn at the entrance of Central to drive off and find a place to park. Same situation for pickup. Nonstop groups of people wait along my property for their ride to come get them. Same illegal u-turns. Same blocking of the roads during loading. As you can see, not allowing the cars in and even charging a vehicle fee in the future, will not mitigate this issue. The public will continue to drop off their party and search for a parking spot so as to avoid the vehicle fee. 8 My property corner is NOT a "bus stop". It is NOT a "drop off/pickup" zone. No signage will stop this. It's recommended the park offer a "drop off/pick up" zone within the park. This is much safer for vehicles and pedestrians and resolves the disturbance to the nearby residents. To make matters worse, I am an equestrian and run an equestrian business so my horses have drawn an intrusive amount of attention. I am not opposed to people enjoying the horses, but the quantity is overwhelming and many are too close creating liability concerns. Entrance Fee for Vehicles AND Pedestrians: Pedestrians must be charged or vehicle parking will continue to overwhelm our communities especially the residents closest to the park. Everyone should be charged to enter the park. Not just vehicles, but pedestrians, too. Implemented fees could vary reflecting various groups such as at national parks i.e. a discount for seniors, a discount or annual pass for locals, a lesser rate or no charge for youth. Additionally, fees charged to enter the park should help fund the resources and signage now required as a result of opening the park to all. For instance, no parking or permit only parking will need to be posted. A crosswalk with speed bumps should be installed at the base of the Palo Alto asphalt pathway to ensure a safe crossing. Currently, pedestrians are climbing/descending wildlife pathways, slipping on the blind curve, crossing and destroying the land up and down Page Mill along the park. Reservations: Reservations would help control the number of entries to the park. This would significantly improve safety all the way around. The vehicles and the number of visitors would be kept to manageable count. Daily Enforcement: These restrictions must be daily. Only implementing these measures on weekends and holidays would leave us in the same dire situation during summer and winter breaks. Shuttle System for transportation: A shuttle system to manage the vehicles to all 3 preserves would be beneficial to the region. It could shuttle to Arastradero, Foothill, and Los Trancos. This would promote safety by relieving the road from overwhelming traffic, reduce the noise pollution, and protect bicyclists and locals. Environmental concerns: Finally, the importance of environmental protection. I watched the deer leave the park. Now, how do I know he is running from the masses? Of course, I don't, but as a resident planted in the middle of this traffic nightmare, the noise pollution and the quantity of visitors and vehicles is absolutely detrimental to my peace and serenity. It is beyond reason to think that the wildlife is less affected or not affected. They are far more sensitive than I am to these disturbances. The wildlife in the park should be preserved and protected. Thus, the quantity of those entering must be controlled. 9 Thank you for addressing this issue. Again, I invite you to my property to view the severity of the situation first hand. I look forward to working together to solve these issues. Kristen Zuraek 11854 Page Mill Road Los Altos Hills 408-460-7226 On Thursday, January 14, 2021, 11:51:17 AM PST, Kristen Zuraek <kristenzuraek@sbcglobal.net> wrote: To whom it may concern, The recent opening of Foothill Park to the public has created great safety concerns for our neighborhood. Obviously, you have been made aware of many of these concerns, as the hours have been changed, metal beam guardrail is being installed, etc. Being a resident directly across the street from the park, I have had an up close and personal experience with the masses trying to enter, being turned around, trying to park in every nook and cranny in our neighborhood, pedestrians on both sides of Page Mill crossing at all different places, cars making u turns illegally on side streets and on Page Mill, cars stopping in my driveway to drop people off so they don't have to walk so far, many people stopping out front my property to visit with my horses along the way, walking up my driveway thinking it is a pathway, mail theft (mailbox and front gate), bicyclists mixed in with this traffic, orange delineators all along the private drive, the list goes on. The 10-3 no entrance slowed this during these hours, but come 3pm it is no different. So, that alleviated a portion of the hazard, but only during those hours. A fee, if imposed, must be for vehicular and pedestrian access or the vehicles will be trying to park everywhere in the Town of Los Altos Hills. Enforcing pedestrian fees will be a challenge as fences are low and easily traversed. A reservation system might be more lucrative to manage the masses. This will control the numbers entering the area. Only those with a reservation will be arriving. That seems manageable. I thank you for addressing these concerns. I am available to discuss any questions, thoughts, concerns. Again, I am on Page Mill Road directly across from the park and have witnessed the opening from day 1. I have walked down to discuss my safety concerns with the park rangers. I am neither for or against opening the park to the public, but opening the park to the public has opened my property to the public. That has had a large negative impact upon me and my neighbors. Thank you and I look forward to working with the City of Palo Alto to resolve these safety concerns. Sincerely, Kristen Zuraek 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jon Foster <jfoster@jfoster.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:32 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 Members, I understand you are considering establishing a reservation system for admittance to Foothills Park on weekends. I write to express my strong support for the idea. I have, over the years, very much enjoyed visiting Foothills Park whenever I want and, needless to say, I don't look forward to having to make a reservation. But the current situation of the park being closed to anyone arriving between 10am and 3pm on Saturdays and Sundays is much worse. I recommend the following approach: On the prior Saturday at 9am, online reservations would open for the following Saturday and Sunday. For example, on Sat, Feb 6 starting at 9am, anyone could go online and reserve admission to the park for Sat, Feb 13 or Sun, Feb 14. Some reservation slots would be held back and would be made available starting at 9am one day prior. So on Fri, Feb 12 at 9am, some slots for Sat, Feb 13 and Sun, Feb 14 would become available. That leaves some room for people to make a shorter‐notice decision to visit Foothills Park. I would hold back 20% of slots for the day before. Reservations would be on a per vehicle basis. There would be a certain number of slots available for each hour the park is open (e.g., 50 slots at 8am, 50 slots at 9am, etc.) If you make a reservation at a certain time, you have to show up at Foothills Park within 59 minutes of that time or you lose your reservation. In other words, you can't make a reservation for 8am and then show up at noon. I recommend charging $5 per vehicle for up to two vehicles. (Groups with more than three or four vehicles would require a second person to make a reservation for those additional vehicles.) There has to be some fee because otherwise people will make reservations just in case they decide they want to visit Foothills Park — and will then end up not using their reservation. Charging a fee makes it much more likely people will only make a reservation if they are committed to showing up. That's it. I think this approach would be welcome by both Palo Alto residents and visitors from other towns. In fact, it might be welcome even more by people from other towns because they don't want to drive all the way to Foothills Park only to find out they can't get in. On the issue of administering the reservation system, I think the company that is running Rinconada Pool is doing a very good job with their system, so I recommend looking at the possibility of hiring them to also handle Foothills Park. One comment is they open their reservations at midnight, which is not a good idea — forces people to stay awake until midnight if they want to get a reservation. Hence my recommendation above that reservations open at 9am. Thanks, Jon Foster Palo Alto Resident 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan C <teachinator@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Irina Beylin; Forster Mike Subject:Take steps to mitigate the damage already caused to Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I support and second the comments and recommendations made by Irina Beylin in her correspondence today regarding mitigating the crowding and overuse of Foothills Park due to the recent city action. Susan Cole 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jon Foster <jfoster@jfoster.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:32 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 Members, I understand you are considering establishing a reservation system for admittance to Foothills Park on weekends. I write to express my strong support for the idea. I have, over the years, very much enjoyed visiting Foothills Park whenever I want and, needless to say, I don't look forward to having to make a reservation. But the current situation of the park being closed to anyone arriving between 10am and 3pm on Saturdays and Sundays is much worse. I recommend the following approach: On the prior Saturday at 9am, online reservations would open for the following Saturday and Sunday. For example, on Sat, Feb 6 starting at 9am, anyone could go online and reserve admission to the park for Sat, Feb 13 or Sun, Feb 14. Some reservation slots would be held back and would be made available starting at 9am one day prior. So on Fri, Feb 12 at 9am, some slots for Sat, Feb 13 and Sun, Feb 14 would become available. That leaves some room for people to make a shorter‐notice decision to visit Foothills Park. I would hold back 20% of slots for the day before. Reservations would be on a per vehicle basis. There would be a certain number of slots available for each hour the park is open (e.g., 50 slots at 8am, 50 slots at 9am, etc.) If you make a reservation at a certain time, you have to show up at Foothills Park within 59 minutes of that time or you lose your reservation. In other words, you can't make a reservation for 8am and then show up at noon. I recommend charging $5 per vehicle for up to two vehicles. (Groups with more than three or four vehicles would require a second person to make a reservation for those additional vehicles.) There has to be some fee because otherwise people will make reservations just in case they decide they want to visit Foothills Park — and will then end up not using their reservation. Charging a fee makes it much more likely people will only make a reservation if they are committed to showing up. That's it. I think this approach would be welcome by both Palo Alto residents and visitors from other towns. In fact, it might be welcome even more by people from other towns because they don't want to drive all the way to Foothills Park only to find out they can't get in. On the issue of administering the reservation system, I think the company that is running Rinconada Pool is doing a very good job with their system, so I recommend looking at the possibility of hiring them to also handle Foothills Park. One comment is they open their reservations at midnight, which is not a good idea — forces people to stay awake until midnight if they want to get a reservation. Hence my recommendation above that reservations open at 9am. Thanks, Jon Foster Palo Alto Resident 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan C <teachinator@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Irina Beylin; Forster Mike Subject:Take steps to mitigate the damage already caused to Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I support and second the comments and recommendations made by Irina Beylin in her correspondence today regarding mitigating the crowding and overuse of Foothills Park due to the recent city action. Susan Cole 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Yehia Rizk <yrizk@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:15 AM To:Council, City Cc:yehia rizk Subject:Request for Disclosure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi This is a follow up to my previous 12/12/2020 email (Council Packet 1/11/2021) regarding my concern about enforcing the new ordinance (#5507) on my pending ADU application. I am attaching the part of the email I received from Planning Division Chief ( Amy French ) with her justification. It looks like she is using some unnamed previous ordinances ( with pending project exemption ) as a precedent for justification. Can you please disclose any previous city ordinance(s) (with pending project exemption) so I can believe her justification and that the City Council agrees with her interpretation of how the new ordinance should be implemented?. Thanks. Yehia Rizk 2 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 7:56 PM To:Maloney, Con Cc:knguyen@sunnyvaleca.gov; AHERBERT@SUNNYVALE.CA.GOV; Chantel.brown12@gmail.com Subject:Re: PAPD - SILVER ALERT: ( Heidi Yauman ) Thank you Con. I followed up with Sunnyvale DPS officer Phillip, who contacted CHP in attempt get silver alert. CHP declined . I am attaching a very recent photo of Heidi that her daughter sent me. This was shortly before she disapeared and she wearing the same clothing in the photo that she was wearing when I last seen her. I will send this photo to Veronica Calderon to confirm that these were same clothes Heidi was wearing when seen The Market at Edgewood. Thank you so much for your concern and help, & your kindness over last 25 years. Cary 4 On January 16, 2021 at 12:59 PM, "Maloney, Con" <Con.Maloney@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Cary, It sounds like Heidi was reported missing to Sunnyvale DPS? If that’s the case, they would need to request a Silver Alert through the CHP. Please remember that the Silver Alert is used on a very limited basis and has a defined criteria that must be met. Good luck. I hope Heidi is safe. Con 5 From: Cary Andrew Crittenden [mailto:caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com] Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 8:53 AM To: Maloney, Con Cc: pngo@cityofsunnyvale.org Subject: PAPD - SILVER ALERT: ( Heidi Yauman ) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Con, Can you please issue Silver Alert? Thanks, Cary Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/16/2021 To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: abjpd1@gmail.com,supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,San.fran cosco@ic.fbi.gov Subject: Fwd: CHP SILVER ALERT: ( Heidi Yauman ) I just called Palo Alto PD requested Silver Alert. Waiting for cAll back Please see attached documentation & refer to USC Title 18 Section 4. Cary Andrew Crittenden 6 Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/16/2021 To: AMANDA.RAY@CHP.CA.GOV Cc: supreme.sourt@jud.ca.gov,AHERBERT@SUNNYVALE.CA.GO V,knguyen@sunnyvaleca.gov,citymgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov,abjpd1 @gmail.com,dtiogson@sunnyvaleca.gov,Christopher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>,Chantel.brown12@gmail.com,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov Subject: CHP SILVER ALERT: ( Heidi Yauman ) ATT AMANDA RAY, California Highway Patrol Please issue Silver Alert immediately for Heidi Yauman. See attached documentation & refer to USC Title 18 Section 4 Contact Sunnyvale and Palo Alto PD Thank You, Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/16/2021 To: abjpd1@gmail.com,j@fuerylaw.com,kenditkowsky@yahoo.com,Christopher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.com> Cc: dtiogson@sunnyvaleca.gov,knguyen@sunnyvaleca. gov,supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,citymgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov,david.rose@aog.ca.gov,Chantel.brown12@ 7 gmail.com,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,karim.kahwaji@ssa.sccgov.org Subject: Fwd: ARAM JAMES - URGENT ( Heidi Yauman ) All, Be advised that at 7:10 this morning, I was threatened again by Security guard at 816 West Ahwanee Avenue that Police would call police for first amendment protected activity against myself & residents who fear for their safety. There is still no effective grievance process in place & residents are being deprived of their first amendment right to redress grievances &. have chosen to bring their concerns to my attention. One guard today told me that they were specifically directed to not allow anyone to photograph or video building or residents. One resident has recently informed me she had been followed by SVSP security to Lucky's grocery store and back. The security guard allegedly followed her around while she was doing her shopping. I let guard know that because felonies had been committed, if Heidi Yauman dies they could be charged with murder. I called Sunnyvale PD at 7:13 AM today and briefed them on situation. Regards, 8 Cary Andrew Critteden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/16/2021 To: abjpd1@gmail.com Cc: Chantel.brown12@gmail.com,aherbert@sunnyvaleca.goibv,knguyen@sunnyvalecsa.gov,pngo@cityofsunnyv ale.org,vagabondinnsunnyvale@gma il.com,citymgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov,jo e.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Subject: Fwd: ARAM JAMES - URGENT ( Heidi Yauman ) Hello Aram, I accidentally sent to your Juno account accidentally instead of Gmail. this must have been why I did not hear back. A woman near camp told I was trespassing & would call police. I will not leave and can bot because Heidi beexds ti be able to find me if she comes back. Sunnyvale Pollice absolutely can not en force trespassing ordinance when they ( LT Ramirez ) is responsible for causing the situation. I am staying put.. - She did niot identify herself and she did not specify (which property) sod still not valid because I have no way of knowing whether she has authority over property. 9 I Also have other legal business there & others have given me permission. I was simply charging laptop. This maybe going out in National Radio tomorrow. It was cold last night & Heidi is out there somewhere. I don't know if she had blankets or anything. Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittende n@icloud.com> Date: 1/15/2021 To: abjpd1@juno.com Cc: citymgr@sunnyvale.c a.gov,janet_c_phelan @yahoo.com,Christo pher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.c om>,derrick.brigham @pts.sccgov.org,supr eme.court@jud.ca.go v,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,debra.ryan@scs 10 court.org,knguyen@sunnyvaleca.gov Subject: ARAM JAMES - URGENT ( Heidi Yauman ) Aram, A combination of good news and bad news. Heidi has gone missing since Tuesday, she went to take a shower at trinity church and never returned. She has shower at our hotel room at 816 West Avenue, which we are I legal possession of , and being kept out of our home. Federal Fema funds are being misapropriatrd $ security guards from SVSP are being paid with federal funds to engage in harassment snd threats against myself and Heidi Yauman. Good news is that she has been seen yesterday at Edgewood Shopping center ( Market at Edgewood ) by Veronica Calderon & there is active missing person case. Sunnyvale and 11 Palo Alto have alot of great officers. I asked Sunnyvale officer Phillips to contact LT Con Malone who knows Heid and I both & also the area & great officer & awesome guy. Later in the morning, Sunnyvale PD has agreed to address the issues at Vagabond inn with Heidi and I being illegal kept from our home , the felonies committed and deprivation of property without due process & deprivation of rights under color of law. I have no hard feelings against lt. Ramirez , and though I don't believe he acted lawfully and in good faith, there is also evidence that he has been fed false information and other Sunnyvale officers amazed me in not only their knowledge of the US Constitution, but their willingness to protect Heidi keep her safe and protect her rights. 12 Would you please, at your earliest convenience follow up with Sunnyvale PD on. getting this situation resolved & getting us back inside. We were both model tenants and there is no evidence that either of us violated. The accusations stated as fact in fraudulent documentation are without merit, basis or foundation. They are malicious lies and can not be given any more value than deserved. Will no axe to grind or ill will toward LT Ramirez, it needs to be made clear that I was threatened with unlawful arrest if I did not comply with the extortion demands or leave our home. Regardless of how Ramirez intended this to be interpreted, To me, it was "Threat against Heidi's life" because if were to be arrested (lawfully or not), Heidi could easily die out in the winter. Robert Rocco had understood that this was under investigation and made big joke about 13 it, & the more I pled to resolve conflict & address these legitimate grievances & the more hostile and sarcastic he became & made big joke about Heidi's Life & threatened to call security because I tried to protect her. This is unacceptable and I intend to follow up with prosecution. First and foremost, we need to find Heidi, return her home & ensure that these attacks stop, some sort of induction be issued to prevent the harassment and that we be allowed to live our lives in peace. Thank you, Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andre w Critten den <carya 155 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 1:16 PM To:tips@businessinsider.com Cc:David Meiswinkle; Frank Agamennon; biotica@aol.com; Dennis Tiernan; Lou Basile; Andres Lorraine; A Son Of RevWar; Agnes Gibboney; njgunfun@gmail.com; Apple & Anthony Jaraza; Activist Post; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; Jackie Andres Schnell; Tom Fitton On The Air Report; Linda BURROUGHS; Cedar Swamp Historical Society Collection; Cedar Swamp Historical Society Collection; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Council, City; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Elisha van Deusen; Harold G. Delameter; tellallwtc7@gmail.com; Paula Dassbach; Ed Durfee; Rick Engel; Father Boby Kurian; The Motley Fool; Forbidden Knowledge TV; Sherry Gerszberg; Don & Rue Green; Sea Girt Medical; Gary Flanagan; Mark Schleck Subject:John Sullivan, Getting the Sniff Test. Sizing Up A Cell Mate ??? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hey, Dimbulbs at Business Insider. John Sullivan was reportedly arrested by the FBI for inciting riots at the Capitol on Jan.6! Some say he arrived with 4 bus loads of ANTIFA/BLM, dressed as Trump supporters, and procedded to do what the Kommie Skum always do. Didn't you get the MEMO, or perhaps you have another TREASONOUS AGENDA of waging a war against a sitting president ? The FBI is now actively engaged in rounding more of them up, since they were so stupid as to video themselves doing their crimes. How long will we have to wait for a retraction of your article that blamed Trump and his supporters for causing that mayhem and murder ??? Inquiring minds want to know !!! We Are Waiting !!! Best Regards, & Stay Healthy ! RJS 156 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 11:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:RVs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please address the homeless on El Camino. It is dirty and everyone just loading their crap on the street. Here are pics across from the clinic. Also the person who lived under the little underpass at Homer. It is dirty, unsafe for riding and biking. I think we can do better than this. This should not be allowed !! 157 158 Sent from my iPhone 159 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11:16 AM To:Greer Stone; Council, City; chuck jagoda; Steven D. Lee; Raven Malone; Human Relations Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Cari Templeton; Cormack, Alison; Joe Simitian; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; DuBois, Tom; Shikada, Ed; Ron Hansen; Perron, Zachary Subject:SF plan would substitute civilians for police in response to non emergency situation involving the unhoused CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=1f1aaf003_1345bec Sent from my iPhone 160 Baumb, Nelly From:Daniel Mendez <daniel8mendez@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 6:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Teacher for affordable housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, My name is Daniel Mendez and I teach kindergarten at El Carmelo. I taught in Chicago for 6 years and going into my 4th year in PAUSD. This year has been the most interesting year by far. I’m writing to you because I’m starting to think about my long term future in PAUSD/Palo Alto. I would like to be a homeowner in the community where I teach. We know that’s impossible on my own. I don’t make enough to afford the 12,000 mortgage on a 2 million house. I could own a home in Oakland or maybe even San Jose and commute. (I know many are currently doing this because there are no other options) I could quit PAUSD and work in Oakland or San Jose but then I would not be able to afford that house anymore. Ive researched many home purchasing programs on my own and found that many are supporting purchasing with down payment assistance in other communities. Down payment programs are not very helpful without home prices being affordable. I would love to work on a team to support creating a teacher home buying program, below market rate for teachers or creating a streamlined housing program where 4-6 teachers qualify for funding to support building a unit for purchase. We would need support with acquiring land and work with builders/developers. We would need investors, donors and city support. I want to find a home for me and for teachers like me and future teachers. Many of my colleagues all have homes (when homes were more afforable), but there are newer teachers like myself that are starting this process. I would love to hear more from you all and would be interested in speaking with you more. Thank you, Daniel Mendez 161 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:31 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; fred beyerlein; David Balakian; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; 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; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; margaret- sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; midge@thebarretts.com Subject:Fwd: Long interview, but excellent, with MP involved in promoting Vit. D 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: Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Long interview, but excellent, with MP involved in promoting Vit. D To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:49 PM Subject: Long interview, but excellent, with MP involved in promoting Vit. D To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Tuesday, January 19, 2021 To all‐ Produced Monday, Jan. 18, 2021. Here is a long interview between Dr. Campbell of UK and a member of the House of Commons with a science background re Covid. They both are big believers in Vit. D, in the form of calcifediol. I looked and it is a Rx drug. But they think it can ameliorate Covid and a lot more, the flu, e.g. If you watch this you just learn and learn. Prostate issues, some c. Both agree that we have the perfect device for spreading viruses all over the world: the jet passenger plane. Before 1950, there was a LOT less traveling between continents. Now, everybody does it. I watched this within 10 min. of the end, and I'll watch that. You get hooked after a very few minutes. They talk about people living in northern latitudes getting less sun exposure, which is how we make Vit. D. Those Brits really do 162 live there. London is 700 miles farther north than is New York City. Think of Scotland. Even Rome is 30 miles farther north than is New York. When they say "Northern Europe", they really mean it. One time Mrs. Thatcher was in Wash., D.C. and you could see her on the network news there. Wow. She really had great skin, not so noticable on satellite from the UK. The Brits are so far north that they avoid a lot of the skin damage that we Yanks get. We have leather for skin compared to them. So you can see how they'd run Vit. D deficiencies. Highly recommended: Vitamin D with Mr David Davis MP ‐ YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 163 Baumb, Nelly From:mlb <mlb@thegrid.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:03 PM To:Council, City; Kou, Lydia Cc:geri@thegrid.net Subject:Lydia Kou's comments at tonight's council meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Ms. Kou's opening comment about the 25 million profit made on the upzoning was exactly right. Upzoning creates value, and it sounds like the owners of this property profited from the upzoning without creating anything of value. They gamed the system and made 25 million dollars. This type of situation can be resolved by adding a contingency that the upzoning is only valid if the entity who requests the upzoning be the one to develop it. If the property is sold before being developed, the upzoning is nullified. The new owners must refile for permission to upzone. Otherwise, property owners will seek upzoning just to make a profit from the change in status without actually developing the property. Allowing them to do so is a travesty that transfers value to the speculator at the expense of the actual developer. Mike Bechler 2533 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto CA 94301 164 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 2:33 PM To:Greer Stone; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Steven D. Lee; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; ravenmalonepa@gmail.com; Ed Lauing; DuBois, Tom; Cari Templeton; greg@gregtanaka.org; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; chuck jagoda; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Jethroe Moore; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:Martin Luther King and the ‘polite’ racism of white liberals - The Washington Post CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/17/martin‐luther‐king‐polite‐racism‐white‐liberals/ Sent from my iPhone 165 Baumb, Nelly From:Liz Gardner <gardnerjaqua@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:01 PM To:Council, City Cc:Angie Evans Subject:Equitable Housing an Imperative for Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable City Council Members, As we usher in a New President tomorrow and one day after Martin Luther King's Birthday, I am pleading with you here. As you may not be aware of the First Affordable Housing in Palo Alto was erected and designated behind Ohlone Elementary School in 1947. This was called the Lawrence Tract in honor of the first African American Stanford Professor. The limited but critical housing gave refuge and shelter to returning Japanese Interns and Jewish Hollcaust survivors. It was spearheaded by Gerta Isenburg of Los Altos and Palo Alto. This was hard to come by but by pioneering women and people of color that it was accomplished. It also provided much needed homes for African Americans who had served during WWII. I ask you now. Walk the talk of equitable of your campaign promises of fair based housing affordable to all not just the very, very rich. California and the Bay Area and especially this city is faced with a crisis that we can get in front of. Too much of the resistance is based on non factual fears about automobile traffic and open space. Creating, providing and holding on to the true values of our soul and liberal like minded progressive think tanks that you taught you are of ilk, means you must be accountable. Poor, disenfranchised minority individuals and families do not have the leisure, 166 education or know how to grease the wheels. Yet their votes need to count from your dias. I am happy to speak to the Council further. I do want to add. The format in which these housing meetings are held are biased to those that have access to computers and know how to use them. I would like to see a better outreach to the population in this town that have been unable to participate publically "online". "It takes a village" to offer inclusivity to all genders, incomes, cultural backgrounds. Please make this reality, take responsibility as leaders in a City that has a history in Affordable Housing. Please make your leadership count for everyone and not just a few. Thank you for your time. Liz Gardner 2500 El Camino Real #301 Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-845-7502 gardnerjaqua@gmail.com 167 Baumb, Nelly From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:47 AM To:Sara Cody; cindy chavez Subject:China Suspends Shots for 43 deaths CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. January 18, 2021 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. China Health Experts Call for Suspension of COVID Vaccines as Norway Investigates 33 Deaths, Germany Probes 10 Deaths By Children's Health Defense Team Norway upped the number of deaths under investigation, from 23 last week to 33, while in Germany, health officials said they are investigating 10 deaths that occurred among elderly patients who received the COVID vaccine. To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In California Health Officials Call for Pause on Moderna Vaccine Batch Due to Reports of Allergic Reactions California's top epidemiologist Dr. Erica S. Pan issued a statement Sunday evening recommending a pause ... 168 To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In ‘Important Victory’: Massachusetts Rescinds Flu Vaccine Mandate Facing lawsuits, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health withdrew the mandate that would have required all students under age 30 attending ... To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Violating Science, WHO Changes Meaning of Herd Immunity In June 2020, the WHO changed its definition of herd immunity, stating the only way to achieve herd immunity is by vaccination. The new definition is ... To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Warming Climate Linked to ‘Profound’ Drop in Child Nutrition A study of “diet diversity” found the impact of higher long-term temperatures on child nutrition could outweigh positive effects from socioeconomic and ... To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Wisconsin Nursing Home Staff Laid Off for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine + More The Defender’s COVID NewsWatch brings you the latest headlines on COVID-19 and vaccines. 169 What we're reading ... McDonalds pledges to stop using PFAS in food packaging by 2025 Oil industry reconsiders donations to election deniers, but it has its own big lie Clothes washing linked to ‘pervasive’ plastic pollution in the Arctic PG&E will pay up to $190M to clean up San Francisco marina\ Children’s Health Defense | ChildrensHealthDefense.org Our mission is to end the childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, and establish safeguards so this never happens again. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Forwarded by ARlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children Science. without. Common S--ence. equals. Failure. 170 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 10:27 AM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Megan Kirkeby; Dave Vautin; Kevin Kane Subject:Mercury News article on Embarcadero Institute report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/18/palo-alto-based-nimby-think-tank-says-bay-area-housing-goals-are-wrong-others-call-it-propaganda/ 171 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:15 AM To:Greer Stone; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Kou, Lydia; Steven D. Lee; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu Subject:The Mercury News E-Edition Article CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=3f77ebbeb_1345beb Sent from my iPhone 172 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:28 AM To:Honky Subject:Interesting Uncle Intel - (Disclaimer: Could be BS - however some of it rings true) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ? http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message4678470/pg1 Source: 4Chan High iq in-the-know here. Here is what actually happened since 1/6. 1. Pence really did cuck, he is not part of “the plan”. Trump was counting on him to create a forum/congressional inquiry in which election fraud would be heard and presented publicly, but since that didn’t work he had to go to the military. 2. On the evening of 1/6, Trump quietly left DC and spent the next week presenting his case to the military. The joint chiefs are traitors, but the top brass really running the military in strongholds like Cheyenne mountain are hardcore constitutionalists. Trump spent 24/7 presenting his fraud evidence, sone of which the public hasn’t seen like verifiable electronic signatures from China. 3. Trump hoped to convince the military and invoke insurrection act, but as I said these old school military guys are hardcore constitutionalists and won’t transgress it. They agreed to occupy DC and have the evidence presented in a full- blown military court case using the SCOTUS as a front. This is the real reason they are occupying DC, to keep the environment completely under control and precent (((interference))) from any party. 4. Believe it or not, Trump was not entirely happy with this because he wants to stay in power, but the constitution says he needs to step down as Congress certified Biden. The military made it clear they would NOT support the insurrection act as it would cause mass instability. 5. On the other hand, the military has essentially set up an interim government in DC. This is why they are occupying for at least several weeks after the inauguration while the SCOTUS case (again, really a front for a military tribunal) is carried out. Ground troops actually currently have no exit strategy, so it could the military government could go on even longer if needed. Last Edited by JADR+ on 01/17/2021 04:53 PM 173 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 2:57 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; fred beyerlein; David Balakian; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; 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; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Dr. Campbell- UK- Sunday, Jan. 17, 2021 Slight dw. trend in US in new cases 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: Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 2:28 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell‐ UK‐ Sunday, Jan. 17, 2021 Slight dw. trend in US in new cases To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 4:59 PM Subject: Dr. Campbell‐ UK‐ Sunday, Jan. 17, 2021 Slight dw. trend in US in new cases To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Late Monday night, Jan. 18, 2021 To all‐ An important vid. from Dr. John Campbell in the UK on Sunday, 1‐17‐21. Cases in U.S.: "Down a little. The new variant (Kent) is taking hold. Slightly promising situation in U.S. Seven day moving avg. of new cases down a little". Dr. Campbell: Difficult COVID month ahead ‐ YouTube Biden will use the DPA, FEMA and the National Guard to build vac. sites. So a wartime footing. Exec. Order: mask mandate for all indoor areas in the U.S. U.S. cases: 215,449 new cases in a week. 23,715,000 total cases. New cases down 8.1% in the past 7 days. National positivity rate is 11.1%, so lots of community transmission. Hospitalizations: 126,139, 23,523 in ICU, 7755 ventilated. Hospitalizations down 3.5% in seven days. Deaths, total in U.S.: 386,825, up 6.4% in the past 174 seven days. Vaccinations far slower than promised. But big centers are now opening in the U.S. With Biden, things will happen. In U.S., doses distributed: 31,161,075 First dose given: 10,595,866 Second dose given: 1,610,524. UK: Extreme pressure on hospitals. Number of cases trending down, but the number infected in the UK is huge‐ 750,000. The lock downs are working. Dead in UK: 1,000 per day. Dead in U.S.: 4,000 per day. Vaccinated in UK: first dose‐ 3,559,179, Second dose: 447,261 as of Jan. 15, 2021. "Johnson and Johnson vaccine: 30 million doses ordered in UK. The phase 3 data S/B out in a few days!!" LH‐ Then I suppose the FDA can start stalling on approving it for the U.S. for nine‐ twelve months. Oh, wait. That was the current FDA under Trump. The new, cleaned out FDA that Biden will install may get the J&J vaccine out a lot faster. 16:00 Here he reports some very important, big news: this is huge and all the major countries will have to do this. The UK is building a vaccine Super‐Factory for 158 million pounds. He says that is peanuts in this pandemic. "If a new VOC (virus of concern) is identified, the new factory will be able to produce enough vaccine to deal with it for every person in the UK in four months" It will be the biggest vaccine factory in the world. It will open in late 2021. It will export too at low cost. "When the next pandemic comes along, when, when it does (LH‐ He said it four times. WHEN the next pandemic comes along, not if), with this factory they will be able to make vaccines quicker. Every (major country in the world) needs to do this because the next pandemic could be 10X more transmissible, like measles, and 30X more deadly, like MERS or Ebola. We were lucky this time. We need this manufacturing line locally. The new UK plant will be called the Vaccines Manufacturing Innovation Center. VMIC. It will be a non‐profit, organized by the government. It will be able to produce 70 million doses of vaccine in four‐five months. It will be able to produce mRNA vaccines like the Pfizer and Moderna ones and adenovirus‐based vaccines like the ones from J&J and Oxford‐Astrazenaca. LH‐ THIS must also be a high priority in the U.S. Anything can happen with viruses. We must build a super‐ factory to produce vaccines fast and in volume like the one the British are building. We could ask them for the blue‐ prints. Theirs is costing them ~$200 million. Recall that we spend ten times that amount every single day, that is every day, seven days per week, every single day, to defend ourselves and all of Europe, Japan and S. Korea. We spend $2 billion every day on the military, most of it to enrich the poor people of Europe and Japan. At 19:30 Spain and Vitamin D. Eight million people in Andelusia. The death rate was cut by 2/3. 50‐70 dead per day became 5‐15 dead per day. A high risk group were given calcifediol. He gives a link to a speech by the man who organized that in Parliament. I'll watch it. At 21:45 Hear what he says here about the Oxford vaccine. He says it is safe about four different ways. It costs $2.75 a dose. Pfizer is $19.50 a dose. Moderna even more. Some Israeli data: The Pfizer vaccine reduces the chance of catching Covid by 33‐60% after 14 days. One study showed 33% reduction, another showed a 60% reduction. Also, it looks like receiving one dose reduces transmission from the pt. who got the one dose. That has been an open question. Dr. Campbell: "And one dose of Pfizer vaccine reduces hospitalization by 90% and, with the Oxford vaccine, one dose reduces the chance of that by 100%." The UK is using the Oxford vaccine, it has been approved in India for 1.3 billion people, it has been approved in Argentina, and the EU medicines authority will probably approve it for use in the 26 countries of the EU in a few days And the FDA keeps dragging its feet‐ and will drag them till April, they promise us. Many thousands of Americans will die because of this conduct by the FDA. It is a national scandal and some people suspect that money is changing hands to keep the Oxford vaccine off the market in the U.S. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 175 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 6:28 PM To:Pc User Subject:Hello ! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. WELL LOOKIE HERE FOR STARTERS LOL AND IT MADE TV NEWS LOL DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND DEEP STATE IS DONE? HHMMM ? WELL SHOULD BE AFTER THIS AYE? HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE A REVOLUTION ON THE 20TH (BUT WE MAY BE ATTACKED? TOO? SIMULTANEOUSLY?)) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXzrQ-uEno8 On Monday, January 18, 2021, 08:24:01 PM EST, Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> wrote: What's going on ? Best Regards, & Stay Healthy ! RJS 176 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 2:30 PM To:Martineau, Catherine Cc:CTRA; Fred Balin; Dave Muffly; Council, City Subject:Tree Pruning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hi Catherine, Thank you for your email regarding the California Avenue Business District tree pruning schedule. Everyone I know adores the beautiful Linden trees that Dave Muffly incorporated into his design. They are established and soften the massing of the street fronts along the avenue. The city’s contracted arborist is known to be professional. We in the neighborhood and in Palo Alto in general hope that the arborist will supervise the tree personnel to ensure a natural look. In other words no over pruning. For me the Linden reminds me of fond memories of France. We are all hanging in there during this turbulent time. The Tilleuls with their silvery leaves and lovely fragrance are gifts to the community. Warm regards, Ann Lafargue Balin California Avenue Business District Observer CTRA 177 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 1:44 PM To:Honky Subject:National Popcorn Day :) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. YIUP ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE BUT ALL THAT IS IN THIS POST IS ALL WE NEEDED TO HAPPEN? THIS IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW EVERY American MUST LEARN THIS WE? HAVE WON AND THIS IS WHO WE? ARE https://www.bitchute.com/video/AS3194idI9wn/ Military Intelligence Operations Have Exposed The Cabal's Plan To Takeov... Our voices need to be heard. According to the military, "you can't tell people what's been happening, they need ... Do you remember seeing ( in the 90s ) John Kennedy Jr speaking, and on the podium he had a jar of Popcorn ? Looked out of place ! Juan O Savin says Tomorrow, Jan 19th is National Popcorn Day Could it be that Tomorrow is when The Emergency Broadcast System kicks in ??? Frank Romanek jr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vPiuRl_SOA Praying night and Day ؊؋، 178 Baumb, Nelly From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 8:32 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Keith Bennett; Rita Vrhel; Gregory Zicarelli; Lait, Jonathan; Eggleston, Brad; Bobel, Phil; Weiss, Julie Subject:Groundwater Beneath Your Feet Is Rising with the Sea. It Could Bring Long-Buried Toxic Contamination with It CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members: We believe this timely article1 from KQED, “Groundwater Beneath Your Feet Is Rising with the Sea. It Could Bring Long‐ Buried Toxic Contamination with It” is critically important and relevant to Palo Alto. In this article Mr. Grant Cope, deputy director of California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, states, "One of the most important things that people can do is to require local governments to pass enforceable standards that apply to groundwater rise due to sea level rise. These should include local requirements for new buildings and cleanups." We know the City is aware of the issue of rising groundwater with sea level rise; both are being studied and will be included in the City’s Sea Level Rise (SLR) Vulnerability Assessment and Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan due in June 2023. But can Palo Alto safely wait until 2023 before starting to address the anticipated impacts of sea level rise and the concurrent groundwater rise on our City? With the recent approval of the EIR for 788 San Antonio Road and the entire Project Area on San Antonio Road from Middlefield Road to East Charleston, we believe Palo Alto cannot safely wait. Neither the EIR for this project nor City Staff nor City Council addressed the various issues associated with underground construction, groundwater, toxic plumes, sea level rise or groundwater rise, which all converge in this area. This lack of adequate review puts Palo Alto at risk. Chief among these risks, where the groundwater table is high, such as at 788 San Antonio Road are: 1. Excessive waste of a natural resource – groundwater – due to dewatering for underground construction 2. The rise of groundwater with sea level rise and consequent: a. Mobilization of existing contaminant plumes due to construction dewatering and/or groundwater level rise, b. Increased buoyancy and hydrostatic pressure on underground construction which are not addressed in Palo Alto’s current construction codes or plans, c. The resulting salinization of groundwater which can lead to increased corrosion and shorter lifespan of structures and infrastructures d. Risk of saline contamination in groundwater as a potential source of emergency drinking water. Major concerns related to the cumulative impacts of the ever‐ increasing number of underground structures, including those planned for the 788 San Antonio Road Program Area, have not been adequately addressed. These are: 1. Underground structures, especially several in close proximity to each other, can impede natural underground water flows by synergistically acting as a dam to the flow of groundwater.2 Visualize that 179 groundwater flow greatly disrupted or even cut‐off as Palo Alto’s groundwater flows from the foothills towards the Bay. 2. The potential for widespread sheet flooding is increased by soil removal for underground construction. Soil, besides its important functions of sequestering carbon and supporting structures, canopy and infrastructure, retains precipitation and regulates groundwater flow. The more soil removed, the greater the risk of flooding. Recent studies3,4 suggest that the impacts of sea level and groundwater level rise will be felt by the mid‐2030s in areas where groundwater level is 13 feet or less below ground surface or up to a mile inland. The expected lifetime of a structure built today is 50+ years; any new building with underground construction built in areas of high groundwater will be impacted by the issues mentioned above. Since underground construction is considered permanent, it will be more difficult and expensive to remedy impacts to the proposed projects, neighboring structures and infrastructure than if these impacts are considered and mitigated before construction.5 Palo Alto has an urgent need to plan proactively for the inevitable sea level and ground water level rise. It also must avoid creating underground dams, protect our groundwater supplies and ensure safe construction. As such, Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater will be asking Council to consider additional Regulations to strengthen our Groundwater Ordinance. We ask the City Council to enact a temporary moratorium on underground construction in areas where the (summer) groundwater levels are less than 13 feet below ground surface until comprehensive regulations are adopted. We look forward to working with all stakeholders on this important and timely topic. Thank you for considering our comments, Keith Bennett, Ph.D. Rita Vrhel, R.N. Greg Zicarelli, Ph.D. Esther Nigenda, Ph.D. Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater 1.Groundwater Beneath Your Feet Is Rising with the Sea. It Could Bring Long‐Buried Toxic Contamination with It https://www.kqed.org/science/1971582/groundwater‐beneath‐your‐feet‐is‐rising‐with‐the‐sea‐it‐could‐bring‐long‐ buried‐toxins‐with‐it 2. Preene, M, Roberts, T and Powrie, W, Groundwater control: design and practice, second edition, London, CIRIA, 2016; 209p, p. 81. 3. New tool projects high‐tide flooding in U.S. coastal locations https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2020/12/14/high‐tide‐flooding‐locations‐us/ 4.Sea‐level rise and coastal groundwater inundation and shoaling at select sites in California, USA. J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.12.055 5.FEMA: Building Codes Save Factsheet https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020‐07/fema_building_codes_save_factsheet‐04302020.pdf 180 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, January 18, 2021 4:06 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; fred beyerlein; David Balakian; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; 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; leager; Mayor; margaret- sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte Subject:Fwd: UK's Dr. John Campbell Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021 No bene convalesc. plasma 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 18, 2021 at 3:53 AM Subject: Fwd: UK's Dr. John Campbell Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021 No bene convalesc. plasma To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:48 AM Subject: Fwd: UK's Dr. John Campbell Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021 No bene convalesc. plasma To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:41 AM Subject: Fwd: UK's Dr. John Campbell Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021 No bene convalesc. plasma To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:25 AM 181 Subject: Fwd: UK's Dr. John Campbell Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021 No bene convalesc. plasma To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:09 AM Subject: Fwd: UK's Dr. John Campbell Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021 No bene convalesc. plasma To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:45 PM Subject: UK's Dr. John Campbell Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021 No bene convalesc. plasma To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Very Late on Sunday, Jan. 17, 2021 To all‐ Here is Dr. John Campbell in the UK with the results of a very good study done in the UK which started last May. It shows that giving convalescent plasma to pts. very ill with Covid19 does not reduce the death rate at all. It was called the "Recovery Trial". I have said it all right there. Watch this video from Dr. Campbell for details. He shows the URL for the study. Convalescent plasma, no benefit ‐ YouTube The "Recovery Trial" in the UK does continue recruiting pts. for the study of tocilizumab, "which we know reduces mortality by 8% in Covid pts". Also it will continue recruiting for the study of aspirin. Does is prevent blood clots in Covid pts? That is a big problem in Covid pts. It will also continue recruiting to study Regeneron's monoclonal antibody cocktail. This was given to Trump. One dose of 5 grams. LH‐ Regeneron's antibody cocktail consist of two monoclonal antibodies. Is the study going to study Eli Lilly's single monoclonal antibody drug? Dr. Campbell re the results of the conv. plasma study: "Think of the effort this saves around the world" "Thousands of recovered pts. volunteered to get this data". LH‐ Think too of all of the money that should now stop changing hands: Recovered Covid pts. being paid to donate their blood (and its plasma) and medical enterprises charging to infuse or transfuse it into those ill with Covid. Legislatures will have to take note and provide penalties for those making money from administering convalescent plasma. 182 Particular pt. subgroups could be helped by conv. plasma, and the study will continue to watch for that possible result. The obese, male v. female, ethnicity, certain health conditions, certain age groups. Dr. Campbell does not anticipate such benefits. The study also looked at dexamethasone. GOOD results Now a standard treatment all over the world. Study also looked at hydroxychloroquine. NO benefit found. 25:12‐ End, really. He says "We need bigger spaces now with the new, more highly transmissible variants. Two meters is no longer good enough, especially indoors". State and local governments will have to adjust their dictates accordingly. In the news Sunday night, 1‐17‐21 that 30 elderly and frail pts died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine in Norway: Vaccine Side Effect? Norway Sounds Alarm As 23 Elderly Patients Die After Receiving Pfizer Vaccine ‐ YouTube H.C workers in LA County. People WILL NOT, WILL NOT listen to orders by the State of California re isolating, avoding crowds, etc. They will not. In March, 2020, the Mayor‐elect of Fresno, Ca. said on TV that ""People are angry about the restrictions...(at restaurants, stores, gyms etc.) I wonder how they feel when their relatives, or they, are dying in an ICU because people would not follow the State orders. California ICU Nurse: ‘We Are Working In A Complete Battlefield’ | NBC News NOW ‐ YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 183 Baumb, Nelly From:sarahmueller1970@gmx.net Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 5:29 PM To:Administrative Services; CSD; Parks; City Mgr; Clerk, City; Council, City; info@paloaltochamber.com; phinternet@phd.sccgov.org; michele.seaton@phd.sccgov.org Subject:Please allow outdoor dining CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Sir or Madam, Please do allow restaurants to open their patios and allow outdoor dining! What is the difference people sitting at Lytton Plaza, in front of the city hall, in parks etc taking their lunches there or eating in restaurants' patios which are also in the fresh air??!! Please support our local, small businesses. Best regards, Sarah A concerned citizen questioning the logic of destroying small, local businesses by certain institutions... PS: The ordinance that employees are not allowed to use the breakrooms, even if they are alone (!), goes also too far.... 184 Baumb, Nelly From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 2:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:Police Subject:Duck hunting at the Baylands endangers residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To the City Council of Palo Alto, cc Police Dept., On Sunday January 17 I made a brief call to the police department to express concern about gunshots overheard at the Byxbee baylands. Yes, it is understood that duck hunting season is open, and hunting is legal out there in the water & grasses. It is legal, despite the number of walkers, joggers and bicyclists of all ages passing nearby. It is legal, despite our volunteers and collective efforts to restore native plants and wildlife, including birds. Almost two decades ago when I was walking at the Byxbee baylands during duck hunting season, an errant bullet whizzed past my head. It was terrifying. I could have been killed. That very day I contacted local city and county officials about this, and came away with a vague understanding that the marshes off our shoreline are a kind of no‐man’s land of accountability, where local cities (and perhaps county) have no jurisdiction—something about state or federal space, although this may not be accurate and merits verification. I do not recall the details. I only know that the entity with jurisdiction over this space allows for hunting, in such a crowded, urban, dense area. I was told our city could do nothing about it. It is unfathomable that hunting is allowed here, so close to a heavily used park. The many people enjoying the Byxbee walkways today on Sunday, and every day, are at the mercy of the accuracy of the gunmen out there. We are at the mercy of luck. We are at the mercy that there will be no human error on the part of the gunmen, no matter how well‐intentioned, such as the one who almost killed me 20 years ago from his boat. Can we do anything about this ? Hunting may be a right where it is safe, but it does not belong so close to our heavily used bayside park. Today in the sunshine it was crowded out there, with lots of children, and with gunshots heard in the background. This is not ok. Kim Atkinson 1753 Middlefield Road Palo Alto 94301 186 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 9:52 AM To:Greer Stone; Raven Malone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Steven D. Lee; Kaloma Smith; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; chuck jagoda; DuBois, Tom; Winter Dellenbach; Cormack, Alison; Cari Templeton; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Jethroe Moore; Council, City Subject:NYTimes: Raphael Warnock and the Legacy of Racial Tyranny CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Raphael Warnock and the Legacy of Racial Tyranny https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/opinion/raphael‐warnock‐ georgia‐senate.html?referringSource=articleShare Sent from my iPhone 187 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, January 17, 2021 2:38 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; fred beyerlein; beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; David Balakian; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; 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; midge@thebarretts.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, UK, Friday, Jan. 15, 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: Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:45 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, UK, Friday, Jan. 15, 2021 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:42 PM Subject: Dr. John Campbell, UK, Friday, Jan. 15, 2021 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Saturday, Jan. 16, 2021 To all: Dr. John Campbell in the UK fror Friday, Jan. 15, 2021. He discusses the new Covid variant found in Brazil. Here is information about the UK banning travel from much of South America, Portugal and the Cape Verdes. I have yet to hear that the U.S. has done that. With our government in chaos at the top, little wonder. Azar resigned yesterday, effective Jan. 20, when he'll be gone anyway. Re no stockpile of vaccine being held back and now available. Zero. One Governor said diplomatically, "They lied to us". UK toughens up borders over Brazil virus variant fears (waow.com) Dr. John Campbell for Friday, Jan. 15, 2021: Update ‐ YouTube He covers more than I excerpt here. 188 A new variant is causing a rapid rise in cases in Brazil since it is more transmissible. Residents of the UK can come back from there but they are then required to "self isolate for 14 days". Totally unacceptable, he says. That should be supervised isolation. Australia did it right and has no cases. You're going to TRUST people? A bunch of countries in southern Africa are now banned from entering the UK. I have yet to hear of any such restrictions imposed by the incompetent U.S. government. It's their often used "Let 'em hang" approach. We see it so often. So three big, dangerous, more transmissible variants now out there. The current vaccines will probably work on all of them since they work on many parts of the virus, he says. But the genetics of the viruses can and will drift further. Maybe in a year scientists will have to modify the vaccines to disable the variants to come. Happy thought. Cases are leveling off in the UK but the numbers are still very high, putting much stress on the HC system there. U.S.: At 25:00. Cases and deaths keep climbing. New cases up 4.4% in past 7 days. National positivity rate is 11.9%, so LOTS of community spread. 109,000 in hospital now, 23,891 in IC, 7878 on ventilators. He saw a nurse on TV from LA. She is caring for four pts. in ICU all by herself. He's done it himself and ONE such pt. is a full time job. To have one nurse treating four is not safe. Try not to get on a ventilator in a hospital in LA. "I'm really afraid that one, or two, or all three of the new variants could circulate in the United States". The bunglers in Washington will not halt flights from the UK, Portugal, South Africa and countries in southern Africa, Brazil and certain other countries in South America. I guess money talks. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? If we had a President who gave a damn about the American people, all of those flights would be halted by executive order tonight. I hope Biden does that as he lowers his right hand and right after he dismantles the top layers of the FDA. He should sign a number of executive orders firing people and halting flights into the U.S. after he lowers his right hand and BEFORE he turns to give a speech. He shows a photo of a man in Arlington, Texas being vaccinated by a member of the fire dept. A lot of our fire crews go in ambulances to H.A. victims, etc., so they are for sure qualified to vaccinate. I do not know exactly how that is set up organizationally. He applauds the decision in the U.S. to give millions of people‐ huge numbers‐ the first shot before trying to give the second shot. The first shot will keep most people out of the hospital, and they are over‐run now. That policy is not exaclty being followed all over the U.S. As more vaccines become available, maybe the second shot can be given sooner, say a month after the first shot. You are a lot better protected with two shots. Congress and Pres. Biden should immediately address the scandal at the FDA in holding up the Oxford vaccine. It has now been administered in the UK for 12 days, and it has been approved for use in India, with 1.3 billion people, and in Argentina. It could be approved for use in the EU in late January. The FDA talks about April. He mentions that Germany has wide‐spread presence of the Kent variant. He says that if the German government maintians the current restrictions, then cases will rise. The Kent variant can spread despite the current restrictions, designed for the original Covid virus. So as new, more highly transmissible variants come on, you have to tighten the restrictions on people. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 189 Baumb, Nelly From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 2:07 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:editor@paweekly.com Subject:Goals for 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council: As you ask residents to offer their views on priorities for 2021, you owe us a detailed explanation of what was accomplished in line last year's priorities. What did you accomplish with regard to housing, sustainability and mobility? How are we better off in those domains? While I agree that goal setting is necessary for a community to align and allocate our resources, I again advocate for more than just broad, lofty goals. Council needs to agree on specific and measurable objectives and must report back on these efforts. Without this measurement and accountability, the annual goal setting is reduced to a feel‐good exercise that far too often fails to deliver meaningful results. Like the US, our city faces difficult challenges. Now is the time to offer clear direction and deliverables in order to maintain the confidence of residents. For 2021, you need to be more specific, set targets, establish metrics and be prepared to hold us all accountable for making progress. Sincerely, John Guislin 190 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 12:33 PM To:Jethroe Moore Cc:Greer Stone; Human Relations Commission; Raven Malone; Steven D. Lee; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Ed Lauing; DuBois, Tom; Cari Templeton; Cormack, Alison; Shikada, Ed; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Kaloma Smith; greg@gregtanaka.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Re: Highly trained ex military and cops join capital insurgents rioters CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Rev. Moore, Thanks for sending this important resolution to the people of Palo Alto. Aram National NAACP Resolution : Resolution to stop the infiltration of the U.S. Military by violent far‐right extremist organizations Sent from my iPhone On Jan 16, 2021, at 10:19 AM, Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> wrote: Again no surprises, we warned of this almost 2 years ago On Saturday, January 16, 2021, 10:05:48 AM PST, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews-ca-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=0645da684_1345be8 Sent from my iPhone <infiltration of the U.S. Military by violent far‐right extremist organizations.doc> 191 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Burt <pat@patburt.org> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:44 AM To:Aram James Cc:Cormack, Alison; Ed Lauing; Shikada, Ed; Greer Stone; Jethroe Moore; Kaloma Smith; Raven Malone; Jonsen, Robert; Sara Tabin; Steven D. Lee; Winter Dellenbach; Perron, Zachary; Cari Templeton; chuck jagoda; Council, City; greg@gregtanaka.org; Human Relations Commission; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; DuBois, Tom Subject:Re: Bart takes a different route reimagining policing -crisis intervention alternatives CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Adam, Thanks. I saw the program last week. It is a valuable alternative model as we consider our options. Pat On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 9:26 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=1440d04be_1345be8 Sent from my iPhone 192 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:36 AM To:Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg; ravenmalonepa@gmail.com; chuck jagoda; Steven D. Lee; Kaloma Smith; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; Shikada, Ed; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Moore; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Jethroe Moore; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith Subject:Police would lose power to handle police misconduct complaints under new proposal ( Palo Alto should consider doing away with there own internal affairs unit) ????? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=063e800fd_1345be8 Sent from my iPhone 193 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:19 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tom DuBois; Council, City; Raven Malone; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Greer Stone; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; Cari Templeton; Ed Lauing; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Human Relations Commission; greg@gregtanaka.org; Kaloma Smith; Rebecca Eisenberg; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison Subject:Racial bias in courts targeted CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=3c22d46ed_1345be8 Sent from my iPhone 194 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:06 AM To:Greer Stone; Human Relations Commission; Raven Malone; Steven D. Lee; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Ed Lauing; DuBois, Tom; Ed Lauing; Cari Templeton; Cormack, Alison; Shikada, Ed; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Kaloma Smith; greg@gregtanaka.org; Jethroe Moore; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Highly trained ex military and cops join capital insurgents rioters CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=0645da684_1345be8 Sent from my iPhone 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: 2/1/ 2021 Document dates: 1/13/2021 – 1/20/2021 Set 3 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 195 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 11:05 PM To:Honky Cc:Michael Ryan; Jack & Barbara Connors; coderevival@yahoo.ca; F Cosmas; BBC ONLY; Chris L. Spiess; Nancy Clancy; clmacgil@ucalgary.ca; cotingas@hotmail.com; 'Claire'; Council, City; NICOLE; ckerwick1 @yahoo.com; MARGO COLEMAN; FRANK SOOS; cldodson07@yahoo.com; Cort Greene; LinkedIn; BRIAN HALL; contactsellis@gmail.com; connor_hart@comcast.net; Don Fredrick; corky4president2002@gmail.com; coglitor@unive.it; codepinkorlando@gmail.com; congo@un.int; Carlos Jr Rodriguez; cl_madison@hotmail.com; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; companeras1994@yahoo.com; BRIAN WILLIAM HALL; commanderlopez@gmail.com; cmchinn2005@hotmail.com; CommSocial; Amy Atkinson; Pc User; Teresa Dixon; Lou Basile; Dennis Tiernan; David Meiswinkle; Bob McCafferty; Biotica; Teresa Dixon; Sarah Klepner; Frank Agamennon; Jack Derripper; George Lydakis; BBC ONLY; Philip Hussa; Denise; Djoymorgan27; Frank Agamennon; yellowbuzz2@yahoo.com; zkcallan@ivaw.org; ymqyw@yahoo.com; yobar23@gmail.com; yucobond@gmail.com; zuk6224 @gmail.com; zinnguy@hotmail.com; Greta Bernhardt; zoxebox@hotmail.com; yourfinancialhealing@gmail.com; yourogue@hotmail.com; zenblews@hotmail.com; zubaby2244 @yahoo.com; yorkie@mtb.biglobe.ne.jp; zmorales83@yahoo.com; yellowsub910@verizon.net; ajwalker86@hotmail.co.uk; a7la_marmoor@hotmail.com; 911grassroots@gmail.com; adam.alex.c@gmail.com; acgravity@gmail.com; Amilie; Annie Bunting; ALDEE FILLEY; Adam; Adam Fligsten; BAYYENAH ABOUL-AZIZ; Rich Schultz; alandberta@gmail.com; adam johnson; Alan Watt; 911readingroom@gmail.com; aahoover@comcast.net; 911research.com@gmail.com; Ajene Washington; abolishtaxes@gmail.com; Jim Barr; ALAIN CARPENTER; 911review.com@gmail.com; agallop@hotmail.com; abenelson@hotmail.com; Anne Johnson; 911truthwatertown@gmail.com; Amy de Miceli Ellie; 1800capone@gmail.com; emilia a; 911truthfarmer@gmail.com; 60m@cbsnews.com; 'A. Caballero'; 4galsandi@comcast.net; Lee Chin; Jason Robo; steve J. Williams; alan_b.stard.m.p@westnet.com.au; A.Kafouri; Adam Parrott; 'butlincat'; a_verias@yahoo.com; Jeffrey Albright; 'Arthur Cristian'; adam_boulden20@yahoo.com; 2smileylee@gmail.com; Anita Barth; 'Choong Kiat Yian'; alan cranford; 911tap@gmail.com; 2byrnes@bellsouth.net; aarhughe@ivaw.org Subject:YOU ARE GOING TO BE 'SHIT SHOCKED' BY THIS!!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. YOU MUST watch/listen to this! this is INSIDE STUFF!!!!!!!!!!! Down the rabbit hole. MANY, many are going to jail (See the 'Plan to Same to World' on Google) Listen to this VERY IMPORTANT video explaining what REALLY is going on ... & has gone on: Military Intelligence Operations Have Exposed The Cabal's Plan To Takeover The USA. 196 Military Intelligence Operations Have Exposed The Cabal's Plan To Takeov... Our voices need to be heard. According to the military, "you can't tell people what's been happening, they need ... 197 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 4:52 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; 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; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Kreutzer; midge@thebarretts.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; david pomaville; Dan Richard; russ@topperjewelers.com; jerry ruopoli; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; vallesR1969@att.net; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk Subject:Fwd: Dr. Campbell in UK for Thurs. Jan. 14, 2021 Infected 1st wave, low risk 2nd 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: Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:50 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell in UK for Thurs. Jan. 14, 2021 Infected 1st wave, low risk 2nd To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:38 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell in UK for Thurs. Jan. 14, 2021 Infected 1st wave, low risk 2nd To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:34 PM Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell in UK for Thurs. Jan. 14, 2021 Infected 1st wave, low risk 2nd To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:13 AM 198 Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell in UK for Thurs. Jan. 14, 2021 Infected 1st wave, low risk 2nd To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:40 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell in UK for Thurs. Jan. 14, 2021 Infected 1st wave, low risk 2nd To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:09 PM Subject: Dr. Campbell in UK for Thurs. Jan. 14, 2021 Infected 1st wave, low risk 2nd To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, Januaruy 15, 2021 Dr. Campbell in UK for Thursday, Jan. 14, 2021 but sent out by LH on Friday, Jan. 15, 2021. I had very important appointment at Kaiser today. Update ‐ YouTube Dr. Campbell discusses results of a study in UK of HOW LIKELY those infected in the first wave of Covid, and who survived, ARE to be re‐infected now in the second wave. Good news there. Just as with those getting the first shot of vaccine, they are very unlikely to be hospitalized due to the second infection. Some do get re‐infected, but they get less sick. It is almost one in 200 who get infected again! Of those who have never been infected (and have not had the vaccine), they get infected a lot more often during the second wave than those who did get infected in the first wave. So being infected, and surviving, gives 83% immunity to fulture infection, it seems. So all you had to do was get infected in the first wave in April, 2020, get sick but survive it at that time, and you'll do fine during the second wave. But one big caveat: Those unfortunates who do get re‐infected may have fewer symptoms this time, and be less sick than they were during their first infection, but they are still infectious IF they have a high viral load. Numbers: Of those previously infected, just 44 out of 6614 got reinfected. So just 0.66% of them. So over 99% of them were protected. "So it's a LOT like having the first shot of the vaccine". Of those 14,173 with no previous infection, 318 got infected. Then he discusses how these lucky survivors of the first wave and who get re‐infected in the second wave can transmit the virus if they have a high viral load. Does having been infected, and having survived, the original Covid virus, protect agains being re‐infected with the new variant, the VOC20212/01, the so‐called Kent variant? "We think good protection against it too, although the study was done before the emergence of the Kent variant" 199 Dr. Scott Gotlieb‐ former FDA Director‐ Immunity is still building two months after you get vaccinated! And those levels are continuing to build after two months. So you must maintain protective behavior for a considerable time after you get the first shot. (LH‐ You can't skip out into the street and yell "I'm saved"! and let down your guard). Keep on with wearing a mask, and social distancing, etc., for months after you get the first shot. Wait for the second shot before you feel safe. Rght now, infection is everywhere in the U.S. WHEN we have a more heavily protected population, we can start to relax. ‐‐‐‐‐So it is how long since you got the first shot AND how heavily protected the population is that you are living in that determines when you can relax‐‐‐‐. Get the first shot in January, and maybe this summer you can relax the precautions. Be sure to get the second shot. Fmr. FDA chief: Covid‐19 vaccine recipients shouldn't let their guards down right away ‐ YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. 200 Baumb, Nelly From:Karen Robin <karenrobin2007@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 4:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Noise!!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council members, First of all, thank you so much for giving of your time and energy to advocate for the city of Palo Alto. The past two years my quality‐of‐life has diminished considerably because of the low, VERY loud, planes that fly directly above my house. I’ll be in a deep sleep, and then it suddenly sounds like a bomb is about to fall on my head. I wake up startled, with my heart racing, and it’s hard to fall back to sleep, especially when the next plane comes in 15 or 20 minutes. The lack of sleep is truly making me miserable. I’ve lived on Martin Avenue for 25 years, and it was such a quiet place to be until the flight patterns changed. I’ve contacted the Sky Posse multiple times. Nothing changes. What can be done about this?? Thank you so much. Karen Gould 1344 Martin Ave 201 Baumb, Nelly From:CalMod@caltrain.com Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 8:49 AM To:Martin J Sommer; 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, Thank you for the call on Wednesday morning. It was helpful to get a better understanding of your concerns. As I committed on the call, I will bring your request to my management team for consideration. I aim to get you a response by the end of next week. Have a great weekend, 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: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 9:59 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 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. 202 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 "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 203 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: 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. 204 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, 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? 205 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." -- 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. 206 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 6:09 AM To:Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Human Relations Commission Subject:The Mercury News E-Edition Article CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=0d64231a7_1345be7 Sent from my iPhone 207 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:51 PM To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Cc:Greer Stone; Aram James Subject:Dr. Kendi's January 11th Atlantic article CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear HRC and PACC: Many highly respected historians and political researchers have identified Dr. Ibram X Kendi's recent essay in the Atlantic as an urgently important and timely essay to assist in unpacking the many issues implicated by last week's attack by extreme white supremacist individuals at the US Capitol. Dr. Kendi's article provides historical context and an often‐ overlooked perspective that may be helpful in thinking through official (and personal) responses to last Wednesday's horrifying and deadly acts of domestic terrorism against our democracy's most sacred institutions. Because I too found Dr. Kendi's article thought‐provoking and resonant, I mentioned it at tonight's HRC meeting. I was particularly inspired ‐ and maybe you will be too ‐ by Dr. Kendi's unwavering faith that Americans have not just the capacity, but also the will, to dig deep to solve long‐entrenched problems. I also share ‐ and maybe you will too ‐ Dr. Kendi's optimism that the end result of a process of meaningful change will be a country that is truer to its founding, seminal values of justice, freedom, and liberty for all, as well as ‐ crucially ‐ protection from overreaching government, military, and police intrusion into our lives, livelihoods, and bodily integrity. Given that it's behind a partial paywall, I am distributing its full contents to Palo Alto's leadership charged with addressing these complicated and entrenched challenges, hoping that it may be considered along with other worthy resources in our shared quest to learn, change, and heal. Best regards, Rebecca (No I am not concerned that either the Atlantic or Dr. Kendi would accuse me of misappropriation for distributing this to city leaders and elected officials!) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/denial‐heartbeat‐america/617631/ (with apologies for the formatting) Denial Is the Heartbeat of America When have Americans been willing to admit who we are? JANUARY 11, 2021 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 208 Ibram X. Kendi Director of the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Illustration of blindfolded Americans GETTY / THE ATLANTIC “Let me be very clear: The scenes of chaos at the Capitol do not reflect a true America. Do not represent who we are,” President-elect Joe Biden said during Wednesday’s siege. “The behavior we witnessed in the U.S. Capitol is entirely un-American,” read a statement from a bipartisan and 209 bicameral group of elected officials that included Senators Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, and Mark Warner as well as Representatives Josh Gottheimer and Tom Reed. Sign up for The Atlantic’s daily newsletter. Each weekday evening, get an overview of the day’s biggest news, along with fascinating ideas, images, and voices. Email Address (required) Sign Up Thanks for signing up! “We’re the United States of America. We disagree on a lot of things, and we have a lot of spirited debate … But we talk it out, and we honor each other—even in our disagreement,” said Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma. “And while we disagree on things—and disagree strongly at 210 times—we do not encourage what happened today. Ever.” “That’s not who we are,” Senator Ben Sasse said. “This is not the America I know and love,” Representative Brenda Lawrence said. “I know this is not our America,” Representative Ed Case said. “This is not who we are,” Representative Nancy Mace said. “This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic—not our democratic republic,” Republican former President George W. Bush said. 211 “This is a national tragedy and is not who we are as a nation,” Democratic former President Jimmy Carter said. Do these statements represent the American dream? Is the American dream the great delusion about what America is and who Americans are? Clint Smith: The whole story in a single photo To say that the attack on the U.S. Capitol is not who we are is to say that this is not part of us, not part of our politics, not part of our history. And to say that this is not part of 212 America, American politics, and American history is a bald-faced denial. But the denial is normal. In the aftermath of catastrophes, when have Americans commonly admitted who we are? The heartbeat of America is denial. It is historic, this denial. Every American generation denies. America is establishing the freest democracy in the world, said the white people who secured their freedom during the 1770s and ’80s. America is the greatest democracy on Earth, said the property owners voting in the early 19th century. America is the beacon of democracy in world history, said the men who voted before the 1920s. America is the leading democracy in 213 the world, said the non-incarcerated people who have voted throughout U.S. history in almost every state. America is the utmost democracy on the face of the Earth, said the primarily older and better-off and able-bodied people who are the likeliest to vote in the 21st century. America is the best democracy around, said the American people when it was harder for Black and Native and Latino people to vote in the 2020 election. At every point in the history of American tyranny, the honest recorders heard the sounds of denial. Today is no different. Americans remember and accept the enfranchising of citizens and peaceful 214 transfers of power as their history, while forgetting and denying the coup plots, the attempted coups, and the successful coups. White terror is as American as the Stars and Stripes. But when this is denied, it is no wonder that the events at the Capitol are read as shocking and un-American. In March 1783, Continental Army officers plotted mutiny against the Confederation Congress until George Washington convinced the officers to remain loyal. In 1861, pro-slavery insurrectionists assembled at the U.S. Capitol to stop the counting of electoral votes for Abraham Lincoln. The Civil War came, lasting until 1865. White terrorists laid siege to the 215 county courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, on Easter Sunday 1873, and violently overthrew the local parish government, massacring roughly 150 Black people in the process. On September 14, 1874, the White League violently attempted to overthrow the newly elected governor of Louisiana in the Battle of Liberty Place, in New Orleans. White terrorists rioted; destroyed ballot boxes; and intimidated, wounded, and murdered Black voters in Alabama’s Barbour County on Election Day in 1874, securing victories for their candidates. In 1898, white supremacists murdered dozens of Black people and 216 violently overthrew the democratically elected and interracial government of Wilmington, North Carolina. In 1921—in one of the most devastating economic coups in history—white supremacists murdered hundreds of Black residents of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and destroyed their prosperous Greenwood District, known affectionately as “Black Wall Street.” In 1933, financiers attempted to persuade President Franklin D. Roosevelt to hand over power so they could establish a fascist government. This is a small sampling—but are all the attempted and successful coups in American history not part of American history? 217 Zeynep Tufekci: ‘This must be your first’ The denial runs through America like the Mississippi River system. I guess after Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia called for massive resistance to desegregating schools on February 25, 1956, those were not Americans who mobbed schoolchildren and college students from Little Rock, Arkansas, to Boston in subsequent decades. I guess those weren’t Americans who beat, jailed, and slaughtered the Americans waging the civil-rights, anti-war, Black-power, Brown-power, Red-power, Yellow- power, women’s-liberation, and gay- liberation movements from the 1950s to the 1980s. I guess their badges and 218 Bibles and American flags weren’t American. But distant history is one thing. Has American denial blinded Americans from seeing what has happened in their country over the past year in states across the land, on social- media apps across the internet? Donald Trump has been attempting to incite coups since April 17, 2020, when he tweeted: “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!; LIBERATE MINNESOTA!; LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!” Armed and unarmed people gathered in state capitols in Michigan in April, Idaho in August, South 219 Carolina in September, and Oregon in December over COVID-19 restrictions. And white terrorists plotted to kidnap the governors of Michigan and Virginia last year. On January 6, 2021, as the siege occurred at the U.S. Capitol, officials in several states, including New Mexico, Georgia, and Colorado, evacuated state capitols to protect against the gathering mobs. The crowds, on that day, breached the gate to the grounds of the governor’s mansion in Washington State. All of this evidence. All of this, and still some say these people are not part of America. Their antidemocratic politics are not part of American 220 politics. The long history of coups is not part of American history. Denial is the heartbeat of America. A 2018 music video shows Childish Gambino shirtless in an empty warehouse. Two gold chains hug his neck. An afro and thick facial hair hug his face. Gambino starts walk-dancing to a sweet-sounding folk melody. He comes upon a man, head covered, sitting in a chair. Gambino pulls out a handgun, assumes a comical stance evocative of a Jim Crow caricature, and shoots the man in the back of the head. The gunshot transitions the sweet melody to a hard-thumping trap beat. As the man falls to the ground, 221 Gambino faces the camera, holds the caricature pose, and raps, “This is America.” A child appears holding a red cloth. Gambino carefully lays the weapon on the cloth, and dance-walks away, toward the camera. Two children carelessly drag the body away in the background as Gambino raps, “This is America.” Don’t catch you slippin’ now Look at how I’m livin’ now Police be trippin’ now Yeah, this is America After a while, the thumping transitions back to the melody. A robed Black church choir sings and sways. Gambino reappears, walk- 222 dancing in glee, until someone tosses him an automatic weapon. He guns down the church members, in an unmistakable reference to the 2015 Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting. The gunshots again transition the melody back to the thumping beat. Gambino raps, “This is America,” as the bodies are dragged away, as he delicately lays the rifle on a red cloth again, held again by a waiting child. Is this America? Does America protect violence more than people? Is gun life America? Read: America’s gun-culture problem 223 Were the Trump supporters violently occupying the U.S. Capitol America? Was all that violence, all that antidemocratic sentiment, who Americans partially are? Did more than 74 million Americans vote for Trump? Do 77 percent of those voters believe what he believes, what those insurrectionists who sacked the Capitol believe, against all evidence to the contrary: that the election was stolen from Trump and that he actually won? Is all that happened on January 6 part of America? It is. They are. All of what we saw at the U.S. Capitol is part of America. But what’s also part of America is denying all of what is part of 224 America. Actually, this denial is the essential part of America. Denial is the heartbeat of America. Since 2018, when “This Is America” unpacked three words used to cloak persisting violence, I’ve been arguing that the heartbeat of racism is denial. There is the regular structural denial that racial inequity is caused by racist policy. And whenever an American engages in a racist act and someone points it out, the inevitable response is the sound of that denial: I’m not racist. It can’t be I was being racist, but I’m going to try to be anti-racist. It is always I’m not racist. No wonder the racist acts never stop. 225 What is the inevitable response of Americans to tragic stories of mass murder, of extreme destitution, of gross corruption, of dangerous injustice, of political chaos, of a raw attack on democracy within the very borders of the United States, as we witnessed at the U.S. Capitol? This is not who we are. From this bipartisan perspective, America is existentially nonviolent, prosperous, orderly, democratic, just, and exceptional. America is apparently not like those so-called banana republics, which are existentially violent, poor, chaotic, tyrannical, unjust, and inferior—as Republicans and Democrats keep implying. America is 226 apparently not like those “shithole” countries, as Trump called them. To overcome Trumpism, the American people must stop denying that Trumpism is outside America. Trump is the heartbeat of American denial in its clearest form. He is America, shirtless and exposed, like Childish Gambino in the video. Trump is not fundamentally different from those elected officials saying, “This is not who we are.” He denies. They deny. The difference is the extremism of Trump’s denial. While Americans commonly say, “I am not racist,” Trump says, “I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world.” While Americans commonly 227 say to those Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol, “You’re not us,” Trump says, “You’re very special.” Trump’s political opponents rage about the red meat he keeps feeding his base while starving them of truth. But when Republicans and Democrats say, “This is not who we are,” whom are they speaking to? Are they speaking to swing voters? Do they believe that older white centrists can’t handle the truth? Are they starving them of the truth, too? Are they feeding white centrists the red meat of denial? Two groups of Americans are feeding, and feeding on, American denial. There are Americans like 228 Trump who nonviolently—and, like his supporters, violently—rage, and engage in the carnage at the U.S. Capitol in complete denial of the election results. And there are the Americans who during and after the carnage say, “This is not who we are,” in complete denial that the rioters are part of America. The white domestic terrorist who denies his own criminality and the American politician who denies that the terrorist is part of us both remain in the foreground of the American media, of American politics—taking up all our care and concern. Meanwhile, in the background, the violence is placed on red cloths as the 229 victims of the carnage are carelessly dragged out of sight and mind—as Eddie S. Glaude Jr. powerfully says, “This is us.” Eddie S. Glaude Jr.: We need to begin again In a fall 2020 survey, 54 percent of Americans said that their nation is the greatest in the world, with 80 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of Democrats expressing this sentiment. In January 2020, the majority of Americans said in a survey that the United States embodies the grandeur of gender equality, happiness, health consciousness, and public health. Nearly four in 10 Americans said that their nation promotes income equality. 230 But America’s actual standing in the world tells a different story on these issues and others. The life expectancy of Americans is shorter than for people in other rich countries that spend far less on health care. The U.S. has the highest maternal-mortality rate of any rich country. Police in the U.S. kill their fellow citizens at significantly higher rates than in any other rich country. The United States has the largest incarcerated population per capita in the world. The rate of gun violence here is significantly higher than in any other wealthy nation. Only Israel has a higher rate of poverty among rich countries than the United States. Among G7 nations, the United States 231 has the highest rate of income inequality. The U.S. ranks second only to Greenland in the highest rate of suicides by firearm, and most of those suicides are by white men. Securing a world in motion. The world is moving faster than ever. That’s why we’re dedicated to securing a world in motion by enabling trusted identities, payments, and data protection. SPONSORED BY ENTRUST See More This is America, just like the insurrection in the Capitol was America. We need to see this reality with clear eyes, because nothing has held back America more than its denial. Nothing has caused more human carnage than American denial. 232 If you can look at the carnage and respond That’s not us, then you’ll consider it to be an anomaly. Humans—like nations—are not going to perform radical surgery on cancers that they don’t think are part of them. Instead of seeing white supremacists as the greatest domestic-terror threat of our time, too many see them as marginal actors. Thus, the marginal response to the carnage. Thus, the carnage continues. Police violence—instead of being seen as the unnecessary killing of three Americans every single day— is dismissed as the product of bad apples. Thus, the marginal response to Breonna Taylor’s and George Floyd’s 233 killings. Thus, the carnage continues. Voter suppression—instead of being seen as corroding American electoral politics—is dismissed as a rogue GOP operation. Thus, the marginal response to electoral carnage. Thus, the carnage continues. Read: The president can’t stop talking about carnage Economic inequality and mass poverty—instead of being seen as the inevitable results of racial capitalism—are dismissed as glitches in the economy. Thus, the marginal response to economic carnage. Thus, the carnage continues. Sexism, racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism— instead of being seen as systemic and 234 pervasive—are dismissed as being carried out only by those individual red hats and rednecks. Thus, the marginal response to the carnage. Thus, the carnage continues. And on and on, with climate change and pipelines and transphobia and assault rifles and #MeToo. And on and on, the carnage continues. We must stop the heartbeat of denial and revive America to the thumping beat of truth. The carnage has no chance of stopping until the denial stops. This is not who we are must become, in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. Capitol: This is precisely who we are. And we are ashamed. And we are aggrieved at what we’ve done, at 235 how we let this happen. But we will change. We will hold the perpetrators accountable. We will change policy and practices. We will radically root out this problem. It will be painful. But without pain there is no healing. And in the end, what will make America true is the willingness of the American people to stare at their national face for the first time, to open the book of their history for the first time, and see themselves for themselves—all the political viciousness, all the political beauty— and finally right the wrongs, or spend the rest of the life of America trying. This can be who we are. 236 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. IBRAM X. KENDI is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities and the director of the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research. He is the author of several books, including the National Book Award–winning Stamped From the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America and How to Be an Antiracist. Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq. www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg www.winwithrebecca.com rebecca@winwithrebecca.com 415-235-8078 237 Baumb, Nelly From:alfaro.nancy@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:59 PM Cc: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; 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; Council, City; Office of the CIO; TomforCouncil@gmail.com; Ng, Judy; LydiaKou@cityofpaloalto.org; Kane@cityofpaloalto.org; Carnahan, David; Stephanie.Douglas@cityofpaloalto.org; Yang, Albert; Patel, Raj; Auzenne, Tom; 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 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. Begin forwarded message: From: "." <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com> Date: January 14, 2021 at 7:45:33 PM PST To: amacrine67@icloud.com, info@ericwexlermd.com, pialigeti@gmail.com, WexlerSecretary@2730wilshire.com Cc: 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, 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, 238 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, cni@cni.gob.mx, 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, Steven.Sheh@gmail.com, steven.sheh.300ivy@gmail.com, larrykern300@gmail.com, sabrina.300ivy@gmail.com, michele.300ivy@gmail.com, 300ivy305@gmail.com, ariel_zach@yahoo.com, cathy.edwards@gmail.com, RebCohen999@sbcglobal.net, marco.pulido@yahoo.com Subject: Fwd: Herbalife Nutrition 7/25/2019 ‐ Herbalife Summary 8.26.2019 | To Eric Wexler [Shrinks, mass deception industry]: Refer to email dated 8.26.2019 to Herbalife's lawyers: internal corporate counsel, chief compliance officer and FCPA Advisor, Irell & Manella in the trail below. It should be obvious to you that despite these emails being written in English, distorted, censured and all other non‐sense [fraudulent schemes] most people aren't stupid. Its worth reminding you, these emails began in July 2019. Political assassinations in Mexico began a day later. Direct and Immediate life & death consequences. Corrupt bureaucrats or not, Mexican citizens, their families and love ones have been facing severe consequences since this emails began. Your rear ends and your families aren't more important than their rear ends and their families. Herbalife is Health Care company. Unfortunately for you, it is not only part of the same deception industry as yours, it is also a Los Angeles, CA based corporation exploiting the same business market (people) as you. You are the shit heads that developed a corrupt system to profiteer from the same deception and fraudulent schemes in the health industry. Herbalife's corporate shenanigans were your responsibility from the start. Perhaps now its starting to sink in that you or the highly brain washed, I meant "educated" "professionals" residing at 300 IVY in San Francisco, CA weren't thrown into Herbalife's corporate wars by accident. Facebook & Tweeter Why don't you take a look at the ongoing fall out from actions taken by the likes of Facebook & Tweeter to prohibit the President of the United States from communicating from the citizens that elected him. What is there to argue or to regulate about this US corporate criminals? They just showed the American public and the world they are above the US President and the US Military. The US President is the commander Chief of the US arm forces. Who even respects much less will trust a military who appears to have been twiddling its fingers while a few power hungry lunatics knocked down its commander in Chief? 239 Translation: Mark Zuckerberg [Twitter, etc. and friends] having executed a coup and subordinated the US President and the military to Facebook. The global government's power grab... The highly educated [brain‐washed] 300 IVY Residents, being bossed around by the hired help [management company] and the local corrupt politician.... Read in between the lines. At this point, I will point out the obvious to you. Most people in the world aren't stupid are they? Arguing about whether average joe's intelligence around the world has decrease to retarded levels (IQ 90s) and is inherited by one's offspring [according to the shrinks new rules] would be stupid. Why would I or anyone argue with the Shrinks or the mass deception industry if they wish to brain wash the world that I, and therefore my family's offspring [Mexicans], are the superior intelligent race. Systematically, diluting education for decades and actively idiotizing US Regulators for at least the past ten years as strategy [Tom Flannery's, Americas Co‐leader Americas Asset and Weakth Management, EY Boston exact worlds to me in 2011. Refer to prior emails] just makes them ignorant, whiny snow‐flake with an overblown ego. Weren't raised and educated [Jewish Stanford Shrink] in this country? Aren't you educating and raising your children in this country? To refresh, I had been dealing with continuous illegal surveillance, harassment, retaliatory actions, violence and psychological abuse by Herbalife's private security criminals since the beginning of August 2018. You were my personal Shrink since 2015, right after I returned from Mexico after the November 2014 assassination attempt. You had free access to Dr. Ligetti, during September‐October 2018. You neither seem concerned about my not sleeping as was Dr. Ligetti, nor concern that my medication had been altered in October 2018. May I remind you that I threatened to call the DEA unless the pharmacy and the insurance company listened while we all pretended they were filing out a report to investigate themselves [read: objective was to record a phone conversation while others were eves dropping on my personal calls]. I also retaliated by threatening to call LAPD, the experts on violence, to review Herbalife's work‐place violence assessments in an email the same day. Given your profession, you should had known you and Dr. Ligetti [NY Jew) were also under surveillance and that your medical records concerning me were going to be accessed by Herbalife. [Hint: October 26, 2018 office: if one is upset over shit‐heads having altered controlled meds, one has to choose between being neurotic or psychotic..] Herbalife issued a termination letter dated October 26, 2018 the night before. I believed you found odd that I was the opposite of disgruntled. Why would any doctor ignore a patients repeated requests to release medical records, and be committing a crime in the process? Specially, when I was cc'ing a number of regulators including the department of health and human services is my email requests. Unless, there is some other activities going on the patient isn't aware off and others aren't allow to see. Your involvement with the Mexican and Hispanic community and employment litigation in Oxnard, CA and surrounding areas. 240 In particular, you work on behalf of corporate legal counsel, as the expert evaluating the "mental health" of employees subjected harassment and retaliatory actions by their employers. Specifically, whether the individuals understand what has been taking place [violence and psychological abuse (torture)] and/or articulate the detrimental impact its had on their health. Oxnard CA is home not just to Walmart but the Port Hueneme Military base. I also happened to spend a bit of time in the 90s being thought such minor things as golf before I was shipped to Washington DC. Adam Smith doesn't appear to be the invisible hand opening/closing doors for me in the US and global free market economy? Warning! this email mentions, Herbalife, the DEA, controlled medication [Amphetamines], LAPD some people may be incline to loose their marbles. Be clear you understand, I aren't addressing nor are you dealing with citizen Nancy. I have a Public Auditor inside the Transnational Cartels for 20 years. Your ignorance about who is a Federal Agent and Law Enforcement or the Global government is your problem, not mine. Thanks, Nancy Begin forwarded message: From: "." <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com> Date: January 11, 2021 at 11:53:39 AM PST Cc: 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 Subject: Fwd: Herbalife Nutrition 7/25/2019 ‐ Herbalife Summary 8.26.2019 Begin forwarded message: 241 From: "." <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com> Date: January 11, 2021 at 11:44:39 AM PST To: 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 Subject: Fwd: Herbalife Nutrition 7/25/2019 ‐ Herbalife Summary 8.26.2019 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. 242 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, 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, 243 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.m x, 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, 244 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.co m.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, 245 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 246 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. 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.... 247 Slds, Nancy Alfaro Begin forwarded message: From: Nancy Alfaro <alfaro.nancy@gmail.c om> Date: August 26, 2019 at 6:33:49 PM PDT To: Julia Bailey <juliaba@herbalife.com > Cc: Henry Wang <henryw@herbalife.co m>, 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; 248 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. 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. 249 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” 250 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, 251 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] 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.m x, 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, 252 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.co m.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, 253 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.g ob.mx, pgjecomsoc@michoacan.gob.mx, silvanoaureoles@michoacan.gob.mx, Marco.Lagunas@cocotra.michoacan.go b.mx, comunicacionesytransportes@senado.g ob.mx, transparencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob. mx, transparenciamorelia@morelia.gob.mx, gobiernodemorelia@morelia.gob.mx, fiscalgeneral@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.m x, 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.g ob.mx, gobernacion@senado.gob.mx, anticorrupcion@senado.gob.mx, justicia@senado.gob.mx, puntosconstitucionales@senado.gob.m x, derechoshumanos@senado.gob.mx, asuntosindigenas@senado.gob.mx, 254 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 255 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, 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, 256 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, 257 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, 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, 258 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 This section was on January 2021. amacrine67@icloud.com, info@ericwexlermd.com, pialigeti@gmail.com, WexlerSecretary@2730wilshire.com, Steven.Sheh@gmail.com, steven.sheh.300ivy@gmail.com, larrykern300@gmail.com, sabrina.300ivy@gmail.com, michele.300ivy@gmail.com, 300ivy305@gmail.com, ariel_zach@yahoo.com, cathy.edwards@gmail.com, RebCohen999@sbcglobal.net, marco.pulido@yahoo.com, 259 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 5:41 PM To:Honky Subject:IF YOU CARE BE SURE TO SHARE BTW This is one of those BANNED posts of the CIA FACEBOOK NETWORK LOL CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. https://secure22.syncusercontent.com/mfs- 60:40530b4e541a970b0f0d6f628ca9ee85=============================/p/Rense.20210113.2of3.mp3?allowdd=0 &datakey=iaEFgUUrD70wUGpW0lFJYutYWy7fnQujy7iz2JPlI/W1BhAapPPgZYg3fuhHTbizgfIx8NLPQGberdl2HxQ6Fnpo qYkprZy9hptryR27S6zf5BtkcwRbdyV0OOeOy8v7MtT7XP+bdz6FqC7Tlu8ZhM0YbeKlyRpZYAsRh80bRY0NnXwopTYKo m9pVc7e7ovNZI/SmG5v0t02VPLfvWcO6cgea4dGOJ0KZY44vlIZ4BF5h69iAYCyMR7S/yQdCa4ZqL04S0zqI32EgPJV+/7 JTLhSBUpM4b1xvzvUR95E1m3nTLKvJZnAkCWZq9MtzsFGqgyXsKtRwtV7d4i8lgAwRw&engine=ln- 3.1.56&errurl=e3MRzPMXFeZ6I8MUQt/m7Hht89r9Y3H8er0VlX9P9OcjFoYRy7rC4WU1BHyddRqAl+Ea97NOLv5ZJbI60N 5q4gNorbrWZAKLNZ5bkJVLEhSwWZI1qGgW2LkEx7UamfaWIZWUA3ABd3LOURnUx7I1vnlZ9LvsvXazeqYwqdmwyTeX VNA5sYm+FCG6zELxXuWkSmdfWa0BmhFYlS7zN5f6OQXgUd5LL75cIPLQHAv6+Mciw54rbqDrlIMhkFlbePUF5YKciN0g T54v0feQDpybu/QDWDQRZUO+ppMsNMYN3/0F1UobbefCE74FfvKNPYwWHQmoLHJ55qUJzUjIar5fVQ==&header1=Q 29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBhdWRpby9tcGVn&header2=Q29udGVudC1EaXNwb3NpdGlvbjogaW5saW5lOyBmaWxlbmFtZT0i UmVuc2UuMjAyMTAxMTMuMm9mMy5tcDMiO2ZpbGVuYW1lKj1VVEYtOCcnUmVuc2UuMjAyMTAxMTMuMm9mMy5tcD M7&ipaddress=bd5158dbf6e7c2eecc71632a020c2752b97c440c&linkcachekey=c9a796fe0&linkoid=708650010&mode=1 00&sharelink_id=5268036170010×tamp=1610642918799&uagent=d9febf9289600c6b4fe2d417a6e862cf075ba67c&signa ture=293c36a7969c67bbbe18da2eda2551fe40463e53&cachekey=60:40530b4e541a970b0f0d6f628ca9ee85========= ==================== 260 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 3:38 PM To:Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Steven D. Lee; Raven Malone; Council, City Subject:From the mercury news archives —racist policing in Palo Alto has never stopped CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/02/25/residents‐question‐police‐chief‐at‐palo‐alto‐forum/amp/ Sent from my iPhone 261 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:URGENT: Please be on the look and respond to emai lfrom Mary Egan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council, Mary is helping to ensure we have a meaningful and productive retreat on Jan 30. Please be on the look out for a request from her to talk for about 10 minutes and let her know when you are available. No need to reply to my email. Best, Tom 262 Baumb, Nelly From:Antun Domic <antundomict@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Invasion of the US Capitol CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council Members: Cities across the US are investigating if members of their Police and Fire Departments took part in the illegal trespassing of the Capitol building or the barriers protecting the Capitol in Washington Wednesday, Jan 6th, and are taking action against any officers or officials that were involved in such acts. It is important that the City of Palo Alto determines if any city police, fire or other official took part in any illegal actions at the Capitol. All persons, even if representing themselves personally, who break the law must not be allowed to be members of our city police and fire departments. I urge to review the situation to ensure that our community can have trust in our City officers and officials. Sincerely, Antun Domic 3404 Cork Oak Way Palo Alto 263 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 9:56 AM To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Steven D. Lee; Greer Stone; Cari Templeton; Raven Malone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Kaloma Smith; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; greg@gregtanaka.org; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Jonsen, Robert; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jethroe Moore Subject:Council to discuss radio transmissions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://padailypost.com/2021/01/11/council‐to‐discuss‐police‐radio‐encryption‐mountain‐view‐says‐it‐will‐follow‐palo‐ altos‐lead/amp/ Sent from my iPhone 264 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 9:45 AM To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Steven D. Lee; Raven Malone; Greer Stone; Cari Templeton; DuBois, Tom; greg@gregtanaka.org; Shikada, Ed; Rebecca Eisenberg; Cormack, Alison; Winter Dellenbach; Jethroe Moore; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kaloma Smith; Jeff Rosen Subject:LAPD WANTS TO KNOW IF ITS OFFICERS ATTENDED TRUMP RALLY OR CAPITAL building riot-we want to know the same re PAPD members CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/13/lapd‐wants‐to‐know‐if‐its‐officers‐attended‐trump‐rally‐or‐capitol‐ building‐riot/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone 265 Baumb, Nelly From:Heidi Schwenk <heidi29@me.com> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Very Important —- Fwd: PIC Women Stakeholder Briefing Follow Up and Links CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Will the City of Palo Alto participate any all or any of the following events? Please coordinate with the powers that be to show solidarity with the Inauguration Committee and the new President and Vice‐President. Best Heidi Schwenk 760 Northampton Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Bajeyah Eaddy <coalitions@mail.bideninaugural.org> Date: January 13, 2021 at 6:36:42 PM PST To: heidi29@me.com Subject: PIC Women Stakeholder Briefing Follow Up and Links Reply‐To: Bajeyah Eaddy <coalitions@mail.bideninaugural.org> To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Dear Women Leaders, Advocates and Activists, Thank you to those who were able to attend the briefing today and I look forward to partnering with you! The Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) has been busy planning the Inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden and Vice 266 President-elect Kamala Harris and we’re so excited to be able to share some exciting updates with you. While the Inauguration will look different this year, the PIC is committed to honoring our Inaugural traditions, showcasing the strength and resilience of our nation, and bringing Americans together to mark a new beginning for the country through a series of accessible virtual events. Following Wednesday’s horrific attack on the Capitol, please know the PIC remains in close contact with its security partners and the JCCIC as inaugural planning continues. We are confident in our security partners who have spent months planning and preparing for the inauguration, and we are continuing to work with them to ensure the utmost safety and security of the President-elect, Vice President-elect, participants, and the public during this historic event. We are looking forward to the inaugural ceremonies, in which the American people and the world will witness a peaceful transition of power. This will mark a new day for the American people focused on healing our nation, bringing our country together, and building back better. The PIC wanted to highlight ways you can join us in celebrating the Inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris: MLK Day of Service Please see below for the next steps on how to set up your MLK Day of Service event and let me know if you have any questions! 1. Fill out our Host form: If you haven’t yet, please fill out this form [link] so we can gather important information about your organization. 2. Review the toolkit: In this link you will find our toolkit that includes all helpful information for event hosts. 3. Create your event on Mobilize America: Use the directions in our host toolkit to post your event on Mobilize, the website we will use to organize and promote all National Day of Service events. Once you post your event you can start recruiting volunteers - click here to access the 267 Mobilize dashboard, which will feature all National Day of Service events. 4. Review our Health & Safety Guidelines: If you are planning on hosting an in-person event, please review our Health & Safety Guidance in the host toolkit to ensure all events follow the Presidential Inaugural Committee's guidelines as well as the most up-to-date CDC and local health and safety guidance. 5. Join our optional informational session: We are hosting informational sessions on 1/8 and 1/11 for our partners to go over next steps in our process. Please note that this is an optional informational session and is not required to become a partner for Day of Service. Sign up here: mobilize.us/nationaldayofservice/event/368279/ I’m excited to share these additional ways we can continue to grow our partnership too: Field of Flags Donation Page: As a Service Partner with the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) for the National Day of Service on MLK Day, 501(c)(3) organizations are invited to have their organization listed on a group fundraising page hosted by ActBlue. Please click here to learn more and click here to sign up. Masks: As we mentioned we would love to ship you masks should you find that useful! Please fill out this form to request the masks. @Judy Fong has been coordinating this effort and will happily answer any questions you have regarding the masks! Impact Stories: Share the stories of your organization's impact via this form. We will be sharing your submissions with our communications and digital departments. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional assistance. We look forward to engaging people across the country to give back to their community and honor the legacy of Dr. King on the National Day of Service. Thank you in advance for your participation! COVID Memorial The PIC will also be hosting a memorial to remember and honor the lives lost to COVID-19 in cities and towns across the country on Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. ET. A Washington, D.C. ceremony will feature a lighting around the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. It will be the first-ever lighting 268 around the Reflecting Pool to memorialize American lives lost. The PIC is inviting cities and towns around the country to join Washington, D.C. in illuminating buildings and ringing church bells at 5:30 p.m. ET in a national moment of unity and remembrance. You can get involved by: Encouraging your elected officials to light up city buildings in the color AMBER Asking your clergy or non-profit agencies to ring bells Lighting a candle in your window on January 19 at 5:30 p.m. ET to join in the countrywide moment of remembrance Parade Across America (Virtual Parade) I am also looking forward to the Parade Across America, which will feature diverse, dynamic performances in communities across the country. As I mentioned in today's briefing the deadline for parade submissions was yesterday January 11, 2021. We received many wonderful ideas for the parade and now the production team is working through selecting the finalists. When they have given us guidance we will let you know about the disability groups that will appear in the parade. This virtual parade will be viewable on an accessible digital platform and will be similar to the Roll Call Across America at the Democratic National Convention last summer. The parade will celebrate America’s heroes, highlight Americans from all walks of life in different states and regions, and reflect on the diversity, heritage, and resilience of the country as we begin a new American era. This is a safe, responsible alternative that will ensure all Americans can come together to celebrate this historic inauguration and a new American era -- one of healing, of unifying, and of coming together to defeat the pandemic and build back better. Thanks again to those who attended today’s briefing. Please keep a watch out for an invite to another briefing on Inaugural Accessibility later this week. I look forward to these unifying moments bringing the American people together, and 269 I commend the PIC for taking the appropriate steps to protect public health while honoring our inaugural traditions and bringing the country together. Yours In Service, Bajeyah Eaddy Associate Director of Coalitions Presidential Inaugural Committee Copyright © 2021 PIC 2021, Inc, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website or otherwise engaged with our team. Our mailing address is: PIC 2021, Inc PO Box 58178 Philadelphia, PA 19102-8178 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 270 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 3:30 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; 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; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; midge@thebarretts.com; news@fresnobee.com Subject:Fwd: UK's Dr. John Campbell for Wed. Jan. 13, 2021. Overview of various countries.. 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 5:16 PM Subject: UK's Dr. John Campbell for Wed. Jan. 13, 2021. Overview of various countries.. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Very late on Wed. Jan. 13, 2021 Scroll to the bottom to find the link to his discussion today. Well worth viewing, as always. To all‐ Dr. Campbell in UK for today. 27:43 He does an "international update". China‐ a few new cases. "It never goes away". There is a Chinese vaccine: Sinovac Biotech. Being used in Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia. Results are all over the place. Oxford vaccine: European Medicines Agency just got a request from Astrazeneca to approve it. Maybe they will by January 29. "Apalling delay". U.S. is doing its own trials of the Oxford vaccine and is in Phase 3. Could be completed in March. "Why can't people move faster in a crisis? What part of crisis don't you understand?" He shows good websites‐ URLs for U.S. data. Cases are up in U.S. Lots of community transmission. Cases leads to hospitalizations which leads to deaths. Deaths up 24.3% in a week. He mentions the Trump and Biden admins rolling out ALL of the vaccine now. No more holding half of it back from the States to use as a second dose. Having received the first dose will keep most people out of the hospital. At 11:00. "A slow start and a long way to go in the U.S." "A vaccine that can be transported at refrigerator tempertures can only help in the U.S." (the Oxford vaccine). At 15:00 "What we are doing in the UK is starting to have an effect. Cases in last 7 days down 0.5%. 271 ********** Important: "Deaths start dropping about a month after cases start dropping" . 6,898 deaths in past 7 days in UK., up 45.6%. 1,243 deaths yesterday. When cases start dropping, the deaths keep rising for a while. The hospitals in UK‐ lots of deaths in next few weeks. Pressure on the hospitals in all four nations of UK won't drop for weeks. He shows the "vaccine tracker" again and shows the URL. Urges people to see it often. Shows doses given per 100 population in many countries. ********** Important: "For most of us, things will get worse in the next few weeks". L.William Harding Fresno, Ca. Sure glad he has his dog Winston nearby. That helps. LH‐ If I were Trump or Biden, I would invite the regulators in the UK who authorized the emergency use of the Oxford vaccine to Washington, D.C. I would urge Congress to have them testify as to what trial data led them to approve the Oxford vaccine for use in the UK. Dr. Campbell says that the FDA and its Vaccine Advisory Committee have all of the data that the UK regulators had. Then have the FDA and its Vaccine Advisory Committee tell Congress what justifies their taking an additional three months to approve the Oxford vaccine when 4,000 Americans per day are dying of Covid. What do they see in the trial data that the UK regulators did not see? The Oxford vaccine is now in use in the UK and has been now for eleven days. Have both the UK regulators and the U.S. regulators testify at the same hearing. Listen and talk to them all for more than one day, if necessary. LH‐ I think it is unconscienable for the FDA to delay the approval of the Oxford vaccine until at least April. Congress and the President should not allow it. Update ‐ YouTube 272 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Riedel <bobbie.riedel@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 11:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:National Moment of Remembrance Jan 19 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Will Palo Alto be participating in the Biden‐Harris National Moment of Unity and remembrance on January 19? https://bideninaugural.org/presidential‐inaugural‐committee‐announces‐memorial‐and‐nationwide‐tribute‐to‐ remember‐and‐honor‐the‐lives‐lost‐to‐covid‐19/ Roberta Riedel “When we care for each other, all our lives become better. And when we give all citizens a place at the table, we open the door to America being at its best.” 273 Baumb, Nelly From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:12 PM To:Council, City Cc:Palo Alto Online Subject:Police radio access change, related to media CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I have just read in Palo Alto Online that the police are switching to encrypted communications because state and federal law enforcement authorities are requiring them to prevent confidential information (such as driver’s license numbers or other personal information of suspects) from being overheard. This is understandable ‐ however it deprives us citizens of access to information. I quote from PAOnline, words with which I fully agree: "The news media’s ability to monitor police activity is critically important because it allows for the community to be quickly informed about incidents so misinformation doesn’t spread through rumors. Media websites are the first place residents check when they want reliable news about an emergency taking place, whether it be a fire, a lock‐down at a high school, a shooting or major crime. Taking that away means the public and media must depend, at best, on an update from the police often hours or days after an incident. And it will deprive the public of an important form of accountability and transparency of police operations." I respectfully request that some arrangement be made for the media to have access to those communications, possibly via some sort of license. An agreement could be signed about what information would not be made public, and any media outlet who violated that agreement could have that license revoked ‐ the time period, and the proof of fixing the problem before license renewal, could be spelled out in the agreement. Virginia Smedberg 441 Washington Ave, PA 94301 274 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Bloomberg <dan.bloomberg@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for police encryption of radio transmissions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I fully support the decision of PAPD and several other Santa Clara county police agencies to encrypt radio transmissions, as the most effective step to comply with a mandate from the California Department of Justice. This not only protects personal information, but also prevents criminals from using police information to reduce the effectiveness of the police. Some journalists are not happy, but their loss of access to this information is far outweighed by the simplicity of the solution and the reduction of crime due to the increased probability that criminals operating in Palo Alto will be caught. Crime in Palo Alto is inversely related to the effectiveness of policing, and this fact should always be given great weight when making policing decisions, such as this one. This posting by Palo Alto Police Chief Robert Jonson lays it out: https://medium.com/paloaltoconnect/in-the-public-interest-43532b67e34f I quote from the first two paragraphs: "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, I would like to take a moment to discuss this state requirement and how it does not change the Police Department’s 275 commitment to transparency and sharing of public information. The Palo Alto Police Department is not the first law enforcement agency in Santa Clara County to comply with this state mandate, which local media reports have led the public to believe. In fact, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, the San Jose Police Department, the Morgan Hill Police Department, and the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety have moved their radio communications to encrypted channels. The remaining law enforcement agencies in the County are continuing to use open and unencrypted channels in the short term and are all planning to migrate to encrypted channels by the end of the calendar year at the latest. At that time, every law enforcement agency in Santa Clara County will be using encryption." Thank you. Dan Bloomberg Palo Alto 94306 276 Baumb, Nelly From:Glenn Fisher <gfisher@mac.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Police encryption CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council, Please take action to demand the Palo Alto Police Department finds a way to enable journalists to access police communication. While I understand the desire to encrypt, and thus make private, police communications, I agree with the Palo Alto Weekly that preventing journalists from being able to follow at least the general activity of our police is an important part of informing the public and making police activity public and transparent. Given that even here in Palo Alto our police force has not managed to provide much transparency and has impeded the citizen’s oversight committee, it is essential to provide some visibility into police activity. There are many ways to enable journalist access to communication, including creating a registration for journalists to use encrypted radio, using a second encrypted channel for non‐public information, and more. I’m sure the smart people of Palo Alto can find a way that is acceptable to both the police and our local journalists. Glenn Fisher Palo Alto 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jethroe Moore <moore2j@att.net> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:20 AM To:Greer Stone; Human Relations Commission; Raven Malone; Steven D. Lee; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Ed Lauing; DuBois, Tom; Cari Templeton; Cormack, Alison; Shikada, Ed; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Kaloma Smith; greg@gregtanaka.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg; Aram James Subject:Re: Highly trained ex military and cops join capital insurgents rioters Attachments:infiltration of the U.S. Military by violent far-right extremist organizations.doc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Again no surprises, we warned of this almost 2 years ago On Saturday, January 16, 2021, 10:05:48 AM PST, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Follow the link below to view the article. https://mercurynews-ca-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=0645da684_1345be8 Sent from my iPhone National NAACP Resolution Resolution to stop the infiltration of the U.S. Military by violent far-right extremist organizations . Whereas, the United States Military has witnessed a concerning rise in far-right extremism and terrorist violence; and Whereas, the white supremacist movement in the United States is surging and presents a distinct and present danger to this country and its institutions, including the U.S. Armed Forces (recent investigations have revealed dozens of veterans and active-duty service members who are affiliated with white supremacist activity); and Whereas, on February 11, 2020 Chief Workplace Transformation Officer Lecia Brooks testified before the Subcommittee on Military Personnel (U.S. House Armed Serviced Committee) about the infiltration of the military by white supremacists; and Whereas, the Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi group whose members have allegedly been responsible for five murders since mid-2017 specifically targets members of the Armed Services, and encourages members to enlist in the military to acquire specialized training; and Whereas, a new propaganda (October 2019) video showcases Atomwaffen's "intention to enter a new violent phase”; and Whereas, servicemembers often possess unique training and capabilities, and if indoctrinated by white supremacist organizations may represent a significant threat to national security and the safety of our communities; and Whereas, in December 2019, it was reported that the National Defense Authorization Act was altered in the U.S. Senate to remove mention of “white nationalists” in the screening process for military enlistees; and Whereas, under this change, the Department of Defense is instructed only to screen for “extremist and gang-related activity"--a significant change when we consider that service members are allowed to serve in the White House, and any number of other sensitive military and political posts with access to sensitive information and obvious weaponry; and Whereas, a September 19, 2019, document from the Department of Homeland Security (Strategic Framework for Targeting Terrorism and Targeted Violence) read, “[w]hite supremacist violent extremism, one type of racially- and ethnically- motivated violent extremism, is one of the most potent forces driving domestic terrorism;" and Whereas, on Feb. 17 The Federal Protective Service (part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) reported that white supremacists planned on targeting law enforcement and “non-white” people in particular in plans to weaponize and spread the Covoid-19 virus to these populations; SAN JOSE/SILICON VALLEY BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE 1313 North Milpitas Blvd Suite #163, Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone (669) 284-2173 Therefore, be it resolved that the NAACP call on the Congressional Black Caucus to urge the U.S. Senate National Defense Authorization Act to include “white nationalists” in the screening process for military enlistees; and Therefore, be it resolved that the NAACP demand that the State Department have Atomwaffen designated a terrorist organization with domestic and international branches; and Therefore, finally be it resolved that any active military member found to be a member of/support of white supremacist group which principally espouse white ethno-nationalism and/or National Socialism (neo-Nazi), such as the National Socialist Movement (NSM), Hammerskin Nation, and Atomwaffen Division, be dishonorably discharged from Military Service. Rev. Jethroe Moore II, President ___________________________________________________________________ Branch President Signature Date Nicole Gatlin Branch Secretary ___________________________________________________________________ Branch Secretary Signature Date Unit Assistant Secretary: Antonio Walker Unit Assistant Secretary: Antonio Walker____________________________________ https://www.splcenter.org/news/2020/02/11/splc-testifies-congress-alarming-incidents-white- supremacy-military White Supremacists Had Plans to Weaponize Coronavirus: Even Amid a Global Pandemic, They Choose Hate Website: http://www.sanjosenaacp.org Email: sjnaacp@sanjosenaacp.org 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 8:36 AM To:Council, City Cc:abjpd1@gmail.com; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; San.francosco@ic.fbi.gov Subject:Fwd: CHP SILVER ALERT: ( Heidi Yauman ) Attachments:MC 410 YAUMAN C1493022.pdf; 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. I just called Palo Alto PD requested Silver Alert. Waiting for cAll back Please see attached documentation & refer to USC Title 18 Section 4. Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/16/2021 To: AMANDA.RAY@CHP.CA.GOV Cc: supreme.sourt@jud.ca.gov,AHERBERT@SUNNYVALE.CA.GOV,knguyen@sunnyvaleca.gov,citymgr@sunn yvale.ca.gov,abjpd1@gmail.com,dtiogson@sunnyvaleca.gov,Christopher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>,Chantel.brown12@gmail.com,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov Subject: CHP SILVER ALERT: ( Heidi Yauman ) ATT AMANDA RAY, California Highway Patrol Please issue Silver Alert immediately for Heidi Yauman. See attached documentation & refer to USC Title 18 Section 4 Contact Sunnyvale and Palo Alto PD Thank You, Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/16/2021 To: abjpd1@gmail.com,j@fuerylaw.com,kenditkowsky@yahoo.com,Christopher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.com> Cc: 3 dtiogson@sunnyvaleca.gov,knguyen@sunnyvaleca.gov,supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,city mgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov,david.rose@aog.ca.gov,Chantel.brown12@gmail.com,sixth.distr ict@jud.ca.gov,karim.kahwaji@ssa.sccgov.org Subject: Fwd: ARAM JAMES ‐ URGENT ( Heidi Yauman ) All, Be advised that at 7:10 this morning, I was threatened again by Security guard at 816 West Ahwanee Avenue that Police would call police for first amendment protected activity against myself & residents who fear for their safety. There is still no effective grievance process in place & residents are being deprived of their first amendment right to redress grievances &. have chosen to bring their concerns to my attention. One guard today told me that they were specifically directed to not allow anyone to photograph or video building or residents. One resident has recently informed me she had been followed by SVSP security to Lucky's grocery store and back. The security guard allegedly followed her around while she was doing her shopping. I let guard know that because felonies had been committed, if Heidi Yauman dies they could be charged with murder. I called Sunnyvale PD at 7:13 AM today and briefed them on situation. Regards, Cary Andrew Critteden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/16/2021 To: abjpd1@gmail.com Cc: Chantel.brown12@gmail.com,aherbert@sunnyvaleca.goibv,knguyen@s unnyvalecsa.gov,pngo@cityofsunnyvale.org,vagabondinnsunnyvale@g mail.com,citymgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov,joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Subject: Fwd: ARAM JAMES ‐ URGENT ( Heidi Yauman ) Hello Aram, I accidentally sent to your Juno account accidentally instead of Gmail. this must have been why I did not hear back. A woman near camp told I was trespassing & would call police. I will not leave and can bot because Heidi beexds ti be able to find me if she comes back. Sunnyvale Pollice absolutely can not en force trespassing ordinance when they ( LT Ramirez ) is responsible for causing the situation. I am 4 staying put.. ‐ She did niot identify herself and she did not specify (which property) sod still not valid because I have no way of knowing whether she has authority over property. I Also have other legal business there & others have given me permission. I was simply charging laptop. This maybe going out in National Radio tomorrow. It was cold last night & Heidi is out there somewhere. I don't know if she had blankets or anything. Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/15/2021 To: abjpd1@juno.com Cc: citymgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov,janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com ,Christopher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>,derrick.brigham@pts.sccgov.o rg,supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov, debra.ryan@scscourt.org,knguyen@sunnyvaleca.gov Subject: ARAM JAMES ‐ URGENT ( Heidi Yauman ) Aram, A combination of good news and bad news. Heidi has gone missing since Tuesday, she went to take a shower at trinity church and never returned. She has shower at our hotel room at 816 West Avenue, which we are I legal possession of , and being kept out of our home. Federal Fema funds are being misapropriatrd $ security guards from SVSP are being paid with federal funds to engage in harassment snd threats against myself and Heidi Yauman. Good news is that she has been seen yesterday at Edgewood Shopping center ( Market at Edgewood ) by Veronica Calderon & there is active missing person case. Sunnyvale and Palo Alto have alot of great officers. 5 I asked Sunnyvale officer Phillips to contact LT Con Malone who knows Heid and I both & also the area & great officer & awesome guy. Later in the morning, Sunnyvale PD has agreed to address the issues at Vagabond inn with Heidi and I being illegal kept from our home , the felonies committed and deprivation of property without due process & deprivation of rights under color of law. I have no hard feelings against lt. Ramirez , and though I don't believe he acted lawfully and in good faith, there is also evidence that he has been fed false information and other Sunnyvale officers amazed me in not only their knowledge of the US Constitution, but their willingness to protect Heidi keep her safe and protect her rights. Would you please, at your earliest convenience follow up with Sunnyvale PD on. getting this situation resolved & getting us back inside. We were both model tenants and there is no evidence that either of us violated. The accusations stated as fact in fraudulent documentation are without merit, basis or foundation. They are malicious lies and can not be given any more value than deserved. Will no axe to grind or ill will toward LT Ramirez, it needs to be made clear that I was threatened with unlawful arrest if I did not comply with the extortion demands or leave our home. Regardless of how Ramirez intended this to be interpreted, To me, it was "Threat against Heidi's life" because if were to be arrested (lawfully or not), Heidi could easily die out in the winter. Robert Rocco had understood that this was under investigation and made big joke about it, & the more I pled to resolve conflict & address these legitimate grievances & the more hostile and sarcastic he became & made big joke about Heidi's Life & threatened to call security because I tried to protect her. This is unacceptable and I intend to follow up with prosecution. First and foremost, we need to find Heidi, return her home & ensure that these attacks stop, some sort of induction be issued to prevent the harassment and that we be allowed to live our lives in peace. Thank you, Cary Andrew Crittenden 6 Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/12/2021 To: citymgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov Cc: cityclerk@sunnyvale.ca.gov Subject: ATT: Mr. Kent Steffens Dear Mr. Steffens Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I request copies of the following records / records containing the following info. 1.). All Event numbers / Case Numbers / Incident numbers for all police calls for service to 816 West Ahwanee Ave. ( Vagabond Inn ) from November 10th, 2020 ‐ January 12th, 2021. ‐ Including all corresponding dispatch records, event summary's and CAD transcripts. If for any reason the decision is made to not release these records or any segment / portion thereof, I request reason in writing within 10 days pursuant to California Government Code § 6255. Thank you in advance for your compliance with this request. Regards, Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden @icloud.com> Date: 1/12/2021 To: karim.kahwaji@ssa.sccg ov.org Cc: vagabondinnsunnyvale @gmail.com 7 Subject: Project Room Key ‐ Vagabond Inn Good Morning Karim, Please update me on status of project room key situation. We have not heard back yet on resolution and am preparing lawsuit against the HHS staff at Vagabond Inn & their supervisors. 2 months have elapsed & there inso excuse or justification for their malicious , illegal and dangerous behavior. Regards, Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Critten den <caryan drewcri ttenden @iclou d.com> Date: 1/11/2 021 To: david.r ose@a og.ca.g ov Cc: supren e.court @jud.g ov,sixth .district @jud.c a.gov,d 110 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 16, 2021 7:48 AM To:Neilson Buchanan Subject:Chambers of Commerce have some degree of rationale Attachments:Chamber of Commerce Response to Covid Recovery Jan 2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Where is JFK's theme of asking not what your government can do for you but what leaders can do for themselves? Balance is more important than ever before. Good question for Palo Alto Council and Judy Kleinberg. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com CAL IFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMM ERCE California Business Properties Association NAIOP COMMERCIAL REAL ESTA TE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION NAIOP OF CALIFORNIA ~A " I CALIFORNIA ~~~ f?4 CMTA ~o~ Colifo[ io tM1t J ~ NFIB. CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION :,·~~~~~:·::. 9 Ca I if or n i a GROW<Rs Food Producers C F CALIFORNIA I FUELS S: CA CONVENIENCE A LLIANCE TourisM's United Vorce ~'-.,.. ~merican· N"l 1-.. ·" Chemistry ouncil ~ ~ American Sruffing Association G CAL JobCreatorsFor 9 SMACNA WorkplaceFairness .A_,_,_:fO -~LA '17'J"RAcTIO!IS "".?,,.PA!!Jcy ~ Q w M A ~ING CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA autocare"' Agricultural Council of California Trade(onlraclorsforfairnessandaffordabolily ASSOCIATION Independence drives us. CALJ FORN IA STATE CL'LINCIL QF SHRM , IFA • MFASC ~ MFANC METAL FINISHING ASSOCIATION METAL FINISHING AsSOCIATION FRANCHISING OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. CoaUtion of ~ Small & Disa bled Ve.1eran '· Businesses e . . TM IBW~ IN TERN AT I 0 NA L BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION L<l~lf Ci\,\ .... Chemical Industry Council of California association of claims professionals css SELF STORACE ASSOC IATIO t-1 J\IHOU ·COllAllOIAU· #ii':HllV.t • • • TECH NET • • • • • • • N El I THE VOICE OF THE INNOVATION ECONOMY NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY, INC. SETTING STANDARDS IN MOTION ffi:t.LI FO RN IA ~TS Advocates <Irl ORANGE COUNTY BUS INESS COUNCIL 1 t~e ! ea(11co Voi::e :::r Hus1ress Call ax [stablishcd 192b -----ACEC AMEJU~ Cou:-JCJ.L Of .EJ<ULl'H JU.NU CoM!'AJ<lliS Califi1rnia • Pacific Water Quality Association Los Angeles Area ~ t h b ChamberofCommerce me rG :: Om er SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CLAREMONT CHAMBER noccNORTH ELDORADO HILLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ORANGE COUNTY CHAMBER South Orange County Economic Coalition Educate • Facilitate • Advoc11te stoc~· Chamber of Commerce Oxnard Chamber of Commerce greater irvine •• ••• chamber ....._..., .... § !~h~~~tJm~~ i YOUNTVILLE i-Al 1 • LOS GATOS l.l!1J CHAM BERotCOMMERCE ~ CHAMBER of COMMERCE GRP.;\'IT.R R TVP.RSTDP. CIIAMHFRS Ol' COMlvfFRCP. GREATER SAN FERNANDO VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 11 P.alm desert area [hamber of rnmmerce ANAHEIM 0 GREATER[: CHAMBER • n OF COMMERCE H1gCHAMQ~~r:t II HAYWARD CHAMBER of COMMERCE Manhattan Beach CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ~it_.a.-ni.41sMi!Htn'~ ,.., alhambra CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WEST HO L LYWOOD ~.,,,~ PLEASANTON WHCC ~~r£i~P.7~~'?.Y.~ ~ ~ tf1 ~=~~f CHAMBEROFCOMMERCE •Beaumont Chamber w~A:fh" OFCOMMERCE ~ TEMECULA VALLEY CJ-IAM!H R C1J l\'tl 11 MONTrnRLO Cl-IAMBE::?Ol:CbMMERd CONNECT·FAOMOTE·Rf.PAESENT (...'.HA .""1 t1o t !~ !;.Ir· MIL. I YORBA LINDA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ommerce ANTELOPE VALLEY -CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DI URAC I IAMB ER -WHERE BUSINESS HAPPENS ri~i BELIEVE IN PARADISE • .-ii. INDUSTRY l'WiiStMlll:·~r.fCOMJIDC[ BUSINESS COUNCIL 01 Ll, tM •u. ~~ iul Ill :-. POWAY CHAMBER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE of CO"vlMERCE The Chamber Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY Chambers ot Commerce ~ CGREATER ~ SANTA BARBARA ---' NEJO 'ALLEY SOUTH COAST __......_..._,_ rl. CHAMBt:R OF COMMERCE flOM GOLETA TO c.UPINTHJA. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE I CONNECTION. The Chamber EDUCATION. NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ADVOCACY RIDGECREST ai. cH"MBE~ OF .m Mc:RCE ~'\ cHAM0i~it \._ ~ OF COMMERCE ••• •e Palo Alt;o Chamber oP Commerce \~t~ ' V I S A L I A C H A M B E R ~ OF COMMERCE Create I Connect I Compete c~~~:;~~ 1~ GREATER COACHELLA /:;:'\ "d ,,.If VALLEY CHAMBER \e1ceans1 e .~ CHAMBER ~:~~G~~~~! Vliambe:r~merce ~ ' & VISITOFIS BUFIEAU DuarteChamber(j), .. """"""" / ..... ~: .. -~. COSTA MESA C/lrunher of Comuwrt·t~ ;~R TEHACHAPI CHAMBER of COMMERCE ._LAGUNA NIGUEL vt/-rnAMBER f COMMERCE 1.-;WJ©l'Ji!J~ .!!!ilii;I ~I Of COMMERCE LAK._E ELSI NO~ VALLEY M CHAMBER ~ ORENO VALLE.I OF COMMERCE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE M'Norwt.Jlk ('1, '111 r Commerce @WHITTIER AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE January 13, 2021 The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor, State of California State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Toni Atkins President Pro Tern, California State Senate State Capitol, Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: ECONOMIC RECOVERY l ~li~~E~ OF COMMERCE Center of ial/ey Busim•ss The Honorable Anthony Rendon Speaker, California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 219 Sacramento, CA 95814 Members California State Legislature State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 MURRIETA/WILDOMAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Alameda CHAMBER of COMMERCE • UCAN j Dear Governor, Mr. Speaker, Madam President Pro Tern, Members of the State Legislature: The California economy cannot fully recover until businesses are allowed to reopen. Many employers believe they could safely reopen now with the extensive work they have done to create a safe environment for their employees and customers. But, until there is widespread distribution of the vaccine, it is doubtful that California will be allowed to reopen anytime soon with the record number of infections that have overwhelmed hospitals throughout the State. The shut downs have already devastated many small and large employers, and brought misery to millions of workers. As the shut down continues indefinitely, many more of these businesses will close permanently, unable to withstand the financial losses they are suffering. These closures take with them jobs, local tax revenues, and social glue from both local communities and the State. At the same time, California continues to suffer a significant exodus of employers to other states, who are seeking lower taxes, fewer regulatory burdens, more affordable housing for employees, and reduced employment litigation. While we have seen these occurrences gradually grow over the past several years, the pandemic, and current economic crisis in California has exacerbated this situation. Some of these employers will maintain existing facilities in California, while others are shutting down their offices/locations here completely, transferring jobs out of state. And, all employers leaving are eliminating the option for any future growth in California. California needs to address both crises immediately. We appreciate the announcement of the Governor's Equitable Recovery for California Businesses and Jobs plan that includes much needed financial relief for businesses suffering as a result of the pandemic, especially the proposed grant programs, which could provide a financial bridge for many employers until they are able to reopen. And, we encourage urgent action on these proposals as many employers are in desperate need now. But, we need to do more. The financial grant programs, loans, and tax relief will certainly help. However, not all employers who need assistance will be eligible and even for those who do, will not receive enough money to fully offset the costs they are facing as a result of the pandemic. The business community stands ready and willing to assist in expediting the distribution of the vaccine to help stop the spread and reopen the economy. Many employers have already offered their sites as locations to administer the vaccine to help with the distribution. But, until we reach a widespread distribution of vaccines, the Governor and Legislature must take action now to not only provide financial relief, but also reduce the costs facing all employers in California, including alleviating regulatory burdens, litigation threats, and tax threats, as well as immediately address our housing crisis. Small employers need to be protected from the harm of the pandemic and larger employers and their employees need a reason to stay. Accordingly, we request the Governor take executive action to immediately and temporarily suspend for at least six months, the following laws and regulations, which will reduce burdens on employers without affecting the health and safety of Californians: 1. CFRA for Small Employers: Temporarily suspend compliance with the California Family Rights Act for employers with fewer than 50 employees. These employers do not have the resources to administer a new and unfamiliar leave mandate while struggling to keep their businesses open. Employees of small businesses already have protected, paid leave if they have been exposed to, have symptoms of, have been diagnosed with, or have tested positive for COVID, through California paid sick leave and the new (SB 1159-Hill) workers' compensation presumption. The new leave mandate under CFRA is not COVID-specific. Small employers should be temporarily spared the cost and burden of new compliance with the extensive leave under CFRA while they are coping with the challenges of the pandemic. 2. CalOSHA Mandatory Tasting and Paid Leave: In November 2020, the California Occupational Health and Safety Board (CalOSHA) adopted emergency regulations to address COVID-19 ("Emergency Regulations") that imposed onerous requirements on employers of all sizes, including training, reporting, development of new processes/policies, protective barriers and equipment in the workplace, paid protected leave, and testing. These regulations were introduced, approved, and in effect within an approximate two week period, without meaningful stakeholder input from the employer community. The result has been overwhelming concern and cost to employers who again, are already suffering. And, these regulations unquestionably have a disproportionate impact on small employers, who have limited resources and do not have legal counsel, human resource managers, or safety advisors to help them comply. The CalOSHA Standards Board is not planning to meet and discuss these Emergency Regulations until March -and appears unlikely to make any changes to improve the regulation until months after the March meeting. While we appreciate the recent commitment to waive fines until February 1st for certain provisions of the Emergency Regulations, waiving some fines for a few weeks is not sufficient. Many employers need relief now and the structural infeasibilities of the Emergency Regulation (discussed below) will not disappear February 1 •1• The two provisions of these regulations creating the most concern and cost are testing and paid protected leave, upon which we request immediate action. a. Eliminate the enforcement of the mandatory testing requirement under the Emergency Regulations for employers who are in no position to meet these onerous requirements, such as weekly or biweekly testing of entire workplaces. As an initial matter, such testing is not commercially available in the volume needed to comply with this requirement, which will force struggling businesses to compete to purchase this scant supply. As recently as last month, both public and private employers reported shortages and inability to purchase or schedule tests in sufficient volume to comply with the regulation at CalOSHA's December stakeholder meeting. Putting aside the issue of shortages and cost, this onerous requirement will force employers to procure testing in bulk for large swaths of their workforce and compete with those who should be given priority such as healthcare workers, the elderly and those showing symptoms. This mandate is even more onerous on small businesses who do not have the resources or scale as a larger employer to purchase these tests. b. Eliminate the mandatory payment of wages under the Emergency Regulations for employees who are excluded from the workplace due to COVID. For employees who are exposed at work and ultimately test positive, California last year adopted SB 1159 (Hill) that provides employees with paid time off and medical care under the worker's compensation system. Requiring employers to provide additional paid time off under the Emergency Regulations for a potential exposure, even if the employee ultimately does not test positive, forces employers to subsidize this public health crisis, which is an unfair burden to place on employers who are already suffering. Small employers with a limited workforce will be unfairly penalized by this requirement. Because the exposed workers may constitute most or all of a small employer's workforce, not only would this mandate force the business in many cases to shut down entirely, it would require the employer to continue paying wages even though the business is shuttered. 3. Property Taxes: Unlike other taxes, property tax payments are not based on a percentage of income or sales. These tax payments are due regardless of the owner's ability to pay, many of whom cannot due to the shutdowns. Accordingly, we request for you to temporarily delay the next installment of property taxes that are due in April 2021 to allow employers time to reopen and earn income/revenue. We request the Governor and/or Legislature to do the following: 1. Expedite Additional Financial Resources to Small Businesses: While both large and small employers have been impacted by this pandemic, small businesses have been exceptionally vulnerable. The most recent shutdowns have exacerbated sales and operating pressures that many small businesses have been struggling with for nine months. These small businesses do not have the financial reserves to satisfy all of the new obligations imposed by new regulations and laws, while trying to maintain their businesses at a reduced capacity-if operating at all. While the recent federal relief package will provide some employers with financial support through extension of the Paycheck Protection Program, as we know from the first relief package, not all employers will receive a loan and the costs upon which the loan money can be spent to ensure forgiveness is limited. The California Rebuild Fund and the Governor's proposed grant programs in the 2021-2022 budget are great additional tools to provide relief. But, the proposed maximum amounts and eligibility criteria under the grant programs are limited and will not sustain all employers through these shut downs. Accordingly, we request the Governor and the Legislature to expand the eligibility under the grant programs so more employers can qualify and increase the maximum amounts provided to sustain employers through the extended shut downs. Additionally, the Governor and Legislature should develop an immediate financial reimbursement or quarterly tax offset for employers who are investing in state-mandated upgrades for their workspaces to protect employees from COVID, compliance with the Emergency Regulations, hiring employees, or any other business expense the employer has incurred as a direct result of the pandemic. A tax credit at the end of the year will work for some employers, but many cannot wait that long for financial relief or will not have enough taxable income for a credit to have an impact. 2. Allow Employers to Utilize Net Operating Losses and Tax Credits: In July 2020, the Legislature approved the Governor's proposal to suspend the use of personal and business net operating losses (NOLs) and limit the use of existingbusiness tax credits to offset their tax liability for years 2020-2022. This proposal was advanced to raise approximately $9 billion in revenue to help address the budget shortfall expected as a result of COVID. As the Governor announced last week, California is not even close to experiencing a budget shortfall. In fact, California's budget is so flush with money that the surplus requirements in both the Rainy Day Reserve (Proposition 2) and State Appropriations Limit (Proposition 4) have been triggered. Accordingly, these tax saving measures that were adopted in July 2020 are no longer needed and businesses should be allowed to immediately utilize NOLs and earned tax credits to offset any harm they have suffered as a result of this pandemic and to encourage employers who are considering leaving, to stay. We further request the Legislature to enact the following policies in 2021: 1. Eliminate disincentives for telecommuting. Work-from-home options have kept thousands of employers in business and saved the jobs of thousands of employees. Due to public school closures, many parents are having to support their children who are distance learning, while also maintaining a job. Telecommuting gives working parents an opportunity to do both. However, existing state laws do not provide the necessary flexibility for employers to accommodate the scheduling challenges parents are facing with working and supporting kids at home. Employers who allow employees to work separate shifts in a day, work more hours one day to take time off on another day, or even skip a break to finish working early, may be penalized and fined. The laws should be updated to address this disincentive so that employees can enjoy the flexibility they need to meet these work and home demands. 2. Relieve Employers of Abusive Lawsuits Under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. During the pandemic, businesses have had to quickly react to the emergency shutdown orders and health guidance, by reducing employee hours, layoffs, final pay, transitioning employees to work from home, implementing supplemental COVID sick pay, new CalOSHA regulations, etc. Employers have had to adjust with limited time and notice to these changing arrangements, while trying to keep their businesses afloat. While employees should always be entitled to wages they earn, employers should not be subject to frivolous litigation under PAGA in which they are extorted by attorneys for layers of penalties for minor violations. At a minimum, the Legislature should temporarily suspend PAGA or eliminate the opportunity for lawyers to file these abusive lawsuits against employers who are already struggling from this pandemic. Employees should still be able to pursue claims before the Labor Commissioner and other agencies. But attorneys should not be able to victimize businesses who are already suffering. Additionally, the constant threat and barrage of employment litigation is one of the top concerns of large employers in California. It should be noted that California is the only state in the country that has a PAGA statute, allowing private attorneys to stand in the shoes of the state and seek penalties against employers for a number of different labor violations, including purely technical deficiencies. The Legislature must reform PAGA to eliminate the opportunity for lawyers to file these abusive lawsuits against employers, which have proven be a huge windfall for attorneys, and negligible relief for employees. Employers have paid millions in attorney's fees over the last decade due to PAGA, and the negative impact is finally taking its toll as large companies are now fleeing the State. 3. Delay Enforcement of Updated Guidance and Regulations. Dozens of state agencies have conducted business as usual during the pandemic, issuing new rules and guidance for employers to follow, with little to no notice, and pushing costly emergency regulations with less than one week of notice to the business community. CalOSHA did not provide the text of the Emergency Regulations until November 12th, and yet businesses were expected to be in compliance with the finalized regulations by November 30th. At the same lime as these guidance documents and new regulations were released, businesses were scrambling to adjust to statewide orders to shut down or reduce their capacity. We have heard complaints from employers that by the first week of December, CalOSHA was already investigating and citing employers for failure to comply with these expedited regulations. Notably, the Governor issued an Executive Order that allows the Office of Administrative Law additional time to review and consider proposed regulations given the strain of the pandemic, but provided no such courtesy for the regulated community. The Legislature should provide employers with some grace period to receive notice of any new guidance and regulations, and time to gather the resources to comply, before any effort of enforcement. 4. Pay Down the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Fund: This pandemic has created unprecedented unemployment numbers, which are tragic for unemployed Californians, but are also draining the State's UI fund, and forcing the State to borrow billions of dollars from the federal government. This insolvency and job loss is due, in large part, to the ongoing state-mandated shutdown of much of California's economy. The Employment Development Department recently indicated that the State would reach $21.5 billion in loans from the federal government by the end of 2020 and that the loan will grow to $48 billion by the end of 2021. This federal loan is paid off by increasing payroll taxes on employers through a reduced federal tax credit, which forces employers to further shoulder the cost of this shutdown. Given the size of the expected UI Fund deficit, we expect California's employers to be facing increased taxes for twenty years or more without state action. To address this insolvency and help businesses rebuild, the one-time windfall noted in General Fund revenues should be applied to the outstanding UI loan to reduce this future tax increase on employers. 5. Reject Any New Tax Measures: California already has the highest personal income tax, the highest sales tax, and one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country. Although Proposition 13 keeps property taxes at a reasonable rate, the cost of housing in California eclipses the financial relief Proposition 13 provides. For years, the assumption has been that employers and employees would pay these high rates to enjoy the benefits California offers. But, the costs are now outweighing the benefits. Both employers and employees are leaving the State to find a lower cost of living and lower cost of doing business. Employers cannot withstand more taxes at either the state or local level. Any new proposals should be immediately rejected, not only because it is bad policy, but because even allowing these proposals to move through the process further encourages more employers to leave the State. 6. Eliminate Barriers to Housing: Employers and employees are leaving the State also because of the severe affordable housing crisis. It is a problem that existed before the pandemic, and a problem that has been exacerbated by the pandemic. The Legislature must reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to eliminate litigation cost premiums and unnecessary delays for the development of affordable housing and market priced homes to provide housing for lower income and middle class Californians. Additionally, the Legislature must approve real and meaningful solutions, including but not limited to capping local housing fees, reinstating tax increment financing for targeted economic development to help pay for local infrastructure and housing, holding cities more accountable for not approving adequate housing, reshaping state-local tax sharing to reduce disincentives to approve new housing, quashing any further attempts at rent control, avoiding overly broad one-size-fits all development bans in State Responsibility Areas and high fire severity zones, and further incentivizing up zoning and "missing middle" housing. The State will need a strong business recovery to bring back jobs and stability to our communities. We cannot recover when businesses are shutting down and employers are leaving the State. We look forward to working with all of you this year to stop the spread of the virus and help California rebuild. Sincerely, Allan re e Presiden and CEO California Chamber of Commerce Emily Rooney President Agricultural Council of California Erin Guerrero Executive Director California Attractions and Parks Association ~s~ Rex Hime President California Business Properties Association Elizabeth Graham Executive Director California Fuels & Convenience Alliance Sandra Giarde Executive Director California Landscape Contractors Association ~ Executive Vice President California Chamber of Commerce Thomas K. Bannon CEO California Apartment Association ~"c~ ) Dan Dunmoyer President and CEO California Building Industry Association Rob Neenan President and CEO California Food Producers "{;~ Lynn S. Mohrfeld, CAE President and CEO California Hotel & Lodging Association ~~ Lance Hastings r1 President and CEO California Manufacturers and Technology Association James Simonelli Executive Director California Metals Coalition ·~ President California Retailers Association Shaw Yadon CEO California Trucking Association Maria Salinas President and CEO Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Lucy Dunn President and CEO Orange County Business Council Alameda Chamber Chamber of Commerce Alhambra Chamber of Commerce American Chemistry Council J Co die Pre cent California Restaurant Association Robert Gutierrez President and CEO California Taxpayers Association Robert Rivinius Executive Director Family Business Association of California ~~ California State Director National Federation of Independent Business ~~~ Bobby Koch President and CEO Wine Institute American Council of Engineering Companies California American Staffing Association Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Antelope Valley Chambers of Commerce Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles Associated General Contractors Association of Claims Professionals Auto Care Association Beaumont Chamber of Commerce Benicia Chamber of Commerce Big Bear Chamber of Commerce Brawley Chamber of Commerce Brea Chamber of Commerce Building Owners and Managers Association of California CAWA -Representing the Automotive Parts Industry California Alarm Association California Apartment Association California Arts Advocates California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association California Association of Winegrape Growers California Beer and Beverage Distributors California Business Properties Association California Hotel and Lodging Association California Lodging Industry Association California Manufacturers & Technology Association California Self Storage Association California Staffing Professionals California State Council of the Society for Human Resource Management California Travel Association Carson Chamber of Commerce Cemetary and Mortuary Association of California Chemical Industry Council of California Chico Chamber of Commerce Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce Claremont Chamber of Commerce Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses Commercial Real Estate Development Association -NAIOP of California Coronado Chamber of Commerce Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce Covina Chamber of Commerce Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Dana Point Chamber of Commerce Dinuba Chamber of Commerce Duarte Chamber of Commerce El Centro Chamber of Commerce El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce Escondido Chamber of Commerce Family Business Association of California Flasher Barricade Association Folsom Chamber of Commerce Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Gilroy Chamber of Commerce Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce Greater Tehachapi Chamber of Commerce Half Moon Bay Coastside Chamber of Commerce & Visitors' Bureau Hawthorne Chamber of Commerce Hayward Chamber of Commerce Housing Contractors of California Imperial Chamber of Commerce Industrial Environmental Association Industry Business Council International Bottled Water Association International Council of Shopping Centers International Franchise Association Job Creators For Workplace Fairness La Verne Chamber of Commerce Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce Laguna Niguel Chamber of Commerce Lake County California Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Center Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce Lodi Chamber of Commerce Lomita Chamber of Commerce Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Mammoth Lakes Chamber of Commerce Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce Martinez Chamber of Commerce Metal Finishing Association of Northern California Metal Finishing Association of Southern California Montebello Chamber of Commerce Moreno Valley Chamber of Commerce Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce National Association of Theatre Owners of California/Nevada National Elevator Industry, Inc. National Federation of Independent Business Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce North Orange County Chamber North San Diego Business Chamber Norwalk Chamber of Commerce Oceanside Chamber of Commerce Official Police Garages Association of Los Angeles Oxnard Chamber of Commerce Pacific Water Quality Association Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Paradise Ridge Chamber of Commerce Paso Robles Chamber of Commerce Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California (CAPHCC) Poway Chamber of Commerce Professional Fiduciary Association of California Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce Rancho Mirage Chamber of Commerce Regional Chamber of Commerce -San Gabriel Valley Ridgecrest Chamber of Commerce Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce San Clemente Chamber of Commerce San Leandro Chamber of Commerce San Mateo Area Chamber of Commerce San Ramon Chamber of Commerce Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce Santa Fe Springs Chamber of Commerce Santa Maria Valley Chamber Santa Paula Chamber of Commerce Santee Chamber of Commerce South Orange County Economic Coalition South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Specialty Equipment Market Association Sunnyvale-Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce TechNet Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce Tri-County Chamber Alliance of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura County Trinity County Chamber of Commerce Tulare Chamber of Commerce United Chamber Advocacy Network United Chambers of Commerce Vacaville Chamber of Commerce Valley Industry & Commerce Association Ventura Chamber of Commerce Visalia Chamber of Commerce Vista Chamber of Commerce Water Quality Association West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce West Valley Warner Center Chamber of Commerce Western Electrical Contractors Association (WECA) Western Independent Refiners Association Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association Western Steel Council Whittier Area Chamber of Commerce Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce Yountville Chamber of Commerce Yuba-Sutter Chamber of Commerce Yucca Valley Chamber of Commerce 111 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Friday, January 15, 2021 11:18 AM To:abjpd1@juno.com Cc:citymgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov; janet_c_phelan@yahoo.com; Christopher Welsh; derrick.brigham@pts.sccgov.org; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; debra.ryan@scscourt.org; knguyen@sunnyvaleca.gov Subject:ARAM JAMES - URGENT ( Heidi Yauman ) 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. Aram, A combination of good news and bad news. Heidi has gone missing since Tuesday, she went to take a shower at trinity church and never returned. She has shower at our hotel room at 816 West Avenue, which we are I legal possession of , and being kept out of our home. Federal Fema funds are being misapropriatrd $ security guards from SVSP are being paid with federal funds to engage in harassment snd threats against myself and Heidi Yauman. Good news is that she has been seen yesterday at Edgewood Shopping center ( Market at Edgewood ) by Veronica Calderon & there is active missing person case. Sunnyvale and Palo Alto have alot of great officers. I asked Sunnyvale officer Phillips to contact LT Con Malone who knows Heid and I both & also the area & great officer & awesome guy. Later in the morning, Sunnyvale PD has agreed to address the issues at Vagabond inn with Heidi and I being illegal kept from our home , the felonies committed and deprivation of property without due process & deprivation of rights under color of law. I have no hard feelings against lt. Ramirez , and though I don't believe he acted lawfully and in good faith, there is also evidence that he has been fed false information and other Sunnyvale officers amazed me in not only their knowledge of the US Constitution, but their willingness to protect Heidi keep her safe and protect her rights. Would you please, at your earliest convenience follow up with Sunnyvale PD on. getting this situation resolved & getting us back inside. We were both model tenants and there is no evidence that either of us violated. The accusations stated as fact in fraudulent documentation are without merit, basis or foundation. They are malicious lies and can not be given any more value than deserved. Will no axe to grind or ill will toward LT Ramirez, it needs to be made clear that I was threatened with unlawful arrest if I did not comply with the extortion demands or leave our home. Regardless of how Ramirez intended this to be interpreted, To me, it was "Threat against Heidi's life" because if were to be arrested (lawfully or not), Heidi could easily die out in the winter. Robert Rocco had understood that this was under investigation and made big joke about it, & the more I pled to resolve conflict & address these legitimate grievances & the more hostile and sarcastic he became & made big joke about Heidi's Life & threatened to call security because I tried to protect her. 112 This is unacceptable and I intend to follow up with prosecution. First and foremost, we need to find Heidi, return her home & ensure that these attacks stop, some sort of induction be issued to prevent the harassment and that we be allowed to live our lives in peace. Thank you, Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/12/2021 To: citymgr@sunnyvale.ca.gov Cc: cityclerk@sunnyvale.ca.gov Subject: ATT: Mr. Kent Steffens Dear Mr. Steffens Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I request copies of the following records / records containing the following info. 1.). All Event numbers / Case Numbers / Incident numbers for all police calls for service to 816 West Ahwanee Ave. ( Vagabond Inn ) from November 10th, 2020 ‐ January 12th, 2021. ‐ Including all corresponding dispatch records, event summary's and CAD transcripts. If for any reason the decision is made to not release these records or any segment / portion thereof, I request reason in writing within 10 days pursuant to California Government Code § 6255. Thank you in advance for your compliance with this request. Regards, Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/12/2021 To: karim.kahwaji@ssa.sccgov.org Cc: vagabondinnsunnyvale@gmail.com Subject: Project Room Key ‐ Vagabond Inn Good Morning Karim, Please update me on status of project room key situation. We have not heard back yet on resolution and am preparing lawsuit against the HHS staff at Vagabond Inn & their supervisors. 2 months have elapsed & there inso excuse or justification for their malicious , illegal and dangerous behavior. Regards, Cary Andrew Crittenden 113 Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/11/2021 To: david.rose@aog.ca.gov Cc: suprene.court@jud.gov,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,debra.ryan@scscourt. org,david.cena@scscourt.org,david.anderson@usdoj.gov,San.francosco @ic.fbi.gov,Christopher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>,Bill Robinson <bill@sdap.org>,San.francosco@ic.fbi.gov,"Davis, Susan" <susan.davis@ssa.sccgov.org>,vagabondinnsunnyvale@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: UPDATE: Civil Grand Jury tampering ( Fake court case ‐ docket: C1493022 Mr. Rose, In the false police report by detective David Carroll, he UNLAWFULLY OMITTED INGORMATION REGARDING THE CIVIL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION INTO THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN & TGHE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. That is a violate. of PC 148 and the POLICE REPORT IS FALSE. 114 All orders and judgements are VOID. I had absolute constitutional right to address this matter & in this case, was an absolute emergency because the public defender's office refused to & the sheriff department was on psycho rampage stalking, harassing and threatening witnesses & placing the public in danger. Detective Carroll can not claim ignorance because he is copied to correspondences & so is public defenders office, presiding judge and others. 115 Nobody can claim ignorance including yourself. Please take corrective action. as required. I am NOT GUILTY !! This is FRAUD ON THE COURT !!\ Take a look at Heidi Yauman's MC‐410 form. Notice any problems with this? Would you like me to point out the issues with this? Cary Andrew Crittenden Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: 1/10/2021 To: "Davis, Susan" <Susan.Davis@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: bill@sdap.org,jramirez@sunnyvaleca.gov,knguyen@sun nyvaleca.gov,cmontgomery@sunnyvaleca.gov,pngo@ci tyofsunnyvale.org,joe.simitian@bos.sscourt.org,vagabo ndinnsunnyvale@gmail.com,debra.ryan@scscourt.org,s ixth.district@jud.ca.gov,supreme.court@jud.ca.gov Subject: UPDATE: Civil Grand Jury tampering ( Fake court case ‐ docket: C1493022 ) 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 116 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". 117 .!®1JGl YJUDGE.COM 118 https://www.latimes.com/california/sto ry/2020‐11‐23/apple‐chief‐security‐ officer‐charged‐with‐bribery‐firearm‐ permit Best Regards, Caru Andrew Crittenden 119 120 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 128 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 8:36 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:Statement in support of NVCap Alternative 3 - with the best of Alternative M Attachments:ALTERNATIVE M.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello PTC and PACC, Given the importance of this issue currently before the Planning Commission, I wanted to share my full comments on the matter I would have given tonight if there was time. I also wanted to reshare Alternative M for your consideration, which is attached. Thank you in advance for giving this matter appropriate attention. Alternative 3M Alternative 3 is the clear best option here because it maximizes both open space and housing - a win win. I recognize that the huge amount of commercial space could be a detriment to this Commission supporting alternative 3. Alternative 3 also has the negative impact of exacerbating the jobs - housing imbalance, which actually is 7 to 1 for the lowest income earners. That means: 7 lowest income workers competing for one home in PA that they can afford. The staff report is unsatisfactory in providing essential affordable housing, largely because the Staff report is based on flawed and incomplete economic analyses. The staff report rests on the false assumption that the only way to fund affordable housing is through commercial development, because that is the only way that Palo Alto has been funding affordable housing in recent years. But that is a falsehood. The truth is that there are a multitude of ways of funding affordable housing, and one may just look at our neighbor cities for examples. A variety of these methods was also discussed in the well-conceived and researched Alternative M, which the City and this Commission continues to ignore despite its clear superiority to existing choices. The sources of funding proposed by Alternative M and used by neighboring cities include commercial bonds (rather than residential), land trusts, nonprofit organizations, and the more than one billion dollars of affordable housing grants that the state has been offering and will continue to offer to municipalities that apply for the funding. As a reminder, Palo Alto is one of the few cities that has NOT applied for this funding. This is money available for the taking yet Palo Alto has not even asked for this funding. That is irrational and suspect. Of particular concern is Staff's reliance on an incomplete and flawed "strategic economic study" which excludes the best and most effective sources of housing funds utilized by peer cities. This analysis must be re-done to include a broader range of revenue opportunities. The Staff report also fails to acknowledge the well-established fact that zoning changes are a zero-cost opportunity to incentivize housing by mandating residential development. As a reminder, zoning changes that further the public interest - including housing development - do not implicate the Takings clause of the US or California constitution, meaning that the US and California Supreme Courts have established that commercial developers are not entitled to compensation when land is rezoned to residential use. As a reminder, because Palo Alto is the *only* city in California (if not country) with a business presence that lacks a business tax, it is inaccurate to analyze the impact of commercial development here in Palo Alto in the same way that it is analyzed in our neighboring cities. For example, because Mountain View has a robust large business tax, when Google expands its large presence in Mountain View, Mountain View’s housing budget increases as a direct consequence. That is the opposite of the case here. That means that commercial development RAISES funds for neighboring cities, but it depletes funds from Palo Alto’s general fund. 129 The only realistic way to solve this problem is to seek alternative financing for housing. Commercial development is not the way. It has not succeeded and will not succeed. For evidence: look at our current housing fund, which is at zero. The City Staff MUST urgently explore alternative means of funding housing. Failure to do so constitutes extreme error, incompetence, and irresponsibility. Why are we in this situation? There are valid questions regarding the several members of the Planning Commission whose livelihoods are dependent on commercial development. Their opinions ‐ including tonight ‐ continue to further their own financial interests over the best interests of the community by pushing for the maximization of commercial development, and arguing ‐ falsely ‐ that commercial development is the only means of funding housing. Much of this problem would be remediated if the Commissioners were required to disclose financial interest via Forms 700 or similar documents. The community is entitled to full information about potential, perceived, and actual conflicts of interests, as is required in most other cities. It is time for the city's leadership to come clean on personal financial interests. Commissioners must be required to act on behalf of the public, rather than on behalf of their family business or law firm. The city must look past the financial interest of its commissioners and largest campaign contributors, by diversifying sources of funding for affordable housing beyond commercial developers. At very least, the City must direct city staff to create a more honest and fact-based report analyzing alternative funding for affordable housing. Failure to do so is a breach of the Commission's fiduciary duty on behalf of the city, and is an inexcusable act of irresponsibility and incompetence on behalf of the City staff. Alternative M is attached for your consideration. Council and Commission: a neighborhood with ample housing and almost no traffic is achievable. If you believe that a better city is not achievable, why did you seek to serve in public office? Surveys make it clear that residents and small business owners want housing and don't want the traffic, pollution, and housing deficits caused by commercial development. It is time to prioritize our community over the pocketbooks of commercial developers and campaign contributors. Sincerely, Rebecca Eisenberg Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq. www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg www.winwithrebecca.com rebecca@winwithrebecca.com 415-235-8078 ALTERNATIVE M Focused on Community Needs •Welcomes teachers, seniors, people with disabilities, first responders, city workers, and other community members with approximately 400 below market rate housing units •Provides up to approximately 770 other housing units through office phase-out and focused zoning •Reduces peak hour traffic •Improves job/housing imbalance •Offers more space for community-serving retail, local services, and health providers •Creates new community center and parkland •Reduces cut-through traffic •Beautifies streets •Preserves all existing residences with no displacement of owners and tenants •Fully parks all new buildings to prevent impacting neighbors and streets •Preserves historic Fry's site building via adaptive reuse •Widens bike lanes on Park by eliminating street spaces for parked cars •Does not rely on developer incentives to provide key benefits •Treats Ventura the same as other Palo Alto neighborhoods by not increasing allowed density This alternative comes from NVCAP Working Group Members Keith Reckdahl and Terry Holzemer and Ventura Neighborhood Association Moderator Becky Sanders, with consultation from others experienced in affordable housing and local zoning. Adaptive Reuse of the Fry's Site The site has been zoned for housing since the 1980s but the City Council granted it a special exemption for office and retail use so as to support Fry's Electronics. The owner, Sobrato Organization, has said housing wouldn't be profitable for it and wants to keep the present office uses. However, the office tenants are high- tech firms not serving the local community. With Fry's now gone, we think it's time the site became housing, just as the city's zoning and housing inventory intended. Rather than providing incentives for the developer that inevitably increase traffic and density, we propose the City purchase the site and convert both the major building and the newer office building at 3250 Park Boulevard to below market rate housing. The wooden office building at 3201-3205 Ash will become a community center. Converting the major buildings from office to housing reduces parking requirements, enabling about three acres of new publically-owned parkland per our estimates. Adaptive reuse of buildings is environmentally-desirable and enables the historic preservation of two buildings constructed by Chinese-American immigrant entrepreneur Thomas Foon Chew (pictured below), who created the third-largest fruit and vegetable canning company in the world in the early 1900s. Our city’s Historic Resources Board determined that the buildings need to be preserved after an extensive historic review by an expert firm. Reuse of historic sites is common in cities other than Palo Alto, with architects creating wonderful modern interiors filled with light and open space. Why Below Market Rate Housing? It's by far our greatest housing need. Virtually all of Palo Alto's unmet RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) 2015-2023 goal is for low-income housing , with about 2/3 being for people earning 80% or less of the Santa Clara County median income. For-profit housing projects create very few, if any, below market rate units and will never provide enough directly or through in-lieu fees to meet our RHNA goals. Rather than falling further behind, we propose to prioritize below market rate housing to serve teachers, seniors, people with disabilities, first responders, city workers, and other community members who are being priced out of Palo Alto. How Do We Pay for the Site? As is common for cities, Palo Alto can offer 30- year municipal bonds to finance the purchase of the Fry's site. Interest rates on such bonds are very low. Bond payments will then be covered partially by tenant rents and a portion of the revenue from the business tax revenue favored by many in the community and likely to return once the economy recovers. This will create no financial burden on Palo Alto residents nor on City finances. A New Community Center and Parkland Because the City will own the Fry's site, the historic building at 3201- 3205 Ash (see below) that's part of the site can become a wonderful new community center. We envision the center housing a non-profit operating a small eatery, similar to Ada's Cafe, where residents of all ages will find comfortable and friendly service. The center can also house community meetings, a historic display about the Fry's site and Thomas Foon Chew, and social events. Adjacent to the community center can be new parkland, enabling indoor-outdoor events. The new parkland could also connect up with Boulware Park and its recent expansion to form a wonderful area for outdoor enjoyment in the community. Safer Bike Travel on Park Boulevard Commercial buildings on Park Boulevard are supposed to provide parking for all workers and visitors, yet cars are parking on the street. We should prevent on-street parking in bike lanes to improve the safety of one of our city's busiest bike routes. Zone for the Community, Not High-Tech Offices Over the years in Ventura, the City has allowed high-tech firms to replace local retail and community- serving offices such as health providers. These firms increase peak-hour traffic, price out local businesses, and mean we must go further to shop, dine, and get professional services. We propose to end this trend by converting the zoning along El Camino and other streets in Ventura to allow only housing and true local-serving businesses. This will benefit residents, open up new housing opportunities, and benefit many local firms priced out of our community. It encourages walking and biking and helps convert North Ventura from an office park back into a neighborhood. Without any increase to allowed density, we estimate this can add 349 to 431 housing units to the community with full parking. We also envision converting office buildings along Park to housing through creative reuse. We estimate this can add 238 to 340 additional housing units. Sufficient parking already exists on these sites As noted, all new housing will be fully parked. Much of Ventura suffers already from overcrowded streets. Underparked new housing will only create more problems so we have avoided it. Beautify, Don't Densify Building office and housing towers in Ventura will create an enormous burden on one small neighborhood. We believe that no upzoning (increased density) is needed whatsoever to achieve significant community and environmental benefits. We envision new street trees providing shade and cooling, a beautiful community center on the historic Fry's site, new parkland, new local shopping and services, and housing for people of all incomes. 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: 2/1/ 2021 Document dates: 1/13/2021 – 1/20/2021 Set 4 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 130 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:26 PM To:Council, City; Minor, Beth; Shikada, Ed Subject:Hon. Peter Drekmeier's Forms 700 Attachments:Power Plant Toloumne.pdf; River Trust - fisheries.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi all, Sorry for the mail mailing, but I want this to be in the public record. I searched both Palo Alto and the FPPC's database and was unable to locate a Form 700 for well‐known and highly respected philanthropist, and former Palo Alto Mayor Hon. Peter Drekmeier. I believe that the state's archives date back only to 2012, and Palo Alto's archives date back only to 2014. I see that unlike other cities, Palo Alto does not require a statement of financial interest for its Commissioners. I disagree with that practice, of course. Will you please provide me with the Form 700s filed on behalf of Hon. Peter Drekmeier? In particular, in trying to understand to a greater degree the current controversy over water rights, I would like to understand the nature of Mr. Drekmeier's and the Tuolumne River Trust's relationship with: (1) La Grange Power Plant, as stated in the attached Court Motion; and (2) the fisheries referenced in the second attachment, filed with the federal courts in Washington, DC. Given the current (and complex) controversy over the Tuolumne River, these Forms 700 are needed urgently in order to conduct a thorough analysis of the issue. Accordingly I would appreciate your sending these by email rather than causing delay through the lengthy FPPC and public records request processes. Thank you in advance. Best regards, Rebecca Eisenberg Rebecca L. Eisenberg, Esq. Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District, Petitioners, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent. No. 13-1250 (Consolidated with No. 13-1253) TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Circuit Rule 15(b) and Rules 15(d) and 27 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Tuolumne River Trust (“the Trust”) hereby moves to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding in support of Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Leave to intervene is warranted because this motion is timely, the final agency action challenged is central the Trust’s mission, and no party before the Court adequately represents the Trust’s particularized interests. The Trust has consulted with the respective counsel for FERC, Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (Districts), and the American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Friends of the River, and Golden West Women Flyfishers (collectively “Conservation Groups”), and are authorized to represent that this motion is USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 1 of 11 2 unopposed. The Districts do not oppose on the condition that, if granted leave to intervene, the Trust and Conservation Groups will file joint briefs, consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(i) and Circuit Rule 28(d)(4). PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 13, 2013 Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District (collectively, “Districts”) petitioned this Court for review of the following orders issued by FERC: 1. Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District, Docket No. UL11-1-000, Order Finding Licensing Of Hydroelectric Project Required, 141 FERC ¶ 62,211 (December 19, 2012); and 2. Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District, Docket No. UL11-1-000, Order On Rehearing, Clarifying Intervention Status, And Denying Stay Pending Judicial Review, 144 FERC ¶ 61,051 (July 19, 2013). On September 17, 2013, the Trust filed a petition which also challenges the orders listed in Docket No. UL11-1-000. Tuolumne River Trust v. FERC, No. 13-1253 (filed Sept. 17, 2013). On September 19, 2013, the Court consolidated the Trust’s and the Districts’ petitions. However, the Trust and the Districts challenge FERC’s orders for different reasons, and the Trust seeks to intervene in support of FERC’s finding that the La Grange Hydroelectric Project (“La Grange”) requires a license. ARGUMENT The Court should grant the Trust’s unopposed motion to intervene because it is timely, the Trust is directly affected by and has a substantial interest in the proceedings, and the Trust’s interests are not adequately USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 2 of 11 3 represented by the parties. First, the Trust’s motion is timely under Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 15(d) requires that motions to intervene be filed within 30 days of a petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 15. Because the Districts petitioned the Court for review on September 13, 2013, and Monday, October 14 was a federal holiday, the Trust’s motion is timely. Second, intervention is warranted because the Trust is directly affected by the result of the proceedings. See Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. FCC, 794 F.2d 737, 744-45 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The Trust was a participant in the proceedings below, concerning the District’s obligation to license La Grange. The Trust retains a direct and substantial interest in this case because the Districts are likely to challenge FERC’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over La Grange on the basis of its location on a navigable waterway and its occupation of federal land. If the challenge is successful, it will harm the Trust’s interest in having FERC issue a license for La Grange that is best adapted to a comprehensive plan of development for the Tuolumne River for all beneficial uses, as required under Federal Powers Act subsection 10(a)(1), 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(1). Third, the other parties in the case will not adequately represent the Trust’s interests. See Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179, 192 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (noting that an “applicant need only show that the representation of his interest ‘may be’ inadequate, not that representation will in fact be inadequate,” quoting Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972)). Neither the Districts, whom the Trust opposed in the administrative appeal, nor FERC, a government agency, represent the Trust’s interests. See Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 736-37 (D.C. Cir. USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 3 of 11 4 2003) (noting that courts have “often concluded that governmental entities do not adequately represent the interests of aspiring intervenors.”) Moreover, the Trust’s interests are not identical to the Conservation Groups’, who are also proposed intervenors in this case. See United States v. Amer. Tel. & Tel. Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (holding that representation is inadequate where the interests of the proposed intervenors are “similar but not identical.”) Although the proposed intervenors’ interests are not identical, the Trust expects to jointly file a single brief with other proposed intervenors in support of FERC’s finding that the La Grange requires a license. See Circuit Rule 28(d)(4); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Trust requests that the Court grant this unopposed motion to intervene. Concurrently with this motion, the Trust is filing a Corporate Disclosure Statement, as required by Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 4 of 11 5 Dated: October 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert A. Salerno ROBERT A. SALERNO MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887 1500 RSalerno@mofo.com Counsel for Tuolumne River Trust Richard Roos-Collins (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 37554) Julie Gantenbein (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 54726) Nicholas Niiro (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 54745) WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Avenue Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 296-5588 rrcollins@waterpowerlaw.com Counsel for Tuolumne River Trust USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 5 of 11 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District, Petitioners, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent. No. 13-1250 (Consolidated with No. 13-1253) RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 26.1, Tuolumne River Trust states as follows: Tuolumne River Trust is a State of California non-profit corporation with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California. Tuolumne River Trust is a non-profit organization that works to promote the stewardship of the Tuolumne River and its tributaries to ensure a healthy watershed. The Tuolumne River Trust is currently implementing projects to improve fisheries and habitat on the lower Tuolumne River. Tuolumne River Trust has no parent company and has issued no publicly traded stock. No publicly-held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in Tuolumne River Trust. USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 6 of 11 2 Dated: October 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert A. Salerno ROBERT A. SALERNO MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887 1500 RSalerno@mofo.com Counsel for Tuolumne River Trust Richard Roos-Collins (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 37554) Julie Gantenbein (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 54726) Nicholas Niiro (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 54745) WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Avenue Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 296-5588 rrcollins@waterpowerlaw.com Counsel for Tuolumne River Trust USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 7 of 11 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District, Petitioners, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent. No. 13-1250 (Consolidated with No. 13-1253) CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to District of Columbia Circuit Rules 27(a)(4) and 28(a)(1)(A), the undersigned counsel for Movants certifies as follows: I. Parties Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a. Applicants: Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District b. Intervenors: American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Friends of the River, Golden West Women Flyfishers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers, Trout USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 8 of 11 2 Unlimited, Tuolumne River Trust, U.S. Department of the Interior II. Parties Before This Court a. Petitioners: Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock Irrigation District, Tuolumne River Trust b. Respondent: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 9 of 11 3 Dated: October 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert A. Salerno ROBERT A. SALERNO MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887 1500 RSalerno@mofo.com Counsel for Tuolumne River Trust Richard Roos-Collins (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 37554) Julie Gantenbein (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 54726) Nicholas Niiro (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 54745) WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Avenue Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 296-5588 rrcollins@waterpowerlaw.com Counsel for Tuolumne River Trust USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 10 of 11 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true and accurate copies of the foregoing TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT; and CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES were filed electronically today through the Court's CM/ECF system and e- mailed to registered CM/ECF users as indicated below. John Albert Whittaker, IV Winston & Strawn LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3817 E-mail: jwhittaker@winston.com Attorney for Petitioners Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts Robert Harris Solomon Robert Kennedy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Washington, DC 20426 E-mail: robert.solomon@ferc.gov Email: robert.kennedy@ferc. Gov Attorneys for Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Richard Roos-Collins Julie Gantenbein Nicholas Niiro WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 Email: nniro@waterpowerlaw.com Attorneys for American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Friends of the River, and Golden West Womjen Flyfishers Dated: October 15, 2013 /s/ Robert A. Salerno ROBERT A. SALERNO USCA Case #13-1250 Document #1461342 Filed: 10/15/2013 Page 11 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 13-1253 (Consolidated with No. 13-1250) __________________________________________________________________ TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission __________________________________________________________________ INITIAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST AND INTERVENORS (CONSERVATION GROUPS) Robert A. Salerno Peter H. Day MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20006-1888 Tel: (202) 887-1500 Fax: (202) 887-0763 rsalerno@mofo.com Attorneys for Petitioner Tuolumne River Trust Richard Roos-Collins Julie Gantenbein Nicholas Niiro WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: (510) 296-5588 Fax: (866) 407-8073 nniiro@waterpowerlaw.com Attorneys for Petitioner Tuolumne River Trust and Intervenors American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Friends of the River, and Golden West Women Flyfishers March 26, 2014 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 1 of 92 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS UNDER REVIEW AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, and Circuit Rules 26.1 and 28(a)(1), Petitioner Tuolumne River Trust and Intervenors certify as follows: A. Parties, Intervenors and Law Firms 1. The following is a list of all parties, intervenors and law firms that participated in any capacity in the agency proceedings below: Tuolumne River Trust Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Modesto Irrigation District Turlock Irrigation District United States Department of the Interior National Marine Fisheries Service American Rivers American Whitewater California Sportfishing Protection Alliance California Trout Friends of the River Golden West Women Flyfishers Morrison & Foerster LLP Water and Power Law Group PC Winston & Strawn LLP Mason, Robbins, Browning & Godwin LLP -i- USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 2 of 92 O’Laughlin & Paris LLP Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Northern California Council Federation of Flyfishers Environmental Defense Fund Merced Fly Fishing Club Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations Trout Unlimited Water 4 Fish 2. The following is a list of all parties and intervenors appearing in this Court in this appeal: Tuolumne River Trust Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Turlock Irrigation District Modesto Irrigation District American Rivers American Whitewater California Sportfishing Protection Alliance California Trout Friends of the River Golden West Women Flyfishers As of this date there are no amici involved in this appeal. B. Rulings Under Review The Commission orders under review are: -ii- USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 3 of 92 1. Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Order Finding Licensing of Hydroelectric Project Required, 141 FERC ¶ 62,211 (December 19, 2012) R.39, JA__; and 2. Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Order On Rehearing, Clarifying Intervention Status, and Denying Stay Pending Judicial Review, 144 FERC ¶ 61, 051 (July 19, 2013) R.58, JA__. C. Related Cases This case has not previously been before this Court or any other court. This case has been consolidated with Case No. 13-1250 (Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) before this Court. Counsel is not aware of any other cases related to this case currently pending in this Court or in any other court. D. Corporate Disclosure Statements In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and Circuit Rule 26.1, Petitioner and Intervenors disclose the following: Tuolumne River Trust: The Tuolumne River Trust is a State of California non-profit corporation with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California. Tuolumne River Trust is a non-profit organization that works to promote the stewardship of the Tuolumne River and its tributaries to -iii- USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 4 of 92 ensure a healthy watershed. The Tuolumne River Trust is currently implementing projects to improve fisheries and habitat on the lower Tuolumne River. Tuolumne River Trust has no parent company and has issued no publicly traded stock. No publicly-held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in Tuolumne River Trust. American Rivers: American Rivers is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia. American Rivers does not have a parent corporation and is not publicly held. American Whitewater: American Whitewater is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. American Whitewater does not have a parent corporation and is not publicly held. California Sportfishing Protection Alliance: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. California Sportfishing Protection Alliance does not have a parent corporation and is not publicly held. California Trout: California Trout is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. California Trout does not have a parent corporation and is not publicly held. -iv- USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 5 of 92 Friends of the River: Friends of the River is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. Friends of the River does not have a parent corporation and is not publicly held. Golden West Women Flyfishers: Golden West Women Flyfishers is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. Golden West Women Flyfishers does not have a parent corporation and is not publicly held. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert A. Salerno _____________________________ Robert A. Salerno Peter H. Day MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20006-1888 Tel: (202) 887-1500 Fax: (202) 887-0763 rsalerno@mofo.com Attorneys for Petitioner Tuolumne River Trust /s/ Richard Roos-Collins ______________________________ Richard Roos-Collins Julie Gantenbein Nicholas Niiro WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: (510) 296-5588 Fax: (866) 407-8073 nniiro@waterpowerlaw.com Attorneys for Petitioner Tuolumne River Trust and Intervenors American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Friends of the River, and Golden West Women Flyfishers -v- USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 6 of 92 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS UNDER REVIEW AND RELATED CASES ......................................................................................... i A. Parties, Intervenors and Law Firms ......................................................i B. Rulings Under Review ........................................................................ ii C. Related Cases ..................................................................................... iii D. Corporate Disclosure Statements ....................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ viii GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... x JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................... 2 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ........................................................................ 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .......................................................... 4 A. Background on the La Grange and Don Pedro Projects ........... 4 B. Overview of reregulation and minimum flow releases ............. 5 C. FERC’s Orders and proceedings below .................................... 6 D. Results of FERC’s Orders ....................................................... 10 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 10 STANDING ............................................................................................................ 12 A. TRT and Conservation Groups have prudential standing ....... 12 B. TRT and Conservation Groups have constitutional standing .................................................................................... 13 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 18 I. Legal Standards .................................................................................. 18 A. Standard of review ................................................................... 18 B. FERC’s statutory obligation to license all parts of a complete unit of development ................................................. 20 -vi- USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 7 of 92 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page II. FERC’s Decision That La Grange Does Not Require Licensing As A Reregulating Facility For The Don Pedro Project Is Arbitrary And Capricious And Not Supported By Substantial Evidence. ............................................................................................ 21 A. FERC’s finding that La Grange does not reregulate peaking flows is arbitrary and capricious because it contradicts FERC’s own precedent without providing a reasoned explanation. .............................................................. 21 B. FERC’s erroneous definition of reregulation is owed no deference. ................................................................................. 23 i. FERC’s definition of reregulation arbitrarily departs from FERC’s own precedent. ........................... 23 ii. FERC’s definition of reregulation is not based on substantial evidence. ...................................................... 25 C. FERC deviated from judicial precedent by failing to apply the established Chippewa test for a complete unit of development......................................................................... 26 D. FERC erred by dismissing substantial evidence that La Grange reregulates peaking flows and thereby forms a complete unit of development with Don Pedro. ...................... 28 III. FERC Did Not Provide A Reasoned Explanation For Its Failure to Determine Whether La Grange Should Be Licensed As Part Of A Complete Unit Of Development With Don Pedro Based On Its Use To Make Minimum Flow Releases. ................................. 32 IV. FERC’s Actions Do Not Serve The Public Interest, As Required Under The FPA................................................................... 34 CONCLUSION STATING THE RELIEF SOUGHT ............................................ 36 -vii- USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 8 of 92 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Ada County, The City of Boise, and Arthur L. Bloom Cook Elec. Co., 27 FERC ¶ 61,285 (1984) ................................................................................... 19 ANR Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 71 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................... 19, 24 Bear Lake Watch, Inc. v. FERC, 324 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 26 *Chippewa & Flambeau v. FERC, 325 F.3d 353 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ...................... .................................................... 25 *City of Norway, Michigan, Order Amending License Article 37, 96 FERC ¶ 62,032, 64,052 (July 12, 2001) ........................................................................ 23 Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation v. FERC, 746 F.2d 466 (9th Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 34 Domtar Maine Corp. v. FERC, 347 F.3d 304 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 26 Horsehead Res. Dev. Co. v. Browner, 16 F.3d 1246 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 13 Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 100 FERC ¶ 61,319 (2002) ................................................................................. 20 *Louisiana Envtl. Action Network v. E.P.A., 172 F.3d 65 (D.C. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 16 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ...................................................................................... 18, 33 N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp., 56 FERC ¶ 61,144 (1991) ................................................................................. 19 Authorities upon which we chiefly rely are marked with asterisks. -viii- USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 9 of 92 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) ........................................................................................... 24 Scenic Hudson Pres. Conference v. FERC, 354 F.2d 608 (2nd Cir. 1965) ............................................................................. 34 Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ........................ ........................................... 16, 17 State ex rel. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. FERC, 954 F.2d 56 (2nd Cir. 1992) ................................................................................. 8 *Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Order Amending License and Dismissing Rehearing Requests, 76 FERC ¶ 61,117 (July 31, 1996) ...........................................................................6, 21, 32 United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002).............................................................................................. 27 Wisconsin Valley Improvement Co. v. FERC, 236 F.3d 738 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ................................. ........................... 19, 22, 35 STATUTES Administrative Procedure Act, Section 706, 5 U.S.C. § 706. ................ 3, 18, 24, 27 Federal Power Act, Section 3(11), 16 U.S.C. § 796 ............... 7, 9, 17, 20, 31, 33, 35 Federal Power Act, Section 3(12), 16 U.S.C. § 796 ............... 7, 9, 17, 20, 31, 33, 35 Federal Power Act, Section 4(e), 16 U.S.C. § 797 ................. 7, 9, 12, 17, 20, 31, 35 Federal Power Act, Section 6, 16 U.S.C. § 799 ...................................................... 34 Federal Power Act, Section 10(a)(1), 16 U.S.C. § 803 ..................................... 12, 34 Federal Power Act, Section 23(b)(1), 16 U.S.C. § 817 ......................................... 7, 8 Federal Power Act, Section 313(b), 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) ................... 2, 3, 11, 24, 36 ix USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 10 of 92 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS Order Finding Licensing Required Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Order Finding Licensing of Hydroelectric Project Required, 141 FERC ¶ 62,211 (December 19, 2012), R.39, JA__. Order on Rehearing Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Order On Rehearing, Clarifying Intervention Status, and Denying Stay Pending Judicial Review, 144 FERC ¶ 61, 051 (July 19, 2013), R. 58, JA__. FPA Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq. APA Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500, et seq. Districts Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission TRT Tuolumne River Trust Conservation Groups Intervenors: American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Friends of the River, Golden West Women Flyfishers NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service x USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 11 of 92 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Tuolumne River Trust, Petitioner, v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Respondent. No. 13-1253 (Consolidated with No. 13-1250) INITIAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST AND INTERVENORS (CONSERVATION GROUPS) JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT On December 19, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its Order Finding Licensing of Hydroelectric Project Required, Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, 141 FERC ¶ 62,211 (“Order”). R.39, JA__. On January 18, 2013, the Tuolumne River Trust and the Intervenors timely sought rehearing of the Order. R.44, JA__. On July 19, 2013, the Commission issued its Order On Rehearing, Clarifying Intervention Status, 1 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 12 of 92 and Denying Stay Pending Judicial Review, Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, 144 FERC ¶ 61,051 (“Rehearing Order”). R.58, JA__. On September 17, 2013, the Tuolumne River Trust timely filed a petition for review with this Court. JA__. The Intervenors filed an unopposed motion to intervene before this Court on October 15, 2013, and were granted intervenor status. JA__. The Commission’s orders under review are final orders; therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to review the orders under section 313(b) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). STATEMENT OF ISSUES This appeal concerns the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC’s”) assertion of jurisdiction over the La Grange Hydroelectric Project (“La Grange”), located on the Tuolumne River in California. In its Orders below, FERC failed to acknowledge that La Grange functions as a complete unit of development with the Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project (“Don Pedro”). As a result, FERC declined to assert jurisdiction over La Grange on this basis. The issues before this Court are whether FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously and without substantial evidence in violation of section 313(b) 2 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 13 of 92 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (“FPA”) and section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (“APA”) when it: 1. Determined that La Grange is not used to reregulate flows from Don Pedro, even though the hydrologic data prove that La Grange reregulates releases from Don Pedro so that there is minimal fluctuation in river stage or flow in the Tuolumne River; and 2. Declined to find that La Grange and Don Pedro are subject to licensure pursuant to sections 4(e), 3(11), and 3(12) of the FPA as a complete unit of development, even though La Grange is necessary to the maintenance and operation of Don Pedro because it releases minimum flows for fish and reregulates peaking flows from Don Pedro. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS The pertinent statutes are attached as an addendum. 3 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 14 of 92 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The Don Pedro and La Grange Projects lie 2.6 miles apart on the Tuolumne River and are managed as a coordinated unit by the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts (the “Districts”) for water supply and power generation. Don Pedro is the larger project and is licensed by FERC. La Grange, located just downstream, has never been licensed, even though Don Pedro and La Grange cumulatively degrade fish habitat and block fish passage upstream. Despite evidence to the contrary, FERC failed to assert licensing jurisdiction over La Grange as part of a complete unit of development with Don Pedro on either of the following bases: La Grange’s reregulation of peaking flows, or the Districts’ use of La Grange to make minimum flow releases. A. Background on the La Grange and Don Pedro Projects The Districts jointly own and operate the La Grange and Don Pedro Projects located on the Tuolumne River. The largest tributary of the San Joaquin River, the Tuolumne River starts in Yosemite National Park, emerges from the Sierra Nevada foothills, and flows into the Central Valley. A vast biological community depends on the Tuolumne River, including fish, bird, and wildlife populations. 4 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 15 of 92 La Grange was initially constructed by the Districts between 1891 and 1893. It now consists of a dam, powerhouse, reservoir, and related release structures that divert water into canals for water supply purposes. La Grange is located just downstream of Don Pedro, which is currently undergoing relicensing before FERC. The Districts use Don Pedro for multiple purposes, including hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, and municipal and industrial use. It is undisputed that the La Grange and Don Pedro Projects cumulatively affect the same resources in the lower Tuolumne River. See Comments of California Department of Fish and Wildlife on La Grange, at p. 2, R.54, JA__ (resource issues involved in the Don Pedro relicensing proceeding cannot be isolated from the resource issues at the adjacent La Grange Project). For example, the Projects collectively block fish passage to the upper stretches of the Tuolumne River, since neither La Grange nor Don Pedro includes now-common fish passage measures such as fish ladders or fish lifts and locks. B. Overview of reregulation and minimum flow releases Hydroelectric projects such as Don Pedro often operate a peaking flow regime, meaning that inflow to the project is stored in the project’s reservoir 5 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 16 of 92 so that higher-volume discharges can be made through the project’s powerhouse during on-peak (i.e., high energy demand) times and lesser- volume discharges can be made during off-peak times. Peaking flows enable a project to generate more power at specific times of day when there is greater demand for power and the generation is more valuable. Peaking flows, however, cause ecologically damaging fluctuations in water levels in the river downstream. As a result, peaking flows are reregulated to stabilize daily fluctuations, maintain a more uniform volume of flow downstream, and reduce damaging environmental effects associated with peaking operations. Rehearing Order at ¶ 110, R. 58, JA__. Additionally, as part of its licensing requirements, Don Pedro must provide minimum flow releases for fish populations. Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Order Amending License and Dismissing Rehearing Requests, 76 FERC ¶ 61,117, 61,609 (July 31, 1996). FERC found that these minimum flow releases were necessary to mitigate Don Pedro’s adverse impacts on the salmon fishery in the Tuolumne River. Id. C. FERC’s Orders and proceedings below Since La Grange has never been licensed, FERC has never considered whether fish passage or other environmental measures required under the 6 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 17 of 92 FPA are necessary to protect the Tuolumne River below La Grange. Concerned by the lack of fish passage at La Grange and Don Pedro, the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) requested in June 2011 that FERC review whether La Grange required licensing. 1. FERC’s Order On December 19, 2012, FERC issued its Order finding La Grange subject to FERC’s mandatory licensing jurisdiction under section 23(b)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 817, based on the navigability of the Tuolumne River at La Grange and the La Grange Reservoir’s occupation of federal lands, either of which is sufficient for mandatory licensing. R.39, JA__. Petitioner Tuolumne River Trust (“TRT”) and NGO Intervenors (“Conservation Groups”)1 support FERC’s finding of jurisdiction over La Grange on these grounds. However, FERC Staff concluded that La Grange did not reregulate peaking flows from Don Pedro and therefore did not require licensing as part of a complete unit of development with Don Pedro under sections 4(e), 3(11) and 3(12) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 796, 797. Order at ¶ 44, R.39, JA__. FERC Staff further declined to determine whether La Grange required 7 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 18 of 92 licensing as part of a complete unit of development based on its use to release minimum flows for fish from Don Pedro. Id. at ¶ 39, R.39, JA__. On January 18, 2013, TRT and other non-governmental organizations2 filed a joint motion to intervene and requested rehearing of FERC’s conclusion that La Grange did not reregulate flows from Don Pedro and of FERC’s determination that it was not necessary to decide if La Grange required licensing as part of a complete unit of development with Don Pedro. R.44, JA__. In support of their motion, TRT and other non-governmental organizations submitted an analysis of hydrological data provided by the Districts, which showed that the Districts use La Grange to reregulate peaking flows from Don Pedro on a planned and consistent basis. Conservation Groups’ Request for Partial Rehearing of Order, at pp. 9-16, R.44, JA__. The data showed that by varying the flow from the La Grange Reservoir through the intakes to the Districts’ respective canals, the Districts reregulate peaking releases from Don Pedro to ensure that flow downstream 1 American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Friends of the River, and Golden West Women Flyfishers. 2 The non-governmental organizations included all of the Conservation Groups intervening in the current appeal, as well as Trout Unlimited, the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, and the Northern California Council Federation of Flyfishers. 8 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 19 of 92 of La Grange is consistent and meets the minimum flow requirements in Don Pedro’s license. Id., R.44, JA__. 2. FERC’s Rehearing Order On July 19, 2013, FERC issued its Rehearing Order, which denied all requests for rehearing and upheld FERC’s jurisdiction over La Grange under section 23(b)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 817. R.58, JA__. The Rehearing Order also upheld FERC’s conclusion that La Grange did not reregulate peaking flows from Don Pedro. Rehearing Order at ¶¶ 111-12, R.58, JA__. FERC affirmed its Staff’s decision that it need not resolve whether La Grange required licensing as part of a complete unit of development with Don Pedro based on its use to make minimum flow releases. Id. at ¶ 116, R.58, JA__. 3. Consolidation of Cases On September 13, 2013, the Districts filed a petition for review with this Court. JA__. On September 17, 2013, TRT filed a petition for review with this Court. JA__. The Conservation Groups filed an unopposed motion to intervene before this Court in both cases on October 15, 2013. JA__. 9 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 20 of 92 On September 19, 2013, this Court ordered that Case No. 13-1250 (Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and this case be consolidated. JA__. D. Results of FERC’s Orders FERC declined to assert jurisdiction over La Grange on the basis that it forms a complete unit of development with Don Pedro. When FERC asserts jurisdiction over multiple projects as part of a complete unit of development, those projects can then be included in a single license. Sections 4(e), 3(11), and 3(12) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 796, 797. Now, as a result of FERC’s decision, La Grange and Don Pedro cannot be licensed in a single, coordinated proceeding and are undergoing separate licensing proceedings. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT FERC erred when it declined to assert licensing jurisdiction over La Grange as part of a complete unit of development with Don Pedro based on La Grange’s reregulation of peaking flows and its use to make minimum flow releases. Contrary to the evidence in the record and legal precedent, FERC failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to license all parts of a complete unit 10 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 21 of 92 of development. FERC’s errors resulted in an arbitrary and capricious decision that is owed no deference. First, FERC’s determination that La Grange does not reregulate peaking flows contradicts FERC’s previous decision that described La Grange as a “reregulating facility” with respect to Don Pedro. FERC’s unexplained departure from its own precedent is arbitrary and capricious. Second, FERC’s definition of reregulation in its Orders below directly contradicts the definition of reregulation FERC applied in its previous decisions, and FERC provides no reasonable explanation for this departure from its own precedent. Third, FERC deviated from judicial precedent by failing to apply the established Chippewa test when analyzing whether La Grange and Don Pedro form a complete unit of development. Fourth, FERC erred by dismissing substantial evidence that the Districts in fact operate the La Grange canal gates and use head provided by the La Grange Reservoir and Dam to reregulate peaking flows from Don Pedro. Finally, despite the substantial evidence before it, FERC failed to determine whether La Grange forms a complete unit of development with 11 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 22 of 92 Don Pedro based on the Districts’ use of La Grange to maintain minimum flow releases. Moreover, FERC neglected to provide a reasoned explanation for its failure to resolve the issue. Where an agency does not articulate a reasonable explanation for its actions, its decision is owed no deference. STANDING Being aggrieved by FERC’s Orders, Petitioner TRT and Intervenors Conservation Groups have standing under section 313(b) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (“Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission” may seek judicial review of that decision). A. TRT and Conservation Groups have prudential standing TRT and Conservation Groups were parties to the proceedings before FERC, and they have prudential standing because their interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the FPA. Id. (complainant’s interest must be arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute, including aesthetic, conservational, recreational, or economic values). TRT and Conservation Groups have a direct and substantial interest in FERC’s assertion of jurisdiction under the FPA over hydroelectric projects 12 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 23 of 92 along the Tuolumne River. FERC’s exercise of its licensing jurisdiction impacts members of the public who use, enjoy, and benefit from the waterways. The FPA expressly protects the public interest by requiring that FERC give equal consideration to the preservation of environmental quality, the enhancement of fish and wildlife, and the protection of recreational opportunities in its licensing decisions. Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 797, 803. TRT and Conservation Groups represent their members’ interests in protecting fish habitat and preserving recreational uses of the Tuolumne River. Members of TRT and Conservation Groups regularly use the river for fishing and other recreational activities.3 La Grange’s blockage of fish passage and contribution to an altered flow regime in the Tuolumne River adversely affect these uses.4 Therefore, TRT and Conservation Groups have an interest in this appeal, the outcome of which will directly affect conditions on the Tuolumne River. B. TRT and Conservation Groups have constitutional standing FERC’s orders cause concrete injuries in fact to TRT, Conservation Groups, and their members that can be redressed by a favorable decision 3 See declarations by Cindy Charles at A-30, ¶¶ 7-10, and Patrick Koepele at A-21, ¶ 7. 13 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 24 of 92 from this Court. Horsehead Res. Dev. Co. v. Browner, 16 F.3d 1246, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (constitutional standing requires showing an imminent injury in fact, causation, and redressability). FERC’s refusal to assert jurisdiction on the basis of La Grange forming a complete unit of development with the Don Pedro Project precludes the two Projects from being licensed together under a single license. Rehearing Order at ¶ 118, R.58, JA__ (finding FERC had no basis for requiring a single license for La Grange and Don Pedro). This preclusion results in separate licensing proceedings that cause two types of direct injury in fact to the organizations and their members: economic and recreational. i. The organizations have standing because FERC’s orders cause them economic injury Petitioner TRT and Intervenor California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (“CSPA”) have standing in their own right because FERC’s Orders cause these organizations direct economic injury. Licensing proceedings are resource intensive and expensive. By requiring separate licensing proceedings for both Projects, FERC has imposed additional and burdensome 4 See declaration by Dr. Michael Martin at A-7, ¶¶ 8-14. 14 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 25 of 92 costs on TRT and CSPA, who will continue to actively participate in both licensing proceedings.5 Active participation in a separate licensing proceeding for La Grange will require TRT and CSPA to expend considerable time and resources on additional filings, studies, reports, comments, and meetings.6 TRT will be required to spend an additional $50,000 per year to participate in the separate La Grange licensing proceeding, which will last at least four years, and CSPA will have to spend an additional $5,000 each year of the proceeding.7 FERC’s Orders cause additional economic injury to TRT because separate licensing proceedings frustrate the creation of a coordinated plan for fish passage at the La Grange and Don Pedro Dams.8 Chinook salmon continue to experience dramatic declines because the lack of passage prevents them from accessing suitable habitat located above La Grange and Don Pedro.9 A single, coordinated licensing proceeding for both Projects would facilitate the creation of a comprehensive plan for fish passage, 10 but FERC’s decision with regard to a complete unit of development precludes this. 5 See declarations by Patrick Koepele at A-21, ¶ 12, and Christopher Shutes at A-35, ¶ 7. 6 See declarations by Patrick Koepele at A-21, ¶¶ 13-17, and Christopher Shutes at A-35, ¶¶ 8-13. 7 See declarations by Patrick Koepele at A-21, ¶ 15, and Christopher Shutes at A-35, ¶ 10. 8 See declaration by Dr. Michael Martin at A-7, ¶¶ 12-14. 15 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 26 of 92 Declining fish populations injure TRT because TRT raises money by guiding annual canoe trips to observe Chinook salmon spawning, for which participants pay a fee ranging from $35-60.11 However, the Chinook salmon population in the Tuolumne River is currently at high risk of extinction, and a lack of coordinated fish passage at La Grange and Don Pedro means even fewer Chinook salmon will spawn in the river.12 If there are very few salmon spawning, people will not pay to participate in TRT’s guided trips, creating the substantial probability of a concrete and imminent economic injury to TRT.13 Louisiana Envtl. Action Network v. E.P.A., 172 F.3d 65, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (a “substantial probability” that harm will occur is sufficient to constitute an imminent injury in fact). ii. The organizations also have standing on their members’ behalf because FERC’s orders cause the members recreational injury An organization has standing if at least one of its members would have standing to sue in her own right, the interests the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose, and the lawsuit does not require 9 See declaration by Dr. Michael Martin, at A-7, ¶¶ 7-14. 10 See declaration by Dr. Michael Martin at A-7, ¶ 14. 11 See declaration by Patrick Koepele at A-21, ¶ 11. 12 See declaration by Dr. Michael Martin at A-7, ¶¶ 10-14. 13 See declaration by Patrick Koepele at A-21, ¶¶ 18-19. 16 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 27 of 92 participation by individual members. Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 292 F.3d 895, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“Sierra Club”). Separate licensing proceedings adversely affect the interests of the organizations’ members who use the river recreationally. For example, Cindy Charles is a member of Petitioner TRT and Intervenor Golden West Women Flyfishers who fishes recreationally on the Tuolumne River at least 20 days a year and plans to continue to fish in the river in the future. FERC’s Orders result in a continued lack of coordinated fish passage, which directly and imminently affects Ms. Charles’s ongoing use and enjoyment of the Tuolumne River for flyfishing. Ms. Charles is already being forced to limit her use of the river due to limited fish habitat and lack of fish passage, which make it difficult for the wild trout and steelhead that she fishes to survive.14 TRT and Conservation Groups have standing to sue on behalf of their members because FERC’s Orders will cause concrete, individualized injury to members such as Cindy Charles if not redressed by this Court. Ms. Charles’s interest in avoiding injury to her recreational use of the river is germane to the purposes of TRT and Conservation Groups, which includes 14 See declarations by Cindy Charles at A-30, ¶¶ 2-12, and Dr. Michael Martin at A-7, ¶¶ 7-14. 17 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 28 of 92 protecting the river’s fish, wildlife, and environment.15 The relief sought— modification of FERC’s Order—does not require the participation of individual members. Therefore, the organizations have standing on their members’ behalf. Sierra Club, 292 F.3d at 898. iii. This Court can redress these economic and recreational injuries This Court can redress these economic and recreational injuries by remanding to FERC with instructions that FERC’s Order include the requirement that La Grange be licensed under sections 4(e), 3(11), and 3(12) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 796, 797, as part of a complete unit of development with Don Pedro, which would enable the Projects to be licensed in a single proceeding. ARGUMENT I. Legal Standards A. Standard of review This Court reviews orders issued by FERC to determine whether they are arbitrary and capricious, while according deference to FERC’s expertise. 15 See declarations by Cindy Charles at A-30, ¶¶ 2-8, Patrick Koepele at A-21, ¶¶ 5-11, and 18 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 29 of 92 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (“Motor Vehicle Co.”). Orders that are arbitrary and capricious shall not be upheld when FERC has failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable manner. Section 706(2)(A) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The Court’s task is to ensure that FERC has engaged in reasoned decision making. FERC must “cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in the given manner.” Motor Vehicle Co., 463 U.S. at 48-49. In addition, FERC’s decisions must be in line with its own precedents: “Despite its broad discretion, [FERC] cannot arbitrarily treat similar situations dissimilarly.” State ex rel. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. FERC, 954 F.2d 56, 61 (2nd Cir. 1992). The Court assesses whether FERC has based its conclusions on substantial evidence, considered all the relevant factors, and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the order made. Wisconsin Valley Improvement Co. v. FERC, 236 F.3d 738, 748 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“Wisconsin Valley”). Christopher Shutes at A-35, ¶¶ 3-5. 19 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 30 of 92 Where FERC’s orders are based on insubstantial evidence or depart from precedent without reasoned explanation, as they do here, this Court owes no deference. ANR Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 71 F.3d 897, 901 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“ANR Pipeline”). B. FERC’s statutory obligation to license all parts of a complete unit of development Under the FPA, FERC must license all parts of a complete unit of development. See N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp., 56 FERC ¶ 61,144, 61,258 n. 14 (1991) (“N.Y. State Elec.”). FERC does not have discretion on this matter. See Ada County, The City of Boise, and Arthur L. Bloom Cook Elec. Co., 27 FERC ¶ 61,285, nn. 11-15 (1984) (FERC must license all features of a complete unit of development to enable regulation of the project under the comprehensive development standards of the FPA). Section 4(e) of the FPA empowers FERC to license hydroelectric “project works,” which are defined as “the physical structures of a project” in section 3(12) of the FPA. A “project” is defined in section 3(11) of the FPA as “a complete unit of improvement or development” consisting of: … all miscellaneous structures used and useful in connection with said unit or any part thereof, and all water rights, rights-of-way, ditches, dams, reservoirs, lands or interests 20 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 31 of 92 in lands the use and occupancy of which are necessary or appropriate in the maintenance and operation of such unit. 16 U.S.C. § 796 (emphasis added). A complete unit of development under the FPA therefore includes all miscellaneous structures that are “used and useful” in connection with a project, and all ditches, dams, and reservoirs that are “necessary or appropriate” in the maintenance and operation of that project. Projects that comprise a complete unit of development may be included in a single license. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 100 FERC ¶ 61,319, 62,455 n. 8 (2002). For the reasons that follow, FERC’s errors in law and fact prevented it from fulfilling its statutory obligation under the FPA to license La Grange and Don Pedro as a complete unit of development. II. FERC’s Decision That La Grange Does Not Require Licensing As A Reregulating Facility For The Don Pedro Project Is Arbitrary And Capricious And Not Supported By Substantial Evidence. A. FERC’s finding that La Grange does not reregulate peaking flows is arbitrary and capricious because it contradicts FERC’s own precedent without providing a reasoned explanation. 21 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 32 of 92 Some of the strongest evidence that La Grange is in fact a reregulating facility comes from FERC itself. In the past, FERC has acknowledged that La Grange is a “reregulating facility” with respect to the Don Pedro Project. In its 1996 Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Order Amending License and Dismissing Rehearing Requests, 76 FERC ¶ 61,117, 61,610 n. 28 (July 31, 1996), FERC expressly called La Grange a “diversion and reregulating facility”: Flows from 100 cfs to 550 cfs can be regulated through releases from the powerhouse at La Grange Dam, which is a diversion and reregulating facility located downstream of the New Don Pedro Dam. Emphasis added. There have been no substantial changes to the La Grange facility since 1996 that would alter its reregulating function. Districts’ Request for Rehearing and Motion for Stay (Jan. 18, 2013), R.43, JA__. Thus, FERC’s failure to assert jurisdiction over La Grange as a reregulating facility plainly contradicts its 1996 Order. Moreover, FERC provides no reasoned explanation for its contradictory findings. FERC’s abrupt, unexplained change in position—from declaring La Grange a reregulating facility to concluding that La Grange is not a reregulating facility—is arbitrary and capricious. Wisconsin Valley, 236 F.3d at 748. 22 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 33 of 92 B. FERC’s erroneous definition of reregulation is owed no deference. In addition to contradicting its previous description of La Grange as a reregulating facility, FERC based its finding that La Grange does not operate as a reregulating facility on an erroneous definition of reregulation. i. FERC’s definition of reregulation arbitrarily departs from its own precedent. In its Orders below, FERC erroneously assumes that reregulation occurs solely via reservoir storage, defining reregulation as the “storage” of flows in a reservoir “for later release to the river.” Rehearing Order at ¶ 111, R.58, JA__. Having determined that the La Grange Reservoir lacks “sufficient” storage capacity to contain the peaking flows from Don Pedro, FERC then concludes that La Grange “does not re-regulate the flows because it does not store them for later release to the river.” Id. The definition of reregulation in FERC’s Rehearing Order, which is narrowly focused on the physical storage capacity of a reservoir, sharply departs from FERC’s own precedent. In contrast to the Rehearing Order, FERC has previously defined reregulation much more expansively and functionally, focusing on the outcome of the reregulating process rather than simply on the means by which reregulation occurs. 23 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 34 of 92 For example, in City of Norway, Michigan, Order Amending License Article 37, 96 FERC ¶ 62,032, 64,052 (July 12, 2001), FERC defined reregulation in functional, outcome-oriented terms, as “maintaining a continuous discharge” downstream of a project: Reregulation is defined as maintaining a continuous discharge from the Sturgeon Falls Project, as measured immediately downstream, which approximates the mean daily discharge from the upstream hydropower projects, plus the inflows from the Sturgeon River. Emphasis added. FERC’s definition of reregulation in City of Norway directly conflicts with the definition that FERC applied to La Grange. “Maintaining a continuous discharge” is not the same as possessing “sufficient storage capacity.” As exemplified by La Grange, a facility can maintain a continuous, uniform discharge downstream by diverting flows into canals, even if it lacks sufficient reservoir storage capacity. La Grange’s method of reregulation falls squarely within the definition of reregulation that FERC itself adopted in City of Norway. In addition to contradicting its own precedent, FERC provided no explanation for departing from its previous definition of reregulation. When an agency inexplicably departs from its own precedent, its decision is 24 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 35 of 92 considered arbitrary and capricious and will be vacated as a result. ANR Pipeline, 71 F.3d at 901. ii. FERC’s definition of reregulation is not based on substantial evidence. Not only does FERC’s definition of reregulation contradict its own precedent, but the definition itself is not based on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). FERC’s assumption that reservoir storage capacity is the sole determinant of reregulation is not based on substantial evidence because it relies on a single source that conflicts with FERC’s own definition. Where FERC’s determinations are not supported by substantial evidence, they must be set aside. 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E). Specifically, the only source FERC references in support of its restrictive definition of reregulation as occurring solely via reservoir storage is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1701, at S-14 (Dec. 31, 1985) (the “Manual”) (cited in the Rehearing Order at ¶ 110, R.58, JA__). FERC cites to the Manual’s Glossary, which defines a “Reregulating Reservoir” as having “sufficient pondage capacity to store the 25 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 36 of 92 widely fluctuating discharges from the peaking plant and to release them in a relatively uniform manner downstream.” Id. However, this definition applies only to a reregulating reservoir. It is not a definition of reregulation as a process, or of a reregulating facility. On its own, therefore, it does not constitute substantial evidence that the reregulation process occurs only via reservoir storage. Nor does it constitute substantial evidence that a reregulating facility must contain a high-capacity reservoir that stores and later releases water back into the river in order to serve a reregulating function. FERC provides no other evidence to support its erroneous definition of reregulation. As a result, FERC’s decision should be set aside. C. FERC deviated from judicial precedent by failing to apply the established Chippewa test for a complete unit of development. FERC also erred by failing to apply the established test to determine whether La Grange forms a complete unit of development with Don Pedro. This Court laid out the test for a complete unit of development in Chippewa & Flambeau v. FERC, 325 F.3d 353, 358 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“Chippewa”), stating that the essential issue is whether a facility provides substantial benefits to power generation at a nearby project: 26 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 37 of 92 If a non-federal dam and reservoir substantially benefit generation operations, for example through the timing of flow releases, these facilities are part of the complete unit of development. Emphasis added. Other decisions have similarly held that the key factor in determining whether a facility forms part of a complete unit of development is whether a facility benefits a nearby project’s overall power generation. See, e.g., Bear Lake Watch, Inc. v. FERC, 324 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2003); Domtar Maine Corp. v. FERC, 347 F.3d 304 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In these decisions, courts do not focus primarily on how a facility provides a benefit to the unit but on whether the facility provides any benefit at all. By contrast, FERC erroneously focused its analysis solely on the size of the reservoir at the La Grange facility. Under the Chippewa test, courts should not consider merely the size or physical setup of a facility. Rather than examining the particular form a facility might take (high-capacity reservoir, dam, release structures, canals, etc.), courts must analyze the overall beneficial impact that a facility has on power generation at a nearby project. 27 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 38 of 92 FERC thus failed to apply the Chippewa test when it examined only the capacity of La Grange’s Reservoir without analyzing whether La Grange delivers a substantial benefit to Don Pedro’s power generation through reregulation of peaking flows. Peaking flows enable the Districts to generate more power during periods of high energy demand, making Don Pedro’s power generation more valuable. Yet peaking flows must be reregulated in order for a project to operate without the potential negative environmental effects that could otherwise result from that operation. Rehearing Order at ¶ 110, R. 58, JA__. By reregulating peaking flows, La Grange provides a substantial benefit to Don Pedro’s power generation. See Conservation Groups’ Request for Partial Rehearing, at pp. 9-16, R.44, JA__. By focusing on the narrow measure of reservoir storage capacity at La Grange, rather than analyzing the overall benefit that La Grange provides to Don Pedro through reregulation, as required under Chippewa, FERC deviated from judicial precedent and its decision should therefore be set aside as arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 77 (2002). D. FERC erred by dismissing substantial evidence that La Grange reregulates peaking flows and thereby forms a complete unit of development with Don Pedro. 28 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 39 of 92 FERC erred not only by acting contrary to legal precedent but by dismissing substantial evidence that La Grange does in fact reregulate peaking flows from Don Pedro. In its Rehearing Order, FERC states that La Grange is not a reregulating facility because the La Grange Reservoir lacks “sufficient pondage capacity to store the widely fluctuating discharges from the peaking plant and release them in a relatively uniform manner downstream.” Rehearing Order at ¶ 110 (emphasis added), R.58, JA__. FERC then concludes that La Grange does not reregulate peaking flows from Don Pedro, even though FERC expressly acknowledges that the flows released from La Grange “are relatively uniform and do not show the variability of flows released from the Don Pedro Project upstream.” Id. at ¶ 111 (emphasis added), R.58, JA__. A common-sense response to FERC’s surprising conclusion might be: If the flows released from La Grange are relatively uniform, as opposed to the variable flows released from Don Pedro upstream, how can there be no reregulation occurring downstream at La Grange? The answer is that FERC erroneously dismissed substantial evidence that La Grange reregulates Don Pedro’s peaking flows. A reservoir with high storage capacity is not the only type of structure that can reregulate peaking flows, as we see in the case of La Grange, which reregulates Don Pedro’s peaking flows by diverting them 29 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 40 of 92 into canals. The resulting diversion of peaking flows into the canals creates uniform downstream releases as measured at the La Grange gauge, located downstream of the La Grange Dam. Hydrologic data supplied by the Districts and presented in the proceedings below show that the Districts operate the La Grange canal gates and use head provided by the La Grange Reservoir and Dam to regulate peaking flows from Don Pedro. See Conservation Groups’ Request for Partial Rehearing of Order, at pp. 9-16, R.44, JA__. The Districts admit that they time daily releases from the Don Pedro Powerhouse to coincide as much as possible with on-peak periods: Once [the Districts’] water supply demand is established, those releases may be shaped over a 24-hour period to provide somewhat higher flows during the peak-demand period than during the off-peak period. Districts’ Response for Request for Information, at sections 3.1 and 3.5 (emphasis added), R.37, JA__. During periods when the Districts are cycling the Don Pedro Powerhouse releases to increase on-peak generation, the pattern of canal flows and the pattern of Don Pedro releases track each other almost exactly. At the same time, the daily flow of releases at the gauge below the La Grange 30 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 41 of 92 Dam remains almost without fluctuation. See Conservation Groups’ Request for Partial Rehearing of Order, at p. 14, Fig. 5, R.44, JA__. Thus, by varying the flow from the La Grange Reservoir through the intakes to the Districts’ respective canals, the Districts regulate peaking releases from Don Pedro to ensure that flow downstream of La Grange is consistent. Id. at p. 11, Fig. 2. FERC’s Orders erroneously conclude that La Grange’s reregulating function does not create a complete unit of development because La Grange diverts Don Pedro’s peaking releases for water supply rather than storing those releases in a reservoir for later release down the river. Rehearing Order at ¶ 112, R.58, JA__. This is inconsistent with substantial evidence that the Districts make peaking releases that are diverted into the canal even in the non-irrigation season when those releases are not needed for irrigation, indicating that those releases are made for power generation purposes, not merely for water supply purposes. See Conservation Groups’ Request for Partial Rehearing of Order, at pp. 15-16, R.44, JA__. As a reregulating facility, La Grange fulfills the Chippewa test for a complete unit of development, as discussed above. La Grange is therefore “necessary or appropriate to the maintenance and operation” of Don Pedro and forms part of “a complete unit of development” with Don Pedro. FERC 31 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 42 of 92 should assert its licensing jurisdiction over La Grange on this basis under sections 4(e), 3(11) and 3(12) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 796, 797. III. FERC Did Not Provide A Reasoned Explanation For Its Failure to Determine Whether La Grange Should Be Licensed As Part Of A Complete Unit Of Development With Don Pedro Based On Its Use To Make Minimum Flow Releases. Instead of providing a reasoned explanation for deferring a resolution of whether to license La Grange and Don Pedro as a complete unit of development based on the use of La Grange to make minimum flow releases, FERC simply stated: “[B]ecause licensing is required on other grounds…. [t]here is no need for us to determine whether the La Grange Project might also require licensing as part of a complete unit of development with the Don Pedro Project.” Rehearing Order at ¶ 116, R.58, JA__. FERC claimed that it lacked sufficient evidence to make such a determination, yet FERC never identified any additional evidence it needed to resolve the issue. Rehearing Order at ¶ 115, R.58, JA__. Nor does FERC’s Rehearing Order explain why FERC did not request whatever evidence was necessary to comprehensively resolve FERC’s jurisdiction over La Grange. Lack of sufficient evidence is not a reasoned explanation. 32 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 43 of 92 In fact, FERC dismissed substantial evidence presented in the proceedings below that La Grange forms part of a complete unit of development with Don Pedro due to the Districts’ operation of La Grange to maintain minimum flow releases. Under its current license, Don Pedro is required to provide minimum flow releases for fish populations and maintain those flow releases below the La Grange facility. Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, Order Amending License and Dismissing Rehearing Requests, 76 FERC ¶ 61,117, 61,609 (July 31, 1996). The Districts cannot dispute that they use the La Grange facility to make required minimum flow releases because the Districts’ general practice is to make all or part of these releases through the La Grange Powerhouse except during times of spill. See Districts Response to Request for Information, at section 3.6, R.37, JA__. FERC itself agreed that since La Grange is used to make minimum flow releases for Don Pedro, it could form part of a complete unit of development: Based on these facts, it could be argued that the La Grange Dam, reservoir, powerhouse and related release structures are used to release minimum flows for fish from the Don Pedro Project into the lower Tuolumne River. As such, they could be considered structures that are necessary or appropriate in the maintenance and operation of the Don Pedro Project, and thus would be part of the complete unit of development comprising the Don Pedro Project. 33 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 44 of 92 Order at ¶ 37, R.39, JA__. Here, La Grange fulfills the Chippewa test for a complete unit of development: it provides a substantial benefit to Don Pedro’s operation as a hydroelectric power facility by enabling the Districts to comply with Don Pedro’s minimum flow licensing requirements. The La Grange facility is not merely a passive intervening structure; rather, the Districts affirmatively operate La Grange to make minimum flow releases. Conservation Groups’ Request for Partial Rehearing of Order, at pp. 17-18, R.44, JA__. La Grange is therefore “necessary or appropriate” to Don Pedro’s “maintenance and operation” as a complete unit of development. Sections 3(11), and 3(12) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 796. As noted above, FERC is obligated to license all parts of a complete unit of development. Yet despite having sufficient evidence before it, FERC simply dropped the issue and provided no rational explanation for doing so. Where an agency does not cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner, its decision is owed no deference. Motor Vehicle Co., 463 U.S. at 48. IV. FERC’s Actions Do Not Serve The Public Interest, As Required Under The FPA. 34 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 45 of 92 By deferring its decision whether to license La Grange and Don Pedro together, FERC acted contrary to its duty to serve the public interest when licensing projects under Part I of the FPA. Scenic Hudson Pres. Conference v. FERC, 354 F.2d 608, 612 (2d Cir. 1965) (setting aside license due to FERC’s failure to protect the public interest). Licensing La Grange and Don Pedro as a complete unit of development serves the public interest by ensuring that the Projects are best adapted to a comprehensive plan of development and environmental protection, as required under section 10(a) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 803. Unless the issue is resolved now, the Projects will be licensed separately. The Don Pedro Project is currently being relicensed, and once the Don Pedro license issues, it can be reopened only with the Districts’ consent. Section 6 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C § 799. If FERC issues a license for Don Pedro and subsequently determines that modifications to Don Pedro’s license are required to ensure that La Grange is best adapted to a comprehensive plan of development and fish protection, FERC must obtain the Districts’ consent to make any modifications. The Districts may withhold their consent if the modifications are not in their interest. See Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation v. FERC, 746 F.2d 466, 473 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding distinct possibility for harm resulting from imposing fish protection measures 35 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 46 of 92 in a modification proceeding, because licensees may forestall protection measures). Only a single, coordinated licensing proceeding can guarantee the implementation of a comprehensive and timely plan for fish protection on the Tuolumne River. CONCLUSION STATING THE RELIEF SOUGHT We respectfully request that the Court grant the petition and remand to FERC with instructions to modify its Order to include the requirement that the La Grange Project be licensed pursuant to sections 4(e), 3(11), and 3(12) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 796, 797, as part of a complete unit of development with the Don Pedro Project. This Court has the authority to remand to FERC with instructions to modify its orders pursuant to section 313(b) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). Wisconsin Valley, 236 F.3d at 738. Alternatively, we request that the Court remand to FERC with instructions to reconsider its finding that La Grange is not required to be licensed as a complete unit of development with Don Pedro. 36 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 47 of 92 Dated: March 26, 2014 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert A. Salerno ROBERT A. SALERNO MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 887 1500 RSalerno@mofo.com Attorney for Tuolumne River Trust Richard Roos-Collins (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 37554) Julie Gantenbein (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 54726) Nicholas Niiro (D.C. Cir. Bar No. 54745) WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Avenue Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 296-5588 rrcollins@waterpowerlaw.com Attorneys for Tuolumne River Trust, American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Friends of the River, and Golden West Women Flyfishers 37 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 48 of 92 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) and Circuit Rule 32(a) because this brief contains 6,941 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii) and Circuit Rule 32(a)(1). I further certify that this brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced Times New Roman14-point typeface using Microsoft Word. Dated: March 26, 2014 ROBERT A. SALERNO USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 49 of 92 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Initial Brief of Petitioner Tuolumne River Trust and Intervenors (Conservation Groups) was filed electronically today through the Court's CM/ECF system and e-mailed to registered CM/ECF users as indicated below. John Albert Whittaker, IV Winston & Strawn LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3817 E-mail: jwhittaker@winston.com Attorney for Petitioners Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts Robert Harris Solomon Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 E-mail: robert.solomon@ferc.gov Robert Kennedy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Email: robert.kennedy@ferc.gov Attorneys for Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Richard Roos-Collins Julie Gantenbein Nicholas Niiro WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 Email: nniro@waterpowerlaw.com Attorneys for Tuolumne River Trust, American Rivers, American Whitewater, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Trout, Friends of the River, and Golden West Women Flyfishers Dated: March 26, 2014 /s/ Robert A. Salerno ROBERT A. SALERNO USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 50 of 92 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 51 of 92 ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS Pertinent Statutes Federal Power Act Section 3(11), 16 U.S.C. § 796……………..A-1 Section 3(12), 16 U.S.C. § 796……………..A-1 Section 4(e), 16 U.S.C. § 797……………….A-1 Section 6, 16 U.S.C. § 799……….................A-3 Section 10(a) (1), 16 U.S.C. § 803………….A-3 Section 23(b)(1), 16 U.S.C. § 817………......A-3 Section 313(a), 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a)…….......A-4 Section 313(b), 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b)………...A-5 Administrative Procedure Act Section 706, 5 U.S.C. § 706…………………A-6 Declarations in Support of Standing Declaration by Dr. Michael Martin………….A-7 Resume of Dr. Michael Martin………………A-15 Declaration by Patrick Koepele…………......A-21 Declaration by Cindy Charles……………….A-30 Declaration by Christopher Shutes.…………A-35 USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 52 of 92 Federal Power Act, Section 3(11), 16 U.S.C. § 796 Definitions. (11) “project” means complete unit of improvement or development, consisting of a power house, all water conduits, all dams and appurtenant works and structures (including navigation structures) which are a part of said unit, and all storage, diverting, or forebay reservoirs directly connected therewith, the primary line or lines transmitting power therefrom to the point of junction with the distribution system or with the interconnected primary transmission system, all miscellaneous structures used and useful in connection with said unit or any part thereof, and all water-rights, rights-of- way, ditches, dams, reservoirs, lands, or interest in lands the use and occupancy of which are necessary or appropriate in the maintenance and operation of such unit; Federal Power Act, Section 3(12), 16 U.S.C. § 796 Definitions. (12) “project works” means the physical structures of a project Federal Power Act, Section 4(e), 16 U.S.C. § 797 (e) Issue of licenses for construction, etc., of dams, conduits, reservoirs, etc. To issue licenses to citizens of the United States, or to any association of such citizens, or to any corporation organized under the laws of the United States or any State thereof, or to any State or municipality for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other project works necessary or convenient for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power across, along, from, or in any of the streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, or upon any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States (including the Territories), or for the purpose of utilizing the surplus water or water power from any Government dam, except as herein provided: Provided, That licenses shall be issued within any reservation only after a finding by the Commission that the license A- 1 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 53 of 92 will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created or acquired, and shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the department under whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation: [1] The license applicant and any party to the proceeding shall be entitled to a determination on the record, after opportunity for an agency trial-type hearing of no more than 90 days, on any disputed issues of material fact with respect to such conditions. All disputed issues of material fact raised by any party shall be determined in a single trial-type hearing to be conducted by the relevant resource agency in accordance with the regulations promulgated under this subsection and within the time frame established by the Commission for each license proceeding. Within 90 days of August 8, 2005, the Secretaries of the Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture shall establish jointly, by rule, the procedures for such expedited trial-type hearing, including the opportunity to undertake discovery and cross-examine witnesses, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. [2] Provided further, That no license affecting the navigable capacity of any navigable waters of the United States shall be issued until the plans of the dam or other structures affecting the navigation have been approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. Whenever the contemplated improvement is, in the judgment of the Commission, desirable and justified in the public interest for the purpose of improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, a finding to that effect shall be made by the Commission and shall become a part of the records of the Commission: Provided further, That in case the Commission shall find that any Government dam may be advantageously used by the United States for public purposes in addition to navigation, no license therefor shall be issued until two years after it shall have reported to Congress the facts and conditions relating thereto, except that this provision shall not apply to any Government dam constructed prior to June 10, 1920: And provided further, That upon the filing of any application for a license which has not been preceded by a preliminary permit under subsection (f) of this section, notice shall be given and published as required by the proviso of said subsection. In deciding whether to issue any license under this subchapter for any project, the Commission, in addition to the power and development purposes for which licenses are issued, shall give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and A - 2 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 54 of 92 habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality. Federal Power Act, Section 6, 16 U.S.C. § 799 Licenses under this subchapter shall be issued for a period not exceeding fifty years. Each such license shall be conditioned upon acceptance by the licensee of all of the terms and conditions of this chapter and such further conditions, if any, as the Commission shall prescribe in conformity with this chapter, which said terms and conditions and the acceptance thereof shall be expressed in said license. Licenses may be revoked only for the reasons and in the manner prescribed under the provisions of this chapter, and may be altered or surrendered only upon mutual agreement between the licensee and the Commission after thirty days’ public notice. Federal Power Act, Section 10(a)(1), 16 U.S.C. § 803 All licenses issued under this subchapter shall be on the following conditions: (a) Modification of plans; factors considered to secure adaptability of project; recommendations for proposed terms and conditions (1) That the project adopted, including the maps, plans, and specifications, shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section 797 (e) of this title [1] if necessary in order to secure such plan the Commission shall have authority to require the modification of any project and of the plans and specifications of the project works before approval. Federal Power Act, Section 23(b)(1), 16 U.S.C. § 817 (1) It shall be unlawful for any person, State, or municipality, for the purpose of developing electric power, to construct, operate, or maintain any dam, water conduit, reservoir, power house, or other works incidental thereto across, along, or in any of the navigable waters of the United States, or upon any part of the public lands or reservations of the United States (including the A - 3 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 55 of 92 Territories), or utilize the surplus water or water power from any Government dam, except under and in accordance with the terms of a permit or valid existing right-of-way granted prior to June 10, 1920, or a license granted pursuant to this chapter. Any person, association, corporation, State, or municipality intending to construct a dam or other project works, across, along, over, or in any stream or part thereof, other than those defined in this chapter as navigable waters, and over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States shall before such construction file declaration of such intention with the Commission, whereupon the Commission shall cause immediate investigation of such proposed construction to be made, and if upon investigation it shall find that the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by such proposed construction, such person, association, corporation, State, or municipality shall not construct, maintain, or operate such dam or other project works until it shall have applied for and shall have received a license under the provisions of this chapter. If the Commission shall not so find, and if no public lands or reservations are affected, permission is granted to construct such dam or other project works in such stream upon compliance with State laws. Federal Power Act, Section 313 (a), 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a) (a) Application for rehearing; time periods; modification of order Any person, electric utility, State, municipality, or State commission aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding under this chapter to which such person, electric utility, State, municipality, or State commission is a party may apply for a rehearing within thirty days after the issuance of such order. The application for rehearing shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds upon which such application is based. Upon such application the Commission shall have power to grant or deny rehearing or to abrogate or modify its order without further hearing. Unless the Commission acts upon the application for rehearing within thirty days after it is filed, such application may be deemed to have been denied. No proceeding to review any order of the Commission shall be brought by any entity unless such entity shall have made application to the Commission for a rehearing thereon. Until the record in a proceeding shall have been filed in a court of appeals, as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the Commission may at any time, upon reasonable notice and in such manner as A - 4 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 56 of 92 it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it under the provisions of this chapter. Federal Power Act, Section 313(b), 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (b) Judicial review Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or public utility to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court to any member of the Commission and thereupon the Commission shall file with the court the record upon which the order complained of was entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part. No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission in the application for rehearing unless there is reasonable ground for failure so to do. The finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. If any party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the proceedings before the Commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file with the court such modified or new findings which, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of the original order. The judgment and decree of the court, affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such order of the Commission, shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the A - 5 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 57 of 92 United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28. Administrative Procedure Act, Section 706, 5 U.S.C. § 706 To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall— (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law; (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. A - 6 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 58 of 92 DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL MARTIN IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF OF PETITIONER TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST I, Dr. Michael Martin, declare and state: 1. I am providing this declaration in support of petitioner Tuolumne River Trust. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and could competently testify to them if called as a witness. 2. As described in my resume, attached to this Addendum at A-15, I have a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from the University of Southern California, where I studied ichthyology. Ichthyology is a branch of zoology devoted to the scientific study of fishes. I received my M.A. in Biological Sciences with Fisheries and Ichthyology research/coursework from California State University, Sacramento, and my B.Sc. in Biological Sciences from the University of California, Davis. I am a Certified Fisheries Scientist, professionally certified by the American Fisheries Society. 3. From 1973 until my retirement in 2005, I worked as a biologist and toxicologist for the California Department of Fish and Game, specializing in water quality and aquatic toxicology. I have published over 70 scientific papers on the biology of fish and how contaminants interfere with fish and wildlife development, and I have testified on fisheries and A - 7 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 59 of 92 wildlife conservations issues before the U.S. House of Representatives and the California Assembly. 4. I am currently an adjunct professor in the Department of Biology and Chemistry, City University of Hong Kong, where I do research on aquatic pollution and advise Ph.D. and postdoctoral students. I have coordinated an international faculty-student exchange project with University of California, Davis and City University of Hong Kong in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. I also serve on the Editorial Board of the Marine Pollution Bulletin. I hold the positions of Conservation Chairman of the Merced Flyfishing Club, Director of the Merced River Conservation Committee, Mariposa, and Fisheries Advisor to the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation in Mariposa California. 5. As a qualified biologist and fisheries expert with extensive knowledge of California Central Valley fisheries and a life-long avid salmon, steelhead, and trout fly fisherman, I have participated in scientific collaboration and studies to recover anadromous fish species in the San Joaquin River watershed, with National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. I am conducting research on steelhead and spring-run Chinook A - 8 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 60 of 92 salmon temperature conditions in the upper Merced River, as a co- investigator with NMFS scientists. I have reviewed the 2009 NMFS California Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan and agree with the proposed fundamental actions to recover injured and depleted anadromous fish populations of the Tuolumne and other San Joaquin River tributaries. There are two fundamental actions to restore anadromous fish populations of the Tuolumne: 1) secure extant populations of threatened species (below “rim” or blocking dams), and 2) repopulate historically occupied habitats above blocking dams (through passage). 6. I have both professional and first-hand knowledge of the fisheries and river systems in California’s Central Valley, including the Tuolumne River system. The anadromous fish that inhabit the Tuolumne River include the Southern Sierra Nevada Steelhead DPS (“Distinct Population Segment”), a type of Central California steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which is a currently threatened population of anadromous fish of the San Joaquin River watershed at a moderate or high risk of extinction. The Tuolumne also contains fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), an anadromous fish that is at historically low levels in the river. Historically, significant runs of spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (“Evolutionarily Significant Unit”) occurred in the Tuolumne A - 9 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 61 of 92 River, but have been extirpated from all San Joaquin River tributaries, including the Tuolumne River, because of lack of access to their historic spawning and rearing habitats by dams. 7. As a qualified biologist and fisheries expert with extensive knowledge of California Central Valley fisheries, I have reviewed a 2009 study by Dr. Carl Mesick of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, entitled The High Risk of Extinction for the Natural Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Population in the Lower Tuolumne River due to Insufficient Instream Flow Releases. Dr. Mesick’s study details the causes and consequences of the substantial decline in the fall-run Chinook salmon population in the Tuolumne River. I agree with Dr. Mesick’s analysis, which concludes that the Tuolumne River’s fall- run Chinook salmon population is currently at a high risk of extinction. From 1999 to 2008, the population has declined at an average rate of 19.2% per year, which is an extraordinarily high rate. Additionally, the population’s reproductive productivity declined by 50% from 1996 to 2005. 8. To understand the cumulative impacts of the La Grange and Don Pedro Projects on anadromous fish populations in the Tuolumne River system, one must first understand the life cycles of anadromous fish. Anadromous fish are those fish that originate in freshwater, migrate to salt A - 10 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 62 of 92 water, then return as adults to spawn in fresh water. The fish migrate in two directions, both actively upstream as adults and more or less passively downstream as juveniles and smolts. In the Tuolumne River, the adult fall- run Chinook salmon swim up the fresh water river in fall or early winter, and the adult steelhead ascend the rivers in fall through early spring. Steelhead generally spawn from December until April in the gravels of the river, where they lay their eggs in nests or redds. Fall-run and late fall-run Chinook salmon typically spawn earlier. Those eggs require proper water temperatures and oxygen content in order to hatch. Once hatched, the fry require suitable habitat and food as they forage for nutrition along the sides of streams, in lower velocity waters. Streams with large inundated floodplains seem to produce hardier and more fit juveniles, than those that have been channeled or severely modified. Later on, the fish begin to experience smoltification, a process of physiological and behavioral changes that occur as the fish prepare to migrate downstream and enter the sea. The fish then start moving back down the river system toward the delta, where they stay in the area between the fresh and salt water before returning to the ocean. After spending one to four years in the ocean, they typically return to their nacent waters to reproduce and complete their life cycle. After spawning, steelhead adults may return to the ocean; salmon adults do not. A - 11 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 63 of 92 9. Many factors affect the life cycle of the anadromous fish populations in the Tuolumne River. In particular, warm water temperatures and changing river flows threaten these cold water adapted salmon and steelhead in several ways. Warmer river and stream temperatures put these fish under higher metabolic stress, increase their susceptibility to parasites and disease, and can cause eggs to hatch earlier in the year, so the young are smaller and more vulnerable to predators. Warmer water and slower stream velocities also tend to favor introduced and native predator species. 10. To complete their life cycle, fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead require water that is on average less than 20 degrees Celsius throughout the summer (because juveniles need to spend at least one summer in the river). Before dams were built on the Tuolumne River, those conditions occurred naturally, especially in the higher portions of the river above 1300 m. Due in large part to dam construction, however, such conditions no longer occur below the La Grange and Don Pedro Dams, except where supplemental flows are provided from cold water storage pools in reservoirs. 11. And even when supplemental flows are provided from the Don Pedro Reservoir, most of the cold water is diverted into irrigation canals, A - 12 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 64 of 92 leaving water temperatures dangerously high for the salmon and steelhead populations below those diversions. High water temperatures, low flows, and extensive streambed modifications in the lower Tuolumne River below La Grange and Don Pedro have severely reduced suitable habitat for these fish populations. Dam operations through water storage have also severely compromised these fish populations by significantly reducing snowmelt runoff during late spring, which has adversely impacted juvenile and smolt rearing and downstream migration. 12. I agree with the conclusions in Dr. Mesick’s 2009 study, referenced above, in which he determined that the primary cause of the high risk of extinction for the fall-run Chinook salmon in the Tuolumne River is inadequate instream flow releases from the La Grange Dam. Inadequate instream flows result in higher water temperatures that harm the fall-run Chinook salmon. The same negative effects damage the steelhead population as well, as steelhead juveniles migrate to the ocean when they are 1 to 3 years of age, with peak migration through the Delta in March and April, generally coinciding with early spring storms and snowmelt runoff. 13. It is therefore critical to the survival of these anadromous fish that they be able to travel upstream into the cooler waters above the La A - 13 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 65 of 92 Grange and Don Pedro Dams. Coordinated fish passage at La Grange and Don Pedro is essential to the health of the salmon and steelhead populations in the Tuolumne River. Without coordinated fish passage, fewer Chinook salmon and steelhead will spawn in the Tuolumne River. 14. Since the La Grange Project and the Don Pedro Project are only 2.6 miles apart, the Projects produce cumulative effects on the salmon and steelhead populations. In addition to the lack of fish passage, the combined effect of the Projects results in an altered flow regime that affects water temperature and water levels, negatively impacting fish populations as a result. To adequately protect and enhance the anadromous fish populations in the Tuolumne River, the license requirements for these two Projects must be coordinated, and a comprehensive plan of development for the river must be created in a timely manner. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Mariposa, California, this 24th day of March, 2014. ____________________________________ Michael Martin, Ph.D. A - 14 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 66 of 92 CURRICULUM VITAE: Michael Martin, Ph.D. Education 1965 B.S., Biological Sciences, University of California, Davis 1967 M.A., Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento 1972 Ph.D., Biological Sciences, University of Southern California Professional Appointments (selected) 2007-present Fisheries Advisor, Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, Mariposa, California, USA 2007-present Director, Merced River Conservation Committee, Mariposa, California, USA 2007-present Conservation Director, Merced Fly Fishing Club, Mariposa, California, USA 2007-2009 Conservation Chairman, Mariposa Fish and Game Protective Association, Mariposa, California, USA 2006-present Adjunct Professor, Department of Biology and Chemistry, City University of Hong Kong 2001-2006 Staff Toxicologist (Ret. Ann.), California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, California, USA 1991-2001 Staff Toxicologist, California Department of Fish and Game, CERCLA Unit, Monterey, California, USA 1999-2006 Senior Research Fellow, Department of Biology and Chemistry, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong (intermittent appointments) 1988-1991 Research Fellow, Aquatic Toxicology, Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA 1983-1991 Laboratory Director, Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, California, USA 1974-1980 Associate Water Quality Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, California, USA 1973-1974 Associate Water Quality Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Long Beach, California, USA 1971-1973 Dean, School of Conservation and Ecology, Anaheim, California, USA 1967-1971 Graduate Teaching Assistant, Physiology and General Biology, Department of Biology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA Profession Affiliations and Awards Sigma Xi American Fisheries Society, Certified Fisheries Scientist American Fisheries Society, California Nevada Chapter, 1974 Membership Award of Excellence American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologist Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, Reconociemiento for Pollution Research Professional Offices & Committees (selected) A - 15 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 67 of 92 2010 Guest Editor, Special Issue of Marine Pollution Bulletin, 6th International Conference on Marine Pollution and Ecotoxicology, City University of Hong Kong, June 1-3, 2010 2010 Participant and Student Paper-Poster Committee Chairman, 6th International Conference on Marine Pollution and Ecotoxicology, Department of Biology and Chemistry, City University of Hong Kong, June 1-3, 2010 2010 Participant, Faculty Exchange Conference, under UC Davis-City U Cooperative Agreement. Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis, March 1-2, 2010 2008 Signatory Meeting Representative, Cooperative Agreement between University of California, Davis and City University of Hong Kong, Chancellor’s Office, UC Davis, April 9, 2008 2004-present Member, Editorial Board, Marine Pollution Bulletin 2004-2005 North American Editor, Marine Pollution Bulletin 1995-2000 Assessor, Research Grants Council, Hong Kong 1988-1999 Member, Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA 1992-1998 Member, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cal EPA, Ecological Health Technical Research Team, Sacramento, California, USA 1996 Member, Peer Review Committee, Prince William Sound 1989-1992 Member, Monterey Bay Sanctuary Advisory Committee, NOAA, Monterey, California 1982-1984 Member, Organizing Committee for Nor-Cal Chapter, Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 1982 Member, Technical Advisory Committee for Toxicity in San Francisco Bay- Aquatic Habitat Program, Oakland, California USA 1982 Member, Peer Review Committee for Department of Energy, Physiological Ecology Research Program, Asilomar, California USA 1982-1979 Member, National Committee for the “Monetary Values of Freshwater Fishes”, American Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C. USA 1982-1980 Member, American Society Testing and Materials (ASTM) Committee F-20.13, Subcommittee on Chemicals for Oil Spill Control, San Diego, California USA 1980 Panel Chairman, NOAA Conference on Marine Pollution Problems of the Pacific Region of the United States, Portland, Oregon USA 1980-1978 Secretary, American Fisheries Society, California-Nevada Chapter Publications in Refereed Journals (selected) 2011 California’s Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Trout Recovery Plan. The Osprey. Steelhead Journal, Federation of Fly Fishers, Portland Oregon, Issue 68, pp.14-17. 2009 (with Mihn TB, Lueng HW, Loi IH, Chan WH, So MK, Mao JQ, Choi D, Lam JCW, Zheng G, Martin M, Lee JHW, Lam PKS, Richardson BJ). Antibiotics in the Hong Kong metropolitan area: ubiquitous distribution and fate in Victoria Harbour. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58 (7); 1052-1062. A - 16 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 68 of 92 2008 (with Stanley Y.M., Lam, P.K.S. Martin, M., Caldwell, C.W. and Richardson, B.J.) The use of selected genotoxicity assays in green-lipped mussels (Perna viridis): A validation study in Hong Kong coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 57 (6-12): 479-492. 2008 (with Moganti, S., Richardson, B.J., McClellan, K., Martin, M. Lam, P.K.S. and Zheng, G.J.) 2008. Use of the clam Asaphis deflorata as a potential indicator of organochlorine bioaccumulation in Hong Kong coastal sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 57 (6-12): 672-680. 2007 (with Gulowska A., He Y, So M.K., Yeung L.W.Y., Leung H.W., Giesy J.P., Lam P.K.S., & Richardson B.J.) The occurrence of selected antibiotics in Hong Kong coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(8):1287-1293. 2006 (with Lam J.C.W., Tanabe S., Chan S.K.F., Lam M.H.W., & Lam P.K.S.) Levels of trace elements in green turtle eggs collected from Hong Kong: Evidence of risks due to selenium and nickel. Environmental Pollution 144(3):790-801. 2005 (with Richardson, B.J., Tse, E.S-C., De Luca Abbott, S.B., & Lam, P.K.S. Uptake and depuration of PAHs and chlorinated pesticides by semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and green-lipped mussels (Perna viridis) Marine Pollution Bulletin 51 (8- 12):975-993. 2004 (with Lam, P.K.S. & Richardson, B.J.) An Asian quandary: Where have all the PBDEs gone? Marine Pollution Bulletin 49(5-6): 375-382. 2004 (with Anderson, B.S., Hunt, J.W., Phillips, B.M., Nicely, P.A., & Tjeerdema, R.S.) Compariosn of in situ and laboratory toxicity tests with the estuarine amphipod Eohaustorius estuaries. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 46:52-60. 2003 ((with Richardson, B.J. & Lam, P.K.S.) Harmonisation of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analyses for ecotoxicological interpretations of southeast Asian environmental media: what’s the problem? Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(2):159-170. 2000 (with Anderson, B.S., Hunt, J.W., Phillips, B.M., Stoelting, M., Becker, J., Fairey, R., Puckett, H.M., Stephenson, M., & Tjeerdema, R.S.) Ecotoxicological changes at a remediated Superfund site in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 19(4): 879-887. 2000 (with DeMaster, D., Duggins, D., Estes, J., Ralls, K., Robles, C., Seal, U., Sineff, D., & Benz, C.) Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland OR. 64 pp. & Appendices. 1995 (with Richardson, B.J.) A paradigm for integrated marine toxicity research? Further views from the Pacific Rim. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30 (1): 8-13. 1994 (with Anderson, B.S., Hunt, J.W., McNulty, H.R., & Turpen, S.L.) Off-season spawning and factors influencing toxicity test development with topsmelt Atherinops affinis. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 13(3): 479-485. 1993 (with Richardson, B.J.) Marine and Estuarine Toxicity Testing: A Way to Go? Additional Sitings from Northern and Southern Hemisphere Perspectives. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28: 138-142. 1992 (with Prest, H.F., Jarman, W.M., Burns, S.A., Weismuller, T., and Huckins, J.N.) Passive water sampling via semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) in concert with bivalves in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. Chemosphere 25(12): 1811-1823. 1991 (with Hunt, J.W., Anderson, B.S., Turpen, S.L., Barber, H.R., McKeown, D.L., & Palmer, F.H.) Interlaboratory Comparisons and Protocol Development with Four Marine Species. Water Quality Report No. 91-21WQ, California Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. 204 pp. A - 17 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 69 of 92 1991 (with Richardson, B.J.) Long Term Contaminant Biomonitoring: Views from the Southern and Northern Hemisphere Perspectives – Viewpoint. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22(11): 533-537. 1990 (with Anderson, B.S., Hunt, J.W., Turpen, S.L., Coulon, A.R., & Palmer, F.H.) Procedure manual for conducting toxicity tests developed by the Marine Bioassay Project. Division of Water Quality, Report 90-10WQ State of California water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California. 113 pp. 1990 (with Stephenson, M.D., Nishikawa, K., & Gutierrez-Galindo, E.A.0 Baja California/California Mussel Watch: Monitoring toxic substances in the California’s Coastal Zone. In: Environmental Hazards and Bioresource Management in the United States-Mexico Borderlands. Ganster, P. & Walter, H., eds. UCLA Latin American Center Publications, University of California, Los Angeles, California. Pp. 75-90. 1989 (Anderson, B.S., Hunt, J.W., Turpen, S.C., Coulon, A.R., Janik, J.J, & Palmer, F.H.) Marine Bioassay Project-Fourth Report-Experimental evaluation of effluent toxicity testing protocols with giant kelp, mysids, red abalone , and top smelt. State of California Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Report 89-5WQ, Sacramento, California. 143 p. 1988 (with Nishikawa-Kinomura, K.A., Gutierrez-Galindo, E.A., Sanudo-Wilhelmy, S.A., Flores-Munoz, G., & Stephenson, M.D.) Marine pollution in the central Southern California Bight adjacent to the American-Mexican border zone. Rev. Inter. Oceanographie Med. 90-91: 125-150. 1988 (with Welden, B.A. & Pollock, G.A.) Trace Organic and Trace-Metal Contaminants in Fish from Monterey Bay – the Monterey Bay Marine Environmental Health Survey. American Zoologist 28:A137. 1986 (with Hunt, J., Anderson, B., Espinosa, L., & Palmer, F.) Marine Bioassay Project – Second Report – Acute Toxicity Tests and Protocols: mysid shrimp, red abalone, and giant kelp. State of California Water Resources Control Board. Xerox Report. 65 p. 1985 (with Linfield, J.L.T. & Norton, J.) Marine Bioassay Project – First Progress Report- Bioassay Species Selection and Recommended Protocols. State of California Water Resources Control Board. Xerox Report. 133 Pages 1984 (with Castle, W.) Petrowatch: petroleum hydrocarbons, synthetic organic compounds and heavy metals in mussels from the Monterey Bay area of central California. Marine Pollution Bulletin 15(7): 259-266. 1983 (with Wu, T.C. & Stephenson, M.D.) Controlling trace metal discharges to South San Francisco Bay. Proceedings of the Pacific Region Workshop on Assimilative Capacity of the Ocean for Man’s Wastes. Taiwan SCOPE ICSU Academia Sinica, pp. 69-82. 1982 (with the American Fisheries Society Monetary Values of Freshwater Fish Committee) Monetary values of freshwater fish and fish-kill counting guidelines. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 13: 1-40. 1981 (with Flegal, A.R., Stephenson, M., & Martin, J.H.) Elevated concentrations of mercury in mussels (Mytilus californianus) associated with pinniped colonies. Marine Biology 65: 45-48. 1980 (with Stephenson, M.D. & Martin, J.H.) Trace metal concentrations in mussels from bays of California. Volume IV. State of California Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento. Water Quality Monitoring Report 79-22. 56 p. 1977 (with Stephenson, M.D. & Martin, J.H) Copper toxicity experiments in relation to abalone deaths observed in a power plant cooling water. California Fish and Game 63(2)95-100. A - 18 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 70 of 92 1975 (with Bussing, W.A.) Systematic status, variation, and distribution of four Middle American cichlid fishes belonging to the Amphilophus species group, genus Cichlasoma. Natural History Museum Los Angeles County, Contributions in Science 269:1-41. 1972 Morphology and variation of the Modoc sucker, Catostomus microps Rutter, with notes on feeding adaptions. California Fish and Game 58(4): 277-284. Conference Presentations (selected) 2010 (with Gaskell, S., Johnson, D., & Brochini, A). Indigenous Fisheries of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Yosemite Treaty River Miles. Tribal GIS Section of the ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA, July 13, 2010. 2010 (with Gaskell, S., Johnson, D., Hogan, W., & Brochini, A.) Indigenous Fishermen, Material Culture, and Historically Managed Fisheries Along Sierra Nevada Southern Sierra Miwuk Yosemite Treaty River Miles. Society of California Archaeology Annual Meeting; Riverside, CA, March 18, 2010. 2010 FERC 101: The Wonders of Hydropower Relicensing and the Merced River. Duke University MBA Environmental Studies Program, Yosemite National Park, CA, March 9, 2010. 2010 (with Gaskell, S., Johnson, D., & Brochini, A). Indigenous Fisheries of the Southern Sierra Miwuk California treaties of 1851. Duke University MBA Environmental Studies Program, Yosemite National Park, CA, March 9, 2010. 2004 (with Moganti, S., Richardson, B.J., & Lam, P.K.S.) Organochlorine bioaccumulation in representative Hong Kong benthic invertebrates: Implications for toxicity testing. 4th International Conference on Marine Pollution and Ecotoxicology, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, June, 2004. 2001 (with Johnson, D.) Contaminant Forecasting at Hazardous Waste Sites in California Marine Waters. Estuarine Research Federation, Saint Petersburg, Florida. November, 2001. 2001 (with Huang, C.) Ecological Clean-up Concentrations for Contaminated Site Remediation in East Fort Baker Facility, San Francisco, California. 3rd International Conference on Marine Pollution and Ecotoxicology, Hong Kong, June, 2001. 1999 (with Lam, P.K.S. & Richardson, B.J.) Ecological risk assessment: Pacific Rim bipolarity? American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Conference. Santa Fe, New Mexico, February, 1999. 1997 Selection of Analytical Chemical Protocols for Polychlorinated Biphenyl Measurement in Ecological Risk Assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicologists and Chemists Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California. November 1997. Consultative Reports 2008. Report on Species Status, Threats Assessment, Recovery Actions, Nexus to FERC Relicensing, Restoration Concept, Economics of a Restoration Project, Upper Merced River, California. Prepared for the Merced River Conservation Committee, Mariposa CA, June 17, 2008. 94 pp. 2007. Recommendations for Information/Data Needs in Conjunction with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 2014 Re-Licensing of Merced River Dams. Prepared for the Upper Merced River Watershed Council, Mariposa CA, April 22, 2007. 36 pp. A - 19 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 71 of 92 Grants as Independent Principal Investigator 2009 (with Merced Fly Fishing Club & California Department of Fish and Game) Lower Merced River Spawning Habitat Restoration Phases II & III - $113,940. This project will provide multiple additions of suitable spawning gravels (approximately 2.4 acres or 3000 tons of gravel). This will provide salmonid habitat restoration for approximately 15 years. This project has four objectives: 1) improve recreational fishing in 15 miles of the Merced River; 2) replenish depleted spawning gravels for steelhead/rainbow trout; 3) develop a self-sustaining population of anadromous steelhead/rainbow trout; and 4) improve Chinook salmon spawning habitat. Project Status: to be completed in 2011 and 2012. 2008 (with Merced Fly Fishing Club & California Department of Fish and Game) Lower Merced River Spawning Habitat Restoration Phase I - $24,882.13. Bay-Delta Sportfishing Enhancement Stamp (California Department of Fish and Game) funds were used to provide a one-time addition of suitable spawning gravels (approximately 1.2 acres or 1,200 tons of gravel) in the first riffle immediately downstream from the Crocker-Huffman Diversion Dam in the lower Merced River. This will replenish depleted spawning gravels for steelhead/rainbow trout and improve Chinook salmon spawning habitat. Project Status: Completed in July 2010. Legislative Testimony 1990 Hearing on National Marine Sanctuaries Program-Site Designation. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment. United States House of Representatives, June, Washington, D.C., USA 1985 Hearing on Marine Pollution/Health Risk Assessment in Monterey Bay, Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, California Assembly, November, Monterey, California, USA 1985 Hearing on Marine Pollution/Health Risk Assessment in Santa Monica Bay, Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, California Assembly, November, Santa Monica, California, USA 1983 Hearings on National Environmental Monitoring, Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research, and Environment, United States House of Representatives, House Committee on Science and Technology, August, Washington, D.C., USA 1982 Hearings on Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Wastes. Joint Legislative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, California Assembly, August, San Francisco, California, USA 1979 Hearings on Ocean Impacts of Ocean Disposal on Marine Resources. Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife, California Legislature, November, Monterey, California, USA 1979 Hearings on U.S. Senate Bills 1341 and 1480, Hazardous and Toxic Waste Disposal, Subcommittees on Environmental Pollution and Resource Protection, United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, June, Washington, D.C. USA A - 20 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 72 of 92 DECLARATION OF PATRICK KOEPELE IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF OF PETITIONER TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST I, Patrick Koepele, declare and state: 1. I am providing this declaration in support of standing of petitioner Tuolumne River Trust (“TRT”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and could competently testify to them if called as a witness. 2. I began working at TRT in July 2000 as the Central Valley Program Director. In this role, I managed TRT’s restoration, outreach, advocacy and education programs in the California Central Valley, including the La Grange area. I then served as Deputy Executive Director of TRT from April 2008 to December 2013. In this expanded role, I oversaw all of TRT’s programs in the three geographical areas where TRT is active: the Central Valley, the Bay Area, and the Sierra Nevada. In January 2014, I became Acting Executive Director of TRT, and was appointed Executive Director on March 16, 2014. In this role I manage all of TRT’s programs, which involve river restoration and protection, education, community outreach, outdoor adventure programs, collaboration with a diverse array of stakeholders, advocacy, and grassroots organizing. As Executive Director, I also oversee TRT’s budget and finances. A - 21 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 73 of 92 3. Prior to working at TRT, I was a Water Resources and Restoration Planner in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where I acquired in-depth knowledge of restoration issues and activities throughout California, including experience in surveying, groundwater, river and bank erosion studies. I hold a Masters of Science in Geology from the University of California at Davis. 4. The Tuolumne River is the largest tributary of the San Joaquin River and a critical resource in California’s Central Valley. The headwaters of the Tuolumne River begin at 13,000 feet in Yosemite National Park in the Sierra Nevada mountains. As the river gathers strength, it carves out canyons that provide 27 miles of world-class whitewater. The Tuolumne watershed supports many species of wildlife, including bald eagles, spotted owls, American marten, and a healthy wild trout fishery enjoyed by anglers. Chinook salmon return each fall to spawn in the river. Steelhead trout, a species listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, also spawns in the Tuolumne River. In addition to providing excellent wildlife habitat and recreational facilities, the Tuolumne River has been extensively developed to deliver water and electricity to San Francisco and other Bay Area cities. The river also provides irrigation water for farmers in the Central Valley and drinking water for Modesto, CA. A - 22 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 74 of 92 5. TRT is a non-profit organization founded in 1981 to promote stewardship of the Tuolumne River through education, community outreach, restoration projects, and outdoor adventures for its members along the Tuolumne River. TRT works to safeguard the Tuolumne River environment, as well as its fish and wildlife, for the benefit of its members and future generations who will use and enjoy the river. 6. TRT is active in advocacy and grassroots efforts to protect the environment of the Tuolumne River. In 1984, TRT won Wild and Scenic designation for 83 miles of the Tuolumne River. In the 1990s, TRT played a major role in winning higher flows for salmon on the Lower Tuolumne. In 2008, TRT won a five-year effort to prevent the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission from diverting up to 50% more water from the Tuolumne River. 7. TRT has approximately 1,850 members, many of whom regularly use and enjoy the Tuolumne River for fishing, canoeing, rafting, kayaking, backpacking and camping. TRT promotes its members’ interests by working to protect the Tuolumne River’s health and preserve the river for its members’ recreational use. A - 23 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 75 of 92 8. TRT runs several programs for the benefit of its members, and the Tuolumne River itself. For example, TRT organizes and runs restoration projects such as its Revive the River Program, which focuses on on-the- ground improvements along the Tuolumne River through enhanced fishery flows, habitat restoration, and land protection. TRT coordinates volunteer activities that involve its members in restoration work to maintain the health of the Tuolumne River. These include activities such as erosion control measures, assessing damage done by the recent Rim Fire along the river corridor, and testing water quality. 9. In addition, TRT’s Tuolumne River Adventure Club program provides underserved high school youth the opportunity to learn about river safety and enjoy their natural environment. TRT provides the skills, tools, resources, and training so that more underserved youth and their families can safely enjoy the Tuolumne River. 10. TRT also works to build positive and meaningful connections between its members and the Tuolumne River. TRT runs frequent adventure outings on the river, including canoe trips and hikes that are aimed at providing members with the opportunity to enjoy the Tuolumne River as an outstanding recreational resource. For example, TRT holds an annual event A - 24 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 76 of 92 called Paddle to the Sea, which is a month-long “paddle-a-thon” along the Tuolumne River that brings thousands of people together to celebrate and raise awareness for the river. It also serves as a valuable fundraising tool for TRT. Participants pay a fee to TRT as well as seeking “sponsors” from among their family, friends, and other connections to help raise additional funds for TRT. In 2013, TRT raised $50,000 from its Paddle to the Sea. The next Paddle to the Sea will be held in May and June of 2014. 11. Every fall, TRT leads a popular series of guided canoe trips along the Tuolumne River to witness the Chinook salmon returning to the river to spawn. The canoe trips start early in the morning and consist of paddling three miles of the Tuolumne River in the La Grange region to watch the spawning. Participants pay a fee ranging from $35 to $60 to TRT in order to participate in this event. 12. TRT’s economic interests are directly affected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) Order Finding Licensing Required, which concerns the licensing of the La Grange Project. As Deputy Executive Director and now Executive Director of TRT, I have been engaged on behalf of TRT in the proceedings before FERC concerning the La Grange and Don Pedro Projects. On account of FERC’s Order, the La Grange and A - 25 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 77 of 92 Don Pedro Projects will not be licensed together as a complete unit of development but must undergo separate licensing and relicensing proceedings, as opposed to a single, coordinated proceeding. Currently, TRT is actively participating in the relicensing proceeding for the Don Pedro Project. TRT has concrete plans to actively participate in the upcoming licensing proceeding for the La Grange Project. 13. Participation in licensing proceedings is time and resource intensive, and therefore it is very expensive. Participation in licensing proceedings requires TRT to undertake an in-depth review and analysis of the hydropower project being licensed, focused on the project’s effects on the environment, fish and wildlife, in order to provide extensive comments to FERC on the scope and requirements of the proposed license. Throughout this process, TRT staff must attend public scoping meetings, workshops, study meetings, coordination meetings, and other related meetings. 14. As a participant, TRT will also likely develop and propose study plans that are needed to better understand the environmental issues at stake. These proposed studies are submitted to FERC. A study plan must describe the goals and objectives of each study proposed, address resource management objectives, describe existing information, explain the nexus A - 26 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 78 of 92 between project operations and effects for the resource to be studied, and describe the proposed study methodology, level of effort, and cost. Such studies typically take one to two years to complete, and the study results are used to develop the license application. After the license application is filed, FERC seeks input from TRT and other interested parties on the license. This requires TRT to provide expert advice and further comments and recommendations on the license application and proposed measures and plans to protect, mitigate, or enhance environmental resources. 15. TRT will suffer direct economic injury as a result of having to participate in two separate licensing proceedings for La Grange and Don Pedro. TRT will have to spend approximately $50,000 per year to participate actively in the La Grange licensing process, which will last at least 4 years. 16. During this time, TRT will incur added costs due to the additional staff time and resources that will be required. Staff will need to undertake additional research, attend additional meetings, and develop and produce additional study plans for the La Grange licensing proceeding. Moreover, TRT staff will need to provide expert advice and opinions on the outcome of all of these additional studies once they are completed. A - 27 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 79 of 92 17. These extra costs are a substantial, imminent and concrete economic injury that TRT will suffer as a direct result of the FERC’s Order, since TRT now has to participate in two separate licensing proceedings instead of one. 18. In addition, based on my experience as Deputy Executive Director and Executive Director of TRT, and through my participation in the La Grange and Don Pedro proceedings before FERC, I understand that separate licensing proceedings for La Grange and Don Pedro hinder the creation of a coordinated and comprehensive plan for fish passage, adequate water flow and environmental protection in the Tuolumne River at the La Grange and Don Pedro Project areas. As a result, I understand that the Chinook salmon populations and steelhead trout in the Tuolumne River will suffer from a lack of coordinated fish passage, and the river itself will very likely contain fewer spawning salmon and steelhead. 19. In this way, a separate licensing proceeding for La Grange creates a substantial probability that fewer people will participate in TRT’s annual Chinook salmon spawning canoe trips, since reduced numbers of fish mean that participants are less likely to observe fish spawning. A decline in the number of fee-paying participants in the event will mean less revenue for A - 28 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 80 of 92 TRT. FERC’s decision to undertake separate licensing proceedings for Don Pedro and La Grange thereby causes concrete and imminent economic injury to the organization. 20. I understand this Court can redress these economic injuries to TRT by remanding to FERC with instructions to modify its Order to include the requirement that the La Grange Project be licensed as part of a complete unit of development with the Don Pedro Project. I further understand that, as a complete unit of development, La Grange and Don Pedro can be licensed in a single proceeding, which will prevent the economic harm caused to TRT by having to participate in two separate and expensive licensing proceedings. It will also mitigate a reduction in the number of fee-paying participants in TRT’s fish spawning trips by facilitating the creation of a comprehensive and coordinated plan for fish passage on the Tuolumne River. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Sonora, California, this 24th day of March, 2014. ____________________________________ Patrick Koepele A - 29 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 81 of 92 DECLARATION OF CINDY CHARLES IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF OF PETITIONER TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST I, Cindy Charles, declare and state: 1. I am providing this declaration in support of standing of petitioner Tuolumne River Trust and intervenor Golden West Women Flyfishers. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and could competently testify to them if called as a witness. 2. I am an active member of the Tuolumne River Trust (“TRT”) and I have been a member of the TRT for approximately 10 years. 3. TRT is a non-profit organization founded in 1981 to promote stewardship of the Tuolumne River through education, community outreach, restoration projects and outdoor adventures along the Tuolumne River. TRT works to protect the Tuolumne River and its fish and wildlife for the benefit of its members and future generations who will use and enjoy the river. TRT organizes and runs frequent recreational outings on the Tuolumne River for its members, including canoeing, rafting, and fishing trips. 4. I am an active member of the Golden West Women Flyfishers (“GWWF”) and have been a member of the GWWF for approximately 15 years. A - 30 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 82 of 92 5. GWWF is a non-profit organization founded in 1983 to support the sport of flyfishing through conservation, education, social, and fishing programs. GWWF has approximately 150 members who are engaged in the sport of flyfishing in the rivers of California. The organization is dedicated to protecting aquatic habitats and fish populations in California for flyfishers to use and enjoy. GWWF members have gone on fishing outings along the Tuolumne River. 6. TRT and GWWF represent my interests and those of other members like me who use the Tuolumne River near the La Grange Project and the Don Pedro Project for recreational purposes. The Tuolumne River is the largest tributary of the San Joaquin River and a critical resource in California’s Central Valley. The headwaters of the Tuolumne River begin at 13,000 feet in Yosemite National Park in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and runs down into the Central Valley. The Tuolumne watershed supports many species of wildlife, including bald eagles and rare grey owls, and a wild trout fishery enjoyed by anglers such as myself. In addition, fall-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead return each fall to spawn on the river. 7. I regularly use and enjoy the Tuolumne River for recreational fishing, and I currently fish in the Tuolumne River at least 20 days per year. I A - 31 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 83 of 92 have been fishing regularly in the Tuolumne River for 45 years. I primarily fish for anadromous fish such as steelhead, as well as wild trout. 8. I have fished and will continue to fish in many parts of the Tuolumne River, including below the La Grange Dam and above the Don Pedro Project on the upper part of the river. I have floated the Tuolumne River along a 5.5 mile stretch from Basso Bridge down to Turlock Lake State Park Campground on multiple fishing trips. I have fished both at the riffles above the La Grange Bridge and below the La Grange Dam. 9. I am directly affected as a recreational fisher by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) Order Finding Licensing Required. I understand that because of FERC’s Order, the La Grange and Don Pedro Projects are not considered to be a complete unit of development and as a result they will undergo separate licensing proceedings. I also understand that separate proceedings will impede the creation of a coordinated plan for fish passage and adequate water flow in the Tuolumne River, because only a single licensing proceeding facilitates the timely development of a comprehensive plan for fish protection. I understand that in a single licensing proceeding, as opposed to separate proceedings, the cumulative effects of the Projects on anadromous fish populations can be fully addressed and the license requirements can be appropriately crafted to A - 32 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 84 of 92 ensure that the Projects are best adapted to a comprehensive plan of development and environmental protection. I therefore understand that without a single licensing proceeding, there is a substantial probability that the health of the anadromous fish populations in the Tuolumne River will suffer due to lack of coordinated protection measures. This will directly injure me as a flyfisher who currently fishes in the Tuolumne River and who wants to continue to fish in the Tuolumne River in the future. 10. I have concrete plans to return on a regular basis in the future to fish in the Tuolumne River, as it is one of the places I most enjoy fishing. I own a cabin in Tuolumne County, just outside of Groveland, California. From my cabin, it takes only 35 minutes to reach the Tuolumne River. I spend every weekend at my cabin and go fishing on the Tuolumne as often as conditions on the river allow. 11. At the current time, the population of steelhead and wild trout that I commonly fish is low, so although I continue to fish in the Tuolumne River, my fishing opportunities are limited. I went on a fishing trip below La Grange Dam in January 2014 and caught nothing because the water flow and fish passage were inadequate. Although the capture rate is always lower in winter, due to a natural decline in fish activity, I would normally expect to catch at least 3 to 4 fish on similar trips to that area in January. A - 33 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 85 of 92 12. I would fish in the Tuolumne River even more often if there were better water flow and fish passage so that the migrating fish population could thrive. Specifically, I would participate even more frequently in fishing outings arranged through GWWF on the Tuolumne River if the fish population were healthier and the numbers greater. 13. I understand that this Court can alleviate the harm I will suffer as a recreational flyfisher by remanding to FERC with instructions to modify its Order to include the requirement that the La Grange Project be licensed as part of a complete unit of development with the Don Pedro Project. I understand that as a complete unit of development, La Grange and Don Pedro can be licensed in a single proceeding, and this will facilitate the creation of a coordinated plan for fish passage and environmental measures that will protect the fish populations in the Tuolumne River where I fish. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, this 24th day of March, 2014. ____________________________________ Cindy Charles A - 34 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 86 of 92 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SHUTES IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF OF PETITIONER TUOLUMNE RIVER TRUST I, Christopher Shutes, declare and state: 1. I am providing this declaration in support of standing of intervenor California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (“CSPA”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and could competently testify to them if called as a witness. 2. I am the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) Projects Director at CSPA. I have served as FERC Projects Director at CSPA for approximately 7 years. In my role as FERC Projects Director, I oversee, manage and direct CSPA’s involvement in FERC licensing proceedings. While serving as FERC Projects Director and prior to assuming that role, I have participated over 13 years in eight separate multi-year proceedings to relicense hydroelectric projects, six of them on behalf of CSPA. These six proceedings have been relicensed under FERC’s current default, the Integrated Licensing Process. 3. CSPA is a non-profit, public benefit conservation and research organization established in 1983 for the purpose of conserving, restoring, and enhancing the state’s water quality, wildlife and fishery resources, their aquatic ecosystems and associated riparian habitats. CSPA works for the A - 35 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 87 of 92 benefit of its members and all those who use and enjoy the public resources of water, fish and wildlife in California. 4. CSPA represents prominent fishing organizations across the state and individual members committed to conserving the state’s fishery resources and habitat. Many of CSPA’s members are avid anglers. To promote its members’ interests, CSPA advocates fishery conservation based on sound scientific and professional management that protects and conserves the aquatic and terrestrial habitat essential for the state’s fisheries to exist at abundant, self-sustaining levels. 5. On behalf of its members, CSPA advocates for environmental protections in administrative and legal proceedings. CSPA focuses much of its effort in communicating and working with governmental agencies, policy makers, and fishery managers to ensure they have the support they need to protect the public’s fishery legacy. CSPA continuously monitors the activities of the federal and state resource agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Water Resources, the California Fish and Wildlife Commission, the California Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the federal National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the A - 36 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 88 of 92 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the federal Bureau of Reclamation. 6. CSPA actively participates in the relicensing of hydroelectric projects to ensure that hydroelectric project licenses provide sufficient flows and other protection measures for fish. CSPA serves on the steering committee of the California Hydropower Reform Coalition, and since 2009 has served on the steering committee of the national Hydropower Reform Coalition. In this leadership role, CSPA has been engaged in the proceedings before FERC regarding the Don Pedro and La Grange Projects over the course of several years. 7. Currently, CSPA is actively participating in the relicensing proceeding for the Don Pedro Project. CSPA also has concrete plans to actively participate in the upcoming licensing proceeding for the La Grange Project. 8. Participation in licensing proceedings is time and resource intensive, and therefore it is very expensive. Participation in licensing proceedings requires CSPA to undertake an in-depth study of the hydropower project being licensed, focused on the project’s effects on the environment, fish and wildlife, in order to provide extensive comments to FERC on the scope and requirements of the proposed license. Throughout this process, A - 37 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 89 of 92 CSPA staff must attend public meetings related to scoping, study development, presentation of study results, and discussion of potential protection, mitigation and enhancement measures for inclusion in the project license. 9. Participation also requires CSPA to develop and propose study plans that are needed to better understand the environmental issues at stake. These proposed studies are submitted to FERC. A study plan must describe the goals and objectives of each study proposed, address resource management objectives, describe existing information, explain the nexus between project operations and effects for the resource to be studied, and describe the proposed study methodology, level of effort, and cost. Such studies typically take one to two years to complete, and the study results are used to develop the license application. After the license application is filed and accepted as complete, FERC seeks input from CSPA on the license. This requires CSPA to provide expert advice and further comments on the license application. 10. CSPA will suffer direct economic injury as a result of having to participate in two separate licensing proceedings for La Grange and Don Pedro. It costs CSPA at least $5,000 per year to participate in a licensing proceeding. Given that the licensing proceeding for the La Grange Project A - 38 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 90 of 92 will last for at least four years, this adds up to a cost of approximately $20,000 additionally imposed on CSPA. This is a conservative estimate of the additional costs that will be imposed on CSPA. 11. At the moment, CSPA’s budget for Tuolumne River hydropower licensing proceedings accounts for approximately 15% of CSPA’s total budget for all licensing proceedings. Now that a separate licensing proceeding is required for the La Grange Project, CSPA will have to increase its budget for Tuolumne River licensing proceedings, so that the Tuolumne River proceedings will account for between 20% and 25% of its hydropower budget. 12. CSPA will incur these added costs due to the extra staff time and resources required to actively participate in two separate licensing proceedings. CSPA staff will need to attend separate meetings, comment on additional study plans and reports that are prepared and submitted as standard procedure in the separate La Grange hydropower facility licensing proceeding, and meet other procedural requirements. CSPA will bear the costs of supporting me or other staff members who must attend additional meetings, assess additional studies, and file additional comments and other paperwork as a result of having to participate in two separate licensing proceedings. A - 39 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 91 of 92 13. The injury to CSPA’s economic interests is directly traceable to FERC’s Order Finding Licensing Required. Due to the Order, the La Grange and Don Pedro Projects will have to undergo separate licensing proceedings. FERC’s Order thereby generates additional, unnecessary and burdensome costs on CSPA, which now has to participate in two separate licensing proceedings instead of just one. 14. I understand this Court can redress these economic injuries to CSPA by remanding to FERC with instructions to modify its Order to include the requirement that the La Grange Project be licensed as part of a complete unit of development with the Don Pedro Project. I further understand that, as a complete unit of development, La Grange and Don Pedro can be licensed in a single proceeding, which will prevent the economic harm caused to CSPA by having to participate in two separate and expensive licensing proceedings. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Berkeley, California, this 24th day of March, 2014. ____________________________________ Christopher Shutes A - 40 - USCA Case #13-1253 Document #1485635 Filed: 03/26/2014 Page 92 of 92 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Emily Lacroix <elacroix92@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 6:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Civilianizing Traffic Enforcement Attachments:PAPD One Pager.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello PA City Council, I was unable to attend last night's city council meeting, so apologies for my late comment. I've written to the council before, voicing concerns over the Palo Alto police department. After reviewing the report put forth by the HRC, Black and Brown Palo Alto History and Current Experience, I wanted to revoice my concerns and put forth an idea. Slide 11 of the HRC presentation shows that Black and Brown folks in our city are being harassed by the police during unnecessary traffic stops. These accounts beg the question: why are we funding an expensive, threatening, armed police force to perform traffic and parking stops, particularly when the PAPD repeatedly harasses people of color in our community? A small group of other concerned citizens and I have recently done an analysis of the 2019 PAPD calls for service, publicly available here: https://data.cityofpaloalto.org/dataviews/256726/calls‐for‐service‐palo‐alto‐police‐department‐ 2019/ . We found that almost 30% of the calls received by the PAPD were related to traffic and parking. A full copy of our analysis can be found in the attached PDF. I'm writing to propose that Palo Alto move to civilianize its traffic enforcement, i.e., vehicle accidents, traffic violations, and parking violations be handled by a civilian traffic enforcement agency separate from the PAPD that is only permitted to write traffic citations and take reports. This model is similar to the one recently adopted in Berkeley, which you can read more about here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/07/14/berkeley‐may‐become‐1st‐us‐city‐to‐ remove‐police‐from‐traffic‐stops/?sh=4fb4767d70fa The move to civilianize traffic enforcement could cut costs to Palo Alto in the long‐term and is but a small step in ensuring justice, equity, and safety in our city. Obviously bias could still permeate a civilianized traffic force, but I remain hopeful that the formation of a civilianized traffic team could be a step in the right direction. Armed police officers do not need to be performing traffic duties. I expect to be in continued conversation with the city council and HRC over the next few months about this issue. If any of you hold office hours, I'd love to attend. Please let me know if we could have a smaller discussion about this. I'm hopeful that the council will consider this idea, and I look forward to communicating more soon. Cheers, Emily Lacroix Civilianization of the PAPD This document is intended to provide a basic analysis of police department activity in Palo Alto. It uses publicly available information to identify the most common situations that PAPD officers are involved in, group those situation types into thematic categories, and identify categories that can be alternatively served by civilian service providers. Calls for Service In 2019, PAPD handled 51,417 calls for service . An analysis of all the call types reveals three categories of calls that can be 1 handled by civilians more effectively and at a lower cost. In 2019, these three categories comprised 47.6% of all calls to the PAPD2. ●Traffic/Parking (14,497 calls) ○This includes call types related to vehicle accidents, traffic violations, and parking violations ○Solution: Respond with civilian traffic enforcement agents separate from the police department, only permitted to write traffic citations and take reports. ●Health/Community Outreach (7,139 calls) ○This includes call types like “Medical Call,” “Welfare Check,” and “Transient Complaint.” ○Solution: Respond to behavioral health issues with community-based behavioral health professionals. Divert these calls to a civilian emergency response service. ●Nuisance Complaints (2,816 calls) ○This category is primarily comprised of noise complaints ○Solution: Respond with civilians trained in de-escalation and mediation, permitted to issue citations as a last resort. Of the remaining 26,965 calls, there are at least two additional categories that deserve scrutiny: ●Patrol Calls (7,160) ○These calls are not responding to a report of a crime, but are used to establish a presence in an area. These calls are disproportionately dispatched to communities of color and foster the over-policing of Black and Brown communities3. ●Suspicious Person/Vehicle (2,011 calls) ○These calls disproportionately target people of color and are often justified by little more than racial profiling Conclusion The categories above are just a subset of the possible opportunities for the civilianization of police tasks typically handled by sworn officers. By diverting these nearly 25,000 calls away from sworn officers and the police department, we can reduce PAPD personnel costs and improve outcomes for all involved. 1 Police Department Calls for Service: https://data.cityofpaloalto.org/dataviews/256726/calls-for-service-palo-alto-police-department-2019/ 2 Call categorization: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r_NDZGzbs37W4LVsTgufJTXXBtgW9ZIa/view?usp=sharing 3 Robin Smyton, “How Racial Segregation and Policing Intersect in America,” Tufts Now, June 17, 2017, https://now.tufts.edu/articles/how-racial-segregation-and-policing-intersect-america Appendix A: Community Policing Alternatives BerkDOT Berkeley, CA In July of 2020, the City of Berkeley City Council voted to create the Berkeley Department of Transportation (BerkDOT). This department will take over traffic enforcement from the city police department. Traffic laws will be enforced by unarmed DOT employees instead of armed police officers. The creation of this department and other reforms will involve a “substantial community engagement process to develop a new model for policing in Berkeley.” Additional info CAHOOTS Eugene, OR The Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) program is a mobile crisis intervention program staffed by a local non-profit using City of Eugene vehicles. CAHOOTS personnel often provide initial contact and transport for 911 calls relating to substance use and mental health. This program has been in place for approximately 30 years. Additional info SCRT San Francisco, CA The San Francisco Street Crisis Response Team (SCRT) is a newly created system whereby teams of medical and behavioral health professionals will begin responding to 911 and 311 calls for behavioral health crises. The team is a partnership of the department of public health, department of emergency management, fire department, and police department. Additional info SMART San Mateo County, CA The San Mateo Assessment and Referral Team (SMART) is a system of paramedics sent by county dispatchers when requested by police in nonviolent situations. This program was created in 2005. Additional info STAR Denver, CO The Support Team Assistance Response (STAR) program is a mobile crisis intervention in which a van carrying a mental health clinician and a paramedic is dispatched to provide free medical care and mental health support for a broad range of non-criminal emergencies. The STAR service is dispatched through Denver’s 911 communications center, and it is intended to divert these types of calls away from police officers and toward mental health and medical professionals. Additional info