Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200928plCC 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: 09/28/2020 Document dates: 09/09/2020 – 09/16/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lloyd Diamond <tmcdiamond@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 1:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Old Palo Alto RPP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, We will not be able to attend the virtual City Council meeting tonight where you will be voting to extend the pilot phase of the Old Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program for twelve months ending on October 31, 2021. We understand that the reason this will be a vote for an extension, and not a final approval, is that Council wants "to further evaluate the program, as the economic downturn related to Covid-19 has significantly impacted travel patterns”. However, as resident owners who have had to live with the unbearable burden of the traffic and parking situation for many years, we can attest to the fact that the RPP has certainly improved quality of life in the area. While the COVID pandemic is real and tragic for many, eventually this will be dealt with and things will return to normal, meaning an increased flow of traffic once again. Therefore, we are not sure what more you plan on learning by simply extending the pilot program. We are happy to settle for another year extension but we would recommend approving the RPP and making it permanent as soon as possible. Best Regards, Lloyd & Isabelle Diamond 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Carlitz <barbara.carlitz@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Old Palo Alto RPP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members,    Just a line to say I support the staff suggestion to defer until next year any decision on success of our new parking  program. We’ve certainly not had a normal year to test this out!    Barbara Carlitz  2291 Ramona St.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Dougherty <paloaltoeditor@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 3:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Hur, Mark Subject:Item #4 on consent calendar: 12-month continuation of the pilot project of OPA RPP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Member,   Item #4 on the consent calendar would allow a 12‐month continuation of the pilot project of the Old Palo Alto  Residential Preferential Parking (RPP). Please consider taking it out of the consent calendar and examining the  implications in more detail before moving forward. I have either spoken to each of you today or tried to call you to  explain my point of view.  The RPP program is emblematic of making our city exclusive—keeping “other” people out—during a time when if we  care about equity, we should be exploring every opportunity to be inclusive. My block was eligible to opt into the Old  Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) district, but we chose not to precisely because we should be making it  easier, not harder, to come to our town.   The program targeted Caltrain commuters and CalAve workers. We don’t know the economic situation of these workers,  and the majority of the residents on the 2300 block of Bryant St. prefer to welcome them into our neighborhood and  allow them to park on our public streets.   Parking is not and never has been a problem in Old Palo Alto, and the OPA district was established based on dubious  data (see agenda Attachment A) at a cost of $75,500 and a process that makes it far too easy to establish an RPP district.  This expensive program in OPA benefits the 93 original houses; the cost to add 17 houses that opted in due to  “overflow” parking is not included in that figure. Prior to the pandemic, the estimated annual cost to maintain the  district was $10,000 – $15,000, per city staff. As the council examines how we’re spending our shrinking revenue, the  RPP program is one place to look.  My husband and I have rented a house at the corner of Bryant and Oregon Ave. for nearly 24 years. We have a two‐car  garage and park our cars in it. A large part of the so‐called “parking shortage” comes from owners who remodel houses,  convert garages into interior rooms after city inspection, and then feel entitled to park in front of their house. If your  house is up to code—and this district is made up of single‐family homes—you should be able to park in your garage or  on the driveway.  According to the original timeline, the council would not have revisited this issue until the end of October, per my  communications with city staff in January. Even with the pandemic making it impossible to collect accurate follow‐up  data, that length of continuing a costly program that pays to turn public streets into private parking is too long.   Thanks for listening!  Elizabeth Dougherty  2 Old Palo Alto resident  1 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:48 PM To:Angie Evans Cc:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Tanaka, Greg Subject:Re: Comment on Item #9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. thanks Angie On 2020-09-14 14:30, Angie Evans wrote: Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council members, First I want to thank our city staff, who I'm sure have spent a lot of time working through this important pivot. Safe parking programs must be part of our housing approach, as we know that 31% of our unsheltered population became homeless after a loss of income. No safety net can save you when the rents are this high, least of all people with the lowest incomes. Although the last homeless count only jumped 13% in Palo Alto, I believe that is because we push people into friendlier communities where RV and car dwellers can worry less about stiff parking regulations and stigma. But with over 300 people living unsheltered in our community who need resources in order to get back on their feet, it is our duty to aid people in their time of crisis. I look forward to seeing our city put resources toward a safe parking program that provides dignity to our neighbors on the street but know that our work is not done. As you all know, the success in Mountain View's program has in part been because they were able to find permanent, affordable housing for many of the participants. If we do not approve and build more housing at all income levels, this program will not be a stepping stone out of poverty, it will be a holding pattern. So as I applaud you, please know that it is because I hope you will see this as just one part of our affordability crisis. Lastly, I think the public should be very aware that this program would cost the city nothing and in fact, we will likely earn money from leasing part of the lot. The County is providing the financial resources so we just need to provide the political will to change people's lives. All my best, Angie Evans Crescent Park Mom 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:30 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Tanaka, Greg Subject:Comment on Item #9 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council members,      First I want to thank our city staff, who I'm sure have spent a lot of time working through this important pivot. Safe  parking programs must be part of our housing approach, as we know that 31% of our unsheltered population became  homeless after a loss of income. No safety net can save you when the rents are this high, least of all people with the  lowest incomes.     Although the last homeless count only jumped 13% in Palo Alto, I believe that is because we push people into friendlier  communities where RV and car dwellers can worry less about stiff parking regulations and stigma. But with over 300  people living unsheltered in our community who need resources in order to get back on their feet, it is our duty to aid  people in their time of crisis. I look forward to seeing our city put resources toward a safe parking program that provides  dignity to our neighbors on the street but know that our work is not done. As you all know, the success in Mountain  View's program has in part been because they were able to find permanent, affordable housing for many of the  participants. If we do not approve and build more housing at all income levels, this program will not be a stepping stone  out of poverty, it will be a holding pattern. So as I applaud you, please know that it is because I hope you will see this as  just one part of our affordability crisis.     Lastly, I think the public should be very aware that this program would cost the city nothing and in fact, we will likely  earn money from leasing part of the lot. The County is providing the financial resources so we just need to provide the  political will to change people's lives.     All my best,   Angie Evans  Crescent Park Mom    3 Baumb, Nelly From:John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 1:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Support Safe Parking at Geng Road Lot CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council‐  I am writing to you in support of Safe Parking at Geng Road.       This is a pressing and real solution to a sincere problem that the unhoused in Palo Alto, who are living in their cars and  RV's, are in desperate need for a safe area to park and reside during a trying time for those folks.     I support Council Member Lydia Kou and Vice‐Mayor Tom Dubois in their memo to find safe parking areas for cars and  RV's.    Thank you for your consideration and leadership on this issue.      John W. King  724 Barron Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306  650‐483‐2710      4 Baumb, Nelly From:Brie Linkenhoker <brieann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 12:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve safe parking proposal at 2000 Geng Road 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 a member of the vestry (church leadership) at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Palo Alto. My fellow church members  and I have served homeless and underhoused residents of Palo Alto in volunteer work and church‐based services with  Hotel de Zink, LifeMoves, Project WeHOPE and the Ecumenical Hunger Program.    I am writing to you today to urge you to approve the 24 hr safe parking space at 2000 Geng Road. This pilot program is  well designed and supported, and is desperately needed in our community. While we understand that there are other  organizations nearby who may have concerns about the establishment of the safe parking space, we feel that the  combination of dire local need, strong program design and experienced operational management should weight your  decision towards approval.    Sincerely,    Dr. Brie Linkenhoker, Ph.D.  Vestry Member, St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Palo Alto, CA      5 Baumb, Nelly From:Matt McDermott <matt@saint-marks.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 11:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,  I heartily encourage the efforts of the city to support the homeless of our  community, specifically in regards to developing a practical safe parking  policy. Thank you for your attention to this real need.   With respect,  Rev. Matthew McDermott    ‐‐   The Reverend Matthew McDermott   St. Mark's Episcopal Church  600 Colorado Ave  Palo Alto CA 94306    6 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeremy Siegel <jasiegel@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 12:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,     I am writing to support the effort to provide safe parking at the proposed Geng Road site. Although not a current Palo Alto  resident (but a past and now an adjacent resident) I’m proud of the actions taken taken in our area of the county — including  your approval earlier this year of the Tier 1 framework for safe parking — to try and address some of the difficulties of those  who forced to live in their vehicles on our streets. By approving the changes to allow Tier 3 operation on publicly owned land,  as well as the lease to the county for a program already run, Palo Alto will join Mountain View and others in doing the right  thing to help fellow citizens in this particular trying time of homelessness during a pandemic. Thanks for your consideration.    —Jeremy Siegel, Mountain View         7 Baumb, Nelly From:Mitch Mankin <mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 11:40 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; David Meyer; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Item 9: Safe Parking Program Attachments:SV@Home Letter - Safe Parking Program 9.14.20 - final.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,    Please find attached our letter on the Safe Parking item before you tonight. The letter is also included in plain text  below.     Best,  Mitch Mankin Policy and Advocacy Associate Pronouns: he/him (408) 780-8915 mitch@siliconvalleyathome.org Act with us. Become a member today and join us in making home a reality for all. For all COVID-19 related housing updates & resources click here Website I Facebook I Twitter I Newsletter I LinkedIn I Become a Member! Mayor Fine and City Councilmembers  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301    Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,    Re: Item 9 Safe Parking Ordinance and Lease with County    Having a secure place to live is essential for public health, safety, and welfare. During our current overlapping crises, the  provision of safe parking has become even more urgent, with the threat of COVID, massive unemployment, and now our  smoke filled skies. On behalf of our members, SV@Home would like to express our support for the Safe Parking  program proposed at 2000 Geng Road.   8 The proposed site, operator, and structure of the Safe Parking program set it up for success. The already‐existing  kitchen, bathrooms, showers, and garages on‐site make 2000 Geng Road an ideal choice for a well‐resourced safe  parking program.   Move Mountain View’s model has been successful across the five Lots of Love sites in Mountain View, and we are  confident that they will bring the same quality of service to this proposed site as well. We are particularly supportive of  the choice to make the lot 24/7. As noted by the staff report, this choice eliminates the daily reappearance of RVs on city  streets, allows vehicle residents to stay in place and limit exposure to COVID‐19, and affords vehicle residents greater  stability and security.  This ordinance and lease is an important step in the right direction. Moving forward, the Council should consider  strategies to expand the city’s safe parking capacity beyond 12 vehicles through the addition of other sites. When  COVID‐19 conditions improve, we are hopeful that the city’s prior vision of safe parking at church lots can be realized. In  addition, there may be other underutilized PF zoned properties that could host similar programs to the one proposed at  2000 Geng Road once this first program is off the ground.   Thank you to the Councilmembers, city and county staff, and nonprofit employees who have been working over the last  year to make this program a reality.     Sincerely,    David Meyer  Director of Strategic Operations  SV@Home     350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org Board of Directors Kevin Zwick, Chair United Way Bay Area Gina Dalma, Vice Chair Silicon Valley Community Foundation Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Andrea Osgood, Treasurer Eden Housing Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Ron Gonzales Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Candice Gonzalez Sand Hill Property Company Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Janice Jensen Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Janikke Klem Technology Credit Union Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director Mayor Fine and City Councilmembers City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka, Re: Item 9 Safe Parking Ordinance and Lease with County Having a secure place to live is essential for public health, safety, and welfare. During our current overlapping crises, the provision of safe parking has become even more urgent, with the threat of COVID, massive unemployment, and now our smoke filled skies. On behalf of our members, SV@Home would like to express our support for the Safe Parking program proposed at 2000 Geng Road. The proposed site, operator, and structure of the Safe Parking program set it up for success. The already-existing kitchen, bathrooms, showers, and garages on-site make 2000 Geng Road an ideal choice for a well-resourced safe parking program. Move Mountain View’s model has been successful across the five Lots of Love sites in Mountain View, and we are confident that they will bring the same quality of service to this proposed site as well. We are particularly supportive of the choice to make the lot 24/7. As noted by the staff report, this choice eliminates the daily reappearance of RVs on city streets, allows vehicle residents to stay in place and limit exposure to COVID-19, and affords vehicle residents greater stability and security. This ordinance and lease is an important step in the right direction. Moving forward, the Council should consider strategies to expand the city’s safe parking capacity beyond 12 vehicles through the addition of other sites. When COVID-19 conditions improve, we are hopeful that the city’s prior vision of safe parking at church lots can be realized. In addition, there may be other underutilized PF zoned properties that could host similar programs to the one proposed at 2000 Geng Road once this first program is off the ground. Thank you to the Councilmembers, city and county staff, and nonprofit employees who have been working over the last year to make this program a reality. Sincerely, David Meyer Director of Strategic Operations SV@Home 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Mildred jones <mej5890@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 7:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a Palo Alto resident, I support the safe parking proposal. It is one step toward addressing the problem. Thank you for your consideration. Mildred Jones 10 Baumb, Nelly From:jacqueline hea <heajch@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Initiative CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,  I am a member of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Palo Alto.  I support the Safe Parking initiative.  Safety,  stability and sanitation are key to help transition individuals and families from living on the streets to a more  permanent housing solution. It must be horrible to live with constant fear and doubt about whether you can  stay where you are, whether ill may befall you.      We need to experiment to find solutions that work.  I urge you to move forward with the Safe Parking  initiative.  Sincerely,  Jacqueline Hea  11 Baumb, Nelly From:Jim Fox <jimafox@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:SUPPORT Safe Parking Initiative 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 long-time Palo Alto resident and voter. I am concerned about the great need for housing in our community, which has led to large numbers of our fellow residents being forced to live in their cars or vans. This is an immediate, urgent problem that requires immediate action. I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a  three‐year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe  parking program for vehicle dwellers.   I urge you all to support these changes to the safe parking ordinance. Sincerely, Jim 650-856-6637 home 650-862-3567 cell 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Diane Guinta <diane.guinta@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members,  As a former resident of Palo Alto (1990‐2019) and a current member of the St. Mark’s Palo Alto Episcopal church, I  would like to voice my support for the safe parking proposal before you. It is really important to address the issue of  homelessness in as many ways as possible. While this pilot program is a small step, many houses of worship are willing  to follow with vehicle parking lot programs to help house our fellow Californians who are in dire straits.    It is time for all of us to do as much as possible to help our neighbors.    Thank you for considering my opinion.    Sincerely yours,  Diane Guinta  Former Homeowner on Arbutus Ave. and Manchester Ct.    Diane Guinta  Sent from my iPhone  13 Baumb, Nelly From:Paul Milo <paul.milo2@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking - PA City Council tomorrow night CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I highly urge the council to ***approve*** the proposal.    Regards,  Paul Milo  791 Encina Grande Dr.  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Pines <susan@pines.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City Council members,     I want to register my support for this proposal as it will help to meet the needs of our people, and help to keep folks safe  while looking for permanent housing.    I am a 39 year resident of Palo Alto, and want to encourage more efforts to help the homeless in our community.    Regards,      Susan Pines  4109 Donald Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Joy Sleizer <joy.sleizer142@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:A chance to provide safe parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     I'm excited to read about the possibility of Palo Alto providing safe parking for those folks who are living in their  vehicles.  I think the location looks good with showers & bathroom facilities on the grounds.  A long time coming & I urge  you to vote YES on this.    I belong to 1st Presbyterian Church in Palo Alto & I remember when we offered our parking lot for overnight use some  years ago & received hate mail for our offer.  I hope this location will be less threatening to those folks who will certainly  be opposed.      Thanks for your consideration!    Joy Sleizer    850 Webster St #706  Palo Alto, CA 94301  650‐324‐7425  650‐353‐4481  cell  16 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Barkan <sabarkan@me.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I hope you will approve a three‐year lease on the city’s Geng Road site for use as a safe place to park vehicles being used  as homes. Most of those who live in their cars or RVs once lived in standard housing and were priced out by ever‐ increasing rents or medical expenses. Nearly all have jobs and/or children in local schools. I have lived in this area for  over fifty years and dread the day when the only people who can live here are the super‐rich and retirees like me who  were able to buy a house on a teacher’s salary.  Some vehicle dwellers rent these homes, which cannot be moved every  day, so I hope that they would be permitted to park there during the day as well as overnight.    Susan Barkan  Retired teacher  Castilleja School  Palo Alto    Sent from my iPad  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Melissa Woodburn <melissalynn.woodburn@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:approve tomorrow's parking program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support  the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of  the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for  vehicle dwellers.    Thank you,  ‐Melissa Kaganovsky, Palo Alto Resident    18 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Thompson <Gail.thompson2018@outlook.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 8:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:safe parking for those living in RVs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I support  a safe parking program for those living in RVs.  Many have worked towards establishing such a program for at  least 10 years.  City support is critical.  Gail Thompson  Palo Alto resident  19 Baumb, Nelly From:Kevin Ma <kevinma.sd@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Agenda Item 9 (Safe Parking) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Councilmembers,    As a Palo Alto tenant, I strongly support the Safe Parking ordinance and associated county lease. We all recognize the  high costs of renting in this area, which is currently compounded by the pandemic and its financial impacts on many.  Given the patchwork of eviction protections and the expected continuance of the pandemic for the foreseeable future,  we're likely going to see an increase in homelessness, which may see an increase in RV residents. As such, we must  provide a safe location for these members of our community. (as well as protect renters in general). The program in  front of you provides them the stability to be able to find supportive housing, without the constant pressures of the  three‐day parking window or from police check‐ups initiated by angry neighbors. And being able to isolate oneself is  truly a life‐or‐death scenario, what with the pandemic and now the wildfire smoke.    We cannot shirk our responsibility to other cities. Let us be a leader and not condemn people to wander around the  region.    Sincerely,  Kevin Ma  20 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Ann Field <maryannfieldca@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 1:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:safe parking proposal support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I urge the City of Palo Alto Council to pass the safe parking ordinance to approve a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. People need a safe, healthy place to live. Many cannot afford a home.    Thank you, Mary Ann Field  Mountain View resident        21 Baumb, Nelly From:tgranoff@aol.com Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support  the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of  the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for  vehicle dwellers. Sincerely, Tatiana Granoff Los Altos 22 Baumb, Nelly From:James Phillips <jpphil76@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Geng Road site safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. 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 support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers.     James Phillips      James Phillips jpphil76@comcast.net 650 494-3541 (H) 650 823-4319 (C) 482 Ferne Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 23 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Carlitz <barbara.carlitz@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:16 AM To:lorig@stanford.edu Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: [village-members] Parking for Vehicle Dwellers--Letters needed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thanks, Kate!  I just sent along a note of support to:  City.Council@cityofPaloAlto.org   Hope others will as well….    Barbara Carlitz       On Sep 12, 2020, at 10:55 AM, Kate R Lorig <lorig@stanford.edu> wrote:    Since 2016, I have been trying to do something every day to help or  country.   Today’s effort is close to home.  On Monday the PA city council will vote  on approving leasing land to the country to for the parking of vehicles being lived  in by homeless families.  PA has done little to help accommodate this growing  problem.   Below is the letter which I wrote to the PA city council.   You do not  have to live in PA to write.   I am passing this along to friends who might want to  support this issue and ask that if you agree, you also pass this along.   Write your  message to  city.council@cityofpaloalto.org        Sat, Sep 12 at 10:44 AM  I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. This is a human and public health crisis that the Palo Alto needs to face rather than pushing off to other communities. All communities are in this together. Neither human suffering nor COVID-19 are restricted to geographic boundaries. Thanks for helping.        Kate Lorig  Professor Emerita  Stanford University School of Medicine     -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Village-members" 24 group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to village- members+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/village- members/BYAPR02MB4343CDC857F04BF348BC3DD6C8250%40BYAPR02MB4343.namprd02.pr od.outlook.com.    25 Baumb, Nelly From:Janet Constantinou <playmorej@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking for RVs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. This is a human and public health crisis that the Palo Alto needs to face rather than pushing off to other communities. All communities are in this together. Neither human suffering nor COVID-19 are restricted to geographic boundaries. Thanks for helping. Janet Constantinou 26 Baumb, Nelly From:Shirley Finfrock1 <samfinf@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:Parking for Vehicle Dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    This is long overdue, it is way past the time it should have gone into affect. I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. This is a human and public health crisis that the Palo Alto needs to face rather than pushing off to other communities. All communities are in this together. Neither human suffering nor COVID-19 are restricted to geographic boundaries. Thanks for helping.     Shirley Finfrock  Barron Park Resident for 48 years  and resident of Palo Alto for 51 3/4 years  27 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Weil <margaretweilpa@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking for Vehicle Dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. This is a human and public health crisis that the City of Palo Alto needs to face rather than pushing off to other communities. All communities are in this together. Neither human suffering nor COVID-19 are restricted to geographic boundaries. Thanks for helping.     Margaret and Curt Weil     ‐‐   Margaret Weil   867 Lincoln Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  650‐323‐7919  650‐814‐6562 (cell)  28 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Carlitz <barbara.carlitz@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:Yes to protected parking! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance in order to approve a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. This is a human and public health crisis that the Palo Alto needs to face, as do all Bay Area Communities. We are in this together. Neither human suffering nor COVID-19 are restricted to geographic boundaries.     Thanks for helping.    Barbara Carlitz  2291 Ramona St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301       29 Baumb, Nelly From:Mark Moragne <mwmoragne@mac.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 8:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support  the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of  the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for  vehicle dwellers.    Sincerely,  Mark Moragne  30 Baumb, Nelly From:Sheri Morrison <morrison.sheri@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 9:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a  three‐year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe  parking program for vehicle dwellers.     This is a good start to a much needed solution to address the dual crises of homelessness and  COVID‐19. We need to act now!    Thanks,  Sheri Morrison  member, Congregation Etz Chayim, Palo Alto   31 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Beth Train <mbt3305@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 7:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Project on Geng Road - YES CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to ask your approval of the ordinance amendments to make the Safe Parking Project at the temporary fire station on Geng Road a reality. I attended the neighborhood checkin a few weeks ago. The principals in the non-profit that would manage this project for up to 12 vehicles, probably RV's, now manage the two Safe Parking lots in Mountain View. They thought that this location would be especially helpful for these vehicle dwellers because there is a facility with showers, bathroom with plumbing, and a kitchen. The Palo Alto city staff who would be responsible for the program seemed enthusiastic as did the county people, including Supervisor Joe Simiitian. I attend St. Mark's Episcopal Church on Colorado Avenue. Though I now live at Channing House, when I lived in my Palo Alto Eichler on Middlefield Road, I would sign up for supplying meals when it was St. Mark's turn to host Hotel De Zink (HDZ), operated by LifeMoves. The HDZ guests were mostly working adults. Most were local. I think that the vehicle dwellers at the Safe Parking lot would be the same. They will also have supportive services by the non-profit, and the program would have oversight. We like to think of Palo Alto as a supportive community. This is one way to be that. If finances match values, then this is a good use of any such resources the city might spend. Thank you, -- Mary Beth Train 850 Webster Street # 420, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mary Beth Train - Home office phone 650-324-7346 *voice only, not text* - mbt3305@yahoo.com 32 Baumb, Nelly From:Nikky Wood <nikky@saint-marks.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 4:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I write to you as a priest of a Palo Alto church, urging you to pass the safe parking initiative. Shelter is a basic human  need, and while I wish we had better solutions available than people sleeping in their cars or using RVs as full‐time  homes, at the very least these folks should be able to park safely. This seems to me to be such a bare  minimum proposition. These cars/RVs are going to be parked somewhere. They are our neighbors and part of our  community. By all means, why not have a place with oversight and services available? We ought to be providing so much  more for the unhoused population of this city. Please vote in favor of this measure.    Respectfully,  The Rev. Nikky Wood      ‐‐   The Rev. Nikky Wood  Associate Rector, St. Mark's Episcopal Church  she/her/hers  I work Sundays and Tues ‐ Fri  saint‐marks.com  33 Baumb, Nelly From:Judy Rattner <judyrattner@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 4:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Members of the City Council,     The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support the proposed  changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of the City's Geng Road site to  the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers.      Thank you for your attention to this serious matter and for your service to our city.      Judy Rattner    34 Baumb, Nelly From:Liz Russell <efrussell@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 3:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,     Palo Alto really needs to step up to the plate on the issues of homelessness and COVID. Please know that I strongly  support the proposed changes to the city's safe parking ordinance to allow a 3‐year lease of the Geng Road site to the  county to be used as a 24/7 safe parking program for people who live in their vehicles.    Elizabeth F. Russell  35 Baumb, Nelly From:Sara Selis <sara.selis@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 2:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please support overnight parking program for unhoused residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council- The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. Please support this program with all the resources it needs, with hopes to make this a model for other places in the Bay Area and around the U.S. Thank you for your consideration, Sara Selis a member of Etz Chayim Congregation, Palo Alto 36 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Callahan <tanteanne.callahan@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 2:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking - Geng Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I understand that at this Monday’s meeting you will be discussing the proposal to establish a safe parking site  for up to 10 vehicles at 2000 Geng Road.  I URGE YOU TO APPROVE IT!    Based on the report by Rachael Tanner and Supervisor Simitian’s support for the project, I can’t imagine  there’s a good reason not to adopt this immediately.  I have met with the MV organization proposed to oversee  operation of the site and they are well regarded and well equipped to make this happen.   And given the  many  uncertainties we’re facing due to the pandemic effects of unemployment, closing businesses and, at  some point, phasing out of eviction protections, our unsheltered population is only going to increase.  This is a  logical and safe first step.    Thank you,    Anne Callahan  Downtown North PA    37 Baumb, Nelly From:Harvey Alcabes <harvey@alcabes.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 12:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:safe parking program at Geng Road site CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support  the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of  the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for  vehicle dwellers.     Thanks.    ‐‐Harvey Alcabes    3766 Cass Way    Palo Alto, CA 94306      38 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Ratner <eratner@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 12:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:David Bergen Subject:Safe Parking Ordinance and Geng Road Lease CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members:    The crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support the  changes proposed to the city’s safe parking ordinance and the approval of a three‐year lease of  the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for  vehicle dwellers.         Lisa Ratner  Palo Alto          39 Baumb, Nelly From:Mordecai bH <mordecai.bh@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Parking for vehicle dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Too many members of our community are struggling with environmental, financial, and employment  issues beyond their ability to control and are needlessly suffering. They desperately require our help  so I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a  three‐year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe  parking program for vehicle dwellers.  40 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Bob <ellenbob@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:I support leasing Geng Road Parking Lot to the County. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We need to do something to support people sleeping in their cars and vans. I strongly support the  proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of the  City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for  vehicle dwellers        ‐‐   ellen bob  3296 Emerson Street  Palo Alto, CA 94306  650.493.5942  41 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Giles <ritalgiles@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 9:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Ordinance and Lease with County CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response.        I am a member of Palo Alto Congregation Etz Chayim and I strongly support the  proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year  lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7  safe parking program for vehicle dwellers.      Thank you for your consideration.       Rita L Giles   42 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Kinney <pkinney@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 9:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please support the safe parking area at next week's council meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council, At next Monday’s meeting, please support establishing a safe parking area for unsheltered individuals living in cars or RVs. The site being considered is ideal and represents a pilot program that could pave the way for additional options. We appreciate very much all the thought and planning that has gone into this proposal. Pat Kinney Elder, First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto, on behalf of our Social Justice Ministry 43 Baumb, Nelly From:Randi Brenowitz <rsbrenowitz@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 8:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support  the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of  the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for  vehicle dwellers  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Randi S. Brenowitz  International Chair, Melton School     H: 650.856.3161   C: 650.464.4090           44 Baumb, Nelly From:David Bergen <david.bergen@outlook.com> Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support safe parking on city land, including Geng Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council,    The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. As a Palo Alto  resident, I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and  approval of a three‐year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as  a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. I strongly urge you to approve this proposal at  the Sept. 14 council meeting.    Sincerely,    David Bergen  45 Baumb, Nelly From:Emily Young <emilyjeanyoung@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking lot on Geng road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council,    I support the three year lease for the safe parking lot and program on Geng Road. We are in a terrible crisis for the  homeless right now with COVID‐19 and the lack of affordable housing.  I support providing a place 24/7 for people to  park their cars and remain safe in them. The Mountain View program which would assist folks at Geng is commendable  and can provide immediate help for people who are in dire need at this time.    Thank you in advance for your help and support in this matter. I also hope the council will be supportive of longer term  housing construction and help in future.    Sincerely,  Emily Young    Resident of Palo Alto    Sent from my iPhone  46 Baumb, Nelly From:Emily Lacroix <elacroix92@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Initiative CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Palo Alto City Council,     I hope you are all well and maintaining morale during these strange and trying times.     I'm unable to call into the city council meeting scheduled for next Monday, September 14. However, I wanted to express  support for the safe parking ordinance and lease with the county and encourage you all to support the initiative as well.    Fixing the root causes of homelessness is obviously important, but until those root causes are addressed, those who are  living in cars and RVs in our community deserve the safest possible living space.     I'm heartened that the council is discussing this ordinance, and I am hopeful that Palo Alto will do the right thing here.     Best,  Emily Lacroix   47 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Kinney <pkinney@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the proposal for a safe parking area for unsheltered individuals CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, At your 9/14 meeting, please vote to establish a safe parking area for unsheltered individuals living in cars or RVs. The site being considered is ideal and this pilot program could pave the way for additional options. Thank you, Patricia Kinney 689 Wildwood Lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 48 Baumb, Nelly From:Human Relations Commission Sent:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 1:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter from the HRC - Safe Parking Program - Council Agenda 9-14-20 #9 September 8, 2020   Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois and Council Members, The Palo Alto Human Relations Commission voted unanimously on Sept. 2nd to support the Palo Alto Safe Parking program, which would include the City Council approving the Safe Parking lot ordinance to allow 24/7 parking and approve the leasing agreement between the city and the county. This Safe Parking lot program has been well vetted by the Planning and Development Services Dept. and County Supervisor Simitian’s office. A similar program with the same management team, Lots of Love, has run successfully in Mountain View serving 60 vehicles.    The lack of housing options for the unhoused and for vehicle dwellers is a constant concern for our community. The COVID crisis increases the ever present challenge for secure housing. The  threat of evictions in this economic uncertainty compounds the problem..    HRC Commissioners, Kaloma Smith, Steven Lee and Patti Regehr have participated in Safe Parking lot meetings with staff, county, and community members. We understand the proposal to be beneficial. In the latest Santa Clara County Homeless Census, in which 9,706 homeless people were counted, 18% of unhoused county residents were found to be living in vehicles compared to 8% in 2017. In Mountain View and Palo Alto there are hundreds of community members living in cars and other vehicles The Safe Parking Lot program provides community members living in vehicles a designated location with greater security, social services, and help in finding permanent housing that they can afford.    Palo Alto Safe Parking lot at 900 Geng Road will provide:     Short -term safe parking for 12 vehicles  Showers  Kitchen facilities  Opportunity for a good night’s sleep  Social services  Help in finding permanent housing   In our work plan for FY 2020 the HRC included housing and homelessness issues. One goal was to collaborate with the county to identify needs and create joint strategies. We are committed to this plan and hope we can work with the Council to extend our finding and efforts for Safe Parking in Palo Alto.    Sincerely,    Valerie Stinger and Patti Regehr  For the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rachel Horst <rach.horst@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 3:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe Parking Ordinance and Lease with County (11513) - support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     As a resident of a neighboring jurisdiction and a housing advocate, I strongly support the changes  to the City of Palo Alto's safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of the City's  Geng Rd. site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24/7 safe parking program for vehicle  dwellers.     This is an example of excellent city‐county collaboration, which is urgently needed during our  multiple ongoing public health crises of COVID‐19, homelessness, and now poor air quality. We  must do everything we can to create more paths to permanent housing for our neighbors in need.  I hope that other jurisdictions will follow your lead.    Best wishes,  Rachel Horst  Menlo Park  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Daniel Hoffer <dmh@dmhoffer.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:City response to homelessness and Covid CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires a city response. I strongly support the proposed changes to  the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three‐year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa  Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers.      Thanks,    Dan    ‐‐  ____________________________________________________________________________    d  a  n  i  e  l    h  o  f  f  e  r      "Your legacy is every life you touch."  ‐‐ Maya Angelou    3 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathleen Richter <kathleen.writer.editor@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 1:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting unhoused individuals is good for all! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,      I am a resident of Palo Alto, and I'd like to express my support for expanding the pilot program to have safe parking  spaces for unhoused individuals.     Though I live in Palo Alto, I work in Marin County in COVID response for unoused individuals. Through project roomkey,  we've been able to house chronically homeless individuals, and improve the lives of community members who have had  a lot of trauma. It's been very gratifying to see people who have gone through a lot of trauma change when they have  their basic needs met, and when they start to feel safe.     Right now is a very stressful time‐‐with the COVID pandemic, and wildfires, and economic hardship attacking citizens left  and right. In this time we need to be kind to each other, support each other, and otherwise be good to each other.     I applaud that this pilot program exists, and I voice my support for its continued existence.   ‐‐   Kat Richter, MPH  Communications Chair  Community Health Planning and Policy Development Section | APHA  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Gretchen Wol <gretchen_wol@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Housing for Vehicle Dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I strongly support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance and approval of a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. This is a human and public health crisis that the Palo Alto needs to face rather than pushing off to other communities. All communities are in this together. Neither human suffering or COVID-19 are restricted to geographic boundaries. Thanks for helping. Kate Lorig 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Eric Stietzel <eric.stietzel@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:41 AM To:Council, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a long-time Palo Alto resident I am very much in favor of the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance allowing for the approval of a three-year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for use as a 24/7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers. Palo Alto needs to set an example in the face of this is a human and public health crisis rather than playing ostrich and expecting other communities to solve the problem. All communities are in this together, and we have the resources on Geng road to contribute to a solution. Neither human suffering nor COVID-19 are restricted to geographic boundaries. The evidence suggests that COVID-19 is likely to be less of a problem eventually, but that same history suggests that human suffering is not likely to stop any time soon. I hope the Council will allow the city to stand up as an example for other municipalities to be humane. Thank you in advance for taking this first step.    Peace, Love, and Joy, Eric Stietzel  239 Whitclem Court (since 1970)  94306  We do not "come into" this world;  we come out of it, as leaves from a tree.  As the ocean "waves,"  the universe "peoples."  Every individual is an expression  of the whole realm of nature,  a unique action of the total universe.  Alan W.Watts  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 2:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:September 14, Item 10 (Update and Direction re Business Recovery Efforts) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The long‐term strategy recommendation appears to be:    1. Grow as much as possible.    2. Eliminate parking.    3. Don't even use the words traffic, water, power, open space, etc.    Obviously, nothing could possibly go wrong with that!        I hope Council provides long‐term direction that's more thoughtful ‐‐ perhaps mandating jobs/housing balance and net  zero traffic increase for all new development, taxing large companies to support housing and transportation and  services, managing the City budget to preserve services to businesses and residents, and so on.    Allen  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lauren Natoli <Lauren.Natoli@ahf.org> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment 9.15.20 Mtg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council,    My name is Lauren Natoli and I work for AIDS Healthcare Foundation. For Item 11, I recommend the endorsement of  Proposition 21. Prop 21 will allow for California to enact rent control on local levels. The US, and especially California,  are in the midst of a homelessness crisis. Rents are skyrocketing and the economy is a mess, and we have not yet seen  the full impacts of COVID‐19. Keeping rent costs reasonable will allow for people to stay in their homes and prevent  gentrification. Thank you.    Lauren Natoli (she/her/hers)  Senior Program Manager of PHD Advocacy  AIDS Healthcare Foundation  Public Health Division @ Western Wellness Center  Phone: 323.499.2725 | ext. 4471 | 908.601.5425    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy <ngkrop@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 11:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Endorse Prop. 15 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     You have a historic vote tonight, to bring much needed stable, ongoing revenue to support our Palo Alto city services  and schools by endorsing Proposition 15.    For Palo Alto, Proposition 15 is estimated to bring in $20 million a year. When our city recently had to cut $40 million  from the budget, we could’ve used that $20 million a year.    Proposition 15 is a long‐overdue reform to state tax policy, fixing a problem created over 40 years ago, depriving our  local cities and schools of commercial property revenues. When people voted in 1978 for Prop. 13 to freeze residential  property assessments at purchase price value, they never intended for large corporations to keep paying  property taxes based on 1978 tax values decades later.    Voters never intended to shift the property tax burden onto residential property owners. The idea was to protect  homeowners; not to deprive them of top rated schools and local services.    Voters never intended for IBM, for example, to decades later pay approximately $200/acre, on 200 acres, every year,  while homeowners in Palo Alto pay over $130,000/acre, on a fraction of an acre, per year.     Every other state in the country re‐assesses commercial property every one to 5 years.    The human price we pay for the lack of commercial property tax revenues is excruciating. Since 1980, California built 20  prisons, and trebled our state incarceration budget, but only added one new UC (UC Merced). We send our Palo Alto  high school graduates to out of state colleges because our UC system is so severely underfunded.     Our K‐12 schools dropped from the top ten in the nation to ranking near bottom academically and in funding (cost of  living adjusted). 90% of our students in California do not receive a Palo Alto level education ‐ their schools have no art,  no music, no theater, no up‐to‐date technology, no school supplies, no school nurses, no librarians, no counselors, etc.  Even in Palo Alto, with our great schools, we can only offer a full curriculum because we support a parcel tax, an  Education Foundation and pay100s of 1000s of dollars in annual PTA donations.    Thank you for your vote tonight to endorse Prop. 15, joining the many organizations and political leaders endorsing  Prop. 15, to restore stable commercial property revenue back to our community:   Governor Newsom   Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors   Education organizations: the alphabet soup of CTA, CA PTA, CFT, ACSA, and so many more.   Environmental organizations: CA League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, and more   Health organizations: CA nurses, CA school nurses, CA physicians, etc.  2 Nancy Krop  Barron Park neighborhood      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kevin Ma <kevinma.sd@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Agenda Item 11 (Measure Positions) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I ask the council to support Propositions 17 and 18. Recently, we've seen movement from high schoolers to expand the  voting rights for the school board, and then the city council since school's are bound under state law. Prop 18 gets some  of their demands in, with its allowance of some 17‐year‐olds to vote in primaries (where some races like assembly or  senate might be functionally decided). And in this time where basic democratic tenants are under attack, we should be  increasing the opportunities to participate in government.    I additionally ask the council to consider supporting Prop 21, which has some significant changes that mitigate some of  the harms that Prop 10 may have created. We should continue to recognize that there's a housing crisis, now  compounded by a recession. And the pandemic makes it very clear the necessity of a stable place to isolate oneself. Prop  21 merely grants the ability for a local jurisdiction to enact stronger tenant protections; it doesn't mandate it, so we  locally would still have a robust discussion on what exactly should be done. It's a gauze on a wound, whose root causes  should still be tackled in parallel (e.g. more housing, a more equitable legal system).    And with our efforts on city efforts on race, I also urge the council to oppose Prop 20 and support Prop 25. Prop 20 is a  return to the "tough on crime" model that adds a lot of discretionary powers to extend the punishment of the convicted;  this additionally rolls‐back recent previous voter initiatives. Prop 25, on the other hand, reduces the impact of money in  our justice system. While risk‐assessment may have its own flaws, that can be addressed within the system. And let us  not forget that Prop 25 only exists as a referendum because the bail bond companies know it'll kill their industry if it  passes.    Sincerely,  Kevin Ma  2 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 7:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:September 14, 2020 Council Meeting, Item #11: Measure RR 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    September 13, 2020    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #11  MEASURE RR      Dear City Council:    I urge you to oppose Measure RR that would enact a sales tax to fund the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. Sales taxes are regressive taxes that impact lower income residents more than businesses and higher income residents. Caltrain's projected need for more money should be provided by those who would benefit financially from the projected ridership increases, and are primarily (1) the large businesses that depend on employees traveling long distances to work and (2) land developers whose land value increases when they provide the centralized work places for all those commuters. Potential Conflict of Interest What would be different if the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors or the Valley Transportation Authority hired Caltrain's chief executive officer (CEO)? 3 Caltrain's current CEO is the husband of Roseann Foust who is the Executive Director of the San Mateo County Economic and Development Association (SAMCEDA). If a governing body in Santa Clara County appointed Caltrain's CEO, would Carl Guardino's wife become the Caltrain CEO? Jim Hartnett's source of income from his wife's employment represents a potential conflict of interest because SAMCEDA's Executive Director Foust participates in the research, development, implementation, or preparation of policy or position statements related to Caltrain's decisions, or she promotes or discusses SAMCEDA's policies or positions with CALTRAIN officials (whether or not she actually formulates the policies), rather than just exercising purely administrative duties. Bonuses Violate Constitution Hartnett's employer, the San Mateo County Transit District (SAMTRANS) Governing Board, regularly grants Hartnett bonuses after his contract has been entered into in violation of the California Constitution. Although the employment contract between SAMTRANS and Hartnett includes general language regarding the granting of bonuses, the criteria to determine whether to grant a bonus are not included in the employment contract and have not been the subject of an agenda item in an Open Session of SAMTRANS Governing Board, nor has there been an Open Session agenda item to discuss the criteria used to grant a bonus or whether Harnett has satisfied those criteria when a bonus award is on either SAMTRAN's or the Peninsula Joint Powers Board's agenda. The California Constitution at Article IV, Section 17, says, "The Legislature has no power to grant, or to authorize a city, county, or other public body to grant, extra compensation or extra allowance to a public officer, public employee, or contractor after service has been rendered or a contract has been entered into and performed in whole or in part, or to authorize the payment of a claim against the State or a city, county or other public body under an agreement made without authority of law." Caltrain's Finances are Predicted to Get Worse The Caltrain Business Plan presented to the Joint Powers Board a year ago, for example, showed that Caltrain's operating expense will continue to rise if Caltrain's Long Range Vision is implemented. The Business Plan offsets those increased expenses with what are invented dollar amounts for subjective benefits, without accounting for the costs 4 due to the fact that the commuters created by the overwhelming increase in population and jobs contemplated by the Business Plan will not be riding Caltrain, but will be using other motorized transportation to commute to and from work. The Present Value of the Operating Deficit for Caltrain's 40-year time horizon is projected to at least double from the Baseline Growth scenario in both the Medium Growth scenario and the High Growth scenario, while the farebox recovery average is projected to decrease from the Baseline Growth scenario to the higher growth scenarios. Despite Caltrain's hopes for help from a blended system with California High Speed Rail, the projections for High Speed Rail are even worse. The Preliminary Qualitative Analysis presented at the October 15, 2019 High Speed Rail board meeting shows that "High-Speed Rail operating expenses would substantially exceed revenues" in the Peninsula Corridor San Francisco - Gilroy segment, while Proposition 1A bond proceeds cannot be used if there is an operating deficit. Caltrain is not entitled to a dedicated source of funding to pay for its operating expenses. When the state's voters were given the opportunity to approve Proposition 1A to fund High Speed Rail, a key reason why the proposition was approved was that it included a commitment that none of the proceeds would be used for operating expenses. Technology Commuters are Becoming Telecommuters Caltrain's Business Plan assumed that technology companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Salesforce would continue building offices along the Caltrain corridor and that the employees of those companies would continue to commute to office jobs, with a percentage of them commuting by Caltrain. The response of those companies and their employees during the current pandemic indicates that all that office space is not needed and that it is better for those employees to mostly telecommute. Caltrain, when led by competent leadership, can operate a financially viable commuter train when Caltrain stops spending money on future expansion plans that are no longer necessary because the assumptions in the Caltrain Business Plan are no longer valid, and the staff and contractors being paid to develop, sell to the public, and implement that Business Plan are no longer needed. Please vote to oppose Measure RR. 5 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock   6 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Shepherd <nlshep@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 7:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Council Meeting 8/14 item #11 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and honorable council members,   Below you can find positions from the LWV California on various state-wide propositions. I hope you find this useful during tomorrow evenings agenda item 11.   Take care,     Nancy Shepherd  President, LWVPA  Vote with the League! After careful study and analysis, the League of Women Voters of California offers these recommendations on the November 3, 2020, Ballot Measures: YES on PROP 15: Schools & Communities First [Gov. Newsom has endorsed] YES on PROP 16: Opportunity for All YES on PROP 17: Restore Voting Rights YES on PROP 18: Voting Rights for 17-year olds NO on PROP 19: Property Tax Breaks NO on PROP 20: Rollback on Criminal Justice Reforms NO on PROP 24: Consumer Data Privacy YES on PROP 25: End Cash Money Bail   Sent from my iPhone  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Shepherd <nlshep@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 8:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lisa Ratner Subject:City Council Meeting 9/14, Agenda Item #11 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and City Council, Apologies for not being “at” the zoom meeting Monday night, I will be on vacation with no access to internet. I am writing in support of the Proposition 15, placed on the California November Ballot this year titled: Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property Initiative. There are two basic points I’d like to make, 1) if this proposition is successful it is estimated that the City of Palo Alto will receive over $20 million in new revenue annually, and 2) about 10% of the commercial property reassessments will be responsible for about 92% of the new revenue. In total this initiative will create about $12 billion of new revenue annually for schools, municipalities, special districts throughout the state. It corrects the unfair advantage that some commercial property owner enjoy at the expense of other business and residential properties. Prop 15 does not change the tax rate of commercial and industrial properties—it refreshes the assessed valuation of commercial and industrial properties only and protects residential features that homeowners enjoy. A simple majority vote is required for passage—other concepts that suggest increasing commercial property assessments to 2% or 3% will require a super majority vote of the electorate. In my professional capacity, I am a retired commercial real estate accountant/controller. For over 25 years I analyzed purchase scenarios, calculated profitability, managed budgets and projections and yes, argued at times with county assessors regarding valuations. Yet, not once could our projects profit from the loophole large corporate owners capture by escaping reassessment valuation from ownership change. Indeed, my husband’s law office building sold soon after a new four-year lease in 2016, and yes NNN fees increased based the new valuation and his prorate share of the building. This happens typically for small business owners, not large corporate property. Education funding is greatly needed. In the late 1990s I championed Palo Alto Unified School District’s effort to connect all schools in district wide fundraising. Each year fundraising at the individual school sites became more aggressive and private donations made a big difference—yet, fundraising ability and capacity varied between sites. Some schools could raise three times more than others and added educational programs differed between sites. Indeed, some elementary schools were prized by parents and realtors creating “inferior” neighborhoods based on attendance boundaries. It was vital that all Palo Alto schools shared and benefited as a district, and the new fundraising policy captured an equitable formula. Prop 15 offers a similar advantage, new 8 revenue will be shared with all California schools creating better equity from the estimated $4.8B in new education funds each year. Finally, of special note, Santa Clara County should be included in the staff report identifying other Bay Area counties in support of this initiate. In fact, Joe Simitian voted in support of Schools and Communities First along with three other supervisors. Some of you know, I’ve been a strong supporter of Proposition 15 for decades, and encourage each of you to vote yes on the resolution and encourage our community to support the correction to Prop 13. Thank you, Nancy Shepherd President, LWV Palo Alto Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto   9 Baumb, Nelly From:Kaaren Powers <kpowers101@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 9:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Strongly Urge you to vote "YES" for this Important Proposal!! Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    It is unusual for me to send out a message asking for your support for this proposal, but more and  more of our fellow citizens are becoming homeless and not able to survive making it here in  California.  Our current dual crises of homelessness and COVID urgently requires the city council’s  response. I strongly urge you to support the proposed changes to the city’s safe parking ordinance  and the approval of a three‐year lease of the City's Geng Road site to the County of Santa Clara for  use as a 24x7 safe parking program for vehicle dwellers.        Please do not let our neighbors down when they need our care and compassion more than ever!!   Thank you,  Kaaren Powers        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:re staff suggestion to 'grow the City's population' to raise City sales tax revenue and other ideas CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council members:     Regarding the staff reports for Monday night: if the City's cost structure cannot be supported by the City's sales tax and other revenue, it is time to cut back the City's cost structure.     It does not mean that it's time to 'grow the customer base' and find ways to increase the population of the City of Palo Alto to attempt to pump up the City's sales tax revenues, to maintain a City cost structure --- though that is what staff suggested in its reports for your upcoming meeting.     Residents do not want to find ways to grow the City's population to generate more sales tax to maintain the City's current cost structure.     Suggestion to grow the City's population to plump up sales tax revenues listed in staff reports for:   Sept. 14 Council agenda https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78372 and    Sept. 15 Finance committee agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78372  No, residents do not want to find ways to grow the City's population.    Staff included another suggestion as though accepted fact:   Shoppers & cities want retail walkable from housing.   https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78372    No, residents do not actually want this, or let's say a large segment of residents do not want this, which seems to suggest adding dense housing close to retail. Many residents want to maintain the character of the community and do not want to see an increased supply of dense housing.    Thank you.     Best,    Kathy Jordan  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Leslie Mills <casamills@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 3:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received Attachments:Summary Points 233_235 University Wall Removal rev 2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To City Council Members  In the interest of Councils time I have summarized the issues for item 3 on the consent calendar for Sept. 21,  2020 on the attached.  I am available for questions any time. Thank you for your consideration.  Leslie Mills  233/235 University Owner    On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:28 PM Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a  printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet.     If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to  confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.     If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it  on to the appropriate department for clarification.     We appreciate hearing from you.  Subject: 233/235 URM Wall Removal – Sept. 21, 2020 Consent calendar item #3 Date: September 14, 2020 Dear Council members, On June 29, 2020, Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning, issued an Interpretation Related to Seismic Rehabilitation and Floor Area Bonuses that directly relates to our proposed and entitled project at 233/235 University Avenue, the Mills Florist Building. This Interpretation was appealed on July 13, 2020. Although we previously responded with a detailed rebuttal to the appeal, in consideration of Council's time, we have summarized below the reasoning to deny the appeal and ask that the Council allow us to proceed with our project which is now 5 years in the making. 1. Public Safety. For reasons related to a previous City Council sentiments as detailed below, the Planning Department currently has an unwritten provision to retain at least two walls of a Unreinforced Masonry (URM) structure in order to qualify for the Seismic Square footage Bonus in Chapter 18.18.070. Requiring any part of a URM building to remain seems contradictory to the City's objective: public safety. The fact is that a new building constructed to current code is seismically much safer than one that is seismically upgraded. Such upgrades are merely a way of reducing the chance of full building collapse in an earthquake. Our sole objective of this project is to resolve the URM seismic issues by building a safe building. Retaining two of the URM Walls in order to receive the Seismic Bonus is contrary to the purpose of the project. The effort, in our case, to undermine and re-support the 12" thick 20 foot high brick walls resting on an 7 foot high, unreinforced, structurally deficient concrete wall is dangerous in itself, and in the end will not be as structurally sound as a new wall. Both the Director of Planning and the Chief Building Official reviewed the facts in detail as related to retaining these two URM walls and made the informed decision that the walls should be removed in the interest of public safety. 2. Purpose and Historical Application of Municipal Code Chapter 16.42 "Seismic Hazards Identification Program" and Chapter 18.18.070 "Floor Area Bonuses". a. In 1986, to comply with the State Law, the City adopted Municipal Code Chapter 16.42, Seismic Hazards Identification Program. The purpose of the chapter, as stated in the code, is to "reduce the likelihood of the loss of life due to URM building damage caused by earthquakes" by identifying URM buildings within the City and requiring owners to provide Engineering reports with seismic recommendations. b. In addition to the above Program, Fred Herman, former CPA Building Official, was instrumental in creating Chapter 18.18.070 of the Municipal Code, establishing a floor area bonus program to incentivize building owners to address seismic safety concerns as recommended in their Engineer's Report. By providing owners with bonus square footage, the intent is to help offset the cost of seismic improvements with the future potential income from the additional space. c. Under Fred Herman's direction (author of the Floor Area Bonus program), 50 buildings received the floor area bonus of which 16 were completely demolished and replaced with new construction. The appeal makes the unsubstantiated claim that these 16 cases (11 per the appeal), which accounted for 32% of the URM "Rehabilitations" at that time, were mistakes. Fred Herman's preference was to remove URM buildings so as to eliminate potential building failure versus reduce the chance of building failure. This practice was employed for 28 years and touted as one of the most successful programs in the Country. It should also be noted that at that time the bonus square footage was exempt from parking fees. This exemption was removed in 2014 and the current in-lieu parking fees for the 2500 square foot bonus is just over $1 Million ($400/sf). This greatly diminishes the value of the seismic bonus and impacts the financial burden on our project which is too small for onsite parking. 3. 2014 Unwritten Interpretation of Chapter 18.18.070. a. In 2014, in an effort to reduce the surge in downtown commercial development at the time, the appellant, Karen Holmen, who was Mayor at that time, pushed for a reinterpretation of the Floor Area Bonus program by focusing on the word "Rehabilitation" and not on the intent of the ordinance: Public Safety. The appellant cited the staff report from 12/7/2015, wherein it was suggested that the wording of Chapter 18.18.070 be changed to reflect Council's sentiment at that time and not allow demolished buildings to qualify for the bonus square footage. This proposed revision was categorized as "Tier 2", meaning it was controversial and required further review. The fact remains that this revision was never adopted. As a result of the sentiment at that time, Planning began requiring 50% of the building to remain (i.e. keeping 2 of 4 walls) to receive the seismic bonus, but nowhere in the code is this stated. b. Is it logical to grant a square footage bonus incentive for owners doing a seismic upgrade, which merely "reduces" the chances of building damage during an earthquake and thereby loss of life, versus those owners of removing the potential hazard entirely by constructing a new building? The fact is a new building constructed to current code is seismically safer than one with seismic upgrades which are held to a lesser standard. Fred Herman recognized this when overseeing the program. In the interest of public safety, it seems that the City's preference would be to remove potentially hazardous URM buildings entirely when possible. 4. Qualification of 233/235 University for Bonus Square Footage. The ordinance has a very clear process in order to receive the bonus square footage. The Code states that "the seismic rehabilitation shall conform to the analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42" which required URM building owners to submit an engineering report to the City in 1986 detailing recommended actions. To receive the bonus square footage, Owners must comply with the recommendations in their Engineer's report. In the case of the 233/235 University building, the report submitted in 1986 and accepted by the City, was in the form of a letter, wherein the Engineer stated: "In my opinion, any proposed scheme of reconstruction to meet the requirements of the Seismic Hazard Reduction Program would involve such extensive reworking of the existing structural components as to make complete replacement a more logical course of action." Therefore, the demolition of the building as recommended in the Engineer's report would qualify for the seismic rehabilitation bonus as per the Code. Additionally, in May of this year the Chief Building Official requested an analysis of the demand/capacity ratio as described in the Code, which was provided by Hohbach-Lewin Engineers and re-confirmed the 1986 engineer's recommendation. Based on the above, we hope that the Council can come to the conclusion to deny the appeal. However, if Council finds it necessary to further analyze the logic above we would respectfully ask that our project be allowed to proceed and be awarded the square footage bonus based on our compliance with the ordinance as stated in paragraph 4 and as recommended by the Director of Planning. Respectfully, Leslie Mills, Rodney Mills, and Susan Mills-Diggle Owners 233/235 University - Proposed Building to Reuse Existing Brick 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Seth Wu <sewuzy@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 1:15 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Transportation; Council, City Subject:Charleston-Meadow Separation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Transportation Department Staff, XCAP members, and the City Council of Palo Alto,     My family has lived in the Charleston Meadows neighborhood for 39 years.  It is a wonderful  community.  While we live two very short cross streets away, train noise has been a constant annoyance  that disturbs our peace and our sleep. I have reviewed the design options and urge you to please choose  an option that puts the train tracks below ground.      Our preferences are in the following order:  1. Train Tunnel.     Least disruptive to neighborhood life.  2. Train Trench.        Less disruptive.  3. Road Underpass.    Disruptive to roadside property by eminent domain?  These are the only options that would keep the train noise level manageable for our neighborhood, and  the only options that is not aesthetically horrible.    Please do not choose any option that raises the height the train travels on, as that would greatly  increase the volume of train noise.  Additionally, please consider the visual impact of the design. When I  pass under concrete viaducts in other communities I always feel sorry for the people who live in the  neighborhoods divided by such a structure and who have to look at the ugly monstrosity every day.    I realize that these may not be the cheapest options and perhaps not the easiest,  We are creating  something that all of us will have to look at every single day. It is not an overstatement to say that it  could be an eyesore forever into the future if it is not done well.  Palo Alto has an international  reputation as a  City of engineers and innovators. Let's honor that tradition by picking the best design for  the community and then finding a way to make it happen.    Sincerely,    Seth Wu  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 5:30 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Kamhi, Philip; Rachel Kellerman Subject:XCAP Report Attachments:XCAP Letter - September 11 2020.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Ladies and Gentlemen:    Please see the attached letter.  Thank you.    Tom    Thomas W. Kellerman  1400 Page Mill Road | Palo Alto, CA 94304 Direct: +1.650.843.7550 | Mobile: +1.650.283.5023 l Main: +1.650.843.4000 | Fax: +1.650.843.4001 thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com   DISCLAIMER  This e‐mail message is intended only for the personal use  of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an  attorney‐client communication and as such privileged and  confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.  If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,  copy or distribute this message. If you have received this  communication in error, please notify us immediately by  e‐mail and delete the original message.  C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\XCAP Letter - September 11 2020.docx 1    Thomas W. Kellerman Rachel H. Kellerman  1129 Emerson Street  Palo Alto, California 94301    September 11, 2020    Palo Alto Expanded Community Advisory Panel 250 Hamilton Ave., #7 Palo Alto, CA 94301-2531 Ladies and Gentlemen: During the discussion of the two bike/ped tunnels on Churchill Avenue at the last XCAP meeting, one member suggested completely closing Churchill to all cars except for residents to improve safety for bikes/peds who are using the tunnel. This is a laudable goal but would once again bring even more traffic to the Embarcadero corridor, as the current traffic pattern relies on Churchill as one of the routes to Alma. The closure of Churchill/Alma to vehicular traffic would further endanger bike/ped crossings on the other bike/ped path heavily used by Paly students north of Embarcadero. This is hardly an equitable solution to the bike/ped safety problem that exists around Paly, Town and Country and Stanford. We request that no bike/ped tunnel recommendation move forward that completely closes Churchill to car traffic for the following reasons: 1. Churchill is the only street south of Embarcadero that directly connects Embarcadero to Alma. Removing this artery will push even more traffic onto Embarcadero and the Embarcadero Slip Road, further exasperating the already difficult traffic bike/ped safety situation that closure would bring to this area. Putting a traffic light further south on a street not connected to Embarcadero will not mitigate this problem. 2. Traffic relocation away from Churchill resulting from this proposal is unrelated to the closure of the at-grade crossing and accordingly it is not an appropriate decision for XCAP to propose. 3. No traffic analysis has been done on this option. In fact, as Hexagon pointed out, they never studied traffic on Embarcadero pre-COVID at all. 4. As has been previously noted multiple times, no serious analysis has been done by local bike/ped experts that city planners usually consult to analyze these options. We suggest that XCAP recommend further study for the Churchill bike tunnel options instead of making a definitive choice. 5. XCAP can suggest further study of a bike/ped tunnel at Seale that would relieve congestion at Churchill as an interim step while better plans are designed for Churchill. C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\XCAP Letter - September 11 2020.docx 2    Lack of representation from the Embarcadero corridor, University South, and Professorville neighborhoods means that suggestions like these often do not get challenged during XCAP deliberations. We ask that XCAP members reach out to concerned citizens when appropriate. Thank you for your continued efforts. Very truly yours, Thomas W. Kellerman Rachel H. Kellerman Cc: Palo Alto City Council Ed Shikada, City Manager Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dena Seki <denaseki@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Viaduct CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I was very worried about the Churchill Viaduct since I live very close to embarcadero but it seems to be the option that  has the highest reduction of the vibration caused  by the freight trains going through at night.  Is that accurate?  If so, I  strongly support it as the freight trains will vibrate my house at times and are very noisy.    Thank you,    Dena Seki  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Apurb Kumar <apurbk@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:48 PM To:Council, City Cc:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Transportation Subject:Charleston Meadow - Grade separation Options - My Vote CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members‐    I am sure you may have heard a lot from my fellow city residents. I wanted to add my voice to the same.    I am a resident of 4133 Park Blvd, Palo Alto.     I support the Lowered Rail options such as the Tunnel and trench options. There are several advantages to  these and they outweigh the costs involved in the long run.  I would not like any of us to lose our homes and  hence oppose the EMINENT DOMAIN. I oppose road OVERPASS and any RAISED RAIL options. I support INCREASED SAFETY for all residents of our community.    Best Regards,    Apurb Kumar    4133 Park Blvd  Palo Alto, CA 94306  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 7:14 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Council, City; citymanager@cityofpaloalto.org; Transportation Subject:The Churchill Rail Crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear XCAP Members,     Once again, I thank you for your many efforts and the many hours you have devoted to this important topic.    I'm writing here to express my disappointment in the recent XCAP decision to close the Churchill rail crossing.  Such  closure will require vehicular traffic to seek other routes to transit between Alma and El Camino Real.    To ease such dramatic shifts in traffic flow, I strongly support the partial closure option for the Churchill crossing.  I  recognize there still will be corollary traffic issues for Page Mill and Embarcadero with reduced volume on Churchill.    Traffic congestion is a continual challenge for Palo Alto.  I fear that closure of Churchill (in contrast to the partial  underpass) is the much less desirable choice.    Sincerely,    James Cornett  420 Sequoia Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94306    1 Brettle, Jessica From:TOM CRYSTAL <tlcrystal@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 11:19 PM To:Transportation; Council, City Subject:Comments on Charleston-Meadow crossing options. Attachments:XCAP_200913_Charleston-RRcrossing-options-comments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Attached is my condensed notes from discussions with several neighbors here in Walnut Grove neighborhood re the options studied and presented by the City so far, for accommodating the impending train changes at our several at-grade crossings. pax -Tom Crystal 650-799-9571 To: XCAP re Grade separation options for Charleston-Meadow From: Walnut Grove neighbors (Adobe Creek, Alma, Charleston, Nelson) Date: 13 Sept 2020 Exec-Re-cap: The Underpass option is too harmful. Compliments: Your Connectingpaloalto.com site info is useful (and obviously expensive). Options summary: Very roughly, the four options offered are of two classes, i.e., EITHER “get the trains OOW”: Trench: $800-950M and 6 years; Viaduct: $400-500M and 2 years. OR “get the traffic OOW”: Hybrid: $190-230M and 4 years; Underpass: $340-420M and 4 years. ALL the options presented accommodate anticipated proposed train upgrades. advantaging that train- horns and crossing-bells are eliminated, and that traffic flows should improve. These comments are from several Walnut Grove neighbors who are directly and long-term impacted (i.e., we ignore here all “temporary disruptions” like construction times and utilities re-engineering). (1) Both of the train-moving options are significantly more expensive. These both could finally improve traffic disruptions. But the Viaduct option reminds us of BART in the East Bay so could still be a visual and noise aggravation locally. (2) Both of the traffic-moving options could have flooding concerns, only mitigated by pumps. But more specifically, comparing your fact-sheets and videos on these two, the Underpass option would be a disaster: Its singular advantage over the Hybrid option is that bike & pedestrian track-crossings would also now be separated from the car-traffic, and thus safer (this is significant because Charleston is a designated school-corridor, NOT a residential-arterial, serving roughly 2/3 of all our district’s K-12 students). In contrast, the Hybrid option would retain the current bike-pedestrian traffic crossing situations (no better, no worse). But there are problems, unconsidered, offsetting this advantage. Briefly, the underpass option completely undermines the 20-year efforts we have worked with the City for calming traffic along the school-corridor, by increasing traffic demands not only on Charleston, but also not seeing (as presented) that N&S-bound-Alma-into-Ely will be used by large numbers of commuters who “need” to go west, Alma onto Charleston, for simpler access to the roundabout, seriously harming our neighborhood for commuters’ convenience. Of the options studied, the Hybrid option would be much preferred. (3) Today’s P.A.Weekly reports that XCAP recommends CLOSING the Churchill crossing in response to the same design/planning pressures faced here. And obviously Meadow faces similar considerations. We suggest that Charleston also merits such CLOSURE consideration. It is not obvious that its commuter-value (from 280-to-101 for non-residents) is some how of higher value than our Palo Alto residents’ sub-urban needs, especially for our kids’ school-commutes along this corridor. Additionally, this clearly cheapest quickest safest option could engineer simply an underpass (post closure) for bike & pedestrian uses. Commute traffic options remain for them at San Antonio and Page Mill. (4) There is no mention of any traffic OVERPASS options (as at San Antonio). At these costs, why not? Tom Crystal, 3815 Mumford Pl, Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rahul Parulekar <rahul_parulekar@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 12:12 AM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Council, City; citymanager@citypaloalto.org; Transportation Subject:'Trench' Option Preferred for Rail Crossing at Charleston Road (if the project is necessary at all) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear XCAP Council and others,    I am writing to you to express my deep concern about the plans for an Underpass at the Charleston  crossing.   I have studied the plan on your website and feel that the 'Underpass' option is not appropriate for  our neighborhood for several reasons.     ‐ It will bring traffic and noise pollution closer to our homes thanks to the introduction of a roundabout right  next to our homes.  The residents of Walnut Grove, Greenmeadow and the Circles have tried so very hard over  the years to reduce the pollution in our neighborhood and all their efforts will be undone in one fell swoop.    ‐ Hundreds of school kids who use the rail crossing will be terribly inconvenienced both during and after  construction of the Underpass.  I am especially concerned about the increase in fast moving, heavy vehicular  traffic on Charleston that would increase congestion and make it very hard for kids to comfortably bike/walk  these streets as they have for years.    ‐ This option will shut down Charleston and Meadow during the project thereby making it hard for the  hundreds of kids who regularly use these roads to go to school.    I strongly feel the 'Trench' option is best for the community.   More importantly, I would urge the council and  others to revisit the project its entirety, given the impact COVID‐19 is having on commute patterns.   A large  majority of companies are reducing the need to attend work daily (even post COVID) and that will reduce the  burden on mass transit.  In such a situation is the current project even necessary?    Rgds,  Rahul Parulekar  Resident of Walnut Grove, Palo Alto.      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 7:05 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Council, City; City Mgr; Transportation Subject:Churchill Crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  All,   We live in the Southgate neighborhood, a few blocks from the Churchill train crossing.  I would just like to implore you  all to build the Partial Underpass at that crossing.  The cheapest and "easier" option might be simply close Churchill,  however, that is bound to create a litany of follow on problems.      This is not where the city needs to be thinking about saving money, it's about doing it the right way for the long term.      The city leaders need to step up and do what is right.  The partial underpass benefits the greater number of people  citywide.  Closing Churchill benefits very few, if any, residents.  You will essentially be cutting off 1/4 of the city in order  to save some money.  In the long run, it will end up costing the city an incalculable amount in indirect costs, including  safety risks, increased traffic on residential, as well as major arteries, not to mention city‐wide aesthetics and ease of  movement.    Thanks  Keith Ferrell  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Michael Brozman <mbrozman@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 10:33 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Council, City; citymanager@cityofpaloalto.org; Transportation Subject:Please Do Not Open Park Blvd Through Southgate CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi XCAP,     Thank you for your commitment and hard work so far. I attended my first committee last week and was impressed at  the level of commitment, empathy and knowledge from the committee.    As a Southgate resident, I am disappointed in the recommendation to close Churchill but do fully understand that there  is no clear answer here and that the recommendation comes after careful consideration and with legitimate arguments  in its favor.     However, I wanted to express a STRONG concern about any mitigation efforts involving opening up Park blvd to run  through Southgate. While closing Churchill is a loss for Southgate, it is a manageable one. Opening Park blvd would be  devastating to the neighborhood as it causes multiple problems:   During normal, pre‐Covid times, Southgate has very high levels of foot and bicycle traffic, much of which is from  children.   Combined with narrow streets, opening this neighborhood up to increased car traffic would not only be highly  dangerous to pedestrians/cyclists, but would also ruin the charm of the neighborhood.   Thank you for your consideration.    Regards,    Michael  1652 Castilleja Avenue  1 Brettle, Jessica From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 4:00 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Council, City Subject:Letter for XCAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Chair Naik and members of XCAP (copying Honorable City Council):     I heard about your split vote to recommend “close Churchill with mitigations”.      * First, I note the vote was 6‐3‐5, or 6 yes out of total of 14 designated seats or LESS THAN A MAJORITY SUPPORT.     The original neighborhood representative from University South is gone, the Friends of Caltrain/green transportation  person is gone, the PAUSD (school district) rep is gone, etc. ‐ 5 seats of 14 are empty, leaving XCAP unbalanced and not  the right body to make a recommendation like this.  Better to provide alternatives with pros and cons, rankings or  priority recommendations.    * Second, I appreciate the discussion about the bike/pedestrian “mitigations”, especially the 2016 bike project that was  fully funded and approved by the city council but abruptly removed this year.  Please make yours a CONDITIONAL or  provisional recommendation, conditional on the key bike/ped connections being approved and constructed and fully  operational BEFORE next steps are taken.    * Third, the city has been trying to avoid just pushing the problem from one neighborhood to another.    * Finally, there are some potential fatal flaws with the traffic study that is supposed to be the basis for your  recommendations.  I’ll pass those along soon.    Along with many residents in the Professorville/Embarcadero neighborhood, I continue to feel very strongly that we  need more and bike/ped friendly routes across the tracks, not less.  I’d be very pleased to have a network of crossings  that are carefully designed to put bike/ped first ‐ that would be a great improvement!  One should be naturally inspired  to get on a bike or walk if possible because we make it such a safe and pleasant way to get across town.    Thank you very much.    Yoriko Kishimoto  Former Mayor of Palo Alto  Resident of Embarcadero and Professorville  yoriko12330@icloud.com          1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 6:46 PM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Council, City Subject:Meadow and Charleston Crossings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear members of the Xcap and City Council members, I have been following the latest update calling to close Churchill and I ask myself - Why Churchill? It is right in the center for school crossings. I asked months ago why not close Meadow, it is the most convenient to close since it is a block away from another crossing. If the answer is traffic it will surely become the crossing most used since because of the traffic design suggested for Charleston does not have a left onto Alma!!! That is all crazy. Meadow is a small street and this is a much to elaborate crossing for a two lane road!!! I am horrified this is being purposed as a solution. The noise impacts of construction taking twice the time and property acquisitions when promised no property would be taken. This is going to destroy Charleston Meadows!! Two under- crossings within a block!! This is the worst choice. I will accept one underpass at Charleston that works for all !!and a bike pedestrian underpass at Meadow to allow safe crossing for children to go to JSL and handicapped to go to the grocery store on Alma as designed by the City. I do not understand when TWO crossings within a block of each other and the choice is to close Churchill instead of Meadow. It is doubled the time to construct and destroys Charleston Meadows into two separate areas taking property to do so from everyone for walls of concrete!! ugly ugly for a small neighborhood to absorb all the traffic is poor design. Meadow was never meant to be a crossing long term. It will further create problems within Charleston Meadows, Wilkie Way will be used as a short cut by commuters to turn left at Alma since Charleston does not allow for a left turn onto Alma !!! The design closes roads and takes property away that provide access for the residents and it is no joke that traffic will filter where it can into our newly physically divided destroyed neighborhood to make it only a commuter short cut and dangerous. Palo Alto is suppose to care about neighborhoods and I expect a better solution with all the time and effort spent by so many!!! We are next to a neighborhood Park and preschools! Speed bumps will need to be put which should have already been done. We are a walking community at all times of the day and night. The walkablity will be next to nothing and undesirable to walk when all the bikers are mowing pedestrians down - The underpass itself has a slope which will increase bikers speeds and how will you reduce the speed of bikers? A cross bar to go through only to get someone hurt! I am for the trench as it satisfies the needs and wants of the citizens. Save money by reducing crossings so to destroy less homes or 2 spend the money for a better solution. Under-crossings destroys homes and lives!! This is not a report I would accept. Thank you for your consideration, Ellen Hartog 330 Victoria Place 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sara Girton <girton.sara63@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 9:39 PM To:Council, City; citymanager@cityofpaloalto.org; Transportation; Expanded Community Advisory Panel Subject:XCAP Deliberations on 9/9/2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Hello All,    After hearing the deliberations about Churchill closure at the XCAP meeting on 9/9/2020 and reviewing the Deliberation Notes from that meeting, I would like to express some opinions:   I am opposed to “Bike Option 2: Close Churchill to cars - only homeowners and their guests would use the road.” There are several problems with that option:   It would force even more cars onto Embarcadero Road than the option for closing Churchill at Alma only. Embarcadero Road already has too much traffic and had traffic jams during peak traffic times before Covid- 19.    The Deliberation Notes state “Residents would enter/exit Churchill from Emerson Street”. There is no way to access Churchill from Emerson Street. Residents would have to enter/exit their neighborhood from El Camino Real.    After XCAP has spent so much time investigating options and getting input  from traffic experts, I don’t think more options should be introduced at this  late date without time to study them thoroughly.   I agree that the mitigations should include the 2016 Bike Project. It would save time and money to review that project rather than to start over from scratch. After reviewing that project, it could be decided where additional Bike/Ped paths will be needed.   2 Thank you for considering these opinions in your deliberations.    Sara Girton  1141 High Street, Palo Alto            1 Brettle, Jessica From:Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 1:42 PM To:Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City Subject:BLM Sign Attachments:IMG_3392.jpg; IMG_1240.mov CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council & HRC:    On behalf of one of our neighbors who would like to remain anonymous, please see the following picture, video and  post that I made to FB and Nextdoor.    “As a Human Relations Commissioner, I was asked by one our neighbors to share this video and photo on social media.  Clearly this man's intention was to remove the sign until he was alerted by the camera's flashing lights. These acts of  hate are unacceptable and they must stop. We as a community will continue to unite and say in one voice that  #blacklivesmatter. As allies and advocates, we must and will continue to do the hard but necessary work to address  racial inequalities in our community.     This specific incident occurred at 8:48 pm on Wednesday, September 9, 2020 in the 3600 block of Louis Road. They have  had multiple signs defaced or stolen over the past couple of weeks. If you have more information, please contact the  Palo Alto Police Department.”     Chief,    This has already been submitted by the neighbor to the PAPD to include in their original police report from a couple  weeks ago.        ‐Steven Lee  ‐‐   Regards,      Steven Lee  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:19 PM To:French, Amy Cc:French, Amy; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Council, City; Nguyen, Vinhloc Subject:Re: Castilleja At Place Memo Attachments:Castilleja At Place Packet Signed.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Ms French, Thanks for sending out the staff report on Castilleja. Can you please let me know if it is the staff expectation for the general public to review the document for the 6pm PTC meeting tonight? If so, I would like to voice my concern that sending out a 30 pages report 3.5 hours before the meeting does not provide adequate time for detail review. If it is not tonight's meeting, then please let me know the proposed process to review this document. Thanks Nelson On Wednesday, September 9, 2020, 02:21:12 PM PDT, French, Amy <amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello, thank you for posting the staff report responsive to questions posed by the Planning and Transportation Commission August 26, 2020, and for emailing it to the Commissioners. To the BCC’d individuals who have signed up on our webpage, attached is the At Place Memo for Castilleja. This informational report has also been added to the online agenda here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=78347. Public comments received through yesterday are also posted on the PTC page here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78339 The Castilleja project webpage (home page https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp) includes verbatim excerpt minutes from the August 26, 2020 PTC meeting and the ARB 8/20/20 meeting. These have been provided to the Commission. Documents from the Applicant responding to PTC member questions are uploaded here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/project_documents_.asp 2 Amy French| Chief Planning Official  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.329.2336| E: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.      From: French, Amy Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 2:06 PM To: Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com>; Andie Reed (andiezreed@gmail.com) <andiezreed@gmail.com>; Rob Levitsky <roblevitsky@yahoo.com> Cc: Nguyen, Vinhloc <Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Castilleja At Place Memo Please note the attached packet for this evening’s PTC discussion of staff’s answers to the August 26 questions was just sent to the PTC members and uploaded to the PTC webpage. Amy French| Chief Planning Official  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.329.2336| E: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.      The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 3 From: Nguyen, Vinhloc Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 2:02 PM Cc: Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Castilleja At Place Memo Good afternoon PTC Commissioners, Attached is the At Place Memo for Castilleja. This information report has also been added to the online agenda here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=78347 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Pauline Bromberg <bromberg.pauline@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 12:19 AM Subject:Castilleja's Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To whomever it may concern, I am a 2018 graduate from Castilleja School. I am emailing you today in support of the proposal put forth by Castilleja to renovate its campus in order to extend the opportunity for young women to benefit from its outstanding education, all the while taking into consideration the neighborhood's wishes. Though Castilleja is not a perfect institution and has made mistakes in the past, its commitment to educating young women and empowering them is invaluable. I am personally indebted to Castilleja for teaching me how to advocate for myself and think critically about the world around me. The classmates and teachers I had during my time at Castilleja remain my closest friends and mentors, and I continue to rely and be astounded by the support network I developed. Castilleja's plan, which has come about after listening and considering multiple points of views, would allow more young girls like myself to benefit from this unique environment. As a community that values education, Palo Alto has supported the modernization and enrollment growth in its other schools - public and private. Therefore, I urge you to allow Castilleja to be allowed the opportunity to do the same. Best, Pauline Bromberg 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roy Maydan <roy.maydan@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 1:40 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Subject:Please Approve the Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  First, I would like to thank the Planning Commission for the vote last week to approve the FEIR for the Castilleja  project.  I am now writing to encourage all of you to continue the progress and to ultimately approve the project.     I am a 25 year resident of Palo Alto and a 40 year resident of the area.  I had friends who went to Castilleja and I am now  sending my daughter there.  Castilleja is a longtime community asset that adds to the prestige of Palo Alto by providing a  strong education for girls and building a diverse group of female leaders.  Contrary to what some of the neighbors may  say, I have always found the school and its students to be very respectful and mindful of their environment.  The school  says that they will not increase enrollment in car trips which is something I believe knowing how much emphasis the  school places on traffic demand management to all parents.      Thank you for your attention and please support the school's proposal.    Sincerely,  Roy Maydan  131 Byron Street  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Jo Pruitt <maryjo.a.pruitt@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja School Supporter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,    As a parent of two young daughters, I was thrilled to learn that the PTC endorsed the facts and analyses in Castilleja's  Environmental Impact Report. It was an important step in the school's yearslong process, and it's time for our City  Council to review the findings as well. I am an ardent supporter of all‐girls education; research shows time and again  that single sex education for girls can be life changing in terms of confidence building, risk taking, and opportunity  creation.    Online forums show that Palo Alto residents don't understand why Castilleja benefits the community. To me, it's simple:  Castilleja offers a choice to those who seek this opportunity. In a city that prides itself on education, we should be  shouting our approval for the school whose mission is to educate "confident thinkers and compassionate leaders",  whose stated goal is to broaden the diversity in their community, who offers over $3 million in financial aid to families  who otherwise couldn't afford the experience, and who has been part of this city almost as long as the city itself has  existed. Castilleja has said that they can increase their enrollment and bring no new cars to the neighborhood. Our city  has far more important issues to squabble over than whether this school should be allowed to enroll more students with  no impact on their neighborhood.    Thank you,  Mary Jo Pruitt  1 of 1 TO: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: JONATHAN LAIT, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 – CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT, 1310 BRYANT STREET, 1235 AND 1263 EMERSON STREET [16PLN-00238]: REQUEST BY CASTILLEJA SCHOOL FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPLICATIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE STUDENT ENROLLMENT CAP TO 540 STUDENTS WITH PHASED ENROLLMENT AND CAMPUS REDEVELOPMENT, AND A VARIANCE TO REPLACE CAMPUS GROSS FLOOR AREA. THE PROJECT (BUT NOT THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE) REQUIRES RECOMMENDATION ON A VARIANCE FOR SUBTERRANEAN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE EMBARCADERO ROAD SPECIAL SETBACK AND A TENTATIVE MAP WITH EXCEPTION TO MERGE THREE PARCELS WHERE THE RESULTING PARCEL WOULD FURTHER EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE R-1(10,000) ZONE DISTRICT. ZONE DISTRICT: R-1(10,000). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PUBLISHED JULY 29, 2020; DRAFT EIR PUBLISHED JULY 15, 2019. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT AMY FRENCH, CHIEF PLANNING OFFICIAL, AT AMY.FRENCH@CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG The attached information report responds to questions raised by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) during the public hearing held on August 26, 2020. _______________________ _______________________ Amy French Rachael Tanner Chief Planning Official Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Planning and Development Services 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 11579) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/9/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Castilleja School Project Response to Commissioner Questions Title: Castilleja School Project Response to Commissioner Questions From: Jonathan Lait Report Summary This informational report responds to questions raised by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) during the public hearing held on August 26, 2020. This report groups questions together by topic. As the written minutes of the meeting were not available at the time of this report’s writing, staff made their best effort to capture Commissioners’ questions, summarize them, and combine like questions together. During the hearing on September 9, 2020, staff shall, at the pleasure of the Chair, be available to respond to further questions or elaborate on any answers. Background On August 26, 2020 the PTC conducted a public hearing regarding: Castilleja School Project, 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street [16PLN00238]: Request by Castilleja School Foundation for Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council on Applications for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to Increase the Student Enrollment Cap to 540 Students with Phased Enrollment and Campus Redevelopment, and a Variance to Replace Campus Gross Floor Area. The Project (but not the Project Alternative) Requires Recommendation on a Variance for Subterranean Encroachment Into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback and a Tentative Map with Exception to Merge Three Parcels Where the Resulting Parcel Would Further Exceed the Maximum Lot Size in the R- 1(10,000) Zone District. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 The staff report from the August 26, 2020 hearing is available online.1 The report provides information regarding the project, applications, and the Final Environmental Impact Report. A video recording of the hearing is also available online.2 Draft excerpt minutes are also now available online.3 The Commission heard an oral report from staff and Dudek, the City’s EIR consultant, as well as a presentation from the applicant. The Commission heard public comment and provided a round of questions, which staff noted. The Commission then voted to continue the hearing to September 9, 2020. During the hearing, during their rebuttal statement, the Applicant noted intent to provide a letter to address statements made during the hearing. The letter, received by staff and PTC members near close of business on September 8, 2020, is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78330. This letter is supplemented by a memo from the applicant’s traffic consultant (Fehr and Peers) to address several Commissioner questions (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78329) I. Parking Garage 1. An attorney for a community group (PNQL) asserted that Palo Alto has policies to decrease single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips, stating that among these are policies to discourage construction of parking garages. Can staff address this assertion? Staff Response: Free parking that is unrestricted and untethered to a transportation demand management plan may lead to increased SOV trips. While the City does seek to reduce SOV trips, this is achieved through the management of parking facilities; it is not achieved through the location of parking facilities. Required on site parking may be provided as a surface parking lot or an underground garage; in either case the parking must be properly managed to reduce SOV trips. The City’s policies do not specifically discourage parking garage construction. Parking space provision is governed by the Zoning Code, which sets minimum standards for on- site parking. The Project Alternative provides the parking spaces required on site per Palo Alto’s Zoning Code (Chapter 18.52) for private school use. The Project Alternative is not requesting a variance to reduce the parking requirements. In contrast, the Project provides more parking than required; though providing extra parking spaces for a use is not prohibited. 1 Report from August 26, 2020 hearing of the Planning and Transportation Commission: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78102 2 Video of Planning and Transportation Commission hearing on August 26, 2020: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-8262020/ 3 Draft excerpt PTC minutes from August 26, 2020 for the Castilleja item are now viewable at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78326 DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 The Comprehensive Plan also supports compliance with the City’s minimum parking regulations. Relevant sections from the Transportation Element include: o ‘Sustainable Transportation’ (page 78) policies intend to reduce reliance on SOV; however, none say to discourage construction of parking garages. GOAL T-1 states, “Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles.” o ‘Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking’ (page 90) GOAL T-5 states: “Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient and innovative parking solutions for all users”. It is followed by these policies. • Managing Parking Supply’ (page 90) Policy T-5.1 states: ‘All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease.’ • ‘Parking Infrastructure and Design’ (page 92) Policy T-5.6 states: “Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible.” • ‘Residential Parking’ (page 93) Policy T-5.11, states: “Work to protect residential areas from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses, recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time.” 2. Providing on-site parking has been known to induce demand for on-site parking. The FEIR does not address demand induced by offering parking. Can staff address induced demand and/or discuss why this aspect is not included? Staff Response: For private parking facilities, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan with performance standards would be a greater influence on travel behaviors than the on-site parking. The majority of the vehicle trips (automobile driving) for both the original Project and Alternative #4 (Applicant’s Reduced Garage/Disbursed Circulation) are from drop-offs and pick- ups, not people who drive and park at the school. Since the parking facilities are private the school controls their use. To manage the parking, reduce SOV trips, and prevent induced demand the school can, for example, assign parking spaces, they can deny students access to the spaces, issue permits, or a combination of additional strategies. This is unlike a “public” parking lot at a shopping center; there are DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 numerous ways Castilleja can control who, what, when and where gets to use the parking spaces. The City can adopt conditions of approval to stipulate certain TDM and parking requirements. To address induced travel demand, the City could look at changing the parking standards citywide, not project by project. That is, a discussion of whether the City’s zoning regulations induce demand by requiring onsite parking is more appropriate in the context of legislative amendments to the Zoning Code. Presently, the City has minimum parking standards and projects are generally expected to meet those standards. There are 104 on-site parking spaces in the Project Alternative (Alternative #4). Students would be driven to school and dropped off curbside if there were no parking lots or garage. The Project Alternative design meets the City’s on-site parking requirement for private schools to protect the neighborhood from parking intrusion, consistent with Policy T-5.1 cited in the prior paragraph. 3. Please explain how a subterranean garage at this location complies with the Palo Alto Municipal Code, local Zoning, and any other applicable local, state, or federal laws. How can subterranean garage be allowed at this location (in an R-1 zone)? Staff Response: Below-grade parking is generally permitted by the Code, unless a specific prohibition exists. Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 are the primary source of parking regulations in the Zoning Code, and these regulations anticipate the placement of parking below grade. Section 18.52.030(g) regulates the location of required parking and states only that parking must be located on the same site as the use being supported, unless an exception is granted. Section 18.54.020(a) establishes parking facility design standards and provides such standards for parking at, above, and below grade. Section 18.12.030(e) (see also Section 18.52.040 Table 1) prohibits underground parking for single-family uses. Because a private school is not a single-family use, this prohibition does not apply. Section 18.12.090(b) states: “Basements may not extend beyond the building footprint and basements are not allowed below any portion of a structure that extends into required setbacks, except to the extent that the main residence is permitted to extend into the rear yard setback by other provisions of this code.” This section could be interpreted to prohibit the proposed location of Castilleja’s below-grade parking, because it is not beneath another structure. However, because the sentence references a “main residence,” staff has previously interpreted this section to apply only to residential uses. Staff have applied that interpretation to Castilleja’s application. 4. Please explain how subterranean areas are accounted for in the project’s gross floor area (GFA) and/or floor area ratio (FAR). Explain what underground areas are counted towards FAR and GFA, which are not, and why. Please note any other similar underground areas that were accounted for in a similar or different manner. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Staff Response: 1. Below grade parking facility The City’s Gross Floor Area regulations do not directly address the treatment of non-residential parking, which are generally known as “parking facilities.” An underground parking facility would be excluded from Gross Floor Area because it does not constitute habitable space. a. Zoning Code Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(C) Gross Floor Area Inclusions states, for the R-1 zone: “Carports and garages shall be included in gross floor area.” However, the terms “carport” and “garage” are both defined to relate to residential uses only. • “Carport” means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles, which is at least 50% open on two or more sides, including on the vehicular entry side, and covered with a solid roof. • “Garage, private” means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles, which is enclosed on three or more sides and covered with a solid roof. A non-residential, below-grade parking facility meets the definition for “basement.” • "Basement" means that portion of a building between the lowest floor and the ceiling above, which is fully below grade or partly below and partly above grade, but so located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is more than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling.” Pursuant to 18.12.090(b), basements in the R-1 zone are not counted as GFA in the following cases: 1. Basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or 2. Basement area is deemed to be habitable space, but the finished level of the first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation; or 3. Basement area is associated with a historic property as described in Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(vii). b. Related Case In a similar manner to the Castilleja proposal, the Kol Emeth property on Manuela Avenue also requested a CUP approval for religious institutional use in an R-1 zone district, with Architectural Review of an underground parking facility. That project’s below grade parking facility was viewed as an accessory facility/use to the primary use. Because the underground parking was not associated with single family use, it was allowed as an accessory facility, and did not require approval of a variance, and did not count toward the FAR/GFA (see PAMC Section 18.12.030(e) above). DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 2. Basement Area Associated with Academic Building Low Residential Density Exclusions (Chapter 18.04) does not include R-1 zone basements in Gross Floor Area (GFA). This is elaborated upon in PAMC Section 18.12.090(b) which states: “Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided: (1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or (2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space, but the finished level of the first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation; or (3) basement area is associated with a historic property as described in Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(vii).” The description in Chapter 18.04 is for ‘residences’ listed as Category 1-4 historic resources. The plans show below-grade habitable space in the Academic Building – some of this space does not have a finished first floor above it; therefore, that space is counted toward the replacement GFA (and toward FAR). The spaces are: • 3,713 sf of basement area between the Library space fronting Bryant Street and Academic Building space fronting Kellogg was counted as GFA; the basement was only partially covered by the breezeway roof above. Thus, the uncovered portion is correctly counted as GFA. • In the Project Alternative plans, labeled ‘repurposed’ area - 754 sf of first floor area was deleted to make room for the Kellogg drop off driveway, and ‘repurposed’ into basement area. Slivers of basement not covered by a first floor were counted as GFA. Based on ARB input and attempting to simplify answers to questions regarding GFA for basement area, the applicant recently indicated Castilleja is prepared to: o Delete the narrow basement ‘repurposed GFA’ areas that extend out from the Kellogg Avenue footprint, which resulted from removal of first floor area in those locations in the Project Alternative. o Cover the 3,713 s.f. basement between the Academic Building and Library basements with a first floor that counts as GFA. With that approach, (1) basement beneath it would no longer count toward gross floor area, and (2) reprogramming the Academic Building floor plan would enable a reduction of some second-floor area on the Kellogg Avenue side, to address ARB comments. II. Land Use Designation 5. The Castilleja School is located in an R-1 neighborhood. The existence of a school here seems to be in conflict with the City’s General Plan and the City’s zoning. The FEIR and overall applications does not address if this is the best location for a school or how to resolve the conflicts with Zoning and the General Plan. Can staff address what appear to be conflicts? DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Staff Response: The Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan allow for uses other than single-family residences in R-1 districts. Private schools and churches are allowed with approval of conditional use permits Note, this was not the case before the 1960s, when such uses were permitted by right. Potential conflicts regarding school operations are intended to be addressed through the CUP process. When a development/entitlement application is submitted, the City does not have the ability to ignore an application and instead require an existing facility to vacate the site. Additionally, CEQA does not require identifying the “highest and best use” for a property. III. Transportation Studies & Impacts 6. The Kellogg and Bryant Street intersection was not studied. From the information provided and testimony from the public, it seems traffic and transportation impacts here ought to be considered. Why was this area not studied? Staff Response: The Bryant Street/Kellogg Ave intersection was not originally included in traffic study because the original project would have removed traffic from the intersection. In preparing the Final EIR, the City’s consultant found that adding the intersection was not necessary. The studied intersections and segments were decided upon in 2017 by transportation professionals, including both City staff and the City’s hired consultants. While the 11 intersections studied for Level of Service (LOS) impacts in both Transportation Impacts Analyses (2019 and 2020) did not include the Kellogg/Bryant intersection, it did include the Kellogg/Emerson intersection (intersection 9). Under the Project Alternative, the Bryant/Kellogg intersection would experience a slight trip increase of 48 vehicles in peak hours. Given the total daily volumes, there is no likelihood of a TIRE or LOS impact. Furthermore, the TIRE index is not measured at an intersection. In preparing the Final EIR, the City’s consultant found: • Although the Project Alternative could add some delay to the Bryant/Kellogg intersection, the intersection is not required to be evaluated in the EIR because of the change in CEQA (Guidelines 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, and California Senate Bill (SB) 743) that precludes considering congestion (i.e. LOS) as an environmental effect. It is appropriate for the City to consider whether the intersection is consistent with City policy and standards, outside of the EIR. While we do not have a quantified analysis, it is clear from the existing traffic volumes on Bryant and Kellogg that the intersection would not meet peak hour volume signal warrants, so it would not violate City policy or standards. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 Additional Information Regarding the Intersection Pertinent information regarding this intersection, and the segment of Kellogg Avenue between Bryant and Emerson is provided as follows: • Study intersections were selected during the scoping process based on net additional trips. • Because the proposed project included the subterranean garage, it was expected that existing School traffic that uses the intersection would turn into the garage entrance prior to reaching the intersection, resulting in a decrease in traffic at the intersection. • It is reasonable that the intersection should be evaluated for a scenario without the underground parking if an increase in traffic is anticipated due to the enrollment increase. Please see additional information in the appendix. The City’s consultant (WTrans) also evaluated potential effects of the original Project and Project Alternative with respect to the TIRE index – that is, the potential impacts of adding project-related traffic on residential streets near campus. In both traffic studies (as noted in the EIR), the Bryant Street roadway segments between Lincoln and Churchill Avenues were studied for the original Project and Project Alternative. A supplemental TIRE analysis was also done, in response to PTC questions, regarding the Kellogg Avenue roadway segment between Bryant and Emerson Streets, with respect to the Project Alternative #4. • Kellogg Avenue For Kellogg Avenue between Bryant and Emerson Streets, the City’s consultant ran a supplemental TIRE analysis for the Dispersed Alternative (Alternative 4), summarized in the following table. The original Project would reduce the number of daily trips on Kellogg Avenue by relocating all drop off traffic to the below-grade garage and the TIRE Index check is therefore unnecessary. The Dispersed Circulation Alternative #4 would be anticipated to increase the daily volume on Kellogg Avenue by 48 vehicles. This estimate considers the relocation of existing school-trips and the addition of project-trips. This is not considered a significant impact as the number of project-related trips is less than the 170-vehicle threshold. The ADT used to represent the existing condition for Kellogg Avenue consists of an average of multiple days in October 2019. In addition, the TIRE evaluation was conducted in an extremely conservative manner. • Bryant Street DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 The June 2020 Traffic Study found the Project Alternative as proposed would result in 292 daily trips on Bryant between Embarcadero and Kellogg, and 220 daily trips on Bryant between Kellogg and Churchill. The additional daily project trips are different than the ‘no new trips’ proposal during peak hours. The existing Kellogg drop off driveway was resurrected for use in the Project Alternative (EIR Alternative #4). The TIA recommendation for modified drop off percentages and enhanced TDM program are to reduce the 292 daily trips. The recommendation was incorporated into the Final EIR and Mitigation Measure 7a limits the number of cars that can access the site during the morning peak hour and over the entire day. 7. A resident asserted that the project assumes 3 drop-off points without any basis for these drop-off locations. Can staff respond to the drop-off points and their basis, if there is any? Staff Response: The percentages for drop offs were proposed by the applicant. The City’s consultant, WTrans, performed an analysis related to the Project Alternative (Alternative #4), and recommended adjustments to the percentages for distributed drop-offs at the different driveways in the TIA in order to avoid TIRE impacts (i.e. overburdening any particular stretch of residential street). The June 10, 2020 Traffic Study of the Applicant’s Project Alternative (Alternative #4) noted: • All driveway access points to and from the school would be restricted to right turn in/out only except at the underground garage egress, which would allow for right and left turn exiting movements. • Roadway segment studies for TIRE impact included Bryant Street from Embarcadero Road to Kellogg Avenue and Kellogg Avenue to Churchill Avenue. • In developing the Project Alternative, the applicant proposed that 60 percent of all project related private auto travel would use the Bryant Street loop, 30 percent would use the Kellogg Avenue loop and the remaining 10 percent would use the underground garage with an entrance on Bryant Street and exit onto Emerson Street (sum is 70% of drop off trips using the Bryant Street driveways). DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 • The Traffic Study recommended redistribution: 43 percent of private auto travel use Bryant Street loop, 30 percent use Kellogg Avenue and 27 percent use the garage (still 70% of drop off trips would use the Bryant Street driveways for drop offs, 30% at Kellogg). Mitigation measure 7a would require monitoring and reporting to ensure the distribution of trips is consistent with these percentages and/or is modified over time to minimize impacts as part of the TDM program. As to the driveway locations, each driveway is appropriately spaced from the nearest adjacent intersection and is consistent with general design standards. Staff have not identified significant issues or concerns. 8. What can be done to address the local impacts (non-CEQA) on Kingsley/Alma? Staff Response: The proposed remedy for this non-CEQA, ‘local transportation impact’ is the applicant’s contribution to the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (TIF). The City uses the TIF for investment in capital improvement projects. This contribution is equivalent to the School’s fair share of installing a signal at the Kingsley-Alma intersection. The impact is anticipated ten years from now, in 2030 which is the cumulative year. Staff welcomes other ideas from PTC members. Please note, however, the project should not be required to implement non- programmed improvements, especially at locations that may conflict with other projects or City Policy efforts. 9. While the environmentally superior Project Alternative eliminated the TIRE Index impact, it has the same overall number of trips as the Project. Shouldn't the CEQA review and mitigation address the overall impact, in this case the trips? Staff Response: The project will cause 279 new daily trips. This contrasts with the 1,477 daily trips that some commenters erroneously reference. The school already causes 1,198 daily trips. Further, the performance standard in MM 7a would require the total daily trips to be reduced to meet a daily trip rate of 2.4 trips per student, or 1,298 total trips. Thus, the project would result in an increase of 100 daily trips compared to the baseline condition. Number of trips alone is not a measure of environmental impact under CEQA. The number of trips is simply an input for impact evaluation criteria. Basically, all the City can look at for CEQA review at intersections is safety – signal warrants are mostly a measure of congestion. The CEQA impacts for roadway segments are evaluated using the TIRE index, per Palo Alto-specific policy (not statewide CEQA thresholds). Bryant Street Bike Route One community concern is about Bryant Street bike route is related to the project’s generation of more daily trips than today’s condition. Today, without the project, there are 870 trips/day DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 on the segment of Bryant between Embarcadero and Kellogg. In the future, if a 540-student cap level were approved without the proposed mitigation, 292 additional trips are anticipated on this roadway segment. The 292 trips would be expected only under the Project Alternative before mitigation. As noted, Mitigation Measure 7a limits the number of cars that can access the site during the morning peak hour and over the entire day; therefore, the 292 trips would be reduced through the modified drop off percentages as well as the enhanced TDM program. As Bryant is a bicycle route, review of the project with respect to the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) is important. The BMP notes that if fewer than 2,000 trips per day are on the roadway segment, Bryant Street would still acceptable as a bike route. It is notable that there currently are more trips north of Embarcadero Road on Bryant Street (2,300 trips/day). Another concern is crashes involving bicycles. Attached to this report (Attachment A) is the collision report used for the EIR. The crash records history showed only one crash involving a bike on Bryant next to Castilleja’s campus. This report did not include the Embarcadero/Bryant signal, where there were three crashes with bikes (1 per year, 2017, 2018, 2019); however, this crash rate is well below the statewide average for similar facilities; the City’s consultant determined that this segment of Bryant has not demonstrated a crash rate at the threshold concern. None of the physical conditions demonstrate increased hazards compared to other similar intersections. IV. Implementation & Enforcement 10. Has Castilleja been in compliance with restrictions that have been placed on it? Please explain any active violations. Staff Response: Enrollment Castilleja violated the enrollment cap of 415 students set in the 2000 Conditional Use Permit. Through the code enforcement process, Castilleja paid a penalty, agreed to annual reductions in enrollment until it reached compliance, and applied for the CUP amendment in 2016. The City agreed to two pauses in the enrollment reduction: (1) The City agreed to a 2015 ‘pause’ in reductions to enable a study of access from Embarcadero Road and based on expectations Castilleja would file a CUP proposal to resolve the violation through higher authorized enrollment levels; (2) May 2017 letter agreement acknowledged allowance for 2017-2018 school year to enable 438 students. Thereafter, reductions were to “recommence in the 2018-19 school year” at a rate “consistent with the scale of past reductions (approximately 4-6 students per year).” DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 Castilleja School has admitted 426 students for the 2020-2021 school year; this is four students less than the 430 enrolled in the 2019-2020 school year, consistent with the City’s May 2017 letter requesting annual reductions of four to six students. Special Events In March 2017, the City began investigating allegations about violations of the 2000 CUP approval conditions related to scheduling and execution of Castilleja’s events (conditions #25- 28). The City’s initial letter regarding events is found on the City’s Castilleja School Project webpages, here https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78230. EIR Appendix B3-B7 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77808) includes: • The Applicant’s table of events (years 2014-2017), which is responsive to the City’s initial letter, • The Applicant’s 2018 proposal to reduce the number of special events (a standalone document): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64424). 11. How is the current transportation demand management (TDM) program being tracked? Does the current TDM require no-net new trips? Staff Response: The applicant, in a letter4 from its traffic consultant (noting Nelson-Nygaard’s role as the TDM consultant), stated that: “Over the eight years of fall and spring monitoring, Castilleja has demonstrated that they were able to reduce their peak hour trips and maintain these reductions. Since the monitoring began in 2012, there has been a reduction of 28% of the trips in the morning peak.” The applicant also provided a letter to the City Manager in late July, containing a link to the TDM ‘compendium’ to help readers better understand the TDM program. The letter is viewable at this link.5 Castilleja also sends the city two transportation reports per year. These reports are received by Planning and Development Services and forwarded to the Office of Transportation staff. There are two reports per year for 2017, 2018, and 2019 on the City’s project webpage called ‘news update’ at this link (and excerpted below): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/archived_news_updates.asp 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78329 5 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78328 DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 13 Current TDM Castilleja School’s year 2000 CUP set an AM peak hour limit of 511 trips based upon the estimated number of trips in 2000. The current TDM program was analyzed in a 2016 document submitted with the CUP application; it is available on the City’s project webpage at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53164. The 2016 analysis of the operating TDM program noted: “While the program is successful and has achieved reductions well below the 511-trip limit established by the City, the School may be experiencing a plateau in the program’s effectiveness. In order to further reduce trips and ensure students are not parking in residential areas, the School may need to institute more robust measures. Having said that, the School is operating well below both estimated Year 2000 peak trip levels as dictated by its CUP and actual peak trips in Year 2013 before the School's TDM program was fully operational.” As noted above, Castilleja School has submitted monitoring reports of the current TDM program since the CUP submittal of 2016; Castilleja submits two monitoring reports each year to the City regarding the existing TDM program. Enhanced TDM The Enhanced TDM Plan submitted with the CUP application for the proposed Project, with additional strategies, is viewable at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53164. The Enhanced TDM plan proposes a target of no net new AM/PM trips. The Enhanced TDM program supplements Castilleja’s existing TDM program to address increases in daily vehicle trips to campus and maintain existing peak hour trips. 12. Please expand on the no net new trips requirement proposed; how would this operate? How will the achievement of—or failure to achieve—this goal be monitored? What happens if they do exceed their trips? How will conditions regarding trips be enforced? Staff Response: The EIR includes the following mitigation measures, which address transportation at the School. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 14 • Mitigation Measure (MM 7a) requires Castilleja to implement TDM measures sufficient to reduce the daily trip rate to 2.4 trips per student and to have no more than 440 AM peak hour trips. • TDM plan and MM7a allow some increase in total daily traffic trips but limit peak hour trips and the daily trip rate per student. • The City may make certain TDM strategies mandatory, rather than relying solely on performance standards. Data and analysis will be used to determine whether the performance standards have been met and/or if adjustments to the TDM strategies are warranted. It appears feasible for Castilleja to attain the peak hour standard because at the current daily trip rate per student, the campus is projected to generate 443 AM peak hour trips, thus only a slight reduction is needed to attain the performance standard. It is expected that it will be feasible for Castilleja to attain the daily trip rate standard because the existing daily trip rate is 2.74 trips per student, as shown in Draft EIR Table 7-4. MM 7a requires an 11% reduction in the daily trip rate. • The daily trip rate standard applies to trips made as part of the regular academic daily program, it does not apply to special events. • MM7a also describes reporting requirements (three times annually at first, dropping to twice annually) and requires Castilleja to install vehicle counting equipment. • MM7a also has these requirements to address TDM program failures: “If the peak hour and daily trip rate standards are not achieved in a given academic year, no further enrollment increase may occur in the subsequent academic year, and additional TDM measures shall be implemented as follows: o 1st report showing a peak trip count above 440 - add an additional TDM measure o 2nd consecutive report showing a peak trip count above 440 – add a more intensive TDM measure o 3rd consecutive report showing a peak trip count above 440 - reduce enrollment by at least 5 students in next admission cycle. If the peak hour and daily trip standards are not achieved for a second consecutive year, enrollment shall be reduced by at least 10% based on City staff review of the traffic monitoring reports.” Additionally, Conditions of Approval would require Castilleja to pay into a fund to enable the City to hire code enforcement consultant to perform monitoring of the TDM success/failure. 13. Have we modeled cumulative impacts? What that modeling would look like if they exceeded their trips for example by 10%? Staff Response: Cumulative traffic impacts have been modeled. See FEIR Impact 7-7. CUP conditions of approval would address the circumstance if the enrollment cap or annual enrollment increases (set in conditions) were exceeded. Note that CEQA doesn’t require the City to assume illegal behavior. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 15 Nonetheless, this is somewhat addressed by mitigation measure 7a, discussed above, which contains consequences for failure to meet TDM performance standards. V. Trees 14. Please detail how the protected trees will survive the construction process. In particular, can Urban Forestry provide comments regarding if or how the redwood trees behind the Lockey House can survive? It appears the wall and excavation may take too many roots for the trees to survive. Staff Response: The Applicant’s Landscape Architect provided a letter along with details to explain how the Coast Redwoods near the Lockey House would be protected. The letter is viewable here (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78331). There would be 12 feet of soil and a ‘soil nail wall6’ to ensure an over cut would not be required. The letter notes the remaining root zone and canopy would be left intact and the arborist reviewed this proposal and has “a high level of confidence the redwood tree health will not be compromised.” A section showing the ‘soil nail wall’ solution is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78333 (item #14 on the Project Submittals page). After the Applicant submitted the Project Alternative plans, the Applicant’s arborist met with City’s Urban Forester and staff regarding the Project Alternative’s garage footprint and survivability of the adjacent Coast Redwoods (trees #115-120). The arborist provided a response to the Urban Forester recently to address his prior comments. The Urban Forester commented that the report was going in the right direction. Arborist report’s findings and recommendations are typically referenced in Conditions of Approval. Also, please note Mitigation Measure 4b refers to the required Arborist reports. The following Arborist recommendations regarding trees #115-120 are proposed to be included in the Conditions of Approval: • The Project Arborist must monitor the activities onsite during excavation of the first five feet of soil for the new Garage near Trees # 115-120. • Any cut roots two inches in diameter or larger must be sealed. The stub ends must be cut cleanly and sealed to prevent desiccation. Latex house paint is an acceptable sealer, but no petroleum-based sealers may be used. • A “Soil Nail Wall” will be used for the wall nearest Trees # 115-120. As such, an over cut would not be required. This will be part of the final tree preservation plan recommendation: 1. Maintain irrigation at trees root/canopy zone throughout the duration of the project; 2. Provide protective fencing at the limits of excavation for the duration of construction; and 3. Maintain a 3” mulch layer over the root zone throughout the duration of construction. 6 A soil nail wall consists of installing passive reinforcement (i.e., no post-tensioning) in the existing ground by installing closely spaced steel bars or sections (i.e., nails) and placing a front face support. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 16 • The face of the soil cut must meet the following minimum distances: o Coast Redwood Trees # 115-120 – 12 feet from the trunk bark. VI. Special Events 15. During public comment, Carla Befera asserted that the traffic impacts of 95 events were not studied. Was this issue addressed in the FEIR and if so where? Staff Response: Overall, managing events is best handled through Conditions of Approval for the CUP. This can be done irrespective of the way the CEQA treated events. The City did not study events traffic in the EIR because: 1. Events are part of the existing condition; the Applicant proposes to reduce the number of events down from 100 annual events. This number, 100, serves as the ‘baseline’ for CEQA analysis. Thus, the logic was there would not be an increase in traffic related to events; 2. Event traffic happens outside of the Peak Hour and thus does not contribute to LOS issues (though this argument would not apply under a VMT scenario); and 3. Event traffic does not occur every day and thus is not part of the TIRE Index analysis. The CEQA analysis focused on increases in daily traffic. Typically, traffic analyses focus on increases in daily trips. Since special events occur at unusual times and are outliers, they are not usually studied to ascertain Level of Service impacts. The applicant’s traffic consultant letter (received September 8, 2020 in response to PTC questions) states, “When setting up the monitoring program in 2012, the City requested that the data collection be performed during the fall and spring semesters on two typical days without special events to be consistent with industry practice. The EIR did document that special events are held at the school during the school year and recommended measures that will reduce the traffic and parking demand during events. In addition, most of the school events occur outside the normal commuter peak periods when traffic volumes on the roadways are lower.” The Final EIR includes a response to Ms. Befera (C-3-3), referring to the EIR, which involved daytime study of the daily typical traffic. 16. The number of annual events allowed by the 2000 CUP seems different than the number of annual events occurring at the school (over 100 events). Reviewing the number of proposed events in this CUP compared to the number of events occurring doesn't seem like the right way to do the analysis of impacts. Staff Response: The number of events occurring at the time the Draft EIR is prepared becomes the baseline, in accordance with CEQA, as opposed to a baseline of perceived number of events outlined in/allowed by the 2000 CUP conditions of approval. The 2000 CUP includes a long list of the DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 17 types of “other” events. Based on that list it is clear more than just a handful or a literal meaning of several was intended. VII. Temporary Campus 17. Please describe and/or illustrate the layout of the temporary campus on Spieker Field. Staff Response: The layout of the temporary campus on Spieker Field for the original Project was included in the EIR and is viewable on the City’s project website as item #20 on the list of 2017 submittals (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57679). A layout of the temporary campus associated with Alternative #4 reflecting retention of the Emerson houses and adjacent trees is below. Below the layout are images of the temporary campus from public rights of way. These were provided September 9th and uploaded the same day to https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/project_documents_.asp. The applicant is considering using mitigation trees as temporary landscaping: 16 coast live oak trees (24-48” box) and three incense cedars (36” box), as well as Bay laurel and Catalina Ironwood trees to provide year-round evergreen canopy, Vine Maples and Dogwood. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 18 18. How long will the temporary facilities be in place? Will the duration of these temporary facilities be addressed in the CUP and/or other parts of project approvals and entitlements? Staff Response: The proposed phasing plan shows installation of the temporary campus facilities after completion of garage (at about one year) to remain in use while buildings are demolished through completion of the Academic building (2 years). After these two-story modular buildings are removed, the athletic field would be restored to preconstruction conditions. See http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72391 for the phasing plan. The modular building design is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64422. 19. Are there conditions regarding portables at schools? Are there any reference points at our local schools, such as Gunn or Paly? Or other private schools? Staff Response: The City can make removal of the temporary buildings a condition of project approval. This could address the concern about portables remaining on a campus long term. Below are two examples of portables at private schools in Palo Alto: • Keys School is an example of a 2010 approval via Architectural Review, CUP, and Variance for modular classrooms as a ‘permanent’ installation in 2009-2010 (there were no conditions to remove them). • The French-American School in 1986 was approved for portable classrooms via CUP and Architectural Review processes. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 19 The commenters are correct that at public schools, portables frequently remain for long periods. It must be noted, however, the City does not have any such control over public schools. Additionally, public schools have less ability to fundraise for capital improvements compared to a private school. Public schools frequently bring in portables when they need space but lack budget for new buildings. 20. Has Castilleja explored temporarily relocating the students during construction instead of using temporary facilities? Staff Response: Staff does not know whether the Applicant contemplated offsite options. During construction, the gym and chapel/theater would still be accessible, so there is a logistical benefit to having the classrooms on site, as well as cost benefit. IX. Other Similar Projects, including Public & Private Schools 21. Some members of the public stated that the Castilleja campus redevelopment would “create precedent" that would apply to other private schools. Can staff address if any entitlements for this project would set a precedent or impact reviews of future, similar projects? Staff Response: CUPs are evaluated on an individual or case-by-case basis. Each decision and set of conditions are contextual. “Precedent” as used by members of the public seems to reference judicial precedent. The City is not bound, as some courts of law may be, to make issue a condition of approval in the future based solely on a past condition of approval. 22. In Palo Alto, how many schools, public and private, that are in R-1 zones? How many schools are located in neighborhoods and/or surrounded by homes? What about if the analysis expands to include also pre-k and child-care facilities? Staff Response: Public schools in residential neighborhoods are zoned “Public Facilities”. Most if not all PAUSD schools are located within residential neighborhoods. In addition to Castilleja, staff counted nine conditionally permitted private schools in R-1 zones, noted on the attached table (Attachment B) prepared in 2017. More recent schools on this list are: (1) Bowman School annex CUP, AR, Variance for a below grade amphitheater, exceeding the maximum allowable area for R-1 zone excavated features (3,140 sf where 200 sf allowed), (2) Seton School, 2012 CUP and AR to add preschool with 315 students (3) Keys School 2010 five modular classrooms with CUP, AR, Variance for setback and daylight plane encroachments; reduced class size and maintained 176 students, and (4) Stratford School, 2005 CUP to use a former PAUSD facility, with 482 students, TDM, and conditions to reduce auto trips. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 20 Please see attached table of private schools that staff developed several years ago. 23. Why are we processing a variance application instead of a use permit? Staff Response: This relates to the Variance for replacement of non-complying gross floor area. The Applicant requests a Variance from strict application of these zoning regulations/site development regulations: • PAMC 18.70.100 limiting replacement of non-complying facilities on a site and/or • PAMC 18.12.040 setting maximum Floor Area Ratio in the R-1 zone. The Variance process is preferable to the CUP process when physical facilities are at odds with current development standards. Whereas the CUP process is more pertinent to operational characteristics. In 2006, the gym CUP was approved along with Architectural Review, enabling the gym replacement with an expanded, deeper basement and use restrictions; the focus then was on occupancy/capacity related to the gym’s use, viewed with a different understanding or reading of the Municipal Code with respect to conditionally permitted uses. 24. In recent approvals, when has a use permit been used to exceed development standards? When was it used by a school? Are there any differences or similarities between those prior approvals and this project? Staff Response: The following cases are references for the present application: • 2006: Castilleja School’s Use Permit and Architectural Review enabled replacement of the gym’s non-complying gross floor area and enabled the gym’s double basement. • 2016: Kol Emeth Use Permit, Architectural Review, and Variance: New synagogue building on Manuela; the CUP enabled the below grade parking facilities to extend under the front setback; the Variance was to exceed GFA, based on floor area equivalency. Former Director and Attorney concurred on a reading of PAMC Section 18.12.090(a) to permit the basement parking facility. The ARB staff report noted: “The proposed structure is not a residence, so the underground parking facility may be allowed beyond the building footprint, as long as the Performance Criteria (18.23) for non-residential uses adjacent to residential uses are met.” The above cases are similar in that they involve basements; one is a replacement gym with basement for a non-complying FAR facility associated with a conditionally permitted school; the other is a basement parking facility for a conditionally permitted religious institution that included floor area ratio exceedance. X. Architecture 25. The Architectural Review Board said the Kellogg side needed modifications. Can staff provide the comments made by ARB members related to the Kellogg side? DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 21 Staff Response: As noted in the August 26th presentation, on August 20, 2020 the ARB comments on Academic Building were: The Kellogg side is an improvement over existing, but could use modification as it is too long, plate height unbroken and needs to be broken up (roofline, style, mass). Create an entrance of importance; the entrance should be coordinated and drive design. The excerpt minutes for the August 20, 2020 ARB hearing of this project are viewable at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78325 XI. Alternatives 26. The no-garage alternative did not seem as sincere or that it was explored in earnest. It also seems in conflict with the “greenness” of the rest of the proposal. Exploring the use of transit, walking, cycling, and other non-car alternatives would seem more aligned with the school’s goals. Can staff address what exploration of this alternative included and why the no-garage alternative was ultimately dismissed? Were shuttling scenarios considered; wherein students and/or staff would meet at central locations and take shuttles to the school? Staff Response: As noted, Palo Alto’s Zoning Code requires onsite parking, or with a Director’s adjustment, on a parking facility within 500 feet of the project site. The alternative must include the minimum amount of required parking. Thus, if there is no on-site garage, the parking must be provided at grade. To evaluate a shuttling option in the EIR, staff would need to identify specific shuttle drop off/pick-up locations of Castilleja’s campus and have some assurance or guarantee about Castilleja’s ability or permission to use those locations. For reference, the ‘No Garage’ alternative discussion is found: • In the Final EIR Master Responses (Chapter 2) pages 2-66 through 2-74 (a mini-EIR) and • Added to Draft EIR Section 13.8 (Alternative 5: No Garage Alternative, pages 13-30 through 13-39, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77807). Note the description and environmental analysis explored with a level of depth in the Final EIR. The ‘No Garage’ alternative (not proposed) had been considered but rejected in the Draft EIR, since: (a) it would not avoid the project’s significant impacts and (b) could increase impacts in aesthetics and noise. • The Final EIR compared the environmental impacts of the ‘no garage’ alternative with those of the Project. Analysis addresses suggestions this alternative could reduce adverse effects to the neighborhood from project construction and traffic volumes/patterns. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 22 • Responses to comments (Draft EIR Chapter 13, Alternatives): reduced some impacts but increased others and did not change the level of significance of any impacts. Under the ‘no garage’ alternative: • The existing surface lot on Emerson Street next to the gym would be demolished and/or replaced with the pool, as proposed with the Project. • A new surface lot would be constructed where the two Emerson Street residential structures are currently located, where the Project plans show open space. • A new surface lot would be twice as large as the existing surface lot to be replaced by the pool. Parking On-Site v. Satellite Parking The Project Objectives include building the proposed number of classrooms. To meet code requirements, the required parking spaces must be provided on site. As discussed above, off- site parking is strictly limited by the Zoning Code. However, a satellite lot for large events on campus is an option that could be explored. However, there are ways to address parking on site other than the designs staff and consultant explored. CEQA does not require the City to explore all of the various on-site parking options to compare to the Project. If offsite parking lots are used, that would not necessarily change the number of SOVs, it would just change their location. Also, a drop-off trip would not be an SOV on arriving at the drop-off location – there would at least be a driver and a passenger (the person being dropped off); it would only be a SOV upon leaving; and the reverse is true for pick up traffic. The City’s CEQA consultant will review the recent TDM monitoring reports to see how the number of SOVs has changed over time and pull together a summary of that data for the PTC meeting. Shuttling: Shuttling is a part of the current TDM program and enhanced TDM plan. The Archer School suggestion (at 100% shuttle plan) would produce fewer trips and is stricter than proposed. This would result in even less traffic impacts. The City Council can further restrict the TDM program. However, there is a difference between imposing mitigations for CEQA purposes (to reduce impacts to less than significant levels) and placing conditions to have this CUP ‘go further’. The PTC can consider options for approval conditions at the next PTC hearing of the project. Monitoring, reporting and enforcement would be refined in the conditions of approval and MMRP (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 27. The no-project alternative seemed overly simplistic. Examples of no-project include securing a site that is designated for school facilities (such as land owned by Palo Alto Unified School District). Was any thought or effort given by the applicant or the EIR team to other sites in or around Palo Alto? If so, please describe these efforts. Staff Response: DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 23 Evaluation of a No Project alternative compares impacts of the proposed project with impacts that would occur if the proposed project were not approved and implemented. The comment falls into the latter two categories, repeated below: •Offsite Alternatives: Zoning, environmental conditions, and availability are significant factors in evaluating an offsite alternative. To be analyzed in the EIR, the offsite alternative must be “feasible”, and it must be possible for the project proponent to acquire the property. The proposed uses on the property should either be consistent with the applicable general plan designation for the property, or it should be reasonable to expect that a general plan amendment would be successful. There may be situations, however, where an offsite alternative is not feasible, for example, because the primary objective of the project is a modification of an existing facility. •Speculative Alternatives: An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably evaluated because insufficient detail regarding the alternative is available, and whose implementation is remote and speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6(f)(3) and 15145). For reference: The Final EIR page 2-64 describes ‘No Project Alternative’, ‘Offsite Alternatives’ and ‘Speculative Alternatives’. Draft EIR Section 13.4, Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, found on pages 13-10 through 13-14 (at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77807). XII.Impacts of COVID 19 28.Has Castilleja considered any of the long- or short-term impacts of COVID-19 in their plans? For example, more distance and spacing between students and staff when they are physically on campus? Or virtual classes? As well as potential for staggered schedules that bring students and staff to school at different times? Staff Response: Castilleja is offering online education during shelter in place. Once shelter in place is over, the program is anticipated to resume as before. Report Author & Contact Information PTC7 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2441 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: •Attachment A: Supplemental Crash Analysis Bryant Street (DOCX) 7 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 24 •Attachment B: PA Private Schools in Residential Zones (PDF) DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 The Bryant Street collision analysis was prepared to evaluate the segment of Bryant Street between Embarcadero Road and Kellogg Ave to determine whether a safety issue could be identified along this roadway segment. External influences such as through traffic along Embarcadero Road that does not turn onto Bryant Street were not included with the Bryant Street analysis. In response to a public comment, the following summary of crashes at intersections adjacent to the proposed project is provided in Table X. Table X– Summary of Collisions by Location Study Intersection Total No. of Collisions (Mar 2015- Mar 2018) No. of Collisions Involving a Bike (Mar 2015- Mar 2018) Crash Rate (c/mve) Statewide Average Crash Rate (c/mve) Embarcadero Rd/Bryant St 3 3 0.14 0.43 Bryant St/Kellogg Ave 1 1 N/A 0.14 Embarcadero Rd/Emerson St 1 1 0.05 0.14 Notes: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering; N/A = Not Available Based on the information presented above, an existing safety concern related to bicycles has not been demonstrated along Bryant Street. The existing crash rate at each intersection is lower than the statewide average for similar facilities, and relatively few crashes have been documented at each location. Attachment A: Supplemental Crash Analysis Bryant Street DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 School Names APN Address Zoning Designation Lot Size Building SQFT1 Allowed FAR2 & 3 CUP Variance Notes 1 Keys School (Lower School)132-03-193 2890 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 R-1 124,830 32,560 38,199 CUP granted in 2010 allowing modifications to the previously approved CUP # 90-UP- 21. The increase in FAR & number of classrooms would not intensify the use/ increase student number and would provide the opportunity to improve the existing traffic situation. A Variance was required for the placement of the new buildings within the rear setback. The distance between the new buildings and the rear property line would be no less than 10 feet, per the conditions of approval. Located with a Church. Expansion of Modular classrooms in March 2010 2 St. Elizabeth Seton School -A Drexel School (Grades PK-8) 003-27-041 1095 Channing Av, Palo Alto, CA 94301 R-1 191,746 54,303 Allowed FAR 53,110 sqft, on ground 58,274 sqft An amendment to CUP #87-UP-40 in 2012 for addition and operation of 3,383 sqft Pre K and K building adjacent to existing K-8 school. This allows additional student enrollment and better vehichular circulation. A variance to allow a five foot exception to the height limit for a new structure to house wireless communication antennas. The CUP # 87-UP-40 amended permits 59- UP-26 and 64-UP-7 which allowed them location of Church, Rectory, Convent and School 3 Torah Academy (Grades 4-5)127-26-209 3070 Louis Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 R-1 19,310 4,230 6,543 CUP in 2013 for 5,524 sqft addition and remodel. The project combined APN # 127- 26-067 and the total FAR allowed was 9,754 sqft. The proposed FAR was 9,752 sqft. No Variance This project was finally withdrawn in 2015. 4 Tru (Grades K-6)003-43-045 1295 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94301 R-1 44,526 7,275 14,108 A CUP granted in 2009 to allow after school enrichment activities, homework assistance, and tutoring for up to 10 children at a time in the Sunday School class rooms of Trinity Lutheran Church. No Variance Located with Church. Expansion in 1994 5 Bowman School (Grades K-8)167-05-020 4000 Terman Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 R-1(10,000)63,318 23,500 19,745 On May 2017 CUP approved for amending CUP # 03-CUP-07 for reducing student enrollnment number and allowing the students to enroll at the new annex campus located at 693 Arastradero Road. No Variance 6 Castilleja School (Grades 6-12)124-12-034 1310 Bryant St, Palo Alto, Ca 94301 R-1(10,000)268,782 81,385 7 Athena Academy (Grades 1-8)147-08-047 525 San Antonio Av, Palo Alto, CA 94306 R-1(8,000)84,070 18,964 25,976 CUP approved in 2013 for private school and daycare use in PAUSD owned property No Variance Attachment B: PA Private Schools in Residential Zones DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 School Names APN Address Zoning Designation Lot Size Building SQFT1 Allowed FAR2 & 3 CUP Variance Notes 8 Living Wisdom School of Palo Alto (PK-8) 124-31-082 456 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 R-2 10,245 No info in GIST 3,823 Old CUP from 1959 No Variance Located with a Church 9 Achieve Kids (UG)132-06-030 3860 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 RM-30 85,670 16,514 32,157 A CUP granted in 2005 to allow installation of telecommunication antennas mounted to existing tree poles. No Variance Application # 12PLN- 00137 in 2012 (ARB) for 356 sqft addition. 10 Discovery Children's House Montessori School (Grades K- 1) 120-03-083 & 120-03- 082 401 Webster and 437 Webster St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 PC 3437 & RM- 40 21,000 & 38,375 34,329 & 59820 51,410 No CUP No Variance Webster House and Webster House Health Center Source: City of Palo Alto Planning Department, October 2017. Notes 2 & 3 Information from GIST and Project Plans. Note 1 Information from Santa Clara Assessors Office. All informations compiled from GIST, Accela, Project Plans and stored files in S Drive. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: B0F56263713F43BAB106A9713F3ECDA3 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: At Place Memo.doc, Castilleja At Place Packet.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 28 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Vinhloc Nguyen AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 9/9/2020 1:45:36 PM Holder: Vinhloc Nguyen Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Amy French amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org af Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 9/9/2020 1:47:22 PM Viewed: 9/9/2020 1:47:57 PM Signed: 9/9/2020 1:49:29 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Rachael Tanner Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 136.24.13.203 Sent: 9/9/2020 1:49:31 PM Viewed: 9/9/2020 1:50:58 PM Signed: 9/9/2020 1:51:12 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Vinhloc Nguyen vinhloc.nguyen@cityofpaloalto.org Administrative Associate III City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 9/9/2020 1:51:15 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 9/9/2020 1:51:15 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 9/9/2020 1:51:15 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 9/9/2020 1:51:15 PM Completed Security Checked 9/9/2020 1:51:15 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:58 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; beachrides; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; info@sbcfire.org; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; josh.chrisman@fire.ca.gov; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; Daniel Zack Subject:Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif. 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, Sep 14, 2020 at 2:38 AM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 2:02 AM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 5:08 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 4:45 PM  2 Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 4:36 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 3:50 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 11:56 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 11:03 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:21 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:18 PM  3 Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:12 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:06 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:01 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 9:54 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 9:48 PM  Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 5:29 PM  4 Subject: Fwd: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 5:12 PM  Subject: CBS News Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020 re fires in Oregon and Calif.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Saturday, Sept. 12, 2020                To all‐       Here is CBS News this morning re the fires in Oregon and Calif.  BTW, "Decimate" means to take one out of ten. Wish  the news people could learn that. 3 minutes:                 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwH6Hlq6Keo                      In the next vid. we see the Boeing 747 Gobal SuperTanker from Colorado. Apparently there are several of  these 747 tankers now in the United States. This is the tanker from Colorado with 944 on the tail. Here it is fighting the  LNU Complex fire near Lake Sonoma, Calif. in August, 2020, north of the SF Bay Area. You see it drop retardant twice in  the first 6:30 of this vid. I think we need 50 of those since they can carry 19,200 gal. of retardant per flight. They charge  ~$16,000 per hour to rent it. Newsom keeps sayng that our horrific fires are mainly due to climate change. We know  that, Governor, now how about doing something about it. Let's get 50 of these 747's.  We could form a consortium with  Oregon and Washington, at a minimum, and share the cost. We are not going to mitigate global climate change anytime  soon, so we have to take steps to deal with its impact.              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYYi2R94Es              Trump will be in California tomorrow, 9‐14‐20:            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump‐to‐visit‐california‐to‐receive‐briefing‐on‐wildfires/?intcid=CNI‐00‐10aaa3a              Here is a video from October, 2017 showing the 747 from Colorado being reloaded at McClellan. BTW, Pres. Trump  is scheduled to visit the fire command center at McClellan, near Sacramento, tomorrow, Monday, Sept. 14, 2020. He'll  be breathing some smoke.                                           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb41O0n6uAQ                    Water is heavy at 8.34 lbs. per gallon. So 19,200 gallons would weigh 160,128 lbs.  The B‐52 can carry 70,000  lbs. of bombs, so this tanker can lift twice what a B‐52 can lift. B‐29: 20,000 lbs. Lancaster bomber, also 20,000 lbs. B‐17:  4,800 lbs.                  Here is a good look at how the Global SuperTanker is re‐ loaded with retardant: Day 6 of the Camp Fire. Video is  from Tues. Nov. 13, 2018. 18:16: BTW, Juan Brown, the narrator, is first officer on the 757 for a major airline.                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW0XQI525UE               More drops by the SuperTanker:  5                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1bje‐n‐MKI              Here is a good look inside the Global SuperTanker and at the tech in the cockpit to conduct the drops.  Our guide  here is one of the pilots who flies it: They take it to Chile, Israel and Australia, he mentions.                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D‐pC7XYHV7s               So this tech. is highly developed and proven. They said somewhere above that the Global SuperTanker was first  used by CalFire in 2017 and they are evaluating how effective it is. This is the fourth fire season it has been used, so they  should have a clue as to that by now. BTW, the C‐130s that Sen. Feinstein obtained from the Coast Guard can carry  4,000 gal. of water or retardant, 21% of what the 747 can carry. So five trips by one of those can deliver what the 747  can deliver in one trip.                 Bet officials in Oregon and California wish they had 40 or 50 of the 747 tankers about now.                Gov. Newsom blames the fires on climate change, but how realistic is it to think that the whole world is going to  cut way back on the use of fossil fuels anytime soon? China builds a new coal‐fired power plant every week or  something. Trump has acted to increase coal production in the U.S. The permafrost is melting, releasing huge amounts  of methane. It is 16X worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. And the world's population keeps growing. 7.5 billion now. At  15 billion we'll be producing a lot less GHG than we do now? I doubt it.  They keep burning the forests in the Amazon,  the "lungs of the planet", to clear land for raising cattle. Fewer trees, more CO2. I think it is a pipe‐dream to think we can  rein in climate change anytime soon.    KCBS had a short discussion with climate expert Noah Diffenbaugh at Stanford a  day or so ago. "Drier and warmer" is what CC is producing, he said.                                 It is hard to imagine how these fires can get much worse, but, apparently, they will. We have a year‐round fire  season now on the west coast, more and more acreage burnt each year, more illness due to breathing the smoke. Places  that have not been impacted by wild fires before are starting to have them. Consider where this has gone in 10 years,  even five years. What will a fire‐year be like in 50 years? Maybe then governments will agree to rein it all in. A 30' rise in  sea level and vast numbers of people sickened and killed by smoke, and then governments may act. There is just so  much money to be made with the status quo that it will take that to get action.              Gov. Newsom blames the fires on climate change and says we must act on that. What if "we" do? What if the  entire U.S. goes to windmills and solar, and electric vehicles? We're at about 2% now, so that shouldn't be hard to do.  And then India, Russia and China keep using fossil fuels at increasing levels. It will have to be all or none. Neither the  people of the U.S. nor those of any other country will tolerate having their lives reduced by 50% while other countries  keep offsetting their efforts.                Here is what the western governors were saying this morning about Trump's assertion that the fires are all about  poor forest management: Note the passage here about less snowpack, earlier snow melt, and rising temperatures  making the forests drier and more prone to fire. Stanford climate expert Noah Diffenbaugh said on KCBS this week that  CC is producing drier and warmer conditions. He has forecast a lot less snow pack in the Sierra and earlier melting of  what snow pack we get by 2070. California's Central Valley produces one‐fourth of the food consumed in the United  States and that takes a lot of water coming out of the Sierra snow pack. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers put that  snow melt into the Sacramento‐San Joaqin Delta. Huge pumps there at Tracy pump the water south down the west side  of the San Joaquin Valley to farms there via the federal Delta‐Mendota Canal and the state California Aquaduct. Huge  pumps around Bakersfield then pump vast amounts of water from the Cal. Aquaduct over the Tehachipis into the LA  Basin. That basin gets about half its water from the Colorado River and the other half from the Calif. Aquaduct.  With  less snow pack already in the Rockies and in the Sierra, LA is going to catch it with both barrels in terms of their water  supply.   6                 https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/09/13/california‐oregon‐and‐washington‐leaders‐rebuke‐ trumps‐comments‐on‐wildfires/#61703b302427               Not one word from the Mayor of Fresno, the Fresno City Council or the Fresno County Board of Supervisors about  climate change. It is verboten to speak of it here, just as high speed rail is. Climate change is a hoax dreamed up by liars  and communists at Stanford and Cal. But they believe in them when they get leukemia or a glioma.                The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District permits fireplace burning on many nights in the winter here.  Go ahead and give your neighbors asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, COPD, fibrosis of the lungs. A lot of them probably  richly deserve it. The PM 2.5 particles go through the alvioli and get into the blood stream. From there they go to the  brain, liver, pancreas, heart. But we are Republicans here in Fresno, and, by God, we have a right to burn. The legislature  should make every night in the Central Valley a "no burn" night.              I went out for an hour drive tonight, Sunday, Sept. 13, 2020 to keep one of my cars up. Tonight the smoke smelled  different, like my neighbors'  fireplace smoke here on winter nights. Maybe different species of trees burning in Oregon  smell different than the ones in the Sierra. They say that the smoke from Oregon is getting clear down to the Bay Area  and even LA. I found that hard to believe, but I guess it is true.               So this will be the new normal from early August through December in California. If so, a LOT of people are going  to get out of here and who would move here?               KCBS said that 80,000 rich Americans have sought permanent residency in New Zealand so far this year, way up  over prior years.                   L. William Harding            Fresno                                                            1 Brettle, Jessica From:Raven Malone <raven@ravenmalone.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 8:11 AM To:Aram James Cc:chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Mary Sylvester; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Madhumita Gupta; Rebecca Eisenberg; Winter Dellenbach; Sara Tabin; Emily Mibach; paloaltoresident@paloaltocalifornia.us; Jeff Moore; greg@gregtanaka.org; james pitkin; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Tonight’s Palo Alto city Council debate CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi all,     I think that we all did really well during yesterday's forum. If you'd like more information on my stances and were not  able to watch the debate, I encourage you to watch here.  https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/play/7H6enaAVkSObUgiLlOOqQXj2QI7‐ boIKbpMrtOAyP_F2D8gQwLW4lnSQgTQSYCrjxnvTBWEom0GQe3au.7rQ0‐XMbirn0dg‐R?startTime=1600214481000     ‐‐  Respectfully,  Raven Malone  ‐‐‐‐  Candidate for Palo Alto City Council  Raven Malone for City Council 2020  www.ravenmalone.com   (650) 427‐9697  Pronouns: She/Her    On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 11:45 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:        Hi Chuck,     Not one candidate at tonight’s debate ‐despite an open ended question re police reform‐ discussed the ongoing  coverup of the racist PAPD cop ( captain no less) Zack Perron scandal here in Palo Alto. Lots of PA folks willing to say  they support the BLM movement ‐but when it comes to removing a vile alleged racist from our own police department  silence and complicity seems to be the order of the day. ( 6 years and counting!!!)    My favorite candidate for PA city council‐ Rebecca Eisenberg ‐did a great job‐ stated adamantly that the PAPD has a  long history of police brutality. She was by far the strongest candidate on housing issues, safe parking programs etc.  She is fearless and never afraid to speak truth to power. Extremely well informed ‐and articulate ‐Stanford undergrad ‐ Harvard Law ‐and the heart of a warrior activist.      I also thought Raven Malone did an excellent job as did Cari Templeton. I may be voting for all three women ‐each who  would hopefully knock out an incumbent or a retread candidate like Pat Burt.    2 I’m also giving a hard look at candidate Greer Stone. He was viciously attacked by Michele Dauber and her husband Ken  Dauber —because he dared to testify as a character witness for his brother who was convicted as a child molester and  sent to prison.    After his testimony the Daubers ran a hate campaign to have him removed as a Democratic Party delegate ‐member of  the county HRC ‐and questioned whether he should be allowed to continue teaching in Palo Alto schools.    When he sat before the Democratic Party for their endorsement for city council  Michele Dauber (apparently an inexplicably‐a leader in the county Democratic Party) on the panel deciding  endorsements —refused to recuse herself or declare a conflict despite her prior attacks on Greer Stone —way prior to  him running for city council. He did not receive a party endorsement!     The other members of the endorsement panel ‐apparently had no problem allowing the witch hunter, Michele Dauber,  to remain on the panel deciding whether to endorse Greer Stone.     If all of the above is accurate ( I’m a recently registered ‐last few years ‐democrat )  ‐I now have nothing but contempt  for the local Democratic leadership .       We need to do our best to attend these debates and ask the hard questions about this totally unaccountable police  department ‐with a non‐stop history of abusing and brutalizing people of color—and the same history of racist policing.    We need to ask some hard questions ‐of council candidates‐about DA Rosen and how the city council and the PA  community can push Rosen politically —to file criminal charges against brutal and racist cops like Perron, Wayne  Benitez and other members of the PAPD. Our work for justice has just begun.     Aram    P.S. Here is our recently expanded piece ‐published by debug‐on the need for Police Crime Units in each DAs office  across this country. Feedback welcomed.      https://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/stories/james‐and‐konda‐the‐time‐has‐come‐for‐a‐police‐crimes‐unit            On Sep 15, 2020, at 8:46 PM, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote:     I say let's stop talking about this and get serious. Let's shop for candidates who are closely involved with housing/homeless issues and make some sense. I'd love to run in PA but don't live there. We must back only those who are serious advocates for housing that make sense. If they're not on the ballot, write them in. Roberta--- why don't you run again?   On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:23 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:  3 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2020/09/15/how‐to‐ help‐the‐homeless‐and‐housing‐insecure‐amidst‐a‐pandemic‐ local‐leaders‐compare‐tactics?utm_source=express‐2020‐09‐ 15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express    Palo Alto has yet to take on its fair share of providing low income housing for its workers, city  employees, service sector folks who travel the farthest, make the least, etc.  Let's ote in council members who want to make the city a more diverse, inclusive, racially. and socio‐ economic city.  Thanks,  Roberta        ‐‐   Chuck  1 Brettle, Jessica From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 8:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello again Council-Members,      Last Friday, Governor Newsom seemed to connect the dots between the causes of the climate crisis, and its consequences.  He implied “carbon” emissions from “vehicles out on the street” (significant sources of pollution) are contributing to a “climate emergency”. He recommended we “believe in science” and added, “the data is self evident”. “In the last few weeks alone,” California has “experienced…the hottest temperature ever” (130 degrees Fahrenheit on 8/16) and “miles” of “fire”. To properly address this calamity the Governor noted that, from now on, “we can’t just change lightbulbs”.  Let's spread the word that telecommuting is an effective way to get vehicles off the streets.     This note is being sent as a reminder about the upcoming:  TELEWORK Webinar: Sept. 17 at 4:00 PST  Please RSVP here: www.eventbrite.com/e/telework-benefits-best-practice-and-pitfalls-registration- 118228473547  Speakers :    Lisa  Jackson, 350Bay-Area: Moderator     Cindy Chavez,  Vice-Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and President of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors    Kate Lister,  President of GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics   2  Carl  Guardino, long-time (past) President and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group  Thank you,  David Page  350Silicon-Valley Telework Team           On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 1:42 PM David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear Council Members,    Our group is hoping you can help spread the word about this upcoming webinar with Cindy Chavez and Carl Guardino.    See you then,  David Page  350Silicon-Valley Telework Team  ===============================  TELE-COMMUTING -- POLLUTION-REDUCING Webinar: Sept. 17 at 4:00  Please join us for a panel discussion on the benefits of telecommuting for workers, employers, and for our environment.  Co-hosted by 350SiliconValley and 350BayArea  With the onset of COVID19, thousands of employees abandoned the office commute to work from home, many for the first time. Employers are now considering the possibility of indefinite remote work arrangements. Since automobiles are responsible for most of the Bay Area’s greenhouse gas pollution, getting cars off the road helps save lives and helps prevent worse weather.  What have we learned from the remote work transition?  3  Pros and cons for employers and employees  Best practices: post-Covid  What about the people who can’t work from home?  Will the environmental benefits be retained, and how can we do that? Speakers :   Lisa Jackson, 350Bay-Area: Moderator  Cindy Chavez, Vice-Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and President of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors  Kate Lister, President of GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics  Carl Guardino, long-time (past) President and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group 4 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Kate Lister is president of Global Workplace Analytics, a research-based consulting firm that helps organizations optimize the employer, employee, and environmental outcomes of remote work.  6 Carl Guardino, served for many years as the leader of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a public policy trade association. He currently serves as Executive Vice President of Bloom Energy (participation does not indicate an endorsement of Bloom). He is also a four-term gubernatorial appointee to the California Transportation Commission.  8 Cindy Chavez, President of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, is also Vice-Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and a leading advocate for the BAAQMD Cut the Commute Pledge.    Here's the 350Bay-Area website link: https://350bayarea.org/event/telework-benefits-best-practice-and-pitfalls    Here's the Facebook event link: https://www.facebook.com/events/989762671473507/?acontext=%7B%22event_action_history%22%3A[%7B %22mechanism%22%3A%22surface%22%2C%22surface%22%3A%22create_dialog%22%7D]%7Dhttps://w ww.facebook.com/events/989762671473507?acontext=%7B%22source%22%3A5%2C%22action_history%2 2%3A[%7B%22surface%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22main_list%22%2C%22extra _data%22%3A%22%5C%22[]%5C%22%22%7D]%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D    RSVP HERE: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/telework-benefits-best-practice-and-pitfalls-registration- 118228473547  The Bay Area Air Quality Management District Press release RE Cut the Commute: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/communications-and-outreach/publications/news-releases/2020/cutcommute_200713_2020_020-pdf.pdf?la=en  The Pledge:  https://www.sparetheair.org/reduce-your-impact/cut-the-commute/take-the-pledge        On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:37 AM Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a  printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet.     If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to  confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.     If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send  it on to the appropriate department for clarification.     We appreciate hearing from you.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2020 4:49 PM To:David Meiswinkle; Frank Agamennon; biotica@aol.com; Philip Hussa; Steve Kormondy; Lou Basile; Dennis Tiernan; Andres Lorraine; Carol Macannico; Joanne Casey; Perla Simmons; Nancy Brais; Rachel Simmons; Camille Lachica; Richard Gage; ezrider67@verizon.net; mkormondy@yahoo.com; NJ Electrician; Rachel Joy Simmons; Haydee Bill Mooney; mon.tp.coalition@gmail.com; Tom & Beth Simmons; janet darcey; Jackie Andres Schnell; Messina Mary; Craig Simmons; Patty LaPlaca; Mark Schleck; Sandy and Jason Khneiger; Mila LaChica; zeke@verizon.net; James Perucho; Neil Perucho; Christian Perucho; Cristina Justine Ariño; Lydia Trinidad; Evelyn Pincaro; Ammo Land; Activist Post; bob@fightfast.com; Tom Fitton On The Air Report; Tea Party Patriots Action Jenny Beth Martin; Sea Girt Medical; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Lior Gantz; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Ed Durfee; Apple & Anthony Jaraza; Kupniewski Arlene; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; nicole@politicalintegrityforum.com; Advance Media; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; J Walsh; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; David Gahary; postalexperience@maritzcx.com; lorraineandres4158@gmail.com; Ammo Land; AmmoLand; Kyle Hunt; Cook-Simmons Dot; BBC ONLY; Courthouse News; Forbidden Knowledge TV; Global Research News; Nikki Haley; Patriotic Freedom Fighter; SCORE 36; Jason Hanson; Jason Hanson; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Council, City Subject:CNN Targets ‘All White People’ In Outrageous Racist Attack – The Right Wing Rebel CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    What kind of drugs do you suppose Lemon and Cuomo were on to pull off this stunt on air, just a few hours ago ???   Maybe it started with a shot and then a snort of some kind ?    https://therightwingrebel.com/cnn‐targets‐all‐white‐people‐in‐outrageous‐racist‐attack/      Best Regards, & Stay Healthy, Wealthy, and wise RJS  1 Brettle, Jessica From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 8:35 AM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Cc:Jonsen, Robert; Lee, David; Stump, Molly; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter Subject:NEWS FLASH: more COVID-19 at Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (downtown Palo Alto).. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      September 16:  Flyer posted, in front elevator of Lytton Gardens Assisted Living facility, re another resident infected with  COVID‐19.     September 12:  Resident's family reports positive test results, for COVID‐19, to Assisted Living Manager Anahi McCane,  649 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301.    September 10:  Resident shows COVID‐19 symptoms:  coughing, loss of smell and taste.            Telephone numbers:         ‐  650.617.7338 = Assisted Living Manager, Anahi McCane       ‐  650.617.7373 = Ms. McCanes's Secretary         ‐  650.617.7317 = Campus Housing Administrator, Doris Lee      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    A second resident, potentially exposed to COVID‐19, not tested (!), self‐isolating in apartment.    Santa Clara Department of Public Health plans to test Lytton Gardens staff and community.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐      ‐Danielle Martell  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lisa Steinback <lisasteinback@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:please consider delaying electricity pole maint project during bad air days CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council,    Currently the city is doing a program where everyday several blocks are scheduled to be without power for the day. I am  requesting that the shutdowns be conditional on decent air quality.     While this is an inconvenience, in normal circumstances it is not that big of a deal. It becomes much more complicated  during COVID, however ‐ where everyone is at home and you can't just go to a friends house or a coffee shop or the  library to do work elsewhere, since everything is closed.     When we add in extremely poor air quality to the mix, things get more complicated. Sitting outside is no longer an  option. Even simply staying home and reading a book or doing something offline is not even a good option. Currently the  poor air is not as easily discernible in previous days when it smelled of smoke.    In addition, I have concerns about asking contractors to be doing non‐essential/urgent work in air quality that we think  is too unsafe to even have library pickup available (it was closed on Friday).    Earlier this weekend, the forecast was for air quality to improve last night, which it has not done. It has been at 190 all  day today, which is unhealthy for all people.    I understand there may be some cost or issues with this ‐ but we are living in extraordinary times and it would be great  if the city could help limit the stress and consider health issues at this point.    Thanks so much for your attention,       Lisa Steinback,  299 Creekside Dr.        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 3:30 AM To:brian.walsh@scscourt.org; jeff.smith@ceo.sccgov.org Subject:Fw: Fwd: Hi Chesa Attachments:030819_SFPD_POLICE_SEARCH_WARRANT_lancewr12.LP.pdf; 032319_San Francisco Well Check Calls_EMAIL TO UNA BAILEY SFPD CHIEF.pdf; 050820_SGT. MARTINEZ CELL PHONE Search Warrant001.pdf; 060619_SGT. MARTINEZ EMAILS POLICE SEARCH WARRANT_1 (2).pdf; 06-17-19 _SFPD_Lancewr12@Gmail - [5-4623000026543] Notification from Google.pdf; 06-19-19_COMPLAINT OF SGT. Martinez Search Warrant Gmail - Search Warrant.pdf; 071919_SGT. MARTINEZ_EMAILS SEARCH WARRANT_RORY WILL.pdf; 101719_WANG'S SF CRIMINAL WARRANT.pdf; 101819_750,000 BAIL RECEIPT.pdf; Calif. Judge Axes Drug-Dealing Case After Surveillance Footage Contradicts Police.pdf; Detective-David-Carroll-2.pdf; EXHIBIT_00019_FEBRUARY 13, 2019_ALLAN THYGESEN POLICE REPORT 190-112-228.pdf; Orig_Answer_to_unlawful_.pdf; Robert-Moss-Dead-2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Resdents of Campbell are now so terrified of detective David Caroll after the murder of Frsank Carpenito and Robert Moss that they are arming themselves for protection. We do not kinow of Samy Tarazi's involvement except gto say this thug now works at Valley Medical Center where injured victims are likely transported. We need to get it documrented in case something happens. The coalition has been bringing attention to these criminals for years and we hae been ignored. They need to bestopped or they will continue to harm more victims. Jeremy Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 1:35 AM From: "Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com> To: kaywg2372@gmail.com, senior.affairs@groupmail.com, markhamplazata@gmail.com, galaxy_454@yahoo.com, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com, cindy.alvarez@mail.com, cindy.chavez@box.sccgov.org, caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com Subject: Fw: Fwd: Hi Chesa Thomas Iveli , Brian McComas and Robert Sigmund are engaged in a criminal racketerring enterprise and have corrupt interest in the following San Francisco, California Real Estate Properties. Brian McComas also attempted to get a military service member killed for his participaton in an investigation into the family of Will Ligtbourne and the Shower Posse Cartel who were shipping weapons and drugs between Jamaica, Costa Rica , United Kingdom, Montreal Canada , United States, Cuba, Spain and Morrocco. New information obtained today indicates there maybe a brivate investigator involved who was hired by Jeffrey Epstien to screw up the investigation initiated by retired FBI special agent Ted Gunderson. We are affraid that Brian McComas may try to sexualy molest young children! * 607 Oak St. San Francisco, Ca. – purchased approximately 2003 by 406-10-12 Realty Corp. & 400 W. 22 St. Corp. * 994-98 Guerrero St.San Francisco, Ca. – 12/23/2011 2 * 925 Pierce St.San Francisco, Ca. – 8/17/2009 * 88-98 Castro St.San Francisco, Ca. – 7/17/2007 * 452 Oak St San Francisco, Ca. . – 5/6/2004 * 425 Shrader St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/15/2007 * 390 Page St, San Francisco, Ca. — Property Lien 2/20/2020 * 3901-09 17th St. San Francisco, Ca. – 10/9/2013 * 3700 16th St. San Francisco, Ca. – 11/9/2011 * 350 Laguna Honda Blvd.San Francisco, Ca. – 12/9/2005 * 2260 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/28/2012 * 2256-58 Market St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/28/2012 * 201 Waller St.San Francisco, Ca. – 11/27/2013 * 178-180 Church St. – 6/23/2006 * 133-35 Collingwood St. San Francisco, Ca. – 4/5/2004 * 1040 Ashbury St. San Francisco, Ca. – 6/16/2011 * 561 Baker Street , San Francisco, Ca. - 11 units (Checks were made payable to Norcal Holdings) 3 4 Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 at 12:53 AM From: "Cary Andrew Crittenden" <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> To: kaywg2372@gmail.com Cc: "super nova" <galaxy_454@yahoo.com>, "Be Judged" <rua@uglyjudge.com>, markhamplazata@gmail.com, "Jeremy Pruitt" <jeremy4justice@activist.com>, "Susanne Bentley" <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>, "Cindy Alvarez" <cindy.alvarez@mail.com>, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa Please call me at 408-318-1105 so I can better understand what’s going on. I have been flooded with emails over last couple of days which like yours, involve San Francisco. I have noticed reference in one of your documents to a private investigator hired by Jeffrey Epstein so I am forwarding to others , some of whom are have expressed fears that Brian McComas may sexually molest children . Respectfully, Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408-318-1105 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Date: June 5, 2020 at 4:28:31 PM PDT To: Julie Del Fava <julie.delfava@bos.sccgov.org> Cc: Be Judged <rua@uglyjudge.com>, Jeremy Pruitt <jeremy4justice@activist.com>, super nova <galaxy_454@yahoo.com>, Susanne Bentley <senior.affairs@groupmail.com>, Scott Largent <scottlargent38@gmail.com>, heidi.yauman@heidiyauman.com Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa Hi Julie, This just came in. More San Francisco stuff. I’m not sure what to make of it. I’m forwarding it to others in hopes that after being blasted all over the internet, it wiill eventually get sorted out. I have not opened any of the attachments yet. Cary Andrew Crittenden | 408-318-1105 Begin forwarded message: From: Kay Wg <kaywg2372@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Hi Chesa Date: June 5, 2020 at 4:18:58 PM PDT To: caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com Can you tell me how long you were in prison? Like did you serve 3.5 years?! I saw the ruling from the Appeals court 45 pages, and confusing. My complaint is similar see attached. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kay Wg <kaywg2372@gmail.com> Date: Sun, May 31, 2020 at 8:15 PM Subject: Hi Chesa To: Chesa DA Email <chesa@sfgov.org> Hi Chesa, 5 Please don't forward this to Don Dubain, my attorney is going to get really mad, she forwarded Don Dubain's email last-time, and I'm afraid he'll over prosecute in retaliation but I really have to voice my concerns. Case: 19016407 But my bail is higher than Derek Chauvin's his bail was only $500,000 for Murder. Mine was @ $750,000, and I have no criminal record. I'm appalled that this is happening, furthermore Sgt. Michele Martinez #1208 just issued a Search Warrant after over 7 months of illegally seizing the incorrect phone and totally misrepresented her Probable Cause Statement this is your office, how is this happening? Why am I getting so many Search Warrants, no one is stalking anyone, it's disgusting that the SFPD and the DA's office will help the Thygesen family, Google Executives. When are the police going to be held accountable for selective prosecution? I have the highest bail in history for charges of "Stalking", as in trying to serve the white Menlo park man who abducted my infant son? It's so egregious. I also live in Utah, why are the SFPD and your DA offices prosecuting out of state cases, on top of that Walker Stone the fake alleged victim lives in Alabama. I know there is significant discrimination again blacks and brown [people, but your office was really prejudicial to me, I am scared for my life, my parents have already depleted their entire retirement fund, we cannot afford another $750,000 Bail, and Sgt. Martinez is still going through all my stuff, with NO PROBABLE CAUSE. P.S. Michele Martinez in CBS article attached shows Michele Martinez has a history in false probable cause incident reports. Please have your office not fight too aggressively when we request Sgt. Michele Martinez's record through a Pitchess Motion. Thank you for listening. -- Phone: 801-645-1060 -- Phone: 801-645-1060 State of.California, City and County of San Francisco, SEARCH WARRANT I, , swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the facts expressed by him/her in the attached and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause are true and that based thereon he/she has probable cause to believe and does believe that the articles, property, and persons described below are lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 et seq., as indicated below, and are now located at the locations set forth below. Wherefore, Affiant requests that this Search Warrant be issued. } (Signature of Affiant) Hobbs Sealing Requested: YES __ NO _x___, Nighttime Search Requested: YES __ NO _x___, (SEARCH.WARRANT) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CA: proof by affidavit, under penalty of perjury, having been made before me by. that there is probable cause to believe that the property or person described herein may be found atTe location(s) set forth herein and that it is lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 et seq., as indicated below by "[gi "(s), in that: D It was stolen or embezzled-[1524(a)(l) PC]; D It was used as the means of committing a felony -[1524(a)(2) PC]; D It is possessed by a person with the intent to use it as means of committing a public offense· or is possessed by another to whom he or she may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or preventing its discovery-[1524(a)(3) PC]; [8J It tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony -[l 524(a)( 4) PC]; D It tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of PC Section 311.3, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under the age of 18 years, in violation of Section 311.11, has occurred or is occurring -[l 524(a)(5) PC]; D An arrest warrant is outstanding for the person to be seized -[1524(a)(6) PC]; D A Child Protective Custody Warrant is outstanding for the person to be sei.zed-(1524(a)(6) and Family Code 3134.5); [8J A provider of "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service", as defined in Penal Code Section l 524.2(a) (including "California corporations" defined as any corporation or other entity that is subject to Section 102 of the Corporations Code and "Foreign corporations" defined as any corporation that is qualified to do business .in this state pursuant to Section 2105 of the Corporations Code), has records or evidence regarding a subscriber or customer which(!) is of a type specified in Penal Code Section 1524.3 (i.e. the subscriber/customer's name, address, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity; the types of services the subscriber/customer utilized; the length of time the person has been a subscriber/customer of that service; and the local and long distance telephone toll billing records); and (2) which records or evidence shows that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in possession of any person with intent to use them as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their discovery-[1524(a)(7) PC]; You are therefore COMMANDED to SEARCH : Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 For the FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: It is hereby Ordered, Google accounts Lancewr12@gmail.com, Google Inc. shall furnish the San Francisco Police Depa11ment with the following stored content and data records between 06/16/18 to 03/08/19: 1. Subscriber Account Information -Name, Address, Contact Information, Account Login Information, Account Activation Information, Event History, Login Activity including Internet Protocol, Browser Information, Cloud Accounts and other linked Google Services. 2. Devices -Phone Numbers and/or IMEI/ESN of Mobile Devices, Tablets and other connected devices linked to the account. 3. lnte~net ~rotocol Logs -Lo~in activity logs for all ~ti~~'iee associated to account to Google/~Q SefV1Ces1 1nol <l-tlfl<1.el:,,h_ v•V!(1 tS!tfiLrCA.llVIU. , 4. Location History-All location data whether derived from Global Positioning System (GPS) data, cell site·s, precision measurement/round trip time info1mation, associated applications and Wi-Fi access points. From 06/16/18 to 03/08/19. 5. Google Contacts -Including names, phone numbers, email addresses, social network profiles, and images. 6. Google Docs All documents that were created, saved, drafted and deleted. 7. Google Drive All stored photos, documents, recordings, videos and other media 8. Google Gmail -Including but not limited to inbox messages whether read or unread, subfolders, sent mail, saved drafts, and emails in the trash folder. 9. Google Play Store -"App" purchases, application downloads, installations, or purchases by associated accounts. 10. Google Photos -All image files, video files, and other media files with EXIF (metadata) stored in Google Photos. 11. Google Search -Any and all searches performed using Google search engine or Google Chrome. 12. Google Voice -Phone number associated to Google Voice, Incoming and outgoing call detail records, voice over internet protocol (VoIP) connection records, MMS Multimedia Messaging Service, SMS Short Message Service, voicemail messages and user designated forwarding telephone numbers. 13. Google shall be compensated by the San Francisco Police Department for reasonable expenses incurred in complying with the court's order. 90 Day Delayed Notice Notification: pursuant to the preclusion of notice provisions of California Penal Code 1546.2 Google Inc. SHALL NOT disclose to the subscriber, customer or owner of the electronic communication or device information to which materials relate the existence or content of this search warrant for a period of (90) ninety days. It is further ordered that all information obtained through the execution of the warrantthat is unrelated to the objective of the warrant shall be sealed and not subject to further review, use, or disclosure without a court order. AND IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY AND/OR THINGS, TO SEIZE IT/THEM IF FOUND and bring iUthem forthwith before me, or 'this court, at the courthouse of this court. This Search Warrant and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause was sworn to as true a~bscribed before me on This 8 "'!. day of ~-av cL , 2019 , at AM. t~ Wherefore, I find probable cause for he issuance of this rch Warrant and do issue it. . NIGHT SEARCH APPROVED: YES ( ) NO ( X ) / \ (Signart eofM istrate) ___.OBBS SEALING REQUESTED: YES ( ) NO (X) I I \ vdge of the~~riMBflieipal Court # City and County of San Francisco, Ca. ,'' !<' ------~ CommandCAD I\ EVENT HISTORY DETAIL: Call 190821223 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT ---~ ---•r - Friday, March 29. 2019 11:54:42 SP190821223 B 910 WELL BEING CHECK 294 EWING TR, SF [03/23/2019] 10:21 :37 DT35 A11549 CREATE 10:36:26 DT35 A11549 10:36:27 10:36:26 10:37:27 10:39:46 10:39:46 10:39:46 10:41 :30 10:44:32 10:46:50 11 :02:24 11 :02:27 11 :02:29 11:07:51 11:07:55 11 :07:59 11:08:43 11:09:48 11:10:21 11:14:43 11 :15:14 11:15:43 11:15:52 11:15:52 11 :15:52 CADAPP TIB DT35 DT11 DT11 K038 K369 K369 K369 K038 K038 K038 K038 K369 K369 K038 K038 DT15 K369 K369 DT15 DT15 DT15 DT15 A11549 A23639 A23639 A21558 A22027 A22027 A22027 A21558 A21558 A21558 A21558 A22027 A22027 A21558 A21558 A22217 A22027 A22027 A22217 A22217 A22217 A22217 ENTRY SELECT PREM IS NOMORE DISPER PRIU PRIOR BACKER RI RI RI ENRTE RI RI RI RI MISCN RI ONSCN RI CLEAR OK CLEAR CLEAR CLOSE Location:294 EWING TR, SF Type:910 Name:KAILIN WANG/UTAH Phone: (917) 432-4181 DAREA:3F Area:740B TypeDesc:WELL BEING CHECK LocDesc:btwn JEAN WY and MASONIC AV LocCross :btwn JEAN WY and MASONIC AV Priority:B Class:F:3PAT Agency:SP Map:A2 [ Sector/Stn:F3 Map:A2 Comment: RELATED TO PRIOR CAD 190813073, RP AND BABY'S FATHER HAVE RO'S AGAINST EACH OTHER RP'S RO INCLUDES SON AS PROTECTED PERSON AGAINST BABY'S FATHER. 910 ON KAYSON WANG ASIAN/CAUCASIAN MIX, 3 MONTHS OLD, BABY'S FATHER IS CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN DOB 19921113, I/I/MA 6'5/150, BRN HAIR , BLU EYES, HX OF DRUG USE, POSS HASA GUN WHICH HE USES FOR HUNTING, RP HAS NEVER SEEN THE GUN, NO GUNS REGISTERED TO BABY'S FATHER. FATHER'S CADL COMES BACK TO THIS 10-20, NFI Comment: PPR 3F 13A Operator:A21558 A21544 OperNames: ENG, MATHEW L #298; HEPPENSTALL,RICHARD #514 3F13A PremType:PPR 3F13A • 3F71 Operator:A22027 OperNames:DAGIT,CHARLES C. #703 \ \ 3F71 '\ ~~lE /~r,, ~~s~ 3F13A 7 3F71 ..-,~ · 3F71 v ·-3F13A 3F13A 3F71 3F71 Dispo:ND 3F13A Comment: SUBJ IS NOT HOME 3F13A Dispo:GOA Page 1 of2 DocuGard #04546 contains a security pantograph, blue background, heat-sensitive ink. coin-reactive watermark, and m1crotexr P~~r1 l1 on l!Ofdet I I \ \ \ \ \ I i I 312512019 Gmail -False Police Report ~ Gmail False Police Report 3 messages Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 11 :25 PM Officer Martinez at Park Police Station called me and threatened to file False Complaint Charges Against me. This is shocking as I asked for a welfare check and NEVER got a response to whether my 3 months old infant was ok. On the audio I clearly told Dispatch there is a DV Temp. Order against me and I have a Utah Restraining Case: 194400734 order against Christoffer Thygesen and the Utah restraining order states he is suppose to stay away from Kayson Wang my son whom he lied in court and had him taken away at 3.5 months from Utah. I called SF City Dispatch: on 3/22/19 CAD: 190813073 and on 3/23/19 CAD: 190821223 I was told by Dispatch no one was home at 294 fati1ing Terrace, 94118 both times. Then I called Menlo Park CAD: 1903220088; they told me they cannot tell me any information as there is a harassment order. So no one told me the status of my infant, and t hen officer Martinez says I falsely reported a crime? The only person that should be investigated and arrested for a False Report is Christoffer Stanford Thygesen who filed for sole legal/physical custody on 2/15 and it was denied then he impersonated me on 3/6/19 Holysmoke.org and said: " Kailin Wang I'm going to Kill myself and our baby if he does not start paying me child support and then he will be guilty of forst degree murder. I hope his parents are happy to hear this ! ! !" That was the same day his DVTRO and Sole Legal/Physical Custody was granted Ex-parte on 3/6/19 Then he filed a false police report and false Child Protective Services Report to take my child away. I had an attorney subpoena The IP address used to post that post is 108.162.219.228, that is coming from San Francisco, CA, posted by Christoffer Thygesen This is impersonation, false report to police of murder and suicide. Christoffer does marijuana, acid and ecstasy, I have the right to know if the welfare of my infant is ok, and if it is considered harassment then your officers need to not tell me and the Spanish Fork Police department that you already informed me that the baby was ok because you never did as evidenced by the audio of the 3 CAD calls above. Also Christoffer Thygesen has made numerous Welfare checks on the infant whom he's never paid child support for and never has seen until he was taken away on false allegations, so it is very unfair that I get threatened by your officers for harassment and false reporting of a crime when I just need to know if my 3.5 months child is ok and have an active restraining order against Christoffer. And if I was not allowed to do the Welfare check it should have been stated by an officer the first time as I clearly informed the Dispatchers there are active restraining orders against both parties. I r 312512019 Gmail -False Police Report Thank you SFPD Park Station, (POL) <SFPDParkStation@sfgov.org> Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:34 PM Ms. Wang, Your email has been forwarded to Captain Bailey for further investigation. She or a supervisor will address the situation and will get back to you. I will send a separate email CC'ing Captain Bailey, so that she can reply to you directly. ----~------------- Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 10:25:42 PM To: Sf PD Park Station, (POL) Subject: False Police Report This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. (Quoted text hidden] Sf PD Park Station, (POL) <SFPDParkStation@sfgov.org> Cc: "Bailey, Una (POL)" <Una.Bailey@sfgov.org> Captain, Please see below email from Ms. Wang. Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 10:25 PM - Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:36 PM State of California, City and County of San Francisco, SEARCH WARRANT and AFFITJA VIT (AFFIDAVIT) I, Sgt. Michele Martinez swear under oath and penalty of perjury that the facts expressed by him/her in the attached and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause are true and that based thereon he/she has probable cause to believe and does believe that the articles, property, and persons described below are lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 et seq., as indicated below, 8nd are now located at the locations set forth below. Wherefore, Affi.ant requests that this Search Warrant be issued. _____ Jvva-~ll;iof-- (Signatw:e of Affiant) Hobbs Sealing Requested: YES~-NO _x Nighttime Search Requested: YES NO _x (SEARCH WARRANT) THE PEOPLE OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: proof by affidavit, under penalty of perjury, having been made before me by Sgt Michele Martinez, that there is probable cause to believe that the property or person described herein may be found at the location(s) set forth herein and that it is lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 et seq., as indicated below by "181 "(s), in that: D It was stolen or embezzled-[1524(a)(l) PC]; [8J It was used as the means of committing a felony-[lS24(aX2) PC]; D It is possessed by a person with the intent to use it ILS means of committing a public offense or is possessed by another to whom he or she may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or preventing its discovery-[1524(a)(3) Pq; 18] It tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony-[1524(a)(4) PC]; D It tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of PC Section 311.3, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under the age of 18 years, in violation of Section 311.11, has occurred or is occurring-[1524(aX5) PC); D An arrest wan'ant is outstanding for the person to be seized -[1S24(a)(6) PC]; D A Child Protective Custody Warrant is outstanding for the person to be seized-[1524(aX6) and Family Code 3134.5]; You are therefore COMMANDED to SEARCH: Purple Samsung Galaxy S9 mobile phone bearing IMEi #353306090958889, associated with telephone number 917~ 432-4181 For the FOLLOWING EVIDENCE from August 1, 2017 to October 17, 2019: By using mobile communication data extraction equipment and/or software members of the San Francisco Police Department will extract the below listed data from the mobile device. If necessary, searching officers are authorized to employ the use of outside experts, acting under the direct contrOI of the investigating officers, to access and preserve any electronic data to be seized: Mobile Cellular Device Identification Information -Brand, Model, Telecommunications Service Provider, Phone Number, MEID, IMEi, IMSI, ESN, MAC Address UDID and any additional Unique Identification Information. Stored Contact List Phone Book Information -Contact Name and/or Aliases, Addresses, Birthdates, Phone Number(s), Photos, E~Mail Addresses, Social Media Account Names, Websites, Instant Message Names and Cloud infonnation stored on the mobile device, SIM card and attached removable storage device. 11117 Stored Phone Logs-Date and Time of Incoming/Outgoing and.Missed calls stored on the mobile device, SIM card and attached removable stdrage device. · ·Stored Text Commuuicatiom -Date and Time of Incoming/Outgoing Short Message Servi co (SMS), Multhnedla Messaging Service (MMS). Instant Messaging (IM) and JlleOOunic Mail (B-MaiQ stored on tho mobllo dovlce, SIM card and attached removable storage dovioo. . . Stored Yofee Mall-Date and Time ofVoioe messages stored locally on the mobile device, SIM card and attached removable storage device. ·· Stored Digital Imam and Vldeoa -Digital images, photographs, videos and movies files with the 8SS<lciated Metaditii. stored on th.ti mobile device, SiM card and attached rem0vab1c storage device. Stored Audio Files -Music, Audio Messages, Musical Tones files with the associated Meta.data stored on the . mobile devi~, SIM 04rd and attaohod removable.storage device. · Stored App!ication Information -Installed_.,.. which can be executed on the mobile oporating syst.m to porfonn local, networl< based and cloud hued oponlionB stored on the mobile dovioe, SIM card and attached reniovable ·storage device. · Stored liieital AuoJication 1111 .. -Calendars, Momos, Spree-, Text filos, Word Prooeosing file, OPS file logs, Web Browser History and other data files associated to executable applications on the mobile operating system stored on lhE! mobile device, SIM card_ and attaohod removable storage devicw .. Stored WlreJm and Wired Logs -Cellular, Wi-Fi, Blustootb and USB Logs showing Date and Time of Connections, Locations of network connectivity, Netwoik Access Point Names, IP Addresses. Device MAC Addl'OS!les and Logoil Connection Credentials Stored on the mobile device, SIM card and attached removable storage dovlce. · . Stored Geographic LocatlonJlall! -Dates and Thnes of ,Manually, PIOJlrogrammed and Automatic stored locations stored on the mobile device. SIM card.and attached removabte·atoragc device. Remoyable Storage Medium -Identifiable and Unidentifiable data files stored on eny removable m¢ium attached or connected during the seizure of the mobile device such as SIM cards, SD cards, micro-SD cards, p0rtable Hard Disk Drives and charging dcvioea. It Is ordered that all infunnation obtained through the execution of the warrant that is unrelated to the . objective of the warrant shall bc sealed aiu! not subject to further review, use, or disclosure withmll a court order. This Search Warrant end Affidavit and attached and incorporated Statement of Probable cause wore sworn to as 1ruc and su~ before· me on !hie lJ+'>. day of .t An. · , 2020, at . ~V'· 'l L-A~Wherefore, I find probable cause fur & issuance of this Search Warrant and do ~a .· . H0bbl Snllng Authorlr.ed: YFS NO~ NlghttlmeSPrdtAuthorlzed: YEB1(" NO_ aglstrat.-;Jor.,..HA). Q,, ,~;:, . D...-tz.e'( urt Department -z... '4 , City and County of San Francisco, Cal!M 11117 Dear Kail in Wang, NOTICE OF SEARCH WARRANT: San Francisco Police Department Special Investigations Division 1245 3'' Street, San Francisco CA 94158 Records or information concerning your electronic communication I device information held by the entity named in the attached search warrant were obtained by the San Francisco Police Department pursuant to a search warrant issued on May 8, 2020 by the Honorable Judge Joseph Quinn, of the Superior Court Department 204. 1bese records were requested for a criminal investigation pertaining to: Criminal Investigation related to Incident Reports 190112228 and 170810414 If you wish further intOrmation, you may contact Sgt. Martinez at 415h553h 1133 Date Name of Investigator Attachment Note: Pursuant to Penal C.:ode § 1546.2 (a) atry government entity that executes a warrant that includes the production of' or access to electronic communication I device information shall serve upon, or deliver to by registered or first-class mail, electronic mail, or other means reasonably calculated to be effective, the ident!fied targets of the warrant, a notice that informs the recipient that information about the recipient has been compelled or requested, and states with reasonable specificity the nature of the government investigation under which the information is sought. The notice shall include a copy of the warrant. The notice shall be provided contemporaneously with the execution of a warrant. City and County of San Francisco Chief of Police Thomas J. Cahill Hall of Justice 850 Bryant Street "s-r/J"- San Francisco, CA 94103 /!-Tlfl Jf.T l"lMTl»t"Z- ' t \ '· lJ S P()STAGL>>PllNF.YOOWES ~'~~· 11'·-- Z,P 94103 $ 000 500 02 11'1 • CH:'CJ I •. -1 ,,,_, __ 1 f<i" Y '-< ;:o;::O fll1L1.v vvfl#?. z y &'/ F/1 ;p.vl'i Of'. Sf/ifa'IJF/ rv,<.k, l(-r J-'166()-/UUS- 1''''1'ill'i1•'11lji.i1i1d1ljili1•Jl•p1•Jll·'iil1·JiJi.ijljpl; 6/19/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-133747340125020767…3/6 Thank you for your response.   What Felony crime is suspected of being committed to execute tis " Search Warrant" for Gmail content?     [Quoted text hidden] Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:09 AM Sgt. Martinez,   Can you explain why the search warrant is being executed now, it appears the timing of the search warrant aids in helping the Thygesen Family with their UCCJEA trial coming up next week.  When you do crack open all these IP addresses, it will show I've been living  in Utah this entire time.  Is there anyway I can get a copy from you?    You've been  investigating since 2/13/19, and these Gmail accounts your searching relates to content dating back Dec. 2018 thru Mar. 2019.    Law enforcement always had access to all this stuff, yet no search warrant was executed until now.   The Thygesens are desperate to pursue criminal charges  against me, so they can keep my child and not worry about child support. I'm an easy target this is also  to punish me for not continuing to conceal the pregnancy.    Your Search Warrant to Google is  the Civil Discovery Order made by Erica T. Johnstone.  Who initially tried to fraud the court by falsely implying I gave consent for email content, thus violating Federal Law.   I've attached the 4/10/19 Transcript of the Hearing. She slipped in an unlimited discovery order, and said I gave consent to content, under the "Cable Act".   When Ericas  discovery order for content and forced consent was DENIED, she reached out to SFPD to have law enforcement do the work in getting Gmail content.   Dirty tricks this team is playing, the Thygesens are very, very, wealthy, they hired  MICHELENE INSALACO, Darrick Chase, and Erica T. Johnstone as just thier San Francisco legal team full time. They are all $575/hr.   Also  the Thygesen family hired Erica T. Johnstone for Walker Stone too.    Walker Stone btw has violated his 3 Yr. PERMANENT Stalking Injunction multiple times, its definitely enough for an arrest and charges in San Francisco.   I think the Thygesen family alleged like 2,000 posts or something, the Spanish Fork District Attorney currently prosecuting me in the Walker Stone case, Jason Sant, has already declined to file new criminal charges even with Christoffer's 1500 pages of alleged " Harassment" Declarations which his legal team hands out to you, mediators, police in 3 states, DAs, etc.   They've spent like $250,000 in 3 months just to take away my baby and to have me prosecuted, in my previous cases there was enough evidence right away, the Thygesens are trying really, really hard, they will Frame me, Fraud the court, and I'm an easy target.   Christoffers lawyers are all $575/hr in San Fran, and he has 3, yet he's never paid a penny toward child support.   The laws regarding email content are below.      Thank you,     [Quoted text hidden]     6/20/2019 Gmail - [5-4623000026543] Notification from Google https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1636612235973567659&simpl=msg-f%3A1636612235973567659&…1/2 Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> [5­4623000026543] Notification from Google  5 messages usernotice@google.com <usernotice@google.com>Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:10 PM To: usernotice@google.com Dear Google user, Google has received legal process issued by the San Francisco Police Department compelling the release of information related to your Google account. The agency reference number or case number on the legal process is 190112228. Unless we promptly receive a copy of a filed motion to quash that is file­stamped by a court of competent jurisdiction, Google may provide responsive documents pursuant to applicable law, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  See 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.  In most cases, the file­stamped objection must be received by Google within 7 days of the date of this notification.  For more information about how Google handles legal process, view our transparency report at http://www.google.com/ transparencyreport/userdatarequests/legalprocess/.   Google is not in a position to provide you with legal advice or discuss the substance of the legal process. A copy of the legal process will be provided upon request. If you have other questions regarding this matter, we encourage you to contact an attorney. Please note that we require an emailed statement sent from your account authorizing us to communicate with your attorney about your account. Please reply to this email or contact usernotice@google.com and reference the case identification number located in the subject line in any further communications regarding this matter. Regards,   Legal Investigations Support  Google LLC You received this announcement to update you about important information in regards to your Google account.     © 2019 Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA 6/20/2019 Gmail - [5-4623000026543] Notification from Google https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=58cf67fca7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1636612236381840296&simpl=msg-f%3A1636612236381840296&s…1/2 K Yg <voplan310@gmail.com> [5­4623000026543] Notification from Google  5 messages usernotice@google.com <usernotice@google.com>Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:10 PM To: usernotice@google.com Dear Google user, Google has received legal process issued by the San Francisco Police Department compelling the release of information related to your Google account. The agency reference number or case number on the legal process is 190112228. Unless we promptly receive a copy of a filed motion to quash that is file­stamped by a court of competent jurisdiction, Google may provide responsive documents pursuant to applicable law, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  See 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.  In most cases, the file­stamped objection must be received by Google within 7 days of the date of this notification.  For more information about how Google handles legal process, view our transparency report at http://www.google.com/ transparencyreport/userdatarequests/legalprocess/.   Google is not in a position to provide you with legal advice or discuss the substance of the legal process. A copy of the legal process will be provided upon request. If you have other questions regarding this matter, we encourage you to contact an attorney. Please note that we require an emailed statement sent from your account authorizing us to communicate with your attorney about your account. Please reply to this email or contact usernotice@google.com and reference the case identification number located in the subject line in any further communications regarding this matter. Regards,   Legal Investigations Support  Google LLC You received this announcement to update you about important information in regards to your Google account.     © 2019 Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA     State of California, City and County of San Fran~isco, SEARCH WARRANT I, Sgt. Michele Martinez #1208, swear under oath and penalty of pe1jury that the facts expressed by him/her in the attached and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause are true and that based thereon he/she has probable cause to believe and does believe that the articles, property, and persons described below are lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 et seq., as indicated below; and are now located at the locations set forth below. Wherefore, Affiant requests that this Search Warrant be issued. Hobbs Sealing Requested: YES __ NO ___K__, (SigllilX{)fAffant) Nighttime Search Requested: YES NO ___K__, (SEARCH WARRANT) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CA: proof by affidavit, under penalty of perjury, having been made before me by Sgt. Michele Martinez, that there is probable cause to believe that the property or person described herein may be found at the location(s) set fotth herein and that it is lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 et seq., as indicated below by_ "12J"(s ), in that: 0 It was stolen or embezzled-[1524(a)(l) PC]; 0 It was used as the means of committing a felony-[1524(a)(2) PC]; D It is possessed by a person with the intent to use it as means of committing a public offense or is possessed by another to whom he or she may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or preventing its discovery-[1524(a)(3) PC]; · IZJ It tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony-[1524(a)(4) PC]; 0 It tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of PC Section 311.3, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under the age of 18 years, in violation of Section 311.11, has occurred or is occurring-[1524(a)(5) PC]; D An arrest warrant is outstanding for the person to be seized-[1524(a)(6) PC]; 0 A Child Protective Custody Warrant is outstanding for the person to be seized-[1524(a)(6) and Family Code 3134.5]; IZJ A provider of "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service", as defined in Penal Code Section 1524.2(a) (including "California corporations" defined as any corporation or other entity that is subject to Section '102 of the Corporations Code and "Foreign corporations" defined as any corporation that is qualified to do business in this state pursuant to Section 2105 of the Corporations Code),.has records or evidence regarding a subscriber or customer which (1) is of a type specified in Penal Code Section 1524.3 (i.e. the subscriber/customer's name, address, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity; the types of services the subscriber/customer utilized; the length of time the person has been a subscriber/customer of that service; and the local and long distance telephone toll billing records); and (2) which records or evidence shows that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in possession of any person with intent to use them as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their discovery -[1524( a)(7) PC]; You are therefore COMMANDED to SEARCH: Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 For the FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: Request #1: All documents, records or other information that identify or may lead to the identification and location of person(s) using, or who has in the past used, the following 16 email addresses from ac·count creation to the present, including the following specific inf01mation: 1. Name of user 2. Phone number of user. . ' 3. Backup email address provided by user 4. User profile details 5. Date of account creation and account deletion 6. Log of all emails sent and received including date, time, sender, recipient, associated device infonnationf and location and IP aqdress of the user at the time each email was sent/received. 7. IP address and location of the user each time Gmail (website, IMAP, SMTP server, or otherwise) was accessed 8. Billing and payment information along with financial institution name for each account These include the following email addresses: Reg uest#2: Emails, including header information, sent from any of the following domains to any one of the 16 Gmail accounts listed in Request #1: · • medium.com • scribd.com • holysmoke.c.:irg • thedirty.com • deadbeatsexposed.com • ssa.gov Reguest#3: • Sender's IP address and the location of sender for each of the 15 emails listed in Attachment A It is ordered that all information obtained through the execution of the warrant that is unrelated to the objective of the warrant shall be sealed and not subject to ftJrther review, use, or disclosure without a court order. Google, Inc. shall be compensated by the San Francisco Police Department for reasonable expenses . incurred in complying with the court's order. 'i (, I Wherefore, I request that a search wanant be issued, commanding the immediate search of the premises above designated for the property or things above described and that such property be brought before a magistrate or retained as provided in Section 1536 of the California Penal Code. This Search Warrant and Affidavit and attached and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause were sw~r_:: t~ ~s tr~ subscribed before me on this (Gtl,, day of N\ M, , 2019, at ~Nl/ I P .M. Wherefore, I find probable cause for the issuance of this Search Warrant and do issue it. ~~ Hwmv~ ~ Signhturi'of Magistrate Judge of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco; Dept.#_~\ -~-- Hobbs Sealing Authorized: YES_ Nif<J Nighttime Search Authorized: YES_ NO("' Attachment A Date Message ID To 12/5/18 <CAAGYpv17oOqcfofXCo6wHbWDz)yvXKJKZq2CNPwymhY _ athygese@stanford.edu qSoOGw@mail.gmail.com> From lancewr12@gmail.com 12/06/18 <CAAGYpv2XGQNVuze--DOfDQWCmNQnJi1Wcv'Nl/A- OjOGk2SGY9FQ@mail.gmail.com> terry.thygesen@gmail.com lancewr12@gmail.com 1.2/28/18 <CAAGYpv1P1bgc-dchase@kayemoser.com Ww=190EiSrmOQnuSA9Rcp1Dd23o2DoZ9=XUUQ@mail .gmail.com> 1/4/19 <CAAGYpv2vb2z:YxtOvFYWpwL+rB=wyZ77agFBnbNeaqT dchase@kayemoser.com 7SyA4AzQ@mail.gmail.com> lancewr12@gmail.com lancewr12@gmail.com ·subject Regarding Christoffer Thygesen your message abou·t Christoffer In Re Thygesen and Wang . In Re Thygesen and Wang· State of California, City and County of San Fran~isco, SEARCH WARRANT I, Sgt. Michele Martinez #1208, swear under oath and penalty of pe1jury that the facts expressed by him/her in the attached and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause are true and that based thereon he/she has probable cause to believe and does believe that the articles, property, and persons described below are lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 et seq., as indicated below; and are now located at the locations set forth below. Wherefore, Affiant requests that this Search Warrant be issued. Hobbs Sealing Requested: YES __ NO ___K__, (SigllilX{)fAffant) Nighttime Search Requested: YES NO ___K__, (SEARCH WARRANT) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CA: proof by affidavit, under penalty of perjury, having been made before me by Sgt. Michele Martinez, that there is probable cause to believe that the property or person described herein may be found at the location(s) set fotth herein and that it is lawfully seizable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 et seq., as indicated below by_ "12J"(s ), in that: 0 It was stolen or embezzled-[1524(a)(l) PC]; 0 It was used as the means of committing a felony-[1524(a)(2) PC]; D It is possessed by a person with the intent to use it as means of committing a public offense or is possessed by another to whom he or she may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or preventing its discovery-[1524(a)(3) PC]; · IZJ It tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony-[1524(a)(4) PC]; 0 It tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of PC Section 311.3, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under the age of 18 years, in violation of Section 311.11, has occurred or is occurring-[1524(a)(5) PC]; D An arrest warrant is outstanding for the person to be seized-[1524(a)(6) PC]; 0 A Child Protective Custody Warrant is outstanding for the person to be seized-[1524(a)(6) and Family Code 3134.5]; IZJ A provider of "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service", as defined in Penal Code Section 1524.2(a) (including "California corporations" defined as any corporation or other entity that is subject to Section '102 of the Corporations Code and "Foreign corporations" defined as any corporation that is qualified to do business in this state pursuant to Section 2105 of the Corporations Code),.has records or evidence regarding a subscriber or customer which (1) is of a type specified in Penal Code Section 1524.3 (i.e. the subscriber/customer's name, address, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity; the types of services the subscriber/customer utilized; the length of time the person has been a subscriber/customer of that service; and the local and long distance telephone toll billing records); and (2) which records or evidence shows that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in possession of any person with intent to use them as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their discovery -[1524( a)(7) PC]; You are therefore COMMANDED to SEARCH: Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 For the FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: Request #1: All documents, records or other information that identify or may lead to the identification and location of person(s) using, or who has in the past used, the following 16 email addresses from ac·count creation to the present, including the following specific inf01mation: 1. Name of user 2. Phone number of user. . ' 3. Backup email address provided by user 4. User profile details 5. Date of account creation and account deletion 6. Log of all emails sent and received including date, time, sender, recipient, associated device infonnationf and location and IP aqdress of the user at the time each email was sent/received. 7. IP address and location of the user each time Gmail (website, IMAP, SMTP server, or otherwise) was accessed 8. Billing and payment information along with financial institution name for each account These include the following email addresses: Reg uest#2: Emails, including header information, sent from any of the following domains to any one of the 16 Gmail accounts listed in Request #1: · • medium.com • scribd.com • holysmoke.c.:irg • thedirty.com • deadbeatsexposed.com • ssa.gov Reguest#3: • Sender's IP address and the location of sender for each of the 15 emails listed in Attachment A It is ordered that all information obtained through the execution of the warrant that is unrelated to the objective of the warrant shall be sealed and not subject to ftJrther review, use, or disclosure without a court order. Google, Inc. shall be compensated by the San Francisco Police Department for reasonable expenses . incurred in complying with the court's order. 'i (, I Wherefore, I request that a search wanant be issued, commanding the immediate search of the premises above designated for the property or things above described and that such property be brought before a magistrate or retained as provided in Section 1536 of the California Penal Code. This Search Warrant and Affidavit and attached and incorporated Statement of Probable Cause were sw~r_:: t~ ~s tr~ subscribed before me on this (Gtl,, day of N\ M, , 2019, at ~Nl/ I P .M. Wherefore, I find probable cause for the issuance of this Search Warrant and do issue it. ~~ Hwmv~ ~ Signhturi'of Magistrate Judge of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco; Dept.#_~\ -~-- Hobbs Sealing Authorized: YES_ Nif<J Nighttime Search Authorized: YES_ NO("' Attachment A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED FAMILY COURT CHRISTOFFER STANFORD THYGESEN, Petitioner VS. KAILIN WANG, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number: FDV-19-814465 Hearing Date: June 6, 2019 Hearing Time: 9:00 AM Department: 404 Presiding: RICHARD C. DARWIN HEARING RE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TENTATIVE RULING Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the court makes the following findings and orders: Respondent’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to Google is granted with respect to Request No. 2. Petitioner acknowledges that Request No. 2 seeks communications covered by the federal Stored Communications Act, and the court finds that Respondent did not consent to the disclosure of those communications. The court finds that the “consent” contained in the court’s April 10, 2019 discovery order was not valid, and that order is hereby corrected as set forth below. Respondent’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to Google is denied with respect to Requests Nos. 1 and 3. The court finds that, as narrowed through Petitioner’s agreement with Google (to remove all email subject lines), Requests Nos. 1 and 3 do not seek, and will not result in the disclosure of, user communications. The court finds that Petitioner has met both prongs of the test set forth in Krinksy v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154. The court notes that, among other things, Petitioner took reasonable steps to notify the users, and in fact the party now objecting to the disclosure of the requested identification information, Respondent, obviously received adequate notice of the subpoena. The court also finds that the Petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the communications at issue are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 actionable, that they constitute domestic abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, and are not protected under the First Amendment. See, Krinksy, 159 Cal.App.4th at 1164 (First Amendment protection is not available for communications “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”) Respondent’s motion to quash the subpoenas issued to Comcast and Charter are also denied. For the same reasons set forth above, the court finds that the subpoenas do not seek, and will not result in the disclosure of, user communications. The court finds that Petitioner has met both prongs of the test set forth in Krinksy with respect to those subpoenas. The court finds that Requests 1 and 3 of the Google subpoena, and the requests in the Comcast and Charter subpoenas, are not overbroad and do not implicate irrelevant, private, or privileged information. Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 473(d), the court hereby corrects the April 10, 2019 discovery order to REMOVE AND DELETE the following language, “Ordered, that this order shall be deemed effective as consent of the subscriber for Petitioner to obtain all relevant information from OSP’s and ISP’s, including without limitation log files, location information, identifying information, subscriber information, metadata, and the contents of postings or communications by, to, or from the subscriber.” Respondent’s request for sanctions is denied. Coo<Jle LLC !GUO 1\mpl11theatre l·';irkway Mount;rn1 View, C;11iforn•a 9404;\ Via Email and Express Courier Erica@RCJLawGroup.com Erica Johnstone Ridder, Costa & Johnstone, LLP 12 Geary Street, Suite 701 San Francisco, California 94108 415-391-3311 Go gle May 2, 2019 fl ooqle·IPq;.1l-support@no1.i9le.cr.>111 WWW,\j(H)[]l(lJ;Olll Re: Christoffer S. Thygesen v. Kailin Wang, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, FDV-19-14465 (Internal Ref. No. 2466628) Dear Erica Johnstone: Google LLC ("Google"), a non-party to your litigation, has received your subpoena, dated April 19, 2019, in the above-referenced matter (the "Subpoena").As we understand it, your Subpoena requests documents or testimony related to the Google accounts associated with BONB4905@GMAIL.COM, COURTORDER6678@GMAIL.COM, EGGFU45@GMAIL.COM, GANS345@GMAIL.COM, GFGDE@GMAIL.COM, GG@GMAIL.COM, HANJUN083@GMAIL.COM, JBARKETN345@GMAIL.COM, KA YWG4456@GMAIL.COM, LANCE WR 12@GMAIL.COM, QTEMPERT@GMAIL.COM, SERVEBYEMAILS@GMAIL.COM, TVNPVN688@GMAIL.COM, VOPLAN3 I O@GMAIL.COM, WALKERSTONESTALKER@GMAIL.COM, ZBARKEN@GMAIL.COM. Without waiving the below objections, Google may be willing to produce responsive data, to the extent it exists and is available, subject to the limitations below. Google further hereby makes the following objections to the Subpoena. Google has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for the documents requested by the Subpoena and has determined that it does not have possession, custody, or control of responsive documents for WALKERSTONESTALKER@GMAIL.COM, GFGDE@GMAIL.COM, GG@GMAIL.COM. User Notification Google objects to the Subpoena to the extent it fails to allow sufficient time for Google to notify the affected user and for the user to asse1t his or her rights in response. Google provides its users at least 21 days to object to your request or to inform Google of their intent to file a motion to quash. If your subpoena sufficiently identifies a Google account, Google intends to forward notice of this matter, including your name and contact information, to the user at the email address provided by the user. Violation of Federal Law As written, the Subpoena can be construed to include information we are prohibited from disclosing. Google objects on the grounds that Section 2702(a) of the federal Stored Communications Act ("SCA") prohibits Google from disclosing the content of electronic communications or content stored on behalfofthe user pursuant to a subpoena. 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a) see e.g., Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp, 671 F.3d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 2011 ); Theo/el v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004); Mintz v. (~oogle LL C "1600 Arnph1theat1e Parkway Mou11trnn View, California 94043 Go gle 901>ale-IP9al-supfNrt@goo~1le. con 1 www.vooplt~"co111 Mark Barte/stein & Assocs., Inc. 885 F. Supp. 2d 987, 993-94 (C.D. Cal. 2012); Jn re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC., 550 F.Supp.2d 606, 611 (E.D. Va. 2008); Flagg v. City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346, 366 (E.D. Mich. 2008); Viacom Int'! Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 253 F.R.D. 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); O'Grady v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423, 1441-43 (2006). Instead, the appropriate way to seek such content is to direct your request to the account holder who has access to the data in the account and is the party to whom discovery requests should be directed. Suzlon, 671 F.3d 726, 730-31; Mintz, 885 F. Supp. 2d at 993-94; 0 'Grady, 139 Cal. App. 4th at 1446-47. If the account holder is a party to the underlying litigation, you may serve a document request on the account holder for the content sought. See Mintz, 885 F. Supp. 2d at 993-94; 0 'Grady, 13 Cal. App. 4th at 1446-6 7; see also Flagg, 252 F.R.D. at 348, 366-67. Google users can obtain and produce their account content themselves, or by using Google Takeout, available at www.google.com/takeout/. Deposition/Testimony Google objects to the Subpoena to the extent it calls for a deposition or testimony on May 09, 2019, and does not intend to make a witness available on the requested date pursuant to its objections below. I. Google objects on the grounds that the Subpoena imposes an undue burden on Google, a non- party. Google also objects on the grounds that the information sought can be obtained through less burdensome means, including from the parties to the case or through the production of documents in response to the Subpoena. 2. Google objects to the extent that the Subpoena is seeking testimony to authenticate records produced by Google. Such testimony is unnecessary and unduly burdensome as records can be'- authenticated by Certificate of Authenticity. 3. Google objects to the extent that the Subpoena calls for testimony more properly sought from an expert witness, including but not limited to testimony regarding how Google's products or services work. 4. Google objects on the grounds that the Subpoena is vague, overbroad, duplicative, cumulative, and oppressive. Google frn1her objects to the extent the Subpoena is served for the purpose of annoying and harassing Google, a non-party. 5. Google objects on the grounds that the Subpoena demands that Google, a non-party, appear as a witness at its own expense. To the extent that Google appears as a witness pursuant to the Subpoena, Google shall only do so upon compensation allowed under applicable law for any costs, including attorney fees, related to the deposition. 6. Google objects to the time and place for deposition set by the Subpoena. To the extent that Google appears as a witness pursuant to the Subpoena, Google shall do so at a mutually agreeable time and place. Additional Objections 1. Google objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks to impose an undue burden on a disinterested non-party. Google further objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information already in a party's possession or available to a patiy from some other source (including public sources) that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive. Google objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible to Google. 2. Google objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case, not relevant to any party's claims or defenses, or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Cuoqle 11.C 11>tlC! r\rnphillHodtre Parkway Moulll<J1n View, C~ililornin 94043 Go gle \JOO<Jle-lewil-&11pport@[)ooole co111 www.goonle com 3. Google objects to the Subpoena to the extent it specifies a date of production and date of deposition that is unreasonable and unduly burdensome, including because it may not afford Google time to provide sufficient notice to the user. 4. Google objects to the Subpoena (including but not limited to the messages associated with exhibits 6, 7, and 15 of Request #3) to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, unlimited in time or scope, or fails to identify the information sought with reasonable particularity. Accordingly, Google further objects to the Subpoena to the extent it purports to require Google to preserve the requested information. Therefore you should not assume that Google will undertake steps to preserve any information in response to your Subpoena. Google is willing to meet and confer to discuss any preservation request. 5. Google objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks to impose obligations on Google beyond what is permissible under applicable law. Google reserves the right to further object to the Subpoena in any additional response. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned at the Legal Support Department alias at GOOGLE-LEGAL-SUPPORT@GOOGLE.COM. Additionally, should you wish to seek any judicial relief in connection with this matter, Google requests the opportunity to meet and confer in advance of any such ft1 ing. Thank you. Very truly yours, /s/ Laura Devine Legal Investigations Support Christoffer Stanford Thygesen v, Kailin Wang Case No. FDV-19-814465 Attachment ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEA VE TO FILE DISCOVERY The parties appeared before the Court on Wednesday, April 10, 2019. Based on the papers on file, the arguments of the parties, and the evidence in the record, the Court finds that there is good cause for Petitioner to serve third-party discovery on online service providers and internet service providers, to obtain additional evidence concerning the identity and location of the persons responsible for communications and content posted online related to this dispute - including harassing, defamatory and threatening or otherwise unlawful emails and internet postings concerning or related to Christoffer Stanford Thygesen, Kailin Wang, Kayson Thygesen Wang, or any of their family members, colleagues or associates. The Court finds that this discovery is directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of this matter, and that Petitioner's interest in obtaining this information via a subpoena outweighs the privacy interests of the anonymous party who has posted such content. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner may serve subpoenas on any online service providers (OSPs) through which harassing, threatening, defamatory or otherwise unlawful content has been posted or communicated, including without limitation Medium, Gmail, Facebook, Instagram, and any other website or online service provider. ORDERED that Petitioner may serve subpoenas on internet service providers (ISPs) to identify the identity, location, and other relevant data concerning the subscribers associated with IP addresses identified in OSP subpoena responses, or otherwise identified by Petitioner as relevant to this matter. Such ISPs shall include, without limitation Comcast, CenturyLink, Stealth Communications, and Charter/Spectrum. ORDERED that this order shall be deemed effective as consent of the subscriber for Petitioner to obtain all relevant information from OSPs and ISPs, including without limitation log files, location information, identifying information, subscriber information, metadata, and the contents of postings or communications by, to or from the subscriber. ORDERED that if an ISP is a cable operator within the meaning of 4 7 USC § 551 (a)(2)(C), discovery shall be conditioned on (a) the cable provider having seven (7) calendar days after service of the subpoena to notify subscriber(s) that their identity is sought by Petitioner; (b) each subscriber whose identity is sought having twenty one (21) calendar days from the date of such notification to file any papers contesting the subpoena; and ( c) payment to ISP by Petitioner of all reasonable costs of (i) compiling the requested information; (ii) providing pre-disclosure notifications to subscribers; and (iii) all other reasonable costs and fees incurred responding to discovery. ISPs may provide notice using any reasonable means, including but not limited to written notice sent to the subscriber's last known address, transmitted either by first class mail or via overnight service. ORDERED that any subpoena issued pursuant to this order shall be deemed an appropriate court order under 4 7 U.S. C. § 5 51. ORDERED that good faith attempts by a cable of~t,or to notify the subscriber(s) shall constitute c_ompliance with this order. Gl' \ ' Dated: Apnl 10, 2019 --~.\--\!..!_~-~~--~===~---........__; JUDGE RICHARD C. DARWIN SUBP-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATIORNEY (Name, State &Jr number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY w=rica T. Johnstone, Esq. (242067) Ridder, Costa & Johnstone LLP 12 Geary Street, Suite 701 -San Francisco, CA 94108 TELEPHONE NO. ( 415) 391-3311 FAX NO · E-MAIL ADDRESS erica@rcjlawgroup.com ATIORNEY FOR (Name) Christoffer Stanford Thygesen SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY ANO ZIP CODE· San Francisco CA 94102 BRANCH NAME; PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Christoffer S. Thygesen DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kailin Wang DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER; FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FDV-19-814465 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): Google, Inc., Google Legal Investigations Support, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mtn View, CA94043 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: To (name of deposition officer): Erica J. Johnstone JI· On (date): May 9, 2019 At (time): 9:00am Location (address): 12 Gearv Street Suite 701 -San Francicso CA 94018 Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above. a. 0 by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner wrapper with the title and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in item 1. b. D by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined under Evidence Code section 1563(b). c. D by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours. 2. The records are to be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561. 3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): 0 Continued on Attachment 3. 4. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Juoicial Councn of California SUBP-010 (Rev. January 1 2012) Attorney for Petitioner Thygesen (Proof of service on reverse} DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS (TITLE} Page 1of2 Code of C1v11 Procedure,§§ 2020.410-2020.440; Government Code, § 68097 1 www courts.ca gov -PLAINTIFFtPET1T10NER: Christoffer S. Thygesen CASE NUMBER: FDV-19-814465 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kailin WanQ PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS SUBP-010 1. I served this Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows: a. Person served (name): b. Address where served: c. Date of delivery: d. Time of delivery: e. (1) D Witness fees were paid . Amount: .............. $ (2) D Copying fees were paid . Amount: .............. $ f. Fee for service: ................. $ 2. I received this subpoena for service on (date): 3. Person serving: a. D Not a registered California process server. b. D California sheriff or marshal. c. D Registered California process server. d. D Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server. e. D Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). f. D Registered professional photocopier. g. D Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451 . h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. (For California sheriff or marshal use only) I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: SUBP--010 [Rev. January 1, 2012] Date: (SIGNATURE) DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS (SIGNATURE) Page 2 of 2            -- %0$6.&/54 3&$03%4 03 05)&3 */'03."5*0/ 5)"5 *%&/5*': 03 .": -&"% 50 5)& *%&/5*'*$"5*0/ "/% -0$"5*0/ 0' 5)& 1&340/4 64*/( 03 8)0 )"4 */ 5)& 1"45 64&% 5)& '0--08*/(  &."*- "%%3&44&4 '30. "$$06/5 $3&"5*0/ 50 5)& 13&4&/5 */$-6%*/( 5)& '0--08*/( 41&$*'*$ */'03."5*0/  ".& 0' 64&3  )0/& /6.#&3 0' 64&3  "$,61 &."*- "%%3&44 1307*%&% #: 64&3  !4&3 130'*-& %&5"*-4  "5& 0' "$$06/5 $3&"5*0/  "5& 0' "$$06/5 %&-&5*0/  0( 0' "-- &."*-4 4&/5 "/% 3&$&*7&% */$-6%*/( %"5& 5*.& 4&/%&3 3&$*1*&/5 "440$*"5&% %&7*$& */'03."5*0/ "/% -0$"5*0/ "/%  "%%3&44 0' 5)& 64&3 "5 5)& 5*.& &"$) &."*- 8"4 4&/53&$&*7&%   "%%3&44 "/% -0$"5*0/ 0' 5)& 64&3 &"$) 5*.& ."*- 8&#4*5&    4&37&3 03 05)&38*4& 8"4 "$$&44&%  *--*/( "/% 1":.&/5 */'03."5*0/ "-0/( 8*5) '*/"/$*"- */45*565*0/ /".& '03 &"$) "$$06/5 )&4& */$-6%& 5)& '0--08*/( #0/#  (."*-$0.  $063503%&3(."*-$0.  &(('6 (."*-$0.  ("/4 (."*-$0.  ('(%&(."*-$0.  (((."*-$0.  )"/+6/ (."*-$0.  +#"3,&5/ (."*-$0.  ,":8( (."*-$0.  -"/$&83 (."*-$0.  25&.1&35(."*-$0.  4&37&#:&."*-4(."*-$0. 13. tvnpvn688@gmail.com 14. voplan31 O@gmail.com 15. walkerstonestalker@gmail.com 16. zbarken@gmail.com REQUEST NO. 2: Emails, including header infonnation, sent from any of the following domains to any one of the 16 Gmail accounts listed in Request No. 1: medium.com scribd.com holysmoke.org thedirty.com deadbeatsexposed.com ssa.gov my life.com REQUEST NO. 3: Sender's IP address and the location of sender for each of emails listed below (see Exhibits 1-15 for message content and additional details concerning each message). Exh Date Message ID To From Subject 1 12/5/2018 <CAAGYpv17oOqcfofXCo6wH athygese@stanford.edu lancewr12 Regarding bWDzTyvXKJKZq2CNPwymh @gmail.co Christoffer Y _qSoOGw@mail.gmail.com> m Thygesen 2 12/28/2018 <CAAGYpv2XGQfWuze·-terry. thygesen@gmail .c lancewr12 your DOfDQWCmNQnJi1 WcviWA-om @gmail.co message Oj0Gk2SGY9FQ@mail.gmail. m about com> Christoffer 3 12/28/2018 <CAAGYpvlPlbgc-dchase@kayemoser.co lancewr12 In Re Ww= 190EiSrmOQnuSA9 m @gmail.co Thygesen Rcp1Dd23o2DoZ9=XUU m and Wang Q@mail.gmail.com> 2 4 1/4/2019 <CAAGYpv2vb2zYxtOvFY dchase@kayemoser.co lancewr12 In Re WpwL+rB=wyZ77agFBn m @gmail.co Thygesen bNeaqT7SyA4AzQ@mail. m and Wang gmail.com> 5 2/20/2019 <CAAXS57XFft8-athygese@stanford.edu courtorder Order of 06Y53xhNA6GgT09-6678@gm Protection : 495STkFO+ _KLOkLQU8 ail.com Christoffer m=Q@mail.gmail.com> Stanford Thygesen 6 2/20/2019 board@mpcsd.org courtorder Order of 6678@gm Protection : ail.com Christoffer Stanford Thygesen 7 2/22/2019 nth@econ.ku.dk bonb4908 Christoffer @gmail.co Thygesen m 8 2/28/2019 <CAAXS57UVmQok08UVeS+ clucas@mpcsd.org; Courtorder Christoffer eOKfZGyS=EUgua55SX=VeTC dackerman@mpcsd.org 6678@gm Thygesen Z06VwOdQ@mail.gmail.com> ; sjones@mpcsd.org; ail.com ssaywell@mpcsd.org; sychen@mpcsd.org 9 3/6/2019 <CAAXS57U82_=AhNvR athygese@stanford.edu Courtorder Restraining 6n8YGh1q8~cVQ1445G 6678@gm Order BNiaoBPJ 11uAznA@mail. ail.com Against - gmail.com> Christoffer Stanford Thygesen 10 3/10/2019 <CAAXS57W8=QpZwuO athygese@stanford.edu Courtorder Active ncEFebLOndUZm4v-6678@gm Restraining ui1NOKehwZ8-ail.com Order =TX= kf A@mail .gmail .co against m> Christoffer Stanford Thygesen 11 3/23/2019 <CAD7SSEaAZNVwxeB3RTX board@mpcsd.org; servebyem Police 3e8pQJgcxTUwunRdcsP9bMh escowans@menlopark.o ails@gmail Assistance URYB_nrg@mail.gmail.com> rg .com Needed 12 4/7/2019 <CAAGYpv1 SicUzZm8tPov2x dchase@kayemoser.co Lancewr12 Status of IZ6Mgwb1_ 10Um4KFnHOvzM3 m· @gmail.co -r6H=G 1 w@mail.gmail.com> , johnwangphoto@yahoo m .com 3 13 4/11/2019 <154FF470-1457-4502-erica@rcjlawgroup.com Voplan310 Christoffer 8BA3-@gmail.co Stanford 28A17ESFSE01@gmail.c m Thygesen om> vs. Kailin Wang 14 2/3/2019 <CAAGYpv2QdFk+wxPw lancewr12 In Re kMgahwD-dchase@kayemoser.co @gmail.co Thygesen JRM FyeRmHRsgYW3oZO m m and Wang FT_- vH9Q@mail.gmail.com> 15 3/26/2018 dcourt@utahcounty.gov voplan310 Prosecution @gmail.co Racism m 4 = l L1n i,(' t ~'0 ·..: lr:ui rP\t\11 1 ?@9 rnrl il.con1 ;;. ' Rt19.Hding Christoffer ThygM~n T "'-ll'11~~~e...,, , ..... ,. ................. 1.-=-o: ...... ,J-----------------i ,_ JC~A r,:epy.jpg Ille 709 a:g l apologize for platforms l"ve u.'led to r~ach out but I c:l~11·1 know your coot1ie1 info. But tbis is 1.U"!cttt. I just del\ve1'\"cl your so,n Chrls1offer-'1 son on 11/26/18. We: ur1et wMI~ I was vtsiting SF arotitnd 3/4/19. ~ be-came a·w·a~·(" E was: pfle8n~ nt on 16 /20 / L.a and informed Christoffer who.11r1 wanted .an abo rticm. l then drt'.lve 600 nd~es t\'I mH? ro •iD aboirtfon d I 1•mc: Chrlisroff i? 1• wc:iu Id nor w I rti 1'111e rhe 111ema Ening t'O.d 1ohhe aibo:rtion and I was left stranded 1md d~d not end \1p g,ening the abortion. !(See Texm:)l Sh1c:e daen your son has connibufed SO towards ithe pregne11cy Stnd did not ·l?\ll'llli ir~xr ro se~ boW' th• delivery or his SO•ll WelU eve11 though he kJJewthe due-date. I have filed for establishment of p-ate-1"11ity .md. for child smpport but wanted to infonnyou ahouty"our grandsou and once paternity ha~ been esrabhshed maybe you can d iscuss w/ Chnstoffer what type of role he will be-mklng as :l father. Em~il header: 1Dellvered1-To: aUant@google.i;am Email to Christoffers Mother regarding her Grandson ~«c!'ived: by 2002:ai25:db09:0~0:0:0:0 witti SMTP id g;9csp266756yb'f; Wed. 5 D<lc 2018 16: 59:59 -0800 1[PST~ X-Google-Smtp-So urce: AFSGD/WR9m9wCw9PVn/btH3.ZSiVAKEKg/lefSgvMla:XexONkwYyvbw56t73hbq3/hmCNA4r/XprutKV X~Received: by 2002::aa7 :db0e:: with SMTP id t14mr231B1982eds.292.15440,57999091: Wed, 05 Dec 201816:59:59 -0800 (PST} ARC~Seal: i=2; a=rsa·sha256; t=1544057999; cv=pass; d•google.com; s•arc-20160816; b• BShTwMycxFyV4PfiE24pl<VtuD81H P/o9T JKx7s1dBTn/3/ /WNur9gBUvY 6d>Jv9fr UyilJbP7h3vRYRRRLFxjOvayEq5pgT/QOxRhoHToyQmft~pZSRORvBhXrlub0meY04QsS = t 'S If'§ Pit 1 2 . m I S'S? " I I I a, "' 1 a , en c '· c· 1 a · tR' er L ,l1'L(" l 1:1P • "ll 1t ( 'W1 l, ~ r~1 ~;rn11ittfWF1 ~­ b )'I041f ll'tUllU!f,Jt; libC.ut 'Chiii-Wofl!il 1 w~!; hori11g fhriscoffer·s &mil~' could! 1nnc lo hm11 and figuTe out if M t\rantc; to co ... rarnt Adoprmn/Sngmng mYny righ~"'i rm.:i IK\1. options. l'i..~r me. I bn\'C' C:-tfll'Ch~dl co him1] '!,.\l'C)Uld like to ~o-pnr1en:r artd possible' v.nrr:tHiug p~ans.. Sine~ thms js hi5 1md 1111}1 I S>t ii.·hild c:u-pnr~nung could Olill}' ~possible ifhomh our f.i:m31mes he!ped Ol"·mous1~·. di::tail~11.l discussions. ·wiJ I entail Etfter rlhe ('Ourr 01.'dt>red DNA resa., bul . .sinl:'e custody b~ing~ tetld to b •C!l.'!Ol'1ll·ica_ted alld lcnf!Cihy. it would. b best if 111.e m:u;IJ [ icntaeiv1:<ly km."!il' \vim-I \.-\'t ·wan1: ahead ,o( time. llaby K rL)"::iOn wri'!i lmm ~• km;. ~kmrmy :md he=lUby brsfly. Ou i1111\. ~ 6. ~01 s 11t ~: n iU1 T i:ey n.y~liilt .::,yn.U)yvs~1ai'J,e-011P \\wt•: Def.It Lbfllentfl)I, .Ali.n !il!l)lj I bg&h jl,1$1 qi;:....-.d )'O'llr l'flflff9M fll'tll illf•lllllfl M 1Llnklli:ln Wll!ll'i' :;-cu ·llJ\I lldlldl u IKI~ w "' IN Glollli' Htw ''1'!!1'11.....,1• :llid ilii1·•llo ~ 1t'lfl Urflfl mHH~ l'tMl'l ')'Dll vlfl 'lllii !limd Mli'll'1i!I UlldH 11'11· namilli at Llnll' l]..<1t1t. N..,le!lt 1:6 :VI)!, wa 1'11..,i!' tielJ!i t&JJjJl'i! ci'lmjiletilij 1,mBJN1r1 by JQYr llllll'N$ 111Q ,11r• ll1 "ll!trill r;il ~. WtJ would' lb to tall ID1 ~ lo1 Mil ilibcUI tn. Nll)t <11\Q yow pl!li!l!i w. tlil(IV l!)o 1"$ICIW<t ov1 to C"ir!Ilo'ffar 10 INrn il'J'IOi'B. Th& 1plc;t1.1 ~H ·Q~ IN ND)' •Ir. IMIUllM Wl!ll wtt ""'P• -.1 mlll1I <lllCi ll!!il7.Ji· ll!ffl bvli1 'llQ,Jlg 'Wll!ll IEm~il header: Deliverecla To: terry.thy.gesen@g.ma~loom Received: by ·2002~a1c:96ca50~0:0~:0 with SMTIP id y1'93csp11246830v.rrnd~ Thu. 6 l)e( 2018 15:2£Hl9 -0800 (Psn Email to Christoffers Mother regaJding her Grandson X-Received: by 2002 :a6 7:10c3:~ with SMTP id 186mr13 6.52261 vsq.209 .1544136889058; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:28m ~0800 (PS11 ARC·Sea1I: i=1; a=rsa·sha256; t=1$44138889; cv•none; d=google.ieom; s=arc-201·60816~ b•fyM5o6m3wY20YD'.XhzdJgE5900NU211VNzk/2..zDUgywr.NeDgqDPylzARPWwfwBwp10 1 HWQalzF1AVF.zp+H8rZZc30Uaryl-l I B2w0tf /fTB oZil192/Cvr»k60uaM7y'V5bk10KcYe6 84 1uoEOFHkKS8mZ87+dE's0m57·6FjHu6:duYooygA47mt4V)(gn54+D3jbhxXm0aasPrp1 'd )(. 7k0 . <' .. .~..I •(!.t_ .,, '. .'"~ rJ..~ ~ ' • .. t It • . ' ' I ·.,, ~ ....... , ~ ,. ... . . 'I La ni e Lee < lance wr 12@g rn ajf.con1> Status of Kayson Dear Mr. Cbaset lt•s been ov1er l month and ,Ne have rec1eived mo pictures~ heaJth: nor upda~es on Kayson my 4 months oid son. Christoffer Thyg.esen has also e\·aded multiple service attempts to service him the Utah Protective Order \'.rhich w·as also sent to yourself and his counsel in Utah. I \\-ill note this as the second maybe 3rd attempt made to inquire about the heahh: status, and \\'ell-being of my 4 months old Kayson Wang. Kailin Wang Email headerr: REQUESTS TO HISATIORNEY , . WHEN IWAS Recerved : from MW2PR18MB22 50.nam PRO-SE IS NOT (2603:10b6:300:B1::33) by MW2PR18MB22 52.namprd18 .prod. HARASSMENT via MWHPR14CA0071.NAMPR014.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 21:59:08 +0000 Received: from BN6PR1801CA0036.namprd 18.prod.outlook.com • K Vg <vo pla n3, 1 O@g ma iltc:o n1 > Thu 4/ l 1/.101 91 l..~6 N.Jt Erica iohns,tone ~ rm requesting the index o·t 100 posts and 77 contacts and all!I evidence su1bm1itted in thi:s1 case1 that you p~esented to court ·for caise FDV-19-81~4615. rm a'lso requesting for ,a 1C01py of the IOiS(overy Reques.t Orders. yoiu made while,~ did no:t ha,ve an attorney pr1esent in court on 4/iS/19. Re,ceived: fro1m DMSPR04MtB0253.,na ,mprd04. --od.outlook.c·om (2603:l0b6;li01;20::24} by MWHP'R104MB0256.namprd04 .. prod.outloo . cairn with HTIPS via C01PR15CA0080.NAMPRD1S.PR01D .. OUTLOOK. _OM;. Thu, 11Apr2019 20:26~13 +0000 Received: from BN6PR04CA0099m nam prd04 .. pr _ d .. outlook.com (2603: 1.0b6:404:c9::25) by DMSPR0,4M'H0253.namprd04.prod.outloo'k. om1 1(260.3:10b6:.3;6d~·:'22) with M1'icrosoft SMTP Server (versi1cn=TILS1 .... 2, REQUESTS TO, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES~2Si6=GCIM~S HIS ATTORNEY 7; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:261:12 +0000 WHEN I WAS Received; from DM3NAM03FT006.eop .. NAM03,.pr · PRO-SE IS NOT -om (.2.a01:111~f400,:7e49:~201) by BN6PR04CA0099.o HARASSMENT 1(2G03:10b6;404:c9::25)1 with IMi1cr,osoft SMTP .Server (versi:on~TtS1_2,. 6/20/2019 Gmail - [5-4623000026543] Notification from Google https://mail.google.com/mail/u/3?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1636612235973567659&simpl=msg-f%3A1636612235973567659&…2/2 usernotice@google.com <usernotice@google.com>Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:02 PM To: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Hello, Attached is a copy of the legal process we received for your Google account. Unless we receive a copy of a filed motion to quash that is file­stamped by a court of competent jurisdiction, Google may provide responsive documents pursuant to applicable law, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. Google is not in a position to provide you with legal advice. If you have other questions regarding the notice, we encourage you to contact an attorney. Please reply to this email or contact usernotice@google.com and reference the case identification number located in the subject line in any further communications regarding this matter. Regards,  Legal Investigations Support  Google LLC You received this announcement to update you about important information in regards to your Google account.     © 2019 Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA [Quoted text hidden]   lancewr12.SearchWarrant.pdf  311K 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…1/13 Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Search Warrant 25 messages Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:11 PM To: "Martinez, Michele (POL)" <michele.martinez@sfgov.org>, "SFPD Park Station, (POL)" <SFPDParkStation@sfgov.org>, Una.Bailey@sfgov.org, districtattorney@sfgov.org Captain Bailey, Please review the " Abuse of Discovery" PDF and look at the emails that this search warrant is based on, do they look harassing to you? What about all these impersonation posts of me made by Christoffer Thygesen and Walker Stone online, why aren't you investigating those? Also there is no time limit on this search warrant is it unlimited timeframe? This entire Search Warrant is from Opposing Council's internet lawyer Erica T. Johnstone, not initiated executed by the SF police. When did SFPD start helping out rich White families for their Family Court Law matters ? This matter is already being settled in Family Court, unless you want to STAY the entire Thygesen Discovery Orders I have no idea why this is being excuted now since this investigation has started since 2/13/19 just in time for Christoffer Thygesen DV/Custody Request. Why am I the ONLY one being investigated? This is NOT fair, I got my baby taken away by a Fake Murder Post made by Christoffer Thygesen. And when did these allegations rise to the level of a Felony? I haven't even had a Mistermeanor-A conviction ? You really want to help out the Rich Thygesen family, because he's the son of the President of Google inc.?! Shocking how unfair this is. After Christoffer Thygesen had Child Protective Services take away my 6 months old based of a Fake " Kill baby post" and for Ms. Wang to commit Suicide. It is clear this investigation against is to help with the Christoffer Thygesens Family Court Custody matter, not because a FELONY crime has been committed. 4 attachments 404 Tentative Rulings 6.6.19 (1).pdf 90K June 15 2019 Defamatory Post Discovered.pdf 643K 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…2/13 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. lancewr12.SearchWarrant.pdf 311K Abuse of Discovery (1).pdf 3295K Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org>Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:36 PM To: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Ms. Wang, As I’ve previously stated to both you, and your attorney, I’m more than happy to discuss this investigation with you. You are welcome to provide me with a statement, sit down for an interview, or contact me with any questions or concerns you have. The investigation into this matter was assigned to the Special Investigations Division, and does not involve Park Station or Captain Bailey in any way. Also, this case has not been presented to the District Attorney’s office, and will only be presented if there is evidence that a crime was committed. If you have any questions, please contact me at the below listed phone number or via email. Thank you, Sgt. Michele Martinez #1208 Special Investigations Division San Francisco Police Department 415-734-3113 (desk) michele.martinez@sfgov.org On Jun 18, 2019, at 6:11 PM, Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] <404 Tentative Rulings 6.6.19 (1).pdf> <June 15 2019 Defamatory Post Discovered.pdf> <lancewr12.SearchWarrant.pdf> <Abuse of Discovery (1).pdf> Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:52 PM To: kaywg2372@gmail.com [Quoted text hidden] 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…3/13 Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:30 PM To: usernotice@google.com [Quoted text hidden] 4 attachments 404 Tentative Rulings 6.6.19 (1).pdf 90K June 15 2019 Defamatory Post Discovered.pdf 643K lancewr12.SearchWarrant.pdf 311K Abuse of Discovery (1).pdf 3295K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:40 PM To: "Martinez, Michele (POL)" <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> Thank you for your response. What Felony crime is suspected of being committed to execute tis " Search Warrant" for Gmail content? [Quoted text hidden] Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:09 AM To: "Martinez, Michele (POL)" <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> Sgt. Martinez, Can you explain why the search warrant is being executed now, it appears the timing of the search warrant aids in helping the Thygesen Family with their UCCJEA trial coming up next week. When you do crack open all these IP addresses, it will show I've been living in Utah this entire time. Is there anyway I can get a copy from you? You've been investigating since 2/13/19, and these Gmail accounts your searching relates to content dating back Dec. 2018 thru Mar. 2019. Law enforcement always had access to all this stuff, yet no search warrant was executed until now. The Thygesens are desperate to pursue criminal charges against me, so they can keep my child and not worry about child support. I'm an easy target this is also to punish me for not continuing to conceal the pregnancy. Your Search Warrant to Google is the Civil Discovery Order made by Erica T. Johnstone. Who initially tried to fraud the court by falsely implying I gave consent for email content, thus violating Federal Law. I've attached the 4/10/19 Transcript of the Hearing. She slipped in an unlimited discovery order, and said I gave consent to content, under the "Cable Act". 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…4/13 When Ericas discovery order for content and forced consent was DENIED, she reached out to SFPD to have law enforcement do the work in getting Gmail content. Dirty tricks this team is playing, the Thygesens are very, very, wealthy, they hired MICHELENE INSALACO, Darrick Chase, and Erica T. Johnstone as just thier San Francisco legal team full time. They are all $575/hr. Also the Thygesen family hired Erica T. Johnstone for Walker Stone too. Walker Stone btw has violated his 3 Yr. PERMANENT Stalking Injunction multiple times, its definitely enough for an arrest and charges in San Francisco. I think the Thygesen family alleged like 2,000 posts or something, the Spanish Fork District Attorney currently prosecuting me in the Walker Stone case, Jason Sant, has already declined to file new criminal charges even with Christoffer's 1500 pages of alleged " Harassment" Declarations which his legal team hands out to you, mediators, police in 3 states, DAs, etc. They've spent like $250,000 in 3 months just to take away my baby and to have me prosecuted, in my previous cases there was enough evidence right away, the Thygesens are trying really, really hard, they will Frame me, Fraud the court, and I'm an easy target. Christoffers lawyers are all $575/hr in San Fran, and he has 3, yet he's never paid a penny toward child support. The laws regarding email content are below. Thank you, [Quoted text hidden] 3 attachments Reply ISO Respondent's Mtn to Quash Petitioner's Subpoenas (FILED 5.31.19).pdf 334K Edited_MPA ISO Respondent's Mtn to Quash Petitioner's Subpoenas (DRAFT 5.14.19).docx 165K 041019THYGESENvWANGFINAL.pdf 197K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:25 AM To: usernotice@google.com [Quoted text hidden] 4 attachments 404 Tentative Rulings 6.6.19 (1).pdf 90K 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…5/13 June 15 2019 Defamatory Post Discovered.pdf 643K lancewr12.SearchWarrant.pdf 311K Abuse of Discovery (1).pdf 3295K Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:04 AM To: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Ms. Wang, If you could give me a call, at your convenience, I can explain all of this to you, and answer any other questions that you may have. You don't need to answer any questions from me, but I want to make sure that you understand my investigation, and where it stands. Thank you, Sergeant Michele Marnez #1208 San Francisco Police Department Special Invesgaons Division 415-734-3113 From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 11:09:07 PM To: Marnez, Michele (POL) Subject: Re: Search Warrant [Quoted text hidden] Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:56 AM To: "Martinez, Michele (POL)" <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> Attached: Kailin Wang Previous Cases Hi Michele, Thank you for speaking with me about the case. Regarding a bit about my background, Rory Will that case is sealed under 160.55, meaning you can get a copy of the records at the court, but NYPD and DAs can't use it against a perpetrator. 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…6/13 Look I understand I've got blemishes on my background, and its obvious in my previous cases, police had enough right away, without hiring a team of lawyers and then some, this is to aid the Thygesens in getting my so with " No visitation" at all to me. I'm going to be on the hook for child support to paying billionares like the Thygesens, whose dad is President of Google. [Quoted text hidden] 5 attachments Exhibit B-6_Appeals_Kailin Wang vs. Rory Will.pdf 145K Exhibit B-5_NY_Violation_Disorderly Conduct_Non Criminal.pdf 1302K Exhibit B-4 Kailin Wang vs. Rory Will RevengePorn.pdf 5114K Exhibit C-1_Utah Stalking Injunction_Walker Stone.pdf 11085K Exhibit D-3_San Francisco Well Check Calls.pdf 5687K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:58 AM To: "Martinez, Michele (POL)" <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> Attached: Hearing with Walker Stone Rory Will Complete [Quoted text hidden] 2 attachments Audio_Stalking Injunction Hearing.mp3 9167K Exhibit B-3_Kailin Wang vs Rory Will_Verified Complaint.pdf 1123K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:03 AM To: districtattorney@sfgov.org 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…7/13 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 5 attachments Exhibit B-6_Appeals_Kailin Wang vs. Rory Will.pdf 145K Exhibit B-5_NY_Violation_Disorderly Conduct_Non Criminal.pdf 1302K Exhibit B-4 Kailin Wang vs. Rory Will RevengePorn.pdf 5114K Exhibit C-1_Utah Stalking Injunction_Walker Stone.pdf 11085K Exhibit D-3_San Francisco Well Check Calls.pdf 5687K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:03 AM To: districtattorney@sfgov.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:58 AM Subject: Re: Search Warrant To: Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> [Quoted text hidden] 2 attachments Audio_Stalking Injunction Hearing.mp3 9167K Exhibit B-3_Kailin Wang vs Rory Will_Verified Complaint.pdf 1123K Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:52 AM To: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…8/13 Thank you for the additional information. I'll review it, and include it in the case file. Feel free to provide me with any documentation or postings, etc. that you would like me to look at or consider in the investigation. And if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to discuss anything related to the criminal investigation, please don't hesitate to contact me. I'll do my best to answer any questions you have. Sergeant Michele Marnez #1208 San Francisco Police Department Special Invesgaons Division 415-553-1133 From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 9:58:41 AM [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:50 PM To: kaywg2372@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:09 AM Subject: Re: Search Warrant To: Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> [Quoted text hidden] 3 attachments Reply ISO Respondent's Mtn to Quash Petitioner's Subpoenas (FILED 5.31.19).pdf 334K Edited_MPA ISO Respondent's Mtn to Quash Petitioner's Subpoenas (DRAFT 5.14.19).docx 165K 041019THYGESENvWANGFINAL.pdf 197K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:50 PM To: kaywg2372@gmail.com 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…9/13 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:04 AM Subject: Re: Search Warrant To: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> [Quoted text hidden] usernotice@google.com <usernotice@google.com>Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 5:57 PM To: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Hello, We have received your reply to our notification email, but your response does not appear to include a copy of a formal objection. We need a file-stamped copy of the objection to verify that the matter is awaiting judicial review. Unless we receive a copy of a formal objection, Google may provide responsive documents pursuant to applicable law, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. Google is not in a position to provide you with legal advice. If you have other questions regarding the notice, we encourage you to contact an attorney. Please reply to this email or contact usernotice@google.com and reference the case identification number located in the subject line in any further communications regarding this matter. Regards, Legal Investigations Support Google LLC You received this announcement to update you about important information in regards to your Google account. © 2019 Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You received this announcement to update you about important information in regards to your Google account. © 2019 Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA [Quoted text hidden] Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:54 AM To: "Martinez, Michele (POL)" <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl…10/13 Attached: Rory Will -NY Penal Code: 160.55 [Quoted text hidden] Criminal - Sealed Violations Infractions _ NY CourtHelp.pdf 2327K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:13 PM To: usernotice@google.com [Quoted text hidden] 4 attachments 404 Tentative Rulings 6.6.19 (1).pdf 90K June 15 2019 Defamatory Post Discovered.pdf 643K lancewr12.SearchWarrant.pdf 311K Abuse of Discovery (1).pdf 3295K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:14 PM To: usernotice@google.com [9-5996000026999] Notification from Google ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:09 AM Subject: Re: Search Warrant [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 3 attachments Reply ISO Respondent's Mtn to Quash Petitioner's Subpoenas (FILED 5.31.19).pdf 334K Edited_MPA ISO Respondent's Mtn to Quash Petitioner's Subpoenas (DRAFT 5.14.19).docx 165K 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl=…11/13 041019THYGESENvWANGFINAL.pdf 197K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:59 AM To: kaywg2372@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 10:58 AM Subject: Re: Search Warrant To: Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> [Quoted text hidden] 2 attachments Audio_Stalking Injunction Hearing.mp3 9167K Exhibit B-3_Kailin Wang vs Rory Will_Verified Complaint.pdf 1123K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:59 AM To: kaywg2372@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 10:56 AM Subject: Re: Search Warrant To: Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> [Quoted text hidden] 5 attachments Exhibit B-6_Appeals_Kailin Wang vs. Rory Will.pdf 145K Exhibit B-5_NY_Violation_Disorderly Conduct_Non Criminal.pdf 1302K Exhibit B-4 Kailin Wang vs. Rory Will RevengePorn.pdf 5114K 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl…12/13 Exhibit C-1_Utah Stalking Injunction_Walker Stone.pdf 11085K Exhibit D-3_San Francisco Well Check Calls.pdf 5687K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:59 AM To: kaywg2372@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 10:56 AM Subject: Re: Search Warrant To: Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> [Quoted text hidden] 5 attachments Exhibit B-6_Appeals_Kailin Wang vs. Rory Will.pdf 145K Exhibit B-5_NY_Violation_Disorderly Conduct_Non Criminal.pdf 1302K Exhibit B-4 Kailin Wang vs. Rory Will RevengePorn.pdf 5114K Exhibit C-1_Utah Stalking Injunction_Walker Stone.pdf 11085K Exhibit D-3_San Francisco Well Check Calls.pdf 5687K usernotice@google.com <usernotice@google.com>Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 2:51 PM To: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Hello, 10/17/2019 Gmail - Search Warrant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=46eabbfe95&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-6235501624246953937&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-1337473401250207679&simpl=msg-f%3A1636730869842351397&simpl…13/13 Attached is a copy of the legal process we received for your Google account from the San Francisco Police Department. The agency reference number or case number of the legal process is 190112228. Google is not in a position to provide you with legal advice or discuss the substance of the legal process. Google is not in a position to provide further information about this matter. Regards, Google Legal Investigations Support [Quoted text hidden] lancewr12.LP.pdf 248K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:12 PM To: voplan310@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <usernotice@google.com> Date: Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 1:51 PM Subject: RE: [6-6689000026732] Search Warrant To: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> [Quoted text hidden] lancewr12.LP.pdf 248K Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com>Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 11:19 AM To: usernotice@google.com Can you send me the Search Warrant for all searches performed on this account? I've included the ones below but I'd like a copy of ALL search warrants issued. [6-6689000026732] Search Warrant [9-5996000026999]  [5-4623000026543] [Quoted text hidden] From:Lanie Lee lancewr12@gmail.com Subject:Re: Search Warrant Date:June 19, 2019 at 10:56 AM To:Martinez, Michele (POL)Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org Attached: Kailin Wang Previous Cases Hi Michele, Thank you for speaking with me about the case. Regarding a bit about my background, Rory Will that case is sealed under 160.55, meaning you can get a copy of the records at the court, but NYPD and DAs can't use it against a perpetrator. Look I understand I've got blemishes on my background, and its obvious in my previous cases, police had enough right away, without hiring a team of lawyers and then some, this is to aid the Thygesens in getting my so with " No visitation" at all to me. I'm going to be on the hook for child support to paying billionares like the Thygesens, whose dad is President of Google. On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:04 AM Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> wrote: Ms. Wang, If you could give me a call, at your convenience, I can explain all of this to you, and answer any other ques=ons that you may have. You don't need to answer any ques=ons from me, but I want to make sure that you understand my inves=ga=on, and where it stands. Thank you, Sergeant Michele Mar=nez #1208 San Francisco Police Department Special Inves=ga=ons Division 415-734-3113 From: Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 11:09:07 PM To: Mar=nez, Michele (POL) Subject: Re: Search Warrant Sgt. Martinez, Can you explain why the search warrant is being executed now, it appears the timing of the search warrant aids in helping the Thygesen Family with their UCCJEA trial coming up next week. When you do crack open all these IP addresses, it will show I've been living in Utah this entire time. Is there anyway I can get a copy from you? You've been investigating since 2/13/19, and these Gmail accounts your searching relates to content dating back Dec. 2018 thru Mar. 2019. Law enforcement always had access to all this stuff, yet no search warrant was executed until now. The Thygesens are desperate to pursue criminal charges against me, so they can keep my child and not worry about child support. I'm an easy target this is also to punish me for not continuing to conceal the pregnancy. Your Search Warrant to Google is the Civil Discovery Order made by Erica T. Johnstone. Who initially tried to fraud the court by falsely implying I gave consent for email content, thus violating Federal Law. I've attached the 4/10/19 Transcript of the Hearing. She slipped in an unlimited discovery order, and said I gave consent to content, under the "Cable Act". When Ericas discovery order for content and forced consent was DENIED, she reached out to SFPD to have law enforcement do the work in getting Gmail content. This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. do the work in getting Gmail content. Dirty tricks this team is playing, the Thygesens are very, very, wealthy, they hired MICHELENE INSALACO, Darrick Chase, and Erica T. Johnstone as just thier San Francisco legal team full time. They are all $575/hr. Also the Thygesen family hired Erica T. Johnstone for Walker Stone too. Walker Stone btw has violated his 3 Yr. PERMANENT Stalking Injunction multiple times, its definitely enough for an arrest and charges in San Francisco. I think the Thygesen family alleged like 2,000 posts or something, the Spanish Fork District Attorney currently prosecuting me in the Walker Stone case, Jason Sant, has already declined to file new criminal charges even with Christoffer's 1500 pages of alleged " Harassment" Declarations which his legal team hands out to you, mediators, police in 3 states, DAs, etc. They've spent like $250,000 in 3 months just to take away my baby and to have me prosecuted, in my previous cases there was enough evidence right away, the Thygesens are trying really, really hard, they will Frame me, Fraud the court, and I'm an easy target. Christoffers lawyers are all $575/hr in San Fran, and he has 3, yet he's never paid a penny toward child support. The laws regarding email content are below. Thank you, On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:40 PM Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for your response. What Felony crime is suspected of being committed to execute tis " Search Warrant" for Gmail content? On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:36 PM Martinez, Michele (POL) <Michele.Martinez@sfgov.org> wrote: Ms. Wang, As I’ve previously stated to both you, and your attorney, I’m more than happy to discuss this investigation with you. You are welcome to provide me with a statement, sit down for an interview, or contact me with any questions or concerns you have. The investigation into this matter was assigned to the Special Investigations Division, and does not involve Park Station or Captain Bailey in any way. Also, this case has not been presented to the District Attorney’s office, and will only be presented if there is evidence that a crime was committed. If you have any questions, please contact me at the below listed phone number or via email. Thank you, Sgt. Michele Martinez #1208 Special Investigations Division San Francisco Police Department 415-734-3113 (desk) michele.martinez@sfgov.org On Jun 18, 2019, at 6:11 PM, Lanie Lee <lancewr12@gmail.com> wrote: Captain Bailey, Please review the " Abuse of Discovery" PDF and look at the emails that this search warrant is based on, do they look harassing to you? What about all these impersonation posts of me made by Christoffer Thygesen and Walker Stone online, why aren't you investigating those? Also there is no time limit on this search warrant is it unlimited timeframe? This entire Search Warrant is from Opposing Council's internet lawyer Erica T. Johnstone, not initiated executed by the SF police. police. When did SFPD start helping out rich White families for their Family Court Law matters ? This matter is already being settled in Family Court, unless you want to STAY the entire Thygesen Discovery Orders I have no idea why this is being excuted now since this investigation has started since 2/13/19 just in time for Christoffer Thygesen DV/Custody Request. Why am I the ONLY one being investigated? This is NOT fair, I got my baby taken away by a Fake Murder Post made by Christoffer Thygesen. And when did these allegations rise to the level of a Felony? I haven't even had a Mistermeanor-A conviction ? You really want to help out the Rich Thygesen family, because he's the son of the President of Google inc.?! Shocking how unfair this is. After Christoffer Thygesen had Child Protective Services take away my 6 months old based of a Fake " Kill baby post" and for Ms. Wang to commit Suicide. It is clear this investigation against is to help with the Christoffer Thygesens Family Court Custody matter, not because a FELONY crime has been committed. <404 Tentative Rulings 6.6.19 (1).pdf> <June 15 2019 Defamatory Post Discovered.pdf> <lancewr12.SearchWarrant.pdf> <Abuse of Discovery (1).pdf> Exhibit B-5_NY…nal.pdf Exhibit B-4 Kailin…orn.pdf Exhibit C-1_Utah Stalkin…ne.pdf Exhibit D-3_San Francis…alls.pdf CR-160 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALI FORNI~ COUNTY OF 4 '1 f / W1 <..;) ( (} srnEET ADDREss: Es ~ 0 B 11,,,_,.r >+ MAILING ADDRESS. -) CllYANDZIP CODE· > r, (fJ '1'-f/() 1 BRANCH NAME H ~ J"' > t, l e FOR COURT USE ONLY PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFENDANT: kt{ I I 1 \tJ'p rJ t=NDORSED FILED San Francisco County Superfor CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (CLETS -CPO) (Pen. Code,§§ 136.2, 1203.097(a)(2), 136.2(i)(1), 273.5(j), 368(1), and 646.9(k)) OCT 23 2019 CLERK OF THE COURT BY: JAMES ST.RINGER ~RDER UNDER PENAL CODE,§ 136.2 c::::J MODIFICATION c::::J PROBATION CONDITION ORDER (Pen. Code,§ 1203.097) Deputy Clerk ORDER UNDER: c::::J PENAL CODE,§ 136.2(i)(1) c::::J PENAL CODE,§ 273.5(j) c::::J PENAL CODE, § 368(1) c::::J PENAL CODE, § 646.9(k) CASE NUMBER If o/64() This Order May Take Precedence Over Other Conflicting Orders; See Item 4 on Page 2. PERSON TO BE RESTRAINED complete name): \(4, I• n WA 11.j Sex: D M rn F Ht.: 5 wt.: 7 Hair color: flL Eye color: L K Race: A Age: Date of birth: 1. This proceeding was heard on (date): ( / 1 at (time): by judicial officer (name): /-! ;, ,.., :S l,...~ V " Al ._ 1 ' in Dept.: I/ Room: 2. This order expires on (date): . If no date is listed, this order expires three years from date of issuance. 3. ~ ~efen~ant was personally served with a copy of this order at the court hearing, and no additional proof of service of this order 0 ) 4. FULL l~~~~lr:~E. AND GENDER OF EACH P~\>TECTED PERSON:l'.l' -4j'J(" '>l'I') ("7e ~1)1 E.. I ht,e"s.~,, ( e 2~ l~r1 }to l fer Th-1,el)>en (P')e 2/,/ ~ k. I ltt~e11..efl (" c O -.q rt~J 11, /h11en!R1J (~,e. bi) 5. D For good cause s~own, the court grants the protected persons named above the e?clusive care, possession, and control of the following animals: 6. D The court has information that the defendant owns or has a firearm or ammunition, or both. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT 7. must not harass, strike, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), follow, stalk, molest, destroy or damage personal or real property, disturb the peace, keep under surveillance, or block movements of the protected persons named above. 8. must not own, possess, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or otherwise obtain a firearm or ammunition. The defendant must surrender to local law enforcement, or sell to or store with a licensed gun dealer any firearm owned by the defendant or subject to his or her immediate possession or control within 24 hours after service of this order and must file a receipt with the court showing compliance with this order within 48 hours of receiving this order. D The court finds good cause to believe that the defendant has a firearm within his or her immediate possession or control and sets a review hearing for (date): to ascertain whether the defendant has complied with the firearm relinquishment requirements of Code Civ. Proc.,§ 527.9. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.700.) D The court has made the necessary findings and applies the firearm relinquishment exemption under Code Civ. Proc., § 527.9(f}.The defendant is not required to relinquish this firearm (specify make, model, and serial number of firearm): 9. must not attempt to or actually prevent or dissuade any victim or witness from attending a hearing or testifying or making a report to any law enforcement agency or person. 1 o. must take no action to obtain the addresses or locations of protected persons or their family members, caretakers, or guardian unless good cause exists otherwise. D The court finds good cause not to make the order in item 10. 11. D must be placed on electronic monitoring for (specify length of time): . (Not to exceed 1 year from the date of this order. Pen. Code,§ 136.2(a)(1)(G)(iv) and Pen. Code,§ 136.2(i)(2}.) 12. ~must have no personal, electronic, telephonic, or written contact with the protected persons named above. 13. must have no contact with the protected persons named above through a third party, except an attorney of record. 14. must not come within ISO yards of the protected persons and animals named above. 15. D must not take, transfer, sell, encumber, conceal, molest, attack, strike, threaten, harm, or otherwise dispose of the animals described in item 5. 16. CXJ may have peaceful contact with the protected persons named above, as an exception to the "no-contact" or "stay-away" provision in item 12, 13, or 14 of this order, only for the safe exchange of children and ~rt-ordered visitati~r:l as stated in: /A a. c::N the Family, Juvenile, or Probate court order in case number: FD v-11-g "'~~issued on (date): l'IAfll) b120 I b. D any Family, Juvenile, or Probate court order issued after the date this order is signed. 17. l::E. The protected persons may record any prohibited communications made by the restrained person. 18. D Other orders includl"ng stay-away orders from,specific locations: Executed on: I ' I -1 _, ~ DepartmenV01v1soon ' (DATE) 7(SiG lJREOFJUDiCIAL OFFICER) Page 1of2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE JudlClal Council of Caldom1a CR·160[Rev July 1. 2016] (CLETS-CPO) Approved by Department of Jus~ce Penal Code.§§ 136 2. 166. 1203 097(a)(2) 273 S(J) 368(/). 646 9(k} end 136 2(iX1) www courts ca gov SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNl~tCOUNTY OF >if'1 STREET ADDRESS· g )V f/./1~/)t ,,.. MAILING ADDRESS: A h 02 CllY AND ZIP CODE: .s ("f { "f 'f f '/ , BRANCH NAME: fl pf. J"" ~ i" e PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFENDANT: ~4, , CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (CLETS -CPO) (Pen. Code,§§ 136.2, 1203.097(a)(2), 136.2(i)(1 ), 273.5(j), 368(1), and 646.9(k)) t1CJ ORDER UNDER PENAL CODE,§ 136.2 CJ MODIFICATION C:jPROBATION CONDITION ORDER (Pen. Code,§ 1203.097) ORDER UNDER: CJ PENAL CODE,§ 136.2(i)(1) CJ PENAL CODE,§ 273.5(j) CJ PENAL CODE, § 368(/) CJ PENAL CODE, § 646.9(k) CR-160 FOR COURT USE ONLY ENDORSED F ILED S.111 Fmncisco County Superior OCT-2 3 2019 C 1-~·· ·•' ..;r THE CQU T ov: JAMES STAINGE'A. This Order May Take Precedence Over Other Conflicting Orders; See Item 4 on Page 2. PERSON TO BE RESTRAINED (complete name): I<.,( / 1 () ~'1.J Sex: M F Ht.S Wt.: I Hair color: (lLtt/ Eye color: I_ K Race: /? Date of birth: I 2o/ g 1. This proceeding was heard on (date): to/"-"'>/1'1 at (time): I ·· ~o /-,,., by judicial officer (name): ~. c/rir1':,/., ''-V• ~ ""'-,i..- in Dept.: Room: 2. This order expires on (date): . If no date is listed, this order expires three years from date of issuance. 3. r¥i Defendant was personally served with a copy of this order at the court hearing, and no additional proof of service of this order ~ is required. 4. FULL NAME, AGE, AND GENDER OF EACH PROTECTED PERSON: lJ) E.. \h11e11>e'1 <~,e 2"f) / 3. 11>711e11se11 (.~,e2.1), AJ, (11~e1~1J) (!!JC. 8'/.J. 5. CJ For good cause shown, the cod'rt grants the profected persons namedlabove the exclusive care, ilossession, and control of the following animals: 6. CJ The court has information that the defendant owns or has a firearm or ammunition, or both. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT 7. must not harass, strike, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), follow, stalk, molest, destroy or damage personal or real property, disturb the peace, keep under surveillance, or block movements of the protected persons named above. 8. must not own, possess, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or otherwise obtain a firearm or ammunition. The defendant must surrender to local law enforcement, or sell to or store with a licensed gun dealer any firearm owned by the defendant or subject to his or her immediate possession or control within 24 hours after service of this order and must file a receipt with the court showing compliance with this order within 48 hours of receiving this order. CJ The court finds good cause to believe that the defendant has a firearm within his or her immediate possession or control and sets a review hearing for (date): to ascertain whether the defendant has complied with the firearm relinquishment requirements of Code Civ. Proc.,§ 527.9. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.700.) CJ The court has made the necessary findings and applies the firearm relinquishment exemption under Code Civ. Proc., § 527.9(f).The defendant is not required to relinquish this firearm (specify make, model, and serial number of firearm): 9. must not attempt to or actually prevent or dissuade any victim or witness from attending a hearing or testifying or making a report to any law enforcement agency or person. 1 o. must take no action to obtain the addresses or locations of protected persons or their family members, caretakers, or guardian unless good cause exists otherwise. CJ The court finds good cause not to make the order in item 10. 11 . CJ must be placed on electronic monitoring for (specify length of time): . (Not to exceed 1 year from the date of this order. Pen. Code,§ 136.2(a}{1)(G)(iv) and Pen. Code,§ 136.2(i)(2).) 12. IKJ must have no personal, electronic, telephonic, or written contact with the protected persons named above. 13. IX) must have no contact with the protected persons named above through a third party, except an attorney of record. 14. cg:i must not come within I ~ 0 yards of the protected persons and animals named above. 15. CJ must not take, transfer, sell, encumber, conceal, molest, attack, strike, threaten, harm, or otherwise dispose of the animals described in item 5. 16. r}(J may have peaceful contact with the protected persons named above, as an exception to the "no-contact" or "stay-away" J:>rovision in item 12, 13, or 14 of this order, only for the safe exchange of children and1cp_urt-ordered visitation as stated in: l(l a. ~ the Family, Juvenile, or Probate court order in case number: rO\l-11-8J'f'f IP/ issued on (date): fVLtrt.J, b/ 201 I b. CJ any Family, Juvenile, or Probate court order issued after the date this order is signed. 17. 00 The protected persons may record any prohibited communications made by the restrained person. 18. CJ Other orders including stay-away orders from specific locations;.. I _. Executed on: ) t ~ --------......~~------------DepartmenU01v1s1on (SIGl'#ITURE OF JUDICIAL OFFICER) Pago 1 of2 (DATE) Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of Cal1forn1a CR-160 (Rev July 1, 2016( Approved by Department of Jusbce CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (CLETS-CPO) Penal Code §§ 136 2, 166. 1203 097(a)(2) 273 S(J). 368(1) 646 9(k) and 136 2(1X1) www courts ca gov , . GEORGE GASCON, SB#182345 District Attorney San Francisco District Attorney's Office 350 Rhode Island, Suite 400N San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (628) 652-4000 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PEOPLE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, KAILINWANG Defendant. v. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FELONY COMPLAINT ARREST WARRANT CASE NUMBER: \&\0(~0~ The Undersigned, being sworn says, on information and belief, that: COUNT: I The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, between the 24th day of December, 2018 through the 17th day of March, 2019, both days inclusive, commit the crime of STALKING, to wit: Violating Section 646.9(a) of the Penal Code, a .Felony, in that .the said defendant did willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follow and willfully and maliciously harass and make a credible threat against CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN with the intent to place him in reasonable fear of his safety and the safety of his family. COUNT: II The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, between the 18th day of March, 2019 through the 13th day of June, 2019, both days inclusive, commit the crime of STALKING-VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER, to wit: Violating Section 646.9(b) of the Penal Code, a Felony, in that the said defendant did willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or willfully and maliciously harass CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN, and make a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear. for his safety and the safety of his immediate family, when there was in effect a court order prohibiting said behavior. , . COUNT: Ill The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, between the 26th day of February, 2019 through the 28th day of February, 2019, both days inclusive, commit the crime of IDENTITY THEFT, to wit: Violating Section 530.S(a) of the Penal Code, a Felony, in that the said defendant did willfully and unlawfully obtain personal identifying information on CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN without authorization, and used that information for an unlawful purpose and to obtain, and attempt to obtain, credit, goods and services and medical information in the name of CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN without consent COUNT: IV The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, on or about the 11th day of February, 2019, commit the crime of HARRASSING BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE, to wit: Violating Section 653.2(a) of the Penal Code, a Misdemeanor, in that the said defendant did willfully and unlawfully, with the intent to place another person, to wit: CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN, in reasonable fear for his safety, and the safety of his immediate family, by means of electronic communication device, and without consent of said person, and for the purpose of imminently causing said victim unwanted physical contact, injury and harassment by a third party, electronically distribute, publish, e- mail, hyperlink and make available for downloading personal identifying information a digital image and an electronic message of a harassing nature. COUNT: V The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of C(llif()Jnia, 011 or aboLJt the 12th day of February, ~OJ9, com111iUhe crime of HARRAS81NG BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE, to wit: Violating Section 653.2(a) of the Penal Code, a Misdemeanor, in that the said defendant did willfully and unlawfully, with the intent to place another person, to wit: CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN, in reasonable fear for his safety, and the safety of his immediate family, by means of electronic communication device, and without consent of said person, and for the purpose of imminently causing said victim unwanted physical contact, injury and harassment by a third party, electronically distribute, publish, e- mail, hyperlink and make available for downloading personal identifying information a digital image and an electronic message of a harassing nature. 2 COUNT: VI The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, on or about the 13th day of February, 2019, commit the crime of HARRASSING BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE, to wit: Violating Section 653.2(a) of the Penal Code, a Misdemeanor, in that the said defendant did willfully and unlawfully, with the intent to place another person, to wit: CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN, in reasonable fear for his safety, and the safety of his immediate family, by means of electronic communication device, and without consent of said person, and for the purpose of imminently causing said victim unwanted physical contact, injury and harassment by a third party, electronically distribute, publish, e- mail, hyperlink and make available for downloading personal identifying information a digital image and an electronic message of a harassing nature. COUNT: VII The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, on or about the 15th day of February, 2019, commit the crime of HARRASSING BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE, to wit: Violating Section 653.2(a) of the Penal Code, a Misdemeanor, in that the said defendant did willfully and unlawfully, with the intent to place another person, to wit: CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN, in reasonable fear for his safety, and the safety of his immediate family, by means of electronic communication device, and without consent of said person, and for the purpose of imminently causing said victim unwanted physical contact, injury and harassment by a third party, electronically distribute, publish, e- mail, hyperlink and make available for downloading personal identifying information a digital image and an electronic message of a harassing nature. COUNT: VIII The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, on or about the 22nd day of March, 2019, commit the crime of DISOBEYING DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ORDER, to wit: Violating Section 273.G(a) of the Penal Code, a Misdemeanor, in that the said defendant did knowingly and intentionally violate a protective order issued by the court, to wit: Civil RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED IN SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. FDV-19-814465 under section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedures. 3 COUNT: IX The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, on or about the 23rd day of March, 2019, commit the crime of DISOBEYING DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT ORDER, to wit: Violating Section 273.6{a) of the Penal Code, a Misdemeanor, in that the said defendant did knowingly and intentionally violate a protective order issued by the court, to wit: Civil RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED IN SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. FDV-19-814465 under section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedures. COUNT: X The said defendant, KAILIN WANG, did in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, between the 1st day of September, 2017 through the 20th day of November, 2017, both days inclusive, commit the crime of STALKING, to wit: Violating Section 646.9(a) of the Penal Code, a Felony, in that the said defendant did willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follow and willfully and maliciously harass and make a credible threat against WALKER STONE with the intent to place him in reasonable fear of his safety and the safety of his/her family. Pursuant to Penal Code sections 1054 through 1054.7, the People request that, within fifteen (15) days, the defendant andfor his/her attorney disclose: (A) the names and addresses of persons, other than the defendant, he/she intends to call as witnesses at trial, together with any relevant written or recorded statements of those persons, or reports of the statements, of those persons including any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the case, and including the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial; (B) Any real evidence which the defendant intends to offer in evidence at the trial. This request is a continuing request, to cover not only all such material currently in existence, but all material which comes into existence to the conclusion of this case. MARSY'SLAW Information contained in the reports being distributed as discovery in this case may contain confidential information protected by Marsy's Law and the amendments to the California Constitution Section 28. Any victim(s) in any above referenced charge(s) is entitlell to .. be free Jrom intimidation, harassment, and abuse, It is unlawful for defendant(s), defense counsel, and any .other person acting on behalf of the defendant(s) to use any information contained in the reports to locate or harass any victim(s) or the victim(s}'s family or to disclose any information that is otherwise privileged and confidential by law. Additionally, it is a misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code § 1054.2{a}(3} to disclose the address and telephone number of a victim or witness to a defendant, defendant's family member or anyone else. Note exceptions in California Penal Code§ 1054.2{a}{2). AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN SETS FORTH THE UNDERLYING FACTS ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ARREST OF THE DEFENDANT NAMED IN THIS COMPLAINT. I state, declare, verify and certify under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California on October 16, 2019. kh/DAW-190112228 SERGEANT MICHELE MARTINEZ, #1208 4 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST The undersigned hereby declares, upon information of belief: That she is a Sergeant in the San Francisco Police Department assigned to the Special Investigations Division. That a complaint charging Kailin Wang with the crimes of 646.9(a) PC (x2), 646.9(b) PC, 530.5 PC, 273.6 PC (x2) and 653.2 PC (x4) has been issued and is filed with the Clerk of the Court. That said defendant, Kailin Wang committed said offenses in the manner and by means as set forth and described in the following affidavit: Arrest Warrant Affidavit My name is Michele Martinez, and I am currently employed as a Sergeant of Police in and for the City tmd County of San Francisco, California. I have been so employed for approximately thirteen years. I am currently assigned to the Special Investigations Division. Prior to being assigned to Special Investigations, I was assigned to the Northern Station Investigations Team, and numerous District Police Stations, including Southern Station, Mission Station and Richmond Station where I operated in uniform and in a plainclothes capacity. Included in my duties is to investigate all different types of criminal activities within the City and County of San Francisco. Training: 1. California Polytechnic State University, BA Degree 2. Basic Course Intensive -San Francisco Police Academy 3. 7 6 hour -Institute of Criminal Investigation Core Course 4. Basic Robbery Apprehension Training (San Francisco Police Academy) 5. Drug Alcohol Recognition Update (San Francisco Police Academy) 6. Police Crisis Intervention Training (San Francisco Police Academy) 7. San Francisco Police Depaiiment Detective School 8. POST Supervisory Course On 2/13/19, I was assigned to investigate the harassment, and possible stalking of Victim I and his family by Kailin Wang. I conducted interviews with Victim!, who in summary, told me the following. Victim! met Wang through "Tinder'', which is an online dating service. They went on two dates in February and March of 2018, and engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse on both of those dates. In June of2018 Wang contacted Victim! and told him that she was pregnant, and believed that it was his child. Victim! told me that he had infrequent communication with Wang between June and October of2018. Victiml described their conversations as "pointless and destructive." Wang threatened to block communication with Victim!, so he decided to cease contact with her until closer to the birth of the baby. On December 6, 2018, Wang told Victim I that the baby had been born on November 26, 2018. After learning of the birth of the child, Victim 1 hired a family law attorney to assist in determining ifhe was the father. On February 11, 2019 a DNA test confinned that Victiml is the father of the child. The attorney also informed Victim! that Wang was currently a defendant in a criminal harassment case in Utah involving another man (Victim2) from San Francisco. Victiml later learned that Wang was also previously charged with stalking and harassing a man in New York, as well as violating an Order of Protei;,tion issued in that case. In that case, it is alleged that Wang threatened the New York man thafifi1e wouldn't be with her, she was going to go to his residence with a gun. Wang pied guilty to second degree harassment in New York. Victiml told me that beginning on December 24, 2018, Wang began contacting people in his "network" and making defamatory and untrue statements about him. He also found the content of the posts and messages to be threatening and put him in fear for his safety, his family's safety, and especially the safety of his child. Victim! provided me with a list of people believed to have been contacted by Wang, as well as an index of websites and social media accounts that Wang has posted to, or used to contact people associated with him. These include Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, as well as websites such as cheaterxposed.us, medium.com, scribd.com, holsymoke.org, bloglovin.com, internetcheaters.com, dirtycheater.org, thedirty.com, and many others. I reviewed some of the posts made to the various websites provided by Victiml. On 2/11/19, a post was made to Medium.com by account@ibarketn345. The post includes photos of Victim I and a photo of a dead and dismembered baby. Through various search warrants I know that Medium account @jbarketn345 has been accessed from 2481 Fairway Dr., Spanish Fork UT, which is the address listed on Wang's Utah Driver's License. On 2112/19, a post was made to Medium.com by account @tvnpvn688. The post includes photos of Victim!, the DNA test, text messages between Victim! and Wang, and describes the child as "sick, starving and homeless." Through various search warrants I know that Medium account @tvnpvn688 has been accessed from 9 W 701h St Apt. 4R, New York, which is the address listed on Wang's New York Identification Card. On 2/13/19, a post was made to Medium.com by account@bonb4905. The post includes photos of Victim I, a photo of a dismembered fetus, the DNA test, and text messages between Victim! and Wang. Through various search warrants I know that Medium account @bonb4905 has been accessed from 9 W 70th St Apt. 4R, New York. On 2/15/19, a post was made to Medium.com by account@hanjun083. The post includes photos of Victim!, the DNA test, and a photo of a dead and dismembered baby. Through various search wanants I know that Medium account @hanjun083 has been accessed from 9 W 701h St Apt. 4R, New York. I reviewed the list of people who have been contacted by Wang. Included in this list are Victim! 's parents, siblings, grandparents, an aunt and uncle, and numerous friends, housemates and bandmates. Also contacted were friends, classmates, co-workers and family members of Victim! 's family and friends. Most of these contacts were made through some form of social media, and in some cases via email. Various aliases and email addresses were used in these contacts. On 217119, a Facebook Messenger message was sent to Victim! 's three siblings from "David Wallace." The messages stated, "Ur an Uncle now." and "Ifu do end up in politics I hope u make Abortions more accessible for women." and "Maybe you'll get to cur Nephew at the hospital one day. As he is sick and on Welfare." Each message included a copy of text messages sent between Victim! and Wang, as well as a photo of the child. Based on the content of the messages, I believe that "David Wallace" is an alias for Wang. On 2/15119, an Instagram follow request was sent from rachel_chi6776 to a friend ofVictiml 's brother. The account states," Victim] Impregnated me forced me to KILL his 21 week child. Victim] has NEVER contributed a Dime to his child!!!!" Included in the account are photos of Victim I, text messages between Victim 1 and Wang, and a photo of a dead and dismembered baby. Through various search warrants I know that the Instagram account rachel _ chi677 6 has been accessed from 2481 Fairway Dr., Spanish Fork UT. On 2/22/19, an Instagram follow request was sent from christofferpaidsexpregnant to two of Victim I's friends. The account states, "Victim] will pay to harass u and have sex with u but won't pay a dime of Child Support ! !" Included in the account are photos of Victim I, the DNA test results for the child and a photo of an aborted fetus. Through various search warrants I know that the Instagram account christofferpaidsexpreganant has been accessed from 2481 Fairway Dr., Spanish Fork UT and 9 W 70th St Apt. 4R, New York. On 3/6/19, Judge Richard Darwin of the San Francisco Superior Court, granted an amended Temporary Restraining Order protecting Victim!, his parents, his three siblings, and two grandparents from Wang (Case Number: FDV-19-814465). It was ordered that Wang must not harass, attack, strike, threaten, assault, hit, follow, stalk, molest, destroy personal property, disturb the peace, keep under surveillance, impersonate or block movements. Wang must also not contact either directly or indirectly, in any way, including but not limited to, by telephone, mail, e-mail or other electronic means. Wang must also not take any action, directly or through others, to obtain the addresses or locations of the persons protected. Wang was also ordered to refrain from, directly or indirectly, harassing, defaming, impersonating, inflicting significant emotional distress on, and disclosing confidential information to any person. Judge Darwin also ordered custody of the child be granted immediately to Victim I, with no visitation awarded to Wang. Although Wang was not present in court on the day the Orders were granted, she did call into court and was aware of the hearing. I was advised on 3/8/19, that the child was removed from the custody of Wang's parents and given to Victim I, where he remains at this time. On 3/18/19, Deputy Ventura personally served Wang with a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order, Child Custody and Visitation Order, and Travel Order. On 3/22/19 at 1814 hours, Wang called San Francisco Police dispatch and requested a well-being check at the Victim's residence in San Francisco. Wang stated that she and Victim! have restraining orders against each other and that she is concerned for her child's safety. Wang told the Dispatcher that the Victim lives with roommates and that they are possibly drug users. Officers responded to Victim I's residence, but there was no answer at the door. Wang was advised of the result of the well-being check. On 3/22/19 at 1852 hours, Wang called Menlo Park Police Department dispatch and requested a well-being check at Victiml 's parent's house. Wang told the dispatcher that Victim] uses drugs, and that Victiml and her child are not at his house in San Francisco, and may be at his parent's house in Menlo Park. Officers responded to the residence and met with Victim 1 's sister. On 3/23/19 at 1021 hours, Wang called San Francisco Police dispatch and reqpested a well-being check on the child. Wang told the Dispatcher that Victim] has a history of dnig foi'e and possibly has a gun which he uses for hunting. Officers responded to the residence in San Francisco but Vict.iml was not there. On 3/23/19 at 1409 hours, Wang called San Francisco Police dispatch and requested a well-being check on Victim! 's residence. Wang was advised to stop calling on this matter. On 3/23/19 at 1441 hours, Officer Solie (Utah) contacted San Francisco Police Dispatch to advise that Wang had contacted them to request a well-being check on Victiml. Officer Solie was advised of the disregard placed on that address. On 3/23/19 at 1603 hours, I spoke with Sgt. Noguchi at Park Station who advised me that Wang was calling the station requesting well-being checks on Victiml 's residence. On 3/23/19 at 1611 hours, I contacted Wang via telephone at 917-432-4181. I told Wang that Victiml and the child or both in good health and in a safe place. I reminded Wang of the terms of the Temporary Restraining Order, and asked her to stop calling San Francisco Police Dispatch and Park Station on this matter. I later played a brief portion of calls made from 917-432-4181 for Victiml, who positively identified the caller as Wang. On March.8, 2019, Judge Quinn of the San Francisco Superior Court signed a search warrant commanding me to search Google Inc. to obtain information associated with the google accounts, lancewrl2@gmail.com, eggfu45@gmail.com, bonb4905@gamail.com and courtorder6678@gmail.com, all believed to be created and controlled by Wang. On March 19, 2019, Google Inc. provided me with the search warrant results for the above listed Google accounts. I reviewed the results and discovered a Social Security Statement from the Social Security Administration and a Financial Profile from Experian (a credit monitoring service) in the name of Victim!, with the last four digits of his social security number. The Financial Profile from Experian included Victim! 's first name, credit rating, credit usage and payment history. On March 19, 2019, I contacted the Victim who told me that he did not give Wang permission to access or obtain his personal financial information through The Social Security Administration or Experian. The Victim told me that he did not provide Wang with his social security number, and has no idea how she may have obtained it. The Victim told me that there is no reason for Wang to have created and accessed accounts with the Social Security Administration or Experian using his name and social security number. The Victim later contacted Experian who told him that the Experian account was opened in his name by lancewrl2@gmail.com. Experian also told him that his San Francisco address and mobile phone number are listed on the account, and that the credit card on file is a Visa with an expiration date of December 2023. I contacted the Social Security Administration regarding the suspected unauthorized access by Wang. Special Agent Fagan conducted an investigation and provided me with a report of his findings. On 2/26119 and 2/27/19, Wang's MySSA account was accessed from IP address 66.65.126.174. I know from search warrant returns from Comcast that this IP address is assigned to 2481 Fairway Dr., Spanish Fork UT. On 2/26/19, IP address 66.65.126.174 was used to attempt to create a MySSA account for Victim!, however identify verifJqation questions were not answered correctly and a temporary lock was imposed. On 2/28/19, IP. address 66.65.126.174 was used again to attempt to answer identity verification questions to create Victiml 's MySSA account. The questions were successfully answered and an account was created with user name TIGGY1992 and email address bonb4905@gmail.com. The same IP address was used to login and access Victim!' s online Social Security statement. There were approximately seventeen transactions related to Victim! 's online Social Security statement that day. Through various search warrants I know that bonb4905@gmail has been accessed from 9 W 70th ST Apt. 4R, New York. Victim! told me that in September of20!8, he lost his job due to poor perf01mance. Since that time, Victim! has been looking for another job, and has applied to numerous places. Victim! told me that he believes he is qualified, and has gotten along in the interview process at a number of places, but continues to be turned down. Although Victim! has been successful in removing some of the online postings, an internet search on Victiml 's name still reveals a number of negative posts. Victim! believes that this, along with the numerous people Wang has contacted in his network, has kept him from obtaining a new job. Victiml told me that he is extremely afraid for his safety and especially for the safety of his child. Victim! states that he is staying with his parent's and lives in a constant state of fear and anxiety, not !mowing what Wang will do next. Victim! and his family have hired security specifically to protect them from Wang while at the residence. Victim! is concerned for the safety of the child, because Wang has posted and distributed photos of dead babies. Victim 1 also believes that the child's health and well-being are in danger since Wang has messaged that the baby is jaundiced, sick and on welfare, all while he was in her custody. Victim! believes that Wang was threatening the safety of the child when she messaged his sibling that he/she could visit the child in the hospital. Victim! told me that he is also afraid that Wang may result to violence given the fact that she had made prior threats to use a firearm against another individual in a similar case. Victim! told me that he is fearful because Wang knows where he and his parents live, and has used police dispatch to try to obtain his location. Victim I told me that he has had trouble sleeping and concentrating. He told me that the constant online harassment and contacting of people in his network has destroyed his life and his ability to find work to provide for his child. Victim! believes the police reports and restraining orders that Wang has filed against him are retaliatory in nature. It should be noted that the Victim I's family law attorney has corresponded with Wang, and requested that she cease publishing defamatory posts online about the Victim, but the posts contined. During my investigation involving Victiml, I became aware ofVictim2. I conducted interviews with Victim2, who in summary told me that he first met Wang in approximately August 2017 through an online dating application. Victim2 and Wang began talking both online and offline, but never met her in person. In order to verify who Wang was, Victim2 asked her to "Facetime," which is video chat application. Wang refused to "Facetime" and Victim2 decided that he was no longer interested in communicating with her. At this time, Wang created multiple social media accounts using his photo and variatigns of his name to reach out to his friends and family, and posted numerous posts about him on various websites. Victim2 stated that at one point Wang created Craigslist posts, which had men calling him, looking for sex. Victim2 told me that beginning in approximately October 2017, Wang began robo-calling his cell phone. Victim2 blocked Wang's cell phone, but the calls continued as she began calling from different phone numbers. Victim2 told me that he would contact Wang in an attempt to stop her from posting defamatory posts about him online, and contacting his friends and family. Victim2 told me that he asked her numerous times to stop calling him, his friends and family, and posting about him online. Victim2 provided me with copies of text messages sent between him and Wang, using the phone number 917-432-4181. I know from a search warrant returns from T-Mobile that the phone number comes back to John Wang at 2481 Fairway Dr., Spanish Fork UT, and the name listed in the Device Details is Kailin Wang. On 10/26/17 at 1843 hours, the following text messages were sent: Victim2:? Wang: Chunk! Wang: Stop creeping Victim2: You've harassed people I know and ruined their names too Wang: I'm gonna start sending guys who wanna fuck me tour apt On 10/28/17 at 1428 hours, the following text messages were sent: Victim2: I would LOVE for this whole thing to get under control. Wang: Then cum over Victim2: And for both of us to get what we want out of it. Wang: Cum over Victim2: But right now ... you scare me. Wang: I always wanna scare you Wang: I hate u Victim2: yea okay .. .I don't want that. Wang: To bad ur dead Wang: I have sum stuff. I'll haras later Wang: I'm warning u. Piss me off. .. "skull emoji" On 10/28/17 at 2122 hours the following text messages were sent: Wang: Ur dead Wang: I'm going to harass u in ur grave Wang: Chunk! Wang: Ur my Chunk Wang: U get back here or else .. Wang: Chunk u hog u wiggle ur fat ass bck now ! Wang: Chunk! Wang: Chunk! Wang: Ur out aren't u Wang: Chunky liar -. Wang: I fuckjng. Hate u Wang: More posts by morning ·Wang: Ur dead ! Wang: Urcdead ! On 10/28/17 at 2129 hours the following text messages were sent: Victim2: please stop wondering where I am all the time Wang: So tell me Wang: Y can't U tell then Wang: Chunk posts are up Victim2: stop constantly calling me Wang: Chunk then fucking tell me where ur Wang: U tell me now posts are up Wang: I'm not fuvking kidding Wang: Chunk u lying piece if shif Wang: Ru on a date Wang: Ok multiple posts are going up Wang: Yup Wang: Ur dead Victim2: leave me alone On 1111/17 at 1843 hours the following text messages were sent: Wang: U better get here soon Chunk Wang: Or things are about to get even worse Wang: Ur gonna hurt Chunk Wang: I'm going to destroy u Victim2: See. That's a threat of violence Wang: Chunk. U know I oly mean well. I wanna play with Chunk in the mountains Victim2: I don't know that. Victim2: You seem dangerous to me. ,. I reviewed numerous text messages from Victim2 to Wang asking her to stop contacting him, and to remove the posts that she made to various websites. Wang's constant phone calls, text messages and online posts continued until approximately November 20, 2017 when Spanish Fork Police Officers co_ntacted Wang at 2481 Fairway Dr., Spanish Fork UT and issued her a citation for electronic communication harassment. Note that the case in Utah has not been resolved, and charges are pending, but will be dismissed upon charging of this case. Victim2 forwarded me two audio clips from a phone call he received from Wang. It is unknown if Wang !mew that Victim2 had answered the phone and was listeningto her conversation. The phone call was received on 11/18117 after Victim2 reached out to Wang's parents asking them to convince her to leave him alone. In the recording, it appears that Wang is discussing Victim2 ' . with two other people, possibly her parents. Wang tells them to stop answering the phone, and states that they will be accomplices if they answer the phone. I hear Wang say, "that piece of shit is going to fucking die," and "unless you want to go to jail, stop picking up the phone." Victim2 told me that he is afraid of Wang because he has no idea what she is capable of, or what she was going to do. Victim2 told me that he wondered if Wang would ever send someone else to hurt him. Victim2 told me that he was also afraid of Wang becausP, of the conversation he heard between her and her parents. Victim2 said that he doesn't know what Wang's parents are capable of either. Victim2 told me that he had found himselflooking around before exiting his apartment. Victim2 told me that Wang's actions have also affected him emotionally, because if anyone were to search his name on the internet, they would find multiple defamatory and untrue posts about him. Victim2 told me that this has also had an impact on his search for employment. I believe that Wang has violated 646.9(a) pc (x2), "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, " based on the repeated and malicious harassment of the Victim 1 and Victim2 in the form of online posts, contacts to their friends and family, and repeated text messages and phone calls. Both Victim! and Victim2 have expressed that they fear for their safety. Victiml has stated that he also fears for the safety of his family, and his child .. I believe that Wang has violated 646.9(b) pc, "Any person who violates subdivision (a} when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a)," and 273.6(a) pc (x2) "Any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order," based on the fact that Wang was served with the Temporary Restraining Order on 3/18/19, yet the online harassment and calls to Police Dispatch for well- being checks on Victiml on two separate occasions, continued beyond that service date. Wang was ordered not to contact Victim] either directly or indirectly, in any way, as well as to not take any action, directly or through others to obtain the addresses or locations of Victiml, yet has used Police services in the form of wellbeing checks for that reason, on two separate occasions. I believe that Wang has violated 530.5 pc, "Every person who willfally obtains personal identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of another person, and uses that information for any unlawful purpose, is guilty of a public offense," based on Wang using Victim 1 's social security number to create and access his online Social Security statement without his permission in violation of 502(c)(7) pc. I believe that Wang has violated 653.2(a) pc (x4), "Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person 's immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the pwpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injwy, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite of produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor, " based on the hundreds of defamatory posts she has published online about Victiml, including the four specific posts on 2/11/19, 2/12/19, 2/13/19 and 2/15/19 described in this affidavit, as well as the dozens of contacts with friends, family and acquaintances of Victiml. I also believe that the well-being checks called into San Francisco and Menlo Park Dispatch were done not only to ascertain the location ofVictiml and the child, but as a form of harassment as well. Upon review of the numerous online posts, contacts :with friends, family and acquaintances, call logs and text messages and the online access of personal information through the Social Security Administration, I believe that Kailin Wang is guilty of 646.9(a) PC (x2), 646.9(b) PC, 653.2 PC (x4), 530.5 PC and 273.6(a) PC (x2). This affidavit is submitted in support of an application to obtain an arrest warrant. I believe that the contents of said document, provides probable cause to believe that Kailin Wang committed said offense and therefore I respectfully request the issuance of the arrest warrant. Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 15, 2019. The undersigned further states and declares that as part ofthis application for an arrest warrant, she has disclosed and provided to the Office of the District Attorney and to the court reviewing this declaration all known material facts, whether favorable or unfavorable, including all reasonably known information which may be exculpatory. That the contents of this document provides probable cause to believe that Kailin Wang committed said offenses 646.9(a) PC (x2), 646.9(b) PC, 653.2 PC (x4), 530.5 PC and 273.6(a) PC (x2), and therefore support the issuance of a warrant of arrest for Kailin Wang. Executed in San Francisco, California on October 15, 2019 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Sworn to and subscribed as true before me. This ___ of ______ 2019 Judge of the Superior Court County of San Francisco Sgt. Michele Martinez #1208 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Suzy Loftus Interim District Attorney TO: Thygensen Family DONALD DU BAIN Assistant District Attorney DIRECTD!AL: (4I5) 558-2449 E-MAIL: DONALD.DUBAIN@SFGOV.ORG INFORMATION ON THE ENCLOSED STAY A WAY ORDER Today's Date: Defendant's Name: Date of Order: October 24, 2019 Kailin Wang October 23, 2019 A Criminal Protective Order has been issued to the defendant in this case. The Order was requested for your protection and prohibits the defendant from harassing, threatening, or assaulting you. It also prohibits him from contacting you in any way (by mail, phone, text, or in person) and prohibits him from contacting you through any third. party except for an attorney of record. If the defendant disobeys this order, he is violating the law and may be criminally charged for that conduct. This is an an-estable offense. Please take a moment to read through the Criminal Protective Order. This order will remain in effect until the close of the criminal court case and may continue as a condition of probation. Please keep a copy of the order with you in a safe place. If the defendant violates the order, please do the following: • IMMED IA TEL Y call the police. • Tell the officers there is a Criminal Protective Order in place and that there are pending criminal charges. If you have a copy of the order, show it to the officers. Otherwise, they should be able to look up the order. • Make sure the officers write an incident repoti and get the report number. • Inform the District Attorney's Office that there has been a violation of the Criminal Protective Order. If you have any questions, please contact the Assistant District Attorney listed at the top of this page. 350 RHODE ISLAND STREET, NORTH BUILDING, SUITE 400N • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 RECEPTION: (628) 652-4000 • FACSIMILE: (628) 652-4001 San Francisco Sheriff's Department Bail Receipt J a ... li967«74 Deferr.:a-t Nr.ie C::~r1t 1 -~E 3A ":° ..... 0-L ~!: BAJL 30NDS k :ess• j FIN ANC IAL C"'Sv~L n 8. S.,~ETY 1i-.;c . A es~2 (FCS750·20.'.)5500 C.:y I 'Ii~ • o:is 2X ~46 9ta\ PCJF ~6 9{b PC :: 530 5(a PC r: 4X-6 5:> 2\a, ;>CJF 2X-2 73 5 (a) P F &.a:e Z::o Code I l • Re:: e~ # 00027238 Date Fri, Oct 18, 2019 BaMAmour.t I S750 ,000.00 Batl Type I Surety - YO U ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT, 850 BRYANT STREET IN DEPARTMENT 101 ON ~Y OCTOBER23RD , 2019:AT1 :30PM t .~i • -------, • x --------Ri ht Thumb Print Defendant's Signature -.. - -·~ - I From: Cary-Andrew Crittenden [mailto:southsfbayarea@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:32 PM To: Susan Fowle Cc: Carlotta Royal; Alfredo Alanis; Cheryl Stevens; Internal.Affairs@pro.sccgov.org; ari manoukian; klindsey@stanford.edu; Complaint, ADA (CRT); ada.complaintadmin@usdoj.gov; Burns, Dennis; Simitian, Joe; michele.martin@pro.sccgov.org Subject: HEIDI YAUMAN MEDICAL Heidi has gone deaf. Please do not delay in providing the paperwork needed so that I may get her the treatment that she needs. This is not a crime & I cannot be arrested for getting her medical treatment that she needs. Please make sure that the Sheriff's Department complies with board policy 3.8 and make sure that they do not impede her from getting the medical treatment that she needs. If Detective Carroll comes near her or me, we will call 911 and file for a federal injunction. Regards, Cary-Andrew Crittenden | 650-701-3202 NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. -------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:35 AM Subject: Joe Simitian - Pattern and Practice / ADA To: "Simitian, Joe" <joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org> Cc: "Complaint, ADA (CRT)" <Ada.complaint@usdoj.gov>, ada.complaintadmin@usdoj.gov, Cheryl Stevens <Cheryl.Stevens@cco.sccgov.org>, Internal.Affairs@pro.sccgov.org, Alfredo Alanis <alfredo.alanis@sheriff.sccgov.org>, michele.martin@pro.sccgov.org Joe, These are serious color of law abuses by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department with excessive force resulting in injury. They have exhibited a pattern and practice of these abuses and abused the CLETS Law enforcement database to interfere with her right to advocacy. Because of detective Carroll, Heidi has lost much of her ability to speak and her computer is necessary for her to communicate and stay connected to the public. She has expressed that it feels to her as if they are stepping on her trying to force her into a hole in the ground which represents the coma state she emerged from. She tries to speak and the words do not come out. Heidi is featured in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvE19gAEAco and Detective Carroll used excessive force to interfere with Heidi's complaint to the US. Department of Urban Development, We are planning to sue the county pursuant to USC Title 42 Section 1983 an put liens against the properties of those responsible., perhaps seize their homes if corrective action is not taken as board policy 3.8 guarantees that a procedure is in place to prevent this obsessive stalking and harassment. I have seen no evidence that this procedure exists or that it is being enforced This has been happening for about 2 years and they will not stop. Respectfully Sir, Please help. Cary-Andrew Crittenden | 650-701-3202 On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> wrote: Kate, the Sheriffs department took Heidis computer. If anything happens to me, please watch out for her. My PFN Number is DRJ927 and bithdate is June14 1969. Please post on facebook that I was arrested. (If it happens) Ask people to protest On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Joy Birnie <joybirnie@gmail.com> wrote: Hey Andy, Thank you for the update. Where are you now? So, Heidi cannot hear at all right now? Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> wrote: Still waiting for confirmation about getting her to Kaiser. I am Heidi's Legal Advocate pursuant to the American's with Disabilities act and they cannot do this to her. They reported me to the District Attorney's office for trying to help her get her pain medication. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Kate Lynn Lindsey <klindsey@stanford.edu> wrote: Andy, I’m so sorry to hear all this news - this is awful! I will try to help you any way I can. Unfortunately, I’m not in Palo Alto until Monday. Can I help you find a place to stay tonight? Do you need a ride somewhere? I need some more information.Kate On Feb 25, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> wrote: Kate, we may need your help today. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:31 PM Subject: HEIDI YAUMAN MEDICAL To: Susan Fowle <susan.fowle@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: CARLOTTA.ROYAl@ssa.sccgov.org, Alfredo Alanis <alfredo.alanis@sheriff.sccgov.org>, Cheryl Stevens <Cheryl.Stevens@cco.sccgov.org>, Internal.Affairs@pro.sccgov.org, ari manoukian <ari.manoukian@gmail.com>, "klindsey@stanford.edu" <klindsey@stanford.edu>, "Complaint, ADA (CRT)" <Ada.complaint@usdoj.gov>, ada.complaintadmin@usdoj.gov, "Burns, Dennis" <dennis.burns@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Simitian, Joe" <joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, michele.martin@pro.sccgov.org Heidi has gone deaf. Please do not delay in providing the paperwork needed so that I may get her the treatment that she needs. This is not a crime & I cannot be arrested for getting her medical treatment that she needs. Please make sure that the Sheriff's Department complies with board policy 3.8 and make sure that they do not impede her from getting the medical treatment that she needs. If Detective Carroll comes near her or me, we will call 911 and file for a federal injunction. Regards, Cary-Andrew Crittenden | ----------------+-------------------- Mr. Crittenden, Thanks for the email. I hope it works out ok. Happy New Years to you and yours. Dennis Dennis Burns | Police Chief 275 Forest Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650-329-2103| E: dennis.burns@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Crittenden [mailto:southsfbayarea@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:33 PM To: Burns, Dennis Cc: judgebullock1949@gmail.com; Jocelyn.Samuels@usdoj.gov; LaDoris Cordell; Aram James; info@calbar.ca.gov Subject: PAPD Chief Burns. / PC 148 Hello Chief Burns, Sheriff Detective David Carroll has told me that I could be arrested if I tried to assist Heidi with legal advocacy or getting her medical assistance. She was feeling sick last night and I facilitated getting her to Stanford E.R. a doctor ran tests and believes that Heidi may have cancer. I did what I needed to do, and what the doctor learned may have saved her life. She has a follow up appointment January 2nd with a private doctor. If detective Carroll or any other S.O. deputy attempts to arrest me for getting her the medical attention she needed, this arrest would be unlawful, and my understanding of PC 148 is that as it is ONLY UNLAWFUL to RESIST A LEGAL ARREST & I may therefore LEGALY RESIST an UNLAWFUL ARREST. I am letting you know that if they try to arrest me for getting her medical attention I MAY NEED TO RESIST & I may have no choice but to solicit the assistance of the Palo Alto Police Department if a situation develops within PA city limits. I believe that by doing these things, not only is detective Carroll following unlawful orders, but also that he is doing so under advice of County Counsel, Orry Korb in violation of CPRC: 3-210, U.S.C. TITLE 18 Sections 241, 242, Penal Code 368, WIC 15656, TITLE 42 SECTION 3631, A.D.A, and multiple sections of the Civil Code and California Government Code. Though I believe these most.likely to be void threats intended to intimidate & silence us from speaking out about the acts of fraud committed against her in case: 1-12-CV226958, I still do not want to make any assumptions & our best defense, and as a precaution, I think it best that these things be documented which is why I am bringing this before your attention. Thank You & Have a happy New Year. Respectfully, Cary-Andrew Crittenden 408-401-0023 www.SantaClaraCountySheriff.com Copied to senior staff at U.S. DOJ, PDO and State Bar. ---------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Detective David Carroll To: dcoffey@pdo.sccgov.org Cc: Ada.complaint@usdoj.gov, "Shandler, Jane C" <Jane.C.Shandler@hud.gov>, "jrosen@da.sccgov.org" <jrosen@da.sccgov.org>, "san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov" <san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov>, "judicialcouncil@jud.ca.gov" <judicialcouncil@jud.ca.gov>, "info@calbar.ca.gov" <info@calbar.ca.gov>, Phyllis.Cheng@dfeh.ca.gov, "criminal.division@usdoj.gov" <criminal.division@usdoj.gov>, david.carroll@sherriff.sccgov.org, "JKAPP@pdo.sccgov.org" <JKAPP@pdo.sccgov.org>, "MONEAL@pdo.sccgov.org" <MONEAL@pdo.sccgov.org>, jeff.rosen@da.sccgov.org, kristen.tarabetz@sheriff.sccgov.org, frank.damiano@sheriff.sccgov.org, sheriff@cupertino.org, Laurie.Smith@sheriff.sccgov.org, Susan Fowle <susan.fowle@ssa.sccgov.org>, Cheryl Stevens <Cheryl.Stevens@cco.sccgov.org>, Orry Korb <orry.korb@cco.sccgov.org>, "smanoukian@scscourt.org" <smanoukian@scscourt.org>, yruiz@scscourt.org, sfein@da.sccgov.org, "O'Donnell, Jim" <jim.odonnell@abc.com>, "Heather.Falkenthal@asm.ca.gov" <Heather.Falkenthal@asm.ca.gov>, cory.wolbach@sen.ca.gov ▼ Hide quoted text Mr. Coffey, I want it on the record that Detective David Carroll has told me that I was under criminal investigation by the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office because I had emailed Mr.Korb requesting Orry Korb to reinstate Heidi Yauman's HUD Complaint (#345092), which was shut down by the Public Guardian for the purpose of preserving the fraudulent court record that was created in Department 19 (CASE: 1-12-CV=226958) - The false accusations of criminal activity stated as FACT in these fraudulent pleadings submitted by attorney Ryan Mayberry were nothing but made up lies with ZERO FACTUAL BASIS IN REALITY. I cannot state as fact, that this led to the death of Mr. Robert Moss who was found dead at Markham Plaza Apartments in Early November of 2012, but I CAN STATE AS FACT that Markham Plaza had used this fraudulent false statements as "justification" to prevent me from assisting Mr. Moss who was disabled & Mr. Moss was found dead very shortly thereafter. In the event that a pitchess motion is ever filed against Detecteve Carroll, I would like to offer my services as a witness in court. Not only does it appear that Detective Carroll was following unlawful orders, but that the orders that are directed pursuant to department procedure are to be passed down through the chain of command through the rank to the file within the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department Additionally, It appears that by issuing these unlawful orders to the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department, Mr. Korb may be in violation of Rule 3-300 (California Rules of Professional Conduct) - In conjuction with violations of ADA,FHA, etc. BTW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLeuPNgFpY ( I have no personal knowledge of the events described in the above testimony of Ms. Debra Grant, but it is clear that the Sheriff's Department does employ tactics such as are describes, and the sabotaging of Heidi Yauman's HUD complaint does indeed qualify as a PROTECTION RACKET, with EAH Housing and their attorney being a protected party & the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department acting as a band of thugs to enforce that protection that EAH Housing has been granted. Regards, Cary-Andrew Crittenden | 408-401-0023 On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> wrote: > The kind gesture is appreciated Susan, and thus far, you have shown > yourself to be very genuine and sincere. Among other things, this may > be a conflict of interest since you are with the Public Guardian's > office and represented by the County Counsel who orchestrated these > attacks against us, and destroyed Heidi's Housing. It would be > extremely helpful however, if either you or Mr. Dames could please > obtain a hard copy of the court transcript to case: 1-12-CV226958, as > we have credible reason to suspect that the court transcripts to this > case have also been altered, as appears to be a common trend in civil > court cases that have gone through department 19. > > I believe that any legal advise directed by the county counsel to the > Public Guardian that conflicts with PAG fiduciary duty > would be unlawful as an attorney may not advise in the violation of > any law, as he has clearly done repeatedly, in effect, using the > Sheriff's Department as if he was "yielding a sword" to attack us. > This is remarkably similar to the events of 2006 with the San Jose > Police Department ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5-Khy4bpH4 ) which > caused Heidi permanent physical injuries to her vision. I am not a > doctor or a lawyer, but does not common sense suggest that inflicting > this kind of emotional trauma on her may injure her more because of > her traumatic brain injury? > > She is frightened and terrified right now, though less disoriented > than she was a few months ago. One element of Korbs tactics at > employing the Sheriff's Department to harass and intimidate us is not > only purposed to place us in a state of durress, (and with Heidi, > Undue Influence as defined in Civil Code: 1575 ) it is also a form of > witness intimidation & obstruction of justice & retaliation against > whistle blowers for reporting crimes by County and State Court > Officials. > > In all due respect to you, we cannot ignore the possibility that > County Counsel may use Deputy Public Guardians to play: "Good Cop / > Bad Cop" , which at this point, would be a tactic that he would > probably employ as this has also been done in the past. > > > Not only was Heidi deprived of her due process rights, her fair > housing rights, her ADA rights, She was also degraded harassed, > humiliated and stripped of her human dignity, In the cruel manner in > which Heidi has been treated, Mr. Korb has exhibited characteristics > of a cruel sadistic psychopath. > > You are welcome to call if you like. It is always a pleasure talking with you. > > Thank you for your kindness & concern for her well being & safety. > > Respectfully, > Cary-Andrew Crittenden | 408-401-0023 / 650-701-3202 > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Susan Fowle <Susan.Fowle@ssa.sccgov.org> wrote: >> Hi Cary >> >> Does Heidi want me to attend her meeting with her? Please remember to have her pick up extra personal needs fun this week. >> >> Susan >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Oct 19, 2013, at 2:46 AM, "Cary-Andrew Crittenden" <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Susan. Heidi is scheduled to interview early next week with a representitive from U.S. Government about the events that happened to her & it is very difficult for her to have to re- live this ordeal. She is also very frightened & having some panic attacks due to the recent threats & intimidation tactics used against us by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department and this is upsetting her abit and she is affraid that they may arrest her or retaliate against her if she cooperates with an investigation. She was allready very shaken and tramatized which is why I kept on pleading with Orry Korb to stop hurting her & it appears these inflictions are calculated, delibeberate & intentionaly purposed to break her down as much as possible, scramble her senses and exploit her brain injury & emotional trauma - much like what Larry Kubo did when he had dismantled the protections I had established for Heidi in her "answer to unlawful detainer" - to stop the harrassment from Markham Plaza Property Management. >>> >>> So far, you have treated her very well & I am very grateful for this. >>> >>> I am asking you to please take steps to ensure that the Sheriff's department does not try to create any more difficulties for her, as her life has allready been difficult enough for her already and she is very shaken and fragile from this scairy ordeal & lately she has began crying in her sleep & these "Shock" methods that they used against her are devestating to her & have set her back years of rehabilitation from her re-emerging from her coma. >>> >>> One of the most difficult things for her is trying to speak & it has upset her deeply. I have an obligation to protect her from this kind of treatment, which equates to violence & I am doing my very best to guide her to peace & safety without her being hurt any more & this path must be clear of obstructions, ambushes and detours! She deserves to be safe & needs to heal & I'm asking you to please make do whatever you can to ensure that Orry Korb, Detective Carroll or anyone else does not hurt her any more or try to further obstruct her recovery /rehabilitation, etc. >>> >>> >>> Thanks You, >>> Cary-Andrew Crittenden | 408-401-0023 / 650-701-3202 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain >> information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for >> the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an >> authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, >> distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to >> others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have >> received this message in error, please notify the sender by return >> email. >> From: Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM Subject: Inquiry - Re: Detective Carroll To: kristen.tarabetz@sheriff.sccgov.org Cc: Ada.complaint@usdoj.gov, jguzman@pdo.sccgov.org, sfein@da.sccgov.org Good Morning Lieutenant Tarabetz. I believe that the phone call received yesterday from Detective David Carroll may be have been in violation of U.S.C. Title 42 Section 3631, the American's With Disabilities Act, and California Penal Code Section: 368(c) California Penal Code 386(c) States that: Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult, with knowledge that he or she is an elder or a dependent adult, to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. My understanding is, that this call was directed by County Counsel: Orry Korb, which may render Mr. Korb in violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 3-210. (Advising the Violation of Law.) A member shall not advise the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal unless the member believes in good faith that such law, rule, or ruling is invalid. A member may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal. This correspondence is an inquiry - it is not a formal internal affairs complaint. Respectfully, Cary-Andrew Crittenden | 408-401-0023 From: Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:07 PM Subject: Arlene Peterson's continued abuse of Heidi Yauman To: "McCabe, Lara" <lara.mccabe@bos.sccgov.org> Cc: yruiz@scscourt.org, gabel <gabel@pdo.sccgov.org>, JKAPP@pdo.sccgov.org, MONEAL@pdo.sccgov.org, Orry Korb <orry.korb@cco.sccgov.org>, BOARDOPERATIONS@cob.sccgov.org, kristen.tarabetz@sheriff.sccgov.org, ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org, dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org, tcain@scscourt.org, "jrosen@da.sccgov.org" <jrosen@da.sccgov.org>, Dennis Brookins <dbrookins@da.sccgov.org> Hello Lara. Please let me know what is being done to resolve this crisis situation with Deputy Public Guardian, Arlene Peterson. Months are dragging by and Heidi Yauman still needs her HUD complaint reinstated, her medicine, and her court records corrected. It is the responsibility of the County to take care of these things, & Heidi is unable to recieve services from Arlene Peterson. Not only is action NOT BEING TAKEN to stop Arlene from hurting Heidi Yauman, she is in essence being refused services because the decicions Arlene Peterson is making are hurting Heidi so bad. She needs her medicine and other care and NOBODY IS STEPPING UP TO STOP THIS ABUSE!!!!! HEIDI CANNOT RECEIVE CARE FROM SOMEONE WHO IS ABUSING HER! AS LONG YOU ALLOW THIS ABUSE TO CONTINUE, YOU ARE REFUSING HEIDI YAUMAN THE CARE AND SERVICES YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE FOR HER!!!! Cary-Andrew Crittenden On Jun 4, 2013 1:42 PM, "Cary-Andrew Crittenden" <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> wrote: On Jun 4, 2013 1:22 PM, "Cary-Andrew Crittenden" <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Detective Carrol. Thank you for your phone call today at approximately 12:00 P.M. Would you please explain to me in writing what you said over the phone regarding me emails to Orry Korb requesting that he take corrective action for the actions of those under his supervision which is his obligation according to law. I do not understand how this can possibly be considered a violation of Penal Code: 653m. Not is it my first amendment right to petition the government for change, I am legaly obligated by law to not allow Heidi Yauman to be deprived as it appears is happening. 653m does not appy to correspondences made in good faith, and my correndences are. How is this NOT a vioiation of USC Title 18 sections 241 and 242. ( possibly the American's with disabilities act also, since Heidi Yauman has designated me to act in her behalf on these matters. Please explain in writing these things to me, and tell me who it was that advised you to call me today, and what you were told to say to me and why. Respectfully, Cary-Andrew Crittenden | 408-401-0023 Kailin Wang, 2481 Fairway Dr. Spanish Fork, Utah 84660 801-645-1060 kaywg2372@gmail.com IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN AND FOR UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH KAILIN WANG, Petitioner, vs. CHRISTOFFER STANFORD THYGESEN, Respondent. Allan Thygesen’s February 13, 2019 Police Report (Incident Report No. 190112228) Case No. 194400718 Judge: Thomas Low Commissioner: Marian Ito Petitioner, Kailin Wang, hereby submits Allan Thygesen’s February 13, 2019 Police Report Incident (Incident Report No. 190112228), while Police Reports are Inadmissible pursuant to , Utah Rule of Evidence 803(8) Similar to its federal counterpart provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for only the below, however since the court has accepted Thygesen’s Sgt. Martinez’s other police reports, it may very well accept this police report of agents witnessing the baby in Utah. A record or statement of a public office if: (A) it sets out: (i) the office’s activities; (ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or (iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and (B) neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. What this means is that, pursuant to Utah Rule of Evidence 803(8)(A)(ii), a police or incident report is not admissible at a criminal trial. And what that means is that the defendant in State v. Gonzalez-Camargo, 2012 WL 6720459 (Utah App. 2012), was entitled to a new trial. In Gonzalez-Camargo, Fernando Gonzalez-Camargo was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and receiving stolen property. To prove that Gonzalez-Camargo committed the latter crime, the State offered evidence that a computer recovered from a bedroom in an apartment in which he and others resided had been stolen. Detective Kim Ellis of the Utah State University police relied on an incident report to confirm that the make, model, and serial number of the computer matched a laptop reported missing from [Utah State U]niversity in August 2009. Although Gonzalez–Camargo objected to the testimony as hearsay, the trial court admitted the evidence contained in the incident report as a business record. After he was convicted, Gonzalez-Camargo appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the incident report was inadmissible hearsay and that it could not be admitted pursuant to Utah Rule of Evidence 803(8)(A)(ii). In response, The State concede[d] that the admission of the incident report was prejudicial error. See...State v. Bertul, 664 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Utah 1983) ("Police records of routine matters are admissible ... such as the day a crime was reported....On the other hand, police reports containing non-routine information as to which the memory, perception, or motivation of the reporter may raise a serious question of reliability, are inadmissible."...; State v. Morrell, 803 P.2d 292, 298 (Utah Ct .App.1990) (stating the general rule that "[p]olice reports are not eligible for admission" under the business or public records exceptions of rule 803 of the Utah Rules of Evidence). Accordingly, the court "reverse[d] Gonzalez–Camargo's conviction of receiving stolen property and remand for a new trial on that charge." -CM On February 13, 2019, Allen Thygesen, Christopher Thygesen’s father filed a police report stating the following: “Wang has not made any threats to harm anyone, and has not requested any money, or anything else from Allan Thygesen,” stating that he would pursue a restraining order based upon the negative articles posted about his son, Christoffer Thygesen. The non-threatening posts, though derogatory and admittedly highly immature, simply did not justify a criminal charge, which is evidenced by the fact that no charges were filed until late October 17, 2019 a day before the parties Utah Temporary Orders Hearing. 2/11/2019 (10:30 a.m.) March 4, 2019 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOFFER STANFORD THYGESEN Ms. Wang was in Spanish Fork, Utah on February 11, 2019 for a pretrial conference in Spanish Fork City v. Kailin Wang, Case No. 171301350 (filed November 22, 2017) on 20 counts of criminal harassment. My investigators witnessed Ms. Wang's mother and Kailin Wang arrive at the Court house for her hearing. They had the baby with them. Case No. FDV- 19-814465 Filed: March 4, 2019 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOFFER STANFORD THYGESEN 2/13/19 SFPD Police Report Incident Report No. 190112228.Christoffer Thygesen said that Wang's parents live in Utah, and that may be her home also appears to be traveling quite a bit. 2/15/19 Christoffer files for Ex-Parte Protective Order, seeking Sole Legal/Physical Custody, w/ "No Visitation at all", to mother in SF Superior Court, the Custody Request was DENIED in Full DV-100, DV-110 2/15/19 San Francisco, CA (FDV-19-814465) Filed on 2/15/19, Ex Parte Restraining Order Stayed Indefinitely, March 6, 2019 also Ex Parte Hearing Order obtained based on Fabricated evidence, later reversed on Jurisdiction still Never had Hearing on Custody/Visitation. DV Case Indefinitely Stayed, NEVER had any hearings on the merits of the Custody Order Thygesen v. Wang SF Superior FDV- 19-814465 2/16/19 Allan C. Thygesen makes a FALSE POLICE REPORT: CAD:1902160074; FALSELY ACCUSES ME OF COMMING TO SF FOR CHRISTOFFER, had my Phone Tracked by Private Investigation Company Hillard Heintz and Kroll. Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein used the same Private Investigators to Stalker, Intimidate, Harass and Silence their Victims. (See: Ronan Farrow Pulitzer Award New Yorker Journalist Articles) MENLO PARK POLICE REPORT: CAD:1902160074 2/15/19-Present A series of threatening posts appeared, under my name "Kailin Wang", this author knew of Thygesen filing for a DV Order and Custody, this person has highly personal information regarding the Thygesen's plans, as well as me. I suspect it is either someone on Christoffer's behalf that posted these threats, or Walker Stone. The series of threatening posts will be included in a separate Exhibit. 2/16/19 Justin Lampropoulos, Utah County Constable letter to David H. Shawcroft Civil Division Chief Utah County Attorney: “February 16, 2019, The neighbors indicated that Kailin Wang did indeed reside at Spanish Fork, Utah, and provided information about her having a child recently. The neighbors even recently hosted a baby shower for her. They confirmed that Kailin Wang was living at 2481 Fairway Drive in Spanish Fork.” Justin Lampropoulos, Utah County Constable letter to David H. Shawcroft Civil Division Chief Utah County Attorney 100 East Center, Suite 200 Provo, UT 84606 2/19/19 NY TRO APPLICATION TO STOP THYGESEN FROM HARASSING MY PARENTS AND BABY K 2/19/19 2/19/19 Allan Thygesen had notice that I filed for New York Child Support (NO Custody Petition was ever in New York, I was Pro Se, Since LA did not have a Judgment on Paternity), Allan Thygesen admitted he received notice on 2/19/19 I was in NY, But he ordered his PI's to intensify the Harassment. He sent several armed men go to my father’s work and later chase them on the freeway. See: Utah County Attorney Letters 2/19/19 Police Report Incident Report No. 190112228. Sgt. Martinez Calls Ana Burgi of Spanish Fork, Utah DA 2/19/19 Police Report Incident Report No. 190112228. Received email from Erica Johnstone that she has begun to submit evidence preservation requests to social media. “She also stated that the [baby] was. seen through, a window at Kailin Wang's parent's home in Utah. “ The parents claim that Wang is in New York. Email retained in case file. CASE NO. P- 02059-19 2/19/19 Police Report Incident Report No. 190112228. I spoke with Angie Jackson Legal Department Secretary from Spanish Fork, Utah. Jason Sant told me that Kailin Wang is scheduled for a final pre-trial conference on 4/8/19, and that there may be a plea deal. The prosecutor on this case is Jason Sant I spoke with Jason Sant and he told me that they are close to a resolution. Mental health treatment will. be part of the plea. Sergeant Michele Martinez #1208 2/20/19 Justin Lampropoulos, Utah County Constable letter to David H. Shawcroft Civil Division Chief Utah County Attorney:" February 20, 2019, Stowell and Officer Gurney of the Salem Police Department attempted to contact Mr. John Wang at his place of employment. Stowell requested an officer to be present for officer safety purposes. The Constable’s Office was informed that Kailin might have a firearm, and with Wang's determined non-cooperation and hostility, having another officer was prudent in case Mr. John Wang had a firearm as well." Sergeant Michele Martinez #1208 San Francisco Police Department Special Investigations Division 415-553-1133 2/20/19 Justin Lampropoulos, Utah County Constable letter to David H. Shawcroft Civil Division Chief Utah County Attorney: On the afternoon of February 20, 2019, Mr. Stowell followed Wang's in hopes of serving. Kailin Wang, while she was not in the vehicle, but it was instead Mrs. Wang. Kailin’s baby was also in the vehicle. This corroborates the reasonable belief that Kailin resides at the Spanish Fork, Utah residence. Moreover, Sergeant Michele Martinez #1208, Angie Jackson Legal Department Secretary from Spanish Fork, Utah. Jason Sant ADA, Spanish Fork City, Utah Kailin’s baby was with the Wang’s when the incident occurred in Sandy – indicating that they had good contact with Kailin, which is contrary to every statement they made of not knowing her whereabouts. 2/21/19 Justin Lampropoulos, Utah County Constable letter to David H. Shawcroft Civil Division Chief Utah County Attorney: February 21, 2019, The Wang’s noticed a red Toyota Hybrid parked near their home. This vehicle does not belong to the Unified Constable Service. However, the office was aware of several private investigators in the area. Justin Lampropoulos, Utah County Constable 2/22/19 Police Report Incident Report No. 190112228. I spoke Justin Lampropoulos, Utah County Constable who is attempting to serve Kailin Wang with the TRO.In summary, Lampropoulos told me the following: There is a PI firm hired to surveillance the Wang home in Spanish Fork, UT. Lampropoulos and his team ended up liaising with them several times. Lampropoulos believes, that Wang. still lives in Utah, at least part of the time. There was a baby shower held for Wang a couple of months ago in Utah. Neighbors have stated that Wang still lives in the Utah house, but doesn't come out much. Justin Lampropoulos, Utah County Constable Report Type: Initial S~n Frahcisco Police Department . INCIDENT REPORT 190112228 I lncldent Number ·-~ 190-112-228 Occurrence From Date I lime Occurrence To Date I llme 1212412018 Reported Dale I Time CAD Number 02/13/2019 17:39 190452274 J, Type of Incident .... I SUSPICIOt:IS OCCURRENCE 64070 D Location of Occurrence: E N Confidential T Report? D Location Sent I On View: ' 850 BRY~NT ST Suspect Known? 0 Suspect Unknown? 0 Crim• and Claararn:o Slalu• Reporled to Bureau Name 0 At lntersecUon wilh/Premlse Type HOUSE District PARK Nan-Suspect Jncldenl? D · Domesllc. Violence? D (Type of Weapon Used) Use of Reporting Unit At Intersection with Star Date/Time Elder VictimO Force? P 5S106 Reporting Dlslrlct SOUTHERN I Gang Juvenile Related? D ·subject? 0 Prejudice Based? 0 Have you reviewed the attached list of procedures requlred by Department General Order (DGO) 7.04? o D I declare under penalty of peijury, this report of ...L pages is true and correct, based on my personal knowledge, or ls based on information and belief F E following an lnvestlgalion of the events and parties Involved. Ji' C PROP 115 CERTIFIED 5 Year/Post I L Reporting Officer C A MARTINEZ, MICHELE A E R Reviewlng Officer R A MARTINEZ, MICHELE A T OIC .I O'CONNOR, DAVID G · 0 N Related Case Related Case Star 1206 Star 1208 Star 313 Re-assigned lo . Coples to 3*300 Station Special JnvesligaUons Station Special Investigations Station Special Investigations Assigned to 3•300 Add'J Coples Walch 0600-1600 Watch 0800-1800 Watch 0900-1700 Date 02/15/19 17:48 Date 02/15/19 17:48 Date 02/2211917:36 Assigned by MM 1208. R Code ·I 1 RN1 ): Name (Las~ First Middle) Alias I. Day Phone Cell c Type T Cell I DOB I Age DOB M 'li/'13/92 26 Unk. D Confidential Violent Crime Person Cl NotiffcaUon D School (if Juvenile) Interpreter Language Needed D Home Address · or age belween -and 293PC NolilicaUon D Race Sax Haight Weight Heir Colar Eye Color W M 6'5 160 BRO. BLU Star Follow-up Form YES 0' Statement YES 0 Relalionshlp to :;lubject KNOWN lnjuryITrea!ment Other Information/If Interpreter Needed Specify Language Language DescripUon(if Other) Language Line Service/Interpreter ID# Biiinguai Ofc Star# R Code Name (Las~ First Middle) Alias Email / l~PJW~-1~~~T_H_Y_G_Es_E_N_.A_L~LA_N~~~~~~~~~-'--~~~--,---~--~~---''---.-~~~-r-~~~-i w I T N E s s Day Phone {000) 000-0000 Night Phone Type Unknown Type DOB 0612.7/62 I Age DOB 66 Unk. 0 Confidential IVlolent Crime Person 0 Nolificallon D School (if Juvenile) Interpreter Language Needed 0 lncidenf:# 190112228 Home Address !Work Address or age between and' 293 PC. Notification 0 lnjuryffreatment Race w Star Sex M Height 6'4 City City Weight 200 Hair Color BLN Eye Color BLU FoUaw-up Form YES D Statement YES. 0 State Zip Code Stale Zip Co\le ID Type Jurisd. ID No. DLCA Relationship to Subject OTHER (NARRATIVE) Other lnforrnaUon/lf.lnterpreter Needed Specify Lal)guage Language DescripUon\tf Other) Language Line Service/Interpreter ID# Bilingual Ofc Star# 00298'8;ie 1 of 3 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT CHRONOLOGICAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION Page 4 of29 DATE TIME I __ jl.CTIVITY ---· .. ·--··-------·---~ 1748 1755 1------1-- 2/19119 0726 0814 0827 0855 2/22/19 1007 1135 Initial incident report submitted. LIM for Ana B Spahish Fork DA) at Received email from Erica J attorney for .. , who stated that she has begun to submit evidence preservation requests to social media platforms. She also stated that the baby was. seen through. a window at Kailin Wang's parent's home in Utah. The parents claim that Wang is in New York. Email retained in case file. I spoke with Angie J (Department Secretary). from the Spanish Fork ~·- Legal Department. J told me that Kailin Wang is scheduled for a final pre-trial conferenc.e on 4/8/19, and that there may be a plea. The prosecutor on this case is Ja~on ·sm I spoke with Jason S~ho tolc:J me that they are close to a resolution. Mental health treatment will. be part of the plea.· Wang is charged with 50 counts of misdemeanor harassment. I advised. s• that Wang is a suspect in a stalking/harassment investigation in San Francisco. Attorney for War:ig is Edward Brass (801-322-5678) Wang was in court last week for an appearance, and will have to appear on 4/8. LIM for lspo~ewith-at . -toldmethathe is currently c~ding screen shots and co~erything Wang has posted and everyone who she has contacted. -told me that he will provide me with a copy of everything when it is r.eady. He told r~e that it will probably be another day or two because he is still attempting to reach .pea le who Wang had contacted . .-:--:-~~~--,.--,-~~~~---:-- Received emails from letting. me to ~dditional posts and contacts made by Wang t ·sister and friends. =-~---,,,~~~~~~~~~----! UM for Erica J-, attorney for regarding any Documents/Postings she may have re a e o e case. 1~~~~1--~~~-~~~~~--'~ '--~~~-~~ I .spoke with Darrick C (attorney), and reques e ocuments/evidence he 1404 1415 ·····-····---1518 fil'ed as part.of the TRO application. ~told me that he will send me a dro box with the documents. Received TRO documents via drop box from Darrick C .. office. I spoke with Justin Lampropoi.llos, Utah County Constable who is attempting to serve Kailin Wang with the TRO. In summary, Lampropoulos told me the following: There is a Pl firm hired to surveil the Wang home in Spanish ·Fork, UT. Lampropoulos and his team ended up liaising with them several times. Lampropoulos believes. that Wang.still lives in Utah, at least part of the time. There was a baby shower held for Wang a couple of months ago in Utah. . Neighbors have stated that Wang still lives in the Utah house, but doesn't come out much. SFPD 298 (10176)°* 002774 .. Report Type: Initial San Francisco Police Department INCIDENT REPORT NARRATIVE 190112228 0112/13/i9, I spoke with (RW) reg.arding the ongoing harassment of his son, (RV)!P!!ll by (S) Kailin Wahg. W £ told~ had fathered a child with Wang, an 1 paternity of the child was confirmed on 2/11 /19. _.old me that Wang has been "harassing"~ sinqe Christmas time, and has posted defamatory ·articles about him online af)d reached out to his fam~s. • a I hired a Private Investigator to look irito Wang's baokgrouryd. lhe Private Investigator found that Wang has a history of harassing and stalking men that she has met Wang's history of st~lklng and harasslng is concerning to , and he is afrald that it may escalate into that type of behavior with -· -told me that Wang has not made any threats to harm anyone, and has not requested any money, or anything else from told me that he will be filing a r~straining or9er against Wang. It should be noted that sen· ang a Cease and Desist letter, which she respended to, but has continued to post articles about · On 2/ 14/19, I spoke with ----..i:old me that he met Wang in the beginning of March 2018 i~~o~~~YT:~:~r~~~I~ ~~~1·~~~\e!!J!!! =~~~~~. ~~d that she was p;~;~~:j ~:~ !t~t -2 $1450.00 to cover the abortion and a hotel room for the night. In the end, Wang decided not to have the abortion. . JS told me that betwE?en June and October 2018, he and Wang had.infrequent communication. He described the conversations that they did have as pointless and destructive. Wang threatened to blo~k G;Qmmunication with Q U 1 •• so he decided that It was best to stop responding to her for fear that she Wo!..!ld Jock him ~ompletely. Wang began contacting~ family, friends and co-workers. He stated that Wang has been making defamatory and untrue stareinents about him. -tol.d ine that Wang has said that he forced her to kill an . 18 week old baby, as well as referring to him as aaeacrbeat c.Iad.] told me that altho4gh initially he didn't feel ready to be a father, he wants to provide for and be involved in his child's life. -told me that Wang has not made ~ny threats towards him, but he is afraid that her behavior will escalate. ~ said that he doesn't know what Wang's motivation is, but he believes that she likes to hurt people. . Incident# 190112228 0029~ge 3 of 3 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT CHRONOLOG,ICAL OF INVESTIGATION Page 1of29 I TYPE OF CASE. CASE NO. VICTIM Stalking/Harassment 19011222.8 Thygesen, Christoffer Stone, Walker DATE DETAIL INSPECTORASSIGNED ~--·--· .. -- Wednesday, February'13, 2019 Special Investigations Division Martinez #1208 DATE- 2/13/19 TiME ACTIVITY 17 00 Lt. O'Connor advised me that (R) . _ 1=z=-a_n_d:-:ch-::-is-t-=-a-m-=-il-y-a-re_b_e...,...in_g_ harassed, and' possibly stalked by a woman who had a child with his son, lieves that the woman has prior convictions for stalking other.nfen:·.--· · · r-----i----::-:-:---i-::----::-:-:--:-:--~------:-------~ 1739 I spoke with (R) Thygesen via teleP.hone. In summary, told me the following: IQ g a lives in ~it\:l his wife. They hav~ four children together. . Their son, 'Christoffer Thygesen is 26, and lives in San Francisco. --.i.tmet (S} Kailin Wang on Tinder, they had an intimate relationship, ~ame pregnant. The baby was born on 11/26/18. On.2/11/1~, a DNA test confirmed tha is the father of the child. . Wang has been· harassing-since Christmas, but it has been ·escalating. -told me that Wang has posted a variety of defamatory articles online abou~ and is reaching out to nis friends and family. -told me that he has attempted·to have these defamatory articles removed from various websites, but not every website.has complied. -hired a Private Investigator to look into Wang's background. The Pl'found that Warm had been convicted in New York (5. years ago) for stalking and harassing a man she had met. In that case, Wang .threatened to go over to his apartment with a gun. She also threatened to kill herself. -told me that there is also a current.case involving another San Francisco man. In this case, there are 20" counts pending in the Ufah Courts. said that Wang's parents live in Utah, and that may be her home base, bu s e also appears to be traveling quite a bit. Wang has made no direct threats towards anyone; and has not requested- money, or asked for anything from -told me th~t he will email me the information that he has on Wang, including what she has posted online. ' told me that he wm be filing a restraining order against Wang within the next few days. A cease and desist letter was sent to Wang in early July, which she responded to. However, she has continued to post articles about Kailin Wang . D.OB: .1/20/8~---·-.... ---·-......... ----. -···--·-···-··-----------' 002771 ·SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT CHRONOLOGICAL REPORT.OF INVESTIGATION DATE L..TIME I ACTIVITY Page 2 of 29 ---1----'--1-C_h_r_is~C?.ffE~~-I~ygesen: 650-862-8473 ______ _ 2/14119 0730 Received and reviewed email from A.Thygesen Included in the email w.ere two attachments from a civil and criminal case in New York involving Wang. 1. Affidavit of Detective Anthony c• 2. Affidavit of Rory \t\'9 . . Documents retained in case file. --1030 Con.ducted Google search on https://medium.com/@bonb4905/christoffer-thygesen-data-scientist-square-inc- im re nated-me-abandoned-his-child-89ce0384a70e · ~--+-----+====='"===='; ---------1120 I spoke with (11/13/92) via telephone. In summary, old me the following: __,,et (S) Kailin Wang in the beginning of March 2018 through ~went on two date~ and had consensual sex. This resulted in a pregnancy and the birth of a child. told me that the paternity of · the child was confirmed earlier this week. At the end of June 2018, Wang told ---that she was pregnant and that the baby was probably his. She 10iCi'hiiii"tlt she wanted an abortion.• -gave Wang $550 for the abortion, but Wang asked for another $650. Wang did not get the ·abortion on that day, but -sent her $900 to cover t1·1e $650 and' a.hotel mom for one night; so that she could get the abortion the next day. B~tween June·and October 2018, had infrequent communication with Wang. He expressed to her that he wasn't ready to be a.father, but tried to be supportive. described their conversations as pointless and destructive. · told me that Wang started harassing him on Christmas Eve, and began contacting everyone in his network. He. said that Wang would make. defamatory and untrne statements about him. . ' · told me that Wang called his father a racist and his mother a yp he also told people that he for.ced her to kill an 18 week baby, and refers to him as a deadbeat dad. SFPD 298 (10!76) * 002772 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT CHRONOLOGICAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION Page 3of29 ·I DATE _[JIME I ACTIVITY __________ ___ 1245 -said that Wang has not made any direct threats towards him, ·but is afraid that her behavior will escalate. I asked what he believes Wang's motivation is, and he told me that he didn't know. He believes that Wang just likes to hurt people. does not know where ·Wang lives, but said that she has stayed in ·an apartment in New York and in Utah, wh~re her parents live. C. Thygesen told me that Wang submitted a case in Los Angeles, and the DNA test was also in Los Angeles. described Wang's lifestyle qS "jet setting." CDW seai:ch.on Kailin Wang. Located a similar case involving Wang in San Francisco. Incident reports: 170945607, 170810414, 180132399 Reports retained in case file. . ~--~-+---,--,-~+-~-:-~~~~:--~-:-~-:--:-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---; 1402 Obtained C?Se number for Suspiqious Occurrence report. Case:190112228,Cad: 190452274. 1414 Conducted computer query on Kailin Wang 1/20/83) 1~~~~t--~~~~~~--::c-:--: 2115/19 1319 I spoke with who told me that he filed for the Temporary Restraining Order against Wang today. He is expecting a response from the court within the hour. ~old me that he will provide me with those 1647 1700 documents via email foday. . · .__. told me that he does not believe that Wang has his email address, ~er or home address, and requested that those rn~t be included in the olice report. Received Er:nail fr9m providing me with a copy of ~h~ TRO (FDV- 19-814465). The TRO earing is scheduled for 3/6/19. I received a phone call from --mother of (V) ~ · · al!!!!!P.af!ted to 'inform. me of Wang's prior stalking/harassment history. !m'l~he was afraid of revenge porn setup of based on Wang's history. . ___ _,__~1-73_1__, .. I s oke with ...... In summary,-told me the following: report~roximately a year and a half agq for harassing, and defaming him. -told me that vvang "robo-called" everyone that he knew, hon-stop. -stated that Wang has been charged with harassment against him, in rnati.'"Wang was arrested on 12/14/17, and the harassment continued. Harassm~nt began September znd or 3rc1of2017, and the phone calls continued until November 2017. -told me that he never met Wang in person, and that they had only corresponded on a few dating. apps. -told me that the Attorney handling the crimin.al case agai~st Wang was Ana B•in Spanish Fork, UT. · .L-·~~-'--~-~ ~~er~sQo~na~l~a~tt~o~rn~e~y~is~TDe~d~B~!!lll!!lll!!L.lllll!ll!ll!ll!ll!ll!ll!l_~~_J Si=PD 298 (10176) * .. . "' 002773 UD-105 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME: HEIDI YAUMAN STATE BAR NO: FIRM NAME: ADDRESS: 2000 MONTEREY ROAD, APT#427 CITY SAN JOSE STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 95112 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): TELEPHONE NO.: 408-294-2391 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): FAX NO (Optional): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 NORTH FIRST STREET MAILING ADDRESS: 191 NORTH FIRST STREET CITY AND ZIP CODE: SAN JOSE, 95113 BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFF: EAH HOUSING, INC. DEFENDANT: HEIDI y AUMAN CASE NUMBER: ANSWER-UNLAWFUL DETAINER l 12CV226958 1. Defendant (each defendant for whom this answer is filed must be named and must sign this answer unless his or her attorney signs): answers the complaint as follows: 2. Check ONLY ONE of the next two boxes: a. [L] Defendant generally denies each statement of the complaint. (Do not check this box if the complaint demands more than $1,000.) b. D Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint are true EXCEPT: (1) Defendant claims the following statements of the clmpljint are false (state paragraph numbers from the complaint or explain below or on form MC-025): Explanation is on MC-025, titled as Attachment 2b(1 ). (2) Defendant has no information or belief that the following statements of the complaint are true, so defendant denies them (state paragraph numbers from the complaint or explain below or on form MC-025): D Explanation is on MC-025, titled as Attachment 2b(2). 3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (NOTE: For each box checked, you must state brief facts to support it in item 3k (top of page 2).) a. D (nonpayment of rent only) Plaintiff has breached the warranty to provide habitable premises. b. D (nonpayment of rent only) Defendant made needed repairs and properly deducted the cost from the rent, and plaintiff did C. D d. D e. [Z] f. D g. D not give proper credit. (nonpayment of rent only) On (date): before the notice to pay or quit expired, defendant offered the rent due but plaintiff would not accept it. Plaintiff waived, changed, or canceled the notice to quit. Plaintiff served defendant with the notice to quit or filed the complaint to retaliate against defendant. By serving defendant with the notice to quit or filing the complaint, plaintiff is arbitrarily discriminating against the defendant in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States or California. Plaintiffs demand for possession violates the local rent control or eviction control ordinance of (city or county, title of ordinance, and date of passage): (Also, briefly state in item 3k the facts showing violation of the ordinance.) h. [ZJ Plaintiff accepted rent from defendant to cover a period of time after the date the notice to quit expired. i. D Plaintiff seeks to evict defendant based on acts against defendant or a member of defendant's household that constitute domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. (A temporary restraining order, protective order, or police report not more than 180 days old is required naming you or your household member as the protected party or a victim of these crimes.) j. [Z] Other affirmative defenses are stated in item 3k. Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California UD-105 [Rev January 1, 2012] ANSWER-UNLAWFUL DETAINER Page 1of2 Civil Code.§ 1940 et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure, § 425. 12, § 1161 et seq. www.courts.ca.gov CASE NUMBER: l 12CV226958 3. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (cont'd) k. Facts supporting affirmative defenses checked above (identify facts for each item by its letter from page 1 below or on form MC-025): []'.] Description of facts is on MC-025, titled as Attachment 3k. PLEASE REFER TO "ATTACHMENT: 3k" 4. OTHER STATEMENTS a. D Defendant vacated the premises on (date): b. D The fair rental value of the premises alleged in the complaint is excessive (explain below or on form MC-025): D Explanation is on MC-025, titled as Attachment 4b. c. W Other (specify below or on form MC-025 in attachment): W Other statements are on MC-025, titled as Attachment 4c. PLEASE REFER TO "ATTACHMENT 4c" 5. DEFENDANT REQUESTS a. that plaintiff take nothing requested in the complaint. b. costs incurred in this proceeding. c. D reasonable attorney fees. UD-105 d. D that plaintiff be ordered to (1) make repairs and correct the conditions that constitute a breach of the warranty to provide habitable premises and (2) reduce the monthly rent to a reasonable rental value until the conditions are corrected. e. W Other (specify below or on form MC-025): W All other requests are stated on MC-025, titled as Attachment 5e. PLEASE REFER TO "ATTACHMENT 5e" 6. Number of pages attached: __ UNLAWFUL DETAINER ASSISTANT (Bus. & Prof. Code§§ 6400-6415) 7. (Must be completed in all cases.) An unlawful detainer assistant [LJ did not D did for compensation give advice or assistance with this form. (If defendant has received any help or advice for pay from an unlawful detainer assistant, state: a. Assistant's name: b. Telephone No.: c. Street address, city, and zip code: d. County of registration: e. Registration No.: f. Expires on (date): (Each defendant for whom this answer is filed must be named in item 1 and must sign this answer unless his or her attorney signs.) HEIDI Y AUMAN (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT OR ATTORNEY) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT OR ATTORNEY) VERIFICATION (Use a different verification form if the verification is by an attorney or for a corporation or partnership.) I am the defendant in this proceeding and have read this answer. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: JUNE, 25, 2012 HEIDI Y AUMAN (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT) UD-105 [Rev. January 1, 2012] ANSWER-UNLAWFUL DETAINER Page 2 of 2 MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: ATTACHMENT 3e l 12CV226958 ATTACHMENT (Number): _3e ____ _ (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) ON JUNE 4TH, 2012, SHORTLY AFTER 8:00 A.M, MARKHAM PLAZA PROPERTY MANAGER, ELAINE BOUCHARD APPROACHED HEIDI Y AUMAN NEAR TO THE DUMPSTER ENLOSURES AND INFORMED HEIDI Y AUMAN SHE WOULD BE RECIEVING A LEASE VIOLATION ON HER DOOR FOR RECYCLING FROM THE DUMPSTERS. ELAINE BOUCHARD ALSO ACCUSED HEIDI Y AUMAN OF STEALING MAIL. THERE IS NOTHING WITHIN THE LEASE OR "HOUSE RULES AND REGULA TIO NS" DOCUMENTS THAT PROHIBIT RECYCLING OUT OF THE DUMPSTERS. THIS "RULE" OF NOT RECYCLING WAS BEING EXCLUSIVELY APPLIED TO HEIDI Y AUMAN IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: -U.S.C TITLE 42, SECTION: 3604(b) -CA. WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE: 15656 (CONFUSION) -MARKHAM PLAZA "HOUSE RULES AND REGULATIONS" -SECTION 12 -MARKHAM PLAZA "HOUSE RULES AND REGULATIONS" -SECTION 25 MS. YAUMAN DID NOT RECIEVE A VIOLATION NOTICE FOR THIS INCIDENT, LATER ON THAT SAME DAY (JUNE 4TH, 2012) HOWEVER, MARKHAM PLAZA FELL SUBJECT TO A COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. (CASE NO. 201216540) THIS COMPLAINT WAS IN REGARDS TO SOME SANITATION RELATED CONCERNS ON THE PREMESIS THIS CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE (201216540) WAS ASSIGNED TO SAN JOSE CODE ENFORCEMENT -INSPECTOR GREGORY PEACOCK. MR. PEACOCK CAN BE REACHED AT 408-535-7861. MARKHAM PLAZA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT THEN TOLD SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY SUSPECTED THAT ONE OF HEIDI Y ADMAN'S FRIENDS MAY HA VE FILED THE COMPLAINT. THIS WAS RELAYED FROM ONE RESIDENT ON THE THIRD FLOOR. LATER THAT SAME WEEK, ANOTHER RESIDENT RESIDING ON THE SECOND FLOOR ANOUNCED THAT ELAINE BOUCHARD WAS "OUT TO GET HEIDI." SHORTLY THEREAFTER, ON JUNE l 5TH, AT APPROXIMATELY 2:00 P.M, THE "NOTICE TO QUIT" WAS POSTED ON THE DOOR OF HEIDI Y AUMAN'S RESIDENCE. -"2000 MONTEREY ROAD, APT#427, SAN JOSE, CA. 95112" (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California MC-025 [Rev_ July 1, 2009] ATTACHMENT to Judicial Council Form Page of (Add pages as required) www,courtinfo ca.gov MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: ATTACHMENT 3h l 12CV226958 ATTACHMENT (Number): 3h ----- (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) THE DEFENDENT'S RENT IS BELIEVED TO HA VE BEEN PAID IN FULL. THIS HOWEVER, HAS NOT YET BEEN CONCLUSIVELY CONFIRMED DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINT/ DEADLINE OF FILING THIS "ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER FOR CASE# l 12CV226958" WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. DEFENDENT: HEIDI Y AUMAN IS A DEPENDENT ADULT AS DEFINED IN WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE: 15610.23, AND CONSERVED THROUGH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN'S OFFICE. (333 WEST JULIAN STREET, SAN JOSE, CA. 95110) (PROBATE COURT CASE FILE: l-94-PR-133513) THE SANT A CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN'S OFFICE ISSUES MOTHL Y RENT PAYMENTS TO MARKHAM PLAZA APARTMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: HEIDI Y AUMAN. MS. YAUMAN WILL SEEK TO OBTAIN COPIES OF RENT RECIEPTS AND/OR VERIFICATION OF RENT PAYMENT FROM THE SANT A CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN'S OFFICE AND/OR MARKHAM PLAZA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. DEPUTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN: REBECCA PIZANO-TORRES IS ASSIGNED AS MS. YAUMAN'S CONSERVATOR THROUGH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN'S OFFICE. MS. PIZANO-TORRES'S CONTACT INFORMATION IS AS FOLLOWS: OFFICE: 408-755-7655 I CELLULAR: 408-314-6372 EMAIL: REBECCA.PIZANO@PAG.CO.SANTA-CLARA.CA.US NOTE: PAGE: 3 -LINE: 11 OF THE "COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER" NOTICE INDICATES THAT MS. Y ADMAN'S RENT FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2012 HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL, OTHERWISE, THE $24.17 PER DAY FEE WOULD THEREFORE COMMENCE ON JUNE l 8TH, 2012. (NOT ON JULY 1, 2012 AS INDICATED ON PAGE: 3 -LINE:l l (THE FIRST DAY OF EACH MONTH IS WHEN RENT IS DUE PURSUANT TO SECTION 24 OF THE "HOUSE RULES AND REGULATIONS") -THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT HEIDI YAUMAN'S RENT HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL THROUGH JUNE, 2012. (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California MC-025 [Rev. July 1, 2009] ATTACHMENT to Judicial Council Form Page of (Add pages as required) www courtinfo ca gov MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: ATTACHMENT 3k. l 12CV226958 ATTACHMENT (Number): _3k ____ _ (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) SEVERAL PECULIARITIES HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED ON THE "NOTICE TO QUIT" DATED JUNE, 20, 2012. SOME OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: PAGE 1, LINES 24-27 INDICATES THAT TRUE NAME(S) ARE UNKNOWN AND FICTITOUS NAMES ARE BEING USED. THE BOTTOM OF COVER PAGE ( SUM-130) HOWEVER INDICATES PERSON SERVED IS "INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT". NOT PERSON SUED UNDER FICTITOUS NAME, OR OCCUPANT. HEIDI Y ADMAN'S NAME APPEARS TO BE INTENTIONALLY MISSPELLED AS "HEDI Y AUMAN". EAH HOUSING INC. AND THEIR ATTORNEY'S ARE VERY WELL A WARE OF THE DEFENDANT'S ACTUAL NAME. THIS DOCUMENT AND "NOTICE TO QUIT I EXHIBIT B" ARE SAID TO BE PREPARED BY ATTORNEYS: TODD ROTHBARD -CA. STATE BAR ID: 67351 RYAN MAYBERRY -CA. STATE BAR ID: 232622 THIS DOCUMENT AND "NOTICE TO QUIT I EXHIBIT B" APPEAR TO BE INTENTIONALLY CRAFTED TO DECIEVE THE COURT, AND TO CONFUSE THE DEFENDANT: MS. HEIDI Y AUMAN, WHO IS A DEPENDENT ADULT (SCC PROBATE COURT CASE# l-94-PR-133513). CONFUSING A DEPENDENT ADULT IS A FORM OF ELDER ABUSE ACCORDING TO CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE: 15656. THIS TACTIC, WHICH COULD ALSO POTENTIALLY INFLICT MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL SUFFERING UPON MS. YAUMAN, APPEARS ALSO TO BE AN "ABUSE OF PROCESS". ACCORDING TO DEPUTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, REBECCA PIZANO-TORRES: "LAW OFFICE OF TODD B. ROTHBARD" HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY FROM THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN'S OFFICE CONCERNING THIS CASE, AND THESE ATTORNEY'S WERE EITHER AW ARE OR SHOULD HA VE BEEN AW ARE THAT MS. Y AUMANS IS DISABLED, AND A DEPENDENT ADULT WHO IS AFFORDED SPECIAL PROTECTIONS ACCORDING TO ST ATE AND FEDERAL LAW. NOTE: THIS "ANSWER TO UNLAWFULL DEATAINER" TO CASE: 112CV226958, (INCLUDING ALL ATTACHMENTS) WAS PREPARED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A NOTETAKER I ADVOCATE PURSUANT TO THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT. (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California MC-025 [Rev July 1, 2009] ATTACHMENT to Judicial Council Form Page __ of __ (Add pages as required) www courtinfo.ca.gov MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: ATTACHMENT4c l 12CV226958 ATIACHMENT (Number): _4c ____ _ (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) HEIDI YAUMAN IS THE SOLE OCCUPANT OF THE PREMISES DESRIBED WHICH IS LOCATED AT "2000 MONTEREY ROAD, APARTMENT #427, SAN JOSE, CA. 95112." HEIDI YAUMAN DOES NOT KNOW A PERSON NAMED: "ANDREW CRITTENDEN", NOR IS THERE ANY SUCH OCCUPANT (OR ANY OTHER OCCUPANT BESIDES HEIDI Y AUMAN) RESIDING AT SUCH ADDRESS. DEPENDENT: HEIDI Y AUMAN DOES NOT USE OR DISTRIBUTE MARIJUANA, NOR IS SHE INVOVED IN ANY SUCH ACTIVITY. MARIJUANA USAGE HOWEVER, IS QUITE COMMON AT MARKHAM PLAZA APARTMENTS, AND THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA CAN OFTEN BE SMELLED IN THE HALLWAYS. MANAGEMENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARD MARIJUANA USAGE AND SALES IS VERY COMPLACANT, AND THE ENFORCEMENT IS BETWEEN LAX AND NONEXISTANT. ON OCCASION, ENFORCEMENT APPEARS TO BE "PERMISSIVE" WHEN THE TENANT INVOLVED IS A FRIEND OF MARKHAM PLAZA STAFF. TO THEIR CREDIT HOWEVER, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DOES APPEAR TO TAKE A MORE AGGRESSIVE STANCE TOWARD HARDER DRUGS AND DOES APPEAR TO HA VE MADE SOME SINCERE EFFORTS IN THIS AREA. MARKHAM PLAZA APARTMENTS IS A LOW-INCOME I HUD SUBSIDISED APARTMENT COMPLEX MANAGED BY EAH HOUSING INC. PROPERTY MANAGER: ELAINE BOUCHARD HAS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF ARBITRARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE LEASE AND HOUSE RULES. ADDITIONALLY, MS. BOUCHARD HAS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS ATTEMPTED TO ARBITRARILY ENFORCE "UNWRITTEN RULES" ON SOME TENANTS, WHICH ARE NOT ENFORCED ON OTHERS. (TITLE 42 U.S.C. 3604(B) (EXAMPLE: RECYCLING OF BOTTLES AND CANS FROM DUMPSTERS.) MS . BOUCHARD IS QUICK TEMPERED, OFTEN ACTS WITH BIAS AND ON OCCASIONS SHE HAS MALISCOUSL Y TARGETED TENANTS WHOM SHE HAS HAD GRUDGES AGAINST WITH FRTVALOUS "VIOLATION NOTICES" CONTAINING UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS. MR. SANDY PERRY IS A TENANT RIGHTS ACTIVIST WHO HAS ADVOCATED FOR MS. YAUMAN DURING PREVlOUS CONFLICTS, AND THUS, MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT INTO PROBLEMS CONCERNING MS. BOUCHARDS BEHAVIOR. MR. PERRY CAN BE REACHED AT: 408-691-6153 (EMAIL: PERRYSANDY@AOL.COM) (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California MC-025 [Rev July 1, 2009] ATTACHMENT to Judicial Council Form Page of (Add pages as required) www.courtinfo-ca_gov MC-025 SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: ATTACHMENT 5e l 12CV226958 ATIACHMENT (Number): _5e ____ _ (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) DEFENDANT MAKES THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS OF THE PLAINTIFF: A.) TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT DEFENDENT FROM HA YING TO LIVE IN A HOSTILE LIVING ENVIROMENT, AND TO REFRAIN FROM ANY ACTION LIKELY TO CAUSE AND/OR ENABLE HOSTILE LIVING CONDITIONS. -U.S.C. TITLE 42, SECTION 3617 -U.S.C. TITLE 42, SECTION 3631 -U.S.C. TITLE 18, SECTION 245(b) -CA. WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE: 15656 B.) TO REFRAIN FROM ANY ATTEMPTS OF ARBITRARY ENFORCEMENT OF MARKHAM PLAZA APARTMENT'S LEASE CONDITIONS AND HOUSE RULES. TO NOT ENFORCE ANY RULES NOT STATED WITHIN THE "TERMS OF LEASE" AND "HOUSE RULES", AND REFRAIN FROM FUTURE ATTEMPTS TO CONFUSE MS . Y AUMAN AS TO THE TERMS I CONDITIONS OF MARKHAM PLAZA'S LEASE AND HOUSE RULES, AND HER FEDERAL Y PROTECTED FAIR HOUSING RIGHTS. -U.S.C. TITLE 42, SECTION 3604(b) -CA.WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE: 15656 C.) TO FURNISH COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS WITHIN MS. YAUMAN'S TENANT FILE TO MS. Y AUMAN, THEN AFTER THIS IS DONE, TO REMOVE ALL UNFOUNDED, UNPROVEN, AND POTENTIAL Y LIBELOUS DOCUMENTS FROM TENANT FILE. D.) TO ESTABLISH CLEAR AND EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES FOR TENANTS TO APPEAL "VIOLATION NOTICES", AND A GRIEVANCE PROCESS FOR TENANTS TO FILE COMPLAINTS PERTAINING TO STAFF BEHAVIOR/CONDUCT, LIVING CONDITIONS, ETC. TO MAKE THESE "CHANNELS" ACCESSABLE TO ALL RESIDENTS , AND TO PROVIDE COPIES OF THE WRITTEN PROCEDURES TO ALL RESIDENTS, AND POST IN CONSPICUOUS LOCATION. NOTE: CA. W.I.C. SECTION 15656 IS APPLICABLE IN ITEMS: "A" AND "B" DUE TO THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT; "HEIDI YAUMAN" IS A DEPENDENT ADULT, AND IS CONSERVED. IN REGARDS TO THE REFERENCES TO U.S.C. TITLE 18, SECTION 245(b) AND U .S.C. TITLE 42, SECTION 3631, THE APPLICATION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE MAY BE CONSIDERED "USE OF FORCE" WHEN PERTAINING TO A "DEPENDENT ADULT" -AS DEFINED IN WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE: 15610.23 (CORRESPONDING PROBATE COURT CASE FILE# l-94-PR-133513) (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty of perjury, all statements in this Attachment are made under penalty of perjury.) Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California MC-025 [Rev July 1, 2009] ATTACHMENT to Judicial Council Form Page of (Add pages as required) www.courtinfo~ca.gov - Forwarded message ---------- From: Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:36:06 -0800 Subject: UPDATE To: Lee Pullen <Lee.Pullen@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: Lori.pegg@cco.sccgov.org, nanosafety@gmail.com, jim.odonnell@abc.com, dan.noyes@abc.com, madison.nguyen@sanjoseca.gov Mr. Pullen, I have been informed by one of the Markham Plaza residents that Robert Moss was found dead. Regards, Cary-Andrew Crittenden On 11/9/12, Cary-Andrew Crittenden <southsfbayarea@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for your response Mr. Pullen, I understand about the > confidential nature of complaints and investigative files, the case > number however, is a matter of public record as is the name of the > individual conducting the investigation. Can you direct me to the > specific statute or policy that states that the case number and name > of the investigator are not to be released or disclosed to the > reporting party? Please Advise. Regards: > Cary-Andrew Crittend > > On 11/9/12, Lee Pullen <Lee.Pullen@ssa.sccgov.org> wrote: >> Dear Mr. Crittenden, >> >> Complaints or allegations made to APS, once received, are investigated as >> warranted and are not subject to public feedback, including to the >> reporting >> party. We will not be able to share with you our findings due to the >> extremely confidential nature of Adult Protective Services >> investigations. >> >> Thank you for your understanding, >> >> Lee Pullen >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cary-Andrew Crittenden [mailto:southsfbayarea@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 11:58 AM >> To: Lee Pullen >> Subject: Re: Case Number >> >> Mr. Pullen, Please provide me with the Case number pertaining to my >> complaint against Elaine Bouchard, the property manager of Markham Plaza >> Apartments. I will also need the name of the individual assigned to the >> investigation. I have not heared back from you, nor have I heared from >> APS >> pertaining to this complaint or the welfare of Mr. >> Robert Moss (2000 Monterey Rd. Apt#409) This will need to be >> cross referenced to a complaint filed with the US Dept. Of Housing and >> Urban >> Development, and another to be filed with DFEH >> Regards, Cary-Andrew Crittenden >> NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain >> information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for >> the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an >> authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, >> distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to >> others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have >> received this message in error, please notify the sender by return >> email. >> >> 1 Brettle, Jessica From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2020 9:47 AM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:educate residents about public health? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, City Manager,    The Palo Alto Green Ribbon Task Force of 2006 recommended the city put out a comprehensive educational effort to  explain to residents the "moral imperative" for anti‐pollution action.    All the reasons listed in that report remain valid today.  When will the City get around to providing frank public health  education to Palo Altans?  Don't we deserve to be told about the causes of global warming (airplanes, beef&dairy  agriculture, automobiles, etc.)?  Why not before the end of the year?    This could be easily done ‐ by directing residents to the California Air Resources Board coolcalifornia  website:  https://coolcalifornia.arb.ca.gov/calculator‐households‐individuals    Thank you,   David Page and Stephanie Troyan  Midtown      Here's a couple of related news articles from yesterday:     https://theconversation.com/earth‐may‐temporarily‐pass‐dangerous‐1‐5‐warming‐limit‐by‐2024‐major‐new‐report‐ says‐145450    Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System  https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8234‐20  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:jfpetrilla@gmail.com Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 3:16 PM To:Sheldon Ah Sing Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project EIR Comments/Questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: Sheldon Ah Sing                                                                   SAhsing@m‐group.us                                                                Planning and Community Environment Department                           Subject: Preparation of Environmental Impact Report and extension of Palo Alto’s housing incentive program relative to  properties at 788 – 796 San Antonio Road    Dear Mr. Sing    Thank you for providing a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2019090070 for the Housing Incentive  Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Road Mixed‐Use Project.  While not able to provide a thorough review, some  issues were apparent.  Please see the following for my comments, concerns and questions.      These are the first of 18 possible buildings/projects and it should be expected that this project will set the baseline for  the follow‐on projects.  Since it will be difficult to ask the follow‐on projects for higher goals, care should be taken such  that the project requirements do not compromise a satisfactory result.    Examples of other areas in Palo Alto such that the ability to accommodate this level of density would be valuable.  Are  there areas with such density?    1)  Appendices A‐I are listed in the Table of Contents and mentioned throughout the draft but are not found.  Please  update the draft for these appendices.    2) On Page ES‐3 recreation is stated as not impacted.  This may be  technically true since currently there are no  facilities.  But shouldn’t the addition of 818 units (an estimated 1,881 new residents) call for consideration of addition of  such.     3) The GHG‐1. Transportation Demand Management Plan (page ES‐12) may not be realistic.  VTA has dropped bus  service on the segment of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield and Charleston.  (Perhaps the street width wouldn’t  support a bus stop and existing traffic lanes.)  Why would it be reestablished?  Providing on‐site bike parking doesn’t  seem sufficient to have residents actually use bikes for commuting if there’re no suitable bike lanes.    4) From Consistency with Plan Objectives (Page 4.1‐16 pdf 74)  “The BAAQMD threshold of significance for plans is whether the plan is consistent with the current air quality plan and  whether the projected VMT or vehicle trip increase would be less than or equal to projected population increase. The  HIP expansion would reduce overall VMT by increasing mixed use development that includes housing in close proximity  to entertainment, retail, visitor lodging, and employment opportunities that could enable residents to live, work, and  shop without the use of motor vehicles. The project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Plan because it  2 would encourage new development in an area that is served by transit and is conducive to bicycling and walking,  thereby reducing emissions of ozone precursors.”    The statement, “The project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Plan because it would encourage new  development in an area that is served by transit and is conducive to bicycling and walking, thereby reducing emissions of  ozone precursors.” seems to ignore that the segment of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield and Charleston is not  conducive to bicycling and has no bus service.  Regarding the other bus service in the area what good is bus service  unless it takes you to somewhere you want to go when you want to go.  Further the segment of San Antonio Rd  between Middlefield and Charleston doesn’t meet the definition of a Class III bike route and casual observation reveals  that most bike travel on that segment uses the sidewalk on the West side of San Antonio.  A mix of bicycles and  pedestrian on a sidewalk seems hazardous.  See page 4.6‐8 (pdf page 182) for the criteria of a Class III bike lane, copied  below for your convenience.  “Bike Routes (Class III): Class III bikeways are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane  with motorists. Typical applications for Class III bike routes include roadways with bicycle demand  but without adequate space for Class II bike lanes, low‐volume streets with slow travel speeds,  especially those on which volume is low enough that passing maneuvers can use the full street  width, and as “gap fillers” for breaks in Class II lanes.”    From South Palo Alto Enhanced Bikeways, "Palo Alto parents note that the current state of bicycle infrastructure  (unprotected bike lanes) on these high speed and/or heavily traveled corridors limits growth in the bicycle mode share  for school commutes. Parents are unlikely to bike with their children next to multiple lanes of fast‐moving traffic (Fabian  Way) or in congested school zones (East Meadow Drive) without the protection of buffer zones or physical barriers such  as bollards."    5) On page 4.1‐16 (pdf 74), the statement, “The TIS estimated that 1,000 jobholders would reside in these residences,  which would result in a potential annual reduction of more than 1.5 million miles, attributable to improving the balance  of housing to jobs.” seems to assume that the new housing units would be occupied by current or new commuters who  would otherwise have commutes longer than Palo Alto residents.  This doesn’t seem to consider the reasons why people  choose to reside in or commute to/from Palo Alto.  Is it dominated merely by the cost of housing?  If so, what cost points  are needed to attract, e.g. primary and secondary school teachers, or fire and police department personnel?  Is there an  analysis of who commutes to Palo Alto and why?  Is there an analysis of who commutes from Palo Alto and why?  In the  Greenhouse complex, I’ve had neighbors who moved to Palo Alto for access to the high schools and started commuting  to their jobs in San Francisco.     6) On page 4.1‐26 (pdf 84) there’s an inconsistency with distance between project boundary and Greenhouse complex:  sometimes 130, sometimes 260 page 4.1‐9    7) Page 4.2‐5   While not in scope for an EIR, it seems worthwhile to say that there’s history worth a display in the new  building, capturing e.g. “Until the early 1950s, the area surrounding the location of the project site was dominated by  large agricultural tracts with low density settlement. The building at 788 San Antonio Road was constructed within tract  No. 219 of the “Peninsula Garden Farms,” a subdivision that was marketed as early as the mid‐1920s for buyers seeking  one‐ to two‐acre lots where they could raise market gardens, poultry, or rabbits.  …  In 1953, the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association (CCGA) purchased the lot surrounding the 788 San Antonio  Road property for $3,100 and began constructing their new headquarters. The CCGA was founded in 1932 by Japanese  American flower growers in response to the pressures faced by growers after the onset of the Great Depression.    I recommend that CUL‐5 (Page 4.2‐10, pdf 100) include a small scale historical display in 788 public space, e.g. lobby    8) Page 4.3‐3 (pdf 105) may have an inconsistency: Text states “Palo Alto’s 2018 per capita electricity consumption was  approximately 0.0128 GWh, or 12,800 kWh.” But Table 4.3.2 lists “County Per Capita Consumption” as 12,800  kWh”.  Does Palo Alto’s consumption match the county’s?  3   9) Page 4.3‐13 (pdf 115)  “The proposed project would require energy use in the form of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumption.” Why  natural gas?  Doesn’t Palo Alto have a goal of all electric housing?    10) Page 4.3‐17 (pdf 119) Inconsistency   “Location within approximately one‐quarter mile of two bus stops servicing four VTA routes for easy public transit  access.” But on page 4.6‐5 only two routes are identified and one is stated as 0.5 miles.  The route within a quarter mile  is between the Stanford shopping center and downtown Mountain View that is seems unlikely to attract commuters.     11) Page 4.3‐22 (pdf 124) Inconsistency “Policy L‐2.2. Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers  and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections …” Without suitable  bike lanes, providing on site bike parking will not result in greater use of the so‐called bike lane on San Antonio  Road.  Since more bike commuters may use the sidewalk instead of the bike lane, there appears to be a conflict between  “walkable and bikeable connections” as bicyclists and compete for the sidwwalk.    12) Page 4.3‐23 (pdf 125) “Policy N‐7.4 calls for projects to “Maximize the conservation and efficient use of energy  …”  Isn’t accepting natural gas instead of all electric inconsistent with this policy?    13) The Table 4.3‐9 T‐FAC‐2 entry   “Consistent. The project itself would not expand transit options; however, it is within approximately one‐quarter mile of  two bus stops servicing four VTA routes. The project would place residences and retail in a transit‐accessible area,  improving the viability of transit as an option for travel to services in Palo Alto” This statement does not seem  justified.  On page 4.6‐5 only two routes are identified and one is stated as 0.5 miles.  The route within a quarter mile is  between the Stanford shopping center and downtown Mountain View that is seems unlikely to attract commuters.    14) The Table 4.3‐9 T‐EV‐1 Not applicable. The project does not involve City‐based vehicles. However, the project would  include EV‐ready outlets for future charging stations at 25 percent of parking spaces, among which at least five percent  would have charging stations installed”  Are five charging stations sufficient?  Even with an optimistic 8 hour charging  time only 15 vehicles could be fully charged each day.    15) In Table 4.3‐9 NG‐GAS‐1 No justification is given for not accepting the all‐electric  goal.  Further, the 10 percent more  energy efficient than the base CALGreen code requirements is not in conflict with all electric.  Why not both?  Doing  both reduces the need for Palo Alto Utilities to buy carbon offsets and future carbon taxes.  Buying carbon offsets  doesn’t reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Not plumbing the building for natural gas may simplify  construction and reduce costs.  On demand water heaters may be more efficient than centralized hot water tanks and  reduce water consumption.  From page 4.4‐2 “Natural gas is the second largest source, contributing 27 percent of the  City’s GHG emissions.”  The proposal calls for relaxing the FAR requirement, exceeding the maximum site coverage,  allowing rooftop gardens to count toward open space, excluding retail area from parking requirements and exempting  subterranean garages from counting towards FAR; an all‐electric building as well as increased energy efficient in return  seems more than reasonable.    16) Table 4.3‐10 Project Consistency with Comprehensive Plan  Regarding “Policy L‐1.3. Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the  overall scale and character of the city …”,  building 100 units per acre doesn’t seem consistent with the scale of the  city.  This should be noted.  Can an example of a 10 acre site with 818 units be given?    17) Table 4.4‐5 page 4.4‐17  Regarding item 1, the statement, “reduce regional net VMT by adding housing in a city with a lower per capita VMT rate  for employed residents than neighboring cities.” This seems to be the only mention in the EIR that Palo Alto has such a  per capita VMT.  Unless there’s material to backup this claim it should be deleted.  Further there’s no assurance that  4 those who move into the new units will not be trading their current commute for a longer commute, e.g. moving to Palo  Alto from San Francisco for the schools but now commuting to their job in San Francisco.    18) Table 4.4‐5 page 4.4‐17  Regarding item 2, “Adopt green building standards that exceed minimum State building standards for EV‐capable  parking spaces (e.g., by requiring installation of EV chargers and/or a larger number of EV‐capable parking spaces) …”  It  seems providing five stations that may only support 15 vehicles a day doesn’t really support this goal.    19) Table 4.4‐5 page 4.4‐18  Regarding item 3, the statement “the program area is within approximately one quarter mile of two bus stops servicing  four VTA routes” or similar appears here and several other places.  It is not consistent with the material in 4.6  Transportation sub‐section c. Transit Access and Circulation, pages 4.6‐5/7 where only two VTA routes are identified and  the stop for one of the routes is listed as about 0.5 miles away.  Since it’s likely that the material in section 4.6 is more  accurate than the other, the document should be reviewed and edited such that all transit statements are consistent  with section 4.6.    20) Table 4.4‐5 page 4.4‐18  The response to Goal 4: Goal: Accelerate Implementation of Bicycle & Pedestrian Plans is that it’s out of scope.  Yet  relaxing the FAR requirement, exceeding the maximum site coverage, allowing rooftop gardens to count toward open  space, excluding retail area from parking requirements and exempting subterranean garages from counting towards FAR  are in scope.  This seems a little arbitrary.    21) Table 4.4‐5 page 4.4‐19  The response to Goal 11 neglects to mention the intended compromise of the all‐electric goal.    22) Table 4.4‐5 page 4.4‐19  Regarding the response to Goal 12, since there’re continual upgrades in energy efficiency why not have a higher target  than 10% more efficient and why not keep the all‐electric goal?    23) Table 4.4‐6 HIP Expansion and 788 San Antonio Road Project Consistency with S/CAP  Regarding T‐FAC‐1. Expand bicycle infrastructure; additional bike parking without improving the bike lanes may be futile  and doesn’t seem to expand bicycle infrastructure.    24) Regarding T‐FAC‐2. Expand transit option, once again the misleading/likely erroneous statement “it is approximately  one quarter mile of two bus stops servicing four VTA) routes” is found.  The extent of inclusion of these statement in the  EIR is problematic and the EIR should be updated to correct these statements so that they are consistent with the  analysis and conclusions in section 4.6 Transportation sub‐section c. Transit Access and Circulation, pages 4.6‐5/7.    25) Regarding NG‐GAS‐1, how is “The project would not be all‐electric …” consistent with the goal of “Encourage all  electric new buildings”?  The response should be changed to Non‐consistent.    26) Page 4.5‐18 (pdf 170), regarding “the proposed building would be constructed to prevent the exposure of new  residents to excessive noise.”  Measures to enhance noise insulation can also improve thermal insulation.  When taken  during initial construction, the additional costs of better insulation are often quickly recovered due to lower heating  and/or air conditioning operating costs.  This may yield an even better than 10% more efficient result.    27) Regarding 4.6 e Bicycling Conditions, the statement, “A Class III bike route is directly accessible from the program  area on San Antonio Road, extending between Charleston Road and Middlefield Road” ignores that the segment of San  Antonio Rd between Middlefield and Charleston is not conducive to bicycling and does not satisfy the “low‐volume  streets with slow travel speeds, especially those on which volume is low enough that passing maneuvers can use the full  street width” criteria of a Class III Bike Route provided in subsection 4.6 e Bicycling Conditions and quoted below.    5 “Bike Routes (Class III): Class III bikeways are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane  with motorists. Typical applications for Class III bike routes include roadways with bicycle demand  but without adequate space for Class II bike lanes, low‐volume streets with slow travel speeds,  especially those on which volume is low enough that passing maneuvers can use the full street  width, and as “gap fillers” for breaks in Class II lanes.”    While there’s mention that the Comprehensive Plan calls for an upgrade of the bicycle infrastructure on Charleston  Road, there’s no mention of an infrastructure upgrade on San Antonio Rd.  It should be noted that all three of the  intersections in the segment of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield and Charleston currently reach greater than 0.75  V/C (Critical Volume‐to‐Capacity) ratios during peak hours, morning or evening or both.  See Table 4.6‐7 HIP Expansion:  Intersection Level of Service under Background Plus Project Conditions.    On page 4.6‐20 in the Bicycle Facilities section, it’s stated that there are no plans to upgrade the bicycle infrastructure  and implies that that’s acceptable.  In the following Pedestrian Facilities section it’s stated that “pedestrian facilities in  the program area would provide adequate connectivity and safety for new residents” neglecting to mention that the  inadequate bicycle infrastructure leads to bicyclists using the sidewalk instead of the so‐called bike lane.    In the Impact T‐3 section, it’s stated, “THE PROPOSED HIP EXPANSION AND 788 SAN ANTONIO ROAD MIXED‐USE  PROJECT WOULD NOT INTRODUCE DESIGN FEATURES OR INCOMPATIBLE USES THAT COULD INCREASE TRAFFIC  HAZARDS.”  This neglects the adverse impact that would result from an increase in bike traffic in the segment of San  Antonio Rd between Middlefield and Charleston.  One particular hazard is the conflict between the right turn lane on  South bound San Antonio and the bike lane at the Leghorn intersection.  Increasing traffic in a hazardous situation will  likely increase the hazard.    28) Summarizing transit issues, all statements that the program area is within approximately one quarter mile of two bus  stops servicing four VTA routes should be deleted.    29) Summarizing bike lane issues, all statements regarding the program being conducive to bicycling and walking should  be replaced by a statement that bicycling in the program area may be hazardous and that the hazards may spread to  pedestrians.    While I can support a single building 788 San Antonio project, if the draft EIR is updated to correct the various omissions,  errors and inconsistencies, approval of the build‐out should not be approved until the city approves a plan to upgrade  the San Antonio corridor (between Alma and US 101) to support the expected traffic flow, transit stops and Class II  bicycle lanes.    Thank you for your attention to this message.    Respectfully,    John Petrilla  777 San Antonio Rd #138  Palo Alto, CA 94303        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy Martin <ncmartin@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, September 12, 2020 2:55 PM To:Sheldon Ah Sing; Council, City; Fire; police@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:EIR for HIP for San Antonio Rd including 788 San Antonio Rd CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  My name is Nancy Martin. I have been a resident of The Greenhouse since 1976. I raised my family here. My son used to play with friends on the lovely grassy area in front of our complex that abuts San Antonio . Now no parents would allow their children to play out there today due to the terrible traffic on SA. We have suffered through the growth of the area; but some of that is inevitable and we just have to accept it. The construction of the Marriott Hotels has been a terrible disruption with traffic, noise, dirt, parking issues and more problems are yet to come once they open. Now we face the proposed changes under the HIP proposal, which are unacceptable. Increased traffic on San Antonio will bring traffic to a standstill. I often wait 3 minutes to get out of The Greenhouse at the light. Where will the children who will live in the proposed new apartments/condos go to school and how will they safely get there? Where are the safe bike lanes? Bus services on San Antonio Rd was discontinued years ago. The de-watering could lead to many groundwater problems and even cause the settling and therefore cracking of our buildings. If buildings are allowed to go up 50", San Antonio will turn into a canyon like San Antonio the other side of Alma. Mountain View will have to change its name because there is no longer a mountain view and Palo Alto is feeding into this problem. Yes, we need more affordable housing in Palo Alto; but let's be reasonable about what you are trying to do and not ruin an existing neighborhood. With Greenhouse 1 and Greenhouse 2 on San Antonio there are 228 families whose lives would be disrupted by these proposed changes. I'm sorry to say, but I feel like what used to be our wonderful town of Palo Alo is being driven by developer greed. Please be considerate and reconsider the size of this plan. Respectfully submitted, Nancy C. Martin ncmartin@comcast.net 650-493-3730H "It's not what we have, but what we enjoy that constitutes our abundance." 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Joan Larrabee <joan.larrabee.17@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 2:28 PM To:Sheldon Ah Sing; Council, City; Fire; police@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:pst54@comcast.net; Janet Kahle; brianc9876@gmail.com; dtottingham@gmail.com; ncmartin@comcast.net; ralphgc66@gmail.com; pharter123@hotmail.com; patstarrett; enigenda@yahoo.com; Keith Bennet; joan.beitzuri@comcast.net Subject:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) for HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM (HIP) for 18 PARCELS on SAN ANTONIO ROAD including 788 SAN ANTONIO, PALO ALTO, CA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The Environmental Impact Report shows that the City of Palo Alto is contemplating changing the zoning of 18 land  parcels on San Antonio Road, East Charleston Road to Middlefield Road, from Service Commercial (CS) to very High  Density Residential, about 100 units per acre.  Table 6‐2 shows that this could result in as many as 818 new dwelling units. The 50’ Tall buildings would also be allowed  to have neighborhood retail on the ground floors.  This zoning change might result in as many as 818 kitchens, where now there is only one at Taco Bell. Kitchens in such  dense quarters are often subject to fires. More calls for Fire Department Services.    When a possible change in zoning for 788 San Antonio to allow 20 two‐ and three‐bedroom condominiums was first  announced, many of my neighbors and I spoke in favor. We know that housing is an issue in Palo Alto. A major concern,  however,  was for school children crossing highly congested San Antonio to attend school was discussed.    San Antonio Road, between East Charles Road and Middlefield Road, is so narrow, it only has four travel lanes, two in  each direction.  Former public transit buses, both the Santa Clara County Transit and Palo Alto Shuttle, were removed because of the  heavy traffic congestion.  There are no bike lanes, although the EIR says the City expects new residents to take public  transit as well as bikes to work and for shopping. In public meetings, the few bike riders have said they use the  sidewalks. Not safe for pedestrians nor for bicyclists.    As San Antonio Road approaches Route 101 and crosses East Charleston Road, the roadway narrows to only one lane,  often backing traffic up clear to Leghorn Street.    With higher density housing, will come more residents’ calls for City Services for Police, Fire and Emergency Medical  Technicians (EMTs).  The increased congestion will cause problems for timely service.  I live in Greenhouse One, built at ten units per acre. City responses to my immediate neighbors have been for a young  child who went into shock for a bee sting, a welfare check where the Police Officers found the resident had passed away,  a woman with COPD who needed the EMTs, and I called 911 for the Fire Department because sparks were coming out of  an electric socket in my kitchen.    The EIR does not address the increased calls for emergency services when the density to residents might increase by  ten‐fold over Greenhouse One.  It does not recognize the congestion of San Antonio Road. It does not recognize the increased calls to very high density  housing compared to the very few calls to existing businesses.  In Tables 1‐4 it states that no mitigation is required. This is not true.  2   Many public officials seem to confuse Mountain View, south of the train tracks, between Alma Street and El Camino, as  being in Palo Alto. There San Antonio Road has six travel lanes and bike lanes on both sides. Six travel lanes, three in  each direction, carries 50 % more vehicles than the narrower street in Palo Alto does. I have never seen any of the  intersections there congested. Mountain View also has a large parking garage with a traffic signal at Fayette. There is no  on‐street parking making it safer for bicyclists.  Several of the Palo Alto public officials and commissioners in public meetings have admitted they have never been to the  City of Palo Alto area under discussion, East Charleston Road to Middlefield Road.    The Housing Incentive Program has been applied to the El Camino area in Palo Alto where there are six travel lanes and  public bus service. It should not be applied to San Antonio Road with only four travel lanes, no bike lanes and no bus  service.    The Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) is inadequate on many, many levels.  Contaminated soils, underground water diversion, and traffic congestion are only a few of the many major problems.  The City’s over‐building and welcoming of business interests to Palo Alto should not be compounded by now  overbuilding apartments on San Antonio Road.    Joan Larrabee  Greenhouse One Resident  777 San Antonio Road,  Palo Alto, CA  September 11, 2020        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Olivares, Gloria <Gloria.Olivares@abc.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:45 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City; City Attorney; Fine, Adrian; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; DuBois, Tom Cc:#KGOTV Assignment Desk; Chasarik, Krisann Subject:RE: Good morning Re: Foothills Park - Please reply all, thank you Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good afternoon,   Hope all is well.  I just wanted to see if you had received my email and my inquiry.  I just want to make sure,  you received my email.  We will be running this story in our 5pm newscast and just wanted to make sure that  you had an opportunity to respond.      Thank you for time,   Gloria      From: Olivares, Gloria   Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:56 AM  To: citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: #KGOTV Assignment Desk <KGOTV.Desk@disney.com>  Subject: Good morning Re: Foothills Park   Importance: High    Good morning,     Hope all is well.  We would like to know if you are releasing a statement regarding the Foothills Park lawsuit.     Thank you for your time,     Gloria       GLORIA OLIVARES  • ASSIGNMENT EDITOR   900 Front Street • San Francisco, CA 94111  W: (415) 954‐7321 •   Follow Breaking News on Twitter: @ABC7NewsBayArea    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rosie Go <rgo@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 9:33 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.  ________________________________    dear city council of palo alto  In the august meeting, the foothills park pilot program is supposed to be addressed in the september meetings, which  permit non residents to purchase a pass. It was not addressed or on the agenda in the september 14th meeting, and I  am hoping that this will be addressed in tonights meeting.  I would either like this to be fully addressed on your website  for visitors through an online booking, or booking by telephone. I would like to know if there is a list of pilot program  participants and would like to be on that list. Please reply with the steps I need to take to participate.  thank you,  R. Go  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Housing... An Idea CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City Council,  I understand that there may be 150 or so vacant homes in Palo Alto. I know of at least 2 around my neighborhood. I  suppose the previous occupier left and the family has taken over responsibility. How about speaking to the owner and  see if they are thinking about either selling or how about renting it out. The owners may be 1000’s of miles away and  doing nothing is easy. “I don’t know what to do” or “I don’t want to think about it” are probably good replies. There  should be no pressure to the owner to do something. Maybe suggest a company that could rent it out and keep it up  with a little fixing or repairs. Something to think about.  Take Care,  Gary Lindgren                Gary Lindgren 585 Lincoln Ave  Palo Alto CA 94301     650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading @garyelindgren    Listen to Radio Around the World     Be Like Costco... do something in a different way  Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything      A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. 2 It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Gallagher <livebuoyantly@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 7:29 PM To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Council, City Subject:Housing Low Income Folks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Roberta and City Council Members:      In my humble opinion, the process of housing low income folks must be a combination of  knowing/identifying/characterizing those seeking to be housed with existing vacancies in hotels, motels, single family  homes, defunct churches, e.g. First Baptist Church, defunct schools, vacant corporate/government offices.     What is the status of the land around the courthouse? There was conversation about building housing for teachers to  replace the modular and parking lots. For years, I have thought the courthouse itself is underutilized. There is the  Mayfield clinic on the first floor of the court house. Would it be a good idea to reserve some of the space in the court  house for housing low income folks, who could and would use the clinic?    Thinking creatively on how to house low income folks,    Mary Gallagher, B.Sc.  650‐683‐7102    Sent from my iPad      On Sep 14, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:     I'm with you, but if the land isn't carved out for low income housing, it will be gobbled up   by condos, expensive apts.  thanks,  r    On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:34 PM Mary Gallagher <livebuoyantly@gmail.com> wrote:  Thank you, Roberta!     In my humble opinion, building more ‘units’ does seem to be best approach for housing the homeless.  Using, converting, or sharing existing structures seems like a better approach.    I appreciate our shared value and activism for affordable housing.    Gratefully,     Mary    2 Sent from my iPad      On Sep 14, 2020, at 11:39 AM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>  Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:41 AM  Subject: Upcoming City Council Election  To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>  NOTE:  This was sent to me today....just passing this on...not endorsing anyone  yet..looking for candidates who support very low income housing BUILT SOON,  addressing the needs of the homeless,  and who want to corral /transition work of the  PA police who need to be much more carefully  monitored,.  roberta  Thank you for being active with city issues over the years. As you know, November 3 will be an important opportunity to election four new citizens to our city council. I will be hosting two zoom meeting for candidates. Candidates will briefly introduce themselves and answer questions. If you are interested in joining, please let me know and I will send you an invitation with access information. Sept 20 at 5pm MEET CANDIDATES PAT BURT AND ED LAUING Sept 26 at 5pm MEET CANDIDATES LYDIA KOU AND GREER STONE You can learn more about each candidate with a Google search. Call me if you have any questions. Cell phone is best. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Illegal signage CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members,     Mr. Tanaka continues to have political signs posted on the strip of land next to the street, between the street and  sidewalk.  The latter is not private land.   There are multiples of his illegally placed signs  on Alma and on Middlefield.  Please enforce fair campaign practices on the part of candidates, especially those who presently  hold office.  Thank you.  Ceci Kettendorf  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:53 PM To:David Meiswinkle; Frank Agamennon; biotica@aol.com; Philip Hussa; Steve Kormondy; Dennis Tiernan; Activist Post; Ammo Land; Tea Party Patriots Action Jenny Beth Martin; Tom Fitton On The Air Report; Bill Haydee Mooney; bob@fightfast.com; Lou Basile; Sea Girt Medical; 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; LIST Dutchess County; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; Coast Star; Ed Durfee; David Gahary; A Son Of RevWar; Dudley Brown; BBC ONLY; Elisha van Deusen; Cook- Simmons Dot; Cedar Swamp Historical Society Collection; Paula Dassbach; John Dilberger; Harold G. Delameter; tellallwtc7@gmail.com; NJ Electrician; ezrider67@verizon.net; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Rick Engel; editor@reliablenewsnow.net; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Gary Flanagan; BBC ONLY; mon.tp.coalition@gmail.com; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Richard Gage; Agnes Gibboney; Gene Kolich; governorsununu@nh.gov; M. S. King; Patriot Powered Products & Gear; BBC ONLY; Atlantic Firearms; J Walsh; Forbidden Knowledge TV; Ken Mandile; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Camille Lachica; mkormondy@yahoo.com; Mark Schleck; Martine Schroeter; Brian M. Hanlon Subject:Joe Biden Touts Wall Street Support for Plan to Abolish American Suburbs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    This Kommie POS Biden, the one who wants to disarm Americans, plans to throw the borders wide open and build  Section 8 housing in the middle of the middle class WHITE neighborhoods. His plan is to finance it through confiscatory  real estate taxes imposed on the middle class homeowners. Is this what he learned from OBongo in how to TRANSFORM  AMERICA ?  Now you know why he and his other Kommie friends want you disarmed. And no doubt he will  use the new squatters   to go door to door confiscating the firearms.  That crazy old codger would do anything for a voting base !  And the usual  suspects on Wall Street would do anything to stick it to the middle class.    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/06/joe‐biden‐touts‐wall‐street‐support‐his‐plan‐abolish‐american‐ suburbs/      Best Regards, & Stay Healthy !  RJS  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 3:26 PM To:Stretch Brian (USACAN); raymond.hulser@usdoj.gov; cityattorney@santaclaraca.gov; bcc@dca.ca.gov; mc03100-11@yahoo.com; mcuban@axs.tv; admissions@calbar.ca.gov; dsun@cupertino.org; susan.lee@doj.ca.gov; srubenstein@sfchronicle.com; otaylor@sfchronicle.com; johanna.luerra@shf.sccgov.org; angelo.tom@hud.gov; district7@sanjoseca.gov; markhamplazata@gmail.com; moneal@pdo.sccgov.org; schatman@scscourt.org; donald.rocha@sanjoseca.gov; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; sylvia.macdonald@ido.sccgov.org; mary.murtagh@eahhousing.org; gary.goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; hwilliams@scscourt.org; Human Relations Commission; aleksandra.ridgeway@sheriff.sccgov.org; wbrown@sfchronicle.com; mturpin@bayareanewsgroup.com; publisher@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@siliconvalleyfreepress.com; eclendaniel@bayareanewsgroup.com; rkeith@bayareanewsgroup.com; sdussault@bayareanewsgroup.com; helbraun@helbraunlaw.com; jcanova@scusd.net; csanfilippo@scusd.net; asgonzalez@scusd.net; jmuirhead@scusd.net; vjfairchild@scusd.net; aratermann@scusd.net; mrichardson@scusd.net; mryan@scusd.net; pubworks@sunnyvale.ca.gov; joebravo@bravolaw.com; joe@piastalaw.biz; districtattorney@sfgov.org; 6th.district@jud.ca.gov; scottlargent38@gmail.com; will@crim-defense.com; anna@annaeshoo4congress.com; guardians@aclu.org; fdngift@aclu.org; chartley@sunnyvale.ca.gov; pubdef- mediarelations@sfgov.org; Council, City; patrick@sdpap.org; ukoffice@chinaculture.org; parmit.randhawa@georgehills.com; corrupt@brianmccomas.attorney; jdiaz@sfchronicle.com; 1guitard.as@gmail.com; paulette.altmaier@gmail.com; hotline@hudoig.gov; gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov; david.rose@doj.ca.gov; servesdap@sdap.org; john.bennett@ic.fbi.gov; mayorlondonbreed@sfgov.org; chesa@sfgov.org; mccomas.b.c@gmail.com; info@siliconvalleydebug.org; galaxy_454@yahoo.com; florestrisha09@gmail.com; Be Judged; Jeremy Schmidt Subject:Re: KNOW JUSTICE ~ KNOW PEACE #8 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This is a rehash of a past message re-written for the blog: UPDATE / 11 SEP 2020: I spoke to some neighbors who think Baby Cat may have been a victim of a coyote because someone said they saw a dead black and white cat on Wednesday morning in the dirt down the street by the corner...So I called Sunnyvale Animal Control to confirm if they gathered a cat who looked like Baby Cat and who was a victim of predation; but they did not have any answers and referred me to another agency...And this all occurred after DPS non-emergency neglected to tell me about contacting animal control when I called them 3 Sep 2020... They apparently gave Baby Cats' body to Silicon Valley animal control and now it looks like they mishandled her body and she is gone...Which will end up as yet another claim against the City of Sunnyvale within 6 months because this is yet more unnecessary emotional distress that I do not need to be feeling right now at this crucial time when closure is so important...The last claim I filed mentioned her medical condition; which they obviously did not care about...And now Baby Cat is dead and gone... It also occurred to me that if Sunnyvale Animal Control picked up a dead cat on Wednesday that 2 appeared to be attacked by a coyote; why was nothing done to alert the media to try and protect local outdoor pets? Like I said; I called DPS non-emergency Wednesday night and the attendant was very kind; but he should have brought up animal control too...And if animal control does this all the time; do they take photos of the animal found for future ID purposes of the pet owners? And do they keep the body until they find the owner for ID? If not they should because animal cruelty is now a federal felony that is taken very seriously... In retrospect; I totally get that half the world has very little respect for animals and/or animal rights in general -- let alone human rights...I wouldn't be filing claims against the City of Sunnyvale if human rights in general were an issue society actually cared about...And since the greatness of a nation is measured by the way they treat their animals -- and/or since animal cruelty is so closely connected to human cruelty (in that those who abuse animals tend to abuse people as well) it is of paramount importance that the mass of inhumanity in general becomes increasingly humane towards animals and/or their own kind...As there is no other greater goal for inhumanity... BABY CAT: MISSING SINCE 2 SEPTEMBER 2020     BABY CAT: MISSING SINCE 2 SEPTEMBER 2020 BABY CAT / 1 MAY 2006 "Here is one of my Facebook posts from yesterday: "I woke up at around 7 am today (2 Septe...     On Friday, September 11, 2020, 12:33:51 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: The coyote theory seems to be the most viable answer to the death of Baby Cat; but I have checked the surveillance footage and I have seen no wild dogs running along the street in front of my house yet...So it is still up in the air as to what exactly happened to Baby Cat last week...I'll keep you posted... On Sunday, September 6, 2020, 9:49:31 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Oops: "In other words; if animal control actually thought a coyote ate my cat; why wasn't it on the news? And since the DPS chief even once said that dogs are 'part of the family'; then why aren't cats treated with more respect? And is there any discrimination in the way a dead dog and a dead cat are treated? Just wondering..." On Sunday, September 6, 2020, 9:48:25 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: In other words; if animal control actually thought a coyote ate my cat; why wasn't it on the news? And since the DPS chief even once said that dogs are 'part of the family'; then why aren't cats treated with more respect? And is there any discrimination is the way a dead dog and a dead cat are treated? Just wondering...   3 On Sunday, September 6, 2020, 9:44:15 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: It also occurred to me that if Sunnyvale Animal Control picked up a dead cat on Wednesday that appeared to be attacked by a coyote; why was nothing done to alert the media to try and protect local outdoor pets? I called DPS non-emergency Wednesday night and the attendant was very kind; but he should have brought up animal control...And if animal control does this all the time; do they take photos of the animal found for future ID purposes of the pet owners? And do they keep the body until they find the owner for ID? If not they should... Precious is buried right next to Buster in the backyard very deep down in a certain spot; and I wanted to put Baby Cat there too; but now my tradition of having an immense respect for my deceased cats has been turned into Baby Cat thrown in the trash by Sunnyvale Animal Control...Which is yet more unnecessary emotional distress that I do not need to be feeling right at this crucial time when closure is so important... Look; I get that half the world has very little respect for animals and/or animal rights in general -- let alone human rights...But since the greatness of a nation is measured by the way they treat their animals -- and/or since animal cruelty is so closely connected to human cruelty ~ in that those who abuse animals tend to abuse people as well -- it is of paramount importance that the mass of inhumanity in general becomes increasingly humane towards animals and/or their own kind...There is no other greater goal for inhumanity... On Sunday, September 6, 2020, 8:32:52 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: NEXTDOOR.COM: PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION / DISCRIMINATION ETC    NEXTDOOR.COM: PRIVATE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION / DISCRIMINATION ETC TAP MERRICK On December 25th, 2 015 (Christmas day) Johns' beloved cat Missy was found with a broken back ...    A connected issue is this: When Missy Cat's back was purposefully broken on Xmas day a few years back; I got on Nextdoor.com to ask neighbors for help and ended up being entirely removed from the online community; which violated my free speech and civil rights in the process; causing immense additional emotional distress to the situation...Since then I have been kept out of the loop on naby important issues that I need to know about as somewhat of a leader within this community and resident...It's incredible how many ways my rights have been violated over the years during my subjugation...I got removed from the Yahoo Birdland Neighbors group many years ago right after complaining about the Struble/Officer Discher issue... Which is something they would do in Russia or China or some other oppressive regime... On Sunday, September 6, 2020, 7:57:14 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: 4 I spoke to some neighbors who think Baby Cat may have been a victim of a coyote because someone out walking said they saw a dead black and white cat on Wednesday morning in the dirt down the street by the corner...And I am waiting for Sunnyvale Animal Control to get back to me and confirm if they gathered a cat who looked like Baby Cat who was a victim of predation...So it looks like Mayor Wheeler and the rest of you are cleared; and besides I was just kind of being ridiculous and trying to make the point that if people think they can get violent due to what someone said then why wouldn't my own words make me a target too? So I modified this blog post and removed speculation even though most of the main points in the blog post still hold up... WTF/POS/DPS/SCPD!?! (CONTINUED)... WTF/POS/DPS/SCPD!?! (CONTINUED)... Message written to 70+ email addresses consisting of City Council members; Mayors; several US Senators; law enfo...    On Saturday, September 5, 2020, 4:43:12 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Other than that; people need to stop blaming police officers for stupid things lawmakers on both sides of the aisle often cause those police officers to do...From criminalizing normal and often benign non-criminal human behavior (liberal s more than conservatives) to failing to fully support civil rights (conservatives more than liberals) to legalizing what would otherwise be considered to be violent uncivil behavior (liberals and conservatives) in turn violating the civil rights of almost everyone including police officers etc...Therefore; a focus on collective civil rights is needed at this point in time to protect everyone -- including police officers...Because Antifa/BLM etc can't scream about their civil rights being violated when they are violating the civil rights of others including the police... On Saturday, September 5, 2020, 4:08:47 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Warning: CNN would probably consider some of the contents of this blog post to be crude and derogatory; but that's just too bad now isn't it CNN? Because crude and derogatory government negligence led up to it all... WTF/POS/DPS/SCPD!?! (CONTINUED)... WTF/POS/DPS/SCPD!?! (CONTINUED)... Message written to 70+ email addresses consisting of City Council members; Mayors; several US Senators; law enfo...    On Saturday, September 5, 2020, 2:51:41 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Ok that's much better :) On Saturday, September 5, 2020, 2:51:21 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: 5 Here it is again it seemed to send itself before I got to form all of the links for your convenience; I must have pushed the wrong button: "Throughout the last two decades various fraudulent claims have been leveled against John. These fraudulent claims range from slanderous and defamatory allegations and/or outright lies -- to lies by omission -- to ridiculous exaggerations etc. And in most cases this can be proven. Citing the recent spate of harassment allegations featured in the media as of late; John felt compelled to set the record straight once and for all. 1) Mr. Struble initially corroborated his guilt to Sunnyvale DPS Officer Discher; but somehow either "one hand was unaware of what the other hand was doing" (in other words; Beninger never spoke to Discher and/or vice versa) and/or Beninger knew that John had a negligence case against Sunnyvale DPS and twisted it in favor of the Struble Familia. In a deposition; Mrs. Struble fabricated a story about John beating up Mr. Struble in the street -- but Mr. Struble never exited his vehicle during this incident -- he returned to work unscathed then corroborated the story on the phone. Officer Discher then ordered Mr. Struble to drive around the block to avoid driving by Johns' residence; an order Mr. Struble ultimately ignored (failing to obey a police officer). John called Sunnyvale DPS non- emergency line and told them about this; but no action way taken. Either way; Sunnyvale DPS Chief Williams quit shortly after this; commencing a roughly 17 year campaign of lies and deceit..." GO TO: VARIOUS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS @ VARIOUS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (ETC)     VARIOUS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (ETC) Throughout the last two decades various fraudulent claims have been leveled against John. These fraudulent claim...        VARIOUS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (ETC) Throughout the last two decades various fraudulent claims have been leveled against John. These fraudulent claim...    Either way; Sunnyvale DPS Chief Williams quit shortly after this; commencing a roughly 17 year campaign of lies and deceit... + SEE ALSO: STRIKE THREE YOU'RE OUT!? > Beninger + Struble Familia + Amadeo Junior + Olenak Familia + 6 Manoukian + Rebholtz/Paolinetti Familia = Strike Three; You're Out! @ STRIKE THREE YOU'RE OUT!? QUESTION: 1) Since rookie DPS Officer Discher initially restrained Mister Struble by holding court right out in the street and getting Mister Struble to admit to his wrongdoing -- telling Mister Struble to avoid driving by John's house back in 1998; 2) Why couldn't DPS/SCPD and/or SCPD Officer Don Paolinetti and/or SCPD Officers Lopez and Seagrave and/or DPS Officer Odle etc have similarly restrained the RPF [and/or Mister Olenak who put bleach in duck food ~ equaling animal cruelty; illegal threats of violence later carried out etc] 3) like DPS Officer Discher did to Mister Struble and or Mister Baker did long ago? ANSWER: Because police used to do their jobs differently... GO TO: LEGAL BRIEF FROM COUNSELLOR JOHNNY DOUGH: LEGAL BRIEF FROM COUNSELLOR JOHNNY DOUGH: + MISTER BAKER @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/02/mister-baker.html Furthermore; 1) SCPD was instead obsessed with duck feeding John received official permission to do from now ex-Mayor Judy Nadler at a Santa Clara City Council meeting etc and/or 2) whose negligent misconductive police actions essentially led to fomenting selective neighborhood hatred against John for a noble duty John was officially sanctioned to accomplish by the fucking ex-Queen of Santa Clara...Adding to this; the council footage/evidence was later destroyed by the City of Santa Clara leaving only text showing I attended the city council meeting... TIMELINE: ACTIVIST TARGETED FOR DISSENT? + EX-SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS) OFFICER MATTHEW BENINGER & SON ETC EX-SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS) OFFICER MATTHEW BENINGER & SON ETC + TOM FOLEY @ THE LAKE TERRACE APARTMENTS: LAYING IN WAIT + CONSPIRACY ETC @ TOM FOLEY @ THE LAKE TERRACE APARTMENTS: LAYING IN WAIT + CONSPIRACY ETC + MISTER BAKER @ MISTER BAKER + SNEAK AND PEAK WARRANT @ Sneak and peek warrant Furthermore; 1) I mentioned something about Portland Mayor Wheeler giving the "Go" signal to his Antifa/BLM ground troops by pointing his finger at Trump; 2) therefore pubicly urging retaliation against those involved in freedom of speech; 3) While countless totally sane people are absolutely abhorred the general Obiden narrative to making 'good' a relative term; 4) Getting us all ready for a potentially oppressive new liberal socialist communist (etc etc etc) federal government; this is why Wheeler is now a person of interest who needs to be cleared... There are several possibilties including: A) A friend named Gary Metrovich who I got into a heated Facebook Messenger argument the same night Baby disappeared (Gary is an old friend who knows where I live); and/or B) Someone on the group BCC email list I am speaking to right now who reacted the day after I brought up the Mayor of San Jose's current situation and/or; C) A seemingly nice Asian couple who I caught feeding Baby Cat at night a few days before she disappeared (They are my main suspects); and/or D) Highly trained military "Night Stalkers" who are bored and off work and messing with me and/or who I just saw on the History Channel; DX) Something that obviously happened during the post-911 "my Dad was the head of the CIA" Bush administration era; but probably not happening now I just had to add that in there; which further close examination of the surveillance footage will hopefully bring out... It is also strange that a few days before this I began quietly asking "God" to protect my cats at night...Was someone listening to me so they could find what really mattered to me so they rip my 7 heart out again and stomp on it on the floor like the local cities have allowed to happen so many times now? It Wouldn't surprise me one bit; but there is no way to prove that now it is merely speculation... Sneak and peek warrant Law enforcement officers are not prohibited from seizing any property from the premises. For example, in one 201...     MISTER BAKER When John went to Peterson High School many years back; there was a Sunnyvale police officer named Mr. Baker who...       TOM FOLEY @ THE LAKE TERRACE APARTMENTS: LAYING IN WAIT + CONSPIRACY ETC Back in April of 2006; John was feeding ducks at the Lake Terrace Apartments (as John had done for a number of y...       EX-SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS) OFFICER MATTHEW BENINGER ... The first time John called the Sunnyvale D.P.S. after being attacked in the street was back in Dec ember 1998 . ...        8 TIMELINE: ACTIVIST TARGETED FOR DISSENT? THE SUNNYVALE FIRE DEPARTMENT? http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-sunnyvale- fire-department.html ...     LEGAL BRIEF FROM COUNSELLOR JOHNNY DOUGH: "When my client was a teenager his band Aftershock used to play at parties on weekend nights all over the Santa...    STRIKE THREE YOU'RE OUT!? STRIKE THREE YOU'RE OUT!? > Beninger + Struble Familia + Amadeo Junior + Olenak Familia + Manoukian + Rebholtz/P...     ALBERT MARTINEZ AND HIS SON-IN-LAW    ALBERT MARTINEZ AND HIS SON-IN-LAW When the incident seen above occurred; John called the Sunnyvale police for assistance. While waiting for the Su...    Once again; why didn't WTF/POS/DPS/SCPD restrain the RPF etc as part of their normal CYA protocol; since failing to cover their asses often ends up amounting to inevitable adjudication and fair compensation? SEE ALSO: BABY CAT: MISSING SINCE 2 SEPTEMBER 2020    BABY CAT: MISSING SINCE 2 SEPTEMBER 2020 BABY CAT / 1 MAY 2006 "Here is one of my Facebook posts from yesterday: "I woke up at around 7 am today (2 Septe...    9 On Saturday, September 5, 2020, 2:40:59 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: "Throughout the last two decades various fraudulent claims have been leveled against John. These fraudulent claims range from slanderous and defamatory allegations and/or outright lies -- to lies by omission -- to ridiculous exaggerations etc. And in most cases this can be proven. Citing the recent spate of harassment allegations featured in the media as of late; John felt compelled to set the record straight once and for all. 1) Mr. Struble initially corroborated his guilt to Sunnyvale DPS Officer Discher; but somehow either "one hand was unaware of what the other hand was doing" (in other words; Beninger never spoke to Discher and/or vice versa) and/or Beninger knew that John had a negligence case against Sunnyvale DPS and twisted it in favor of the Struble Familia. In a deposition; Mrs. Struble fabricated a story about John beating up Mr. Struble in the street -- but Mr. Struble never exited his vehicle during this incident -- he returned to work unscathed then corroborated the story on the phone. Officer Discher then ordered Mr. Struble to drive around the block to avoid driving by Johns' residence; an order Mr. Struble ultimately ignored (failing to obey a police officer). John called Sunnyvale DPS non- emergency line and told them about this; but no action way taken. Either way; Sunnyvale DPS Chief Williams quit shortly after this; commencing a roughly 17 year campaign of lies and deceit..." GO TO: VARIOUS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS @ VARIOUS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (ETC)    VARIOUS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (ETC) Throughout the last two decades various fraudulent claims have been leveled against John. These fraudulent claim...    Either way; Sunnyvale DPS Chief Williams quit shortly after this; commencing a roughly 17 year campaign of lies and deceit... + SEE ALSO: STRIKE THREE YOU'RE OUT!? > Beninger + Struble Familia + Amadeo Junior + Olenak Familia + Manoukian + Rebholtz/Paolinetti Familia = Strike Three; You're Out! @ @ https://lreblogger.blogspot.com/2017/10/strike-three-youre-out.html QUESTION: 1) Since rookie DPS Officer Discher initially restrained Mister Struble by holding court right out in the street and getting Mister Struble to admit to his wrongdoing -- telling Mister Struble to avoid driving by John's house back in 1998; 2) Why couldn't DPS/SCPD and/or SCPD Officer Don Paolinetti and/or SCPD Officers Lopez and Seagrave and/or DPS Officer Odle etc have similarly restrained the RPF [and/or Mister Olenak who put bleach in duck food ~ equaling animal cruelty; illegal threats of violence later carried out etc] 3) like DPS Officer Discher did to Mister Struble and or Mister Baker did long ago? ANSWER: Because police used to do their jobs differently... 10 GO TO: LEGAL BRIEF FROM COUNSELLOR JOHNNY DOUGH: https://lreblogger.blogspot.com/2020/07/legal-brief-from-counsellor-johnny-dough.html + MISTER BAKER @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/02/mister-baker.html Furthermore; 1) SCPD was instead obsessed with duck feeding John received official permission to do from now ex-Mayor Judy Nadler at a Santa Clara City Council meeting etc and/or 2) whose negligent misconductive police actions essentially led to fomenting selective neighborhood hatred against John for a noble duty John was officially sanctioned to accomplish by the fucking ex-Queen of Santa Clara...Adding to this; the council footage/evidence was later destroyed by the City of Santa Clara leaving only text showing I attended the city council meeting... TIMELINE: ACTIVIST TARGETED FOR DISSENT? https://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/05/timeline-activist-targeted-for-dissent.html + EX-SUNNYVALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS) OFFICER MATTHEW BENINGER & SON ETC https://addendumblog2.blogspot.com/2016/10/ex-police-officer-matthew-beninger.html + TOM FOLEY @ THE LAKE TERRACE APARTMENTS: LAYING IN WAIT + CONSPIRACY ETC @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2014/06/tom-foley-laying-in-wait-conspiracy-etc.html + MISTER BAKER @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/02/mister-baker.html + SNEAK AND PEAK WARRANT @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneak_and_peek_warrant Furthermore; 1) I mentioned something about Portland Mayor Wheeler giving the "Go" signal to his Antifa/BLM ground troops by pointing his finger at Trump; 2) therefore pubicly urging retaliation against those involved in freedom of speech; 3) While countless totally sane people are absolutely abhorred the general Obiden narrative to making 'good' a relative term; 4) Getting us all ready for a potentially oppressive new liberal socialist communist (etc etc etc) federal government; this is why Wheeler is now a person of interest who needs to be cleared... There are several possibilties including: A) A friend named Gary Metrovich who I got into a heated Facebook Messenger argument the same night Baby disappeared (Gary is an old friend who knows where I live); and/or B) Someone on the group BCC email list I am speaking to right now who reacted the day after I brought up the Mayor of San Jose's current situation and/or; C) A seemingly nice Asian couple who I caught feeding Baby Cat at night a few days before she disappeared (They are my main suspects); and/or D) Highly trained military "Night STalkers" who are bored and off work and messing with me and/or who I just saw on the History Channel; DX) Something that obviously happened during the post-911 "my Dad was the head of the CIA" Bush administration era; but probably not happening now I just had to add that in there; which further close examination of the surveillance footage will hopefully bring out... It is also strange that a few days before this I began quietly asking "God" to protect my cats at night...Was someone listening to me so they could find what really mattered to me so they rip my heart out again and stomp on it on the floor like the local cities have allowed to happen so many times now? It Wouldn't surprise me one bit; but there is no way to prove that now it is merely speculation... On Friday, September 4, 2020, 3:21:53 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: I talked to a Santa Clara PD Officer yesterday and sent him an email with photos of Baby Cat to submit just to keep an eye out for her or perhaps find her body at very least...I want to think someone 11 took Baby Cat to keep her and not bring her harm; but you never know...I suspect the worst but that is probably normal to do so... BABY CAT: MISSING SINCE 2 SEPTEMBER 2020    BABY CAT: MISSING SINCE 2 SEPTEMBER 2020 BABY CAT / 1 MAY 2006 "Here is one of my Facebook posts from yesterday: "I woke up at around 7 am today (2 Septe...    I added his SCPD email to this thread too to bring him up to date as to what has been happening here for quite awhile now...This is not the first time someone has done something to one of my cats... And I also added Portland Mayor's email after recently sending him an email to show him that it is unacceptable to let people run amok in any city no matter when or where it happens...Just ask Officer Schmidt about that one I know he will agree... And blaming Trump is lame and is just reminding us all how Democrats will inevitably handle freedom of speech if they ever take oaths of office again to uphold the US Constitution...When the First Amendment was argued for roughly 14 years; ultimately deciding that we can all continue arguing... If that is true then any politician whether on the right or the left can be violently retaliated against for saying 'unsavory' things that not all people think are unsavory...Inevitably some find 'unsavory' as being 'truth'...And any damn fool can see that disagreement is ok as everyone is abhorrent to someone... So giving marching orders to Antifa/BLM troops by blaming Trump just doesn't cut it...Mayor Wheeler does not see himself as being effectual in this process...He is not merely a bystander...Or perhaps he sees his owns words as being superior? Probably...And I probably do too for that matter...And so it goes... Either way; the First Amendment came first before the Second Amendment because like I love to say: "I can say what I want and you can't shoot me for saying it..." Even if you're a modern youth who was raised not only without the same civil rights and/or freedoms that most elders grew up with; but also with a bad attitude towards opposing forms of thought as human freedom and freedom of thought are closely connected... Because: "One who is control ~ controls oneself..." -- (Ancient Roperian Wisdom) I have spoken! And you know I'm right! This is my final verdict and I will not be revisiting this decision! Anyway; try to have a great day everyone regardless of all of this bullshit! :D THE ADDENDUM BLOG 12    THE ADDENDUM BLOG === EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW ===    BTW: Baby Cat suddenly went missing the day after I sent an email to Mayor Wheeler about the aforementioned topics; so I hope there's no 'Portland Underground' running around stealing the cats of outspoken individuals like me and so many others...Since Wheeler sees freedom of speech as not being free anymore...Hmmm... On Thursday, September 3, 2020, 4:49:01 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: I woke up yesterday morning to find this disarray right outside the front door and my cat missing...And a solar light was obviously removed and placed a foot or two away from the light's base and it had to be pulled out of the base to do this...somebody was on my property the night my cat disappeared...There's no doubt in my mind... Someone's who's spiritually broke (along with local governments) has got HELL to pay... On Thursday, September 3, 2020, 12:55:33 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Baby Cat is officially missing now and today I will try to check shelters and search the streets for any signs of life or death...Also; I added a new lawyer to the group of other lawyers on this email list; and I am wondering if she perhaps has taken any action so far; because if she has that may explain Baby Cat's disappearance... And remember animal cruelty is now a felony; one of the good laws Trump signed into law...So this is no longer a matter of lost property worth $15; this is an invaluable cat who's sister is wondering where she is and is acting depressed now along with me; and she is vulnerable too along with other cats who live around here... It looks like Precious Cat was killed by Jake Paolinetti after about 5 years of unrestrained stalking and harassment and after the Mrs. Rebholtz dragged me into court for things her out of control brats did...Leaving Jake Paolinetti free to continue his siege...And Buster Cat suddenly fell sick after being healthy as a horse... And when Precious was gone I searched for another cat like her for awhile until finally found her in Baby Cat; her frightened little sister who is now gone...3 out of 4 of the cats from this litter of kitties who was born in the backyard under my neighbor's deck are now forever gone... These were the kitties who gave me joy and love during the difficult years after my brother died in a head on collision on Xmas eve 1999...The difficult years made even more difficult by the RPF yelling what sounded like death threats (in other words; domestic terrorism with no statute of limitations) right outside my bedroom window at night after a night time ambush attempt police never investigated correctly... It should have been made into a crime scene... So Donald Trump can talk all day about drug rehab; but I'm probably going to smoke more pot than ever now to numb my soul again like I did for about two years after Precious Cats' untimely death 13 and/or like I did again for a shorter time right after Missy Cats' back was broken on Xmas day a few years back...Remember? (So either arrest all of the freaks cops allowed to break the law and attack me and harass me and stalk me and vandalize my property and kill and kidnap my cats; or I'm smoking more pot to deal with it...Deal with it...There are HUGE life consequences to this kind of government-sponsored gross negligence...) Back when DPS Officers Gantt and Fuji dragged their feet for about two months before finally showing up and not giving me an incident number until I asked for one right before they left? As TV news stories about a cops' son in San Jose who was a serial cat killer raged on in the background? Remember that? So I've had enough foot dragging and nonfeasance and other forms of neglect; this is a very serious matter that needs attention ASAP and I'm sick of everyone else getting help from the police or media exposure while they do nothing for me...When I get the feeling all media exposure will do is violate my privacy and in turn likely cause more harassment due to the large amount of idiots who apparently live in this region... Anyway I called DPS non-emergency last night and told the phone attendant about Baby Cat and the surveillance footage and the suspiciously misplaced wood and suspicious solar light placement... Someone was on my property the same night Baby Cat disappeared and obvious clues were left behind likely to send a message...Therefore I should call for an officer to show up and document the event; even though I don't trust cops who have never seemed interested in helping me out and going the extra mile for me... So this was very likely done on purpose and I honestly think it perhaps has something to do with my fearlessness and outspoken nature...And the way appears it was done makes me suspect it was done very carefully avoiding the surveillance cameras so perhaps someone was aware of our surveillance limitations; working around them to stay covert... (I did see Baby Cat following and Asian couple across the street outside my window the other night; causing me to go outside and ask them what they were doing since it was so unusual for Baby Cat to be following anyone around...They acted a bit suspicious and left quickly and it was night time so I couldn't really see them that well...They seemed nice and said they had cats too but they left sort of abruptly so it seems a little suspicious to me...Hmmm...) Therefore let it be known; someone can kill or kidnap all of my cats and threaten my life -- even foreign or domestic spies -- but I still will not shut up...And all this did was make me more determined than ever to root out those who messed with me for so many years and finally find some semblance of justice within this mess... And it is also hurting neighbors who love Baby Cat and the other cats; and I will probably be putting out flyers soon telling the neighborhood what happened even though it may scare some people; including making a new blog post too to explain online...And to top it off; being illegally removed from the Birdland Neighbors and Nextdoor.com keeps me and others out of the loop regarding important issues like this that should be blasted out to the entire neighborhood but is not due to discrimination and illegal rights violations allowed by largely unconstitutional user agreements allowing the First Amendment rights of users to be egregiously violated... My old California dream has just woken up into a NIGHTMARE FROM HELL... On Wednesday, September 2, 2020, 11:35:45 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: 14 She is nowhere to be found and this has never happened in 12 years of her life...And does anyone think calling the police will actually do anything even though this kind of thing is a felony now? The police will probably come two months later like they did with Missy Cat then leave without giving me an incident number and do nothing... Is someone sending a little message to me with this? Here's a little message back: We'll see she could show up tomorrow morning but this is very unlike her and I suspect the worst right now...Imagine not being able to call the police for help knowing they won't do anything when you call them; and imagine them slandering and defaming you after calling them for help instead of helping you...That is the kind of shit I have dealt with... Does someone want me to shut up? Good luck with that one... On Wednesday, September 2, 2020, 8:35:54 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: Today one of my 12 year old cats (Precious Cats' sister) is suddenly gone and not coming when I call her; so if any of you reading this had anything to do with this I am checking my surveillance footage soon because animal cruelty is now a felony...There was a wooden board along the front walkway that was in the middle of the walkway and a sun powered light fixture looked kicked over...I could be jumping to conclusions but I have a really bad feeling about this since it has happened before and I suspect if she is gone it has something to do with what I wrote yesterday due to the timing...We'll see...It is very unlike her to not come when called... I don't trust government anymore and it wouldn't surprise me if this is just a continuation my aforementioned past... On Tuesday, September 1, 2020, 1:07:32 PM PDT, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: I feel compelled to answer back to some of the strange ideas being presented to the masses which I saw this morning in the "incredibly biased and obviously trying to win the next election" SJ Mercury News; which is connected to a variety of other incredibly biased news outlets across America: Biden hits campaign trail, blames Trump for city violence    Biden hits campaign trail, blames Trump for city violence Associated Press Joe Biden is mounting a more aggressive offense against President Donald Trump with a rare public appearance Mon...    Coming from Biden; the man who advocates beating up people behind locker rooms; a man who knows Obama -- who has been sitting in his home office urging on the protests... The bottom line is: one who is in control; controls oneself... 15 In other words; blame no one other than yourself for what you do...As freedom of speech = provocation; and the First Amendment was argued for roughly 14 years before eventual ratification...And also why the First Amendment came before the Second Amendment... Because I can say whatever I damn well please; and you can't shoot me for saying it...Pretty simple... Protesters vandalize Liccardo's home, mayor thanks neighbors who scrubbed away graffiti    Protesters vandalize Liccardo's home, mayor thanks neighbors who scrubbe... A group apparently protesting for social justice targeted San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo Friday night.    Yup and I had the exact same thing happen; but for a multi-year period -- about 7-8+ years without end... And it all got zero attention from the mainstream media ~ while police refused to stop it...And I almost died from massive tooth infections as people were yelling what sounded like death threats on and off right outside... I guess self-appointed Mayors of Southwest Sunnyvale like me who actually care about neighbors and what they think about local issues are not worth protecting due to our love of deepened democracy... Letters: Ugly display | Property taxes | Remaking the president    Letters: Ugly display | Property taxes | Remaking the president Mercury News Letters to the Editor for September 1, 2020    "After ugly S.J. display, protests at crossroads Last Friday, in the dark of night, three human characteristics converged at the home of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo and his wife, Jessica. 16 After a reportedly peaceful protest for Black Lives Matter near City Hall, a group decided to once again protest at the home of Mayor Liccardo and his wife. Under cover of darkness, more than 100 people converged on their neighborhood home, with nearly a half-dozen painting, spraying and egging their home, scrawling obscenities on their front door, walls and windows. Dozens of others stood there, many cheering them on. Afterward, caring neighbors, who – like the mayor – proudly display Black Lives Matter posters in their windows, invested hours in helping the mayor clean up his home. Friends, our country is at a crossroads in which our character can come out: Will we be the caring neighbors who took positive action, the cowardly criminals who attacked someone else’s home, or the complicit crowd, who egged them on or stood there silently and allowed it to happen? Let’s make the right choice in which we lift up others for racial justice and equity, rather than tearing others down. Carl Guardino Monte Sereno..." So there you have it; not only did this arrogant Carl Guardino clown get to speak for about 10 minutes at a Sunnyvale City Council meeting ~ while I got cut off at 3 minutes (which could be considered to be a form of class-based discrimination) but now it suddenly matters that the SJ Mayors' house got exactly what I experienced for about 7-8 years on and off...Unfuckingbelieveable...Damn! There really is a certain kind of arrogance and entitlement that the 'ruling class' has in this respect...And it's all public now... And that arrogance and entitlement says: "You don't matter; while others do..." THEREFORE; IT'S HIGH TIME TO #WALKAWAY! 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bill Michel <bmichel@alum.pomona.edu> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 6:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: SVBC Board: Mitchell Park Curb-cut CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    More than 10 years, and no action.      >Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:53:09 ‐0700  >To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  >From: Bill Michel <bmichel@alum.pomona.edu>  >Subject: Mitchell Park Curb Cut  >Cc: Mary Ann Michel <mamichel@alumni.duke.edu>  >Bcc:  >  >Dear Councilmembers,  >  >As one who took the City's Bicycle Campaign of the 70s seriously, I've tried  >to make suggestions that would facilitate bicycle transportation in/through  >Palo Alto for the last several decades. Unfortunately, despite the kudos  >that the City gets, I find it unresponsive, and incompetent.  >  >The latest such matter involves a curb‐cut that I have been   >requesting for over  >the last 10 years  in Mitchell Park. When the cut was finally made, it was  >located in such a fashion to make it completely useless. When I pointed this  >out to Staff, I was offered a ridiculous post‐hoc justification. Even if this  >rationale were bona fide, City Staff could have contacted me prior to  >construction, and I would have told them not to bother, since the location  >they chose is clearly useless.  >  >I urge you all to take a bike ride through Mitchell Park, and attempt to  >use this curb‐cut for the purposes of travelling from Charleston to Meadow,  >which was my purpose in requesting it. I prefer the route through the  >Park preferable to Middlefield, and fact that Staff would suggest that I  >as an "experienced cyclist" would prefer the higher traffic, and the hazard  >of the 8 driveways between Meadow and Charleston preferable   >(including the Challenger  >School) demonstrates the ignorance of Staff about bicycle issues.  >  >In the photo I've included, the green arrow points to where the *existing*  >curb‐cut is, which if staff rationale were bona‐fide, should already have  >been eliminated because of all the injuries it has caused, and the red arrow  >indicates the location where the cut I had requestion ought to have   >been made. The actual cut is visible, many feet from the end of the   2 >path where it clearly should have been put.  >  >I'd be happy to meet with any of you if you'd like to ride this yourselves.  >  >My mother remains a Palo Alto Resident, and is a member of PABAC. I've cc'ed  >her on the email  >  >Thank you for your attention.  >  >Bill Michel  >131 Ortega Ave.  >Cubberley '79  >Wilbur '77  >Ortega Elementary '75  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:44 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Mountain Biking in Our Parks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Re: Foothills Park    Thank you for restricting bikes to pavement! Mountain biking and trail‐building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking  is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail!    Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right  to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: https://mjvande.info/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of  mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as  everyone else ‐‐ ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....    A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment  than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all  of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see  https://mjvande.info/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers,  and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored.  They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking,  and came to the opposite conclusions.    Mountain bikers also love to build new trails ‐ legally or illegally. Of course, trail‐building destroys wildlife habitat ‐ not  just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away,  and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10‐mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that  animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of  people in the park, thereby preventing the animals' full use of their habitat. See https://mjvande.info/scb9.htm for  details.    Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V‐shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives  wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay  (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?    To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5‐minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297.    In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: https://mjvande.info/mtb_dangerous.htm .    For more information: https://mjvande.info/mtbfaq.htm .    The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the  wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among  humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users ‐‐ hikers and equestrians ‐‐ who can  no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks).    The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely  2 why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the  parks.    Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there  from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter  won't understand what I am talking about ‐‐ an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system.     ‐‐     I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off‐limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help?  (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)    Wildlife must be given top priority, because they can't protect themselves from us.    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!    https://mjvande.info   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kurt Buecheler <kurtbuecheler@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:24 AM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Old Palo Alto RPP extension request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council:    The Old Palo Alto RPP test solved a decade long (or more) of suffering by the citizens of the area. The problem  was well understood and documented by city staff and supported by city staff.      There was overwhelming citizen support with an impressive 60% response rate to the survey and >90% of  respondents supporting the creation of the RPP.    The program has been highly effective in improving safety as well as vast improvement quality of life that we  now regain living in Palo Alto.    I was shocked and disappointed that the city staff's recommendation to renew was not supported by City  Council.  With such overwhelming citizen support and such effective results, it's difficult to find data or  strategy that supports city council's choices and direction.    I do understand that one person criticized to OPA RPP program, but her arguments are not correct. There is  substantial parking available at Caltrain and the Cal Ave supply is about to increase significantly. The OPA RPP  is not an attack on such interests. This is spurious.    By the way, I believe the discussion we should be having is the expansion of the OPA RPP so that those that  live on Bryant can be also relieved of the spill‐over of parking that is pulled beyond the current OPA RPP.    The good news, it's not too late to do the right thing and to renew our confidence. We ask that you approve  the successful pilot and make the OPA RPP permanent. Further, the economics of the program can be  adjusted if needed, as would any city program be refined over time.    Thank you  Kurt Buecheler  2200 Emerson Street  Palo Alto, CA            1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Approve OPA RPP without delay CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Correct acronym in title  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>  Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:45 AM  Subject: Approve OPP RPP without delay  To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>    Council Members:     The Old Palo Alto RPP pilot successfully addressed a long‐standing problem that negatively impacted the  quality of life in this residential neighborhood. The problem was well understood and documented by city staff  and the solution was fully  supported by city staff.      There was also overwhelming citizen support; greater than 90% of respondents supported the creation of the  RPP.  The program has been highly effective in improving safety and quality of life for residents    I am disappointed but not surprised that the recommendation of city staff to renew the RPP  was not  supported by some City Council members who are primarily supported by special interests, e.g. the business  community.  With data‐supported success and overwhelming citizen support of this RPP, by failing to approve  this RPP the City Council is ignoring the will of the people.    Your job is to listen to the will of the majority of residents. Please do your job!    Sincerely,    John Guislin    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Matthieu Bonnard <mpbnyc@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 11, 2020 12:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Plastics Industry Promoted Recycling To Help Keep Oil And Gas Profits High : NPR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear city council‐    I applaud PA recycling program. NPR below is worth the read and begs the question of the controls put in place by the  city, to make sure that what your recycling contractor claims is recycled is indeed recycled.    Sincerely,    Matthieu Bonnard        https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/822597631/plastic‐wars‐three‐takeaways‐from‐the‐fight‐over‐the‐ future‐of‐plastics  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tammy Truher <tammy.truher@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Power outages during school hours CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello ‐‐      I just wanted to register a complaint about the timing of the power poles being replaced. Currently, we are in a  pandemic where all students are required to go to school at home. They are on Zoom calls that require internet access  *continuously* from 9AM to 3 PM. Then they have 2 hours of homework after that. Classwork, tests and projects are  not easy to reschedule or make up the work from since none of the classes are recorded on video. It is difficult to get in  front of a teacher in the short time of day that teachers have office hours. Due to the atrocious air quality, these  students have absolutely no options unless they go to someone else's house and work indoors, which is against the  shelter in place suggestions. My family has been very strict due to immunity issues, so my children haven't been to any  friends houses, nor have any of our friends, so we are without options. Where are my children supposed to go for  school? Adults who work can take a vacation day but students don't get vacation days. The timing of this work is really  poor. With the current air quality, we don't even have the options of going to a coffee shop.     This work should have been scheduled during the summer or you should offer hotspots to people whose power will be  out for an entire day. It should be rescheduled until the air quality is good enough for people to have alternate places to  go work or do their schoolwork.     Tammy Truher  4097 Scripps Ave.  Palo Alto, CA 94306  1 Brettle, Jessica From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 6:38 PM To:City Attorney Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:President Hotel Public Memo on Legal Rules Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  On June 23, 2020 the City Council voted to direct the City Attorney to "prepare a public memo explaining the  legal rules that applied to the Council's consideration and decision on the President Hotel, and publish it on  the City's website."    I have been unable to locate that memo on the City's website.    Please mail me a copy of that memo to the address below.  Please include with the memo the Internet  address location of the memo on the City's website and, if there is not a direct link to the memo on the City  website's home page, please also include with the memo that sequence of ciicks to access that memo from  the home page.    Please mail the requested public documents to me at:    Herb Borock  P.  O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    Thank you.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kerry Yarkin <kya.ohlone@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:PTC Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:     I want to inform you that the PTC Meeting last night , important information was not available to the public in a timely  manner.   Watching the Zoom meeting, the City Planner mentioned that she  had sent out 30 pages  and an important  memo just hours before the meeting.  As a citizen interested in the  Castilleja CUP, the proper noticing and  disseminating of important documents should be handled and verified by our City Attorney's Office.      Very respectfully,    Kerry Yarkin    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kirk Vartan <kirk@asliceofny.com> Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2020 6:43 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Rep. Ro Khanna Roundtable on Worker Cooperatives: 9/16 - 12-1pm CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor, Council, and City Manger,    I would like to ensure you are aware of the upcoming roundtable panel discussion led by Representative Ro Khanna titled: Worker Cooperatives: An Alternative Business Model in the COVID Economy & Beyond. It will include State Assemblymember Ash Kalra, Santa Clara Mayor Lisa Gillmor; Worker Ownership: Zen Trenholm (Democracy at Work Institute), Hilary Abell (Project Equity), and Kirk Vartan (A Slice of New York).     It will be a 60-minute event on Wed, Sept. 16, 2020, from 12:00-1:00pm PST. The focus will be on how worker cooperatives can provide a viable alternative for baby boomers approaching retirement, especially for struggling businesses impacted by COVID-19. Join to learn more about how federal, state and local representatives can help make these solutions a reality.    Please try to hold this time so you can attend! This will be a very exciting event, with local, state, and national relevance, so I hope you can make it. See attached flyer and please share with others.    Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/256977382090584/    Stay strong in these difficult times.    -Kirk    ================  A Slice of New York  A New York Experience in the Bay Area  The Bay Area’s newest worker‐cooperative  3443 Stevens Creek Blvd. (San Jose/Santa Clara)  1253 W El Camino Real (Sunnyvale)  SJ: (408) 24‐SLICE / SV: (650) 938‐NYNY  www.asony.com  www.911memorial.org  2 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 6:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safe parking for those in need CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Council Members and Staff:    The Low Income Housing Committee of the Peninsula Branch of the Women's International league for Peace and   Freedom (WILPF)is in full support of the city to gain long term parking spaces for RVs, (and other forms of  transportation) all over the city. We need to assist folks who are stranded on the road, who are sleeping under the  bridges, etc. More importantly, we need to find extremely low income housing for our service workers, low income  folks, and the homeless.    Sincerely,    Roberta Ahlquist, for the WILPF Low Income Housing Sub‐Committee  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Gallagher <livebuoyantly@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 7:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Safe parking for those in need CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Member of Palo Alto:    Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the conversation about RVs and housing for low income folks.    I have been communicating through Dr. Roberta Ahlquist who suggested sending my email below to you tonight as you  consider how to address the problem of RVs on the streets of Palo Alto.    Please see my suggested sites for RVs. I am thinking churches, schools, the airports (Palo Alto + Moffett Field) would  have large parking lots that would be suitable for parking RVs. These lots would have facilities for folks to answer  nature’s call, shower, brush teeth, and wash up as needed. Perhaps, community dining events could also be negotiated.    Gratefully,    Mary    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Mary Gallagher <livebuoyantly@gmail.com>  Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:53 PM  Subject: Re: Safe parking for those in need  To: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>    The back lot of Cubberley, the back lot of the First baptist church (Cal Ave near Middlefield), the lot at the church of  Latter Day Saints, the Palo Alto airport, and of course Stanford among other non‐profits could be possibilities for RV  parking—instead of on the street.     Brainstorming for more,    Mary    On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:46 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:  Council Members and Staff:        The Low Income Housing Committee of the Peninsula Branch of the    Women's International league for Peace and  Freedom (WILPF)is in full    support of the city to gain long term parking spaces for RVs, (and    2 other forms of transportation) all over the city. We need to assist    folks who are stranded on the road, who are sleeping under the    bridges, etc. More importantly,    we need to find extremely low income housing for our service workers,    low income folks, and the homeless.        Sincerely,        Roberta Ahlquist, for the WILPF Low Income Housing Sub‐Committee  ‐‐   Mary Gallagher, B.S. Aquatics Professional 650-683-7102 (cell)    Copyright 2020     Security Alert Notice  The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer.     ‐‐   Mary Gallagher, B.S. Aquatics Professional 650-683-7102 (cell)    Copyright 2020     Security Alert Notice  The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer.   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Penny Barrett <pennybarrett@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:05 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:RE: Safe Parking issue on the Sept. 14, 2020 City Council mtg AND next steps Attachments:next steps.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Please distribute the attached letter to the City Council Members.    Thank you,    Penny Barrett  15 September 2020 Subject: Safe Parking at Geng Road Location for Sept. 14, 2020, Council Mtg. Dear City Council Members, Thank you for your unanimous approval of this first step in caring for the members of our city – people over profit! Now to move on to looking at other temporary steps while addressing the elephant in the room – Low cost housing!!! Even before the pandemic visited Palo Alto, we had surplus commercial property and a shortage/absence of low-cost housing. And that imbalance will likely increase in a negative way even after the pandemic is finally eradicated. For example, it’s time to look at the property where Fry’s was located. This has been sitting on the table long enough. No more endless studies. We need action. As I understand it, it’s already zoned for multi-family housing (and has an unexpired provision for limited commercial development – perhaps for a small Target-like business for more affordable provisions for low-cost housing dwellers). It also provides housing near schools for families. Maybe it would help motivate some of you if you were to camp in your car for just a week! Then multiple that experience by a month, a year . . . oh yes, also add a few children to your car! Sorry to be so blunt. But, we need action, not just studies and talk. Thank you for showing that you can find consensus and move ahead. Let’s keep going in the right direction. Thank you, Penny Barrett 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Karl Smudski <ksmudski@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 7:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Skatepark CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I’m a resident of Palo Alto and my 5 children and I would love to have a skate park built in the area so we and our friends  who skate all have a place to exercise and enjoy and to keep all 5 of my sons from skating where they shouldn’t and  getting in trouble.    Thank you    ‐ Karl  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Conor Burns <cburns97@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 8:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Skatepark being built in Palo alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi,    My name is Conor Burns and I grew up from age 12‐20 years old in Palo Alto. I started riding BMX because of the Greer  skatepark bowl down the street from my house. It was a place for me and my friends and twin brother to hang out and  meet up with people so we could ride and mess around. We spent all our time at the skatepark making tons of  memories. I am in full support of the creation of a new skatepark in Palo Alto. I live in San Diego now but still am  pursuing BMX to this day because of it. I love BMX and this makes me very happy.    Thanks,    Conor    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:P. F. <pfungcollects@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Skatepark Support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,    I am unable to make the zoom meeting regarding the discussion of creating a skatepark in Palo Alto, however, I want to  share my support of the project.    Growing up in Palo Alto, skateboarding was an outlet for me since I first started in elementary school. To this day it’s  been influential in my life. We would skate anything we could, including the rink at Mitchell Park. I use to even bike all  the way to Menlo Park just to skate transition there.     An updated park will be great for both youth and adults in the nearby community to enjoy. Greer is a iconic and  historical park in the skateboarding community, however, it could have more features for different levels and types of  skateboarding.     If there is a place to hear the recap from the meeting, I would love to know. Moreover, if there is a mailing list for  community feedback on the design process, I would love to know that as well. What are the thoughts of the city so far?    Thank you for your time.   Best,  Patty Fung   1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Guilfoyle <johnguilfoyle259@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 12:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Build the skatepark! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I support the construction of a new skatepark in Palo Alto! It is much needed for the community!     John Guilfoyle   1 Brettle, Jessica From:liana krakirian <li.krakirian@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 12:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support New Skatepark! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, I am have been a resident of Palo Alto for 21 years. I would like to express support for a new skatepark in the city. Now more than ever, our lives are moving outside. Public parks and recreation spaces provide valuable refuge to all who live here. It would be wonderful to have a modern skatepark of our own in Palo Alto, rather than needing to drive to Menlo Park, Mountain View, or Sunnyvale. While Greer Skatepark plays a valuable role in skate history, its rideability doesn't compare to Burgess in Menlo Park or Fair Oaks in Sunnyvale. Modern skateparks provide a different kind of space. They allow kids who don't play team sports at Paly and Gunn to meet peers and participate in a different sport. Many of the kids who skate in Palo Alto approach their hobby with that kind of dilligence: they show up every day, to challenge themselves and their friends. Right now, when people who live in Palo Alto want to skate close to home, we need to resort to cruising around Stanford or University Ave. Skating athletically in public spaces (grinding ledges, etc) destroys property. To me, this is out of the question. To others (notably teenagers who aren't concerned about records), damaging property isn't a huge concern. While driving to other cities to skate is hardly the end of the world, a skatepark in Palo Alto might make the actual end of the world more bearable for those of us who live here. Thank you for taking the time to read this email. Best, Liana   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Liz Gardner <gardnerjaqua@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 1:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Yes. New Skate Park Essential CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     Please include a new skate park for Palo Alto’s outdoor master plan. Make it family friendly and assessable for all ages.  Kids need positive outlets,  exercise and more outdoor recreational choices. The Greer park skate bowl is not an  appropriate for everyone. Is in a too secluded and hard to reach with very little surface visibility.     Our teen need more to do in this town and having a good, well designed, family and ADA skate park is a great  alternative. Get kids involved in the design process. No everyone plays tennis. The perfect place might be Mitchell park  at Ross from Magical bridge and near the dog run. Or at Cubberly. Or, repurpose, enlarge the existing one. Take down  the high cyclone fence and make a good pathway with benches and trees surrounding it with better lighting and  bathrooms. Also look to MV for an example. Not a bowl but a surface park that serves all levels of skateboards, scooters.    Thank you,    Liz Gardner  2500 El Camino Real #301  Palo Alto, Ca 94306      ‐‐   Liz Gardner  1 Brettle, Jessica From:stephanie werner <stephanie_werner@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Skate Park - Let's do it! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to share my STRONG SUPPORT for getting our kids a skate park. Please give Sam's proposal the consideration and backing it deserves. Thanks, Stephanie Compton 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Meredith Glasson <meredithglasson@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 2:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Skate Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello!    My name is Meredith Glasson and I am a freshman at Palo Alto High School.    I think Palo Alto needs a skate park because the kids need a safe place to progress and get better at skating. With covid,  a skate park is a great place to safety hangout with peers and stay 6ft away. I think it will be a great idea to create a Palo  Alto skate park!    Thank you so much!  Meredith Glasson  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ava Hahn <ava.hahn@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 3:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:New skate park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello City Council,    I write in support of building another skatepark in Palo Alto.  My son is an avid skateboarder and enjoys using Greer  skatepark very much.  However, skateboarding is a very popular sport, so Greer is often too crowded to enjoy.   Especially in the COVID era, with all school sports cancelled, skateboarding is one of the only activities left for kids.    I moved to Palo Alto because it’s a great place to raise a family.  Let’s make it even better by building a second  skatepark!    Sincerely,  Ava Hahn  1620 Escobita Ave  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:tara kaplinsky <tarakaplinsky@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 4:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Skatepark CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I think we definitely need an updated skatepark in Palo Alto, because we need a place for kids to learn how to  skateboard, scooter, and BMX bike safely. A skatepark would be a great way to build a supportive community of kids and  adults, especially in a time where the future of school and sports is uncertain due to the pandemic. Please give us a  skatepark    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Chienlan <chienlan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 5:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Skatepark CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi,    I want to voice support for a new skatepark.  It is a great way for kids to socialize and get exercise Outdoors. We  currently have to go to Mountain View as the Palo Alto one is too difficult for novices. A skatepark for a variety of levels  would be fantastic in this town.    We would LOVE it if it were in rinconada, especially as there is already a plan to remodel the park.    Thanks,  Chienlan      Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sam Kaplinsky <paloaltoskatepark@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 5:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:skatepark CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi my name is Sam Kaplinsky, and I think Palo Alto needs a skatepark. we need a place where people of all skill levels can  practice their sport and progress. skateboarding and other wheel sports are great ways for kids to stay active, and by  having a skatepark we would have a place to come together in a community of supporting kids and adults. This is  especially important because of school closures and sport cancelations due to the pandemic. Here is a link to a petition  that has almost 1500 signatures in support of the skatepark.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Clint Smith <clinttsmith@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 5:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Skate park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi city council I’m a citizen in Palo Alto and I fully support the building of a skatepark in Palo Alto.    Best wishes,                       Clint Smith      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Alex Kaplinsky <alex@shiftcapital.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 5:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Skate park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I strongly support making a skate park.  Paloaltoskatepark.com      Alex Kaplinsky  415.987.9073  alex@kaplinsky.com  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sam Papp <sampapp@att.net> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 5:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:skatepark CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    My name is Sam Papp and I am a 15 year old local skater in Palo Alto. My local park is greer, and it needs some updating.  The grass needs to go around the sides and we need a variety of new obstacles.      Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Amelie Stotland <amelie.stotland@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 6:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:skatepark CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  hi city of palo alto,   I think we need a skatepark because there are a bunch of skaters who don't want to have to go out of town or drive all  the way to a skatepark. It would be a great place for kids in Palo Alto to bond and make great connections while skating  and having fun! I skate, but I wish I would have started learning how to skate in a bowl and down ramps that are meant  for skateboarding earlier since it is so much fun. Greer and Burgess are great places to skate, it is just a little out of the  way for most of us kids who live near the elementary schools and middle schools. PLEASE think about building a  skatepark where us kids can spend time and have fun.    Amelie Stotland      ‐‐        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Joseph Rose <josephlrose@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 6:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Greer Skatepark Add-On CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello,  My name is Joseph Rose and I am a sophomore at Palo Alto Highschool. Greer Skatepark has been a touchstone for the  skating culture and history of Palo Alto. I spend a lot of time their with my friends and it has quietly become a  undeniably large part of my life, becoming a second home for me. Because the Greer Skatepark is so dear to me and  many others, I wouldn’t say that anything needs to change to the bowls, just that a more “street” centric themed  skatepark as an addition to the bowl already there would be a good decision and generate more interest from skaters,  as there will be both styles of skating available. With a quality skatepark designed with the help and opinions of  skateboards the possibility of another generational landmark presents itself.    Thank you,  Joseph    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ingrid Totic <ingridtotic@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:skate park in PA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,    I couldn't call in to yesterday's meeting but I'd like to voice my support for a PA skate park. I know we have the bowl at  Greer, but it's better suited to older kids or adults. It'd be so lovely to have something more similar to the one at  Burgess. The only changes I'd make to the Burgess set‐up are 1) provide more seating inside since they didn't have  nearly enough before covid and now when we should space ourselves more it means most parents have to stand, and 2)  more shade would be nice because heat radiates off the concrete like crazy otherwise.    Thanks for considering this proposal.    Ingrid Totic  743 Holly Oak Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94303  650‐327‐7892  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Maria-Luisa David <marialuisadavid@sfhs.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 11:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:skatepark! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  heyyy!   my name is lulu and I support the skatepark! Skating has brought a sense of community in my life and taught me  perseverance and i love the sport!    i think it would be super sick if you guys did it :)    best regards,  Lulu  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 6:49 AM To:McCann, Lisa@Waterboards; Miller, Amy; Deborah L. Feng; Roger Lee; Ignatius Y. Ding; Loquist, Kristina; Jon Robert Willey; Supervisor Joe Simitian; Onciano, Jacqueline; Salisbury, Robert; Paula Wallis; jeffrey.schmidt@conservation.ca.gov; John Marvin; boardoperations@cob.sccgov.org; Commission, Planning; Rojko, Cathy (ENRD); clerk@santaclaraca.gov; Congressman Ro Khanna; Senator Beall; Linda Sell; Eastwood, Rob; Council, City; CityClerk@sanjoseca.gov; CityCountil@cupertino.org; cole@baykeeper.org; Cityclerk@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Fwd: Stevens Creek Quarry Attachments:Page C 962.JPG; Page C 956.JPG; Page C 965.JPG; Page C 952.JPG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello All,     I took these pictures the other day of the Stevens Creek Quarry and the Stevens Creek Reservoir pretty shocking.  Stevens Creek Quarry Company are allowed to recycle concrete that is brought on to their property to be ground up into  cement dust and this material is piled up across from the weigh in trailer at the Recycling Area which is under a use  permit that has conditions the Stevens Creek Quarry is in violations of this use permit.     The Stevens Creek Quarry has been allowed to dump the stormwater runoff from this area and that water is captured in  a holding tank under the weigh in trailer during the rainy season and Stevens Creek Quarry personnel funnel this water  across the street exit to a small pond and then this pond water is released under the Stevens Canyon Road to the  Stevens Creek Reservoir.   I was informed on the day I witnessed this process by one of the personnel that they have a permit to dump this water  into the Stevens Creek Reservoir I find this very hard to believe. This process is a great problem because concrete  contains high levels of Mercury and the dust from the piles and the stormwater that goes into the Stevens Creek  Reservoir is causing a great deal of pollution and this needs to end.     Santa Clara Valley Water oversees the Stevens Creek Reservoir and they conduct testing but it seems they are  overlooking completely what is going on and I think that this is due to the fact that they sell water to the San Jose Water  Company and the California Water Service Company profit is king. The Water from the Reservoir goes to a recharge or  percolator pond and is then released into the aquifer below both water companies pull water up from the aquifer and  wells that contain this water and that is our drinking water. The water is treated by the water companies who add  chlorine, ammonia and other chemicals to bleach the water. It looks and smells ok but in reality it is still filled with  pollution.     This water is also taken up by extraction wells from the aquifer and pond water and it goes into the Lehigh Hanson  quarry which is supposed to be taken up and treated by the Lehigh WasteWater Treatment plant this is not always the  case. There are ponds on the property that are supposed to always be treated at the Lehigh WasteWater Treatment  Plant but they also are not always treated. Lehigh's WasteWater Treatment plant process to treat the water is expensive  and the chemicals are also expensive so that is one reason they do not treat all of the water. The Permanente Creek is  and has been polluted ongoingly and it has been destroyed the restoration of the creek has not taken place which is due  to the fact the Lehigh has to use the creek to release the polluted water from the ponds, quarry pit and the polluted  water from the cement plant in order to stay in business. In the meantime it seems that the Yeager Yard slide is of great  concern and when the rainy season starts the water in the Permanente Creek will wear away the slide that is filled with  cement plant waste material that will flow down the creek and cause great damage to the land of the people that live  near the creek. There is an even more concern with this scenario what if there is a flood jam of some kind and the water,  2 mud, trees, forest debris and waste material cause destruction not only to the land and homes next to the creek but  what if they actually cause damage and danger to human lives we the people can not let this happen.     Santa Clara County instructed Stevens Creek Quarry Company to move the Recycling Area away from the Stevens  Canyon Road and the Stevens Creek Reservoir many, many years ago and to also sell off the recycled concrete or move  the ground up concrete away from the road and the SCQ Company they never did what the law demanded. The County  has never fined or imposed a citation  of any kind ever on the SCQ Company for any violation of the use permit, or the  failure to adhere to their requests and to this day nothing has changed and it has only gotten much, much worse the  public suffers from this pollution 24/7. My question is where is the justice? How can anyone just sit back and watch this  happen? Can anyone tell me?     This ongoing pollution problem with the Air, Water and Soil has caused all kinds of health and safety issues and the  public suffer. The piles of concrete that are piled up ready to be ground up and the recycled concrete piles are  dangerously too high and SCQ Company is out of compliance. This process could cause the workers and property owners  their lives if these piles decide to topple over or if the stormwater in the rainy season moves the product, and it causes a  mudslide/ground up concrete slide which would go right into the weigh in trailer that people work in. The workers could  be hurt in so many ways moving the recycled concrete on top to the area where they dump the pieces of recycled  concrete and also at the bottom of the area where all of the concrete pieces are ground up there is a catastrophe just  waiting to happen.  I would like Santa Clara County and the Planning Staff to view these violations and take pictures of  their own to submit to the SCC Board for review. I have also asked the Bay Area Air Quality Air District to also review  information pertaining to these matters and act accordingly.     The pictures also show how the Stevens Creek Reservoir water is low and retracting there is all kinds of large tree limbs  and debris just lying there and you can also see the gray matter recycled concrete dust that has blown into the Reservoir  that hugs the sides of the reservoir. The reservoir is full of Mercury and sediment of all kinds of pollution. The recharge  area behind the 7‐11 store has to be dredged to remove the sediment and I have taken pictures of this process with  their heavy equipment and I can supply these pictures to anyone that wants to see them. I do not know how often they  do this sediment removal but I am sure Santa Clara Valley Water District and maybe the State Regional Water Quality  Control Enforcement Division have records. The water in this pond is filthy and disgusting. Someone needs to look into  this besides the SCVWD who are not regulating the pollution as they should be.       It is time that Santa Clara County and the agencies use their power to enforce the Clean Air, Clean Water and Clean Soil  ACTs, and regulations that are supposed to keep the public safe from harm. I am asking all of the people involved and  the public to get involved do your part to see what they do. It is obvious that the rainy season will start soon so let's not  wait until it is too late to stop this disaster from happening.      I have provided information about the next step in regulating and or closing down the polluters Stevens Creek Quarry  and the Lehigh Hanson Cement and Quarry. The valley can not tolerate further mining and cement making ‐ STOP THE  POLLUTERS NOW!    The gases from the Lehigh Hanson Cement Plant are causing all kinds of dryness to the Air and Land which in turn are  causing Climate Change this will cause the next fires in California right here in the Silicon Valley. The people living in the  condos next to the Lehigh Cement Plant will not have time to evacuate. The explosion from the kiln, the oven and the  Petroleum Coke piles will act as if a bomb was going off. This is a terrible thing to think about. I hope and I pray that all  concerned will hear me and take immediate action no more mining and cement making at Lehigh and at the Stevens  Creek Quarry.     I have provided information about the next step in regulating and or closing down the polluters Stevens Creek Quarry  and the Lehigh Hanson Cement and Quarry because the Silicon Valley and the surrounding cities including San Francisco  can not tolerate this ongoing pollution any more      I have contacted many people so please contact as many people as you all can in order to fight to save lives.   3   I would like Santa Clara County, the BAAQMD, State Regional Water Quality Control Enforcement Division and the EPA  Region 9 to respond to my e‐mail and to also investigate what is really taking place.     Cathy Helgerson ‐ Environmental Enforcement Activist  CAP ‐ Citizens Against Pollution  408‐253‐0490           To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Page C 954.JPG  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Page C 963.JPG Hello,  I am going to do more work tomorrow on seeing what I can do about this and other issues.     Let me know what you think.  Cathy Helgerson     408‐253‐0490   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 11:06 AM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:Temporary pause on electricity pole maintenance request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Currently the city is doing a program where everyday several blocks are scheduled to be without power for the day. I am  requesting that the shutdowns be conditional on decent air quality.     While this is an inconvenience, in normal circumstances it is not that big of a deal. It becomes much more complicated  during COVID, however ‐ where everyone is working from and going to school from home and you can't just go to a  friends house or a coffee shop or the library. Even then though, there are things that can be done. You could sit outside  your friends house or outside a coffee shop or simply take a vacation day and go to the beach.     When we add in extremely poor air quality to the mix, things get more complicated. Sitting outside is no longer an  option. Even simply staying home and reading a book or doing something offline is not even a good option. We have  been using an indoor air quality monitor and have been astounded how quickly the indoor air quality deteriorates when  we are are not constantly running air purifiers. Currently the poor air is not as easily discernible in previous days when it  smelled of smoke.    In addition, I have concerns about asking contractors to be doing non‐essential/urgent work in air quality that we think  is too unsafe to even have library pickup available (it was closed on Friday).    Earlier this weekend, the forecast was for air quality to improve last night, which it has not done. Here are the current  levels:        I understand there may be some cost or issues with this ‐ but we are living in extraordinary times and it would be great if  the city could help limit the stress and consider health issues at this point.    Thanks so much for your attention.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Holly Kim <kimhol@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:17 PM To:Council, City Cc:city.attorney@paloaltocity.org Subject:Freedom of information act request and correction of testimony by witness today CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello,    Today I had my hearing for case number 20SC083452.    I think the witness the City presented who is Eric Talley was coached.  He testified today under oath that there is no tree  in front of the house at 3241 South Court based on a partial picture of the front of the house from 2015 that the City  provided as evidence below.  See first picture.  Please confirm that Eric has never even been to the house and was  coached.  I am making this request based on the freedom of information act. Eric is a great guy and I like him and have  no issues with him and do not in anyway think he is a perjurer.    Please see below more recent Street view/2019 pictures from google showing the huge trees at the front of the house  and the house next door.  My understanding is that tree roots can spread up to 5 times the radius of the tree canopy.  Making either of these huge trees roots easily able to reach the city clean out that I paid to replace because it was  intruded by city owned tree roots.  Which I am seeking reimbursement for and have so far been denied thus the lawsuit  I filed that was heard today.    Please have Eric correct his testimony with the court when possible.  The judge did not allow me further questions of the  witness so I could not correct it on the record.  Please have Eric call the courtroom clerk at dept 15 to correct his  testimony.  The phone number is 408 882 2260.   Please confirm when this is completed.    I look forward to your reply.  I can see why the defense‐serving picture from 2015 was used but I believe that is unethical  and morally corrupt.  Is that really the type of city we live in and pay taxes to support?    Please let me know your thoughts and when Eric has corrected his testimony.  I look forward to your reply.    Best regards,    Holly Kim      2 4 6 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dexter Girton <dexter.girton@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:49 PM To:Council, City; citymanager@cityofpaloalto.org; Transportation; Expanded Community Advisory Panel Subject:Traffic Jams on Embarcadero Road - Pre and Post Covid-19 Attachments:Traffic Jam - Embardadero Road.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello All,  Traffic jams occurred almost every day at the two peak times in front of our house at High Street & Embarcadero Road. And they often extended beyond our house toward the Bay. I watched many days from our window, and one day I went out and took the photos shown here and in the attached file. This was before the shelter-in-place order was issued due to Covid- 19.    These traffic jams will reoccur if traffic returns as it was before Covid-19. 2 3  More jams yet will occur if about 7,000 vehicles/day are redirected from Churchill Avenue to Embarcadero Road. This will further ruin the traffic flow on Embarcadero Road. This number of vehicles (cars, trucks, busses, etc.) is based on 10,000 vehicles/day that cross Churchill, determined by the traffic consultant hired by the City of Palo Alto. Churchill is about 1/3 of the distance between Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway, and therefore about 7,000 vehicles will end up on Embarcadero Road.    The bottleneck for Embarcadero Road traffic is at El Camino Real, and not due to the High School or Town & Country Village Shopping Center traffic (stated by the traffic consultant). You can only get a certain number of cars through that intersection – There is a Limit.    The proposed ‘mitigations’ simply redirect traffic from Churchill onto Embarcadero Road. Traffic here will get worse. In addition the proposed new traffic lights will further slow traffic.   Please take these matters into consideration and search for a better way than completely closing Churchill Avenue at Alma.   Thank you.  4 Dexter Girton 1141 High Street, Palo Alto        Embarcadero Road 12/4/2019, 8:07 am –Headed Into Underpass Embarcadero Road 12/4/2019, 8:07 am –Westerly View 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Greg Bell <gxbell@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:23 AM To:Council, City Cc:Kelty, Hiromi; Mellberg, Scott Subject:Yet another friction point when upgrading electric in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council Members,    My electrician says home electrical panel upgrade permits in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara are $100 to $150.  Palo Alto permit is $503.  A permit is required when upgrading from 100 to 200 amp service.    All electric heat pump water heater permit is $208 in Palo Atlo, much less in other cities.    EV charger electrical permit in Palo Alto is also higher than other peninsula cities.    Question:  Isn’t Palo Alto promoting go electric in our homes and reduce our use of natural gas?  High permit pricing is a friction  point, a discouragement.    City Council, you can change this pricing and make the upgrade path smoother, easier, less expensive.  Your thoughts  please...  —— I type less and talk more by phone. Greg M. Bell Home Energy Saving Tips   ——     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Meri Gruber <meri.gruber@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 3:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please pause the utilities pole replacement project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, Palo Alto Utilities is in the process of upgrading our city's utilities poles. I appreciate the importance of maintaining the utilities infrastructure. However, the project should be paused on days when the air quality is unhealthy.  The extremely poor air quality in addition to the COVID situation makes it very difficult for residents to find alternative locations to work and study. Thank you for your service to our community, especially during these challenging times. Best regards, Meri Gruber 4123 Briarwood Way, Palo Alto 94306 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Matthieu Bonnard <mpbnyc@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 13, 2020 3:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:watering in Palo Alto Attachments:IMG_0056.MOV CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    California has been in a drought for consecutive years and this year again is abnormally dry.    Wildfires are raging.    Meanwhile, many properties in Palo Alto still water their lush front lawn and flower beds.    Fairly obscene and hypocritical behavior.    Please take measures to restrict such absurd consumption of water.    Sincerely,    Matthieu Bonnard      Matthieu  +1 646 824 0042  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tammy Truher <tammy.truher@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Why wasn't I notified that the power line shutoff is being delayed? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Trucks arrived in front of my house at 7:38 this morning. Drivers came all the way from Manteca. They were very  surprised when I said that I thought the job was cancelled. They just left at 8:42 after waiting an hour for confirmation.     By the way, somewhere you say that residents were given six weeks notice. Everyone in Greenmeadow, on the various  days work has happened since August,  got no more than one week notice.     On Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 11:35 PM Tammy Truher <tammy.truher@gmail.com> wrote:  All ‐‐ I live in Greenmeadow. A door hanger was put on my door last week letting me know that our power would be  out tomorrow (15th). I received a call on Friday reminding me. There were workers cutting trees in my neighbors yard  all day today. Then tonight, in my neighborhood email group, someone forwarded an email from the City Council  meeting, where at the bottom of the message was something about tomorrow's work being delayed.      Why were residents who were called on Friday not emailed about this tonight? Or why did a message not go out to  everyone on the City Council email list tonight after the decision was made? I'm on the City Council email lists and I  didn't get the message my neighbor forwarded. To learn about it at 7:30 PM the night before, after I made  arrangements for my kids to be able to use the internet elsewhere to attend Zoom school, have them message all of  their teachers so they'd know they might have trouble connecting, and packed my refrigerator and freezer with frozen  water bottles. And now, if it really is rescheduled, we'll have to go through all of this again!    I'm very frustrated with the lack of communication here! The jobs should have been planned for the summer when  virtual school wasn't in session. You should have an AQI metric where you don't send your workers outside all day in  the smoke over that limit. You should require that all workers are wearing masks made for smoke.     Tammy Truher    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From:  Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 7:28 PM  Subject: [gmca‐discuss] Update on utility replacement/ power shutoff ‐ tomorrow's work DELAYED because of air  quality  To: Gmca‐discuss <gmca‐discuss@googlegroups.com>      From tonight's city council meeting:     2         Quick question ‐ when did other people know date of power shutoff?  Was there something other than door hanger  that I missed?  ‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gmca‐discuss" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gmca‐ discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gmca‐discuss/CAEw‐‐ eqoNYGGEP3krSZLQTPJ%3DEBAPMJvLz%2BtyopKwHZdLqnd2Q%40mail.gmail.com.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Susan Usman <susanlusman@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 14, 2020 5:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Vote YES to Endorse Prop 15 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    It is of the utmost urgency to amend the old Prop 13.  The state of California has lost so much income because big  business has not paid their fair share of property taxes.  I have few issues with the residential part of Prop 13, but  commercial property owners and big businesses have skated by far too long paying pennies on the value of their  properties.    Thank you,    Susan Usman  Triple El neighborhood