Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-19 City Council EmailsDOCUMENTS 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: 5/19/2025 Document dates: 5/12/2025 - 5/19/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Ken Hayes To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item #11 Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 10:39:04 AM Attachments:image001[2].png 250519CityCouncilWireless.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Honorable Mayor Lauing and fellow council members, Please review the attached letter. Thank you, Ken Ken Hayes Principal, AIA Khayes@thehayesgroup.com 2657 Spring Street. Redwood City, CA 94063 350 Sansome, Suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94104 www.thehayesgroup.com P 650.365.0600x 115 C 415.203.2597 F 650.365.0670 The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or The Hayes Group by telephone at (650) 650-365-0600 and delete or destroy any copy of this message. This message needs your attention This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Main Office: 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone 650.365.0600 SF Office: 350 Sansome Street, Suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94104 thehayesgroup.com May 19, 2025 Honorable Mayor Lauing and City Council Members City Of Palo Alto Office of the City Clerk: City Hall, 7th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sent Via Email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org RE: May 19, 2025, COUNCIL MEETING ITEM #11 First Reading Adoption of Ordinance 18.42.110 Honorable Mayor Lauing and Council Members, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed modifications to the planning review requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) which are being considered as Item #10. The proposed ordinance modifies PAMC 18.42.110, removing the review of WCF from the Planning Director’s sole review in accordance with Objective Design Standards when WCF are within the public right of way. An excerpt of the proposed language is below: For WCF installations in the public right of way, the Director shall refer applications to the Architectural Review Board for review. Delegating review to the Architectural Review Board for WCF in the public right of way will require more time, more city resources and potentially subject the city to violations of the Federal “shot clock” laws that impose strict deadlines on permit processing as detailed in the staff report. Historically, existing Objective Design Standards have been used for design review of WCF ‘s applications; however, those standards as published in the staff report, I am told, were never reviewed by the Architectural Review Board for compliance with the findings required for approval of a project. Main Office: 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone 650.365.0600 SF Office: 350 Sansome Street, Suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94104 thehayesgroup.com Therefore, I believe the Objective Design Standards should be reviewed by the ARB for compliance with their required findings. Once reviewed and forwarded to the Director for approval, the newly approved Objective Design Standards should be used for all applicable WCF applications in the public right of way except those applications that request exceptions to the Objective Design Standards. Applications that proposed exceptions to the Standards should be referred to the Architectural Review Board for review. This will allow most WCF applications that comply with the standards to move forward while those that request exceptions have the proper review to ensure that the communities policies, programs and goals are met. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal, Hayes Group Architects C-15562 From:Ben Kerry To:dkerrydavid@gmail.com Subject:Why are you ignoring me and not responding to my request? Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 6:21:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Meredith Einaudi To:Council, City Cc:LydiaKou@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Lu, George; pat@patburt.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Ed@edlauing.com; gstone22@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 12:01:10 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor and Council members, Please approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-councilmember Kou proposed in their fall 2024 Colleagues Memo entitled "Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto's Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance(WCF). 1.Restore the architectural review and public hearings for cell tower applications.2.Remove the ordinance language that )Ok's siting unsightly and hazardous cell phone towers as close as 20 feet from a home. 3.Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes,schools and hospitals.4.Require review by non-industry aligned experts on assertions made by celltier applicants. Thank you for your consideration,Mrs. Meredith Einaudi, homeowner This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 9:22:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims,Reckdahl, and Stone, Please restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications to prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools and thank you to Mayor Lauing and former Council member Lydia Kou for their colleagues' memo to help achieve this. I was surprised to learn that there is ordinance language that OKs locating cell towers 20 feet from a home. Please remove this ordinance and I also support the City having non-industry-aligned experts to check the assertions made by cell tower applicants. Thank you, Jennifer From:Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City Subject:5/19 - Agenda Items #3 & #4 Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 9:09:27 PM Attachments:San Antonio Support Ltr (05.18.25) - Google Docs.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please find our attached support letter for the two housing projects (items #3 and #4) on SanAntonio that are on the agenda for Monday, May 19th. Thank you, -- Amie AshtonExecutive Director Palo Alto Forward650-793-1585 May 18, 2025 SUBJECT: Agenda Items #3 and #4 - San Antonio Road Housing Projects Honorable Mayor Lauing and Council Members, We write in support of the projects at 788-796 San Antonio Road and 800-814 San Antonio Road. Both projects would provide much-needed housing units in our city, in an area specifically planned for growth. The PHZ applications for the projects will take years to process, including hundreds of staff hours for the minimum four to seven (or more) public hearings, associated staff reports, public notification, packet production, and analysis. We hope these projects will be subject to a more efficient review process. They both come close to meeting the GM/ROLM zoning development standards, a designation that happens to be located across the street from these project sites. We ask you to think creatively here, as you have with the GM/ROLM and El Camino Real Focus Area zoning changes for housing. While our housing pipeline is robust, even if every project was approved by 2026 – we would still be less than half-way to our Housing Element goal. We simply need more units in more places across the city. The 288 units proposed as part of these two projects are a welcome addition to our housing pipeline. Sincerely, Amie Ashton, Executive Director And on Behalf of the Board of Palo Alto Forward From:Aram James To:Jay Boyarsky; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki; Ed Lauing; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Jeff Rosen; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; board@pausd.org; Josh Becker; Roberta Ahlquist; Figueroa, Eric; Emily Mibach; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; editor@paweekly.com; Kallas, Emily; Dave Price; EPA Today; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Jeff Hayden; Rosen, Jeff; Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen (external); Doug Minkler; Templeton, Cari; Cribbs, Anne; Bains, Paul; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Afanasiev, Alex; Henry Etzkowitz; Perron, Zachary; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Friends of Cubberley; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Burt, Patrick; Daniel Kottke; Reckdahl, Keith; GRP-City Clerk; City Attorney; Clerk, City; Lotus Fong; Diana Diamond; dennis burns; Gardener, Liz; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; DuJuan Green; Dennis Upton; Human Relations Commission Subject:This memo is intended to provide the American-Muslim community with a set of criteria by which to determinewhether or not to work with various Jewish organizat… Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 8:33:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Another reason Vicki’s Unity Agreement was a scam This memo is intended to provide the American-Muslim community with a set of criteria bywhich to determine whether or not to work with various Jewish organizat… Source: AMP https://share.google/9oGDaDRGbwHKADzyq Shared via the Google app From:Fred Balin To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:#11 Wireless Communications Facilities Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 8:10:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council Members, I support the changes to the wireless ordinance proposed by Council Members Lauing and Kou last year and thelong-term efforts of United Neighbors. Approved cell towers need to be located a suitable distance from homes and schools— 20 feet is at least an order ormagnitude too close-- be properly shielded to muffle sound, and be aesthetically pleasing and/or unnoticeable. Theclosest one to my residence is over a 1,000 feet away. It works and I do not notice the tower. A long-time resident I supported over 10 years ago, was not so fortunate as a noisy tower was placed on an easementadjacent to his property, despite his huge effort for a better solution. The city could have done, and now should do,much, much better. Proposals need to be evaluated by an independent, “non-aligned” expert, approved by the city, and paid for by theapplicant, as would, or should, be the case in an EIR.Staff’s summary, options, and recommendations should come to a public hearing and vetting at the ARB beforecoming to the council for final decision. Thank you for your consideration,Fred BalinCollege Terrace From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:May 19, 2025 Council Meeting, Item #9: 2470 Embarcadero Way Lease Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 5:53:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. MAY 19, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #9 2470 EMBARCADERO WAY LEASE I urge you to remove this item from your agenda and to returnwith an agenda item for the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) project that includes the Long Range Facilities Planand Biosolids Facility Plan Update for the Regional WaterQuality Control plant. CEQA Regulation 15301 does not apply. Neither does CEQARegulation 15302 that requires the replacement structure to belocated on the same site as the existing structure. The project does not merit a categorical exemption from CEQA. Herb Borock From:ReDoing 2020 To:Council, City Subject:SHOCK: CRONY CAPITALISM STRIKES AGAIN IN PALO ALTO: Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 4:57:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 5/18/25 4:55 pm UPDATE 5/18/2025 with new information Palo Alto, Northern California USA What else are they not telling us? #3 SHOCK: CRONY CAPITALISM STRIKES AGAIN IN PALO ALTO:MILLIONS MORE AWARDED TO "INSIDER" WHO COZIED UP AS OFFICIAL ADVISORY BOARDMEMBER TO PROFIT HIS COMPANY The Palo Alto History Museum's approximately $12.500,000 brings the builder's take to approximately $50 million (see below) in public funds and tax deductible charitable donations as he manipulatednonprofit volunteers and hapless Council liaison members to believe he was the only logical choice fortheir projects. Take Note: An Internal Revenue Service provision for 501c3 charitable organizations is meant to prevent "self-dealing," but enforcement relies heavily on Board Members and executive staff to self monitor theirbehavior to keep things honest as part of their legal fiduciary responsibilities.Otherwise penalties canresult. In the case of our research, the History Museum, the Zoo, and the Avenidas Senior Center, (on land owned and contributed to by the City) it is crucial that City officials (and enforcement agencies) seek whatjustification if any. is in the record to justify the "sole source selections" and to certify that all partiesinvolved in the awarding of these contracts recognized their obligations to the public for fairness andhonesty. In the unlikely event that the well compensated 3rd generation builder considered his involvement as"public service" and donated back the millions to the City, naturally that may put these events in adifferent light but we found no mention to that effect. We look forward to a thorough examination of the City's contract bidding processes for communityorganizations to assure residents and taxpayers that the government's practices are lawful and weighted towards conserving residents' resources (and not aimed to line the pockets of favorite sons andchummy politicians.) Our contact information is below-we invite your comments. -------------------------------------------------------------Original mailing: Sent to the Palo Alto City council 4/22/2025 4:53pm ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: ReDoing 2020 <redoing2020@gmail.com>Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2025, 4:53 PM Subject: AVENIDAS SENIOR CENTER & THE PALO ALTO ZOO GIFT "OLD BOY NETWORK" NON-PROFIT "INSIDER" $40 MILLION PLUSIN PUBLIC FUNDS. Palo Alto, Northern California USA 4/22/2025 4:52 p.m.What else are they not telling us? #2 AVENIDAS SENIOR CENTER & THE PALO ALTO ZOO PAY THEIR OWN NON-PROFIT BOARD MEMBERS MULTI-MILLIONS IN PUBLICMONIES TO CONSTRUCT EXPANSION PROJECTS. There is a curious pattern behind more than $40 million in constructioncontracts given to a local builder, with questions of whether procedurescomplied with the mandated fiduciary responsibilities of staff and board members of an IRS 501(c)3 charity to whom financial contributions are tax deductible. From publicly available sources,It seems that a well known neighborhood businessman developed awinning marketing strategy to gain the confidence of nonprofit boards in order to influence their decisions regarding allocation of public monies. He targetedgroups with upcoming construction projects that could reward him with tens of millions of dollars forworking on City projects. Keep in mind, the questions being asked here are not about the technicalqualifications of the favored construction business to do the work.Instead, this inquiry relates to the contract award process and whether the public interest in the spendingof public monies was honest and fair. Here is how the corporate strategy likely worked: First, a member of the business joins a non-profit board of directors as a "selfless" volunteer. Next, the corporate representatives, from this company recognized for it'slong time construction activity, offers advice and guidance that is gratefully accepted by the other board members. The deliberations continue, steered by the friendly corporate representatives until not surprisingly, theirfirm is formally recognized as the logical choice to build the organization's new project. Even the CityCouncil, guided by its liaison (now the Mayor) chips in millions of taxpayer funds to support thecollaboration. In two latest property expansion plans, the builder snared about $25million and $15 million for the Palo Alto Zoo, and Avenidas, the City'ssenior center. There is a third project that has also been awarded (thePalo Alto History Museum) to the same builder, but its process history was not collected for inclusion inthis current report. In fact, there may bemore examples. Third, once the monies were awarded, the corporate representatives leavethe board positions,don their hard hats, and resumes their professional entrepreneurial roles to supervise the construction work. It all seems a pretty simple procedure, and was likely celebrated by manyas a job well done. Even the City Council liaison assigned to monitor each agency likely gotmuscle spasms patting himself on the back for facilitating the process thatgranted major municipal contracts to that familiar business well known to politicians and government employees. But wait, there is an element in the Federal Internal Revenue Servicestatute that seems to deal with situations as described above, where a board member of a tax deductible organization is prohibited from benefiting financially due to their "insider" status. It is clear that both the staff leadership and the individual board members are responsible to enforce these conflict ofinterest rules. So far, no action has been identified as having been made by either thenon-profit agency or the City Council representative to explain the apparent conflict created by that construction company's scheme to jump on and subsequently off the charity boards once a multi million dollar windfall is won. For example, to protect the taxpayers' interests, is there a record ofcompetitive bidding, given that scores of construction companies thatoperate in California and the U.S. are capable of performing under the contract requirements, perhaps ata lower cost to the public? However, if in fact no other bidders were sought, is there documentationthat ascertains that the local company was justified as a "sole source." (other than that the builder/owner,a third generation member of the hometown's "old boy network" was just that, a familiar entity withpersuasive influential friends, and clever charm offensive techniques. One more thing: In the case of the Avenidas senior center, the group'sCEO, after having steered the charity's millions to her builder boardmember, reportedly resigned her position as he did, to take on coordinating the construction andexpansion project. Perhaps a review by the Council or other enforcement bodies delegated with responsibility to protect thepublic interest, will reveal if other special benefits accrued to individuals as a result of the granting of millions to their on but then off "insider" board member, despite the flouting ofFederal conflict protections. Note:Our main interest is improving the governing behaviors of themunicipality, having observed that in many interpretations of law,rules,administrative and enforcement practices in the City of Palo Alto, results seem to skew in favor of theprivate sector and away from an evenhanded approach that good governance demands.(More about thisin future reports.) ____Telimtu Gedidun, Editor Corrections or updates to:Redoing2020@gmail.com (please first read notes below) ---------------------------------------------- NOTES TO READERS If you are a working reporter or government investigator that wants more information in order to followup on reported issues, please send yourprofessional credentials, contact information, and an idea of your interests, and we will contact you viaemail and/or telephone. Ditto for City or State or County officials authorized to followup to protect thepublic or track wrong-doing. ABOUT US: We are a volunteer source for important civic and consumer facts designed to help combat and overcome the relentless conduct by aself-serving variety of fraudsters that unjustly profit from takingadvantage of the public's naivety and/or lack of knowledge. WE DON'T OPEN ATTACHMENTS Please don't send attachments, images, or long stories of suffering, including abusive practices at the hands of Palo Alto government or its landlords (a common source ofstress for about half thepopulation that are renters.) WE CANNOT ACCEPT UNREQUESTED MATERIALS. However, if you have well documented evidence of Palo Alto municipal misdeeds similar to our report, send a short paragraph in100 words or less, with your confidential contact information and permission for us to connect you withprofessionals and investigators who are following up. Otherwise, if coverage of consumer orrenter or municipal ethics and favoritism issues in our planned futureeditions is related to your specific knowledge we may contact you. From:astrauss@greenfirelaw.com To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Support for Proposed Reinstatement of ARB Review (5/19 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #11) Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 3:36:32 PM Attachments:Item 15 Public Comment.pdfRecommended Additions to Ordinance v2.pdfItem 15 Colleagues Memo.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Members of the City Council: On behalf of United Neighbors of Palo Alto, I strongly urge the Council to adopt an ordinance reinstating Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of cell towers in the right of way, review that existed prior to 2019 and has been allowed again by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 2020. In addition to subjecting cell tower applications in the right-of-way to ARB review and public hearings, the best way to protect residents from negative aesthetic impacts is to require applicants to select the location that is furthest set back from residences (100 feet where feasible) and also employ a consultant who does not work for the telecom industry to evaluate cell tower applicants’ claims of federal preemption, something that staff alone are not qualified to do. These proposed additions to the ordinance are shown in blue font on the attached PDF labeled “Recommended Additions to Ordinance.” Finally, I notice that the agenda packet does not include the Colleagues Memo that initiated this process, or the several public comments submitted to the Council in October 2024 when the Memo was considered. The Colleagues Memo and public comments are attached. I urge you to add the two new standards to the ordinance and to approve the reinstatement of ARB review and public hearings. Thank you, Ariel Strauss _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________510-900-9502 x 702Greenfire Law, P.C.2748 Adeline Street, Suite ABerkeley, CA 94703 PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, andany attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLYPROHIBITED. Please contact me immediately by return e-mail or at 510-900-9502 x 2, and destroy the original transmission and itsattachments without reading or saving in any manner. From:Phyllis Klein To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@edlauing.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Greg@gregtanaka.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to Agendize Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo for full consideration Date:Friday, October 18, 2024 10:18:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Counci lmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, I am writing to ask you to vote this Monday night in favor of putting Councilmembers Kou and Lauing’s ColleaguesMemo, a Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless CommunicationFacilities (WCF) ordinance,” on a future Council agenda for full consideration and debate. The City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated. For years Palo Alto has been complying with a restrictive,confusing and fundamentally unworkable 2018 FCC Order with respect to standards for cell towers, an Order thatthe Ninth Circuit overturned four years ago. Please note that both the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post are covering Ms. Kou and Mr. Lauing’s ColleaguesMemo, the Post on the front page of their October 14, 2024 edition. In other words, there is broad interest in theissues the Memo raises, and these issues deserve to be debated by Council. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,Phyllis Klein From:Mary Dimit To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; Ed@EdLauing.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Greg@GregTanaka.org; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Vote Yes to add Kou & Lauing Colleagues Memo to a future City Council agenda for discussion Date:Thursday, October 17, 2024 3:00:26 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from marydimit@sonic.net. Learn why this isimportant Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, I urge you to vote yes at Monday night’s (10/21/24) Council Meeting to put City Council members Kou & Lauing’s Colleagues Memo related to adding aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s wireless ordinance on the agenda for a future City Council meeting so it can be discussed. This will hopefully result in revisions to our current wireless ordinance to consider aesthetic standards for cell towers. Thank you for your service to our community, Mary Dimit Palo Alto resident for over 30 years From:Melinda McGee To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@EdLauing.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Greg@GregTanaka.org; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to Agendize Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo for full consideration Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 7:12:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. > Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka,> > I am writing to ask you to vote this Monday night in favor of putting Councilmembers Kou and Lauing’sColleagues Memo, a Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s WirelessCommunication Facilities (WCF) ordinance,” on a future Council agenda for full consideration and debate.> > The City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated. For years Palo Alto has been complying with a restrictive,confusing and fundamentally unworkable 2018 FCC Order with respect to standards for cell towers, an Order thatthe Ninth Circuit overturned four years ago.> > Please note that both the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post are covering Ms. Kou and Mr. Lauing’s ColleaguesMemo, the Post on the front page of their October 14, 2024 edition. In other words, there is broad interest in theissues the Memo raises, and these issues deserve to be debated by Council.> > Thank you for your consideration.> > Sincerely,> Melinda McGeePalo Alto From:John Melnychuk To:Council, City Cc:Davis Spencer; McGee Melinda; Sampath Harini; Spinelli Giuseppe; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@edlauing.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Greg@gregtanaka.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to Agendize Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo for full consideration. Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 1:29:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, I am writing to ask you to vote this Monday night in favor of putting Councilmembers Kou and Lauing’s ColleaguesMemo, a Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless CommunicationFacilities (WCF) ordinance,” on a future Council agenda for full consideration and debate. The City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated. For years Palo Alto has been complying with a restrictive,confusing and fundamentally unworkable 2018 FCC Order with respect to standards for cell towers, an Order thatthe Ninth Circuit overturned four years ago. Please note that both the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post are covering Ms. Kou and Mr. Lauing’s ColleaguesMemo, the Post on the front page of their October 14, 2024 edition. In other words, there is broad interest in theissues the Memo raises, and these issues deserve to be debated by Council. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John Melnychuk Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:J. Brugler To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@edlauing.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Greg@gregtanaka.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to agendize Kou/Lauing memo, for full consideration Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2024 10:26:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and City Council members, Please vote this Monday night in favor of putting "Restoration of subjective aesthetics standards to Palo Alto'swireless communication facilities", (WCF), on a future council agenda for consideration and debate.From the articles both in the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post, you can see that there is a broad interest in theissues that the Memo raises. These issues deserve to be debated by counsel.Thank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Gayle Brugler. From:Francesca Kautz To:Council, City Cc:GStone22@gmail.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Ed@edlauing.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Greg@gregtanaka.org; Burt, Patrick; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Clerk, City Subject:Please vote to Agendize Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo for full consideration. Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2024 6:32:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Veenker, and Tanaka, I am writing to ask you to vote this Monday night in favor of putting Councilmembers Kou and Lauing’s ColleaguesMemo, a Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless CommunicationFacilities (WCF) ordinance,” on a future Council agenda for full consideration and debate. The City’s wireless ordinance needs to be updated. For years Palo Alto has been complying with a restrictive,confusing and fundamentally unworkable 2018 FCC Order with respect to standards for cell towers, an Order thatthe Ninth Circuit overturned four years ago. Please note that both the Palo Alto Weekly and the Daily Post are covering Ms. Kou and Mr. Lauing’s ColleaguesMemo, the Post on the front page of their October 14, 2024 edition. In other words, there is broad interest in theissues the Memo raises, and these issues deserve to be debated by Council. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Francesca and David Kautz NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 9 027120324 Unless the City Council has adopted more specific standards, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective; (2) Shall be screened from public view; (3) When attached to an existing structure, shall be shrouded or screened using materials or colors found on existing structure; (4) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (5) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area, such as the use of a monopine design; (6) Shall not be attached on a historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49; (7) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend no more than fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (8) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (9) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director, City Council, or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (10) Shall, to the extent technically feasible, be set back one hundred (100) feet from any structure approved for residential use. In the event that it is not technically feasible to set back the facility one hundred (100) feet or more, the alternative that is furthest from all structures approved for residential use shall be required. NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 11 027120324 C. Denial of the application as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both. (2) An applicant must request an exception at the time an application is initially submitted for a WCF permit under this Section 18.42.110. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for exception after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed WCF and shall be considered a new application. (3) If the applicant seeks an exception from objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or generally applicable development standards, the Director may refer the application to the Architectural Review Board for recommendation on whether the application complies with such standards to the greatest extent feasible. (43) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that federal law, state law, or both compel the decision-making authority to grant the requested exception(s), using the evidentiary standards applicable to the law at issue. The Ccity shall have the right to hire independent consultants, at the applicant’s expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the exception request and to submit rebuttal evidence where applicable. (l) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new WCF permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (m) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process applicable to issuance of the Permit, as provided in subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of this section. (n) Expiration Except as otherwise provided in the permit or in a lease or license agreement with the City of Palo Alto, WCF permits shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of approval. An applicant may seek extensions of an approved WCF permit in increments of no more than ten years and no sooner than twelve months prior to the expiration of the permit. The Director shall approve an extension request upon finding that that applicant has complied with all conditions of approval for the WCF permit and will comply with all other requirements applicable to WCFs at the time the extension is granted. Prior to issuing a decision on an extension request, the Director may seek additional studies and information to be prepared at the applicant’s expense. ``` Any consultant shall not have worked for a wireless telecommunications company or WCF applicant or operator in the previous five (5) years. CITY COUNCIL Colleagues Memo Sponsors: Council Member Lydia Kou and Vice-Mayor Lauing Meeting Date: October 21, 2024 Report #: 2410-3600 TITLE Colleagues Memo - Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Repeal objective-only aesthetic standards for the siting and design of cell towers (WCFs) and restore subjective aesthetic standards, public hearings, and Architectural Review Board review. Support for Recommendation 1. The only reason that the City imposed “objective” standards was because the FCC forced it in new rules issued in 2018. PTC and others did not think this was the right path. In fact, Palo Alto’s ordinance anticipated that the Council could quickly repeal the “objective” standards once it regained the authority to do so, because over 100 cities and the League of California Cities had already sued the FCC by the time that Palo Alto enacted the new ordinance in 2019. (PACC § 18.42.110(g)(h).) Here is what the Ninth Circuit said in August, 2020, when it struck down the FCC’s restriction: We conclude that the FCC's requirement that all aesthetic regulations be “objective” is arbitrary and capricious. At the very least, the agency must explain the harm that it is addressing, and the extent to which it intends to limit regulations meant to serve traditional zoning objectives of preventing deployments that are unsightly or out of neighborhood character. . . The requirement that local aesthetic regulations be “objective” is neither adequately defined nor its purpose adequately explained. City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1042 (9th Cir. 2020). Before there were “objective-only” standards, there was a thoughtful list of subjective standards, a list that had been prepared collaboratively by multiple City departments and by the ARB. The City can seamlessly return to these standards now. 2. Careful and comprehensive review of wireless facilities is particularly necessary because federal law allows small cell sites that are not entirely hidden to be increased in height and girth by ten feet not withstanding zoning limits. (47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7)(i).) This means that even if a site complies with “objective” standards on the day it is approved, it can be altered in ways that will not be compliant in the future. No other permit operates this way. 3. Currently, because of the narrow scope of “objective” aesthetic review, issues with the site of a proposed cell tower are not even eligible to be considered. Having a robust and demanding discretionary application review process pushes applicants to self-regulate and submit the best option in the first place, so there will be less need for appeals. 4. Staff has concern with shot clock compliance. But in practice, the 60-90 day shot clocks are extended frequently - often because the applicant needs more time to get its own application organized and complete internal engineering or planning related to trenching and fiberoptic backhaul for installation. Moreover, so long as the City makes a Director-level decision before the shot clock period ends, it will have complied with the FCC regulations. (47 CFR § 1.6003(a).) The impact of the shot clocks expiring after a decision is made will only be to cut off any subsequent right to appeal if the applicant does not agree to an extension. In many instances, due to the importance of cooperation from the City and the collaborative framework created by the Master License Agreement, cell tower applicants will likely enter into shot clock tolling agreements to stop the clock, even if it means allowing an appeal (sometimes that appeal will be for their own benefit). Recently, for example, AT&T agreed to extend the shot clock to allow a resident in Santa Cruz County to appeal because the County requested this extension so that their process can play out as intended in their ordinance. Voluntary shot clock tolling also goes both ways. If the City is approaching the end of the shot clock and does not have the information needed to approve the application, the City will deny the application to avoid blowing the shot clock. In those instances, the applicant needs the City’s approval to extend the shot clock. As the regulations say, a tolling agreement to stop the shot clock requires “a written agreement between the applicant and the siting authority [i.e, the City].” (47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(d).) Caselaw confirms that denying an incomplete application, without offering the applicant further opportunity to remedy it, is lawful. (ExteNet Sys. v. City of Cambridge, 481 F. Supp. 3d 41, 51 (D. Mass. 2020).) It is also important to keep in mind that while shot clocks were tightened by the FCC small cell order from 2018, the concept was not new. Since 2009, a 90-day FCC shot clock was in place for colocations. (FCC, Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), 24 FCC Rcd 13994 (November 18, 2009),) so the City has had experience operating the discretionary process under similar time pressure. 5. Other cities have “small cell” cell tower ROW approval processes that include multiple levels of review, each with a publicly-noticed hearing (e.g.Carmel-by-the-Sea, Malibu, Martinez, Mill Valley, Pinole, San Francisco). 6. Presently, unless there is an appeal to City Council, there is no opportunity at all for a public hearing because the Planning Director’s decisions are made in private. (Note that the cell tower applicant may hold a “community meeting”, but this is a one-sided show by the applicant. It is no substitute for real public participation, including input to city officials. (PACC § 18.42.110(d)(7)). ) 7. The inclusion of the ARB in the review process should not significantly increase the workload of Planning staff. It somewhat increases the load on the ARB, but this is something they want to take on. Moreover, applicants generally use consistent designs, so it should not be that burdensome for the ARB to review an application. The main question for them is how facilities can be camouflaged and best positioned to minimize esthetic impacts. In particular, the ARB is best qualified to prioritize siting and design goals. Right now, there is no prioritization going on. Staff evaluates cell tower applications solely on the basis of how few “exceptions” to objective standards they require, without taking into account what the exceptions are that are being sought. Hence, proximity to a residence, which is what residents care most about, is deemed no more important than, for example, the color of the paint used on the pole. 8. So far, the City has only approved one standard design for cell towers, a design for a tower located on a decorative metal lamp pole. As things stand now, the “objective” standards are not actually consistently objective, because applicants frequently request and obtain exceptions based on their own claims of necessity. (PACC § 18.42.110(k); Design Standards, p.8.) Since non-objective (that is, subjective) decisions and tradeoffs are being made all the time anyway, the question is, who should make them: The Planning Director or the ARB? The ARB is best qualified to do this. 9. More robust review is also important because cities, such as San Mateo, are finding that small cell applicants are not in fact compliant with permit conditions and are then resistant to remedying these deficiencies when they are discovered. 10. Staff acknowledge that they lack the expertise to assess the accuracy of any transmission- related assertions that applicants use to justify exceptions to the City’s standards. The City should hire a technical expert that does not work for the telecom industry to quickly make sure applications are complete so that the shot clocks can be halted within the 10 days after receipt of the application, and also to advise on what is or is not technically feasible. This cost will, by law, be passed on to applicants. There are a few engineering firms that solely represent municipalities, such as Center for Municipal Solutions (http://www.telecomsol.com/www2/node/20), which review all applications submitted to some of its city clients. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, known as the “Small Cell Order,” directing that local regulation of Small Wireless Facilities in the public right-of-way must be published in advance and be “(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective.” In response to the Small Cell Order, on June 13, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5465, which provided that Tier 2 wireless communication facilities (WCFs) (e.g., adding new equipment to an existing small wireless facility (“collocation”)) and Tier 3 WCFs (e.g., new small wireless facilities) would be no longer be subject to site-specific review and approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) under Municipal Code Section 18.76.020, and instead would be required only to comply with objective standards to be established by resolution. To be clear, the shift to objective aesthetic standards didn’t simply dispense with subjective standards, it a) eliminated public hearings for proposed cell towers, and b) left the decision to approve a cell tower solely in the hands of the Director of Planning & Development. On December 16, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9873 amending and consolidating objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for WCFs on streetlights and wood utility poles in the public rights of way. In recognition that the Small Cell Order was being challenged in a lawsuit brought by numerous municipalities against the FCC—a lawsuit City Council supported—Ordinance 5465 provides that in the event that “the City Council repeals all objective standards, an application [for a Tier 2 or 3 WCF] shall not be granted unless, in addition to the other requirements of this section, all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made.” On August 12, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in City of Portland v. Federal Communications Commission, 969 F.3d 1020, 1041-43,1 ruling that the Small Cell Order’s requirement that local regulations must “be no more burdensome” and “objective” exceeded the FCC’s authority and “must be vacated.” (A link to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is attached below.) FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The recommendation to restore prior subjective wireless standards and ARB findings and processes is a straightforward task. This can be accomplished by directing staff to amend the Wireless Communications Facility ordinance (PAMC section 18.42.110) in a manner consistent 1 On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Federal Communications Commission, Publication; https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/misc/18-72689.pdf with this colleagues’ memo. This process requires an ordinance amendment that would be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) which would forward a recommendation to the City Council for action. Alternatively, for a more expedient process, the City Council could bypass the PTC in accordance with PAMC section 18.80.090 and amend the WCF ordinance on a temporary basis, e.g. two years, with the additional direction to refer a permanent amendment to the PTC. However, modifying the design standards and review process poses additional resource impacts. Potentially the most significant impact would be to the ARB and City Council agenda management. Switching from the current process, in which the Planning Director reviews a project’s compliance with the objective standards and subjective standards are applied to any requests for exceptions, to a fully discretionary review by the ARB will increase the amount of time it takes to process applications. Staff would need to anticipate potential appeals on every project and schedule final action hearings on the City Council’s agenda prior to the ARB review hearing, in order to meet the mandated shot clock requirements, some of which are more stringent than those mentioned in the memo. While the colleagues’ memo authors suggest an extension for application review or appeals can be granted if agreed upon by the parties, this approach cannot be mandated or relied upon for application processing. Applicants are unlikely to choose this approach when presently, state or federal law (or both) provides “deemed granted” approvals for all types of wireless project if the City fails to approve or deny it within the limited shot clock period. In short, wireless communications facility applications are expected to require time on the Council’s agenda to make final subjective determinations on any appeal from the ARB’s project decision. This would impact the Council’s ability to advance other Council priorities or discussions without flexibility for rescheduling to a later week for agendas that are busy or run late. In addition, changing the design standards and review process will impact staff resources. Staff from Planning, Utilities, Public Works, Urban Forestry and the City Attorney’s Office already participate in the application review, and would also need to be available for ARB and City Council meetings. While staff can engage professional service agencies to respond to application processing and review, administrative and overhead staff support will be required to review work products, reports, and to schedule meetings. Initial training on the review process and legal framework for wireless project decisions would also be required for ARB members, for work currently performed and coordinated by Planning staff. Public meetings before the ARB would require attendance from all departments contributing to wireless project review. A wholly subjective process may impact the quality of applications received, since there will be less guidance for project applicants on the City’s standards for review. It would also increase the likelihood of applicant appeals or requests for judicial review if the City does not approve a project, which would require further legal services to defend. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: DRAFT Resolution Repealing Objective-Only Standards From:Aram James To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; h.etzko@gmail.com Subject:I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be interested. Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 3:33:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Below-market rental units not moving, making some reconsider priorities Apartments still sit vacanthttps://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=d2332b2e-4c2b- 405f-b26b-4ad24426f7c8&appcode=SAN252&eguid=80becf42-94e3-49ff-8e19-f5985156194f&pnum=2# For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here: From:amy kacher To:Council, City Subject:Cell tower and ARB review Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 12:34:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City Council, I am writing to request you to restore ARB review/public hearings for cell tower applications, prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and require review of applicants’ assertions with respect to technical feasibility by a non- industry-aligned expert. I feel strongly about this issue. My sister and parents live in San Mateo where there was a disagreement with their city regarding towers. Their process uncovered a lot of corruption and mismanagement about the cell towers. Some were placed immediately outside of people’s homes. It is critical that we have transparent processes and proceed with extremely clearparameters. I ask that the distance from homes and schools be set with clear parameters of minimum 100 feet. I also ask for clear transparency for every single permit application and approval process step. I ask that we move slowly and reimplement ARB public review/hearings. Thank you Amy hey, we are all just people This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:John Melnychuk To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo related to wireless ordinance Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 5:33:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Altocontinues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begunmodifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. John Melnychuk3707 Lindero DrivePalo Alto, CA 94306 From:Carl"s Gmail To:Council, City Cc:gstone22@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; georgeglu@gmail.com; pat@patburt.org; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Ed@edlauing.com; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Carl Cimilluca Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Sunday, May 18, 2025 12:33:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, aMemo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Altocontinues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carl & Mary Cimilluca 2176 Webster St Palo Alto CA 94301 From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki Cc:Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Emily Mibach; Zelkha, Mila; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; ParkRec Commission; Cribbs, Anne; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Steve Wagstaffe; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; board@valleywater.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Braden Cartwright; Brian Good; Roberta Ahlquist; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Henry Etzkowitz; Mickie Winkler; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Human Relations Commission; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Pat M; Sean Allen; sharon jackson; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; Donna Wallach; Friends of Cubberley; Figueroa, Eric; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Gerry Gras; Lu, George; Daniel Kottke; Jeff Hayden; Bill Newell; editor@almanacnews.com; editor@paweekly.com; EPA Today; Council, City; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Angel, David; Dan Okonkwo; Dana St. George; Bryan Gobin; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Clerk; Bains, Paul; dennis burns; Dennis Upton; DuJuan Green; Rowena Chiu Subject:Eurovision crew members were also hit with paint during the incident at the grand final in Basel Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 5:14:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ELIMINATE THE STATE OF ISRAEL NO MORE NAZI GENOCIDE Israeli singer Yuval Raphael was left “shaken and upset” after pro-Palestinian protesters tried to storm the stage during the Eurovision Song Contest final. Eurovision crew members were also hit with paint during the incident at the grand final inBasel Source: The Independent https://share.google/dtQm5lOFdwAlX1PA2 Shared via the Google app From:Jim Robinson To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 4:24:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I believe in safety first. I don't want to find out 5 years from now that 5g towers endanger life, and it's too late to stop the damages they have caused. Let's err on the side of caution. Thanks, James (Jim) S Robinson, H 650.328.1228 C 808.683.8538 Jimrobinson52@gmail.com 170 Southwood Drive, Palo Alto, Ca 94301. This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, CitySubject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 05-07-25 UAC meeting -- FTTP Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 2:11:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i Commissioners, Here's a TRANSCRIPT of portions of the 05-07-25 UAC meeting, including Item 3, which is about FTTP. I have added my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with ### ) and presentation slide titles (paragraphs in orange beginning with ###. ). HIGH-LEVEL COMMENTS * I agree with Commissioner Gupta (at 1:58:58) that Item 3 agendized "FY 20206 Fiber Rates and Packages," but did not agendize how UAC might recommend toCouncil how Council might use information obtained from deploying the pilot to decide whether to proceed with the rest of phase 1. * On 09-19-22, Council directed staff to build out (all of) a FTTP phase 1. At that time, the project wasn't divided into a pilot and the rest of phase 1. * I have been urging UAC to hold staff's feet to the fire, to minimize delays in deploying FTTP. I don't support UAC's looking for ways to second-guess Council's 12-19-22 decision. * A lot of confusion resulted from talking about "the data" to be obtained from the pilot, without being specific about what kind of data. As the pilot is being deployed,data about that deployment can be used to guide deployment to the rest of phase 1. As FTTP service is marketed to the pilot area, data about how effective themarketing was can be used to guide marketing to the rest of phase 1. As take rate increases over the next few years in the pilot area, that data can be used to guide take rate strategies for the rest of phase 1. It makes no sense to wait until years after the pilot has been operating to evaluate the pilot's take rate and then decidewhether to start deploying to the rest of phase 1. * Please see my comments on the 05-07-25 staff report (pages 33-35 here):https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=168467&repo=r-704298fc-- I'd be especially interested in the infrastructure required to support the 1-Gbps and 10-Gbps "dedicated" services. Does this mean active Ethernet? Are these services available to residential as well as commercial premises? Thanks. Jeff ----------------Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado AvePalo Alto, CA 94303---------------- ===================================================================== 05-07-25: UAC meeting -- video (3:10:16)https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-572025/ 05-07-25 UAC meeting -- agendahttps://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17424 Attended by:UAC: Gupta (zoom), Croft, Mauter, Metz, Phillips, Scharff, TucherLiaison: LauingStaff: Nose, Kurotoi, Yuan, Numoto, FattahPublic: Hitchings, Borock, Peterson ===================================================================== TRANSCRIPT ------------ 0:21:10: Utilities Director's Report Chair Scharff: Utilities Director Report. Sorry. 0:21:16: Kiely Nose: ------------ 0:2318: This message needs your attentionThis is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Kiely Nose: Recruitment update. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a new individual in the audience. Terry Crowley is joining us. He is our new AssistantDirector over Electric Operations and Engineering. So, Terry is a 27-year veteran leading public utilities. He joins us from the city of Healdsburg, and served as theUtility Director for the city's electric, water, and wastewater department for the last 14 years there. Previously, he held positions with the city of Redding, as well asPG&E. So, he really brings a wealth of experience. And we are, frankly, thrilled to have him join us. 0:23:55: Chair Scharff: Welcome, Terry. It's great to have you. 0:23:56: Terry Crowley: [unamplified] Thank you. 0:23:58: ------------ 0:26:24: Kiely Nose: So, New Electric Transmission Corridor. We've often talked about wanting a secondary transmission corridor for our electric utility. ### It's a second corridor, not necessarily a secondary corridor. In fact, that came up as one of the items of the work plan, specifically with Stanford. Progress moves forward on building a new transmission line, to improve our reliability and capacity and redundancy. Actually, CAISO board of governors will consider approval of a new 112 kW transmission line. ### 112 kV? Actually, the slide says 115 kV. from the NASA Ames in Mountain View to Palo Alto. So, this is a pretty momentous occasion, as we continue to try -- and have been working on this for, I think,decades at this point. And the project's expected to be somewhere between $40 [million] to $80 million. Not quite sure. Obviously, it's got to go through design. But it will be funded through transmission access charges, which are assessed to electric utilities through the state. And PG&E will be the one who builds the new line. TheCity won't be the one building it. So, we likely don't expect it to be in service until 2034. But that's how long these projects take. And I just want to thank Utilities staff:Lena Perkins, Mohammad Fattah for their hard work to bring this to fruition. Also, I really want to express appreciation for CAISO, PG&E, as well as consultants for recommending this project as the most cost-effective way to enhance that reliability. So, you can see the details, obviously, of where it would look and go on thisslide. Next slide, please. 0:28:01: ------------ 0:28:47: Commissioner Tucher: Hi. The news of the second -- or the new transmission line is exciting. Is this sudden? I mean, we talked just last month about -- and in priormonths, when it came to R&R, we've talked a lot about the question of a future additional from-the-south transmission line. So, have I been sleeping? Or -- It catchesme by surprise. Also, the word "proposed" on the slide -- Is this a done deal, and final? 0:29:20: Kiely Nose: It is not a done deal. I'll turn it over to Chief Operating Officer Kurotori in a moment. But I will say, he -- our Chief Operating Officer, when we were talkingabout this work plan, did allude to the staff who was working on this. So, we have talked about it. But, obviously, we haven't done necessarily a formal staff report. 0:29:40: Commissioner Tucher: So, just -- 0:29:41: Kiely Nose: Chief Operating Officer -- 0:29:41: Commissioner Tucher: Sorry. If I could just clarify my comments. 1) I would expect -- I would have expected this to be a more -- if it's really as far along as it appears-- which is wonderful -- I would expect it to have been more prominent in past discussions, as recently as a month ago, let alone in our R&R discussions two and threemonths ago. I'd like to, please, to understand the meaning of "proposed." And I'd like to ask, please -- um -- oh, the funding of it. You said, it's funded through -- Ididn't quite understand what impact that will have on OUR P&L, and our future rate base. Thank you. 0:30:21: Alan Kurotori: Good evening. Alan Kurotori, Chief Operating Officer. So, as we alluded to before, and it has gone to City Council in the past, we were working verydiligently with Stanford to try to get a second connection through there. ### Staff was working with Stanford to get a second transmission line CORRIDOR through Stanford. (The City already had three transmission lines, but they're all inthe same corridor.) And after than -- I think it was in 2019 -- we actually pivoted to work on a CAISO connection. So, since that time, we've been working through the CAISO process, interms of the transmission planning, in terms of the load projections, and submitting those. So, as part of that process, this alignment and alternatives have been discussed. So, it does take a long period of time to have those discussions. To make those recommendations, and get it into their work plan. So it was published, aspart of their work plan, I think alluded to that in one of the previous meetings. And now, we have it actually calendared for their consideration for approval. So -- 0:31:12: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Council's consideration? 0:31:13: COO Kurotori: For CAISO's consideration. So, they would be the governing agency at the state, to, in short, greenlight the project for approval. So, there's a series ofsteps to have that achieved. We have to submit our load projections to the California Energy Commission. They work up alternatives to meet those objectives. Because, you know, in terms of some of the limitations of the system. And then, CAISO approves the project. So, there's a series of alternatives that are discussed. And we are very fortunate to get our project included as quickly as it has. So, we are working in real time with that, and are pleased with that outcome. Your other question -- 0:31:57: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** 0:31:58: Kiely Nose: Commissioner, please use your mike. 0:32:00: Commissioner Tucher: You mentioned Stanford. And I think in this -- in the minutes from last month, this whole question of Stanford as an option -- it was asecondary topic at best. But it was in the minutes. Does this suggest that we're NOT going with some sort of Stanford partnership approach? I didn't quite get thedichotomy, or the choice there. 0:32:23: Kiely Nose: Sure. So, I mean, ultimately, we could build many connections. But this does alleviate one of our core resiliency concerns of not having two transmissionlines. ### The concern is about not having two transmission CORRIDORS. The discussion last week -- or, last month, to your point -- was about having discussions with Stanford, as part or the UAC's work plan. The to-do that the UAC gave me was to -- instead of including that in the work plan was to let Stanford know that we would be interested. I can confirm I have done so. And so, they said thank youfor your interest, and we'll let our folks know. Um. 0:32:56: Commissioner Tucher: But this goes in a decidedly different direction. Right? I mean, this is NOT working with Stanford. Or -- 0:33:02: Kiely Nose: Correct. 0:33:02: Commissioner Tucher: OK. Got it. 0:33:02: Kiley Nose: But that doesn't mean that they're mutually exclusive. 0:33:05: Commissioner Tucher: Got it. OK. Thank you. 0:33:07: COO Kurotori: So, as part of this work 0:33:09: ------------ 0:35:47: Item 2: Approval of Chair and Vice Chair ------------ 0:39:35: Item 3: FY 20206 Fiber Rates and Packages Chair Scharff: All right. Moving on to the next item: Utilities Advisory Commission Finance Subcommittee Recommends the Commission Recommend City CouncilApproval of the FY 2026 Fiber and Packages. 0:39:46: Kiely Nose: Ah, Chair, actually -- public comment on that item. 0:39:49: Chair Scharff: Oh. 0:39:50: Kiely Nose: Thank you. 0:39:51: Chair Scharff: Oh. Public comment. Yes. I did forget the public comment. You're commenting on the previous item. Is that correct? 0:40:01: Sarah Peterson: Correct. I would just like to ask all members of the Commission if they could please, please use the mikes. My name's Sarah Peterson. I'm amember of the public. I'm usually joining you remotely. I sit on several of the Palo Alto commission meetings. I'm a renter here in Palo Alto. Very active and very committed. It is so, so hard to hear you all of the time. If you could please, please, please use your mikes. It is critical for not only public access, but also for those of us who don't need public access. So, please, please, please use your mikes, and ** into your mikes. It would be really appreciated. Thank you. ### There are 16 occurrences of "unamplified" in this transcript (not counting the one on this line). 0:40-34: Chair Scharff: Thank you, Ms .Peterson. I'm going to try and police that. OK? If I see the mikes -- It would be great if the rest of you would as well. 0:40:42: Kiely Nose: I will state for the record, I did not ask her to do that. 0:40:44: [laughter] 0:40:50: Chair Scharff: All right. Now for the Utilities Advisory Commission Finance Subcommittee item.. Who is on the subcommittee? Just so I recall. Was it Phil, Rachel,and Utsav? Which one -- 0:41:04: **: [unamplified] 0:41:06: **: [unamplified] Did we vote on the term change? 0:41:08: Chair Scharff: We did. 0:41:09: **: [unamplified] 0:0:41:11: Chair Scharff: We did vote on it. Didn't we? 8:41:13: Kiely Nose: Mikes, guys. 0:41:15: Chair Scharff: Yes. Mikes. All right. Which one of you would like to tell us? Rachel. 0:41:26: Commissioner Croft: I will summarize for you. So, we have met. We have actually discussed the fiber rates, not only at the last meeting but at prior meetings as well. So, we've had quite a bit of time to hear about what is planned. The budget, on the other hand, was on the agenda, but we received it the day before, and we didn'tcomprehensive time to discuss it. So, we'll just give an update on the fiber. We reviewed -- we are going to see many slides that are similar to what we reviewed in the meeting. But I'd say we probably had a little bit more detail since we'd hadmultiple meetings. We reviewed current internet availability in the pilot neighborhood. Pricings and promotions of those companies that are there. At the time, CPAUwas not sure if the map showed penetration of the providers, as in who's taking what option, versus availability of the providers. So, hopefully, that will be in the summary today. But it was a little bit hard to understand what market we're going into without knowing that. We do know that the market is competitive, with AT&Tand Comcast both already providing 1-gig-plus service. ### Comcast's upload speeds are considerably LESS than 1 Gbps. And converting -- You know, we discussed that converting AT&T Fiber might be difficult, just because installing fiber is time-consuming. And the -- you know, the differences between what we're going to offer and what is already offered might not be viewed so greatly. Whereas with Comcast, we think we would have a greaterchance. So, the City does think we would have a better chance to possibly convert people. But it would require people to "cut the cord" with cable TV. ### Theoretically, a customer could take internet service from the City and take cable TV service from Comcast. So, we're very excited. And this pilot is an opportunity to learn about about customers' current internet service, how we compare against them, what are the decision factors for customers to convert, what marketing works. And we just really need to make sure that that data is collected in an organized way, so that we can makesome decisions. We did agree with the rates that were presented. I mean, they're going to show us various rates that -- and how they kind of lead into the financials. But there are key metrics. Rates, of course. Take rates, of course. Cost to install, whether turns out to be what we think it's going to be. And those will feed into the business model, which we also got a chance to see. But that is not in the slides. And we've seen it a couple times in our meetings. But the full UAC has not had thebenefit of seeing that. So, just as a summary, I'd say that we all -- all three of us -- supported the rates that were recommended by the staff for the pilot. What ispresented in the slides are maximum rates. We did discuss more discrete rates, and we'll see how that discussion plays out in this meeting. One other point is that we-- having seen the business model, it's clear that it's a very expensive build-out. $90 million in debt is assumed to be taken to finance the build-out. And the date inwhich it turns, you know, positive -- net income positive -- is like 9 or 10 years out. So, at least 2 out of the 3 of us felt very strongly that we want an opportunity toreview the results of the pilot, to understand how well we're doing, prior to making decisions on phase 1. ### I don't understand why the two out of three commissioners weren't identified. And so, because the investment really is -- as a Finance Committee -- investment is significant. The debt is significant. We don't want to not hit our metrics and not beable to have a healthy finance model. So, that was just one of -- the 2 out of 3 of us' request is that we stand firm in asking to see the results of the pilot prior tomaking decisions on whether we recommend phase 1. ### When, on 12-19-22, Council approved going forward with a "phase 1" FTTP deployment, the staff report didn't even mention the word "pilot." (Sorry, the websitedoesn't provide a URL for this staff report, but it's available via the 12-19-22 agenda, which is available here.) https://www.paloalto.gov/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes And during the discussion, the Magellan Advisors consultant, John Honker, talked about the entire phase 1 itself as "Sort of a test pilot. Large test pilot. Right?" (See 3:34:43 in this TRANSCRIPT.)https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2023/02-feb-2023/public-letters-to-uac-february-2023.pdf More recently, staff invented the idea of a "pilot" that was just a subset of "phase 1." 0:45:37: Chair Scharff: OK. So, I think what I'd like to do is -- staff goes next, and then we'd go back to you, Rachel, and I'd like you to make the motion that reflects themajority opinion on the subcommittee. ### I don't understand. What if it appears that a majority of the full UAC doesn't agree with the majority of the Finance Subcommittee? Yes, is there public comment? Let's do the public comment after staff gets -- after staff does their presentation. 0:46:06: **: [unamplified] OK. 0:46:08: Dave Yuan: All right. Good evening, commissioners. And congratulations on your reappointment, Chair Scharff and Vice Chair Mauter. 0:46:15: ###. Slide 1 -- Palo Alto Fiber Rates and Financials Welcome, Mayor Lauing. I'm Dave Yuan, Utilities Strategic Business Manager. I also wanted to announce that Darren Numoto will be joining us tonight from afar. He's on vacation, but he made the time to join us. So, he will be chiming in once in a while. So, thank you, Darren. He is the Interim Assistant Director of Fiber. So, tonight I will provide an update of the fiber-to-the-premise project ### A.k.a., the fiber-to-the-premises project. and the proposed fiber rates and offerings. Next slide. 0:46:43: ###. Slide 2 -- Agenda We will provide a brief over of the Council-approved projects. We will share the results of a competitive scan of the pilot area, performed by a consultant. We wouldalso like to get UAC's input on the financials, product offerings, and marketing strategy. Then we'll wrap it up with measures of success for the pilot and also for phase 1. And also upcoming key milestones. 0:47:05: ###. Slide 3 -- Council Approved Projects So, the purpose of tonight's discussion is, how do we promote and successfully deploy fiber-to-the-premise in the pilot area? We do not want to reopen the discussionon whether or not the City should be entertaining or entering a competitive ISP market. These three projects have been approved by Council, which staff is working onto deliver. ### I agree with this. 0:47:25: The first one is the fiber backbone rebuild. The existing backbone is about 30 years old and has served the City well, and had built up over $30 million in reserves, from dark fiber licensing. ### To put that in perspective, building a new fiber backbone is going to cost something like $25 million. It's time to reinvest in a new fiber backbone that will provide additional capacity for current and future needs. Council also approved up to $20 million from the fiber reserves for phase 1 of fiber-to-the-premise. The pilot is a subset of the phase 1, consisting of about 1,000residences. And as we build out into phase 1, we're expecting another 5,000 [residences], or a total of 6,000 residences in all. After we complete the pilot, and as weexpand into phase 1, we will return back to the UAC and Council with data points, financials, and metrics, to measure the success and sustainability of this newbusiness. We are also aligning fiber-to-the-premise with Grid Mod, to increase efficiency, reduce construction costs, and minimize disruption in neighborhoods. ### That's going to require that the fiber portion of the effort keep up with the electric portion of the effort. I suspect that the electric portion of the effort will not want tobe delayed by an evaluation of the fiber portion of the pilot. As we replace poles and add transformers, we're also hanging messenger lines on those poles, so we don't have to go back in the same neighborhood and mobilize asecond crew. Next slide. 0:48:37: ###. Slide 4 -- Coverage/Pricing: Xfinity & AT&T -- FTTP Pilot Area This is a coverage map that shows where Xfinity and AT&T are providing internet in the pilot area. The red dots represent Xfinity's 2-Gbps service. And the blue dotsrepresent where AT&T is offering their fiber service. So, based on the map, Xfinity has about 50 percent penetration -- ### Penetration is synonymous with take rate. The map does NOT show Xfinity's take rate. or are only able to 2-gig service in about 50 percent of the area. ### FCC's Broadband Map (which displays availability data provided by the ISPs)https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/location-summary/fixed?version=jun2024&location_id=f67bd569-010a-43ac-9557-ed23f9fbf4e1&addr1=731+COLORADO+AVE&addr2=PALO+ALTO%2C+CA+94303&zoom=15.00&vlon=-122.125805&vlat=37.441744&br=r&speed=1000_100&tech=2shows that VERY FEW premises in the pilot area can get 2000/200 Mbps service from Xfinity, though most can get 1200/35 Mbps service. Whereas, AT&T is able to offer fiber service to about 90 percent of that pilot area. ### According to FCC's Broadband Map, AT&T is offering 5/5 Gbps service to some premises in the pilot area and 1/1 Gbps service to others. (Unfortunately, it's notpossible to ask FCC's map to display the 5/5 Gbps premises as green dots and the 1/1 Gbps service as red dots. You have to click on each premises to find out what services it can get from AT&T.) ### FCC's Broadband Map has its faults, but I trust that it is accurately showing on the map the coverages and speeds that the wireline ISPs are claiming to provide. Any questions on that one? 0:49:14: Commissioner Croft: Did we -- Do we have knowledge of who has what in that area? 0:49:20: Dave Yuan: We do not know exactly who. 0:49:22: Commissioner Croft: OK. 0:49:22: Dave Yuan: It's what's available to the customers. 0:49:23: Commissioner Croft: Got it. Thank you. 0:49:24: Dave Yuan: So, the red ones are 2-gigabit services or more, ### NO. According to FCC's Broadband Map, most of the red dots on staff's map are Xfinity's 1200/35 Mbps service, a few red dots are 2000/200 Mbps service, and NO red does are "more." and the blue dots are AT&T Fiber. 0:49:32: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] So, [amplified] we can -- I mean, basically, what this says is that AT&T with blue dots, with 2 gigs, is everywhere in the zone --roughly 90-something percent, I assume -- ### No. According to FCC's Broadband Map, AT&T offers 5/5 Gbps service in some places and 1/1 Gbps service in other places, and NO fiber service in a fewplaces. and that Comcast Xfinity, although it is the market share leader in all of Palo Alto, I think -- correct me -- is only -- I don't know -- 50-60 percent of the homes in thezone. Is that roughly the message? 0:49:57: Dave Yuan: Based on the study, they said it's about a 50-50 split between the two incumbents in that area. 0:50:01: Commissioner Tucher: In the zone. 50-50. 0:50:02: Dave Yuan: Yeah. 0:50:02: Commissioner Tucher: Oh. So, where it's red, it's not -- there is no blue? 0:50:06: Dave Yuan: In the red, there is blue. It's underneath it. It's kind of buried underneath it. You can't see it. ### In hindsight, it might have been nice not to hide any of the dots. For example, premises that could get service from either Xfinity or AT&T (or both) would beshown as purple dots. 0:50:09: Commissioner Tucher: Yeah. OK. So, -- 0:50:11: Dave Yuan: The blue is mostly everywhere. 0:50:13: Commissioner Tucher: OK. Again, the blue is mostly everywhere. The red is 50 percent, roughly. And how does fiber compare in delivery, down and up, to 2 gigabits down, at least? 0:50:28: Dave Yuan: So, Xfinity doesn't have a symmetrical speed. So, that's your up speed and down speed being equal. Fiber does allow symmetrical speeds. So, when we say 1 gig, you can upload one speed -- 1 gig up and also download 1 gig -- 0:50:39: Commissioner Tucher: When you say fiber, do you mean 1 gig? ### Silly question. Fiber can deliver speeds that are not 1 gig. Some non-fiber technologies can deliver 1 gig (at least down). 0:50:42: Dave Yuan: Fiber means it's symmetrical speed. ### Some FTTP providers have chosen to offer asymmetrical speeds, but not in Palo Alto, as far as I know. 0:50:43: Commissioner Tucher: So it can it can go up to -- 0:50:45: Dave Yuan: To 5 -- 0:50:45: Commissioner Tucher: 10 gig -- 0:50:45: Dave Yuan: 10 gigs if you have the right equipment. Yeah. 0:50:48: Commissioner Tucher: OK. 0:50:48: Dave Yuan: So, whereas Comcast Xfinity can only -- let's say they say 2 gigs, they can download up to 2 gigs, but when you upload, it's probably less than that. Substantially less. Maybe 300 megs, maybe. I don't know the exact number. ### FCC's Broadband Map says that for the pilot area, one of Xfinity's offerings is 2000/200 Mbps. That is, 2 Gbps down but only 200 Mbps up. 0:51:02: Commissioner Tucher: Does the chart suggest Xfinity doesn't market anything much above 1.2 [Gbps down] 0:51:06: Dave Yuan: Right. ### No. Not right. Or, 2 gigs. They do have a 2-gig service. ### Not everywhere in the pilot area. 0:51:10: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] ** 0:51:12: Dave Yuan: But nothing past 2 gigs. But they need different equipments to increase the speed. But, again, it's not symmetrical, like AT&T Fiber. And also Palo AltoFiber. 0:51:21: Commissioner Tucher: [unamplified] Thank you. 0:51:24: Commissioner Croft: Is it fair to say, though, that 1.2 gigs is offered in that entire area for Xfinity? 0:51:30: Dave Yuan: Yes. ### It would be more accurate to talk about both upload and download speeds: 1200/35 Mbps. 0:51:30: Commissioner Croft: OK. Thanks. 0:51:31: Dave Yuan: And for that 1.2 gigs, what we heard is that they don't usually upgrade that area, because it's too costly for them. So, they will just leave it at that samelevel of speed. Next slide, please. 0:51:43: ###. Slide 5 -- Coverage/Pricing Xfinity & AT&T -- FTTP pilot area Dave Yuan: So, this slide shows the promotional and the standard rates, for both the incumbents. For example, on the 1-gig service, you can see they'll offer it at $55,as a promotional rate, to entice other customers to switch over. And then, eventually, for AT&T, their fixed rate will be $80. And then, for Xfinity (or Comcast), it will be $114 a month. ### Also, Xfinity has a monthly data cap of of 1.2 TB. If you exceed the cap, it costs an additional $10 for each additional 50 GB. Or you can sign up for unlimiteddata, but that costs an additional $30/ month. So, it will start you out at a lower rate, to entice you to come over, but then eventually they will raise you up to that standard rate. Which is $80 [for AT&T] and $114[for Xfinity]. They're also offering gift cards, to try and entice you, as well. The City would not be competing with incumbents with promotional prices, because we don'thave those deep pockets. ### Many FTTP networks say their customers actually appreciate the everyday pricing. We will differentiate ourselves by speed, reliability, transparent pricing with no hidden fees, responsiveness, and exceptional customer service. Similar to our otherutilities and our City services. Any questions on this slide? OK. 0:52:47: ###. Slide 6 -- Estimated Capital Expenses for Pilot Dave Yuan: And this is the capex for the pilot right now. It's roughly about $5 million. The first 3 is the labor portion of it. So, like I mentioned earlier, as we're doingGrid Mod, we're having the construction crew VIP Powerline also install the messenger, which will let us lash the fiber onto it later. And then, we'll also have a differentcrew coming in to do the overhead and underground construction. So, one thing I want to note here is that the overhead construction is much less expensive thanunderground. So, for overhead, we're doing 37,000 feet, at $600,000 let's say. ### The slide says $584,080. Whereas, we're doing underground for only 2,400 feet, we're paying almost half that price. ### Actually, $383,859 (about 2/3 the cost for aerial construction) So, I think one of the Council's motions when they approved the phased build-out was to try to pass as many homes as we can during the phase 1. So, I think we'regoing to be focusing mostly on the aerial areas, just because that's the -- we get the biggest bang for our buck, I guess you would say. The most cost-effective. And also, it makes sense to align it with Grid Mod, which is also what they're focusing on in the first phase. So, we're just going to follow Grid Mod along the way, to helpfind efficiencies, cost savings, and also minimize the disruption there. And then, we also have costs for the materials. 0:54:02: And then, the hut has been built. It's all -- I think it's in Iowa or Indiana. ### According to a 06-17-24 staff report, staff asked Council to approve a purchase order for the hut, manufactured by Thermo Bond Buildings.https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-manager/fttp-staff-report-june-172024.pdf It was Item 24, on the consent calendar. Council approve 6-1 (Tanaka no). Thermo Bond Buildings is located in Elk Point, SD.https://thermobond.com/contact-us/I'm guessing that that's where the hut is now. But we're just not ready to receive it yet. We still need to be the -- build the pad mount. Out by the power station on Colorado. That's where it will be located. It's stillgoing through the permitting review right now. We're still getting a planning permit and a building permit approved, before we can start the construction on the pad mount. So, hopefully, -- we're hoping the pad mount will get done -- well, at least the permits will be approved by the end of this month. 0:54:30 And then, also, there's capital costs for the electronics for the data center and the equipment in the hut. And so, the total cost right now is about $4.5 million, includinga contingency of 10 percent -- about $400,000. And if we go by one of the key metrics, [which] is the cost per passing per home, including the capex, it's about $5,500 per home right now. But once we exclude the one-time costs, it's around $2,200. And out goal is to get down to around like $1,500. I think that is the industrystandard. So, I think we are learning from this pilot. And we think we can get lower prices in the next phase. Any question on this slide? 0:55:11: Commissioner Tucher: Is this over a one-year time -- like the labor cost? Or what's the timeframe? 0:55:15: Dave Yuan: The labor has not started yet. Well, the first one has happened already, for the VIP. So, that one's been done already. The fiber overhead andunderground construction will probably begin in the summer, when the hut is built out. 0:55:29: Kiely Nose: So, I think, Dave, what the Commissioner is asking is -- the total cost column, is that intended to reflect a 12-month period of time? The entire build-outphase? 0:55:40: Dave Yuan: The entire build-out phase for the pilot. 0:55:43: Kiely Nose: So, it's a multi-year number. ### I don't think so. 0:55:45: Dave Yuan: Yeah. Well, it -- construction alone is probably going to take 3 months to build. So, that's a three-months timeline. 0:55:54: Kiely Nose: Thank you. 0:55:55: Dave Yuan: OK. Next slide. 0:55:58 ###. Slide 7 -- Operating Expense Assumptions for Pilot Dave Yuan: And here is the operating expense we're assuming in the model right now. So, we are building pretty lean. We were authorized 4 FTEs. But we areusing a lot of in-house staff to help contribute to this project. So, we have budgeted at 2 full-time managers. We have hired the outside-plant manager. And we arelooking for a fiber systems operations manager down the road. Right now, with Darren and his team and our Utilities staff, we're picking up a lot of this work ourselves,at least for the pilot area. Once we expand into phase 1, we might need more internal resources. But for now, we are able to manage the workload. Other areas,expenses will be like customer support, help desks. So, if there's an outage, they can call this 24/7 center to get help with. Also, cost for Equinix to connect to the datacenter. And then, also, the installation drops. And so forth. I guess. We also have cost broken out by subscribers. So, you can see, on the far-right column, we havea fee for a subscriber. That's what we're estimating, for every subscriber. So, for every installation, it's about $200 extra installation/operation expense for us. And forlike sales and marketing, what we've heard is about $500 to acquire a customer. And even for the equipment, it's about $400 a person. So, these costs are built intothe model. Any questions on the operating side? 0:57:26: Vice Chair Mauter: So, these are on top of the costs presented on the previous slide. Correct? 0:57:31: Dave Yuan: Those are the capital expenses and these are the operating. So, the $20 million we've been authorized is for both. And just to -- I think someonementioned it was bond financed. The $20 million is from the Fiber Reserves. So, we aren't bond financing anything right now. So -- Next slide. 0:57:48: Commissioner Tucher: Is "Fiber Reserve" the same as when we say "Fiber Fund"? Are those the same thing? Thank you. 0:57:53: Dave Yuan: Yes. Yeah. Previously, the Fiber Fund was dedicated just to the dark fiber business. But now, we're also adding the ISP business. ### As far as I know, the Fiber Fund has been paying for FTTP studies for decades. 0:58:03: ###. Slide 8 -- Proposed Palo Alto Fiber Offerings Dave Yuan: All right. So, this is where we want to get your input on. These are the proposed rates and offerings. What we try to do is kind of mimic what our competition is providing. And we kind of -- for the up-to range is because we wanted flexibility in pricing when we go out on the market. These prices -- up-to prices --are competitive with what they're listing as well. So -- And then, on the comment side, it's kind of what is expected when we start offering these. For the 1-gig serviceand less, it will be free installation and free routers. But as you get to the higher speeds, we will be charging for the routers. ### Ah. So, what will the City be charging for the routers in that case? Will it be monthly, or one-time, or both? Just because it is more expensive than the 1-gig routers. So, we do need to recover some of those costs. 0:58:49: Chair Scharff: Why is it cost more to do -- to serve -- provide 1-gig versus 2-gigs versus 5-gigs on fiber? 0:58:55: Dave Yuan: It's a different equipment for the house equipment. So, there's a different modem or router. So, that is -- those routers cost more money, for the higherspeeds. 0:59:03: Chair Scharff: But does it cost -- I mean, there's a difference between providing a 1-gig service at $95 and then 2-gigs is $175. And that's monthly. So, if people signup for a year, is the difference really just the cost of the router? ### Backhaul costs something. 0:59:18: Dave Yuan: Um. 0:59:21: Chair Scharff: That's a big difference. Right? I mean, it's -- 0:59:23: Kiely Nose: No, I think -- I mean, so, ultimately -- um -- fiber's a little bit different than our other rates that we've talked about a lot with the commission. So, there isn'tnecessarily strict regulations, like a COSA ### COSA = cost of service analysis. that we've experienced. 0:59:38: Chair Scharff: No, I understand. 0:59:39: Kiely Nose: So, these rates are reflective, I think, of both market sensitivity and analysis and price competitiveness, while also recognizing the need to do our best tooffset the costs, and manage. So, it's not a direct correlation between, say, 1 and 2 is specifically the equipment. It's a combined impact of everything from costs -- recovering costs to deliver the service as well as what the market can bear. 1:00:11: Darren Numoto: Good evening. This is Darren. Can you hear me? 1:00:13: Kiely Nose: Yup. 1:00:13: Chair Scharff: Yes, Darren. 1:00:15: Darren Numoto: Yeah. So, I think we are going to -- what's the cost of adding -- or providing a transport for people that are ordering the1-gig versus 5-gig versus 10-gig. ### Technically, 10-gig isn't shown on the slide. But, yes. So, it is all about the path to the internet. And we have the ability to scale up and scale down. But it's really an oversubscription rate. And really what usage of data is, and, based on learning from others, we should be fine. So it's really the bandwidth that a household or a customer is able to use. So, if we do sell a 2-point-gig, we'reassuming that they're not going to be using that full 2-point-gig -- or 2.5-gig continuously. Right? There's going to be peaks and valleys. So, our transfer cost is ableto help absorb that. If that helps. ### OK, but what does this have to do with the price of routers specifically? 1:01:03: Chair Scharff: So, that does help a lot. So, I guess my question is this. Is -- If I'm in the pilot, I have to say two things to myself. One, it's going to cost me money to switch over. Because I get rid of my other service. You guys -- We may go away at the end of the pilot, and I'd have to switch back. Right? I mean, why -- And it'snow more expensive at 1-gig. It's $80 with -- And I realize it goes up. And, you know, that's the difference -- You're going to try and make that argument. Hey, we're$95. We're not $80. We're not $114, but -- And that's -- I mean, that's your argument. I guess my question is, you would be so much more competitive if you said, 2- gigs for $100. People would be like, wow. That's a real -- And if we can compete on the gigs, why wouldn't we do that? 1:01:58: Dave Yuan: So, we did run some numbers with a -- lower prices. It's just that would take us a lot longer to get -- break even at the operational side. For -- Wewouldn't be able to expand phase 1 much further if we were -- or even start phase 1 -- if we were to charge those much lower rates. I guess. We'll show that later. 1:02:16: Chair Scharff: So, I guess I'm confused. Because do most -- I didn't see -- 1:02:20: Dave Yuan: I'll get to it. 1:02:20 Chair Scharff: But don't most people choose the 1-gig? 1:02:23: Dave Yuan: Yes. 1:02:23: Chair Scharff: Right? And so, if you told people you were getting 2-gigs, you probably don't lose that much money, because 80 percent -- I'm making this up -- 1:02:30: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:02:30: Chair Scharff: 80 percent of the people chose 1-gig. Everyone I know chooses 1-gig. But if you could get 2-gigs for a little more, like the $95, then everyone would belike, wow, I'm getting something -- even if they're not using it -- 1:02:43: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:02:44: Chair Scharff: And so, you'd be so much more competitive. Whereas, right now, I don't see -- I see Comcast and AT&T being like, here's a gift card. Here's an introductory price of $50. Here's this. And you're coming in and saying $95. And I'm just -- I just want you to think about that as -- If I was coming into this market, Iwould give it 2-gigs for $100 -- you know, whatever. They'd be like, that's completely different. That's so much better. 1:03:15: Darren Numoto: And if I can just address that as well. And that's why we're just -- These are our starting prices. Again, once you get to market, we're going to have to evaluate, and do our marketing strategy, to see what the market will allow us to go. But again, to Dave's point, we do need to make sure we are able to recovercosts at some point. So that's why we're asking for a range of different options in products and services. And, you know, besides the technical aspects, the hope is that we can sell them on the same level of service that they've become accustomed to -- our utilities. We are local. So, if they have a problem, we're going to be there immediately. We have staff on site. If there's a problem in their home, that, you know, we can schedule people to be on-site more readily than some of the othercompetitors. So, really, focusing on the service delivery aspects and the customer support, as well as providing services to an entire community of Palo Alto. Right? Not cherry picking. And, in the end, the hope is, we can deliver services to the entire community in Palo Alto, and not cherry pick just the easy to build places, which current providers are doing. 1:04:19: Dave Yuan: To add to Chair Scharff's question about 1-gig versus 2-gig, why we pick one, I think the device for the 2-gig is about 50 -- more than 50 percent moreexpensive than 1-gig. Home equipment. ### I think he's talking specifically about the router. As far as I know, all premises will get the same ONT (optical network terminal), which can handle speeds up to10/10 Gbps. 1:04:30: Chair Scharff: What's the difference? What does it cost? Are we talking an extra $100? Are we talking -- 1:04:34: Dave Yuan: About $150 more. Additional. For that device. Yeah. 1:04:39: Chair Scharff: OK. All right. Go on. 1:04:43: Commissioner Phillips: Actually, I'd make a couple comments. One, in the discussions, just note that these are maximums. They're not the rates. They need the flexibility to adjust the rates, particularly if AT&T and Comcast -- So, if they did what, you know, Chair Scharff recommended and lowered it to $100 -- If AT&T loweredit to $100 -- which they might well do -- that would be interesting learning. But you might want to adjust again. And, you know, I think we want to think strategicallywhat do we want to get out of this. I mean, we kind of know if we price low, we can get more people. No question. I mean, I believe that. But what does it take? Can we have -- I think the question to me is, is there a sustainable business in this for the City of Palo Alto as the third entrant into this market? And, you know, that's amuch harder question to answer. And I'm personally skeptical about the answer. But I'm not -- you know, that's not -- The pilot and phase 1 are a fait accompli. They've been approved Council, as I understand. So, you know, the question is, what can we price that helps us learn -- from my point of view -- is there a potentially stable business here? For the City? 1:06:00: Chair Scharff: No, I totally agree with you. And I really appreciate all the work. We'll get to that. Why don't we continue, and then -- 1:06:08: Dave Yuan: Sure. And then some of these offerings -- we are listing it here, just to get Council's approval in advance. Some of these we won't be offering until like phase 1. But at least we have it ready. I think -- we just -- we want to be agile, I guess. Offer some of these other products -- or change at different speeds. But Ithink for pilot, we're just looking at 1-gig and 5-gig. Next slide. 1:06:28: ###. Slide 9 -- Proposed Palo Alto Fiber Offerings (cont.) Dave Yuan: And then, based on our other equipment that we have, we do have these other service offerings that we provide. Like smart-home, smart biz, moreparental controls, and so forth, here. So, these are other features that our equipment CAN provide. Something that we might offer in the future as well. But we might as well get pre-approval, so we are able to launch them when they're ready. And then, other contract terms we have. We don't have any data allowance -- caps oranything. And the contracts will be month-to-month. So, our customer doesn't have to pre-sign up for X number of months. Oh. Go ahead, Commissioner Metz. 1:07:07: Commissioner Metz: Yeah. I just want to make a couple of comments on the rates before you move on. First of all, my suggestion was just drop the 500 megabit rate, and just make it -- Since most of the people are going to want 1-gig or 2-. Second, I would make the parental controls and the intrusion protection part of thebasic offering, and not make that an extra charge. I mean, especially, the parental controls seems kind of hygienic, you know, part of the thing. I had one question,which you can answer now or later. Which is, what's the plan for penetrating multi-family? It seems like that's pretty important, since it's probably -- since we think that it's kind of captive. At the same time, it's probably lower cost to serve. ### That's not what I've heard. So, you know, what's the plan for going after that? 1:08:00: Dave Yuan: Yeah. You're absolutely correct on the multi-family. They are very difficult. Some of them already have exclusive agreements with some of theincumbents already. And to go in there, it's pretty costly usually. Because you have to rewire the entire house, and so forth. So, we would have to do a cost-benefitanalysis, make sure we get a right of entry. And then work with the property owner. But we are looking for the new greenfield MDUs. So, as those get built out, weare trying to make contacts with them and ask them to add a third conduit in there, so at least we'll be a third provider for them. A third option, for those new residents. So, we're more focused on the new greenfield MDUs. 1:08:43: Commissioner Croft: I had a comment. In the discussion, I agree, Chair Scharff, with -- I think switching is hard for people. And so, my concern is that -- how do weconvince someone to switch, especially when they've something fast already. And so, I do think the idea of offering faster speeds at lower price. Or, we talked about -- Or, one of the suggestions I had is maybe combining some of these additional features, in order -- we need to create SOME incentive to switch. Somehow. And thatis -- you know, I think we have some things here we could offer. So, I would love to see some creativity on how to build compelling offerings that get people to move. 1:09:29: Dave Yuan: Yes. The goal of the rates proposal is to give us flexibility to group certain things together. Like Commissioner Metz is saying, offering the parentalcontrol, ** offering even a free month of service, or two. So, we have that flexibility. ** 1:09:46: Chair Scharff: So, I'm just going to follow up on what Commissioner Croft said. My concern is not the rates, really. My concern is more that -- I don't know how to putthis -- that we're taking a regular utility approach to what is a competitive business. When I heard you say that you wanted to be able to offer to everyone in the City,even if it's not cost-effective and they cherry pick, I panicked. I said, that's a Utility approach, not a business approach. And what I really want-- what I would reallysuggest you do is focus on how you make the pilot successful, before you -- Which means getting a bunch of people to switch. Because if a bunch of people don'tswitch -- And I understand, you know, Bob's concern over there. But if you don't make the pilot -- and get a bunch of people, you then need to build a sustainablebusiness from showing that. 1:10:38: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:10:38: Chair Scharff: And, to me, that means you need to basically give people a strong reason to switch. And I don't know what that is. And I think -- But that's what youneed to focus on. It's the marketing. It's how do we get them to switch? 1:10:51: Kiely Nose: And I ultimately think -- Thank you, Chair Scharff. That's kind of spot on. That is what's necessary. And that is a component of what we hope to be moving forward with the UAC, as well as, ultimately, the broader community, as we try and actually launch. What you're actually seeing before you, in all honesty --and I think we've had a lot of discussions internally whether we should bring this forward yet, in advance of that. And what you've identified. And, you know, whatwe've been struggling is -- moving at the pace of business versus moving through our necessary approvals and review processes. And so, really, staff is bringing this forward now, so that, frankly, we HAVE a schedule that should we be able to any alpha or beta testing or things like that, that we actually have the authority to do so. And I fully expect when we get into a position beyond this kind of -- this initial build-out [laughs] -- I try to figure out the right words -- um -- that we would -- and weneed -- to figure out exactly what you said. What is that marketing strategy? How do you get people to switch? And once we can, in theory, physically light them as a customer -- like how do you get them to buy in? So, I do -- just to share the struggle that staff has been kind of going through -- of what's more important -- whatcomes first. This moves through a much more rigorous rate -- much more rigorous process. And so, that's why this is coming, I think, before we're able to bringforward that full-blown kind of marketing plan. 1:12:38: Chair Scharff: Go on, please. 1:12:40: Dave Yuan: Next slide, please. 1:12:43: ###. Slide 10 -- Operational Financial Scenarios for Different Price Levels Dave Yuan: All right. So, this is kind of a pricing model here. So, in this model, we're assuming there's no price elasticity of demand. So, as the price goes up, it's stillthe same number of subscribers. And here we're showing, in the first year, we're going to have 932 passings. And then, we go up to 7,200 passings by 2029. ### Really? Phase 1 won't be completely deployed before 2029? I'd encourage Council and UAC to say that's too slow. On 12-19-22, one of the options Councilcould have chosen was CITYWIDE FTTP in five years -- that is, by 2027. And then, it also shows how much the take rate's being assumed into this model. So, in the beginning, I think our goal is really operational feasibility and technicalfeasibility. Making sure the service we're offering is working like we think -- the internet speeds, and making sure the delivery we're doing is meeting our customers' expectations. So, once we get that figured out, we will start targeting more, and try to increase the take rate then. And hopefully provide even lower prices, as long aswe get the right numbers. So, here, we have three scenarios: low, mid, and high pricing. So, again, it's based on that structure you saw earlier. Like, the low -- I thinkfor 1-gig it was -- um -- earlier -- sorry -- for 1-gig, it was up to $95. So, low could be somewhere in the midpoint. And then, midrange would be somewhere in the 75th percentile. And then high would be probably the higher end. Is kind of how we modeled this. So, as you can see, under the low pricing, we don't even break evenuntil the 4th year, assuming we hit 33 percent, whereas, under the high pricing, we are more -- we break even in the 3rd year, in 2028. So, depending on which levelof pricing, that's how soon we get to our break-even point. So, I guess we want to get input from the UAC on where you think we should be pricing, and whether or notit is the goal to get the highest penetration? Or is it financial sustainability, I guess? Is kind of what we're looking at. At the low prices we'll get higher take rates. Butthen, we'll also -- won't break even sooner. It'll take longer to break even. 1:14:43: Commissioner Phillips: And, to clarify, it says operational, and we discussed -- this is operationally breaking even. It's not paying any of the capital investment. 1:14:50: Dave Yuan: That is correct. Thank you for that. This is operational costs only. 1:14:55: Commissioner Croft: And I would like to ask a question, because I'm somewhat confused about the difference between pilot and phase 1. And where -- So, as we'vebeen talking about, sounds like pilot is 1,000 -- customers? Or passes? 1:15:13: Dave Yuan: Passes. ### The standard term is "passings." 1:15:13: Commissioner Croft: OK. And then, phase 1 is 5,000 additional passes. 1:15:17: Dave Yuan: Right. 1:15:17: Commissioner Croft: And what are the assumed timelines? 'Cause when we -- you showed us the $4.5 million for the pilot. 1:15:25: Dave Yuan: Uh huh. 1:15:26: Commissioner Croft: That is going to be spent in what amount of time? And where does that align with these years that you're -- like, where is pilot, where is phase 1,on these years? So, how do we know what we've invested? 1:15:37: Dave Yuan: So, pilot will be ** by '26. Which is the 932 passings. So, assuming we build into phase 1 right after that, that's when we get the additional 5,900 -- or,additional 5,000 passings. So, I think the $5 million you saw earlier, for just the pilot -- 1:15:55: Commissioner Croft: So, this actual 4-year model -- 1:15:57: Dave Yuan: Uh huh. 1:15:57: Commissioner Croft: -- assumes that we've continued building -- 1:16:01: Dave Yuan: Yes. 1:16:01: Commissioner Croft: -- past that $20 million. 1:16:03: Dave Yuan: No. Not past the $20 million. Within the $20 million. But for the pilot, we're going to spend about $5 million in construction. In capex. And we'll spend about 1 -- let's say $2 million in operating expenses. So, I think we're budgeting -- we'll have another $10 million remaining for capex for the next phase. If we want tocontinue building. So, that's what the assumption is here. 1:16:25: Commissioner Croft: OK. 1:16:25: Dave Yuan: So, we have 20 -- 1:16:25: Kiely Nose: Let me maybe put it a different way, Commissioner. The pilot is a subset of phase 1. So, we're doing the initial 1,000. And then, within that initial $20million budget, we would expand to add the additional 5,000 passings. And that would happen after we get through this first 1,000, basically. So, in theory, it's easierfor us to build out beyond the first 1,000 pilot, because a lot of the infrastructure, like the hut, and whatnot, that's necessary is all part of the pilot. And so, ideally, we'dbe able to build at a faster pace, to move between 1,000 passings and, say, 6,000 passings. 1:17:13: Dave Yuan: I think the next slide will show the $20 million breakdown. 1:17:16: ###. Slide 11- Fiber Fund Cashflow Projection Dave Yuan: The cash flow. So, we start -- 1:17:18: Commissioner Tucher: Before we go there, again, how many homes are in the phase 1 map? Is it -- It sounds like it's roughly 5[000]-6,000. 1:17:25: Dave Yuan: 6,000 total. Yes. 1:17:26: Commissioner Tucher: 6,000. 1:17:27: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:17:28: Commissioner Tucher: And -- we'll think of the word "pilot" as a subset of that. And pi- None of this has begun. We don't have -- 1:17:36: Dave Yuan: Not yet. 1:17:36: Commissioner Tucher: Right? Um. I know we'll get to this in a moment, but you have a low-price, high-price, medium-price. 1:17:45: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:17:45: Commissioner Tucher: I looked at the slide, of course, and couldn't make head or tail of it without knowing what those prices were. You mentioned $95 -- 1:17:53: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 12:17:53: Commissioner Tucher: I don't see $95 on the chart. But, through- -- I mean, if the purpose of this discussion is to get some guidance on pricing, the most important thing is to have some -- have clarity on what the price strategy is. What the strategy of the whole project is. When I say "project," I mean phase 1. And I assume thatif we don't price very aggressively -- so all this talk about switching is enabled through low pricing. I mean, it would have to be lower than what they're currentlypaying. Otherwise, what's the point? ### The point might be faster speed. In particular, faster upload speed. The point might be greater reliability. The point might be lower latency. The point might bebetter customer service. 1:18:24: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:18:25: Commissioner Tucher: Um. And as far as I can tell, $95 for a gigabit is above -- in fact, substantially above -- the incumbents. ### The FCC requires that ISPs have a "Broadband Facts" label for their productshttps://www.fcc.gov/broadbandlabelsthat includes information about everyday prices. ### The introductory price for Xfinity's 1100 Mbps down and, say, 35 Mbps up is $60/month for 12 months, but after that, the everyday price is $114/month. Thatproduct has a monthly data cap of 1.2 TB. If you exceed that cap, each 50 GB of data costs $10. Or, if you want unlimited data, that costs an extra $30/month I don't see how this would attract enough customers for us to learn anything from a 1-year, 3-year, any length of pilot. So, I would assume that when we're talkingabout, OK, what's our price, well, what's our price strategy? And if -- What's our price strategy? The number on thing needs to be, win a bunch of customers in phase1, so we have -- even if it costs money. I mean, pilots cost money. So, it can't be that our objective is to have -- I don't know -- break-even P and L, and provefinancial viability. That's never the case in a pilot, or a phase 1. And so, right from -- right out of the gate, I'm kind of -- um -- unpersuaded from the logic of thesepricing figures. 1:19:25: Kiely Nose: Commissioner, I think that feedback is exactly what staff is looking for. So, thank you. Where, you know, like you identified, there's that tension of are yougoing after customers or are you going after managing the bottom line? And so, I think that IS that feedback that we're seeking, because, you know, to your point,pilots cost money. And how much are we willing to kind of -- ah -- invest -- ah -- knowing that either we want to manage our financial risk or do we want to manage ourkind of -- And there's a sweet spot in there. Right? It's not one or the other. So, again, just want to say thank you. 'Cause I think that is actually the feedback that weare seeking. 1:20:06: Commissioner Tucher: You probably don't want too much of a brainstorming here. 1:20:09: Kiely Nose: Correct. 1:20:09: Commissioner Tucher: Maybe this should be done off-site. ### In 2003, UAC had a two-day meeting just about FTTP. (It wasn't off-site.) But not only would you need a really high penetration -- like, I don't know, 30 percent uptake -- but you'll also want to play a lot with the various value-add options thatyou've listed, like parental controls, security, all those different things. So, make those super-easy to add onto, so that you can get a number of people to tell you whether it's worth it. I think there was a comment earlier that -- why go less than a gig, or 500 megs. Well, I thought one of the whole strategies, or purposes for thisdiscussion, is for people who can't afford AT&T. So, we probably need low-price options. And we need to see if we can get people who currently can't affordbroadband any which way to say yes to our lowest-price offer. Ergo, we certainly would need a low-price offer. A whole bunch of strategic considerations that we probably ought to align on first before we pick a price number. 1:21:09: Chair Scharff: Go ahead. 1:21:08: Vice Chair Mauter: I just want to echo that last comment, in terms of, you know, when you're ask for a value statement. I think that's a really important thing to underscore. So, thank you very much, Commissioner Tucher, for making that point. I guess the -- 1:21:22: Chair Scharff: What was the value statement? 1:21:23: Vice Chair Mauter: You know, just in terms of making sure that we are serving customers than cannot afford current fiber offerings, from AT&T or Comcast or otherproviders. ### I don't know that a City value statement should say that everyone deserves to have an affordable fiber broadband service. But I think the City should limit itsbroadband services to FTTP services. There are -- By providing a range of pricing options. 1:21:41: Chair Scharff: But only if it makes financial sense in a pilot? I would disagree. I also got to say, have you looked where that pilot is? 1:21:47: Vice Chair Mauter: Well, this where -- 1:21:47: Chair Scharff: Have you looked at -- I'm not being mean. I'm just -- This is one of the richest sections of Palo Alto. 1:21:52: Vice Chair Mauter: But I have to say, I mean, that was actually where I was going with this. Is, like, IF that is the value statement, how on earth did we choose this location for our pilot? ### On 12-19-22, Council approved choosing the phase 1 area according to three criteria: 1) Minimize the cost of passing each premises.2) Minimize competition from the incumbents.3) Maximize the number of residences that showed interest in municipal FTTP by contributing $50 to the City. ### Later, staff added the criterion of coordinating with Grid Mod. Which, number 1, is incredibly well-served by both AT&T and Comcast, and, B, doesn't appear to be serving the like purpose of a publicly-owned utility, in which weare spending $20 million of City funds to trickle down on service to this area. Like, with all due respect, I don't understand. 1:22:25: Dave Yuan: We chose that area because of the Grid Mod. We had to do the 4- to 12-kV conversion. And so, we were just following behind them. To learn from thepilot. 1:22:33: Vice Chair Mauter: But -- I understand that there may be lower costs. And that may be a wonderful perk, much later in the process. But I don't think that that alone isa particularly strong justification for understanding how the rest of the City is going to adopt or not adopt. Because you are choosing an incredibly rarified segment ofthe population that, quite frankly, may not be price-sensitive AT ALL. Right? And, number 2, you're not exploring the idea that enhanced service is what is going toattract customers. So, like, there seems to be many logical fallacies in serving -- or, in choosing this service area. And I don't presume that you're going to changeyour mind at this point. But I just am worried that the concept of this being a pilot is, in fact -- like, we will learn something about these like 25 blocks of Palo Alto. Butthis is not representative of Palo Alto. And if you want to do a pilot, do it in areas that are more likely to be representative of the -- parts of Palo Alto that are more likely to adopt your fiber utility. I'm sorry. 1:23:58: Commissioner Phillips: I guess this brings up a question which I'd like to ask staff. I'm glad that Mayor Lauing is here, too. Because I hear two different points ofview. I hear from Chair Scharff that this should be a business. And we shouldn't consider we're going to, you know, serve everybody in the City of Palo Alto. 1:24:15: Chair Scharff: Do I -- Can I just -- 1:24:16: Commissioner Phillips: Can I just -- 1:24:16: Chair Scharff: Yeah. Yes. Yeah. 1:24:17: Commissioner Phillips: -- finish? And, you know, the alternative we should be considering, you know, how do we bring service to people who can't afford it versus,you know, this is a hard-nosed business. We're going to try to make money with it. ### I think the goal has never been to make money to use for other things. It has been to avoid losing money, so that the FTTP network can be be self-sustaining,without subsidies. I do we need to, you know, think that through. You know, I totally agree with Vice Chair Mauter. If we're trying to say let's serve the underserved, this is a horriblechoice. You know. If we are not going to be -- If we're not going to have the utility's obligation to serve, which is built into all our other utilities, that's an interestingpoint. But I'm not sure -- Is that consistent with what Council believes? And what other people believe? I mean, it's just a business that we're going into, incompetition with two established competitors? Or are we trying to serve some social goal? 1:25:03: Chair Scharff: I think -- 1:25:04: Commissioner Phillips: Or both? 1:25:04: Chair Scharff: I think I need to clarify. Obviously, I would like us to be able to serve the social goal. I don't believe we'd get there if we don't first have a business. You know, this is not a situation where we have a forced -- Like, our electric utility. You don't have a choice. I can't just say to you, I don't like Palo Alto, I'm going toPG&E. ### In 1996, the California legislature passed AB 1890, the Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act, which required electric utilities, including CPAU, to let otherelectricity providers use the utility's wires to provide service. CPAU feared that its electric customers might switch to other providers, but, mostly, that didn't happen. After a disastrous energy crisis in 2000-2001, the requirement to share wires with other providers was dropped. Here we have a choice. Right? You can use Comcast. You can use AT&T. And you'll be able to use Palo Alto. And given that, the more you subsidize somebodyelse, the less profit you'll make. Which means that you'll have to raise prices on other people. And in a competitive business, that's really hard to do. So, I think, first,what you need to do is, you need to have a business. 'Cause we don't -- This discussion just becomes academic. If we do a pilot, we get no uptake, we decide thatwe're going to, you know, do subsidies, or whatever we're going to do, to -- for some social goal, we don't have a business. I think you have to prove you have abusiness. Unless we don't care about that first. 'Cause once you have a business, you can then think about how do we, you know, serve the social goal. 1:26:17: Commissioner Phillips: I think I disagree. I mean, the idea behind the electric power is that people DO subsidize. The people who are difficult to reach, you know, aresubsidized by the other customers. That's the point. 1:26:28: Chair Scharff: That's because they have no choice. 1:26:29: Commissioner Phillips: Because the -- But that's the obligation to serve. And you're guaranteed a monopoly. I mean, that's the idea of a utility. ### No. The idea of a public utility is that it provides a service that everybody needs. (Or, at least, that most people would find it difficult to do without.) ### When AB 1890 (1996) required California's electric utilities to let other electric providers use their wires, did they cease to be utilities? I don't think so. And like you say, they have no choice. But part of the reason they have no choice is, we've made it a monopoly. So that the people -- There are people here whowould gladly be served by other electric power generated transmission companies, and we don't ALLOW that, because we need to charge them more to help serve theothers. That's the utility IDEA. So, I don't agree -- 1:26:54: Chair Scharff: ** monopoly. 1:26:55: Commissioner Phillips: What? 1:26:55: Chair Scharff: We're not going to have a monopoly. That's the problem. 1:26:58: Commissioner Phillips: I know. So that's the problem HERE. Is there a social goal? And, I mean, maybe we're -- maybe we're having too much of this discussion. We just need to say yeah, go experiment with prices. But I do think it's something we need to think about. Is our long-term goal to satisfy low-cost customers, makesure everybody in Palo Alto has option to fiber at reasonable prices? Or is it just to run a business? And I don't think you -- I think you can prove you can run abusiness but not do any of the others. And if you are running a business, you probably wouldn't do the others. That's why, you know, they're not done by AT&T andComcast. ### Both AT&Thttps://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/att-low-income-internetand Comcast https://california.comcast.com/internet-essentials/have programs that subsidize service to low-income customers. They're usually lower-speed services. 1:27:33; Chair Scharff: OK. 1:27:33: Vice Chair Mauter: What fraction of the City is NOT served today by AT&T or Comcast or other fiber connection? ### BestNeighborhood.org says that AT&T provides (residential) FTTP service to 71.08 percent of Palo Alto.https://bestneighborhood.org/fiber-tv-and-internet-palo-alto-ca/They also say that Comcast provides (residential) cable service to 95.47 percent of Palo Alto. They cite FCC data from 06-30-24. ### So, 28.92 percent of Palo Alto is NOT served by AT&T Fiber. Of this 28.92 percent, other fiber providers serve very few residences. 1:27:45: Dave Yuan: By fiber only? We'll take a look. But non-fiber? Probably less than 5 percent, I would say. ### Bad guess. See below. 1:27:50 Vice Chair Mauter: Less than 5 percent of the City does NOT have an option to connect to fiber. 1:27:56: Dave Yuan: Oh, no. Just broadband. ### Aha! I guess Yuan was estimating that fewer than 5 percent of Palo Alto residences did NOT have access access to "broadband" service using any technology. FCC currently says that "broadband" is 100/20 Mbps or faster. FCC's broadband map shows that 100 percent of Palo Alto has access to this kind of "broadband"service. But I don't think that's what Commissioner Mauter was asking about. I don't know the number. We would have to look where -- around where AT&T is. I think when we did the study last year -- or a couple years ago -- they were like 50percent of the market. They're probably a higher percentage now. ### "Percentage of the market" is a different statistic from coverage. 1:28:09: Vice Chair Mauter: I guess I'm just wondering. Like, all service providers, anyone -- anyone selling fiber services. What's the coverage that they offer in Palo Alto? Do they cover 75 percent of Palo Alto homes? Or is it 95 percent? ### 71.08 percent. See above. 1:28:26: Dave Yuan: We would have to research that. The -- Only AT&T offers fiber internet, really. So, the other providers are either wireless or coaxial. ### Nobody offers plain coaxial. Comcast/Xfinity offers hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC). So -- 1:28:36: Chair Scharff: I think what you mean is broadband. ### But not 100/20 Mbps broadband. Right? I don't think you mean fiber. 1:28:39: Vice Chair Mauter: Sure. Sure. Whatever. I don't know anything about internet. Other than I use it. [laughs] But -- 1:28:46: Dave Yuan: We could get back to you on the numbers. 1:28:46: Vice Chair Mauter: High-speed access to the internet. Let's be really generic. ### "High-speed" is too vague. 1:28:51: Dave Yuan: Uh huh. 1:28:51: Vice Chair Mauter: Everybody in Palo Alto can already access this. ### NO. If "high-speed" means, say, 1/1 Gbps. For example, members of the Adobe Creek Networks consortium in Palo Alto cannot access 1/1 Gbps, so they'reconsidering building their own FTTP network.https://adobecreek.net/ 1:28:57: Dave Yuan: Most likely. 1:28:57: Vice Chair Mauter: So like the purpose is to -- If we're following on, you know, Bob's statement of like we don't have a monopoly. So, we are trying to compete in thismarket, the only thing that you are competing on is cost. Right? You're not competing on service, necessarily. ### You could be competing on speed (especially upload speed), reliability, latency, security, a promise not to mine personal data, etc. 1:29:20: Dave Yuan: I think another benefit we noted when we built the business case: by being a third provider, we will bring more competition, and bring another option forcustomers. And that will hopefully drive down their prices as well. So, that's something that we will collect data during the pilot. 1:29:35: Vice Chair Mauter: OK. 1:29:35: Chair Scharff: So, I do want to say one other thing. I think the concern I have is, I don't think we should be worrying about the long term right now. I think we shouldbasically be trying to prove that there's a business case that we can compete, and -- in the pilot. 1:29:50: Dave Yuan: Um hum. 1:29:50: Chair Scharff: And if we don't do that, you know, I would assume it comes back to the UAC. I know there was a disagreement on that. But I would assume it comesback to UAC. And we say this pilot failed. Either go back and do something different, or -- I mean, let's not move forward. I mean, that's my assumption. Myassumption is, Council doesn't say, oh, my God, the pilot was a disaster, no one took us up on it. Let's move forward and build some more. I'd be really surprised. Right? So -- No. I mean, it's possible. Right? But I'm just saying, I think if we don't get the pilot right, and we don't get a big uptake, we won't learn anything. Youknow. And that's what we should focus on. That's really all I'm saying tonight. 1:30:29: Dave Yuan: Yeah. I guess my only concern with that one -- The pilot is a very small sample set. And we've learned a lot from the pilot that we COULD use for thephase 1. So -- Bringing down construction costs. Bringing more efficient services. Or faster lighting people up. So, I think we DO want to expand a little bit to phase1. Maybe not the complete phase 1. ### On 12-19-22, Council directed staff to build out a complete phase 1. But we'll learn more as we pass more homes. So, that's the ask. But we'll definitely bring you the data as we do the pilot. 1:30:56: Vice Chair Mauter: I guess I would just say, what you are doing, though, is, you are learning something about the installation. But you're not diversifying thecustomers that you're learning from in the current phase 1 continuation of this effort. From pilot to phase 1 is a very similar set of customers. If you were to go and do-- install in a different part of the City, you might have a very different set of uptakes or non-uptakes. 1:31:24: Dave Yuan: So, yeah. We -- There is opportunity to look at different areas, too. It's just -- then, we would just not follow Grid Mod. Which is fine. If we think there's a better market out there, we'll definitely entertain it. 1:31:34: Kiely Nose: Commissioner Gupta's hand is up. And ** 1:31:37: Chair Scharff: Commissioner Gupta's hand is up. Sorry. I didn't see you. 1:31:38: Commissioner Gupta: Yeah. No worries. Thank you. So, yeah, I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. And I felt like the conversation's been kind of veeringinto a very uncertain future, and what it might hold. So, the purpose of the pilot and the phase 1 really is to learn. It's to get ourselves installed in the pilot, learn aboutconstruction. It's not really geared, given it's limited sample size, to obtain a huge take rate. I think the target take rate on the pilot is 20 percent. And we use those learnings to expand to phase 1, where then we're more focused on things like marketing and take rate. And, in a way, the nomenclature we've chosen is confusingpeople. I view the entire phase 1, of which the pilot is a subset, as what you might consider as a "traditional pilot." ### Yes. This agrees with what our consultant, John Honker, said on 12-19-22. (See comment near 0:45:37.) Or an MVP, for -- if we're going to use startup terminology, a Minimum Viable Product. That's going to be the entire phase 1. We'll have a big enough sample size. We'll see how we're doing against the competition. We'll learn about marketing. We'll learn about install. We'll learn about customer service. I just see this as a hugeopportunity to learn. And from that, the City can decide whether there's a business case or an equity case to expand further. I don't mind the pilot area. I think it'sgood that it's in an area with a lot of competition from Comcast/Xfinity and AT&T. We can actually see how we do under pressure, and how the competition responds in terms of pricing. And, as staff said, it would be very interesting to see how much money we save the Palo Alto residents. Not just from OUR lower pricing but fromdriving down the pricing of the competition. And, while that doesn't show up on the City's bottom line, that might actually be a very substantial savings for Palo Altoresidents. So, I think this is -- the way that we've modeled the pricing, giving staff a lot of flexibility with maximum rates, makes a lot of sense at this stage. And we'regoing to learn. And we should continue these discussions, and we should continue capturing the data. I think that's very important. But I don't think we should getahead of ourselves, in terms of trying to understand exactly which way the market is going to be. Did we choose an exactly perfect pilot area? I think we're going tolearn that, and figure that out as we go. 1:33:59: Liason Lauing: Yeah. I'll just comment generally. ### Years ago, in a presentation to new Council members, new commissioners, and the public, City Attorney Molly Stump said that the liaison to a commission shouldnot participate in commission meetings as if he/she were a commissioner. He/she should not feel free to voice personal views. Rather, he/she should be available toanswer the commission's questions about what Council as a whole has historically thought about the issues being discussed, and about the procedures of Citygovernment. First of all, I wasn't here when they made the final decision to make that move. Not that I'm disclaiming -- talking about that -- 1:34:09: [laughter[ 1:34:10: Liaison Lauing: Except that I'm disclaiming. 1:34:11: [laughter] 1:34:12: Liaison Lauing: But I think, at some -- The conclusion from what I'm just going to say -- I think, at some point, it probably is worth a re-check-in with Council before wewrite too many multi-million dollar checks. And that's probably on your timeline anyway. So -- But since this has started, which has been, you know, 3 years ago when it started to get serious -- it was about 3 years ago when it was approved -- the competition has gotten better. You know. I've had Xfinity/Comcast for a longtime. And I had them out every 2 weeks. And now, I don't have them out. I don't know. I don't see those guys anymore. So, they've improved their downtime. ### One anecdote is not much data. Conceivably, ISPs take extra care to make sure their service to Council members is beyond reproach. So, if we're trying to compete on service, that could be a major changed variable since this was put up. Is that, you know, they've improved their system enough thatthey don't need as much customer service. Right And the other thing, which is obvious, but I hope you're modeling this, is that the competition WILL respond. Nomatter what price we go to, they're going to match that. So, I don't even know how you can rule that out. ### An ISP MIGHT match Palo Alto Fiber's price, with either a special offer or an everyday price of its own. But I don't think we know that it WILL do so. Because they have essentially unlimited funds. And at this point, knowing that we're going to pilot, and we're a City, and we don't have deep pockets, they might say,you know, we'll undercut them by $2. No matter if they go down to $3, we're going to go down to $2. ### As a hypothetical example, this is pretty unrealistic. Because they can outlast us, in terms of how much money they have, just to wipe us out. So, I think there really are some potentially fatal errors -- fatal problemshere, if -- that we always have to be aware of. And I do think that Council should -- I don't want to go as far as to use the word "reconsider." I just think they should beupdated on what the current sense of those variables are. 1:35:56: **: [unamplified] Thank you. 1:36:00: Chair Scharff: [unamplified] Go ahead. 1:36:00: Commissioner Phillips: Given where we are, do we have any specific feedback? Or should we just go -- I would be ready to move -- 1:36:07: Chair Scharff: So, actually, what I want to do is let them finish their slides -- 1:36:10: Commissioner Phillips: Oh, I'm sorry. 1:36:10: Chair Scharff: No more questions until ** 1:36:11: Commissioner Phillips: I apologize. Finish the slides. 1:36:13: ###. Slide 12 -- Marketing Strategy Chair Scharff: And then we do public comment. And then we'll come back with one round where everyone can just summarize what they think about the whole thing. And then we'll vote on the motion. OK? 1:36:24: Dave Yuan: This is a high-level slide about marketing. This is just kind of examples of what types of different marketing. We'd love to hear what UAC would like torecommend. Maybe part of the subcommittee we could meet with and then give us some ideas, and so forth. So, just a quick slide. We are formulating a plan, whichis not -- we would encourage or appreciate any kind of input you guys have for us here. 1:36:45: Kiely Nose: That's not necessary -- necessarily tonight, as I mentioned. 1:36:48: Dave Yuan: Yes. 1:36:48: Kiely Nose: This is us foreshadowing where we are going. Again, tonight is specifically about about the rates, so we can move through our necessary approvalprocesses at that maximum, and then, you know, be ready to move through some of the stuff that doesn't require that regulatory -- 1:37:06: ###. Slide 13 -- Measures of Success Dave Yuan: And then, here are the kind of the key metrics that we're looking for, for -- So, we do have different metrics for the pilot, versus phase 1. For the pilot,again, it's technical feasibility, reliability, speed, uptime. Of the internet. Demonstration of operational success. Making sure we're able to deliver the service as we promise. And then, also, the take rate is 20 percent, because I don't think we're planning on spending as much on marketing in the pilot. 'Cause it's very expensive. We did hear that to get someone to do full-blown marketing, they want a minimum of a one-year commitment, and it costs X-many thousand dollars. So, I think for thepilot, we're going to try to use City -- community or City employees, or events, or whatnot, to spread the word. And we'll do some direct marketing to those customers. And for phase 1, it is about reducing the construction cost, managing our cost, operational cost. Finding those strategic partners to help with installation. Customersupport, or even the call center, or whatnot. But we'll find out more as we build out more, I guess. And at least the goal would be to get at least a 33 percent takerate. And that's where the models show we'll at least break even by the 3rd or 4th year. So I think that is our goal. I think when we did the study back then, they were projecting a 35-40 percent. But I think the minimum that we would need is at least 30-35 [percent] to break even. ### The staff report for the 09-19-22 joint meeting of Council and UAC said (page 11), https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2022/09-14-2022-id-13956.pdf"Based on the City’s available customer base and fiber business model, for the City of Palo Alto to break even, a 27% - 30% take rate is necessary." And then, finally, that you all mentioned, being -- proving that we're financially stable in this business. 1:38:34: ###. Slide 14 -- Upcoming Key Milestones Dave Yuan: And then, some upcoming key milestones. Ordering the materials. We already -- We're going to be issuing a PO soon. ### Commissioner Gupta has been asking to see the RFPs and POs as they're generated. ### Is this the final PO required to build the pilot? What things does it say will be purchased? The hut has already been built. Just waiting for the pad mount to get built now. We are working on Equinix, in building out all the data -- the servers and whatnot. So, that's in progress. And we just signed a contract with this OSS/BSS system, which is both operational and business system. So, it will be the customer portal for thecustomers to sign up. And also be for our internal control, to monitor the equipment, and so forth. It helps also with the building. And then, other things are justcompliance and agreements to get in place. And that is it. 1:39:19: ###. Slide 15 -- Q&A Chair Scharff: Thank you. All right. Does anyone want like one round of where you can say something? Or not? 1:39:25: **: [lunamplified] Public comment. 1:39:25: Chair Scharff: Public comment. Yes. Public comment. Sorry. 1:39:29: **: If any member of the public would like to speak on Item #3, please raise your hand or press *9 now. We do have two public comments in person. Hamilton. 1:39:45: Hamilton Hitchings: OK. I'm going to start. This was about pricing, so I'm going to start with pricing. As a data point, I pay $100 a month for AT&T Fiber afterreceiving a $5 discount for autopay. As an existing customer, I don't get many of the discounts offered to new customers. This is for 1-gig speed, and my service isvery reliable. More so than Comcast's was. Thus, I'm happy with AT&T Fiber. The fiber maximum prices -- The City's fiber maximum prices are similar to AT&T and look reasonable, although with discounts, AT&T comes out cheaper. However, the results of the trial are ONLY valid if you're charging competitive rates and not justgiving it away or offering unrealistically low prices that cannot cover your costs and pay back your up-front investment. The add-ons for parental filters and securityadd-on services at up to $10 each per month seems pricey. AT&T Fiber is including Active Armor internet security for free. So, you might want to consider buildingthose two services in, or pricing them competitively. It should also be noted that AT&T offers a 20 percent discount for AT&T customers who sign up -- for AT&TWIRELESS customers who sign up for AT&T Fiber. Brightmark, ### Brightscape. in the packet, found AT&T Fiber penetration was 89 percent of households in the trial area. ### Eyeballing FCC's broadband map,https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/location-summary/fixed?version=jun2024&location_id=f67bd569-010a-43ac-9557-ed23f9fbf4e1&addr1=731+COLORADO+AVE&addr2=PALO+ALTO%2C+CA+94303&zoom=15.00&vlon=-122.129990&vlat=37.435559&br=r&speed=1000_100&tech=3I think it shows that the coverage is much less than 89 percent. Which means any of those 89 could have already signed up for fiber at cheaper rates than will be offered by the City if they really wanted it. ### This assumes that each residence in the pilot area currently passed by AT&T was eligible for a special introductory price, e.g., by being an AT&T wirelesscustomer. When evaluating financial viability of a municipal fiber, one thing that will be very important is to measure the total AT&T Fiber coverage for Palo Alto. According tobestneighborhoods.com, ### I assume he meant BestNeighbors.org.https://bestneighborhood.org/fiber-tv-and-internet-palo-alto-ca/ AT&T Fiber currently covers 71 percent of households in the City. ### I don't know that that's wrong. But BestNeighborhood also says that Earthlink offers fiber service to 71.08 percent of Palo Alto, and I do think that's wrong. ### Incidentally, BestNeighborhood also says that Xfinity's HFC coverage in Palo Alto is only 95.47 percent. The City needs 27 percent adoption rate with full paying customers to break even. That would mean that almost every household that is not covered by AT&T Fiberwould need to sign up with the City, or a lot of customers in areas where AT&T is already offering the service. Not a business model private industry would bet on,unless you have a very successful pilot results. Most importantly, given the majority of municipal residential fiber services that lose money, ### This is NOT a given. Various documents written by shills for the incumbent ISPs over the years have claimed things like this. But it's not true. The vast majority of municipal FTTP networks are financially successful. See this article, "Correcting Community Fiber Fallacies".https://communitynetworks.org/content/correcting-community-fiber-fallacies ### Here's a map of municipal networks (currently 795)https://communitynetworks.org/content/community-network-map(Unfortunately, you can't view just the FTTP networks.) this adds significant risk to an already-strained City finances. My biggest area of concern continues to be the risk of borrowing $90 million up-front -- which costs aboutdouble to pay that back -- for a citywide roll-out, and then not being able to pay it off. In that case, General Funds would be needed to -- be used. So City services like fire fighters and library hours could be cut. Thus, once the fiber trial is completed, if the City believes there's a viable case for a citywide roll-out, it's critical the Citydoes a detailed financial analysis, and also puts in place a risk mitigation plan. Thank you. 1:42:40: Chair Scharff: Thank you. 1:42:45: **: Herb B. 1:42:50: Herb Borock: Chair Scharff, Mayor Lauing, and commissioners. I don't believe that we have before you is something that you should take a vote on for arecommendation. You have, in the presentation, a summary page for the cash flow. Normally, for you to make a judgment, you should have monthly spreadsheets onthe cash flow, showing the assumptions used in that. And that would also provide a way of judging in the future how we're doing. I also don't think it's a good idea to suddenly make the Dark Fiber Fund the Dark Fiber and Lit Fiber Fund. ### The Fiber Fund has been around for at least two decades. It's not called the Dark Fiber Fund. Revenues have come from the dark fiber business, but the fund has been used to pay for FTTP studies as well as dark fiber operations and maintenance. That is, the FTTP project is really -- should be a customer of the dark fiber. And like any customer, would light the fiber that has been paid for by the Dark Fiber Fund. ### I don't see the point. Most of the fiber infrastructure required for FTTP must be built specifically for FTTP (because it has to provide access points every couple ofhomes). In the case of the Electric Fund, it would be paying for its own fiber, so it's not going to be an individual payment. ### I don't understand what this point is. And looking at spreadsheets, you can see whether -- as was claimed -- there would be great savings by combining the electric and fiber production. I recall for the entire City what was, about a year and a half ago, it said an $11 million savings. ### I think this refers to the 12-19-22 staff report that said that $11 million could be saved if the new dark fiber network and the FTTP network were constructed at the same time. Council in effect rejected the majority of this savings by opting to go ahead with citywide deployment of the new dark fiber network while limiting FTTPdeployment to just a phase 1. And compared to the FTTP project without that, it seemed there was a $1 million savings for FTTP, which seemed to say the $10 million savings was for the ElectricFund. ### I don't understand. There are a number of issues with having the City be the ISP rather than somebody else. You know, if we're looking for private party, look for someone who has adedication to customer privacy. That includes prohibiting data mining for the purposes of targeting advertising and tracking customer behaving. Utilities isn't involvedin competitive markets. But this is a competitive market. So, it's something new. Also, an ISP, you know, would be connecting customer premises equipment, andproviding that equipment, and providing the actual service. All of those are incident to property ownership. So, I believe that, by having the City be the ISP, that ifthere are any changes to prices that would go in the upward direction, you're going to be having to get the approval of the customers to those price changes. ### Proposition 218 uses the term "incident to property ownership."https://lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html ### This CPAU "Proposition 218 notice" (05-16-25)https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Utilities/Customer-Service/Utilities-Rateshttps://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/rates-schedules-for-utilities/prop-218-notice-fy26-final.pdfsays customers can protest water and wastewater rates, but not electric, gas, or fiber rates. And, in terms of what else we're doing, you know, you look -- have they been involved in anything involved with the internet? And yes, we have. We have City webpages. And if you ask the potential customers what they think of the City's website, and whether they would want that same provider to be doing the ISP, I'd beinteresting to see what the answer would be. ### I think the City's website is deficient in a number of ways. In particular, I think the new website functionality introduced on 04-09-21 has been a disaster. ### But I see no reason to assume that the staff running the City's FTTP network would be "the same" as the staff running the City's website. Thank you. 1:46:00: Chair Scharff: Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? 1:46:08: **: No additional hands raised. 1:46:09: Chair Scharff: All right. Why don't we come back to what you would make the motion? 1:46:19: Commissioner Croft: Can I make one comment first? 1:46:20: Chair Scharff: Sure. 1:46:21: Commissioner Croft: OK. So, I do think multiple people have hit on the fact that it's a competitive market. And it would be nice if we were a corporate, you know, entity that could move quickly without regulation, etc. And I remember seeing signs in Atherton, which -- Atherton Fiber is being rolled out, but it's being rolled out by aprivate company. And I just wonder, is there any other kind of collaborative approach we could have taken, to avoid having -- to have Palo Alto Fiber rolled out? Maybe it's not by us. But it's in collaboration with us. That would not require the same level of approvals and timeframe? ### At Council's 12-19-22 meeting (where it approved moving ahead with a phased approach to municipal FTTP), Council Member Filseth asked consultant JohnHonker about Atherton Fiber. (See my comments in this TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS at 2:30:48.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/6/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/10-12-2022/public-letters-to-uac.pdf ### This article,05-18-22: "Atherton Fiber Debuts: A Different Kind of Internet Service Provider,"https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/05/18/2446234/0/en/Atherton-Fiber-Debuts-A-Different-Kind-of-Internet-Service-Provider.htmlsays Atherton Fiber plans to deploy to Palo Alto in the future, but it hasn't happened yet. ### Atherton Fiber offers 1/1 Gbps for $75/month (everyday price). (Introductory offer: $56.25/month for 12 months.)https://www.athertonfiber.com/ ### Atherton Fiber has an active Ethernet infrastructure. The current hardware can offer speeds of 10/10 Gbps. ### Atherton Fiber used to say they offered open access to different retail ISPs, but their website doesn't say that's an option now. ### Atherton Fiber used to say that their financing model required that at least 20 percent of customers purchase a kind of dark fiber connection ($7500 in aerialneighborhoods, $9500 in underground underground neighborhoods), but their website doesn't say that's a necessity or even an option now.https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2266/ITEM-20-2-Atherton-Fiber-to-the-Home---Council-20150715-v2?bidId= 1:47:07: Dave Yuan: So, yes, we have gone back to Council multiple times, looking for partnerships. Even issuing RFPs, to find a partner. But the numbers just didn't workout. They expect the City to pay for all the infrastructure, and then they they would share the revenues with us, that they were to provide the service. And we broughtthis to Council. That was one of their options. To find a partner. But they wanted a local control. And they thought we could do a better job, and not rely on apartner. I guess. Because then we'd kind of be dependent on their service and their quality. 1:47:38: Kiely Nose: Well, and also, Dave -- Thank you for that. That's where the conversation has been. In order to move through some of what I think you're talking about,which are the regulations, like, fee schedules are approved by our Council. And are we able to move through that in a different way if we were to approach this witheither a partner or in a different manner. And ultimately, you know, the Municipal Code is something that, obviously, the Council does have control over. So, should we choose to -- ah -- dare I say TRUST staff, and essentially write code that would delegate authorities -- um -- you know, we would need to out legal counsel on whatwe would be able to do or not be able to do. But those are really the guidelines that we're kind of talking about. So, even with a partner, unless we changed how kindof fees and rates are to be approved, based on our muni code, you know, even with a partner, it would still be coming with a kind of schedule with maximums. 1:48:40: Commissioner Croft: OK. Thanks. I guess, just coming back to the topic at hand, the -- I think all three of us -- and please speak up, members of the subcommittee, ifyou differ -- but we had agreed prior that we were OK with the prices that were proposed by the staff. To move forward. To recommend them to Council. 1:49:01: Commissioner Phillips: Second. 1:49:01: Chair Scharff: That was part of your motion wasn't it? 1:49:04: Commissioner Croft: Well, the -- two out of three of us -- that one? OK. So, the two-out-of-three-of-us motion was -- um -- to get a look-see. We would like to somedata from the pilot, to understand how it is going, prior to moving forward into phase 1. Was what two out of three of us preferred to do, if that was possible. 1:49:37: Chair Scharff: So, those were the two outcomes. Right? So, why don't we take the first part of that as a motion. And then we can come back to the second part. Right? So, why don't you make the motion. 1:49 45: Commissioner Croft: OK. So, I move to approve the rates that have been presented for recommendation to City Council. 1:49:55: Commissioner Gupta: I second. 1:49:56: Commissioner Phillips: As a clarification, you mean the maximum rates. 1:50:00: Commissioner Croft. Yes. The maximum rates. Which were on the slide. Yes. 1:50:02: Commissioner Phillips: OK. 1:50:02: Chair Scharff: And I heard a second from Commissioner Gupta. Is that correct? 1:50:06: Commissioner Gupta: That's correct. Thank you. 1:50:09: Chair Scharff: Any discussion on that? Nope. You want to -- .1:50:05: Commissioner Tucher: I won't be able to vote for that, because I don't agree -- I'm not even sure we under- -- I'm not even sure we understand clearly, on this dais,what and where is pilot -- ### Would Commissioner Tucher be satisfied with a street-by-street description of the perimeters of both the pilot and phase 1? Would staff be willing to providethem? timeframe of pilot -- versus what and where is phase 1, if we're making this a two-step. That's one issue. Another issue is pricing. If I understand the pricing -- high,medium, low -- I commented earlier on the lack of clarity there. So, I'm not even sure what numbers it is that we're voting for. But $95, in my opinion, is DOA,strategically. And so, for what it's worth, I won't vote for it. 1:50:53 Commissioner Croft: Can -- I think we had a more detailed discussion in the subcommittee. Staff has presented "up-to" numbers, which are maximums, in order to give themselves leeway to test prices that are "up to" that level. It's not a level to be anchored on at all. So -- 1:51:17: Commissioner Tucher: Then I wouldn't consider it very useful advice to be giving Council. Just to say, here's some really high numbers, and staff's going to be smartand probably won't go anywhere near there. That's not much of a guiding light. And I refer -- I'll repeat again the point. I don't sense any clarity on the strategy, the purpose, and intent of pricing. What are we pricing for? To get a lot of customers? To get a high margin and profit? To serve the underserved? You know. If wedon't even know that, I'm not able to say yes to a price recommendation. But I'm just one vote. 1:51:55: Chair Scharff: Do you want to call the role? 1:51:59: **: Commissioner Gupta. 1:51:59: Commissioner Gupta: Yes. 1:52:01: **: Commissioner Metz. 1:52:02: Commissioner Metz: Yes. 1:52:03: **: Commissioner Croft. 1:52:03: Commissioner Croft: Yes. 1:52:05: **: Chair Scharff. 1:52:06: Chair Scharff: Yes. 1:52:06: **: Vice Chair Mauter. 1:52:07: Vice Chair Mauter: Yes. 1:52:09: **: Commissioner Tucher. 1:52:09: Commissioner Tucher: No. 1:52:11: **: Commissioner Phillips. 1:52:11: Commissioner Phillips: Yes. 1:52:13: **: The motion carries 6-1. 1:52:16: Chair Scharff: Now, as I understood it, the second part of this is that at the conclusion of the pilot? Was that it? 1:52:24: Commissioner Croft: The thought was -- yes -- at the conclusion of the pilot, to get a look at the data. I don't even -- I don't really know if there is a point at which wemove from the pilot into the phase 1. It would be helpful to understand how that is planned. But it was my impression, from the way that it's been bifurcated in cost,that there actually is a point at which the pilot is done and phase 1 begins. In which case, let's see the data. So could you please clarify what is -- if there is a dividingline between those two phases. ### TWO phases? If the pilot is a phase, what phase is it? Phase 0? 1:52:59: Dave Yuan: There is right now. 'Cause when we have an issue, during construction or design for phase -- well, it has been designed for the electric side, but not anyconstruction yet. So, phase 1 for Grid Mod probably won't begin -- I'm guessing -- Mohammad -- 'til Q3 of next year. Of this year. Sorry. ### This must mean the end of the third quarter of this calendar year (09-30-25), not the end of the third quarter of this fiscal year (03-31-25) Ah -- But we could definitely bring back the pilot results before we expand fiber-to-the-premise in phase 1. We'll probably ask for either 3 months or 6 months aftercompletion of the pilot, so we can get a better sense of data. Before we come back. 1:53:34: Chair Scharff: So, you're going to wait 3 or 6 months before you do the rest of the -- 1:53:37: Dave Yuan: No. To bring the data back to you guys for the pilot, for -- 1:53:40: Chair Scharff: Right. But if the point is to stop you from -- to make a recommendation to Council to stop the process, because it didn't work, or we thought it didn't work, or we thought you needed to look -- do something different than what you were doing, is there an opportunity to do that? Or are you just -- I mean, if you'verolled into doing the rest of the construction, and you've brought us the data, I'm not sure that gives us the opportunity to say to Council, hey, we think this isn't working,or we think that the ** phase should do something different. 1:54:12: Dave Yuan: Now, even for the pilot, we don't roll the whole fiber stuff out until pilot area is done, for the power. At least a good portion of it. So, we wouldn't roll fiberright when power starts phase 1. We would probably wait until it's done -- like 25 percent done -- before we start, even. 'Cause it doesn't make sense to start lashingfiber on just a few blocks. For economies of scale, we would have to go for bigger areas. So, there -- 1:54:38: Kiely Nose: So, Dave, I think actually what they're asking is really more of a timing phasing thing. So, let's -- Once the pilot is built out, and we, you know, go full boreon the marketing. ### Earlier, Yuan said that for the pilot, marketing wouldn't be full bore. And then we wait 3 to 6 months, to -- in the pilot area -- to then bring the data back to the commission. What's going to happen during that 3 to 6 months that you'vefinished building the pilot and you, in theory, would be moving on to building out the additional capacity in phase 1? So, you've now -- you've built 1,000 customers --or -- um -- passings. And you're kind of collecting that data. Does construction of the additional 5,000 -- um -- passings PAUSE for that 6 months? Is that staff'sintent? Or would construction continue during that 6 months? 1:55:31: Dave Yuan: We could stage it however we choose. So, we could pause it -- 1:55:34: Kiely Nose: What's the current plan? 1:55:36: Dave Yuan: The current plan -- I won't -- 1:55:38: Kiely Nose: Mohammad. 1:55:39: Mohammad Fattah: Good evening, commissioners. So, the gating item is the hut. ### I don't understand. Is Fattah saying that installing the hut will take the longer than deploying the rest of the pilot's infrastructure? Is he saying that installing the hut must take place before deploying the rest of the pilot's infrastructure? 1:55:45: Kiely Nose: Correct. But that's for the pilot. But once the pilot is done, -- 1:55:49: Mohammad Fattah: Once the pilot is done, we have Q4 to evaluate whether we proceed for -- and move forward to phase 1. 1:55:58: Kiely Nose: Got it. So, you would take 3 months, basically, once you built out, to evaluate. So, to your point, commissioner, if we gave you 3 months worth of data,probably still relevant, but just barely. If we gave you 6 months of data, we'd probably be a quarter into it. I would like to appreciate that staff thinks they can getsomething done that fast. Usually, I have found that it takes a little bit longer. One of the things the commission could consider is, when you make thisrecommendation, ultimately this is going to go to the Finance Committee and the full Council. What you might recommend is that you -- the commission recommendphasing of construction with a full pause on further build-out of phase 1, if that is ultimately the intention, until -- whatever your recommendation is, in terms of time,data, and the pilot. ### WHAT data might potentially justify a full pause on further build-out of phase 1? Construction cost data? Data about whether the installed system works? I don'tthink waiting for take rate data makes any sense. It normally takes a few YEARS for FTTP networks to achieve the take rates of which they are capable. 1:56:48: Chair Scharff: I guess I heard him say something different. Maybe I'm -- just to clarify, I heard that this ** that at the end of the pilot, when you get to **, you weregoing to decide whether or not to do the next phase, but you're going to give yourself 3 -- you're going to give yourself a quarter -- four -- 1:57:03: Kiely Nose: Three months. To figure out what the next phase is going to be. 1:57:06: Chair Scharff: Then, before you do that, that's when you would come to us. I don't care when. But you do that. And then you go to the Finance Committee, I assume. And you go to Council. Right? Or not? I mean, is that not the plan? Or -- That's my confusion. 1:57:19: Kiely Nose: Yeah. Mohammad, when you say you would take 3 months -- Q4 -- to evaluate phase 1, ### Fattah was talking about evaluating the pilot, not phase 1. are you talking about -- it's an evaluation of a go/no-go? Or are you talking about evaluation of how that's strategically implemented? 1:57:30: Mohammad Fattah: I'm not sure it will give us enough time to market and sell and penetrate -- 1:57:34: Kiely Nose: Agreed. 1:57:34: Mohammad Fattah: Right? So, we're targeting the end of the year, which is Q4. 1:57:41: Kiely Nose: Correct. 1:57:42: Mohammad Fattah: Right? To be done with this. The marketing effort will start in parallel, as we start to do the -- build-out to the fiber infrastructure. 1:57:51: Dave Yuan: [unamplified] When ** Grid Mod -- 1:57:55: Kiely Nose: Yeah. Commissioner -- 1:57:57: Mohammad Fattah: Grid Mod -- the pilot -- I'm happy to share with you has been completed. So, now we're moving into phase 1. 1:58:07: Kiely Nose: So, yeah. Let's not -- Let's pull this back into -- to this. So -- And I think, Commissioner Gupta, you were -- 1:58:13: Commissioner Gupta: Yeah. I have a point of order on this. 1:58:18: Kiely Nose: Sure. 1:58:58: Commissioner Gupta: This question didn't actually come before the Budget Subcommittee. And we did NOT discuss it at the actual Budget Subcommittee meeting. Iunderstand there might have been emails that trended towards that part of the discussion. But it wasn't an output from our Budget Subcommittee meeting. Nor is this question properly agendized at this UAC meeting. Now, if someone wants to bring it forward on the agenda for a proper discussion, where staff has time to kind of puttogether what the timing of this could look like, and what the proposal would look like, I -- that could happen. But I don't think we're well situated -- or compliant withthe Brown Act -- to actually discuss this -- and decide this -- here. Because what was narrowly on the agenda were the rate proposals. And that's what was discussed at the Budget Subcommittee. And that's what was agendized here. We didn't discuss anything else. 1:59:18: Commissioner Croft: We did discuss marketing strategy, how we're going to make this successful. I think that has been a subject in multiple Subcommittee meetings. But on this agenda, if it's simply rates, and we can't touch other things -- 1:59:32: Chair Scharff: [unamplified] I think it IS agendized, because of the way staff -- 1:59:33: Commissioner Croft: OK. 1:59:33: Chair Scharff: Staff presented a whole list on marketing, rates, other things. They talked about the whole strategy. That's what their slides were. And so, therefore -- It says "packages." And I take that to mean the package that was presented to us. ### I took "packages" to mean product offerings (although there was no discussion about how the product offerings would bundled into packages). So, we can discuss anything within the package. Which was marketing rates, timing, how you roll this out. I think the whole item was agendized. Um. So, I actuallydisagree on that. And since I'm Chair, I get to make the ruling. Um. Sort of the way it works. ### I think Commissioner Gupta has a good point. The item's description on the agenda was, "Utilities Advisory Commission Finance Subcommittee Recommendsthe Commission Recommend City Council Approve the FY 2026 Fiber Rates and Packages." It doesn't say anything about how the schedule for building out phase 1might potentially be gated by the results of the pilot. ### This 2003 document about the Brown Act (114 pages)https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown-act.pdfprovides more information.PDF page 30: "... the body must post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item to be discussed ...."PDF page 31: "...the brief general description generally need not exceed 20 words in length." PDF page 31: In one example, the agenda brief general description was "Continuation school site change," but should also have mentioned "the discontinuance ofelementary education at Canyon View and the transfer of those students to Ponderosa School." Of course, I'm losing my voice. But, you know, I think we basically haven't come to a discussion of where we are on that yet, Commissioner Gupta. I think we werejust trying to understand from staff what their plan is, to be honest. I'm turning it back to you, Rachel. 2:00:29: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. I mean, I guess I feel reluctant to make the motion without knowing what the plan is. And so, what would be helpful to know is, what is the timeline? For the pilot? Meaning, when do we build it? When do we market it? How much time do we give it to try all these different marketing techniques? AndTHEN, can we look at the data? And if our plan does not accommodate that kind of staging, because we need to continue building on a rolling basis -- Maybe therequest doesn't make any sense at all. But it -- I don't understand how those phases lay out. ### Again, there's only one thing that is called a phase, and that's phase 1. It would be helpful, if you guys know that, to just kind of talk through -- When do you start building the pilot area? When can you start marketing? How long do wewant to give ourselves to try and convert people before we have a sense for how the pilot's going? And in your current plans, are you already planning to be buildingphase 1 in areas during that time? 2:01:35: Kiely Nose: I don't think staff is prepared to answer that tonight. I think we are -- As I mentioned at the beginning, we brought these rates forward now because we'retrying to be proactive, so that, to the extent we're allowed and able to do early customers and early adoptions, we have the flexibility to. Without them, we are not ableto add anybody. So, we are not yet there. And I think that IS a next phase -- or step -- ### "Step" is the better term. "Phase" already means something else. that we need to be bringing out, in terms of a broader milestone outreach, frankly. As well as the components of it. So, before anybody tries to answer that, I'm justgoing to -- be clear -- be honest. We're not prepared to have that discussion tonight. And, I think, if that is an item for -- We could come back to have that discussion. We're ready. We're planning to have a kind of fiber update at some point with the UAC between now and December. ### A "FTTP Update" was promised on the 12-Month Rolling Calendar for May 2025https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2025/05-may/05-07-25-rolling-calendar.pdfBut it was not agendized. It was previously promised for April 2025https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/8/utilities/utilities-advisory-commission/02-05-25-draft-rolling-calendar.pdfand January 2025.https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2024/12-dec-2024/12-04-2024-rolling-calendar.pdf And so, we can take this under advisement, to include these pieces. Like I said, we don't even have a go-live date. We're still dealing with permitting, building the hut, ### The hut itself is already built. The concrete slab on which it will sit has not been poured yet. Modification of the fence at the Colorado Substation to allow accessto the hut has not started. ### Why has getting the permit(s) for installing the hut taken a year? and the like. And so, these rates are ultimately, you know, you all go on summer break. Council goes on summer break. And ultimately, it's a three-month process forus to move through this. And so, we really are trying to be proactive, knowing that the pilot and take rates are so important. 2:03:00: Chair Scharff: So, unless anyone any other concerns, I think we could just end the item here. Is everyone good with that? 2:03:05: Commissioner Croft: Yeah. That's fine. 2:03:06: Chair Scharff: All right. Let's move on to the next item. 2:03:08: [unamplified discussion] 2:03:16: Kiely Nose: Yes. They voted to recommend approval of the rates. The "up-to" -- Correct. 6-1, with Commissioner Tucher voting no. 2:03:30: END From:Elizabeth Lee To:Council, City Subject:Cell towers Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 2:00:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, please keep cell towers at least 100 feet from all homes. Thanks! Elizabeth Lee, LMFT650 346-4071 liz@funghi.comAuthor of The House at 844 1/2 http://goo.gl/BauAk From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Agenda items 3 and 4 Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 1:02:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing and council members, Applicants at 788 and 800 San Antonio are considering new applications on these sites to replace the council approved applications that were in the city's housing pipeline. Each project would now include more housing units and have other differences from the approved projects but are on the same sites in the same location adjacent to the GM/ROLM sites that have been identified for housing. The applicants cite increases in the cost of construction in seeking additional units. Council is aware of the impact of recent increases in labor and construction materials costs as they have increased construction costs for many projects that the city is pursuing. These increases may continue as a result of new tariff and immigration/deportation policies. None of this is the fault of council or staff but the increases are an economic reality. Since each site has a previously approved project, I hope council can give advice toapplicants that move these concepts forward consistent with economic feasibility. I am concerned that the review process will start anew and could take a long time and further increase costs. As these sites have already been reviewed, I am hopeful that council and staff can find ways to shorten the review process should the owners submit new applicaions. I would hate to lose these sites from our housing pipeline. Stephen Levy Director Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Missy Fuss To:Guillermo Roa Cc:Brian Maloney; oig.hotline@usdoj.gov; OIGCounsel@oig.treas.gov; Julie.Winston@morganstanley.com; dchrencik@hotmail.com; tomoko.nagashima@us.pwc.com; knishimura@deloittemx.com;rgajdzik@deloittemx.com; surenkk@gmail.com; migmillan@deloittemx.com; marellano@deloittemx.com; rtraconis@deloittemx.com; jorgflores@deloittemx.com; Izagal@deloittemx.com;fmaciasjasso@deloittemx.com; jcortina@deloittemx.com; jmatorres@deloittemx.com; jegonzalezarellano@deloittemx.com; jgonzalezsaravia@deloittemx.com; sangutierrez@deloittemx.com; corta@deloittemx.com;miggarcia@deloittemx.com; rimorales@deloittemx.com; abaez@deloittemx.com; pberthely@deloittemx.com; mestrada@deloittemx.com; oaguirre@deloittemx.com; argarciachavez@deloittemx.com;aanaya@deloitte.com; aanaya@deloittemx.com; gmorenovega@deloittemx.com; joramirez@deloittemx.com; jotapia@deloittemx.com; gondelatorre@deloittemx.com; robmorales@deloittemx.com;jrcarcano@deloittemx.com; fcabanas@deloittemx.com; fcuahuencos@deloittemx.com; acaamano@deloittemx.com; ancorrea@deloittemx.com; tescalante@deloittemx.com; lpereda@deloittemx.com;rosfuentes@deloittemx.com; jpalomino@deloittemx.com; lvalle@deloittemx.com; victormedinagallo@deloittemx.com; jgarcia@deloittemx.com; gonzalezrodriguez@deloittemx.com; jgarciavillalobos@deloittemx.com;nmerino@deloittemx.com; adcampos@deloittemx.com; mariatorres@deloittemx.com; jocrivera@deloittemx.com; cachavez@deloittemx.com; isdelgado@deloittemx.com; vdiaz@deloittemx.com;ensoriano@deloittemx.com; cesagalvez@deloittemx.com; realonso@deloittemx.com; epozos@deloittemx.com; adelcallejo@deloittemx.com; dhernandezfrontan@deloittemx.com;egutierrezlegorreta@deloittemx.com; acolchado@deloittemx.com; eshernandez@deloittemx.com; algonzalez@deloittemx.com; dgarcialozano@deloittemx.com; globalchair@deloitte.co.uk; mahmed@deloitte.com;drheder@deloitte.com; eticayconducta@deloittemx.com; anticorrupcion@deloittemx.com; usdeiservices@deloitte.com; kprabhakar@deloitte.com; jstephane@deloitte.com; hmcbrideleef@deloitte.com;katwood@deloitte.com; lamccracken@deloitte.com; ksullivan@deloitte.com; jechu@deloitte.com; dfeinblum@deloitte.com; Marco.Pulido@yahoo.com; HSIN@hq.dhs.gov; senator.barbara.pocock@aph.gov.au;senator.duniam@aph.gov.au; senator.oneill@aph.gov.au; senator.antic@aph.gov.au; senator.ayres@aph.gov.au; senator.brockman@aph.gov.au; info@tehrantimes.com; timothy.moore@afr.com;Tiffany.Susz@doj.ca.gov; tiffany.norris@bs.ey.com; joost.hendriks@ey.com; sandra.burns@ey.com; ITTF.Web@illinois.gov; info@asp.arkansas.gov; info@caritas.org.hk; info@santamonica.gov;caritasnorthamerica@gmail.com; caritas_de_honduras@caritas.hn; caritas.Iran@gmail.com; caritas.iraq2015@gmail.com; caritasvenezuela@gmail.com; Investor.Relations@americamovil.com;Board.of.Supervisors@sfgov.org; Board@calstrs.com; Ingrid@evanslaw.com; IR@invesco.com; gobernacion@senado.gob.mx; Gobiernodemorelia@morelia.gob.mx; marina@senado.gob.mx; USMCA@cbp.dhs.gov;danielle.wallace@fox.com; info@catholiccharitiesusa.org; tips@zerohedge.com; tips@nypost.com; TIPS@suntimes.com; Richard.winton@latimes.com; Atsuko_Nakamura@hotmail.com; Patty.Dow@cbre.com;anna.marie.lopez@hwcm.com; purrutia@clearlakecapital.com; PRivera@shamrockcap.com; Stephanie.K.Sierra@abc.com; StateFarmfireClaims@statefarm.com; rebelcapitaladvisors@gmail.com; Tom Flannery;patrick.niemann@ey.com; mark.gutierrez@ey.com; Frank.Ruffino@treasurer.ca.gov; Lori.Mattson@treasurer.ca.gov; ThomaBravo-US@fgsglobal.com; Compliance@coca-cola.com; Celia.shibata.iyhc@statefarm.com;Richard.clayton@ctwinvestmentgroup.com; kpcarter@lhclawyers.net; Ethics.Commission@lacity.org; Mayor@fresno.gov; IrvineCityCouncil@cityofirvine.org; Council, City; Jeremy.Wolfson@ladwp.com;Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com; Alene.tchekmedyian@latimes.com; Suren Kahouaty; Sarah Adams; Sarah Adams Subject:Re: DOL- Kansas # 1885513 - Wage & Hour Investigation - Los Cocos Mexican Restaurant, Inc, Case No. 22-1004-JWB Julie Sue, Acting Secretary of Labor v. Los Cocos Mexican Mexican, Inc. Settlement Offer -Second Notice 5/11/2025. Third Notice 5/12/2025. F...Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 12:19:53 PMAttachments:image.pngFwd Oh really!! Poco Inteligentes tramposos. Apple Update iPad 17.3 Size 3.93G - 222 PM Sabado Enero 27, 2024 Ciber criminale.pdfDraft Re Contribucion Politica $100 - Donald Trump Lo que Quedo Segundo despues segundo cyber ataque - Unicamente Agregue F.pdf06KirschbaumContingenCJ013_thumb.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attentionNo employee in your company has ever replied to this person.This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Via electronic mail Email Heather. Encabezado del correo electrónico contiene información, detalles técnicos que permite hacerse una idea sobre la estructuray contenido en estos documentos electrónicos. Es parte importante para entender lo que ocurre, en todos los correos enviados desde Julio 2019. Auditor Publico - Substancia sobre Forma. Forma - Orden basado Reglas -> "Legal Compliance" = operación estructurada.Fraude. Abogados SEC - waiving enforcement of "Custody Rules" - Investment Advisers -Investment companies. Graves Violaciones - SECSecurities & Exchange Acts of 1933 & 1934, Investment Adviser Acts, Investment Company Act of 1940, Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002. CustodyRules Instrumentos/activos financieros (i.e. ETF X). Sistema Financiero EE.UU. Mercados de Capital, Wall Street. Inversionistas globales. Thenon existing financial assets. Chevron Doctrine. Investigations: FRAUD, government waste, mismanagement , money laundering, Tax Evasion, transnational organizedcrime. Bribery corruption -FCPA Act State Farm Insurance Claim 55-B881-7V6 October 23, 2019 - Octubre 2014; OIG-SEC File #SF -00832951 - October 26, 2019;OIG-DOJ File # 228337-VZR;WellFargo Bank File # May 12, 2020;OIG-GAO # 24-0251-C-HL August, 20 2024;DOL- Kansas # 1885513 - Wage & Hour Investigation - Los Cocos Mexican Restaurant, Inc. ❗️ Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 = PCAOB + FCPA Act of 1977Senior Public Auditor-PCAOB [Regulatory NATO]; CA-CPA (BigTech,SiliconValley); NY-CPA (WallStreet) Global Capital. This Emails = Audit work-papers (PCAOB Audit Standards) prepared by a Public Auditor-PCAOB, CPA in connectionwith Audits/Investigations of Corporate America [Militarized Structures, Corporate Governments] for bribery & corruption under thea) books & records & b)internal control provisions of the FCPA Act of 1977. FCPA Audits/Investigations: a) books & records=internal communications (i.e. Emails) <--b) Internal controls over all businessrecords (Emails=electronic communications=E-documents (information). Therefore, internal controls over this Emails (businessrecords) & copies this Emails contained in a) Email accounts of intended recipients; b) Servers:Google/Apple/Yahoo/Governments/BigFour/Telecoms others; and c) Cloud & Data Centers. Electronic communications (information/data)is never deleted [Forensic Audits]. In 2013, Edward Snowden, Intelligence Analyst, Leaked documents pertaining to the NSA'sPrograms/Methods ->Mass Data Collection of electronic communications on a global scale, Surveillance (Five-Eyes] operations by USGovernment & BigTech. [Privacy/IP <- Transfer to ->Data-Centers ->Liability]. WikiLeaks Vault #7-CIA hacking tools:CIAcyber-weapons, Spyware/Backdoors. Implications: Apple, TESLA, Google, Amzaon, Boeing, FinTech, BigTech, Banks,Hospitals, Critical Infrastructure, Governments, WallStreet DO NOT have Security. [Israeli NSO-Pegasus Spy software]. Appleprovided Uber code/ability to access Apple devices, extract information & spy on anyone via Uber's App. The Global Money Laundering & Tax Evasion Infrastructure [BigFour Tax Advisory Services]Global Web of Entities, Tax Heavens & Offshore-Vehicles [VIEs/SPEs] <-ASC-810 Consolidation In 2002, Arthur Andersen, LLP (AA) the largest of the BigFive Accounting Cartels got in trouble. Enron Energy & Trading (ElectricityMarkets -Prices) blew up over massive fraud. Enron's Auditors' shred sensitive documents [Auditor's documents = Audit work-papers]. AA imploded when U.S Regulators indicted AA on obstruction of justice charges overFirm's document destruction. Enron used Offshore-vehicles to hide debt & book fake profits [VIEs/SPEs]Enron's Offshore-vehicles [VIEs/SPEs] = AA's Tax Advisory Services [ASC-810 Consolidation, SEC independence Rules] In 2008, Lehman Brothers blew up over massive fraud.-->Housing & Financial Crisis [Quantitative Easing]Lehman used Offshore-vehicles to hide debts -->Off-balance-sheet debt [Repo-105 Derivatives] Lehman's Offshore-vehicles [VIEs/SPEs]=EY Tax Advisory Services [ASC-810 Consolidation, SEC independence Rules] Insert Cyberattack - Evidence - Email destruction (document destruction - Enron), methods used to destroy and/or sabotage thisEmails (electronic communications - information) is irrelevant. Obstruction of Justice. Google-Gmail, Apple-iPad -->Internal Controls Powered by Mimecast over IT systems, Interfaces & IT Infrastructure ->SOX 404 IT-Controls ("ITGCs"). IT systems (interfaces/software) ->vulnerabilities ->backdoor access ("ITGCs"-->SOX/FCPA violations). GOOGLE/APPLE=Corporate America. GOOGLE/APPLE's Vendors =AGENTS (i.e.private security, contractors, Uber-Whistleblower Richard Jacobs).GOOGLE/APPLE's AGENTSCrimes = GOOGLE/APPLE's LIABILITY. Refer to ICA Enterprises - EY Work - SOX 404 IT-Controls -> SystemImplementations -->IT "Workarounds" to interface with IT Systems -->TAX Authorities in Mexico <- EY Standard ServiceOffering. When caught, blame failed systems implementations, Incompetence, Isolated incidents. February 2016 KPMG Background Investigation:Altegrity ->RAI ->HireRight - Background Investigation ->Security Clearance (USIS)Confidential Información exchanged via Altegrity Private investigators provoked sudden/direct confrontation between Deloitte &KPMG. KPMG was summoned to Washington, DC,faced Criminal Investigations -Espionage (DOJ/SEC/PCAOB).KPMG Consulting & Advisory Services:Senior Manager, Advisory [IT Systems, Internal Controls - PCAOB Standards]. San Francisco, CA. Information "Leaked" Fraudulent background investigation - Political Opponent (High Value Target) Collaboration KPMG ->Altegrity ->Kroll - >WalmartLos Angeles - Mexico - Walmart (Bribery, Cancun, CDMX, Real Estate) Herbalife-Walmart.Kroll, Inc. - Glencore - Murder Kroll, Inc. - KPMG -Walmart - Herbalife Fall 2011 a) Walmart retained KPMG, Kroll, Inc. >FCPA investigations "Mexico" 2012 Walmart. EY Auditors - Walmart Tax Shelters - Tax Evasion. Money LaunderingFelipe Calderon - 2006 Electoral Fraud - War against Cartels Genaro Garcia Luna - Secretary Of Public Security (2006-2012) b) EY transferred me from EY Real Estate, Los Angeles -> EY-FSO NYC -->EY Americas ->Tom Flannery, Boston. c) Deloitte Tax Advisory Practice, in Los Angeles transferred to EY-FSO Tax Los Angeles, CA Senior Tax Partner Mike Serota + Tom Flannery, Senior Audit Partner, EY Americas Co-Leaders Wealth and Asset Management. TomFlannery, strategy, my time was going to Strategic operations EY Americas. 2012 Herbalife - Auditor KPMG "sudden" SEC independence conflicts with HB. WellsFargo Bank - KPMG Auditor. Herbalife Audit Partner -> Senior Audit Partner, Health Care Industry Leader in Los Angeles, CA resigned from KPMG. Financialcrimes. KPMG Tax Shelters. PwC -HB Auditor - PwC. SEC "waived" PwC's independence conflicts with HB. DHHS -->OPM --> DHS - HOMELAND SECURITY -> Altegrity, Inc. -> USIS. Altegrity, Inc. Virginia based Entity -> USIS ->Kroll ->RAI ->HireRight ->WorkForce Solutions -> EQUIFAX,PwC Booz Allen Hamilton ->Altegrity ->Kroll ->OakTreeCapital ->Brookfield Capital, EverCore. Altegrity -RAI William Bratton former LAPD Chief "Retired 2009" to RAI (NYC), Homeland Security Council HSAC 2010. Herbalife Global Security Office - Solomon Bernudiz (Corrupt)Network of entities - Ministry of Security - Violence - Brutality Genaro Garcia LunaOIG-SEC File #SF -00832951/FCPA Investigations October 26, 2019 Collaboration among Cartel de Sinaloa, Corporate America, GovernmentCollaboration among BigFour Cartels Herbalife - growth since 2006. AeroMexico Flights Mexico- Japan - logistics and transport - Airlines, Airports (LAX)Collaboration Garcia Luna , William Bratton former LAPD ChiefGLAC Consulting - RAI - Kroll Inc. interconnected global entitiesPolitical oponentes - Ayotzinapa. Kroll, Inc. Glencore U.S. Financial Markets (WallStreet). Shares of Berkshire-Hathaway dropped from $626K to $185 dollars.The NYSE IT Controls ["circuit breakers" automatic halt trading] Failed [SOX violations]. Several incidents.Failures attributed to technical Glitch (SolarWinds, Microsoft) " during software "updates". volatility wild swings in stock pricesMSFT -CrowdStrike - The "technical glitch" that crash the world. Supply Chain cyber-attacks. Via electronic mail Guillermo(Deloitte-Mexico) Take another look at the information in the subject line of this Email chain (Audit trails). US Tax Legislation - Trump’s Tax Cuts Corporate America - Tax PolicyDraft Bill released - May 9, 2025. The Tax Cuts in the Bill are projected to cost $4.9 Trillion. Translation: Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill, its a $4.9 Trillion Gift to rich peopleOligarchs. A transfer of Wealth ($4.9 Trillion) from Average-joe to Rich People by US Congress (The UniParty) via the US Treasury (Taxes - Debt) under the guise ofenacting - Legislation, Tax cuts, xyz none sense. Trump’s Bill - the mechanism to engage in Fraud, ransacked nearly $5 Trillion through US Treasury. The Magnitude of the Theft. Premeditated, intentional crimes, organize crime. Crime - High Treason. Germany’s Tax Poilcy under Hitler’s Natzi Regime - CrimeGenocide. (Public Information….Wikipedia). Risk Manage Accordingly. Last I heard US Budget numbersUS Budget - $6 Trillion Tax Revenues - $4 Trillion US Budget Deficit - $2 Trillion US Economy Recession -Depression. Budgeted Tax Revenues & Expenditures are as credible as Trump & the US Banana Republic credibility. Zero global credibility. Exactly how Trump’s UniParty are going justify $5 Trillion in Tax Cuts?? Whose National Security (Assets, Revenues, bottom line) is at Risk??? Tax Hikes - Illegal Taxation. Property Tax FRAUD.Real Estate - Housing Market Remesas‼Trump’s Bill imposes a Tax of 5% remesas. Remesas = International Bank transfers (SWIFT). Taxing (tariffs) Remesas = US Financial sanctions. Economic warfare on foreign nations. Significant consequences, Economic contractions. InternationalTrade Agreements, Tax Treaties (i.e TTP->NAFTA 2.0 ->T-MEC). Countries targeted Mexico, Guatemala Brazil, India, China (BRICS) Taxing Remesas = Trump’s Tariffs US Trade War against the entire World. This Tactics amount to a Violation of the US-China Trade War (Tariffs) Cease Fire Agreement - Geneva-WTO last weekend. World Trade Organization Tariffs: more bindings and closer to zerohttps://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm2_e.htm Non-tariff barriers: red tape, etchttps://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm9_e.htm Labor - Immigration - RemesasTaxing Remesas = Tax on Labor (immigrants) ->income taxes. International Trade Agreements, Tax Treaties - Labor Tax Legislation. Illegal Taxation. Labor Markets Labor Reforms (Immigration) Temporary Labor (Temp Employees)“Consultants”; Contractors, Subcontractors Public Sector Labor ForceTemp Labor (Consultants, Contractors, Subcontractors): PwC-Australia Consequences: Economic/Political - Risk Models - Markets Keneth C. Griffin vs IRS (TITGA)Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS December 14, 2022 Charles Littlejohn, a contractor employed by Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) and staffed on contracts with the IRS leaked tax return information on hundreds ofsuccessful business leaders to Propublica. IRS Employees (BAH contractors) deliberately stole confidencial data on tax payers & unlawfully disclosed sensitive information financial/political gains. Billionaire Ken Griffin (Citadel Hedge Fund owner) sued the IRS & Treasury Department for violating its legal obligations to safeguard and protect his informationfrom unauthorized disclosure, and for Willfully and intentionally failing to “establish appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards” (system ofinternal controls) to prevent unlawful disclosure of highly sensitive information.Griffin’s tax information along with other billionaires such as Elon Musk and Carl Icahn was disclosed as part of a 2021 Leak Obama-Biden 2.0 Administration IRS Tax Leaks = Panama Papers(Tax Leaks by “anonymous” sources) PwC Cypress Tax LeaksPwC Luxembourg Tax Leaks PwC Australia Email Leaks. Unauthorized disclosures of Government Secrets Confidential information;Australian Tax Legislation Multinationals; OECD Tax Legislation by PwC Consultants - Tax Advisors for Economic/Political gains. Transnational organizedcrime. This is the BigFour -Consultants Biz model not isolated incidents, a few rotten Apples with PwC (X Consulting Firm Deloitte/EY/KPMG) Edward Snowden, a contractor employed by PwC Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) staffed on contracts with the NSA leaked NSA )US intelligence agencies)Programs, methods - Global Surveillance, Mass Collection of electronic data - US BigTech/Telecoms, etc. February 2016 - My Background investigations by KPMG San Francisco, CA Kroll, Inc - Private Security Contractor. Unauthorized access, theft of confidential data and unlawful disclosure of highly sensitive information - tax data SecurityClearances. Direct Confrontation Deloitte-Mexico vs KPMG-USA KPMG was summoned to Washington, DC & was indicted on Espionage Charges “DOJ/SEC/PCAOB Investigations” [TTP - International Trade Agreements, Tax Treaties, National Security implications] My tax information, unauthorized access, manipulation of tax data on IRS/Treasury systems and databases, unlawful disclosure of confidential data, sensitiveinformation (IRS & Treasury Department Systems) = Billionaire Ken Griffin (Citadel Hedge Fund owner). Moreover, in January 2024, PwC Booz Allen Hamilton received a $2.7 billion USD Government contract to modernized IRS -IT Systems - addressed the issues and significant vulnerabilities reported to TITGA -IRS/Treasury, DOJ, Congress, others, beginning in July 2019 via this Emails - Lead to Congressional investigations, oversight (TITGA) Cyber-attacks, widespreadSecurity breaches, infiltration into Government IT Systems and databases (IRS/Treasury/Commerce/DHHS/Energy, etc. theft:extraction of confidential information,data). Operations were directly related to information being sent via this emails communications. Adverse consequences, extensive vulnerabilities resulted from US Gov& Unintelligence agencies inability to assess the situation, identified risks, Adverse threat actors, Incompetent Crisis Management teams, risk responses. Riskmitigation strategies “Professional” Services - Private Security Contractors (Glencore-Kroll, Inc. Biz Model). Corporate America -Corporate cultures(Cartels/Monopolies). Profiteers, opportunistic criminals, Arrogant gangsters. Professional Hits (murder for hire) - Quantity over Quality Market strategies.Fraudulent schemes - Deranged orchestrations, violence against me, the Senior Public Auditor - PCAOB were documented and reported via this emails chains(Audit trails).PwC Booz Allen Gov Contract $2.7 billion. Monetization - Value of information (Audit work, risk management) sent via this Emails. IRS-Treasury liability to me$2.7 billion - issue Misuse of my personal tax & financial information for political/economic gains. Lawless orangutans. WTO | Dispute settlement gatewayhttps://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm WTO | Intellectual property: protection and enforcementhttps://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm Washington, DC/Oxford - Ivy League Education 1990s.Context: Ascension of China to WTO Technology - High Skilled Labor - Engineers (Silicon Valley -US BigTech) Global interconnected economies - ITsystems & Architecture (global IT infrastructure) Global Platforms - International Trade. Ascension of China - WTO. The “Value” of IT technology infrastructure "connecting" Biz to Biz -Internet - E-commerce - Logistics & Transportation. Inventories-Sales Orders-Shipping-payments-Accounting (Stage in late 90s early 2000) Amazon - Jack MaBiz-to-Biz E-commerce Platforms. Biz Economic cycle ->BigTech Bubble - Consolidation. Economic Bubble ALWAYS followed by Economic Crash - Biz Cicle. (Valuations -Dot.com Bubble - 2001) Control - Labor. "Managing talent"Internal Operations - Internal Policies & Procedures "Incentives" - Tech Engineers (nerds, silicon valley) to effect desire behaviors outcomes. "Innovation" Corporate Profits bottom line. Problem: Technology engineers - Nerds NOTa) very sociable individualsb) Car Salesman - charismatic - BS Charlatans, human qualities --> sociopaths c) profit driven - High stress environments. Collaboration, Competition --> Innovation vs Sweatshops. Allocation of Corporate Profits to High Skilled Labor (Engineers -Assets) vs back-office support - i.e. Human Resources, support staff, salesman support(Overhead). Design of Corporate America’s Systems/Operating PlatformsHigh Skilled Labor. Micro-Economics - Internal Operations People = Talent = US Education System ->Supply of LaborLate 1990s-2000s - Evaluation of Education Agenda - State of Corporate America‘s Education Industry. (Ivy League vs Public University System). Refer to priorEmails. 9/11 “Terrorist Attack” in NYC on Sept 11, 2001Osama-BinLaden, hijacked US Commercial flights (Boeing Aircraft). The aircraft crashed into Tween towers -WTC in NYC (Wall Street Casino) & the Pentagon.The Patriot Act of 2001. Complex Legislation was Fast Tracked by Congress. Fraudulent schemes. BigTech - Corporate Frauds October 15, 2001 - Dot.com Bubble bursted Financial Markets crashed - Financial Crisis. Reminder - "Officially"I joined PwC in 2000. Specifically,PwC’s Public Auditors Program in Los Angeles, CA West Coast -Financial Services Industry -Diversity. US Federal Government Office of InvestigationsWashington, DC June 2001Bachelor’s Degree - UCLA PwC - Los Angeles, CA. University of California - West Coast ModelPublic Education System not Ivy League University Pedigree East Coast - Neoliberal model. [Corporate America’s High Value Education Industry] September 11, 2001 - Terrorist Attacks -WTC, NYCOctober 15, 2001 - Dot.Com bubble. Financial Crisis November 2001 - CPA Exam in CA.CA System - Global Competition Americans/Asians/Russians Global Talent (5000 Exam spots). Asians/Russians were competing/elevating CPA Exam - Curves. By 2000 Americans (American Education System) were experiencing increase difficulty competing on CPA Exam --> BigFour Programs -Public Auditor Regulatory Licenses. Corporate America Solution - ease CPA testing requirements, dilute materials/# of exams required - pass/fail requirements, eliminatecompetition change CPA testing formats to favor Americans (i.e. standardized tests shenanigans). Ease cheating surveillance. Grade exams "secretly" by acomputers not real curves. US -BigFour Changed CPA licensing paths. US IT systems & databases. CPA vs Public Auditor - Sign/Issue Public Audit Opinions -->BigFour Elites - BigFour Career Path- Public Auditor - Audit Partners (Equity$ vs Non-Equity Partners (Directors). Owners-Privatized Regulators vs BigFourAudit Employees. Decision making - BigFour Internal operations. Risk - Global Government. PCAOB, (Compartmentalization - Specializations) Corporate America Trade Secrets -Intelectual Property. In November 2001, I passed CPA Exam in CA.In 2007, the State of California issued a CPA license to me (Nancy Alfaro) not to PwC (BigFour).2007 CPA License - Public Auditor - PCAOB It takes several yeas to meet the Licensing requirements. Licensing requirements are Extensive. It takes several yeas to meet requirements -Accountancy Boards - State Accountancy Acts require Progressive Experience, Technical skills - High Risk / Complexity. Financial Audits = Complex Financial “investigations” of Corporate America (White-Collar corporate criminals).Enron Corporate FraudSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Militarized Corporate Governments - Global Structures. Global Economy - International Trade TranslationIn 2007, the US Government - granted me not PwC (BigFour Accounting Firms) full "authorization" to Issue Public Opinions (Sign Audit Reports) on CorporateAmerica SEC Filings -i.e 10K Annal Reporting Requirements. Corporate AmericaUS- Global Corporate Governments. Government Agent - Regulator. The Boss of Corporate America Lawless orangutans. Corporate America Education Industry shenanigans: California - Board of Accountancy aka Corporate America's CPE Credits enforcement Units Boards; Control mechanisms Specialized, skilled - Labor Forced Consumption - Quota SystemAccountancy Boards Set Quotas - CPE Credits (Units)Required CPEs = Units of Mandatory “Education” CPAs (Accounting & Finance Sector) must consume annual basis. Corporate America’s High Value Education Industry. Government FRAUD, Waste. Professional StandardsProfessional “Ethics”ProgramsConfidential/Secret “Investigations” Proceses into “alleged” ethical violations by “confidential” complainants, secret informants. Mechanisms to engage in Political Persecutions - Repression & Controlmechanisms. State Crimes, Carlos Slimpolitical donations to campaigns of US Politicians??? The Elephant in the Room BigFour Accounting Cartels Consultants - Tax “Advisory” write, lobby enact Tax Legislation Corporate America.PwC internal Email Leaks Scandal PwC Australia Gov secrets - Tax Legislation Multinationals (US BigTech - 26 companies) OECD Tax Legislation - coordinated “activities” Transnational organize crime. Hint: EY Tax Legislation - Lobbying (Audit Clients)Investigations - SEC “Settlement Agreement” - July 2014. SEC.gov website. In July 2014, I was at Deloitte -GIOS Mexico City.Specifically, Playa Resorts “Audits/IPO” in Cancun, Quintana Roo, Los Cabos - Baja California.Dominican Republic, Jamaica along with Deloitte- USA - McLean,VA, others were in Cancun. July 2014 - Significant blow ups - FRAUD, beibery schemes reported. Walmart clandestine operations - Glencore-Kroll, Inc, were in overdrive. Walmart’s Global Security Office deranged psychopaths - Boston, DOJ coordination inMexico. Walmart FCPA Audits - Mexico, India, China, Brazil……Weapons, Drugs. PwC Luxemburgo Tax Leaks Deloitte - Tax Shelters - Tax Avoidance - Professional Services to Walmart. Deloitte UK - Colombia. Project GIOS - Mexico “Cash Flows” between Colombia and Miami. Southern Copper Corporation Odebrech - OHL…PEMEX Ares Capital - Oro Negro…ICA - Grupo Carso - Inbursa. Warning Deloitte-Mexico June 2014 transaction - Banco Azteca. Parallel Systems - WellsFargo - secret bank accounts opened for existing bank clients without authorization or knowledge of WF banking clients. It was a Massive -sophisticated operation - parallel system.BanAmex - Mexico 2014 Fidelity Bank - Cash Management Accounts - USA August 17, 2021. Same operatingplatform as WellsFargo - secret bank accounts. EY-TCW - Los Angeles, CA Private Equity - Real Estate Funds shenanigans was on in the EY Rats. Deloitte Audit Tax work. TCW - Tax Shelters Laundering Money, Tax Evasion Real Estate - CA. EY Focus was on China & Russia Funds -EY fraudulent /shady operations. Fabrications - targets China, Russia—> rumors, conflict, paranoia. On May 16, 2025, at 12:53 PM, Missy Fuss <missy.fuss@yahoo.com> wrote: Sarah Adams (Deloitte Consulting - USA) A este punto creo que tanto a ti como a Israel, otros, les queda bastante claro quien es un Auditor Publico - BigFour. Deloitte Audit y DeloitteConsulting ni siquiera son Servicios o Profesionales similares/complementarios. Por lo que posición Director - Deloitte Consultingni siquiera esta por encima de mis Auditores Públicos (Audit Staff) de primer ano. Lo mismo le aplica a Israel -Socio Deloitte Consulting. Analiza la posición en la que estabas tu (Director Deloitte Consulting) y en que posición estaba YO - US Senior Public Auditor - PCAOB. Deloitte Global, GIOS-Mexico -Oficina Nacional Audit Partners -Control de Calidad - Audit QualityPCAOB Inspectons - Investigaciones Globales - US Government Agencies White Collar Crime. Sentido común - Estoy supervisando Auditores Públicos Socios Auditoria en Mexico y USA, PCAOB Standards - SEC Regulatory Frameworks -Guillermo incluido - Crímenes Financieros. Ni siquiera Israel, tu jefe, se me podia acercar. El recibía ordenes de Memo. Tanto Millan, Socio Líder Oficina Nacional - Auditoria en CDMX no enCancun, Guadalajara o Los Angeles, CA como los socios de riesgo en CDMX se mantenían al margen. PCAOB/SEC —DOJDeloitte Virginia, Texas, CA, FL (Miami) Mexico (Quintana Roo, Jalisco, Nuevo Leon, Baja California, Sinaloa, etc) Inglaterra, Netherlands,Luxemburgo, Colombia, Caribe (Islas Cayman, Republics Dominicana) etc. Deloitte McLean, Virginia = Pentágono, Washington, DC.Costas Mexicanas - Petroleo Infraestructura Critica (Puertos/Aeropuertos) - SEDENA. Sin contar que el trabajo de EY Audit - Holanda, Mexico, USA estaba detrás del Proyecto o que SEC Chief Accountant en GringoLandia fue puesta ami servicio. EY Americas - EY Global Londres. FRAUDE - Simulaciones-Lavado de Dinero, Evasion Fiscal -Sobornos, Real Estate - Armas Organizaciones transnacionales. MultiplesInvestigaciones regulatorias en varios países 2009 - 2014 - 2008 Real Estate & Financial Crisis - Lehman Brothers -EY. Riesgo Global. Joe Biden, US Vice-president, y Hunter Biden se paseaban con Carlos Slim (Inbursa, Grupo Carso) en CDMX. Contructora Mexicana Hinojosa (EPN, Calderon, Escandalo Mansion “regalo” a la Gaviota -La Primera Dama Mexico) - Cartel inmobiliario. Walmart, Tyson Foods, Alstom, etc. FCPAInvestigarions - bribery & corruption. Varios “intereses” me estaban ofreciendo sobornos. Montos y Forma de Sobornos.Soborno X Sofisticación (VIEs) - Monto $50 millones de USD levanto alertas rojas por todos lados. No lograba identificar el Origen del Soborno, RedGlobal intereses económicos/politicos detrás de la operación. Soborno a cambio de que??? Timing. Corporate America - Barateros en términos de sobornos. Parecen la Walmart o las 99 cent stores en el Mercado de Sobornos. Contexto en el que ocurrían múltiples operaciones en paralelo - Comportamiento Auditores/Consultores - Personal Deloitte, EY - Reguladores.Agencias Mexicanas, Gringas y extranjeras. Contratos/Acuerdos firmados en Noviembre 2008 entre CA y NY en Los Angeles, CA PwC NYC Oficina Nacional y JPMorgan. NDAs entre PwC -NY, JPMorgan, CBRE y yo - Auditorias JPM Assets and Wealth Management - PE Funds - Real Estate 2007. Transacción -Washington Mutual (Hint: HSBC) Reformulaciones varios anos - Ajustes Históricos (“Errores multiples” - widespread accounting errors schemes) -no chingaderas. Analysis Quantitativo/Qualitativo Inversionistas alternativos - Capital Global. Investor reporting - tax implications (IRS) Investor allocations, Management & incentive fees - Asset valuations. JPMorgan SOX - Sarbanes-Oxley “lax” Internal Controls (Control Interno) SEC Filings -10Ks PwC Audit Opinion - Internal Controls.SEC/PCAOB. AML Regulations. No chingaderas. No es lo mismo robarle a Calpers/CalSTRS - OCERs, average-joe Pension/retirement assets (Fidelity ETFs, 401Ks, LAPD, LAFD, DwP, PA PensionPlans, burócratas estatales - Rob Bonta) que robarle al inversionista “alternativo” equivocado. Inversionista “Alternativo X Sentencia acorde.Cartel Bancario - tiende a suicidar “problemas/ladrones/lenguas largas” “saltándolos” al vacio desde el piso #50 de un rascacielos de solo 10 pisos ysin ventanas/balcones. Al 2014 JPMorgan llevaba 94 suicidados cuando deje de contarlos. Con base en lo anterior,Crees que yo tenia tiempo para involucrarme en Chismes de vecindad con consultores, agentes de ventas (PDFs-power point presentation) y suspolitiquerías internas? Me entere que estabas en problemas cuando se te ocurrio hablarme para agredirme e intimidarme hecharme en cara tu Etiquetota de Director enDeloitte - imponer rango por etiqueta arbitraria. La conversación: Sarah - Sabes lo que es un Director en Deloitte???? Nancy - Por supuesto que si. Un Director - Deloitte Consulting es alguien alguien que no dio el ancho para ser admitido como Socio en Deloitte.Implícito - Consultores vs Auditores Públicos - BigFour Accounting Firms.Contexto -Riesgo Global - Defensa Socios Auditoria - Joyas de la Corona -Deloitte en Mexico. Puercos Gringos - coludidos. Fabricación - delitos,crímenes financieros inexistentes/extorsión (Entrapment) contra Socios Auditoria Mexico - Playa Resorts audits - IPO. SEC Chief Accountant -Washington, DC = EY operative - EY Consultant, Boston, MA. Enlace - Tom Flannery, EY Americas. Operaciones encubiertas - Estoy capacitada y autorizada desde 2007 para Analizar información financiera (inteligencia), interrogar personal, evaluar yestratificar riesgos, evaluar competencias técnicas - Auditores Públicos, especialistas técnicos, actuar, mitigar, desviar y resolver problemas. En 2014 Estaba en la GIOS Mexico - Deloitte Quality Controls. Función Socio Calidad - Oficina Nacional TODOS los Fondos de Inversion; PE-Investment Companies. SEC Registered Investment Advisors - NAFTA structures no subordinada de Izrael o Brian Maloney. Deloitte Global vs Deloitte USA vs Mexico vs GIOS-Mexico, GIOS-Paris, GIOS-Colombia. Capital Global. Tus acciones en 2014 contra US Senior Public Auditor -PCAOB en funciones regulatorias - Agente de Gobierno Gringo, Como crees q se llaman??? Hint: Intimidation, Collusion, crimen organizado. Date por bien servida - si lo un regaño publico de mi parte es lo unica consecuencia por tus acciones. Por cierto - Le comente a Rachel sobre tu llamada. Rachel fue quien me informo que estabas en problemas por haberle mentido a Guillermo Roa. Faltade Integridad. Auditor Publico - PCAOB Standards - DOCUMENTACION (Audit trails) - Integridad Personal y procesos. Consultants = Charlatanes. SEC Independence Rules - Prohibited Services. Auditor publico (Deloitte) no puede Auditar sus propio trabajo - SOX Internal Controls design &implementations - Sarah Adams, Israel Zagal. Socios Auditores Públicos, también me estaban señalando el problema. Deloitte PCAOB Inspections. Deloitte ELCs - Audit Quality Controls SOX/SEC/FCPA violations. US Senior Public Auditor - PCAOBPCAOB Audit - Deloitte vsPCAOB Inspection - Deloitte Ojo!! Este correo electrónico Cyber ataque. Metadata. Information se lee y evalúa en tiempo real. Nota: No toque texto de este correo a partir de este punto (Información en Email trail below). Después del ciberataque. Time stamp in above picture. a)Enviar Email as is; b) revisar q Información, archivos fueron eliminados del correo al calce durante cyber ataque. Hint: Registros de geolocalización,rastreó de actividad en tiempo real. Identidad de Cyber-criminales - métodos. Retaliation:GringoLandia - Legislación FiscalTax Bill - $4 Trillion USD Gift (US tax cuts to the Rich - oligarchs) SALT political theater mientras q al ciudadano de a pie le aumentaron/impusieron impuestos del 30 % (illegal taxation) via El teatro politico guerra de Aranceles (Tariffs) y el UniParty elimina servicios públicos, pensiones y prestaciones laborales. Austeridad Fiscal - Gov Waste. DOGE Efficiency FRAUD. Walmart -Email addressesTodas fueron bloqueadas en los últimos dos días, Razón??? Walmart anuncio - Subirá precios. Costo de Aranceles 30% = Inflación del 30% Federal Reserve - inflation under control —slightly above desire rare of 2% interest rate cuts shenanigans. Interest rates on US Debt Treasury Bills.US Monetary Policy Inflationary policies Debasement of USD. Devalue USDs. Inflate away US Debt.US Defaulted in its Sovereign Debt -US Treasuries.Referencia: Silicon Valley Bank - Balance Sheet (US Treasuries) Insolvency - Liquidity Crisis - Contagion Global Liquidity Crisis March 2023 US Pending Tax Legislation The UniParty (Democrats + Republicans) Tax Cuts to the rich not Trump’s $4 Trillion Gift to his Oligarch friends. US Budget - $6 Trillion USDUS Tax Revenues $4 Trillion USD Deficit $2 Trillion USDAdditional Borrowings - $2 Trillion To be added to outstanding US debt of approximately $37-38 Trillion USD. By any means, the UniParty shall pass yer another bill -Tax Cuts to the rich of $4 Trillion.Graft. Theft. FRAUD. Corruption. Again Taxes - illegal taxation Hitler Natzi Regime -Tax Policies = Genocide, Real Estate Property Tax FRAUD. Tax on TIPS - Hospitality IndustryTaxing Remesas - immigrantsInternational bank transfers (SWIFT) - Economic warfare - Financial sanctions, Mexican Economy. Really,… ICE Raids … Immigration (Slavery) “Reforms” shenanigans.Labor Markets - UniParty. Multiple Ciberataques.,.. Tax Bill On May 16, 2025, at 4:23 AM, Missy Fuss <missy.fuss@yahoo.com> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Missy Fuss <missy.fuss@yahoo.com>Date: May 16, 2025 at 1:00:13 AM PDTTo: Smith.Elaine.M@dol.gov, Martin.Traci.E@dol.gov, Heri.Christine@dol.gov, Aaron WHD Sturdivant<Sturdivant.Aaron@dol.gov>, OIGWhistleblower@oig.dol.gov, LaborOIGinfo@oig.dol.gov, LaborEnforcement@dhs.gov,hotline@oig.treas.gov, Elizabeth.Arthur@dc.gov, enquiries@wto.org, webmaster@wto.org, EthicsOffice@un.org,ethicsoffice@who.int, DGOffice@who.intCc: Philip.O'Rourke@lewisbrisbois.com, luis alfaro <incalfaro@hotmail.com>, abdul.arif@gmail.com, alegrialaw@cox.net,ethan.ward@lewisbrisbois.com, Francis.Schneider@lewisbrisbois.com, Robert.Schulls@mail.house.gov, HouseIG@mail.house.gov, Rob.Bonta@doj.ca.gov, groa@deloittemx.com, news@thelocal.it, newsdesk@afr.com,TIPS@suntimes.com, tips@nypost.com, tips@zerohedge.com, ABCinvestigationsteam@protonmail.com, The Economist EU<eiu_enquiries@eiu.com>, Morelia@vozdemichoacan.com.mx, JuanJosedelCastillo@gmail.com, David Chrencik<dchrencik@hotmail.com>, Tom Flannery <tfflannery@gmail.com>, Rachel Gajdzik <rgajdzik@deloittemx.com>, RaulTraconis <rtraconis@deloittemx.com>, Jorge Flores Hernandez <jorgflores@deloittemx.com>, Jorge Tapia<jotapia@deloittemx.com>, gobernacion@senado.gob.mx, Gobiernodemorelia@morelia.gob.mx, OIG@ftc.gov,oig.hotline@usdoj.gov, abaez@deloittemx.com, mestrada@deloittemx.com, pberthely@deloittemx.com,dgarcialozano@deloittemx.com, joygallup@paulhastings.com, apaul@whitecase.com, pperezalonso@ritch.com.mx,pvelasco@s-s.mx, periodicooficial@michoacan.gob.mx, phillip.caraballo@usdoj.gov, emilywinston@paulhastings.com,Emilse.hooi@an.ey.com, bbauman@kwch.com, jlutz@kwch.com, Transparencia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,transparencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx, FOM.2@hotmail.com, transportandoamichoacan@live.com,Admcrtmich@gmail.com, Tribuno_alfa@hotmail.com, margarita.estrada.aguirre@notaria52morelia.com,Sectec_segob@michoacan.gob.mx, Spg@michoacan.gob.mx, Denunciaenlinea@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Denuncias.cfg@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Morelia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Uruapan@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Apatzingan@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Lapiedad@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Lazaro@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Zamora@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Zitacuaro@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Huetamo@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Jiquilpan@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Coalcoman@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Fiscaliadesaparecidos@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, pgjecomsoc@michoacan.gob.mx,Policiainvestigacion@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, CoordinacionSalud@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Cibernetica.inteligencia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Inteligenciacriminal@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Inteligencia.patrimonial@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Tortura@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,cramirez.sader@michoacan.gob.mx, nvazquez.sader@michoacan.gob.mx, rsilva.sader@michoacan.gob.mx,avillalobos.sader@michoacan.gob.mx, vayala.sader@michoacan.gob.mx, Contraloria@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Auditoria.cfg@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, asf@asf.gob.mx, Unidadtransparencia@asf.gob.mx,puntosconstitucionales@senado.gob.mx, Justicia@senado.gob.mx, ninezyadolescencia@senado.gob.mx,asuntosindigenas@senado.gob.mx, Economia@senado.gob.mx, reformaagraria@senado.gob.mx,agriculturayganaderia@senado.gob.mx, salud@senado.gob.mx, Trabajoyprevision@senado.gob.mx,educacion@senado.gob.mx, comsegsocial@senado.gob.mx, comunicacionesytransportes@senado.gob.mx,asuntosfronterizos@senado.gob.mx, Hacienda@senado.gob.mx, Anticorrupcion@senado.gob.mx, Energia@senado.gob.mx,juan.carlos.palomar@pemex.com, maricarmen.montano@pemex.com, seguridadpublica@senado.gob.mx,Defensanacional@senado.gob.mx, marina@senado.gob.mx, MARCASAT@sat.gob.mx, MenchoTips@usdoj.gov,ChapitosTips@usdoj.gov, HSAC@hq.dhs.gov, SayCISA@cisa.dhs.gov, knmystuff@aol.com, Media@puc.texas.gov,mediapartners@ria.ru, vincent.law@mayerbrown.com, fatima.lima@maine.gov, fatima.de-windt-ferreira@an.ey.com,FRAUD@insurance.ca.gov, zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us, barrera@basham.com.mx, Denuncia@eluniversal.com.mx,VeritasTIPS@protonmail.com, Investor@gruposantander.com, Ethan.Bowers@ag.tn.gov, OIGCounsel@oig.treas.gov,oig@gao.gov, oig@sec.gov, KOInvestorRelations@coca-cola.com, BoeingInvestorRelations@boeing.com,autoworkers@wsws.org, Miriam.Ramirez@milenio.com, TPBLegalUnit@tpb.gov.au, Matt Seegers<matt@seegersassociates.com>, Robert.Berry@treasurer.ca.gov, Global Ethics <Ethics.Helpline@wal-mart.com>,inversionistas@walmart.com, gabriela.buenrostro@walmart.com, globalchair@deloitte.co.uk, mark.weinberger@uk.ey.com,mmiranda@sacbee.comSubject: Re: DOL- Kansas # 1885513 - Wage & Hour Investigation - Los Cocos Mexican Restaurant, Inc, Case No. 22-1004-JWB Julie Sue, Acting Secretary of Labor v. Los Cocos Mexican Mexican, Inc. Settlement Offer -Second Notice5/11/2025. Third Notice 5/12/2025. Final Notice 5/14/2025. DOL-WHD Walmart “Settlement” Agreements. Expired. Traci/Elaine/Aron - DOL[Network of entities (PPPs)]: Rogue Nation: Someone that a) undetermines existing international Institutions;b) Disobeys International Lawc) Its aggressive at starting warsd) claiming Lands, Assets/Property that do not belong to theme)…. US (Trump) - Corporate America Big Bluff was on Global Trade War - Tariffs was called off. Instead of convincing the world it had a royal straight straight flush, it showed US weaknesses and vulnerabilities. It showeditself for the Rogue nation, Banana Republic the US of Corporate America really is. Vulgar, ignorant and throughly mediocre.The USA -Corporate America lost the US-China Trade War in 2018 - Trump’s first term not in the last 3 months. I was never the Enemy. US of Corporate America (Trump) was never going to win a war that was lost to begin with. Catastrophic Political MistakesColossal Failure of Leadership. The USA of Corporate America showed itself to the American people and the entire world for the Lawless orangutans “WE”Americans are. The US has Lost all Credibility, at home and around the world. USA is an Unreliable Party, treacherousAlliance, Rogue Nation, Rule by psychopaths, vulgar, ignorant opportunists criminals. All TRUST in the US has eroded.Massive Capital Flight, talent and businesses out of the USA - Global realignments. And Losers don’t make the Rules. This situation achieve the “Unthinkable” - The Entire world needs united against the Real Terrorist nation - US Natzi RegimeDictatorship. The wield rejected Corporate America’s economic/political model of “Democracy”. “We” Americans havenobody to blame but ourselves. We can’t go into someone else’s country, murder their citizens, innocent people, steal/plundertheir assets, resources, inflict despicable acts violence, atrocities, lie, cheat, blame them of our crimes and not EXPECTretaliation or there won’t be retribution just bc we said so. Try telling sorry to a mother/father who lost their children, a childwhose parents were killed, a husband/brother whose wife/sisters were gang raped. A child turn into Child Soldiers.Nobody hurt their “feelings” or offended their preferred DEI Label. The human emotion = Visceral Rage. Destruction of life = Destruction of everything. Its about life & Death not money or a lawsuit. Political speeches orpronunciations. US-China Trade War - Cease Fire “Agreement” US & China Representatives Meeting in Geneva over the weekend. Trade Disputes- Tariffs War Regarding this Email - DOL vs Los Cocos Dispute. Settlement Offer - Negotiations. WTO | About the World Trade Organization - Geneva Switzerlandhttps://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/thewto_e.htm WTO | Trade topics gatewayhttps://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tratop_e.htm Dispute settlement gatewayhttps://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm Tariffs: more bindings and closer to zerohttps://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm2_e.htm Non-tariff barriers: red tape, etchttps://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm9_e.htm WTO | Intellectual property: protection and enforcementhttps://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm My Washington, DC/Oxford - Ivy League Education 1990s.ContextAscension of China to WTOTechnology - High Skilled Labor - Engineers (Silicon Valley -US BigTech) Global interconnected economies -interconnected IT systems -- Architecture global IT infrastructure. Global Platforms - International Trade. Ascension of China - WTO. The Value of IT technology infrastructure "connecting" Biz to Biz -Internet - E-commerce - Logistics &Transportation. Inventories-Sales Orders-Shipping-payments-Accounting (Stage in late 90s early 2000) Amazon - Jack Ma - Biz-to-Biz E-commerce Platforms. Biz Economic cycle -> BigTech Bubble - Consolidation. Economic Bubble ALWAYS followed by Economic Crash - Biz Cicle. (Valuations -Dot.com Bubble - 2001) Control - Labor. "Managing talent" - Micro-Economics /Operations "Incentives" - Tech Engineers (nerds, silicon valley) to effect desire behaviors outcomes. "Innovation" CorporateProfits -bottom line. Internal Policies & Procedures. Problem: Technology engineers - Nerds NOTa) very sociable individualsb) Car Salesman - charismatic - BS Charlatans, human qualities --> sociopaths c) profit driven - High stress environments. Collaboration, Competition --> Innovation vs Sweatshops. Allocation of Corporate Profits to High Skilled Labor (Engineers -Assets) vs back-office support - i.e. Human Resources,support staff, salesman support (Overhead). Design of Corporate America Systems- operating Platforms. High Skilled Labor. Micro-Economics /Operations People = Talent = US Education SystemState of Corporate America Education Industry in the late 90s earmy 2000s. Refer to prior Emails. 9/11 - “Terrorist Attack” - Bombing of the WTC in NYC Sept 11, 2001The Patriot Act - Fast Tracked BigTech Bubble - Dot.com bursted October 15, 2001. Reminder - "Officially" I joined PwC-Los Angeles, CA in 2000 --> Public Auditors Program.Financial Services Industry. Diversity. Bachelor’s Degree from UCLA June 2001. CA Public Schools - UC System not Ivy League University Pedigree. CorporateAmerica High Value Education. CA CPA Exam in November 2001. System Global Competition Americans/Asians/Russians -Global Talent. 5000 Exam spots. Asians/Russians elevating CPAExam - Curves. By 2000 Americans (American Education System) were experiencing increase difficulty competing on CPAExam --> BigFour Programs -Public Auditor Regulatory Licenses. Corporate America Solution - ease CPA testingrequirements, dilute materials/# of exams required - pass/fail requirements, eliminate competition change CPA testing formatsto favor Americans (i.e. standardized tests shenanigans). Ease cheating surveillance. Grade exams "secretly" by a computersnot real curves. US -BigFour Changed CPA licensing paths. US IT systems & databases. CPA vs Public Auditor - Sign/IssuePublic Audit Opinions --> BigFour Elites BigFour Career Path- Public Auditor - Audit Partners (Equity$ vs Non-Equity Partners (Directors). Owners-PrivatizedRegulators vs BigFour Audit Employees. Decision making - BigFour Internal operations. Risk - Global Government. PCAOB, (Compartmentalization -Specializations) Corporate America Trade Secrets - Intelectual Property. CPA Exam - passed November 2001. State of CA issued to me (Nancy Alfaro) not PwC (BigFour) a CPA License as PublicAuditor -PCAOB in 2007. Translation the US Government - granted me not PwC (BigFour Accounting Firm) full "authorization" to Issue PublicOpinions (Sign Audit Reports=Public Auditor Opinion -i.e. SEC 10Ks) on Corporate America - Global Government in 2007. US/Global Government Agent - Regulator. Boss of Corporate America Lawless orangutans. Enron Corporate FraudSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 -> Militarized Corporate Government Structures. Global Economy - International Trade The Boss of the California Accountancy Board of Accountancy aka Corporate America's CPE Credits enforcement Units.Corporate America Education Industry shenanigans: Labor Control Board, Forced Consumption - Private Education -Quotas.Targets. CPAs (Accounting and Finance Sector). Government FRAUD -Government Waste. Other's Ignorance ain't myProblem, is it?? Relevant informationRefer to the following Email:“Fwd: How Pakistan, Lashkar and ISI Exploit the Drug Trade | Vantage with Palki Sharma - May 15, 2025 - Iran Contras Nicaragua. Drugs for Weapons - Terrorist Camps. CIA-DEA operations. Cocaine-Feliz Gallardo - Mexican Cartels. Terroristtraining camps -Jalisco(Sinaloa) - Teuichtlan, Jalisco - Tlaquepaque Jal. (Herbalife) - Death Squats. Kiki Camarena DEAAgent - Felix Gallardo/Caro Quintero - Padrino - Governor of Sinaloa. Federal Security Services. Kiki Camarena + GaryWebb - Mercury news - Iran-Contra operations Arms:Drug trafficking trade - US Government. CIA-DEA. DHHS-OPM-DHS” Copied intact at the end of the below email trail (Audit trail) On May 15, 2025, at 1:24 PM, Missy Fuss <missy.fuss@yahoo.com> wrote: Tick Tock….Email trail (Audit trail) from this AM copy pasted intact at the end of this electronic communication(E-mail). 1. Agreement with Wal-Mart Indicates Need for Stronger Guidance and Procedures Regarding Settlement Agreements Report No. 04-06-001-04-420 (October 31, 2005)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {9.36 MB} | [ Response ] 1. Concerns Persist with the Integrity of Davis-Bacon Act Prevailing Wage Determinations Report No. 04-04-003-04-420 (March 30, 2004)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {1 MB} | [ Response ] 1. Wage and Hour Division Administration of Special Minimum Wages for Workers with Disabilities Report No. 05-01-002-04-420 (March 19, 2001)No Summary | [ Full Report ] {67 KB} 1. Inaccurate data were Fequently Used in Wage Determinations made under the Davis- Bacon Act Report No. 04-97-013-04-420 (March 10, 1997)No Summary | [ Full Report ] {7.11 KB} One of the versions of Email trail dated January 30, 2024 after persistent cyberattacks - sabotage - Destructiondocuments/Evidence (exact same as Arthur Andersen shredding Auditors work papers - inckuding Tax Shelter -Avoidance strategies VIEs) Note: SEC did receive one version of above draft email on January 30, 2024 including [zetlinjonesj@sec.gov] Hint - Global Market Strategies, Labor Force - Intellectual Property - EY July 26, 2012 . EY (East Coast -San Francisco, CA vs McGladrey, Chicago-Los Angeles, CA). My brain My intelectualProperty. Lawfare - EY can’t have it both ways. EY - Internal Whistleblower complaint dated July 21, 2012 was forwarded to US-Global Regulators on October 26, 2019. Reason: Retaliation over vandalizing/destroying my Real Estate Assets, property at 300 Ivy in SanFrancisco, CA on October 23, 2019. Covid-19 operations - October 18-19, 2019 - Event 201 / Rehearsal of GlobalPandemic in NYC.. Culiacanazo in Sinaloa, Mexico. Failed operation to detain Ovidio Guzman - Son of ElChapo Guzman - Sinaloa Cartel. EY - Global Money Laundering, Tax Evasion - Real Estate —> TCW. Special operations - Focus Russia & ChinaReal Estate Funds. Divide & Conquer. Political Persecutions a.k.a. Panama Papers schemes, ICJI/MexicanosContra la Corrupcion “investigations” - Washington DC interests - Regime change operations.ICJI vs US Senior Public Auditor - PCAOB - Global Capital VIEs…SEC Custody Rules. Global RiskManagement - Security Clearances. Global Economy System - Economy - North America - Latin Americaeconomic interests not FOX Melodrama - Obama-Biden derangement síndrome. King Obama. Obama vs Hilary Clinton - 2008 Corporate America’s crimes -(i.e. EY - Walmart) —> Genocide, High Treason, Crimes against Humanity. Piercing of Corporate veils, FRAUD Personal Assets - Personal Liability. Clawbacks - Criminal & Civil implications in light of violations of political pacts, inmunity deals.  Re: Pics con Wells checks -docs Becerra, LAPD Previous Emails - High Risk Operations - Global Risk. Regime Change operationsCorporate Warfare - Economic War a.k.a. Tariff War. Risk Manage Accordingly Global Financial System US Debt - US Treasury Markets Lessons NOT Learned - September 2019. Context - Contingency Plans I - US Senior Public Auditor -PCAOB takes control over Central Bank - Monetary Policy. Neoliberal System - Economy - Central Bank - Monetary Policy. Warning! Are the issues at Los Cocos Mexican Restaurant, Inc. In Wichita, Kansas…. Really about $1 billion USD(Monopoly money) worth it??? My family ain’t currency - Its a deal breaker. Eye for an Eye. ICA Enterprises - Critical Infrastructure - Trump son in Law - Kushner shenanigans = Hunter Biden shenanigans. Hint. Odebrech - Aramco. On May 14, 2025, at 2:27 PM, Missy Fuss <missy.fuss@yahoo.com> wrote: Via electronic mailEmail Heather. Encabezado del correo electrónico contiene información, detallestécnicos que permite hacerse una idea sobre la estructura y contenido en estosdocumentos electrónicos. Es parte importante para entender lo que ocurre, en todoslos correos enviados desde Julio 2019. Auditor Publico - Substancia sobre Forma. Forma - Orden basado Reglas -> "LegalCompliance" = operación estructurada. Fraude. Abogados SEC - waiving enforcement of "Custody Rules" - Investment Advisers -Investment companies. Graves Violaciones -SEC Securities & Exchange Acts of 1933 & 1934, Investment Adviser Acts, InvestmentCompany Act of 1940, Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002. Custody Rules Instrumentos/activosfinancieros (i.e. ETF X). Sistema Financiero EE.UU. Mercados de Capital, Wall Street.Inversionistas globales. The non existing financial assets. Chevron Doctrine. Investigations: FRAUD, government waste, mismanagement , moneylaundering, Tax Evasion, transnational organized crime. Bribery corruption -FCPA Act State Farm Insurance Claim 55-B881-7V6 October 23, 2019 - Octubre 2014; OIG-SEC File #SF -00832951 - October 26, 2019;OIG-DOJ File # 228337-VZR;WellFargo Bank File # May 12, 2020;OIG-GAO # 24-0251-C-HL August, 20 2024;DOL- Kansas # 1885513 - Wage & Hour Investigation - Los Cocos MexicanRestaurant, Inc. ❗️ Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 = PCAOB + FCPA Act of 1977Senior Public Auditor-PCAOB [Regulatory NATO]; CA-CPA (BigTech,SiliconValley); NY-CPA (WallStreet) Global Capital. This Emails = Audit work-papers (PCAOB Audit Standards) prepared by a PublicAuditor-PCAOB, CPA in connection with Audits/Investigations of CorporateAmerica [Militarized Structures, Corporate Governments] for bribery &corruption under the a) books & records & b)internalcontrol provisions of the FCPA Act of 1977. FCPA Audits/Investigations: a) books & records=internal communications (i.e.Emails) <--b) Internal controls over all business records (Emails=electroniccommunications=E-documents (information). Therefore, internal controls overthis Emails (business records) & copies this Emails contained in a) Email accounts ofintended recipients; b) Servers: Google/Apple/Yahoo/Governments/BigFour/Telecomsothers; and c) Cloud & Data Centers. Electronic communications (information/data) isnever deleted [Forensic Audits]. In 2013, Edward Snowden, IntelligenceAnalyst, Leaked documents pertaining to the NSA's Programs/Methods ->Mass Data Collection of electronic communications on a global scale, Surveillance (Five-Eyes]operations by US Government & BigTech. [Privacy/IP <- Transfer to ->Data-Centers ->Liability]. WikiLeaks Vault #7-CIA hacking tools:CIA cyber-weapons,Spyware/Backdoors. Implications: Apple, TESLA, Google, Amzaon, Boeing, FinTech,BigTech, Banks, Hospitals, Critical Infrastructure, Governments, WallStreet DONOT have Security. [Israeli NSO-Pegasus Spy software]. Apple providedUber code/ability to access Apple devices, extract information & spy on anyonevia Uber's App. The Global Money Laundering & Tax Evasion Infrastructure [BigFour TaxAdvisory Services]Global Web of Entities, Tax Heavens & Offshore-Vehicles [VIEs/SPEs] <-ASC-810 Consolidation In 2002, Arthur Andersen, LLP (AA) the largest of the BigFive Accounting Cartels gotin trouble. Enron Energy & Trading (Electricity Markets -Prices) blew up overmassive fraud. Enron's Auditors' shred sensitive documents [Auditor'sdocuments = Audit work-papers]. AA imploded when U.S Regulators indicted AAon obstruction of justice charges overFirm's document destruction. Enron used Offshore-vehicles to hide debt & bookfake profits [VIEs/SPEs]Enron's Offshore-vehicles [VIEs/SPEs] = AA's Tax Advisory Services [ASC-810Consolidation, SEC independence Rules] In 2008, Lehman Brothers blew up over massive fraud.-->Housing & FinancialCrisis [Quantitative Easing]Lehman used Offshore-vehicles to hide debts -->Off-balance-sheet debt [Repo-105 Derivatives] Lehman's Offshore-vehicles [VIEs/SPEs]=EY Tax Advisory Services [ASC-810Consolidation, SEC independence Rules] Insert Cyberattack - Evidence - Email destruction (document destruction -Enron), methods used to destroy and/or sabotage this Emails (electroniccommunications - information) is irrelevant. Obstruction of Justice. Google-Gmail,Apple-iPad -->Internal Controls over IT systems, Interfaces & IT Infrastructure ->SOX 404 IT-Controls ("ITGCs"). IT systems (interfaces/software) ->vulnerabilities -> backdoor access ("ITGCs"-->SOX/FCPA violations). GOOGLE/APPLE=CorporateAmerica. GOOGLE/APPLE's Vendors = AGENTS (i.e.private security,contractors, Uber-Whistleblower Richard Jacobs).GOOGLE/APPLE's AGENTSCrimes = GOOGLE/APPLE's LIABILITY. Refer to ICA Enterprises - EY Work - SOX 404 IT-Controls -> System Implementations -->IT "Workarounds" tointerface with IT Systems -->TAX Authorities in Mexico <- EY Standard ServiceOffering. When caught, blame failed systems implementations, Incompetence,Isolated incidents. February 2016 KPMG Background Investigation:Altegrity ->RAI ->HireRight - Background Investigation ->Security Clearance(USIS)Confidential Información exchanged via Altegrity Private investigatorsprovoked sudden/direct confrontation between Deloitte & KPMG. KPMG wassummoned to Washington, DC,faced Criminal Investigations -Espionage(DOJ/SEC/PCAOB).KPMG Consulting & Advisory Services:Senior Manager, Advisory [IT Systems, Internal Controls - PCAOB Standards]. SanFrancisco, CA. Information "Leaked" Fraudulent background investigation - PoliticalOpponent (High Value Target) Collaboration KPMG ->Altegrity ->Kroll - >WalmartLos Angeles - Mexico - Walmart (Bribery, Cancun, CDMX, Real Estate) Herbalife-Walmart.Kroll, Inc. - Glencore - Murder Kroll, Inc. - KPMG -Walmart - Herbalife Fall 2011 a) Walmart retained KPMG, Kroll, Inc. >FCPA investigations "Mexico" 2012 Walmart. EY Auditors - Walmart Tax Shelters - Tax Evasion. Money LaunderingFelipe Calderon - 2006 Electoral Fraud - War against Cartels Genaro Garcia Luna - Secretary Of Public Security (2006-2012) b) EY transferred me from EY Real Estate, Los Angeles -> EY-FSO NYC -->EYAmericas ->Tom Flannery, Boston. c) Deloitte Tax Advisory Practice, in Los Angeles transferred to EY-FSO Tax LosAngeles, CA Senior Tax Partner Mike Serota + Tom Flannery, Senior Audit Partner, EY AmericasCo-Leaders Wealth and Asset Management. Tom Flannery, strategy, my time wasgoing to Strategic operations EY Americas. 2012 Herbalife - Auditor KPMG "sudden" SEC independence conflicts with HB. WellsFargo Bank - KPMG Auditor. Herbalife Audit Partner -> Senior Audit Partner, Health Care Industry Leaderin Los Angeles, CA resigned from KPMG. Financial crimes. KPMG Tax Shelters. PwC -HB Auditor - PwC. SEC "waived" PwC's independence conflicts with HB. DHHS -->OPM --> DHS - HOMELAND SECURITY -> Altegrity, Inc. -> USIS. Altegrity, Inc. Virginia based Entity -> USIS ->Kroll ->RAI ->HireRight ->WorkForceSolutions -> EQUIFAX,PwC Booz Allen Hamilton ->Altegrity ->Kroll ->OakTreeCapital ->Brookfield Capital, EverCore. Altegrity -RAI William Bratton former LAPD Chief "Retired 2009" to RAI (NYC), Homeland SecurityCouncil HSAC 2010. Herbalife Global Security Office - Solomon Bernudiz (Corrupt)Network of entities - Ministry of Security - Violence - Brutality Genaro Garcia LunaOIG-SEC File #SF -00832951/FCPA Investigations October 26, 2019 Collaboration among Cartel de Sinaloa, Corporate America, GovernmentCollaboration among BigFour Cartels Herbalife - growth since 2006. AeroMexico Flights Mexico- Japan - logistics and transport - Airlines, Airports(LAX)Collaboration Garcia Luna , William Bratton former LAPD ChiefGLAC Consulting - RAI - Kroll Inc. interconnected global entitiesPolitical oponentes - Ayotzinapa. Kroll, Inc. Glencore U.S. Financial Markets (WallStreet). Shares of Berkshire-Hathaway dropped from$626K to $185 dollars.The NYSE IT Controls ["circuit breakers" automatic halt trading] Failed [SOXviolations]. Several incidents.Failures attributed to technical Glitch (SolarWinds, Microsoft) " during software"updates". volatility wild swings in stock pricesMSFT -CrowdStrike - The "technical glitch" that crash the world. Supply Chain cyber-attacks.Via electronic mail Now item b) below Obamacare - Electronic Medical Record in light of the information above - EmailHeather, specifically - IT systems and Infrastructure SOX IT testing vs the Cyber Security FRAUD.EY IT SOX 404 IT “testing” - ICA Enterprises (Critical Infrastructure) - IT System Interfaces withMexico’s Tax/Treasury Authorities.Hint: Labor.. .. TTP - NAFTA 2.0 - TMEC. Control over Labor Markets - Slaves (aka immigrants). As I said in previous Emails - Edward Snowden was way to junior to understand the complexity &scale of the Global Government - The US Unintelligence Branch - NSA and its partners in crime (i.e.Australia, England, Mossad Unintelligence agencies) mass collection data and/methods…… Google “AI” mass collection of patient’s data (secret agreements - Hospitals i.e. the UCLA andCatholic hospitals of the world). Did anyone forgot what Theranos Corporate FRAUD was about (Fake Blood work, tests…).. SiliconValley innovation Charlatans - Corporate America High value Health Care Cartel. Mexican Medical Doctors, Michoacan, being trained in Israel..,. REALLY ??? Medical doctors vs Pharmaceutical Agents with a medical license. Labor Markets High Skilled Labor - Medical Doctors. USA-Israel vs Cuba. On May 14, 2025, at 1:45 PM, Missy Fuss <missy.fuss@yahoo.com> wrote: Final Notice. “Settlement Offer“ valid through May 15, 2025. Elaine/Traci/Aaron -DOL Network of public-private partnerships.. ONGs..etc) Lawless Orangutans a) See below. Email chain frim this morning: Re: Intellectual PropertyCohiba Cigars - My brain - My Intelectual Property - Labor Racketeering included intactat tge end if the below email trail (aka Audit trail). b) Warning. Risk is going up. On Saturday April 26, 2025 I was drugged at Century City Mall while I was eatingdinner. There is a nig difference between getting drunk and being drugged…Stupidpeople. I came to the USA through the Medical Sector - Brain Surgeon, NationalDisasters - Medical Emergencies (FEMA), DHHS-NIH-CDC —> bio-chemical weaponsnot through USA DEI Corporate America Education Industry. Retaliation ongoing. b) I was robbed yesterday at Century City Mall. Thieved took my wallet out of my pursewhile I watched a movie (AMC theater) - The Accountant. Thieved tookOne credit Card, ATM, drivers license) $5 USD BUT left $4K in cash….. Really????Allied Security Private Security Contractors. This situation its becoming a bit ridiculous again. I can’t even get drunk in peace thesedays. Warning - Mexico 2014-2015 -One of the assassination attempts - I was drugged, Iended up at the hospital in Morelia, Michoacan. Official story - Drug Overdosed.Problem. A DRUG I never took was “allegedly” in my system. Altered Blood Analysis,Toxicology. The US Drugs that I took sere not in my blood work, toxicology reports.Scheme required altering my US Electronic Medical Records at UCLA Med. I am a USSenior Public Auditor - PCAOB with US Security Clearances —> Global InterconnectedSystemsnot UCLA computers, IT outsourced to third graders. Obama-Care Electronic Records, HIPPA “Secrecy” — jajajajajaja The patient doesn't need to be protected by secrecy..,Criminals profiteering withAmericans medical information DO. On May 12, 2025, at 3:29 PM, Missy Fuss <missy.fuss@yahoo.com> wrote: Third Notice. “Settlement Offer“ valid through May 15, 2025. On May 11, 2025, at 1:27 PM, Missy Fuss<missy.fuss@yahoo.com> wrote: Second Notice. “Settlement Offer“ valid through May 15, 2025 Elaine/Traci (US DOL/Treasury) Refer to below Email trail. “Restaurants - Hospitality Industry. TIPS -Tips pooling, TipSharing, Service Charges -> Design, Implementation &operating effectiveness of the system --> FRAUD. Magnitudeof the crimes involved Taxing of TIPS - Income Taxes. Organized Crime --> Labor Exploitation, State Crimes.Racketeers. Exact same crimes --> Property Taxes. Real Estate Property - Mortgage Loans a.k.a. Triple netleases - Usury. Italian Restaurants --> Italian citizens. “Prohibido para cómplices”, Santa Chiara desata unincendio global" Mayo 11, 2025https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2J6eR5atFg See Email attached at the End of Settlement Offer below. On May 10, 2025, at 9:00 PM, Missy Fuss<missy.fuss@yahoo.com> wrote: Via electronic mail Email Heather. Encabezado del correo electrónico contiene información, detalles técnicos que permite hacerse una idea sobre la estructura y contenido en estos documentos electrónicos. Es parteimportante para entender lo que ocurre,en todos los correos enviadosdesde Julio 2019. Auditor Publico - Substancia sobre Forma. Forma - Orden basado Reglas -> "Legal Compliance" = operación estructurada. Fraude. Abogados SEC - waiving enforcement of "Custody Rules" - Investment Advisers -Investment companies. Graves Violaciones - SEC Securities & Exchange Acts of 1933 & 1934, Investment Adviser Acts, Investment Company Act of 1940, Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002. Custody Rules Instrumentos/activos financieros (i.e. ETF X). Sistema Financiero EE.UU. Mercados de Capital, Wall Street. Inversionistasglobales. The non existing financialassets. Chevron Doctrine. Investigations: FRAUD, governmentwaste, mismanagement , moneylaundering Tax Evasion, transnationalorganized crime. Bribery corruption -FCPAAct State Farm Insurance Claim 55-B881-7V6October 23, 2019 - Octubre 2014;OIG-SEC File #SF -00832951 - October26, 2019;OIG-DOJ File # 228337-VZR;WellFargo Bank File # May 12, 2020;OIG-GAO # 24-0251-C-HL August, 202024;DOL- Kansas # 1885513 - Wage & HourInvestigation - Los Cocos MexicanRestaurant, Inc. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 = PCAOB + FCPAAct of 1977Senior Public Auditor-PCAOB [RegulatoryNATO]; CA-CPA (BigTech,SiliconValley); NY-CPA (WallStreet) Global Capital. This Emails = Audit work-papers (PCAOB AuditStandards) prepared by a Public Auditor-PCAOB, CPA in connectionwith Audits/Investigations of CorporateAmerica [Militarized Structures, CorporateGovernments] for bribery &corruption under the a) books & records &b)internal control provisions of the FCPAAct of 1977. FCPA Audits/Investigations: a) books &records=internal communications (i.e.Emails) <--b) Internal controls over allbusiness records (Emails=electroniccommunications=E-documents (information). Therefore, internal controls overthis Emails (business records) & copies thisEmails contained in a) Email accounts ofintended recipients; b) Servers:Google/Apple/Yahoo/Governments/BigFour/Telecoms others; and c)Cloud & Data Centers. Electroniccommunications (information/data) is neverdeleted [Forensic Audits]. In 2013, EdwardSnowden, Intelligence Analyst, Leakeddocuments pertaining to the NSA'sPrograms/Methods ->Mass Data Collection ofelectronic communications on a global scale,Surveillance (Five-Eyes] operations by USGovernment & BigTech. [Privacy/IP<- Transfer to ->Data-Centers->Liability]. WikiLeaks Vault #7-CIA hacking tools:CIA cyber-weapons,Spyware/Backdoors. Implications: Apple,TESLA, Google, Amzaon, Boeing, FinTech,BigTech, Banks, Hospitals, CriticalInfrastructure, Governments, WallStreet DONOT have Security. [Israeli NSO-PegasusSpy software]. Apple providedUber code/ability to access Apple devices,extract information & spy on anyone via Uber'sApp. The Global Money Laundering & TaxEvasion Infrastructure [BigFour TaxAdvisory Services]Global Web of Entities, Tax Heavens& Offshore-Vehicles [VIEs/SPEs] <-ASC-810 Consolidation In 2002, Arthur Andersen, LLP (AA) thelargest of the BigFive Accounting Cartels got introuble. Enron Energy & Trading (ElectricityMarkets -Prices) blew up over massivefraud. Enron's Auditors' shred sensitivedocuments [Auditor's documents = Auditwork-papers]. AAimploded when U.S Regulators indicted AAon obstruction of justice charges overFirm's document destruction. Enron used Offshore-vehicles to hide debt& book fake profits [VIEs/SPEs]Enron's Offshore-vehicles [VIEs/SPEs] = AA's Tax Advisory Services [ASC-810Consolidation, SEC independence Rules] In 2008, Lehman Brothers blew up overmassive fraud.-->Housing & FinancialCrisis [Quantitative Easing]Lehman used Offshore-vehicles to hidedebts -->Off-balance-sheet debt [Repo-105Derivatives]Lehman's Offshore-vehicles[VIEs/SPEs]=EY Tax Advisory Services [ASC-810 Consolidation, SEC independence Rules] Insert Cyberattack - Evidence - Emaildestruction (document destruction - Enron),methods used to destroy and/or sabotage thisEmails (electronic communications -information) is irrelevant. Obstruction ofJustice. Google-Gmail, Apple-iPad -->InternalControls over IT systems, Interfaces & ITInfrastructure ->SOX 404 IT-Controls("ITGCs"). IT systems (interfaces/software) ->vulnerabilities -> backdoor access ("ITGCs"-->SOX/FCPAviolations). GOOGLE/APPLE=CorporateAmerica. GOOGLE/APPLE's Vendors =AGENTS (i.e.private security,contractors, Uber-Whistleblower RichardJacobs).GOOGLE/APPLE's AGENTSCrimes = GOOGLE/APPLE's LIABILITY. Refer to ICA Enterprises - EYWork - SOX 404 IT-Controls -> SystemImplementations -->IT "Workarounds"to interface with IT Systems -->TAXAuthorities in Mexico <- EY StandardService Offering. When caught, blame failedsystems implementations, Incompetence,Isolated incidents. February 2016 KPMG BackgroundInvestigation:Altegrity ->RAI ->HireRight - BackgroundInvestigation ->Security Clearance (USIS)Confidential Información exchanged viaAltegrity Private investigatorsprovoked sudden/direct confrontation betweenDeloitte & KPMG. KPMG was summoned toWashington, DC,faced Criminal Investigations -Espionage (DOJ/SEC/PCAOB).KPMG Consulting & Advisory Services:Senior Manager, Advisory [IT Systems,Internal Controls - PCAOB Standards]. SanFrancisco, CA.Information"Leaked" Fraudulent backgroundinvestigation - Political Opponent (HighValue Target) Collaboration KPMG ->Altegrity ->Kroll ->WalmartLos Angeles - Mexico - Walmart (Bribery,Cancun, CDMX, RealEstate) Herbalife-Walmart.Kroll, Inc. - Glencore - Murder Kroll, Inc. - KPMG -Walmart - Herbalife Fall 2011 a) Walmart retained KPMG, Kroll,Inc. >FCPA investigations "Mexico" 2012 Walmart. EY Auditors - Walmart TaxShelters - Tax Evasion. Money LaunderingFelipe Calderon - 2006 Electoral Fraud -War against Cartels Genaro Garcia Luna - Secretary Of PublicSecurity (2006-2012) b) EY transferred me from EY Real Estate, LosAngeles -> EY-FSO NYC -->EY Americas ->Tom Flannery, Boston. c) Deloitte Tax Advisory Practice, in LosAngeles transferred to EY-FSO Tax LosAngeles, CA Senior Tax Partner Mike Serota + TomFlannery, Senior Audit Partner, EY AmericasCo-Leaders Wealth and Asset Management.Tom Flannery, strategy, my time was going toStrategic operations EY Americas. 2012 Herbalife - Auditor KPMG "sudden" SEC independence conflicts withHB. WellsFargo Bank - KPMG Auditor. Herbalife Audit Partner -> Senior AuditPartner, Health Care Industry Leaderin Los Angeles, CA resigned fromKPMG. Financial crimes. KPMG Tax Shelters. PwC -HB Auditor - PwC. SEC"waived" PwC's independence conflicts withHB. DHHS -->OPM --> DHS - HOMELAND SECURITY -> Altegrity, Inc. -> USIS. Altegrity, Inc. Virginia based Entity -> USIS ->Kroll ->RAI ->HireRight ->WorkForce Solutions -> EQUIFAX,PwC Booz Allen Hamilton ->Altegrity ->Kroll->OakTreeCapital ->Brookfield Capital,EverCore. Altegrity -RAI William Bratton former LAPD Chief "Retired2009" to RAI (NYC), Homeland SecurityCouncil HSAC 2010. Herbalife Global Security Office - SolomonBernudiz (Corrupt) Network of entities -Ministry of Security - Violence -Brutality Genaro Garcia LunaOIG-SEC File #SF -00832951/FCPA Investigations October 26, 2019 Collaboration among Cartelde Sinaloa, Corporate America,GovernmentCollaboration among BigFourCartels Herbalife - growth since 2006. AeroMexico Flights Mexico- Japan- logistics and transport - Airlines, Airports(LAX)Collaboration Garcia Luna , William Brattonformer LAPD ChiefGLAC Consulting - RAI - KrollInc. interconnected global entitiesPolitical oponentes - Ayotzinapa. Kroll, Inc. Glencore U.S. Financial Markets (WallStreet). Sharesof Berkshire-Hathaway dropped from $626K to$185 dollars. The NYSE IT Controls ["circuit breakers"automatic halt trading] Failed [SOXviolations]. Several incidents. Failures attributed to technical Glitch(SolarWinds, Microsoft) " during software"updates". volatility wild swings in stock prices MSFT -CrowdStrike - The "technical glitch" thatcrash the world. Supply Chain cyber-attacks. Via electronic mail Elaine/Traci (US DOL/Treasury) At this point in time, I believe that you are getting asense about both Risk and the direction “Settlement” negotiations over the DOL - yourshenanigans at Los Cocos Mexican Restaurant. Inc. Here is Los Cocos opening offer transmitted to mewhile I was in Wichita, Kansas. Civil Complaint; The DOL will pay Los Cocos $1billion USD over its shenanigans Los Cocos. TheDOL will reimbursed Los Cocos all Costs related tothe Lawsuit, including Legal Fees, time wasted, etcgoing back to 2019. DOL will pay a % of the $1 billion USD to eachfamily member, sibilinos, wives, mothers, everychild that suffer through the emotional distress andpsychological violence inflicted on Los Cocosowners. We are a traditional Mexican family. When one ofus is attracted and suffers WE All suffer. Form and method of payment TBD. Its a YES/NO answer. Offer is effective until Mayuntil May 15, 2025. I am US Senior Public Auditor -PCAOB not alawyer. I don’t play Game theory. Auditors - Risk, Costs and crimes increase as timego by. Risk Manage Accordingly. I suggest you analyze the information in the EmailHeather as you evaluate your response or lackthereof. Sincerely,Nancy Alfaro US Senior Public Auditor - PCAOBCertified Public AccountantCalifornia & New York Begin forwarded message: From: Nancy Alfaro <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com>Date: May 11, 2025 at 12:26:03 PM PDTTo: Smith.Elaine.M@dol.gov,Martin.Traci.E@dol.gov,Sturdivant.Aaron@dol.govCc: news@thelocal.it, news@kwch.com,newsdesk@afr.com, TIPS@suntimes.com,tips@nypost.com, tips@zerohedge.com,ABCinvestigationsteam@protonmail.com,abdul.arif@gmail.com, alegrialaw@cox.net, TheEconomist EU <eiu_enquiries@eiu.com>,Desiree.Huff@lewisbrisbois.com,Debbie.Brumbelow@lewisbrisbois.com,Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com,Morelia@vozdemichoacan.com.mx,Economia@senado.gob.mx,gobernacion@senado.gob.mx,groa@deloittemx.com, missy.fuss@yahoo.com,JuanJosedelCastillo@gmail.comSubject: “Prohibido para cómplices”, SantaChiara desata un incendio global - Mayo 11,2025 Restaurants - Hospitality Industry. TIPS -Tips pooling, Tip Sharing, Service Charges -> Design, Implementation & operatingeffectiveness of the system --> FRAUD. Magnitude of the crimes involved Taxing of TIPS- Income Taxes. Organized Crime --> LaborExploitation, State Crimes. Racketeers. Exactsame crimes --> Property Taxes. Real Estate Property - Mortgage Loans a.k.a.Triple net leases - Usury. Italian Restaurants --> Italian citizens. “Prohibido para cómplices”, Santa Chiaradesata un incendio global"Mayo 11, 2025https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2J6eR5atFg While average-joe citizens, people, around theworld, stand up however they can to defendthemselves people societies from the ongoingderange orchestrations, here we are..... As if I or the three of you Smith.Elaine.M@dol.gov, Martin.Traci.E@dol.gov,Sturdivant.Aaron@dol.gov Includingabdul.arif@gmail.com, Alegrialaw@cox.net,Desiree.Huff@lewisbrisbois.com,Debbie.Brumbelow@lewisbrisbois.com,Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com, And the rest of the knuckle heads associated withlos Cocos weren't citizens impactes by the ongoingderangement and this situation. Which of you believe they live in isolation inanother planet or Not in the United States BananaRepublic????? The United States Banana Republic is every personin EE.UU. Everybody's fault, everybody'sresponsibility. Death = destruction of life =Destruction of everything Death people don't need jobs, bank accounts,education, bank loans, homes.....burocratic jobs --governments. If we destroy people, families,friends, societies --> We destroy ourselves. There is no me vs you OR Los Cocos vs DOL. Its a fight for survival of everyone not Democratsvs Republicans, Right vs Left, Progressives vsConservatives. Its Right vs Evil. Corporate America's NATZI Regime -->exploitative, violent Genocidal System = EVIL. Current structure of the DOL = Corporate America Begin forwarded message: From: Nancy Alfaro <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com>Date: May 14, 2025 at 9:26:01 AM PDTTo: Martin.Traci.E@dol.gov, Smith.Elaine.M@dol.gov,Sturdivant.Aaron@dol.gov, OIGWhistleblower@oig.dol.gov,LaborOIGinfo@oig.dol.gov,oig.whistleblower.ombudsperson.program@usdoj.gov,criminal.division@usdoj.gov, fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov, FraudGroup@sec.gov,OIGhotline@opm.gov, OIGHOTLINE@nlrb.gov, aclupreferences<aclupreferences@aclu.org>, laborcenter@berkeley.eduCc: missy.fuss@yahoo.com, David Chrencik <dchrencik@hotmail.com>,gobernacion@senado.gob.mx, senator.barbara.pocock@aph.gov.au, NiallO'Donnell <Niall.ODonnell@usdoj.gov>, Periodico Official<periodicooficial@michoacan.gob.mx>, Fernando Medina<fom.2@hotmail.com>, ferguson.adele@abc.net.au,JuanJosedelCastillo@gmail.com, Tom Flannery <tfflannery@gmail.com>,Scott Tornberg <scott.w.tornberg@pwc.com>, tom.burton@afr.com,Tomoko Nagashima <tomoko.nagashima@pwc.com>,Rob.Bonta@doj.ca.gov, Rahul.Darwar@ct.gov,Jovan.Agee@treasurer.ca.gov, marina@senado.gob.mx,Justin.Moor@ag.state.mn.us, oig@gao.gov, abdul.arif@gmail.com,alegrialaw@cox.net, David Orkin <westcoastorkin@gmail.com>,oig@sec.gov, OIG <OIG@ftc.gov>, LAPD OIG <oigcompl@lapd.online>,Global Ethics <Ethics.Helpline@wal-mart.com>, ethics@pcaobus.org,OIGCounsel@oig.treas.gov, asf@asf.gob.mx, Lic Jose Manuel ValenciaFlores <manuel.valencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx>,Auditoria.cfg@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Audreycervantez15@gmail.com,Indicepolitico@gmail.com, sbarragan@aristeguinoticias.com,tips@nypost.com, tips@zerohedge.com, news@thelocal.it, miami@sec.gov,Morelia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Morelia@vozdemichoacan.com.mx,transportandoamichoacan@live.com, Admcrtmich@gmail.com,adam.gitlin@dc.gov, adam.clark@barrons.com, Lucrecia<cordon.lucky@gmail.com>, Peter Kane <KaneP@sec.gov>, JeanneFleming <JFleming@metricus.net>, Pia Ligeti <pialigeti@gmail.com>,Lisa.Middleton@calpers.ca.gov, Matt Seegers<matt@seegersassociates.com>, Marc Roberts <marc.roberts@ey.com>,Sheriden Mansfeld <Smansfeld@canyonpartners.com>,philadelphia@sec.gov, SanFrancisco@sec.gov, newyork@sec.gov,chicago@sec.gov, dfw@sec.gov, boston@sec.gov, atlanta@sec.gov,denver@sec.gov, saltlake@sec.gov, sergio1677@gmail.com,sevillaleon78@outlook.com, incalfaro@hotmail.com, atagaloa@ocers.org,hotline@oig.treas.gov, Zamora@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Lazaro@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Tracey.Paine@treasurer.ca.gov,groa@deloittemx.com, Aaron.Greenspan@plainsite.org,bbauman@kwch.com, bblacker@secretariat-intl.com,CalSTRSCIO@calstrs.com, "Compliance Unit Mailbox@CBA"<ComplianceUnit@cba.ca.gov>, achristman@nelp.org,Economia@senado.gob.mx, Elizabeth.Arthur@dc.gov,phillip.caraballo@usdoj.gov, pressmia@ria.ru,Philip.O'Rourke@lewisbrisbois.com,BoeingInvestorRelations@boeing.com, Asktheboard@coca-cola.com,MariaMoreno@ctulocal1.orgSubject: Re: Corte Yankee obligada a reconocer la verdad - May 14,2025 COHIBA CIGARS - Dave Chrencik. Intelectual Property. Mybrain, My intelectual property. Elaine/Traci/Aron (Department of Labor crapheads) The information below isn't new. DOL has had it going back to July 2019. Does it sound to you as my being trafficked on a global basis might be aserious Labor issue - DOL/DOJ jurisdiction ....perhaps Laborracketeering???? This is why none of you had any fucking credibility...are useless, haveZERO utility on global free markets. Specially over Labor Markets. All youshitheads did was to buy into the ideology of Cartels and get down on yourknees over a paycheck "job protection". Just as the US DOE, the US DOL serves as a repression and controlmechanism over US and global labor markets. It NEEDS to be abolished in its entirety. On May 14, 2025, at 8:22 AM, Nancy Alfaro<alfaro.nancy@gmail.com> wrote: Memo This is coming. --> Intelectual Property. My brain, Myintelectual property. In the meanwhile, do me a favor, have "someone" deliver aHUGE box of Cuban Cigars made in Cuba and transported toDave Chrencik in Philadelphia. Hint -read in between thelines....smart people. It would be great if the "gift" was sent byCuban President on my behalf. Its a DEBT I have to Dave.That's how important Dave is to the Cuban people, Mexico andBRICS. Corte Yankee obligada a reconocer la verdad - May 14, 2025COHIBA CIGARS -Chrencik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVP-CQUIWwE Origin of the product, a.k.a. ME = Michoacan. Given that I am (Human Capital -High Skilled Labor ) themerchandise being traded -intelectual property rights - Mymother in Michoacan. Ask my mother if I don't belong to her inMichoacan and see how that goes. Ask PwC if I don't belong to PwC's global network, see howthat goes. Hint a) Dispute between EY-PwC in 2005 over me b)November 2008 Contracts/Agreements CA & NY signed atPwC -Los Angeles, CA c) 2012 EY-McGladrey (a.k.a. EastCoast vs Chicago (MidWest); EY shitheads falsely claiming myintelectual property belong to them; EY shitheads DEAD overthis shenanigans d) Herbalife invoking CA (Economic/Politicalinterests) protection vs NY in 2008. Herbalife retaliation - Relabeling/laundering the Origin of theProduct/Merchandise in 2008 - International Commerce -Services Economy. Begin forwarded message: From: Nancy Alfaro <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com>Date: May 15, 2025 at 11:36:32 AM PDTTo: missy.fuss@yahoo.com, groa@deloittemx.com, asf@asf.gob.mx,Auditoria.cfg@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Fiscal@morelia.fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,gobernacion@senado.gob.mx, Periodico Official <periodicooficial@michoacan.gob.mx>,Tracey.Paine@treasurer.ca.gov, transportandoamichoacan@live.com, marina@senado.gob.mx,Global Ethics <Ethics.Helpline@wal-mart.com>, Uruapan@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Morelia@vozdemichoacan.com.mx, JuanJosedelCastillo@gmail.com,sbarragan@aristeguinoticias.com, pressmia@ria.ru, Asktheboard@coca-cola.com,BoeingInvestorRelations@boeing.com, Investigacion@elpais.es, viridiana.rios@milenio.com,Lazaro@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, amazon-ir@amazon.com, Complaints@tigta.treas.gov,hotline@oig.treas.gov, Morelia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Denuncia@eluniversal.com.mx,Martin.Traci.E@dol.gov, LaborOIGinfo@oig.dol.gov, WhistleblowerProtection@tigta.treas.gov,Smith.Elaine.M@dol.gov, abdul.arif@gmail.com, ABCinvestigationsteam@protonmail.com,ethics@pcaobus.org, alegrialaw@cox.net, Alene.tchekmedyian@latimes.com, David Chrencik<dchrencik@hotmail.com>, Fernando Medina <fom.2@hotmail.com>, Manuel Carrillo<manuelneuro@hotmail.com>, Lic Jose Manuel Valencia Flores<manuel.valencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx>, Kriss Wortinton<kworthington@cityofberkeley.info>, City Of Berkley Manager <manager@cityofberkeley.info>,oig@gao.gov, oig@sec.gov, OIG <OIG@ftc.gov>, OIGhotline@opm.gov, Secretary@hhs.gov,Bryan Bennett <BennettB@sec.gov>Subject: Department of Labor - Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG) Internal Controls -"Settlements Agreements" Walmart.....2014 global FCPA operations 2014Mexico/India...BRICS - Labor Reforms -- DOL. Global widespread bribery corruption. FakeInvestigations/Inspections/xyz = Political Persecutions. Memo, Entiendes perfectamente bien --- no hay forma de que DOL....Walmart o algun abogado incompetentepueda ganar. Siempre son Guerras de desgaste. Problema. Auditores Públicos - Expectativas. Procesos completos -GAAS, PCAOB Standards,GAAP, IFRS --> Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, FCPA Act of 1977. Investigaciones paralelas en lassombras. Quiubole.....Legislación Fiscal - Guerra de Aranceles --> OECD minimum tax on Multinacionales. US-China tregua -Guerra comercial. US acordó aranceles de 10% (20% + 10% = 30%) China =10%. Substancia sobre Forma. Mientras tanto seguimos devaluando el USD. Inflación. Esuna Guerra a muerte no una batalla con teatro politico. Hint: oferta Los Cocos expira mañana Mayo 15, 2025. Términos no $$$ billon y/o USD monopoly money.Auditor Publico + Guerra de Desgaste, frentes multiples.. Expectativas. Guerra económica. Es lamisma mierda que en Ucrania. Guerra de desgaste. Venta de armas. Si se termina la Guerra... se acabala venta de armas fiadas (Paquetes de Ayuda militar). Se desploman las acciones de Raytheon. DOL-OIG-ILAB-USAID-CRS Funded Projects (EDU-Labor Markets initiatives LatinAmericaNorthern Triangle) EL SALVADOR: Partnership supports education, skills training November 27,2023 Thomas A Kirschbaum -Irell & Manella, LLP - Selected Issues regarding Contingent LaborForce http://files.ali-cle.org/thumbs/datastorage/skoobesruoc/pdf/06KirschbaumContingenCJ013_thumb.pdf Independent ContractorsPart timersConsultants <--- Robert Half Temporary WorkersPer diem workersSeasonal workersStudent InternsLease EmployeesImmigrant workers (Short term employment visas) Outsourced employeesNon-Equity Partners (See e.g. Simpson vs Ernst & Young 1996. "Partner" was EE for purposes ofADEA & ERISA) February-April 2019. Robert Half Tri Party Arrangement RH Employee vs Festival Companies ConsultantRules. Professionals/Executives, I, are NOT EE of Robert Half (Staffing Agency). RH (Agency) didnot have the ability to direct & control the EE services. I = Employee of Festival. FestivalCommunications to all Temp EEs (Consultants/contractors) - Temp EEs did not have any rights atFestival. EE's No HR function @ RH or Festival....March 2019 - State Farm Insurance Fraud. Dispute HR-Festival. The Three party arrangement did not hold up to scrutiny. RH & Festival Compamies backed down.... Internal Controls Audit -> Wage-Benefit theft (WHD..) -> Employment violations. Tax Fraud. Labor Exploitation - Labor Racketeering. Etc.... Labor Laws /ERISA violations. Tax Courts - IRS code section 401. IRS Test.FCPA/SOX/SEC violations. Background 2018 Herbalife-Walmart FCPA Audits/Investigations EY - Labor Reforms - Subcontracting - Temp Labor (Contingent Labor Force)Consultants/contractors). Irell & Manella, LLP. Entity Structuring ...Tax Avoidance. Internalcontrols Audits - Schemes. Financial records, Documents. Corporate Whistleblowers - WidespreadLabor Exploitation, Tax Evasion, Fraud, Bribery -- DOL, Tax Authorities, Judges..in the US/abroad. IRS 2019 -Open Tax Audit. Robert Half wages + Fidelity + .....Information Reported to DOL-DOJ-IRS-GAO...Congress-Senate-RH-Festival Companies-PublicAuditors, etc. via this electronic communications. Relevant documents (W-2s, paystubs, RH arrangements, - provided/extracted from Gmail inbox,financial institutions, etc.). DOL -OIG relevant authorities [Gov Waste, Abuse of Power, Fraud...RH, Festival, Herbalife, Walmart (DOL issues) vs Los Cocos DOL fabrication-Law-fare. Timing July 2019. This electronic communications (emails) began, Labor/Whistleblower issues. May 2019. Aaron Sturdivant, KDOL Inspector, performed an unannounced visit to Los Cocos andrequested to speak with Los Cocos Employees, records. On May 2019, Mr. Sturdivan had been an inspector at KDOL for about six months. Significant Difference between a routine, informal visit to Los Cocos vs the WHD of the DOLinforming/opening an investigation into Los Cocos on May 2019. DOL-WHD "Investigation period" (two years) May 2017 - June 2019. vs period from May 2017 - December 2022 per Civil Complaint No. 6:22-cv-1004filed on January 6, 2022. DOL vs Los Cocos Civil Complaint No. 6:22-cv-1004 January 6, 2022https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.139722/gov.uscourts.ksd.139722.1.0_1.pdf Los Cocos Employees have a straight forward tip sharing arrangement not a tip pooling agreement.Los Coco's doesn't have salaried employees. Tips are automatically tracked via POS System. Totaltips, tip sharing amounts for each server are calculated & recorded in the POS System and distributed to EEs on the spot or paychecks. Timecards for all EEs are provided to outside payroll provider eachpay period hrs worked, hr. rate, Wages, tips, tax withholdings, net payroll. Pay-stubs & paychecks areprepared by outside payroll provider and distributed to all EE each pay period. Los Cocos hasdetailed records of all hours worked, hour rates, wages paid. IT Systems, automated calculations, electronic records, Paystubs, bank statements, W-2, Tax records. As noted in prior emails, DOL inspector (speculations, legal trickery) vs with 6 month workexperience vs BigFour Senior Public Auditor - PCAOB with detailed financial records, documents(record keeping). DOL -> LawFare. Political persecutions. Corrupt gov Agencies. Hint. Information contained in Form WH-56 "Summary of Unpaid Wages" or "Tolling Agreements" (Tactics) complaint, motions. DOL-WHDInternal controls - operating process & procedures. FRAUD. Extortion. Civil vs criminal liability. Department of Labor vs Los Cocos Mexican Restaurant, Inc. Julie Sue, Acting Secretary (talktodo@dol.gov, CRCExternalComplaints@dol.gov)Larry D. Turner. Inspector General (OIGWhistleblower@oig.dol.gov)Fired January 29, 2025 Date Liquidated damages imposed on Los Cocos Mexican Rest.Aaron Sturdivant, KDOL Inspector (Sturdivant.Aaron@dol.gov)Christine Z. Heri, Regional Solicitor, Chicago IL (Heri.Christine.Z@dol.gov)Evrrt H. Van Wijk, Associate Regional Solicitor, Chicago ILHerbalife Chicago distribution Center (EEs), Walmart Chicago stores/ Super CentersElaine M. Smith, Trial Attorney (Smith.Elaine.M@dol.gov)Traci R. Martin, Senior Trial Attorney (Martin.Traci.E@dol.gov)Jeffrey Mendoza, Trial Attorney (Mendoza.Jeffrey@dol.gov)John W Broomes, Presiding Judge, District Court for the District of Kansas(ksd_broomes_chambers@ksd.uscourts.gov) Department of Labor - Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG)Internal Controls - "Settlements Agreements" Walmart Stores, Inc. is the largest employer in the world. Walmart is notorios for labor exploitation, wage theft, tax evasion, fraud, intimidation, widespreadbribery, regulatory avoidance - multi-year litigation, obstruction, obfuscation, underhanded tactics,enforcement actions that result in toothless "Settlement" Agreements. Herbalife-Walmart "FCPA Investigations" - 2018. Labor - widespread employment violations, Wage & benefit theft, bribery of Labor, Tax...Judges,prosecutors - gov officials. DOL-OIG-WHD --> Walmart SettlementAgreement Internal controls - programs & internal operations. Agreement with Walmart indicates need for stronger guidance & procedures for SettlementAgreements - October 31, 2005 https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2006/04-06-001-04-420.pdf OIG found serious breakdowns in WHD's processes for negotiation, developing and approvingsuch Agreements. These breakdowns resulted in WHD entering into an Agreement that gavematerial concessions to Walmart. Specifically, the Agreement provided for advance notification byWHD of Walmart's investigations, and gave Walmart the ability to avoid civil money penalties(CMP) under certain conditions. In exchange, the Agreement primarily committed Walmart tocontinue measures that were already in place or required by law. Also, WHD did not consult with theOffice of the Solicitor (SOL) in developing and approving the Agreement. Wage & Hour Division. Audit Reports --> DOL-OIG. Public scrutinity & Oversight. Evaluation of Internal controls - programs & internal operations. WHD Internal control findings persistent - lack of remediation --> lax oversight, accountability. Ofparticular attention: COVID-19: The Pandemic Highlighted the Need to Strengthen Wage and Hour Division'sEnforcement ControlsWage and Hour Division Needs to Strengthen Management Controls for Back WageDistributionsWHD Lacked Effective Financial Management of Back Wage and Civil MonetaryPenalty ReceivablesAgreement with Wal-Mart Indicates Need for Stronger Guidance and ProceduresRegarding Settlement AgreementsConcerns Persist with the Integrity of Davis-Bacon Act Prevailing WageDeterminationsInaccurate data were Fequently Used in Wage Determinations made under the Davis-Bacon Act 1. COVID-19: The Pandemic Highlighted the Need to Strengthen Wage and Hour Division's Enforcement Controls 2. Report No. 19-21-008-15-001 (September 30, 2021)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {2.75 MB} | [ Response ] 1. DOL Did Not Demonstrate It Followed A Sound Process in Promulgating the 2017 Tip Rule Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Report No. 17-21-001-15-001 (December 11, 2020)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {2.10 MB} | [ Response ] 1. COVID-19: WHD Needs To Closely Monitor The Pandemic Impact On Its Operations Report No. 19-20-009-15-001 (August 07, 2020)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {1.92 MB} | [ Response ] 1. Better Strategies are Needed to Improve the Timeliness and Accuracy of Davis-Bacon Act Prevailing Wage Rates Report No. 04-19-001-15-001 (March 29, 2019)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {3.20 MB} | [ Response ] 1. Wage and Hour Division Needs to Strengthen Management Controls for Back Wage Distributions Report No. 04-15-001-04-420 (March 31, 2015)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {964 KB} | [ Response ] 1. WHD Lacked Effective Financial Management of Back Wage and Civil Monetary Penalty Receivables Report No. 22-12-013-04-420 (September 28, 2012)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] { 1.88 MB} | [ Response ] 1. Verification of Wage and Hour Division Remediation Efforts of Prior-Year IT Security Recommendations Report No. 23-11-013-04-420 (August 26, 2011)This report contains Sensitive Information and will not be posted 2. Recovery Act: Enforcement of Davis-Bacon Act Prevailing Wage Rate Determinations Report No. 18-11-009-04-420 (March 31, 2011)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {244 KB} 1. WHD Northeast Region's Management of Civil Money Penalties and Back Wages Could Be Improved Report No. 04-10-001-04-420 (March 31, 2010)This report contains Sensitive Information and will not be posted 2. Updated Status of Prior-Year Recommendations Related to Wage and Hour IT Security Report No. 23-10-005-04-420 (March 31, 2010)This report contains Sensitive Information and will not be posted 3. Wage and Hour's Management Oversight of the FLSA's Minimum wage and Overtime Exemption Provisions Under 29 CFR Part 541 Could Be Strengthened Report No. 04-10-002-04-420 (December 16, 2009)This report contains Sensitive Information and will not be posted 4. Audit of the Wage and Hour Division, New Orleans District Office's Processing of Workers' Complaints Received in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina Report No. 04-08-002-04-420 (March 31, 2008)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {1.06MB} | [ Response ] 1. Agreement with Wal-Mart Indicates Need for Stronger Guidance and Procedures Regarding Settlement Agreements Report No. 04-06-001-04-420 (October 31, 2005)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {9.36 MB} | [ Response ] 1. Concerns Persist with the Integrity of Davis-Bacon Act Prevailing Wage Determinations Report No. 04-04-003-04-420 (March 30, 2004)[ Summary ] | [ Full Report ] {1 MB} | [ Response ] 1. Wage and Hour Division Administration of Special Minimum Wages for Workers with Disabilities Report No. 05-01-002-04-420 (March 19, 2001)No Summary | [ Full Report ] {67 KB} 1. Inaccurate data were Fequently Used in Wage Determinations made under the Davis- Bacon Act Report No. 04-97-013-04-420 (March 10, 1997)No Summary | [ Full Report ] {7.11 KB} To the Office of Inspector General for the Government Accountability Office (GAO): GAO's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received your correspondence to our hotline. Hotlines -> Complaints -> Ethics & Compliance Programs. GAO-OIG's Internal Policies & Procedures -> Internal operations. Internal Controls. Compliance with Federal/State Laws & Regulations i.e. DOL Labor - Employment Laws & Regulations) Internal-controls (Hotlines->Complaints-Confidential Information-Whistleblowers) IT System's & Interfaces,. IT Infrastructure Databases, Servers, Cloud infrastructure, Data-Centers, back-door access (Apple (iOS), Windows (MSFT) platforms. Whistleblower Complaints --> Confidentiality ->Whistleblower Protections (Compliance Applicable Laws & Regulations) Herbalife. Solomon Bernudiz,Global Security Office, Senior Management, Third-Partty Vendors and Service Providers Unauthorized access (Backdoors) to HB's IT Systems, Servers & Database = access to Electronic records, Confidential Information, internal Complaints (Whistleblowers), Audits/Internal investigations. Unauthorized access to corporate records, confidential information --> Internal Controls violatio ->FCPA/SEC/SOX violations. Prior to joining HB, Mr. Bernudiz, a City Gov politician, Law Enforcement background (LAPD) was Involved in public corruption Scandals, investigations Defrauding CalPERS Pension Plan. CalPERS = CA bureaucrats Retirement Funds. Corporate Policies.and procedures. Internal Controls - Hiring Practices, Background Checks & Criminal Investigations. Gatekeepers. Internal Controls & Compliance with applicable Labor Laws & Regulations. Senior Management,, Directors & Officers). Sensitive Information pertaining to Global Investigations, HB's FCPA Audits/Investigations, Regime-Change operations in the US & abroad, Political persecutions. In 2018 Targets of HB-Walmart regime-change operations included US-President Donald Trump; EPN, Mexican President, Mexico's President Elect -AMLO, PwC, HB's Public Auditors and Carl Icahn, Notorious Corporate Raider. Icahn was HB's Largest shareholder//Controlling interest and close Advisor to President Trump. High-Value Information. Espionage. Political/Economic gains. GAO-OIG independently conducts audits and other reviews of GAO's own programs and internal operations. GAO's Internal Proceses - Audits Process - Annual Audits, Internal Audit Reports. Public Information. Transparency - GAO-OIG website). BigFour -Senior Public Auditor -PCAOB vs Castro & Company, LLC - Unregistered Accounting/& Audit Firm -US Gov Contractor. Berney Madoff's schemes - Accounting/Audit Firm (violations of Rules/regulations). GAO-OIG also investigates allegations of potential fraud, waste, mismanagement, and violations of rules and laws related to internal GAO programs and operations. Internal Investigations (Whistleblower Complaints vs internal Auditors vs Public Auditors communications) (Fraud, misconduct, corruption, Gov Waste, Mismanagement, Abuse of Power, Serious crimes - Racketeers Financial & Regulatory Risk. Risk Management Processes & processes) --> Internal/External investigators, Vendors/service providers (Private Security Contractors, PIs, Lawyers. Professional competence, technical skills, independence/conflicts of interest). Assassination attempts, death threats, intimidation, coercion/extortion -widespread - Retaliation/Harassment are very serious crimes not Risk Management Procedures. Stupid/dumb criminals - Crimes are being committed AGAINST a US Senior Public Auditor -PCAOB A Certified Public Accountant, CA/NY not against Average-Joe DOL/DOJ/IRS government EE (i.e. DOL-OIG - Politician/Bureaucrat). Obstruction of Justice - the least of any OIG's / Walmart's Ethics Compliance Office - CCO's concerns. Once again. Herbalife & Walmart's - Global FCPA Audits/Investigations. Global Corporations -Corporate Governments under investigation over bribery & corruption = Dozens of Governments (government officials, corporate executives)) in various countries. Foreign Governments (State Nations) ->Diplomatic Engagements. Global Implications. - International Trade Agreements - Corresponding Anticorruption Treaties, - Laws & Regulations, (SEC-PCAOB Regulatory Framework), International Tax-Treaties - National Security Agreements. Not unilateral decisions by US corrupt bureaucrats/politicians OR Walmart's racketeers standard tactics (criminal conduct). Refresher. Ethics & Compliance Programs, Hotlines, Whistleblower Complaints & Internal investigations proceses were tested across Government Agencies & Corporate America at the Start of this process (Emails). Elite Consultants sold every company & gov agency around the world the same PDF files (Secret Sauce). Globalization=Standardization (Standard operating Policies & procedures) = Standard Fraudulent Schemes = Automation. Systemic Risk. Corporate America's Ethic's & Compliance Program = Herbalife's Ethic's & Compliance Program = Walmart's Ethic's & Compliance Program = TITGA's Ethics & Compliance Program = GAO's Ethics & Compliance Program = DOL's Ethics & Compliance Program This Emails are Audit Work-papers of a System Wide Audit. Corporate America -US Gov ---> Widespread Gov corruption & Lawlessness. DOGE. By Law, Public Auditors are required to circumvent Corrupt Systems & Proceses..Corrupt process = Corrupt outcomes. The information sent via this Email communications going back to July 2019 are Justification for DOGE. DOGE operations are circumventing corrupt processes and gov agencies, destroying corrupt proceses. Mass Firings of government EEs & Shutting down/Defunding Gov Agencies and Programs (a.k.a networks of corrupt PPP (NGOs) required to prevent lawless orangutans & corrupt agencies from using the legal & regulatory framework to persecute, harass and/or threatened Average-Joe and Businesses. Weaponization of gov agencies. State Accountancy Acts. CPAs - Incompetent Auditors - Imminent Danger Public Health & Safety. Ongoing Violence Programs-& Experiments (SPYOPS) against average-joe Americas in US Soil and abroad. DOL-OIG-ILAB-USAiD-CRS Funded Programs & operations (DEI-ESG-NetZero-Climate-Change lunatics). If GAO-OIG requires further information regarding your complaint, we will contact you. (Internal Investigation...) If your complaint involves a federal entity other than GAO, ,please contact the Inspector General’s office for that organization e.g., the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Defense, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Office of Inspector General for the US Postal Service . . . ). If your complaint involves a state or local entity, you may find a relevant Office of Inspector General listed at https://inspectorsgeneral.org/useful-links/directory-of-state-and-local- government-oversight-agencies/. Observation: GAO = U.S. Government Accountability Office. Risk Manage accordingly. Example of Internal Complaint Begin forwarded message: From: Missy Fuss <missy.fuss@yahoo.com>Date: May 15, 2025 at 5:07:03 PM PDTCc: USMCA@cbp.dhs.gov, Philip.O'Rourke@lewisbrisbois.com, abdul.arif@gmail.com, alegrialaw@cox.net,ethan.ward@lewisbrisbois.com, Francis.Schneider@lewisbrisbois.com, Robert.Schulls@mail.house.gov,Debbie.Brumbelow@lewisbrisbois.com, HouseIG@mail.house.gov, Rob.Bonta@doj.ca.gov,Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com, groa@deloittemx.com, news@thelocal.it, newsdesk@afr.com,TIPS@suntimes.com, tips@nypost.com, tips@zerohedge.com, ABCinvestigationsteam@protonmail.com,eiu_enquiries@eiu.com, Morelia@vozdemichoacan.com.mx, JuanJosedelCastillo@gmail.com,dchrencik@hotmail.com, tfflannery@gmail.com, rgajdzik@deloittemx.com, rtraconis@deloittemx.com,jorgflores@deloittemx.com, jotapia@deloittemx.com, gobernacion@senado.gob.mx,Gobiernodemorelia@morelia.gob.mx, OIG@ftc.gov, oig.hotline@usdoj.gov, abaez@deloittemx.com, mestrada@deloittemx.com, pberthely@deloittemx.com, dgarcialozano@deloittemx.com,joygallup@paulhastings.com, apaul@whitecase.com, pperezalonso@ritch.com.mx, pvelasco@s-s.mx,periodicooficial@michoacan.gob.mx, phillip.caraballo@usdoj.gov, emilywinston@paulhastings.com,Emilse.hooi@an.ey.com, bbauman@kwch.com, news@kwch.com, jlutz@kwch.com,Transparencia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, transparencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx, FOM.2@hotmail.com,transportandoamichoacan@live.com, Admcrtmich@gmail.com, Tribuno_alfa@hotmail.com,margarita.estrada.aguirre@notaria52morelia.com, Sectec_segob@michoacan.gob.mx, Spg@michoacan.gob.mx,Denunciaenlinea@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Denuncias.cfg@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Morelia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Uruapan@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Apatzingan@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Lapiedad@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Lazaro@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Zamora@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Zitacuaro@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Huetamo@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Jiquilpan@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Coalcoman@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Fiscaliadesaparecidos@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,pgjecomsoc@michoacan.gob.mx, Policiainvestigacion@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,CoordinacionSalud@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Cibernetica.inteligencia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Inteligenciacriminal@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Inteligencia.patrimonial@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Tortura@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, cramirez.sader@michoacan.gob.mx, nvazquez.sader@michoacan.gob.mx,rsilva.sader@michoacan.gob.mx, avillalobos.sader@michoacan.gob.mx, vayala.sader@michoacan.gob.mx,Contraloria@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Auditoria.cfg@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, asf@asf.gob.mx,Unidadtransparencia@asf.gob.mx, puntosconstitucionales@senado.gob.mx, Justicia@senado.gob.mx,ninezyadolescencia@senado.gob.mx, asuntosindigenas@senado.gob.mx, Economia@senado.gob.mx,reformaagraria@senado.gob.mx, agriculturayganaderia@senado.gob.mx, salud@senado.gob.mx,Trabajoyprevision@senado.gob.mx, educacion@senado.gob.mx, comsegsocial@senado.gob.mx,comunicacionesytransportes@senado.gob.mx, asuntosfronterizos@senado.gob.mx, Hacienda@senado.gob.mx,Anticorrupcion@senado.gob.mx, Energia@senado.gob.mx, juan.carlos.palomar@pemex.com,maricarmen.montano@pemex.com, seguridadpublica@senado.gob.mx, Defensanacional@senado.gob.mx,marina@senado.gob.mx, MARCASAT@sat.gob.mx, MenchoTips@usdoj.gov, ChapitosTips@usdoj.gov,HSAC@hq.dhs.gov, SayCISA@cisa.dhs.gov, knmystuff@aol.com, Media@puc.texas.gov, mediapartners@ria.ru,vincent.law@mayerbrown.com, fatima.lima@maine.gov, fatima.de-windt-ferreira@an.ey.com,FRAUD@insurance.ca.gov, zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us, barrera@basham.com.mx,Denuncia@eluniversal.com.mx, VeritasTIPS@protonmail.com, Investor@gruposantander.com,Ethan.Bowers@ag.tn.gov, OIGCounsel@oig.treas.gov, oig@gao.gov, oig@sec.gov, KOInvestorRelations@coca-cola.com, BoeingInvestorRelations@boeing.com, autoworkers@wsws.org, Miriam.Ramirez@milenio.com,TPBLegalUnit@tpb.gov.au, matt@seegersassociates.com, Robert.Berry@treasurer.ca.gov, ethics.helpline@wal-mart.com, inversionistas@walmart.com, gabriela.buenrostro@walmart.com, globalchair@deloitte.co.uk,EthicsOffice@un.org, mark.weinberger@uk.ey.com, mmiranda@sacbee.com, Smith.Elaine.M@dol.gov,Martin.Traci.E@dol.gov, Heri.Christine@dol.gov, Sturdivant.Aaron@dol.gov, OIGWhistleblower@oig.dol.gov,LaborOIGinfo@oig.dol.gov, LaborEnforcement@dhs.gov, hotline@oig.treas.gov, Elizabeth.Arthur@dc.govSubject: Fwd: How Pakistan, Lashkar and ISI Exploit the Drug Trade | Vantage with Palki Sharma - May15, 2025 - Iran Contras Nicaragua. Drugs for Weapons - Terrorist Camps. CIA-DEA operations. Cocaine-Feliz Gallardo - Mexican Cartels. Terrorist training camps -Jalisco(Sinaloa) - Teuichtlan, Jalisco -Tlaquepaque Jal. (Herbalife) - Death Squats. Kiki Camarena DEA Agent - Felix Gallardo/Caro Quintero -Padrino - Governor of Sinaloa. Federal Security Services. Kiki Camarena + Gary Webb - Mercury news -Iran-Contra operations Arms:Drug trafficking trade - US Government. CIA-DEA. DHHS-OPM-DHS In El SalvadorThe Mexican Cartels = Gangs (MS-13, MS-18) In the middle east Mexican Cartels = Terrorists In X country, Mexican Cartels = X Label In the USA Mexican Cartels = US Government, Corporate Executives The amount of Gringo ignorance is mind blowing. Rhetorical questionWhat are the chances - I am coirdinstinv with India??? Via intermediaries. Hint: July 2019 El Chupacabras seems to be doing the rounds in India. Land/Agricultural reforms. El Chupacabras sighseeings firsr reported in the 1990s (NAFTA) in Puerto Rico and Mexico. Since I an the most intelligent person in the world according to Unintelligence agencies- shrink’s coco-wash operationsI claimed ownership and I nationalized El Chupacabras as a Mexican citizen. Royalties goung forward for the useof El Chupacabras (the monster under the bed - terrorists operations) intelectual property goes to ME. My Chupacabras - My PSYCH OPS - My brain, My intelectual property - My perpetual royalties. Global Intelligence MonarchyI bevame the Queen of the Global intelligence monarchy -network pf inteligence sharing entities (PPPs public-private-partnerships ie ONGs, think thanks, global espionage - mass cocowash industry (Shrinks, Psychologists,Facebook) operations. Operation Condor - Operation Gladio. Mass Migrations - Human Weapons of Mass Destabilization Intelligence Agencies “Officially” I worked for 10 years atPwC Booz Allen Hamilton -NSA Same place as Edward Snowden -NSA-CIA Intelligence AgentPrivate Government Contractors Edward - inexperienced, too low in the food chain of command. Inexperienced NOT STUPID or incompetent. DHHS - OPM - DHS Office of Federal Investigations, Security Clearances - Homeland Security - Pentagon (Military) CIA pigs attempted to recruit me several times… Clandestine operations to Marry me off (Mexican Cartels,Michoacan, Hillary Clinton) to South America - Military Dictatorships. Sort of El Mencho - Valencia Family. Key - the countries.. .. According to X, At 46 - I would reach “Mayoria de Edad” Reference to - Political Office. Response - I aren’t Argentina’s EvaPeron. I am a US born Mexican citizen, a women from Michoacan (NAFTA) - North America in Washington,DC. I am barely 20 years old. US Ivy League education below middle school standards in Michoacan. I Wasn’tasking for any of the things offer to me. I can marry the future governor, next in line, of Michoacan tomorrow if Iwanted to. Yet Michoacan and Jalisco - Avocafo Empire + Felipe Canderon shenanigans. I already knew NAFTAdrug trafficking routes from Michoacan/Jalisco to CA, Texas and aparentky all the way to the east Coast.Logistics & transportation. Shadiness narco-politics get people & famies killed in Mexico. I aren’t an enemy inMichoacan nor Jalisco nor Mexican Senate —> Felipe Calderon - PEMEX - Energy Sector - Corporate America -Cinepolies. The Family behind it - behind me. Azcarragas -closed to my gamily in Mexico. So is Mexicana deAviacion. So is steel Industry. So is Teacher’s syndicate (SEP) in Michoacan and Mexico Cify. Above all -FEMA, Oroteccion Civil, SEGOB - Public Security Judicial Estatal (AFI)… Military (i.e. US, Mexican marines),Doctors, Judges, lawyers, notary publics my family, married to my family, close family friends. I aren’t poor little girl who was selling gun in a corner or begging for a few coins. I left Mexico bevause I had aconstitutional argument with State SEP in Muchoacan. The ignorant shitheads argue I wasn’t Mexican despite theMexican Constitution stating the apposite. I refuse to ho nack to Mexico until the shitheads agree that I amMexican. Made in Mexico by two Mexican citizens - My parents. I happened to bd born in the USA but taken toMichoacan so that I could be raised under Mexican family values by Mexican families in Michoacan not byChicano - immigrant (modern slaves). My grandparents - Biz Owners - the Peers of Mexican President - LazaroCardenas del Rio. My parents - peers of Cuhahutemoc Cardenas, son of Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas.Michoacan’s Governor. Presidential Electoral FRAUD 1988 - Carlos Salinas de Gortari - Felix Gallardo (Jalisco-Sinaloa Cartels) - NarcoPolitics. A lot of death people - clean up operations after Salinas de Gortari ElectoralFraud.NAFTA shady negotiations. Even I and my family were under death threats. Reason - NAFTA negotiations took place in mr house kitchen, At11 yrs old I was taken to NAFTA negotiations. By 1994 - Luis Donaldo Colosio murdered. Harvard Neoliberal Felipe Calderon (PAN political party) next inline for Michoacan’s Governor - Treachery - NAFTA negotiations (PRIAN). I was the person responsible forimploding the Fraudulent scheme - PEMEX Calderon was using to extort Michoacan’s Biz/Energy sector to agreeto Electoral Fraud - aka declare him the winner of the Elections - Governor Elect State of Michoacán. I ended upunder the protection of the Energy Sector & State’s Medical Mafia - SEGOB. Jalisco - Mexican Senate. TierraCaliente - Nexus to Morelia. Public Security - Organizacion Ramirez (Cinepolis). NAFTA screwed everybody not just my family. Trust is earned not extorted. Michoacan Eye for am Eye. controlnot backwards. As I said, I was barely 20 years old. I wasn’t Monica Lwinski nor had self estime issues or looking to have myEgo stroke. I was young and inexperienced, ignore a lot of things NOT stupid. By 2011 - EY Americas - East Coast - Strategic operations - Trade Agreements -Negotiations operations. Negotiating tables EY Partners. My Global ranking according to EY - Contractors - Private Education (Duke,Kellog, Columbia Universities) - US Ivy League Universities - I ranked # 2 on a global basis. EY Partner -Netherlands ranked # 1. Hint - What was the operation - objective. Global Green Economy - Selling US Corporate Frauds to unsuspectingForeign Gov - State Nations - Global Corporate Structures. - Negotiating tables, teams - technical experts. Valuation of Companies - Financial Statements - viability of “technologies” infrastructure. Green Energies -whitewashing. Information arbitrage - regulatory oversight - secret tribunals, secret proceses. Things are worthwhat anyone, unsuspecting victim, is willing to pat for it. Free Market information is worth whatever state nation has access to and/or can afford. Free Market. Technical skills of the Negotiating team. Schemes tarnish the Asset i.e. PEMEX, negative publicity campaigns - Pemex, oil is worthless - Disincentives - tankenterprise values. Oil, Gas - Oil & gas pipelines Glorified the FRAUDs - Green Energies, infraestructures (ESG) - Giant offshore ventilators (turbines) -Overshoot prives - Marketing campaigns - paid cheerleaders - subdidies. Use the prive of inflated stocks as currency (USD) to acquire, oil, gas pipelines, refineries, etc. highly valuablestrategic and critical assets, land, infrastructure, operations (ICA) - Stock Exchanges. A.k.a.Corporate America - Silicon Valley innovation charlatans. The value of Information. Things are worth whatever anyone wants to pay for them - informatiom arbitrage. Example - Luxury IndistryHermes - Birkins, BagsMistery - coordinated Marketing campaigns - Trade Secrets - High Skill Labor Methods, scarcity. (France,Germany, Italy - Luxury Market - Economy$ Price of a Birkins hand bag $38,000 Chinese tick tock marketing campaign outed production - manufacturing prices, labor conditions. Genericassembly lines. Cost of making a Birkin’s (Prada, LV, Rolex) asembmy line in China. Cost of a bag $600.Chinese manufactures offer to sell the hand bags directing to consumers around the world for $1,400 Information arbitrage - significantly reduce via tick tock coordinated low budget campaign. Just like that relevant information collapsed Stock prices, Luxury Industry, Price of Burkin’s hand bags. Hermes Revenue per Birkin’s bag $38,000 vs Revenue per bag of $1,400 to Chinese manufacturer Hermes gets 0 revenues.US GAAP - IFRS - Financial Accounting & ReportingHermes Going Concern issues (Revenues) - Significant Sign risk Revenues —> ZERO Cost of operations, Labor, vapital structure, marketing campaigns, accounting, audit, legal fess — bribe money(Costs) Hermes Enterprise value = ZERO Hermes - Luxury Industry went Poof!! Substance over Form Begin forwarded message: From: Nancy Alfaro <alfaro.nancy@gmail.com>Date: May 15, 2025 at 3:00:54 PM PDTTo: missy.fuss@yahoo.com, groa@deloittemx.com, asf@asf.gob.mx,Auditoria.cfg@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Fiscal@morelia.fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,gobernacion@senado.gob.mx, Periodico Official <periodicooficial@michoacan.gob.mx>,Tracey.Paine@treasurer.ca.gov, transportandoamichoacan@live.com, marina@senado.gob.mx,Global Ethics <Ethics.Helpline@wal-mart.com>, Uruapan@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx,Morelia@vozdemichoacan.com.mx, JuanJosedelCastillo@gmail.com,sbarragan@aristeguinoticias.com, pressmia@ria.ru, Asktheboard@coca-cola.com,BoeingInvestorRelations@boeing.com, Investigacion@elpais.es, viridiana.rios@milenio.com,Lazaro@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, amazon-ir@amazon.com, Complaints@tigta.treas.gov,hotline@oig.treas.gov, Morelia@fiscaliamichoacan.gob.mx, Denuncia@eluniversal.com.mx,Martin.Traci.E@dol.gov, LaborOIGinfo@oig.dol.gov, WhistleblowerProtection@tigta.treas.gov,Smith.Elaine.M@dol.gov, abdul.arif@gmail.com, ABCinvestigationsteam@protonmail.com,ethics@pcaobus.org, alegrialaw@cox.net, Alene.tchekmedyian@latimes.com, David Chrencik<dchrencik@hotmail.com>, Fernando Medina <fom.2@hotmail.com>, Manuel Carrillo<manuelneuro@hotmail.com>, Lic Jose Manuel Valencia Flores<manuel.valencia@cocotra.michoacan.gob.mx>, Kriss Wortinton<kworthington@cityofberkeley.info>, City Of Berkley Manager <manager@cityofberkeley.info>,oig@gao.gov, oig@sec.gov, OIG <OIG@ftc.gov>, OIGhotline@opm.gov, Secretary@hhs.gov,Bryan Bennett <BennettB@sec.gov>, Niall O'Donnell <Niall.ODonnell@usdoj.gov>Subject: How Pakistan, Lashkar and ISI Exploit the Drug Trade | Vantage with Palki Sharma -May 15, 2025 How Pakistan, Lashkar and ISI Exploit the Drug Trade | Vantage with Palki Sharma - May 15,2025https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0zoHeQ1qbQ Iran-Contras-Nicaragua Drug Trade (Mexico-Colombia-Latin America) Drugs for Weapons - Nicaragua. US Consumers -Drug addicts financingDrugs flow North -USA (Jalisco -Sinaloa Cartel) Arms flow South (i.e. Nicaragua/Colombia)Terrorist Training Camps - Mexican Cartels --> Felix Gallardo CIA - Sponsored regime-change operations. Banana Republics-Military Dictatorships. DEA - Kiki Camarera -Drug Enforcement Agency --> Investigation --Iran-Contra operations.GringoLand -CIA Risk Management operations:Murder & torture Camarena, blame it on Mexican Cartel -Caro Quintero. Who else knew about Ira -Contras DEA-CIA involvement..did he tell??? (Parallel investigations i.e. Luis Donaldo Colosio -Ruiz Massie schemes) Gary Webb - Mercury News Reporter broke Iran-Contras. CIA actively involved in Drug/Armstrafficking - Los Angeles, CA --Watts African American Addicts - Dealers Iran-Contras -Nicaragua Operation Condor -Global Repression & Control frameworkThe Communist Chupacabras From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:City Council Bundle - May 16 Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 10:33:05 AM Attachments:FW Vandalism at the CafeCameras.msgRE Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update.msgFW Director"s Zoning Interpretation PAMC 18.70.080 - 100.msgRE Bill"s Cafe Site on Middlefield.msgRE public comment re item 10 for 51225 Council meeting.msgRV Parking.msgimage001.pngimage002.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the City.Council inbox through May 16, 2025. Respectfully, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org From:Karen Chakmakian To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Bathrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park Date:Saturday, May 17, 2025 9:54:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear City Council Members, I hope my understanding is incorrect, but I’ve been informed by several neighbors that the budget for this unnecessary project (and that many of us are highly opposed to), is in the rangeof $1 million to research, design, and construct!?!?!? And what about ongoing maintenance costs? If that is accurate, it is hard to imagine this is even being discussed and considered — itsounds like an incredibly irresponsible use of money when there are a million other incredibly important needs in Palo Alto. It is clear that the survey regarding this project was set up to get a response that was desired bysome, will no outreach to the community living in the vicinity of the park that will be very negatively impacted. Asking once again to please consider true priorities for Palo Alto that will be positive uses ofour budget for all residents. Kind regards, K On Mar 27, 2025, at 9:43 AM, Karen Chakmakian <karen@chakmakian.com> wrote: Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, It seems that we are joining a conversation that we were unaware of until now. We respectfully ask that you add our names to the list of neighbors opposed to the installation of restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park. We would be more open to supporting this project if our concerns are addressed as part of a comprehensive implementation plan. Our nearly 30 years of experience living across from the park gives us unique insight into how changes might impact our local community, and park users. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast We understand that adding restrooms will increase convenience for some. However, please understand that this is a change that could negatively affect our quality of daily home life, the value of our homes, and will increase the demand for other city resources to keep the park and neighborhood safe and free of disturbances. If the installation of restrooms is prioritized (or even if it is not), we urge you to consider the following ongoing and growing issues at and around Eleanor Pardee Park and to plan for the resources necessary to address them. These include: · Increased daily and nightly patrols by Palo Alto PD, along with enforcement of fines and arrests for illegal activities and neighborhood disturbances. · Clear restrictions on the number of hours vehicles can park during the day and a ban on overnight parking along the streets bordering the park. We have seen the park’s usage change significantly over the past decade. It has become a much busier location, with traffic and activity that can overwhelm the surrounding streets. While it’s heartening to see the park enjoyed by many, the following issues have become increasingly concerning: 1. The Growing Number of Vehicle Dwellers – Mobile homes, vans, and cars parking along Center Drive, often close enough to look directly into our home or shine blinding headlights through our windows at night. Even if restrooms are locked at night, their installation will likely encourage more of this behavior, possibly leading to park dwelling as well. 2. Disruptive Evening Activity – We frequently experience disturbances, such as drug use, drug sales, loud music, screaming, violence, and fireworks throughout the night. These activities often spill over from the park to the surrounding streets. 3. Increased Trash – With more people coming to the park for events, the amount of trash has grown, much of which ends up blowing onto our property. We pick up trash in our landscaping daily. 4. Limited Street Parking – On many occasions, there is no available parking on our street due to the high level of park activity, which affects our ability to host friends and family. We are also concerned about the apparent reduction in city services, including Palo Alto PD patrols, park maintenance, and street cleaning. Who will be responsible for maintaining the restrooms and ensuring their cleanliness? What are the associated costs, and shouldn’t all these other issues be addressed before new facilities are added? If public restrooms are installed, we hope they will be discreetly located within the park, near the children’s play structures, and automatically locked between 6pm and 8am. Without careful placement, children will likely continue using the bushes, despite the addition of facilities. If this project moves forward, we request that those of us living closest to the park are included in ongoing discussions and communications (ideally by email). Thank you for your time and consideration, and thank you for your service. Sincerely, Karen Chakmakian and Ron Celaya 850 Center Drive From:Melinda McGee To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Lu, George; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo related to wireless ordinance Date:Friday, May 16, 2025 9:34:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago.An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) isgoing to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Melinda McGee 3707 Lindero Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94306650-704-6236 From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Subject:Support for David Hirsch Date:Friday, May 16, 2025 4:05:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing and council members, I am writing in support of David Hirsch for reappointment to the ARB. I have attended several ARB hearing and met with David. As he would tell you we do not always agree. But he deserves reappointment for his experience, thoughtful approach and integrity. He has been a valuable independent voice on the ARB and the city needs more people like David. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Melanie Mahtani To:Council, City; City Mgr; Switzer, Steven; Know Your Neighbor Grants Cc:Ed Lauing; Melanie Mahtani; Cari Anderson; Jane Manning Subject:Save the date: Oct 19 - Professorville East Street Party Date:Friday, May 16, 2025 3:52:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hello All, Please Save the Date for the Annual Professorville East Street Party! This is an annual event sponsored by the Know Your Neighbor City of Palo Alto grantprogram, and includes activities for all ages, outdoor grilling, special interest tables for residents' hobbies and interests, jumpy house, a band, lots of food, and interesting neighbors. This year fellow neighbor, street party Organizer, and Mayor Ed Lauing may even offerto pour you a drink, and give a short update on the City. Steven Switzer, our new HistoricPreservation Planner is invited, given the many historic homes in our area. We have received City of Palo Alto funding for about 10 years - thank you to the City forsupporting this important event! In exchange, please let us buy you a drink, grill you a burger, and play you some dance music. Kids and spouses welcome. ==== Date: 19 October 2025Location: Kellogg, between Tasso and Webster Streets What: Professorville East neighborhood Street Party! (125 homes between Middlefield and Cowper, Embarcadero and Melville) Why: General merriment, and celebration of community This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Robustelli, Sarah To:Evan Reade Cc:City Mgr; ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:RE: Budget realities vs. Eleanor Pardee Park restroom proposal Date:Friday, May 16, 2025 3:41:45 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.png Hi Evan, Thank you for your continued engagement regarding the proposed restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park, and for sharing your concerns with the City Council, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and City staff. We appreciate your participation in this process and the time you have taken to voice your perspective. As you referenced, the City’s FY 2026 Proposed Capital Improvement Program includes funding for a new restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park. This recommendation is based in part on the results of a community survey, which received 1,171 responses. Of these, 82% supported the project, including 75% of respondents who live within walking distance of the park. Among supporters in the neighborhood, nearly half (48%) strongly agreed that the restroom is necessary. We also acknowledge that 18% of total respondents expressed opposition, and we understand that some nearby residents remain concerned. No final decisions have been made. A Park Improvement Ordinance will be required to move the project forward. This ordinance will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at a future public meeting, offering an opportunity for additional input and discussion before the project is considered by the City Council. Should the project proceed, further community engagement will occur during the design phase. In regard to your question about environmental review, the City will follow all applicable requirements under CEQA as part of the standard approval process. We understand your view that Pardee Park has served the neighborhood well without a restroom and appreciate your comments regarding budget priorities, potential neighborhood impacts, and community outreach. We also recognize the strong interest expressed by many residents in adding a restroom to better support park users, especially families with young children and older adults. City Council will carefully weigh all input and competing priorities before making any decisions regarding funding allocations in the FY 2026 budget and Parks Improvement Ordinance. Thank you again for your continued engagement on this matter. Sarah SARAH ROBUSTELLI Division Manager Open Space, Parks, and Golf Community Services Department (650) 617-3518 | sarah.robustelli@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:56 PM To: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@paloalto.gov>; Reckdahl, Keith <Keith.Reckdahl@paloalto.gov>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@paloalto.gov>; Lu, George <George.Lu@paloalto.gov>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov>; Robustelli, Sarah <Sarah.Robustelli@paloalto.gov>; ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Budget realities vs. Eleanor Pardee Park restroom proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: First, thank you to those of you who have taken the time to speak with me personally since my appearance before the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 25 and the Council on April 7 concerning my opposition to the installation ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: First, thank you to those of you who have taken the time to speak with me personally since my appearance before the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 25 andthe Council on April 7 concerning my opposition to the installation of restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park. I would like to make several additional points further to those outlined in my letter to the Parks and Rec Commission, copied to you, dated March Powered by Mimecast 31, 2025. On Monday, May 12, I observed your discussion of the city's proposed budget for FY2026. The Proposed Capital Budget mentions at pages 250-252 an intent to continue to install one new park restroom per year and notes that Eleanor PardeePark is next on the list for FY2026. However, in your discussions it became clear that given current economic conditions and uncertainties it may well be necessary to cut $6 million (out of a proposed $12 million) from the Capital Improvements Plan in order to protect a needed reserve fund, particularly if the city wishes to continue toadequately fund the critically important work being done by a number of non-profit organizations which receive city dollars to implement programs with direct positive impacts upon various segments of our community. The slides presented at last Monday's meeting indicated that to realize CIP reductions of 5,10 and 15 percent it would be necessary to evaluate proposed project timing with a priority to delay or defer projects to manage funding availability and project prioritization. The slide also listed factors to be considered in making suchdeterminations. Might I suggest that the city can save $1 million right off the bat by foregoing construction of a restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park? Even if one concedes that this project is in the "nice to do" category (which I do not) rather than in the "must do" category, it is clear that those funds can be better spent on other more pressingand necessary priorities, some of which are ongoing and would be severely impacted if continued funding were to cease. Spend the money where it is needed the most. Consider "luxury" or "nice to have" projects later. I would also like to know whether the city has complied with or is planning to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") before proceeding with the Eleanor Pardee Park restroom project. It is my understanding that CEQA applies to projects requiring discretionary government approval, and thisincludes construction of new facilities like park restrooms. The city's decision to approve the construction of new park restrooms is clearly a discretionary action, as the city has control over the project's location, design, and construction methods. As I have asserted in my earlier letters, the construction and operation of a new restroomin Eleanor Pardee Park could have potential impacts on the environment in our neighborhood, such as increased traffic, increased waste generation, or changes to the park's and the neighborhood's aesthetics. If I am correct in assuming that CEQA applies, then the city must conduct an environmental review process, potentiallyincluding an Initial Study, an Environmental Impact Report, or a Negative Declaration. Has the city conducted or initiated such a process with regard to the proposed restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park? And if not, when is the city planning on doing so? Finally, let me reiterate the points I've made in my earlier letters: Eleanor Pardee Park has served our community well for 100 years without a restroom. For those parents who want to take their kids to a park with a restroom, Rinconada Park - with two restrooms and with numerous other city maintained restrooms within close walking distance - is less than half a mile away. A restroom will change the park from one designed to serve the neighborhood into a regional park. A restroom will be expensive - perhaps $1 million to design and construct (according to a press report I have read), never mind the ongoing costs required for daily maintenance (estimated in the proposed budget at $9,000 per year). A restroom could present public safety issues - vandalism, loitering, narcotics transactions - and attract the unhoused. The process of community outreach to date has been totally inadequate; the "survey" the city did was hopelessly flawed and, to my knowledge (and I live right next to the park) the city has not made any attempt to engage with those of us in the neighborhood who stand to be most directly impacted by the addition of restroom in the park. Thank you again for your time and willingness to engage with me and to listen to myconcerns, which I know are shared by a number of other residents. Sincerely, Evan G. Reade Sharon Ct. cc: City Manager Parks and Recreation Commission Community Services From:Carol To:Council, City Subject:Work starting at old Philz, Bills Date:Friday, May 16, 2025 1:28:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear city council As a resident who lives near Loma Verde and Middlefield, I have really missed Philz, Bills over the past two years. I see that it appears work is now being done to demolish this site. I enjoyed the patio, the trees and the vine. I believe this corner is zoned for commercial and I ask you to consider residents' wishes in keeping this charming corner community amenity for our use and that no zoning change is made to alter this into anything else. Thank you. Carol Rogers, Stockton Place. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Harold Davis To:Council, City Cc:Harold Davis; Orit Horovitz; Evan Reade Subject:Restroom Pardee Park Date:Friday, May 16, 2025 12:19:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.HiMy name is Harold Davis and my wife and I have lived and raised a family on Pitman Ave since 1986. We haveanalyzed the positive and negative points of constructing a restroom at Pardee. We offer a viable compromise thatwe believe satisfies both parties :Install portable restrooms as used in construction sites and locate them in the community garden area adjacent to thepark posting signs directing anyone needing to use them to the location .This will satisfy the needs of the community who garden there as well as park users at a very minimal cost .Thank you for your considerationLiz and Harold DavisSent from my iPhone From:Tina Chow To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:approve the Colleagues Memo to update the wireless ordinance Date:Thursday, May 15, 2025 10:02:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Palo Alto's wireless ordinance is terribly out of date. Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting which were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to PaloAlto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. We request that you: Remove the ordinance language that allows locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) isgoing to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,Tina Chow From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki Cc:Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser; Josh Becker; Zelkha, Mila; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Templeton, Cari; Cribbs, Anne; board@pausd.org; josh@joshsalcman.com; Gardener, Liz; Liz Kniss; Planning Commission; board@valleywater.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; BoardOperations; dennis burns; Julie Lythcott-Haims; h.etzko@gmail.com; Daniel Kottke; Human Relations Commission; Emily Mibach; Dave Price; Doug Minkler; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Mickie Winkler; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Pat M; Bains, Paul; Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Bill Newell; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; EPA Today; Steve Wagstaffe; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Conrad; Rosen, Jeff; Jeff Hayden; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; GRP-City Council; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Perron, Zachary; Wagner, April; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; Holman, Karen (external); Roberta Ahlquist; Lotus Fong; Friends of Cubberley; Stump, Molly; Donna Wallach; Rowena Chiu; editor@paweekly.com; Shikada, Ed; Ruth Silver Taube; editor@almanacnews.com; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Brian Good; Braden Cartwright; Diana Diamond Subject:77 years of Nakba, from ethnic cleansing to genocide [EN/FR] Date:Thursday, May 15, 2025 6:11:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Aram, On May 15, we mark the Nakba, the catastrophe that was inflicted upon the Palestinian people by Zionist militias and the nascent Israeli army. Over 750,000 people were violently expelled and forced to flee from their lands, over 530 villages were destroyed, and entirecommunities were massacred and destroyed by Zionists. That catastrophe has resulted in 77 years of ongoing ethnic cleansing,dispossession and dehumanization, and now 19 months of genocide. From its inception, Zionism has been a settler-colonial project premised onthe erasure of Palestinians. In 1937, David Ben-Gurion, who would later become Israel’s first PrimeMinister, wrote, “We must expel Arabs and take their places.” Three years later, Yosef Weitz of the Jewish National Fund declared, “There is no room for both peoples in this country... not one village, not one tribeshould be left.” These statements reflect a core belief of Zionist ideology: that Palestinians must be expelled from their ancestral lands, in order to make way forcolonial occupation. The violence that began in 1947-48 has never stopped. It continues in themass starvation and bombardment of Gaza. In the armed settler violence and military incursions in the West Bank. But Palestinians will not be erased. Today we reaffirm our solidarity with Palestinians, our support for the Palestinian right of return, and our commitment to fighting for an end to Zionism’s ongoing catastrophes. Read IJV's full statement here Arms Embargo Now Campaign Call this Sunday Arms Embargo Now Campaign Call this Sunday Since launching a year ago, the Arms Embargo Now campaign has changed the national narrative about Canada’s complicity in Israel’s genocide, and forced our leaders to take unprecedented steps to slow down our export ofarms to Israel. But we have a long way to go. When confronted during the election campaign about their complicity inIsrael’s escalating genocide in Gaza, many politicians lied to their constituents, claiming that Canada has stopped exporting weapons to Israel. Unfortunately, for all their talk, the Liberals have left the vast majority of exports untouched. With the election over, a new government in Ottawa, and Israel’ssiege and assault on Gaza reaching ever new levels of devastation,it is time to reconnect, reassess, and refocus on how to advance our demand and win a full two-way arms embargo. Join us this Sunday May 18th, at 11am PT / 12pm MT / 1pm CT / 2pm ET / 3pm AT for this urgent organizing call. You will hear from organizers with the Arms Embargo Now campaign about the current status of Canada’s arms trade with Israel, why an arms embargo is a key way forour government to sanction Israel, and the next steps of the campaign. Register Today In solidarity, Iso Iso Setel Communications Coordinator Independent Jewish Voices iso@ijvcanada.org Join IJV Bonjour Aram, Le 15 mai, nous commémorons la Nakba, la catastrophe infligée au peuple palestinien par les milices sionistes et l'armée israélienne naissante. Plus de 750 000 personnes ont été violemment expulsées et forcées defuir leurs terres, plus de 530 villages ont été détruits et des communautés entières ont été massacrées et détruites par les sionistes. Cette année, nous célébrons l'anniversaire de cette catastrophe, qui s'est traduite par 77 ans de nettoyage ethnique, de dépossession et de déshumanisation, et maintenant par 19 mois de génocide. Depuis sa création, le sionisme est un projet de colonisation fondé sur l'effacement des Palestinien.ne.s. En 1937, David Ben-Gourion, qui deviendra plus tard le premier Premier ministre d'Israël, écrivait : « Nous devons expulser les Arabes etprendre leur place ». Trois ans plus tard, Yosef Weitz, du Fonds national juif, déclarait : « Il n'y a pas de place pour les deux peuples dans ce pays... il ne faut laisser aucun village, aucune tribu. » Ces déclarations reflètent une croyance fondamentale de l'idéologie sioniste : les Palestiniens doivent être expulsés de leurs terres ancestrales pour faire place à l'occupation coloniale. La violence qui a commencé en 1948 n'a jamais cessé. Elle se poursuit par la famine de masse et le bombardement de Gaza. Dans la violence arméedes colons et les incursions militaires en Cisjordanie. Mais les Palestiniens ne seront pas effacés. Aujourd'hui, nousréaffirmons notre solidarité avec les Palestiniens, notre soutien au droit au retour des Palestiniens et notre engagement à lutter pour mettre fin aux catastrophes continues du sionisme. Lire la déclaration complète de VJI ici Embargo sur les armes maintenant : Appel de la campagne ce dimanche Depuis son lancement il y a un an, la campagne « Embargo sur les armes maintenant » a changé le discours national sur la complicité du Canada dans le génocide israélien et a forcé nos dirigeants à prendre des mesuressans précédent pour ralentir nos exportations d'armes vers Israël. Mais il reste encore beaucoup à faire. Lorsqu'ils ont été confrontés pendant la campagne électorale à leur complicité dans l'escalade du génocide israélien à Gaza, de nombreux politiciens ont menti à leurs électeurs, affirmant que le Canada avait cessé d'exporter des armes vers Israël. Malheureusement, malgré tous leursdiscours, les libéraux n'ont pas touché à la grande majorité des exportations. Avec la fin des élections, un nouveau gouvernement à Ottawa, et le siège et l'assaut d'Israël sur Gaza atteignant de nouveaux niveaux de dévastation, il est temps de se reconnecter, de réévaluer et de se recentrer sur la façon de faire avancer notre demande et d'obtenir un embargocomplet sur les armes dans les deux sens. Rejoignez-nous ce dimanche 18 mai, à 11h PT / 12h MT / 13h CT / 14h ET/ 15h AT pour cet appel urgent à la mobilisation. Les organisateurs de la campagne Embargo sur les armes maintenant vous expliqueront l'état actuel du commerce des armes entre le Canada et Israël, pourquoi un embargo sur les armes est un moyen essentiel pour notre gouvernementde sanctionner Israël, et quelles sont les prochaines étapes de la campagne. S'inscrire maintenant Adhérer à VJI Iso Setel Coordonnateur des communications Voix juives indépendantes iso@ijvcanada.org PO Box 30087 RPO Woodbine Heights 1500 Woodbine Avenue Toronto, ON M4C 5J2 Canada Unsubscribe View in your browser Facebook X / Twitter Instagram Youtube From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Jessica Speiser; Zelkha, Mila; Emily Mibach; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Henry Etzkowitz; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; gstone22@gmail.com; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; Michelle; O"Neal, Molly; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Friends of Cubberley; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Pat M; Sean Allen; Jeff Conrad; Council, City; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Tim James; Lee, Craig; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; Rowena Chiu; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Doug Minkler; Human Relations Commission; Salem Ajluni; DuJuan Green; Gerry Gras; Mickie Winkler; Nious, Kevin (NBCUniversal); Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; cromero@cityofepa.org; Cribbs, Anne; Braden Cartwright; Templeton, Cari; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Raymond Goins; Gardener, Liz; Steve Wagstaffe; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Bains, Paul; Perron, Zachary; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Shikada, Ed; Ruth Silver Taube; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; Patrice Ventresca; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen (external); Dennis Upton; Dennis Upton; editor@paweekly.com; Donna Wallach Subject:Google Worried It Couldn’t Control How Israel Uses Project Nimbus, Files Reveal Date:Thursday, May 15, 2025 6:11:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://theintercept.com/2025/05/12/google-nimbus-israel-military-ai-human-rights/ From:Planning and Development Services To:Council, City Subject:San Antonio Area Plan - Community Advisory Group Applications Date:Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:56:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.     San Antonio Road Area Plan Community Advisory Group (CAG)   Community Advisory Group (CAG) are still open through May 30! The San Antonio Road Area Plan is an initiative to reimagine land use, transportation, and community development along and around San Antonio Road. The project is scheduled to run through late 2027 or early 2028. Community engagement is a key priority of the planning effort underway. A Community Advisory Group (CAG) will serve as an advisory body to the project team. The application process is now open! Apply by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 30, 2025 to be considered. The San Antonio Road Corridor has been designated for mixed-use residential and multi-family housing in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Creating new opportunities for residents, businesses, and visitors, the San Antonio Road Area Plan objectives are to establish policies, development and design standards, and to plan for necessary public infrastructure, including improving bike and pedestrian access along and across San Antonio Road. The CAG will provide perspectives from multiple stakeholders during the planning process. The group will meet up to six times throughout the project. Meetings will be open to members of the public and held on weekday evenings for approximately 1.5 to 3 hours. Meetings are anticipated to occur over a 2-3 year period. While not a decision-making body, the CAG will provide valuable insight and take on the following roles: Discuss vision and principles. Review and respond to key information collected for the plan. Provide input on goals and policies; housing, land use, and transportation options; and key issues and trade-offs. Provide feedback on the draft plan. If you are interested in participating in the CAG, apply now! Apply Now!   Connect with us!   Planning and Development Services | 250 Hamilton Ave 5th Floor | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Constant Contact From:Evan Reade To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Veenker, Vicki; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Shikada, Ed; Robustelli, Sarah; ParkRec Commission Subject:Budget realities vs. Eleanor Pardee Park restroom proposal Date:Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:55:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: First, thank you to those of you who have taken the time to speak with me personally since my appearance before the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 25 and the Council on April 7 concerning my opposition to the installation of restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park. I would like to make several additional points further to those outlined in my letter to the Parks and Rec Commission, copied to you, dated March 31, 2025. On Monday, May 12, I observed your discussion of the city's proposed budget for FY2026. The Proposed Capital Budget mentions at pages 250-252 an intent to continue to install one new park restroom per year and notes that Eleanor Pardee Park is next on the list for FY2026. However, in your discussions it became clear thatgiven current economic conditions and uncertainties it may well be necessary to cut $6 million (out of a proposed $12 million) from the Capital Improvements Plan in order to protect a needed reserve fund, particularly if the city wishes to continue to adequately fund the critically important work being done by a number of non-profitorganizations which receive city dollars to implement programs with direct positive impacts upon various segments of our community. The slides presented at last Monday's meeting indicated that to realize CIP reductionsof 5,10 and 15 percent it would be necessary to evaluate proposed project timing with a priority to delay or defer projects to manage funding availability and project prioritization. The slide also listed factors to be considered in making such determinations. Might I suggest that the city can save $1 million right off the bat byforegoing construction of a restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park? Even if one concedes that this project is in the "nice to do" category (which I do not) rather than in the "must do" category, it is clear that those funds can be better spent on other more pressing and necessary priorities, some of which are ongoing and would be severely impactedif continued funding were to cease. Spend the money where it is needed the most. Consider "luxury" or "nice to have" projects later. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast I would also like to know whether the city has complied with or is planning to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") before proceeding with the Eleanor Pardee Park restroom project. It is my understanding that CEQA applies to projects requiring discretionary government approval, and this includes construction of new facilities like park restrooms. The city's decision toapprove the construction of new park restrooms is clearly a discretionary action, as the city has control over the project's location, design, and construction methods. As I have asserted in my earlier letters, the construction and operation of a new restroom in Eleanor Pardee Park could have potential impacts on the environment in ourneighborhood, such as increased traffic, increased waste generation, or changes to the park's and the neighborhood's aesthetics. If I am correct in assuming that CEQA applies, then the city must conduct an environmental review process, potentially including an Initial Study, an Environmental Impact Report, or a Negative Declaration. Has the city conducted or initiated such a process with regard to the proposed restroom at Eleanor Pardee Park? And if not, when is the city planning on doing so? Finally, let me reiterate the points I've made in my earlier letters: Eleanor Pardee Park has served our community well for 100 years without a restroom. For those parents who want to take their kids to a park with a restroom, Rinconada Park - with two restrooms and with numerous other city maintained restrooms within close walking distance - is less than half a mile away. A restroom will change the park from one designed to serve the neighborhood into a regional park. A restroom will be expensive - perhaps $1 million to design and construct (according to a press report I have read), never mind the ongoing costs required for daily maintenance (estimated in the proposed budget at $9,000 per year). A restroom could present public safety issues - vandalism, loitering, narcotics transactions - and attract the unhoused. The process of community outreach to date has been totally inadequate; the "survey" the city did was hopelessly flawed and, to my knowledge (and I live right next to the park) the city has not made any attempt to engage with those of us in the neighborhood who stand to be most directly impacted by the additionof restroom in the park. Thank you again for your time and willingness to engage with me and to listen to my concerns, which I know are shared by a number of other residents. Sincerely, Evan G. Reade Sharon Ct. cc: City Manager Parks and Recreation Commission Community Services From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; kfsndesk; kdeem.electriclab@gmail.com; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com;alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; LeodiesBuchanan; bballpod; beachrides; fred beyerlein; Becky Vagim; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian;dallen1212@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu;Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; Sally Thiessen; jerryruopoli; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net;merazroofinginc@att.net; MY77FJ@gmail.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino;russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; jwright@electriclaboratories.com Subject:Fwd: Capacity of the C-130 that CalFire has Date:Thursday, May 15, 2025 3:53:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Thu, May 15, 2025 at 3:32 PM Subject: Capacity of the C-130 that CalFire hasTo: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thurs. 5-15-25 To all- Last night on the local news, Ch. 24 said the C-130 that CalFire now has has flown to 7 fires and dropped a TOTAL of 4,000 gal of water/retardant. Actually the C-130 has a capacityof 4,000 gal. per flight. CalFire apparently now has ONE little C-130 and last night's report says it flies some distance to different fires. BUT they have only one C-130. Diane Feinstein got seven fromthe Coast Guard for CalFire, but it takes a long time to convert one to firefighting. I guess the second of the seven is being converted someplace now. I have urged Gov. Newscum for years to buy some 747's like the "Global Supertanker"Calif. was using. It had a capacity of 19,200 gallons per flight. The Global Supertanker was privately owned in Colorado and Calif. was paying ~$14,000 perhour to use it. It was used on the fringes of the Camp Fire. The Co. went BK. If Calif. only had 10, five in the north and five in the south, it would and would have made a huge difference inour fres. Old 747s are in boneyards, in the desert east of LA e.g. Don't know what it would cost to convert one. I have urged Calif. to form a consortium with other fire- prone states like Oregon,Washington, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and maybe even Australia. Go in on the cost to buy and convert these planes. You don't usually have huge fires going on in severalplaces at once. BUT Nothing from Newscum. Let 'em burn is the attitude. All part of his drive to ruin California. If he won't act, Trump should. While Boeing is building all those new planes for Quatar, build some as fire fighting tankers for a consortium of western states. They don't haveto be 747s. Current big Boeing transports could be converted to fire fighting. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com; palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org Subject:FFF Follow Up – May 9 (Week #174)Date:Thursday, May 15, 2025 9:19:28 AM Attachments:image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links. i What a fantastic rally! I am so grateful to be in this community of brave people willing to stand up and speak out against the fascist, authoritarian takeover of our nation. I love that we are coming together to resist the Trump regime. Please view and “like” these video highlights of the rally so they get more impressions: Stanford Prof. David Palumbo-Liu speaks on harmful shift in academic freedom: Short version; Full version. Stanford Prof. Larry Goulder speaks on harmful shift in US climate policy: https://youtu.be/8v5hSo8wOxk Former Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel shares the ingredients to organizing a movement: https://youtube.com/shorts/0xZJQfG9TBk Rick speaks about fighting for our kids: https://youtube.com/shorts/XKqXgWnP4kA Ingrid sings a song for her kids: https://youtube.com/shorts/MU_2LT-M6GM The Raging Grannies and the rally goers join Judy and Matt singing This Little Light of Mine: https://youtube.com/shorts/bN4hH4q7JZg Matt encourages the crowd to stand up and fight back: https://youtube.com/shorts/fNxpQpwKmD4 Local FOX News coverage of the rally: https://youtu.be/H98sYC2fQUE Many thanks to Stand Up For Science and Sanity organizers Carol, Perry and Emma for all your superb work. Thanks to all the brave and powerful speakers for sharing your important messages. Thanks to musical groups The Raging Grannies, Redwood Souls and Mitchell Park Band for bringing musical joy to the rally. Mark your calendars for the NEXT RALLY on Friday, June 6 at 5PM. Since it’s late afternoon, we encourage students and workers to join the action! #TeslaTakedown protests continue at the Stanford Shopping Center and El Camino Tesla showrooms. Thanks to all the amazing organizers at Indivisible Palo Alto Plus for organizing and energizing these actions! For upcoming actions, look here: https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/. Check out these fun Instagram reels of the recent actions: Ghoul leads march through Stanford Shopping Center on May 10: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJgGWIMOdQs/ Stanford Shopping Center protest and two-loop march on May 3: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJN5C6kRdj3/ The 101 Bannering Team is busy organizing and energizing upcoming actions. Be sure and check them out! To get all the latest information in these actions, send a request to bannering101@gmail.com. Thursday May 15th 4:30 Belmont https://mobilize.us/s/1NQra1 Thursday May 15th 4:30 Menlo https://mobilize.us/s/ERbfue Thursday May 22nd 4:30 Belmont https://mobilize.us/s/bEi7iX Rick identified that the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom at 525 University Ave works for Trump and suggests that we target them for and upcoming action. Excellent idea, Rick! This Friday we return to King Plaza to celebrate all our amazing actions, sing and enjoy snacks! See you there Friday at Noon! Keep Up the Fight! STAND UP! FIGHT BACK! Upcoming Events Friday, May 16, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall. Every Wednesday, 4 to 6PM: Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover on Wednesdays at the Tesla Showroom, 4180 El Camino Real. https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/ Every Saturday, Noon to 2PM, Tesla Showroom at Stanford Shopping Center: Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover. https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/ Every Saturday, for exact time see link, Tesla Showroom, 4180 El Camino Real . Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government This message needs your attentionSome Recipients have never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Takeover. https://www.mobilize.us/ipaplus/ Friday, May 23, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall. Friday, June 6, 5PM to 7PM: Stand up for Science and Sanity –– We meet at Lytton Plaza for the rally followed by a performance by Mitchell Park Band. https://www.scienceandsanity.org/ Palo Alto City Meetings: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting-Groups/Meeting-Agendas-and-Minutes Climate Community Center: https://climatecommunitycenter.org/ Peninsula Peace and Justice Center calendar: https://peaceandjustice.org/events-calendar/ Photos and Videos of Recent Actions Last week’s pictures: see video links above What We Are Reading/Watching/Listening to: U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal has created Resistance Lab with resources and training for organizers. Check it out here: https://www.pramilaforcongress.com/the-resistance-lab Harvard on how 3.5% of the population engaged in non-violent, peaceful protest can make a dramatic social change: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/35-rule-how-small-minority-can-change-world Tech-oligarch run Instagram is taking down any posts by people organizing a general strike. This is an important movement and may be one of our best chances to activate 3.5% of the population to stand up to the oligarchy. You can learn more about it here: https://generalstrikeus.com/ Reporting by Democracy Now! here Commentary by The Majority Report: here Heat Pump Water Heater and Home Electrification Program Update As of:5/1 3/31 2/28 1/31 HPWH full-service interest list signups 1364 1333 1323 1307 Site assessment agreements (SAA) sent 1364 1333 1323 1307 Signed SAAs 1127 1013 1093 1075 Completed site assessments 1040 1023 1013 996 Installations Total Full Service HPWHs installed 421 414 402 393 Total DIY HPWH installed 126 115 114 98 Total Emergency HPWH installations 19 19 18 11 Total HPWHs installed 566 548 534 502 Target Installations 1000 1000 1000 1000 Monthly Installation Rate Monthly Installation Rate 18 14 32 7 Target Monthly Installation Rate 83 83 83 83 Follow Fridays For Future Palo Alto: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fridaysforfuture_paloalto/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fri4Future_PA YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@FridaysForFuturePaloAlto Email notifications of FFF Palo Alto events: https://mailchi.mp/c8c130127345/join-fridays-for-future-palo-alto You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climate action in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let me know. Matt Schlegel Schlegel Consulting 650-924-8923 Author: Teamwork 9.0 Website: evolutionaryteams.com YouTube: youtube.com/channel/UCLkUMHuG4HVa831s9yeoZ5Q From:Aram James To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; h.etzko@gmail.com; Gardener, Liz Subject:Watch "Achieving Social Harmony and Equal Justice -Talking with Henrietta" on YouTube Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 11:25:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://youtu.be/ZyjAEh3on3g?si=OIvvTUTx7bNWUd3M From:christopher jette To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:57:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then- Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draftResolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standardsthat were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications;Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home;Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions madeby cell tower applicants. These changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing ColleaguesMemo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker(e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell towerlike this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Christopher Jette From:Willy Lai To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:29:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then- Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so thatthey now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilitiesemployee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matterhow short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days aweek, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Willy Lai From:Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for ADUs! Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:03:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council, I have heard from many residents this week who are excited and thankful for your actions to allow more types of ADUs in our city. Thank you for your thoughtful discussion. We look forward to hearing more in 2026 on expanding unit size, as well as the potential forADU condominiums - something San Jose currently allows under AB 1033. On a personal note, my route to homeownership came only after purchasing a condominium in Mountain View as a Palo Alto city employee in 2000. With the condo's equity and oursavings, my husband and I were able to buy our very small dream home on Middlefield Road in 2008. The road to homeownership is often paved with equity-building steps like this. We applaud and support any actions our city takes to expand housing-hope and more housingoptions with ADUs! Thank you, -- Amie Ashton Executive DirectorPalo Alto Forward 650-793-1585 From:Armer, Jennifer To:Petersen, Joe Cc:msr@jsmf.com; Yang, Albert Subject:Re: Director"s Zoning Interpretation: PAMC 18.70.080 - 100 Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 4:52:54 PM Attachments:image003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngOutlook-Logo__Desc.pngOutlook-gpdu4i20.png Thank you Mr. Peterson for providing these documents. I will get you an invoice for the appeal fees tomorrow, with instructions on payment. All others have been moved to bcc. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Petersen, Joe <JPetersen@ktslaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 4:17 PM To: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Tran, Charlotte <Charlotte.Tran@paloalto.gov> Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com> <msr@jsmf.com>; Colleen Petersen <colleen@guildtheatre.com>; Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov>; Perez-Ibardolasa, Val <Val.Perez- Ibardolasa@paloalto.gov>; Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@paloalto.gov>; Chikashige Nii <chikashigenii@gmail.com>; Tran, Vickie <Vickie.Tran@paloalto.gov>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov>; ptc@caritempleton.com <ptc@caritempleton.com>; ptc@allenakin.com <ptc@allenakin.com>; forest@voteforest.org <forest@voteforest.org>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com>; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: RE: Director's Zoning Interpretation: PAMC 18.70.080 - 100 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Jennifer and Charlotte, our appeal is attached. Please let me know how we should pay the appeal fee. Thanks for your help. Respectfully, Joe Petersen Joseph Petersen JPetersen@ktslaw.com Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 1302 El Camino Real | Suite 175 | Menlo Park, CA 94025 T 650 614 6427 | M 917 859 9680 | F 650 644 0570 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 3 Times Square | New York, NY 10036 T 212 775 8715 | M 917 859 9680 | F 212 775 8815 My Profile | vCard * Admitted in California and New York From: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:23 AM To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Petersen, Joe <JPetersen@ktslaw.com>; Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com> <msr@jsmf.com> Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>; Tran, Charlotte <Charlotte.Tran@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Director's Zoning Interpretation: PAMC 18.70.080 - 100 Good Morning Mr. Peterson, The appeal of a director's decision is processed in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18. 77. 070(f): (f) Decision by the City Council The appeal of the director’s decision shall be placed on theGood Morning Mr. Peterson, The appeal of a director's decision is processed in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.070(f): (f) Decision by the City Council The appeal of the director’s decision shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 45 days. The city council may: (1) Adopt the findings and decision of the director; or (2) Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and direct that the appeal be set for a new noticed hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. Please submit an appeal letter containing: 1. Appellant Name 2. Appellant Address 3. Appellant Phone 4. Appellant email 5. Specific reference to Director's Interpretation being appealed (with issuance date) and reasons for appeal There will also be a $740 appeal fee required (Per Fee Schedule: palo-alto-fee-schedule.pdf). As stated in Director Lait's email below, the deadline for appeal is 14 days from issuance of the interpretation, so your appeal will need to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 22, 2025. Once you have submitted your appeal via email (to myself Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov, and Charlotte Tran Charlotte.Tran@paloalto.gov) we can send you an invoice for the appeal fee. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 3:50 PM To: Petersen, Joe <JPetersen@ktslaw.com> <jpetersen@ktslaw.com>; Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com> <msr@jsmf.com> Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Subject: Director's Zoning Interpretation: PAMC 18.70.080 - 100 Mr. Petersen, Attached is the subject interpretation. @Armer, Jennifer will follow up with details on how to appeal this determination; the deadline forappeal is 14 days from today and referenced in the attachment. One point of clarification as I have seen it referenced in your public records request and in an email.I am not aware of a City request to ‘correct all non conformities’ that may apply to the projectprompting this interpretation. If you believe you have received that feedback related to your project, please let me know. Regards, JONATHAN LAIT DirectorPlanning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.govwww.paloalto.gov Confidentiality Notice:This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, andany attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLYPROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and itsattachments without reading or saving in any manner. ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including anyattachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the InternalRevenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. From:Petersen, Joe To:Armer, Jennifer; Tran, Charlotte Cc:Yang, Albert; Lait, Jonathan; Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com>; Colleen Petersen; Sauls, Garrett; Perez- Ibardolasa, Val; Gerhardt, Jodie; Chikashige Nii; Tran, Vickie; Planning Commission; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com; forest@voteforest.org; Yang, Albert; Lait, Jonathan; Mindie S. Romanowsky; Council, City Subject:RE: Director"s Zoning Interpretation: PAMC 18.70.080 - 100 Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 4:19:02 PM Attachments:image003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngPetersenappealconcerning3886Magnolia18.70.100 determination.pdfDirector"s Interpretation Nonconforming Facility (x80 through x100).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Jennifer and Charlotte, our appeal is attached. Please let me know how we should pay the appeal fee. Thanks for your help. Respectfully, Joe Petersen Joseph Petersen JPetersen@ktslaw.com Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 1302 El Camino Real | Suite 175 | Menlo Park, CA 94025 T 650 614 6427 | M 917 859 9680 | F 650 644 0570 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 3 Times Square | New York, NY 10036 T 212 775 8715 | M 917 859 9680 | F 212 775 8815 My Profile | vCard * Admitted in California and New York From: Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:23 AM To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Petersen, Joe <JPetersen@ktslaw.com>; Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com> <msr@jsmf.com> Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>; Tran, Charlotte <Charlotte.Tran@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: Director's Zoning Interpretation: PAMC 18.70.080 - 100 Good Morning Mr. Peterson, The appeal of a director's decision is processed in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18. 77. 070(f): (f) Decision by the City Council The appeal of the director’s decision shall be placed on theGood Morning Mr. Peterson, The appeal of a director's decision is processed in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.070(f): (f) Decision by the City Council The appeal of the director’s decision shall be placed on the consent calendar of the city council within 45 days. The city council may: (1) Adopt the findings and decision of the director; or (2) Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and direct that the appeal be set for a new noticed hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. Please submit an appeal letter containing: 1. Appellant Name 2. Appellant Address 3. Appellant Phone 4. Appellant email 5. Specific reference to Director's Interpretation being appealed (with issuance date) and reasons for appeal There will also be a $740 appeal fee required (Per Fee Schedule: palo-alto-fee-schedule.pdf). As stated in Director Lait's email below, the deadline for appeal is 14 days from issuance of the interpretation, so your appeal will need to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 22, 2025. Once you have submitted your appeal via email (to myself Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov, and Charlotte Tran Charlotte.Tran@paloalto.gov) we can send you an invoice for the appeal fee. Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 3:50 PM To: Petersen, Joe <JPetersen@ktslaw.com> <jpetersen@ktslaw.com>; Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com> <msr@jsmf.com> Cc: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Subject: Director's Zoning Interpretation: PAMC 18.70.080 - 100 Mr. Petersen, Attached is the subject interpretation. @Armer, Jennifer will follow up with details on how to appeal this determination; the deadline for appeal is 14 days from today and referenced in the attachment. One point of clarification as I have seen it referenced in your public records request and in an email.I am not aware of a City request to ‘correct all non conformities’ that may apply to the project prompting this interpretation. If you believe you have received that feedback related to your project,please let me know. Regards, JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov Confidentiality Notice:This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, andany attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLYPROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and itsattachments without reading or saving in any manner. ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including anyattachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the InternalRevenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 1 Subject – Appeal of Director’s Application of PAMC § 18.70.100 to Project Concerning 3886 Magnolia Drive, #25BLD-00025 Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council: My wife and I hereby appeal the Director’s May 8, 2025, Interpretation Regarding Relocation of Noncomplying Residential Gross Floor Area Under PAMC Chapter 18.70 (the “Determination”). The Planning Department, on the sole basis of the Determination, has rejected our application for a small remodel of our home in Barron Park which was built in 1948, long prior to Palo Alto’s annexure of our section of the City of Palo Alto. Background on Our Proposed Project Our home is currently two stories (although the second story is quite small and is essentially a permitted loft space). Our project is designed to convert our home fully into a single-floor home (in that respect, it is very much unlike the many second story additions routinely processed by the Planning Department). Essentially, the aim of the project is to create a closet in the room that we are using as our primary bedroom and relocate some utilities, such as the laundry and additional kitchen and cleaning storage, to a permitted rumpus room and provide interior access to that room from our existing kitchen. Currently, we maintain a closet in an upstairs, permitted loft area which entails navigating a steep and narrow staircase (the “Unsafe Permitted Loft Area”). The project does not enlarge the building envelope, add floor area, or replace any space that is “damaged or destroyed.” It removes from FAR the Unsafe Permitted Loft Area and does not “replace” or “reconstruct” that space (i.e., there will no longer be an upstairs loft area in my home and my home will be a single floor structure). Despite the project’s very modest scope (which is wholly consistent with the City’s goals of enabling aging in place), the Director has arbitrarily and erroneously invoked Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.70.100 to deny the application. By its express and unambiguous terms, that provision applies when property is “damaged or destroyed” and that portion is “replaced” or “reconstructed.” We are, in fact, not “replacing” or “reconstructing” the Unsafe Permitted Loft Area and thus § 18.70.100 is inapplicable on its face. Instead, § 18.70.080 applies and our project was carefully designed to comply with that provision. Analysis Relevant Law and the Standard of Review When interpreting an ordinance, courts apply the same rules of interpretation applicable to statutes. See Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 163, 174, 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 754.). Courts first examine the language of the ordinance, giving the words their usual and ordinary meaning, in the context of the ordinance as a whole and its purpose. See Audio Visual Services Group, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 748, 754 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2015). In addition, courts “apply common sense to the language at hand” and interpret a 2 provision in a manner that makes “it workable and reasonable” and avoids an absurd result. Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1111, 1122, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 112 P.3d 647. Interpretation of the Municipal Code presents a pure question of law and as such the Director’s interpretation is entitled to no deference. See MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1076, 10. See also Manriquez v. Gourley, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 209, 214 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) (review of an agency’s factual determinations are subject to the substantial evidence rule but “where … the determinative question is one of statutory or regulatory interpretation, an issue of law, [courts] may exercise … independent judgment.”). If we are forced to proceed with an appeal to Santa Clara Superior Court, the City would face the prospect of a significant award of attorneys’ fee award as we would be seeking to vindicate the public’s interest in the proper interpretation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. See CCP § 1858 (“Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest …”). Also, in litigation the Planning Department would be subject to discovery aimed at determining whether it is invoking Section 100 even-handedly to small remodels like ours (this issue is also the subject of a pending request under the California Public Records Act and I respectfully reserve the right to update the Council once the City has produced adequate records in response to our request).1 The Director’s Determination The Director largely bases his rejection of our plan on Section 18.70.100.2 That section governs reconstruction of a residential structure that already exceeds current zoning limits and is damaged or deliberately demolished, and it generally (and sensibly) requires that if that facility is “replac[ed]” or “reconstruct[ed] that such replacement or reconstruction not reinstate the noncompliance. The full text of that provision is appended below with relevant highlighting. 1 Indeed, if Section 100 applies to our small project the Planning Department would necessarily have to reject every single remodel of any noncomplying facility (action which would invite a cascade of litigation centered on unlawful taking of property). Judging by the number of projects that are ongoing in Barron Park every day of the week, not even the Planning Department is taking such a restrictive view of Section 100. Indeed, and to its credit, the Planning Department attempted to get some clarity around the meaning and scope of Section 100 back in 2015 but that effort did not gain traction with the members of the City Council at that time. See City Council Staff Report # 6333. We suspect that the Planning Department would benefit from and even appreciate this Council’s guidance on this important issue. 2 Until the Determination was issued on May 8, 2025, the Director entirely rested his rejection on Section 100. In the Determination, he attempts to buttress the rejection with a new claim that we do not satisfy Section 80. This late argument clearly suggests that the Director lacks confidence in his application of Section 100. In any event, the Director’s belated interpretation of Section 80 suffers from the same type of flaw that infects his analysis of Section 100, namely that he inserts terms that are not found in the text of the Code (see infra at 4). 3 We are clearly not “replacing” or “reconstructing” the Unsafe Permitted Loft Area. We are demolishing it altogether and not replacing or reconstructing it. The Director would of course be correct if we were altering the Unsafe Permitted Loft Area and keeping it as loft space. But that is not our plan. Since we are not replacing or reconstructing the Unsafe Permitted Loft Area, Section 100 is inapplicable because it only governs replacing or reconstructing space (see highlighting below). The Director elides this unmistakable fact by arguing in the Determination that what we are doing is “relocating” non-complying floor area and that somehow triggers Section 100. We in fact do not agree that we are “relocating” square footage. Instead, and consistent with § 18.70.080, we are “enlarging” or “improving” a facility in a manner that does not “affect the particular degree of or manner in which the facility does not comply with one or more provisions of this title.” However, even if the Director were correct in characterizing our project as “relocating” square footage, even then he would be incorrect in claiming that such “relocating” triggers Section 100. This is for the simple and unmistakable reason that Section 100 applies to replacing or reconstructing a portion of a noncomplying facility and we are not replacing or reconstructing the Unsafe Permitted Loft Area. The ordinary dictionary definition of replace is “to restore to a former place or position.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replace. The ordinary dictionary definition of “reconstruct” is “to build or assemble (something) again.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reconstruct. Our project does not restore the Unsafe Permitted Loft Area nor does it assemble it again. As such, Section 100 is wholly inapplicable and the Director has invoked it erroneously. Essentially, and improperly, the Director attempts to graft the additional terms bolded in red below to the following portion of Section 100: When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects a portion of the facility that constituted or contributed to the noncompliance, any replacement or reconstruction to such damaged portion, [or relocation thereof,] shall be accomplished in such manner as not to reinstate the noncompliance or degree of noncompliance caused by the destroyed or damaged portion of the facility, and otherwise in full compliance with this title. But the term “relocation” appears nowhere in the text of Section 100. It is clearly improper for the Director to insert new terms and limitations in existing Code. If the City wishes to revise the Code it is of course free to do so after complying with State and locale procedure for such modifications. Until then, the Planning Department is obligated to apply the Code as written. See CCP § 1858 (“In the construction of a statute or instrument, the office of the Judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has 4 been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.”).3 Our Project Is In Full Compliance with § 18.70.080 Fortunately, the Palo Alto Municipal Code has a provision that is specifically crafted to provide Palo Alto homeowners with much needed breathing room to update and modernize their homes. Section 80 allows “enlargements” of facilities so long as they “do not increase the degree or manner of non-compliance.” The flexibility offered by Section 80 is essential to the Code’s statutory scheme. Without it, the City would invite challenges under both the California and U.S. Constitutions (regulatory takings jurisprudence), as well as under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and the Housing Accountability Act, which limit a local agency’s ability to down zone or impose new standards midstream. “Degree” in the context of Section 80 unquestionably speaks to quantity (the same 2,000 sq ft remains) and “manner” speaks to type of violation. Our proposed project keeps the existing Site Coverage and actually reduces FAR by 11 square feet. Nonetheless, the Director asserts that “relocating” floor area changes the “manner” of non-compliance because the second floor excess becomes first floor excess. To begin, and as noted above, the Director’s assertion that we are “relocating” floor area is simply incorrect. More fundamentally, there is nothing in the Code that says the vertical placement of excess floor area is itself a violation. The Director’s logic invents a brand-new metric—location—that appears nowhere in §§ 80, 90, or 100. Under the plain meaning rule, his attempt to graft new terms into existing code should be rejected. See Cnty. of Sacramento v. P. Gas & Elec. Co., 238 Cal. Rptr. 305, 311 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1987) (“Where the language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.”) (quotation omitted); see also Franklin v. Appel, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 759, 765 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1992) (“The court will not, under the guise of construction, rewrite a law, and will not give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the terms used.”). Thus, there is no question that our project comports with Section 80. Indeed, during the application process the Planning Department based its rejection of our plan solely on Section 100. It was only in the Determination that the Director first claimed that we do not satisfy 3 In his Determination, the Director cites in support of his interpretation the 2015 Council’s consideration of an amendment to a different provision of the Code, section 18.18.120. This provision of the Code is not at issue here and relates to commercial buildings in the Palo Alto Commercial District. (Determination at 3). The proceedings referenced by the Director related to a proposed amendment to the Code and not an interpretation of it. The fact that the Planning Department recognized in 2015 that it needed to amend the Code to apply to relocated space as to commercial buildings in the Commercial District underscores that the Department would need to do the same here to obtain the outcome the Director seeks. 5 Section 80 as well (as noted above in footnote 1, the last-minute citation to Section 80 likely reflects the Director’s growing realization that Section 100 is not in fact applicable to our project). Once again, the Director tries to graft terms into the Planning Code that are simply not there. The Determination claims that Section 80 “is intended to allow the improvement of a noncomplying facility in a manner unrelated to the particular degree or manner of noncompliance.” (Determination at 2, emphasis added). But the Code uses the term “affect” not “unrelated.” Our home does not affect the degree of noncompliance because it does not add to it in any respect. Here as well the Director must apply the Code as written and not language that the Director apparently wishes it contained.4 Conclusion In sum, and viewing the provisions “holistically” (as the Director purports to do), Section 80 allows “enlargements” of noncomplying facilities provided they do not “affect the particular degree of or manner in which the facility does not comply with one or more provisions of this title.” § 18.70.080 (emphasis added). Section 100 applies when a property owner seeks to replace or reconstruct a non-complying facility or a portion of a non-complying facility. § 18.70.100 (emphasis added). With respect to our project, we are proposing an addition that does not affect the degree of non- compliance of our project. We are removing the Unsafe Permitted Loft Area and not reconstructing it. As such, Section 80 applies and is satisfied and Section 100 has no application as a matter of law. It is therefore not within the Director’s discretion to deny the application nor is his legal interpretation of provisions of the Code entitled to any degree of deference by the Council (or, if need be, a court). Relief Requested The relief we seek is modest: the ability to improve safety and accessibility in our longtime home without being compelled to demolish legally built, character defining portions of the structure. Timely intervention will spare everyone protracted appeals and public controversy, restore trust in the permitting system, and align City practice with the letter of its own ordinances. 4 California is of course in a housing crisis. It is therefore quite concerning to my wife and I and a number of other Palo Alto homeowners that the Director is so hostile to reasonable development efforts that he seems to create limitations on the right to develop property when none exist. Indeed, the State of California has directed complaints to the Planning Department for precisely this reason. See https://www.paloaltoonline.com/palo-alto/2025/04/03/state-orders-palo-alto-to-revise-laws-on-backyard-dwellings/. It is therefore no surprise that the Planning Department under the Director’s leadership receives abysmal reviews and remains the subject of much frustration in our community. See https://www.paloaltoonline.com/palo- alto/2024/12/10/residents-pan-permitting-laud-libraries-in-new-survey/. 6 My wife and I respectfully request that the Council reverse the Director’s May 8 determination and find that our remodel complies with § 18.70.080 and that § 18.70.100 does not apply and direct staff to issue ministerial approvals forthwith. We are available to answer any questions or provide supplemental material at the Council’s request. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joseph and Colleen Petersen Owners / Applicants 3886 Magnolia Drive, Palo Alto, California 94306 (917) 859 9680 jpetersen@ktslaw.com 7 Appendix Relevant Provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.70.100 Noncomplying facility - Replacement. A noncomplying facility which is damaged or destroyed by any means except ordinary wear and tear and depreciation may be reconstructed only as a complying facility, except as follows: (a) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects only a portion of the facility that did not constitute or contribute to the noncompliance, said portion may be repaired or reconstructed to its previous configuration. (b) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects a portion of the facility that constituted or contributed to the noncompliance, any replacement or reconstruction to such damaged portion shall be accomplished in such manner as not to reinstate the noncompliance or degree of noncompliance caused by the destroyed or damaged portion of the facility, and otherwise in full compliance with this title; however, if the cost to replace or reconstruct the noncomplying portion of the facility to its previous configuration does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost to replace or reconstruct the facility in conformance with this subsection, then the damaged noncomplying portion may be replaced or reconstructed to its previous configuration. In no event shall such replacement or construction create, cause, or increase any noncompliance with the requirements of this title. (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) hereof, a noncomplying facility in the commercial CS, CN and CC zones and the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, except for those areas designated as special study areas, existing on August 1, 1989, which when built was a complying facility, shall be permitted to be remodeled, improved or replaced in accordance with applicable site development regulations other than floor area ratio, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c) hereof, a noncomplying facility housing a conforming use in the R-1 and RE zones, which when built was a complying facility, which is damaged or destroyed by non-willful means (i.e., acts of God) shall be permitted to be replaced, on the same site, and in its previous configuration, without necessity to comply with the current site development regulations, provided that any such replacement shall not result in increased floor area, height, length or any other increase in the size of the facility. (e) Except as otherwise provided in this section with regard to replacement or reconstruction of a portion of a facility to its previous noncomplying condition, all reconstruction shall be subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and procedures otherwise governing construction on the site at the time said construction is undertaken. (Ord. 5381 § 7, 2016: Ord. 4102 § 1 (part), 1992: Ord. 4016 § 46, 1991: Ord. 3905 § 18, 1989: Ord. 3890 § 21, 1989: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.080 Noncomplying facility - Enlargement. (a) Except as specifically permitted by subsections (b) and (c) hereof or by Section 18.12.050(a), no enlargement, expansion, or other addition or improvement to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted which increases the noncompliance. This section shall not be construed to prohibit enlargement or improvement of a facility, otherwise permitted by this title, which does not affect the particular degree of or manner in which the facility does not comply with one or more provisions of this title. 8 (b) Except in areas designated as special study areas, the director of planning and development services may permit minor additions of floor area to noncomplying facilities in the commercial CC, CS and CN zones and in the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, subject to applicable site development regulations, for purposes of on-site employee amenities, resource conservation, or code compliance, upon the determination that such minor additions will not, of themselves, generate substantial additional employment. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Area designed and used solely for providing on-site services to employees of the facility, such as recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias and day care facilities; (2) Area designated for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling and thermal storage facilities; and (3) Area designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities, handicapped access, and seismic upgrades. (Ord. 5494 § 3, 2020: Ord. 5381 § 7, 2016: Ord. 5373 § 22 (part), 2016: Ord. 3890 § 20, 1989: Ord. 3683 § 18, 1986: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2441 CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 DATE: May 8, 2025 TO: Planning & Development Services Staff and Interested Community Members FROM: Jonathan Lait, Director SUBJECT: Director’s Interpretation Regarding Relocation of Noncomplying Residential Gross Floor Area Under PAMC Chapter 18.70 Authority Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.01.025 authorizes the Director of Planning and Development Services to interpret provisions of Titles 16, 18, and 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. When warranted, formal written interpretations may be issued and posted on the City’s website. Such decisions become effective fourteen days after posting unless appealed in accordance with PAMC Section 18.77.070. Director’s Interpretation Where an existing residential building exceeds the allowable gross floor area (GFA) PAMC Chapter 18.70 prohibits the relocation of non-complying floor area from one location to another. Applicable Code Section(s) • 18.70.080: Noncomplying Facility – Enlargement • 18.70.090: Noncomplying facility – Maintenance and repair • 18.70.100: Noncomplying facility – Replacement Discussion Palo Alto’s zoning code limits the allowable GFA on residential properties to regulate bulk, scale, and neighborhood compatibility. Some structures that comply with development standards at the time they are constructed may become noncomplying as a result of a change in the applicable regulations (e.g. rezoning or annexation). PAMC Chapter 18.70 sets forth the rules under which such noncomplying facilities may be maintained. Relocation of noncomplying GFA may be independently prohibited by PAMC Sections 18.70.080 and 18.70.100; in addition, relocated GFA does not fall within the scope of permitted alterations under PAMC Section 18.70.090. PAMC Section 18.70.080: Noncomplying Facility – Enlargement Section 18.70.080, subd. (a), expressly prohibits any improvement to a noncomplying facility that increases the noncompliance. If further clarifies that it does not prohibit improvement of a facility, Docusign Envelope ID: 3A798A6F-1F4E-4D19-8275-72D1C645C1F0 Page 2 otherwise permitted by Title 18 (the zoning code), which does not affect the particular degree or manner of the noncompliance. Taken holistically, staff interprets this section to prohibit an improvement that does affect the particular degree or manner of the noncompliance. For example, if a structure is noncomplying because a parapet at the rear of the property exceeds the maximum height by five feet, it would not be permitted to demolish the parapet and reconstruct it identically at the front of the property instead. Even if the new parapet would not increase the amount by which the structure exceeds the maximum height, the change in location would affect the particular manner of noncompliance. Similarly, the relocation of non-complying floor area would violate this prohibition. Section 18.70.080 is intended to allow the improvement of a noncomplying facility in a manner unrelated to the particular degree or manner of noncompliance. For example, it would allow a structure that is non-complying for height to receive additional GFA provided the new area otherwise complied with the zoning code (e.g. setbacks, lot coverage and floor area limitations, height). PAMC Section 18.70.090: Noncomplying Facility – Maintenance and repair Section 18.70.090 allows for the maintenance and repair of a noncomplying facility. It allows for incidental alterations that do not increase the degree of noncompliance. It also allows for structural alterations that do not increase the degree of noncompliance, so long as they are “necessary to comply with the requirements of law or to accommodate a conforming use.” Incidental alterations are defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030 to mean alterations to the interior of a building that do not increase its structural strength; alterations to mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems; and changes to fenestrations that do not increase the building’s structural strength. Structural alterations are defined as any other alteration. Staff interprets this section to allow structural alterations only when necessary to comply with the requirements of law (e.g. building code) or when necessary to accommodate a change to a conforming use (e.g. to provide sufficient egress for a residential use). Absent a change to a conforming use, structural alterations would only be permitted to comply with requirements of law. An alternative interpretation would leave the phrase “necessary to accommodate a conforming use” without any meaning and collapse the distinction between the allowances for incidental and structural alterations in Section 18.70.090. Section 18.70.090 is intended to allow incidental maintenance and repair of noncomplying facilities in a manner that does not increase noncompliance. It is less permissive regarding structural alterations. The relocation of noncomplying floor area will typically involve structural alterations; in the absence of a change to a conforming use, such alterations are only permitted to the extent necessary to comply with law. PAMC Section 18.70.100: Noncomplying Facility – Replacement Section 18.70.100 governs the reconstruction of a noncomplying facility that is damaged or destroyed by any means other than ordinary wear and tear. This includes willful damage and destruction as part of a Docusign Envelope ID: 3A798A6F-1F4E-4D19-8275-72D1C645C1F0 Page 3 construction project as well as non-willful means.1 The general rule expressed this section is that a damaged or destroyed noncomplying facility may only be reconstructed as a complying facility unless an enumerated exception applies. Proposed relocation of noncomplying GFA falls under subdivision (b), which states that a portion of a facility that contributes to the noncompliance, if damaged or destroyed, may only be replaced or reconstructed in a manner that does not reinstate the noncompliance or the degree of noncompliance.2 Staff interprets the term “replacement” to include replacing demolished GFA in the same or a different location. This section therefore prohibits the removal of floor area that was willfully destroyed and contributed to a noncomplying GFA condition, as well as its reinstatement – whether in whole or in part – at any location within the structure. For example, a project that removes existing GFA and proposes to reconstruct that floor area in a location that requires demolition and reconstruction of exterior building walls to accommodate the removed GFA would involve reconstruction that constitutes a reinstatement of the noncompliance. The interpretations provided herein are the only ones that give coherent and internally consistent meaning to each of the code sections discussed. In particular, if either section 18.70.080(a) or section 18.70.090(c) is interpreted to allow the relocation of noncomplying floor area, it is unclear what meaning section 18.70.100(b) could have. These interpretations are also consistent with prior direction from the City Council regarding interpretation of similar provisions in PAMC section 18.18.120; in 2015, the City Council directed that the noncomplying facility provision in that section should not be interpreted to allow the relocation of noncomplying floor area in the CD district. _____________________________ Jonathan Lait, Director Planning and Development Services Attachment: Applicable Municipal Code Sections Posted on Website: May 8, 2025 Appeal Deadline: May 22, 2025 1 An alternative interpretation that applies section 18.70.100 only to non-willful damage or destruction would render subdivision (d) unnecessary, as that section provides a different rule for noncomplying facilities that are damaged and destroyed by non-willful means. 2 Subdivision (b) also provides an exception where the cost to replace or reconstruct the facility in compliance would be at least double the cost to replace or reconstruct the facility to its previous configuration; this analysis assumes that the exception is not triggered. Docusign Envelope ID: 3A798A6F-1F4E-4D19-8275-72D1C645C1F0 Attachment: Applicable Municipal Code Sections Page 4 18.70.080 Noncomplying facility - Enlargement. (a) Except as specifically permitted by subsections (b) and (c) hereof or by Section 18.12.050(a), no enlargement, expansion, or other addition or improvement to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted which increases the noncompliance. This section shall not be construed to prohibit enlargement or improvement of a facility, otherwise permitted by this title, which does not affect the particular degree of or manner in which the facility does not comply with one or more provisions of this title. (b) Except in areas designated as special study areas, the director of planning and development services may permit minor additions of floor area to noncomplying facilities in the commercial CC, CS and CN zones and in the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, subject to applicable site development regulations, for purposes of on-site employee amenities, resource conservation, or code compliance, upon the determination that such minor additions will not, of themselves, generate substantial additional employment. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Area designed and used solely for providing on-site services to employees of the facility, such as recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias and day care facilities; (2) Area designated for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling and thermal storage facilities; and (3) Area designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities, handicapped access, and seismic upgrades. (Ord. 5494 § 3, 2020: Ord. 5381 § 7, 2016: Ord. 5373 § 22 (part), 2016: Ord. 3890 § 20, 1989: Ord. 3683 § 18, 1986: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.090 Noncomplying facility - Maintenance and repair. (a) Normal and routine maintenance of a noncomplying facility shall be permitted for the purpose of preserving its existing condition, retarding or eliminating wear and tear or physical depreciation, or complying with the requirements of law. (b) Incidental alterations to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted, provided such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this title. (c) Structural alterations to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted when necessary to comply with the requirements of law, or to accommodate a conforming use when such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and requirements of this title. (Ord. 5381 § 7, 2016: Ord. 3683 § 17, 1986: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.100 Noncomplying facility - Replacement. A noncomplying facility which is damaged or destroyed by any means except ordinary wear and tear and depreciation may be reconstructed only as a complying facility, except as follows: (a) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects only a portion of the facility that did not constitute or contribute to the noncompliance, said portion may be repaired or reconstructed to its previous configuration. Docusign Envelope ID: 3A798A6F-1F4E-4D19-8275-72D1C645C1F0 Attachment: Applicable Municipal Code Sections Page 5 (b) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects a portion of the facility that constituted or contributed to the noncompliance, any replacement or reconstruction to such damaged portion shall be accomplished in such manner as not to reinstate the noncompliance or degree of noncompliance caused by the destroyed or damaged portion of the facility, and otherwise in full compliance with this title; however, if the cost to replace or reconstruct the noncomplying portion of the facility to its previous configuration does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost to replace or reconstruct the facility in conformance with this subsection, then the damaged noncomplying portion may be replaced or reconstructed to its previous configuration. In no event shall such replacement or construction create, cause, or increase any noncompliance with the requirements of this title. (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) hereof, a noncomplying facility in the commercial CS, CN and CC zones and the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, except for those areas designated as special study areas, existing on August 1, 1989, which when built was a complying facility, shall be permitted to be remodeled, improved or replaced in accordance with applicable site development regulations other than floor area ratio, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c) hereof, a noncomplying facility housing a conforming use in the R-1 and RE zones, which when built was a complying facility, which is damaged or destroyed by non-willful means (i.e., acts of God) shall be permitted to be replaced, on the same site, and in its previous configuration, without necessity to comply with the current site development regulations, provided that any such replacement shall not result in increased floor area, height, length or any other increase in the size of the facility. (e) Except as otherwise provided in this section with regard to replacement or reconstruction of a portion of a facility to its previous noncomplying condition, all reconstruction shall be subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and procedures otherwise governing construction on the site at the time said construction is undertaken. (Ord. 5381 § 7, 2016: Ord. 4102 § 1 (part), 1992: Ord. 4016 § 46, 1991: Ord. 3905 § 18, 1989: Ord. 3890 § 21, 1989: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) Docusign Envelope ID: 3A798A6F-1F4E-4D19-8275-72D1C645C1F0 From:Angelica Heidi Brehm To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 2:43:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) isgoing to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Angelica Heidi Brehm 255 Wilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Justine Burt To:Council, City Subject:Wed., 5/21 e-bike and e-scooter expo - Lytton Plaza Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 12:37:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, Next Wednesday, May 21 (5-7pm), the Palo Alto TMA and Seamless Bay Area are hostingan outdoor event showcasing e-bikes and e-scooters. These are wonderful active mobility options to commute, run errands, or scoot to and from the train or bus. We hope you can joinus. Here is a link with more information: E-Scooters and E-Bikes for All Thank you! Justine-- Justine BurtExecutive Director, Palo Alto Transportation Management Association justine@paloaltotma.org510.709.6266 This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Aram James To:Veenker, Vicki; Vicki Veenker Cc:Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; board@pausd.org; Jeff Rosen; Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Mickie Winkler; Gerry Gras; Angel, David; Jeff Hayden; Liz Kniss; Gardener, Liz; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; Roberta Ahlquist; Lotus Fong; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Jeff Conrad; Jay Boyarsky; Sean Allen; Pat M; Bill Newell; Friends of Cubberley; Zelkha, Mila; Enberg, Nicholas; Rodriguez, Miguel; Doug Minkler; Salem Ajluni; Zelkha, Mila; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Figueroa, Eric; Human Relations Commission; Paul George @ PPJC; Ruth Silver Taube; walter wilson; Tim James; Rowena Chiu; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Perron, Zachary; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Anna Griffin; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Gennady Sheyner; Dana St. George; Lu, George Subject:The Israeli Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Gaza Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 9:59:25 AM CAUTION: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE OF THE ORGANIZATION. BE CAUTIOUSOF OPENING ATTACHMENTS AND CLICKING ON LINKS. THE ISRAELI SOLDIERS WHO REFUSE TO FIGHT IN GAZA As Netanyahu rallies troops for an expanded offensive, some reservists are resisting the call. The Israeli Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Gaza https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-israeli-soldiers-who-refuse-to-fight-in-gaza From:amy kacher To:city.council@cityofpaloalto.gov; Council, City Subject:Restaurants - not diverse in offerings Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:02:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi It would be amazing if University Ave could get a variety of restaurants like are popping up inMenlo Park. The restaurants I see on University are lacking diversity of fare. Although I live walking distance to University, I find myself going to Menlo Park for dinner due to the more variedofferings of types of food. Something to consider perhaps to get a variety of restaurants. Thanks hey, we are all just people This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Beth Morgan To:Council, City Subject:Pedestrian safety downtown Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:00:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i I just got back from the Rose and Crown, three blocks away from my house. In those sixblocks there and back, cars ran red lights while we were in the crosswalk THREE TIMES, barely missing us each time. THREE TIMES. And it is far from the first time-- in thelast month or so, this has been a regular occurrence, cars running red lights downtown while pedestrians are crossing. It's a miracle nothing terrible has happened. Has something changed?Are the yellows shorter? What is going on? I'm more afraid of stepping into the street here in Palo Alto than I ever have been in New York City. What can be done about this? Regards, Beth Morgan317 Everett Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Sven Thesen To:Council, City Subject:Benzene & NOx emissions from Natural Gas Stoves - Prop 65 Warning Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:40:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Gentle City Council Nembers, Per my comments at last night's city council meeting regarding Prop 65 & benzene & oxidesof nitrogen (NOx) emissions from natural gas stoves, likely the utility, as considered a department of the city, is exempted from providing prop 65 warnings. (b) “Person in the course of doing business” does not include any person employing fewer than 10 employees in his or her business; any city, county, or district or any department or agency thereof or the state or any department or agency thereof orthe federal government or any department or agency thereof; or any entity in its operation of a public water system as defined in Section 116275.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=20.&title=&part=&chapter=6.6.&article However, this does not change that the utility is still exposing its customers to benzene &NOx. And we know exposure to these chemicals is harmful. Laypersons version (of many)https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2023/06/cooking-gas-stoves-emits-benzene-2 Technical Reporthttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c09289 Given the above, we have a responsibility to warn our residents of the exposures to thesechemicals and what they can do about it to minimize said exposure. I look forward to insertson this subject in an upcoming paper bill and more. Note, the investor owned utility, PG&E has a benzene Prop 65 warning (but not from thecombustion of natural gas, just that benzene is a contaminant in the supplied natural gas:www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/billing-and-assistance/bill-inserts/0525-prop65-q2.pdf Finaly, in doing the above research, I found the recording of my 3-minute presentation to citycouncil: https://citizenportal.ai/articles/3278468/Palo-Alto/Santa-Clara-County/California/Health- This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast concerns-rise-over-methane-emissions-from-gas-stoves-in-homes Thank you for all the (volunteer) work that you do,Sven -- Sven Thesen, 415-225-7645EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie "Under the Trump administration, America is retreating from hard power, surrendering softpower, and yielding economic power. Is this what greatness looks like?" David A. Graham, The Atlantic __________________________________________________ How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:please verify - SFO expansion Hearing is on May 22nd. Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:33:53 PM Attachments:SFO RADP DEIR_NOA_English.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor, The correct date for the SFO Planning Commission hearing is May 22. Please verify the infoabout the SFO DEIR with the attached notice. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION May 22, 2025, at 12 p.m. or later Location: City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400 Live Stream: https://sfgovtv.org/planning, or live on Cable Channel 78 WRITTEN COMMENTS From April 16, 2025, to 5 p.m. on June 2, 2025 Planner: Kei Zushi, EIR Coordinator Via Mail: 49 South Van Ness Ave, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Via Email: cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan Case No.:2017-007468ENV Project Sponsor:Audrey Park, San Francisco International Airport, sfoadp@flysfo.com EIR Coordinator: Kei Zushi – 628.652.7495 cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org PUBLIC NOTICE Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Hearing PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: SFO Recommended Airport Development Plan Case No.: 2017-007468ENV Project Sponsor: Audrey Park, San Francisco International Airport, sfoadp@flysfo.com EIR Coordinator: Kei Zushi – 628.652.7495 cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Hearing Date: May 22, 2025 Time: 12 p.m. or later Location: City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400 Case Type: Environmental (Draft EIR) Hearing Body: Planning Commission The San Francisco Planning Department (San Francisco Planning) studied this projectʼs potential physical environmental effects and welcomes your comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR. Refer to the Project Description and Purpose of Notice sections below for more information. Project Description A Draft EIR has been prepared by San Francisco Planning in connection with this project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to study the projectʼs potential physical environmental effects. The project sponsor, SFO, is proposing to implement the Recommended Airport Development Plan (RADP), which involves a long-range plan to guide the Airportʼs development. The San Francisco Airport Commission operates and manages the Airport as a department of the City and County of San Francisco. The RADP serves as a framework for future development at SFO and identifies various projects, including the improvement and development of terminal facilities, modification of certain non-movement areas of the airfield, and improvements to landside facilities to accommodate long-term aircraft operations and passenger activity levels at the Airport. The RADP provides for long- range development to accommodate activity levels forecast to reach approximately 506,000 annual aircraft operations, which is the estimated annual practical capacity of the existing runways regardless of whether the RADP is implemented. Passenger aircraft operations represent the largest portion of the 506,000 annual aircraft operations, which are forecast to accommodate approximately 71.1 million annual passengers considering the forecast passenger aircraft fleet mix. Implementation of the RADP would not induce passenger demand (i.e., induce the public to choose to fly if and/or where they otherwise would not), nor would the RADP increase the capacity of the airfield, change the configuration of the existing runways, change the number of aircraft operations or aircraft types operating at the Airport (including cargo, private jets, and helicopters), or change the volume of annual passengers that choose to fly into and out of SFO. Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR and Notice of Public Hearing 2 Draft EIR: The Draft EIR finds that implementation of the RADP would lead to significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality after implementation of mitigation measures. The Draft EIR provides a detailed project description, an analysis of the physical environmental effects of implementation of the RADP, and identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would avoid or lessen the severity of impacts. The Draft EIR is available for public review and comment on San Francisco Planningʼs website at sfplanning.org/sfceqadocs and at the San Francisco Permit Center, 49 South Van Ness Avenue, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103. Paper copies and electronic copies (on a flash drive) of the Draft EIR are available upon request to the EIR Coordinator listed above. Referenced materials are available through the following web pages: sfplanning.org/sfceqadocs and sfplanning.org/resource/permits-my- neighborhood. Projects on State Hazardous Materials Lists: As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15087(c)(6), the following information is provided because the project site contains multiple listed properties included on the GeoTracker, (State Water Resources Control Board) and EnviroStor, (California Department of Toxic Substances Control) lists compiled pursuant to California Government Code section 65962.5. The detailed list of properties and their regulatory identification numbers are available at sfplanning.org/sfceqadocs, or by contacting cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org. Purpose of Notice You are not required to take any action. If you wish to comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR, you may do so in either or both of the following ways: WRITTEN COMMENTS Planner: Kei Zushi, EIR Coordinator Via Mail: 49 South Van Ness Ave, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Via Email: cpc.sforadp@sfgov.org From April 16, 2025, to 5 p.m. on June 2, 2025 COMMENTS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING Location: City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400 Live Stream: https://sfgovtv.org/planning, or live on Cable Channel 78 May 22, 2025, at 12 p.m. or later The purpose of the public hearing is for the San Francisco Planning Commission and planning department staff to receive comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIR. The commission will not respond to any of the comments or take action on the project at this hearing. Certification of the Final EIR will be considered at a later hearing. Additional information may be found on the planning departmentʼs website or by contacting the EIR coordinator listed above. General Information about Procedures Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with San Francisco Planning Commission or staff. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the departmentʼs website or in other public documents. Only commenters on the Draft EIR will be permitted to file an appeal of the certification of the Final EIR to the Board of Supervisors. At the close of the public review period, San Francisco Planning Department will prepare a Responses to Comments document to respond to all comments on the Draft EIR presented at the public hearing and received in writing during the public review period. This Responses to Comments document and all other associated documents will be made available at sfplanning.org/sfceqadocs. From:Christine Selberg To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; georgeglu@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:City Council meeting 5/19/25--- Cell Towers Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 1:37:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i CC; Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglugmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl@yahoo.com; GStone22@gmail.com; City.Clerk@cityofpaloAlto.org; LydiaKou@gmail.com; Subject: Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, I am unable to attend this meeting, but have attended meetings on this issue in the past. I am assigning the minutes that I’m allowed during the meeting “public comment” to Jeanne, or the lawyer representing the neighborhood group. Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago.An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christine Selberg281 Everett Ave. Palo Alto, 94301 From:Aram James To:Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Shikada, Ed; Emily Mibach; Stump, Molly; GRP-City Council;city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; Holman, Karen(external); Sean Allen; Pat M; sharon jackson; Rose Lynn; Diana Diamond; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz;Raymond Goins; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; Gerry Gras; editor@paweekly.com; Henry Etzkowitz;Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Rodriguez, Miguel; Roberta Ahlquist; dennisburns; DuJuan Green Subject:Santa Clara County’s largest water agency can"t cite or arrest homeless people creating pollution or trespassing on its property — but the police unit it contra… Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:26:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Santa Clara County’s largest water agency can't cite or arrest homeless people creating pollution or trespassing on its property — but the police unit it contra… Source: San José Spotlighthttps://search.app/WGeJuyCHv4rmBb1UA Shared via the Google app From:James VanHorne To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Subject: Please approve the Kou/Lauing Memo Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:25:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please vote to approve the changes to the Wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and LydiaKou proposed in their Mayor Lauing and Lydia Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024 Colleagues Memo titled "Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto's WirelessCommunication Facilities ordinance." The City's wireless ordinance is very, very out of date. It continues to adhere to a 2018 FCCorder regarding standards for cell tower design and siting. Standards that were thrown out by the 9th Circuit nearly five years ago. An update is much overdue. Please restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearing for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that permits locating unsightly hazardous celltowers 20 feet from a home; prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and require review by non-industry aligned experts on technical feasibilityassertions. Approving these changes is urgent, as AT&T is modifying cell towers emitting far too much radiation, dangerous to nearby residents and their own employees. Thank you for your consideration. James C. Van Horne, Palo Alto resident since 1965.. From:Aram James To:Veenker, Vicki; Vicki Veenker Cc:Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; josh@joshsalcman.com; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; Salem Ajluni; Donna Wallach; Dave Price; editor@almanacnews.com; Diana Diamond; Cribbs, Anne; Perron, Zachary; chuck jagoda; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; Rowena Chiu; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; Sean Allen; sharon jackson; Pat M; Rose Lynn; Roberta Ahlquist; Doug Minkler; Stump, Molly; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Baker, Rob; Sheree Roth; Lori Meyers; Rosen, Jeff; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Hayden; Steve Wagstaffe; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; Patrice Ventresca; Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Rodriguez, Miguel; Angel, David; Damon Silver; walter wilson; Holman, Karen (external); Tom DuBois; Figueroa, Eric; Friends of Cubberley; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Gardener, Liz; Bill Newell; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Nash, Betsy; dcombs@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Bains, Paul; Afanasiev, Alex; Henry Etzkowitz; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Mickie Winkler; Brian Good; Sheriff Transparency; Paul George @ PPJC; Lotus Fong; Zelkha, Mila; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission Subject:Stanford students launch hunger strike, demand divestment over Gaza war Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:18:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of theorganization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Stanford students launchhunger strike, demanddivestment over Gazawar Activists will maintain a daily presence at White Plaza to advocate for demands https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/05/13/stanford-students-hunger-strike-divestment-gaza-protest/ From:Jennifer Schmidt To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:54:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, I'm asking for you to embrace the precautionary principle and not allow cell towers to be installed close to our homes and subject Palo Alto residents to 24 hours of potentially harmful emissions. Would you personally want an installation within 20 feet of you or your family? You have the power! Please keep the residents of safe by voting to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. Please vote for these revisions: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? We must prioritize health and safety! Thank you for your consideration and support, Jennifer Schmidt Barron Park Resident From:Mary Dimit To:Council, City; Council, City Cc:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Stone, Greer; Burt, Patrick; Reckdahl, Keith; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Approval Requested of Item 11 on May 19th Agenda: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending WirelessCommunications Facilities Date:Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:08:50 AM Greetings, City of Palo Alto Councilmembers, Please vote yes to approve the changes to the wireless communications ordinance proposed by Mayor Lauing & former Councilmember Kou last year in a Colleagues Memo titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance.” This Colleagues Memo* proposes important amendments needed to update Palo Alto’s wireless ordinance, such as: restoring public hearings and Architectural Review Board review for cell tower applications eliminating the current ordinance’s provision that allows noisy, hazardous cell towers located as close as 20 feet to homes locating cell towers as far as possible from homes, including multi-family, and schools; and requiring review by non-industry-aligned experts about any technical ??? made by cell tower applicants. Approval is even more important as I understand that AT&T has begun modifying their cell towers in our city so that they now emit enough radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas at any time. These cell towers cannot be operating all day, every day so close to residents’ homes! *Item 11. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning)… Appreciative of your work for us Palo Alto residents, Mary Dimit & Mark Sauer From:Henry Etzkowitz To:Roseline Rasolovoahangy; Carol Kiparsky; Charles Spanhook; Templeton, Cari; Anika Raffle; annika steiber; BetteKiernan; Mariza Almeida; Aram James; Avroh Shah; Charlie Weidanz; Dorien Detombe; Devrim Göktepe Hultén;Ellen Granovetter; Jeanne Fleming; Ellen Fox; Gebhardt Christiane; Shikada, Ed; Ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net; JoePenko; Tatyana Kanzaveli; Gardener, Liz; Mark Granovetter; David Nordfors; Naeem Zafar; Mickie Winkler; DavePrice; Brian Good; paul bundy; Sophia Adele Stringer; Office of the Provost; Hannah Lu Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City Subject:A precept for Palo Alto to ponder Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 10:36:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. “Housing must be a right; not a business” Salvador Illa Catalonia President Barcelona is ground zero… Alderman, L NYT b1 12/5/25 Henry Etzkowitz Neighbors for Environmental and Social Justice Www.Triplehelix.net From:Jeanie Tooker To:Council, City Subject:Fully staff FS 4 Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 10:31:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council,Since I last wrote, my husband couldn’t breathe and we called for assistance. The truck had to come from San Antonio. By the time they got here, he had gone into A-fib. Of course, I’m grateful they got here, got him assessed and to Stanford ER. Luckily, he wastreated for pneumonia and released in 3 days. We need fully staffed crew closer to our homes. South Palo Alto supports the city with our tax payment too. Please support us!! Our lives depend on it!!! Thank you,Jeanie Stephens 3860 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Shannon Rose To:Council, City Cc:Ed Lauing; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:Please Approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 9:54:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone: Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled“Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF)ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so thatthey now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilitiesemployee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matterhow short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days aweek, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee410 Sheridan Avenue This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Amrutha Kattamuri To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 8:31:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled“Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF)ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: · Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; · Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; · Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and · Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Amrutha Kattamuri From:Rita Vrhel To:Council, City; Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith;gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Cell tower/ Kou/Lauing Colleges MemoDate:Monday, May 12, 2025 7:35:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kouproposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCCOrder regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almostfive years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications;Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home;Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell towerapplicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving themis more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to beoperating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? There is no good reason this is a decision made by one person. This resolution and the design/placement of cell towers effect all residents in Palo Alto. This has been discussed for years. Now is the time to lock in good design and standardization. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 This message could be suspiciousThe sender's email address couldn't be verified.This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Melissa Smith To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 7:14:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) isgoing to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Melissa Smith From:NTB To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:Please give the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo your full support Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 6:49:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lithcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Can you imagine living next to a pole that displays a warning sign stating the emissions fromthe equipment on the pole exceed FCC safety guidelines!!!!.....and if work needs to be done within 21 feet, then the power needs to be turned off?!!!! How would you feel about yourchildren romping anywhere near this pole.....at home or in a school playground???? Or imagine having such a pole parked next to your family home, affecting the health andwellbeing of all your family members?All these scenarios are simply unthinkable. Please give the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo your full support. It is truly critical that these poles be properly placed and monitored. Sincerely,Nina Bell This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:kip husty To:Council, City Cc:Ed Lauing; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 6:43:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers, Mayor Lauing and Vice Mayor Veenker, I am writing to gain your vote to adopt the changes to Palo Alto's wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then councilmember Lydia Kou proposed in the Fall of 2024, in their Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. For me, this is a bare minimum needed, but a necessary one to achieve the ideal ofcity policies that put the common good ahead of individual interests (in this case, profits). I leave aside health concerns that cell towers pose due to the unnatural intensity of high frequency Electro Magnetic Frequencies. These are concerns that should be addressed and, because of the court rulings by the Ninth Circuit FederalCourt that make possible for the city to act upon the aesthetic and safety concerns included in Lauing and Kou's memorandum, they can be addressed in the future (and are partially and indirectly addressed in their proposals). Right now I think the proposals that would: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants are uncontroversial and should be included in an adequate cell tower ordinance that seeks the betterment and protection of the city and its people. Unlike previous years upon which the present ordinance rests, we legally can change the ordinance to reflect community concerns that have been brought forth to the council for years. We not only can, but we should. The high levels of radiation emitted by the towers makes the changes proposed by Lauing and Kou in their memorandum urgently needed. Health and property are at risk if we do not act decisively. I urge that you place thesafety, health and common good of the people ahead of profits or corporate convenience. Thank you for your consideration, kip husty From:Richard Simoni To:Council, City Subject:Support the Kou/Lauing Memo: Update Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 5:37:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker, and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims,Reckdahl, and Stone, I’m writing as a concerned Palo Alto resident to strongly urge you to adopt the changesproposed in the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo regarding the city’s wireless ordinance. Our current ordinance relies on outdated FCC standards from 2018—standards that the NinthCircuit overturned nearly five years ago. It's time for Palo Alto to modernize its approach and prioritize the safety, aesthetics, and well-being of its residents. Specifically, I ask that you: 1. Restore public hearings and Architectural Review Board oversight for cell towerapplications. 2. Eliminate the provision that allows cell towers to be placed just 20 feet from homes. 3. Require that new towers be located as far as possible from residences and schools. 4. Mandate independent technical reviews of claims made by wireless applicants, ratherthan accepting their assertions at face value. The need for these reforms is urgent. Carriers like AT&T have started modifying existingtowers to such an extent that they now require shutdowns when workers are within 21 feet of the antennas. Yet, these same towers are being allowed to operate continuously just beyondthat buffer, mere feet from family homes. This is neither reasonable nor safe. I urge you to approve the Resolution attached to the Kou/Lauing Memo and bring Palo Alto’spolicies in line with current legal standards and community expectations. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Richard Simoni4188 King Arthur Ct, Palo Alto From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:slide - public comment not on the agenda for Council May 12, 2025 meeting Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 5:26:00 PM Attachments:Traffic Volume vs Metroplex Complaints.200101-210701(1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Council, I just learned that a slide and media for use during public comment need to be sent 24 hours inadvance; I am sorry to miss the deadline.. I am sending this to you in reference to a comment I hope to make today during public comment not on the agenda. Thank you, Jennifer From:Craig Taylor To:Council, City Subject:City provision of internet Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 5:22:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i As the city continues to consider entering the internet service business in competition with ATT and Xfinity, I encourage you to ponder what problem it addresses. Provision of electricity and natural gas allows the city to negotiate with providers and achieve a lower cost on behalf of the citizens after accounting for the costs of maintaining the administration and delivery infrastructure. It is unclear what advantage the city would have in providing internet service since there doesn’t appear to be a way to obtain the inputs for less. As a Xfinity customer, I not only get internet and cable but also regular upgrades to the equipment, now including voice activation of nearly every function. Even though ATT fiber isn’t available in my area (yet) I receive offers of lower cost service and bundles. Both ATT and Xfinity have extensive systems over which they can amortize r&d in equipment and services. Broadband from satellites is a possible development in the next ten or twenty years (probably within the development time of a city based fiber system). Generally when entering into competition one needs a better product and / or a significantly cheaper cost. The internet product would likely be similar to ATT or Xfinity, which leaves price. Many would consider a 25-30% lower price inadequate to enter a capital intensive endeavor (about what ATT offers to switch). While the city has considerable resources, I think the council should consider whether the time and money could be better utilized elsewhere. Respectfully, This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast View this email in your browser Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, and Instagram May E-Blast May 12, 2025 In this Issue LWVPA Updates LWVPA 2025 Annual Meeting League Tabling at May Fete Parade & Fair Events by Other Leagues and In the Community The Rise of the Tech Oligarchy: Power, Wealth, and the Future of Democracy What is DEI and Why is it Being Dismantled? From:LWV Palo Alto (Eblast)To:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA May 2025 E-Blast: Annual Meeting and Other Events You Don"t Want to MissDate:Monday, May 12, 2025 4:40:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Join LWV of Palo Alto How to Depolarize American Politics LWV Bay Area Biennial Council 2025 LWVC Biennial Convention 2025 League in the News Celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month & Jewish American Heritage Month LWVPA Updates LWVPA Annual Meeting Sunday, May 18, 2025 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Baylands Golf Links 1875 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Guest Speaker: Randy Tsuda CEO, Alta Housing "Why Housing is More Important than Ever" We are excited to invite all members to join our 2025 Annual Membership Meeting! We welcome you to come at 1:00 pm to enjoy a light snack and socialize with fellow members. The meeting will begin at 1:30 pm. Members will first hear from our guest speaker, Randy Tsuda, CEO, Alta Housing, on the importance of housing. Members will then accomplish the following objectives of the meeting: Approve a 2025-2026 budget Approve changes to the bylaws Adopt our top program emphases for 2025-2026 (Palo Alto) and for 2025-2027 (California) Elect new officers, directors, and a nominating committee The Annual Membership meeting is the most important gathering of the League year. Your participation is critical to help shape the important work that we do for the coming year. It's also a great opportunity to connect with fellow League members in-person. Registration is requested by this Thursday. We look forward to seeing you there! Agenda 1:00 pm: Arrival and Socializing 1:30 pm: Welcome and Introductions 1:45 pm: Guest Speaker: Randy Tsuda, CEO, Alta Housing 2:15 pm: Membership Meeting Call to Order 2:45 pm: 2025-2026 Board Meeting Call to Order (open to all members) 3:00 pm: Adjournment About Guest Speaker Randy Tsuda has been the CEO of Alta Housing (formerly Palo Alto Housing) since 2018. Under Randy’s leadership, Alta Housing has expanded to over 1,000 units, housing more than 2,500 residents, with a reach stretching from San Jose to San Mateo. In addition to providing its residents with well- maintained, safe housing, Alta also offers supportive services to its residents. Register Now Before joining Alta, Randy was the Mountain View Community Development Director for over 10 years. His career spans experience in the non-profit, private, and public sectors, including real estate, city planning, affordable housing, and economic development. He has worked on projects that received awards from the American Planning Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, and in May 2018 received the “Bringing It Home” award from SV@Home, a policy and advocacy organization focused on increasing affordable housing. Randy frequently speaks about housing and has been a lecturer at Stanford University and San Jose State University. League Tabling at May Fete Parade & Fair Liz Jensen, Hannah Lu, and Ellen Forbes showed kids how to vote for their favorite animals and cast their ballot in the ballot box at the May Fete parade and fair on May 3. It was a lot fun seeing many kids vote for the first time and talking to their parents. We will send out volunteer opportunities like this in the future and hope you can join us! Events by Other Leagues & In theCommunity The Rise of the Tech Oligarchy: Power, Wealth, and the Future of Democracy Thursday, May 15, 2025 1:30 pm -2:30 pm (PST) Join the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation for a discussion on the rise of tech oligarchy and its implications for democratic governance. This panel will examine how unprecedented concentrations of wealth and technological power are reshaping our political economy. The conversation will explore how tech oligarchs are reconfiguring our institutions, hollowing out public capacity, and challenging core democratic norms. Panelists will explore strategies and policy interventions that could help rebalance power and strengthen democratic resilience. Speakers include: Danielle Allen, James Bryant Conant University Professor, Harvard University Julie E. Cohen, Mark Claster Mamolen Professor of Law and Technology, Georgetown University Henry Farrell, SNF Agora Professor of International Affairs, John Hopkins University Read more details HERE. What is DEI and why is it being dismantled? Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:00 pm -5:30 pm Over the last 40 years Diversity, Equity and Inclusion has had as its goal to Register Now address inequities in all aspects of our society. Why was it created? What are its benefits and challenges? Why do some people support it and others perceive it as threatening? What is its future in our country? Panelists include Contra Costa Board Supervisor Shanelle Scales Preston; Michael Urbina, Executive Recruiter for DEI, Pure Storage; and Peter Kim, Co-Director, Racial Equity and Social Justice Contra Costa will be the Moderator. Sponsors include the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley and the League of Women Voters of West Contra Costa County. How to Depolarize American Politics Thursday, May 22, 2025 Register Now 5:00 pm - 6:30 pm In-person event at Stanford American politics is much more polarized now than fifty years ago, with a huge ideological gap between the Republican and Democratic parties. So, one might hope that a raft of independent centrist candidates would jump into the fray and fill this hole. Unfortunately, such candidates cannot get elected under our current voting system. This lecture will show that there is a better system, called Majority Rule (or Condorcet Voting), that can get centrists into office and thereby help solve the polarization problem. Speaker Eric Maskin is an Adams University Professor, a Professor of Economics and Mathematics at Harvard, and a former student of the late Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow. Register Now LWV Bay Area Biennial Council 2025 Saturday, May 31, 2025 10:00 am -12:00 pm (Zoom) You are invited! Each Bay Area local League is eligible to send two voting delegates to the Biennial Council. All are welcome to attend, and voting delegates may vote as needed. Please email contact@lwvpaloalto.org if you are interested in attending. During the meeting, we will provide an update on the status of our re-study of regional government positions. Please note: No new positions will be adopted during this Council, as those are typically considered during convention. Read the agenda and meeting details. Submit your questions and comments to lwvbayarea@gmail.com LWVC Biennial Convention 2025 Via Zoom & YouTube Every two years, the California membership gathers at the LWVC Convention to craft our policy priorities for the next two years, to enlighten each other by sharing our successes and learnings, to inspire a new generation of League Register Now leaders, and to celebrate our shared passion for making California a well- governed and vibrant state. This year, our Convention will be held virtually from June 17-22, with workshops throughout the week. We will focus on bringing League members together to learn, share, and energize our membership as we continue to work toward strengthening democracy. More information is available at lwvc.org/convention. Members are encouraged to attend the convention either as an observer or a delegate. Email contact@lwvpaloalto.org if you are interested in learning more. We hope to see you there! League in the News Today, the League of Women Voters of the US launched ‘Unite and Rise 8.5,’ our new initiative to mobilize 8.5 million voters through civic education, advocacy, and engagement. Read our press release HERE. PBS NewsHour spoke about LWV’s declaration of a constitutional crisis. Watch the clip HERE. Susan Bivins from the League of Women Voters of the Williamsburg Area, VA, did an interview with local news about her work with the League and their impact in the community. Read the profile: Ten Questions with Susan Bivins, Williamsburg Area League of Women Voters. Celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month Celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for Email News and Action Alerts from LWVUS Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2025 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can unsubscribe from this list. From:News Reporter To:Council, City Subject:re inexplicable changes at the downtown branch library Date:Monday, May 12, 2025 3:44:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i 5.12.25Dear Palo Alto City Council members, I've been a patron of the Palo Alto library for many years now. Periodically Igo to one of the various branches to work on my laptop. Sometimes downtown,other times Mitchell, and also Rinconada. Seldom anymore do I go to thecollege terrace simply because it is too small. Every branch has its own idiosyncrasies that you discover over time. Rinconada for example has one "regular" patron who is always there- always at the same computer. Mitchellgets pretty crowded at times. And downtown, which is my main concern at themoment, has some of its own unique issues. First of all, when I returned to this library after several months traveling,there was a new regular staff member who seems to be of Indian descent.Seemed nice enough at first. I just did my own thing in the open area where most people go to use their laptops. NIce thing I discovered one day is that there were plugs outside so I could sitoutside in the fresh air and use my laptop. But after a few months I found out that they had put a cover and a lock over these plugs. Why ? And I wondered if this was specifically in response to me enjoying the use of them ? WHy wouldthey do this to me ? And others. I never said anything about it. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt that there was good public policy for it, but maybe you can look into it. So Ireturned to doing my work inside. One day I noticed they had placed a fewnice soft chairs in this open space- which was especially good for me because I have a bad hip. If I sit for too long on a hard chair- I will be in pain the rest of the day and night. So I am always grateful when I can sit in a soft chair while This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast working on my laptop. Just as they seemed to take notice of me using the outdoor plugs, "they" (meaning maybe the Indian employee. he's the only one who seems to be there ALL the time) seemed to take notice of my enjoyment of the soft chair. Oneday I returned and the soft chairs were gone. Why? Others enjoyed those softspots as well. Or is that the point? They don't want to make it too nice or enjoyable? Is that city policy or a few rogue library employees trying to keep it nice just for themselves? So now it's back to the laptop room being "bare bones" with the hard chairs and tables, nothing else. I'm surprised they haven't turned off the sink water in this room yet, given I like to refill my water bottle there. Is that next? Or am Ibeing paranoid? Maybe there's a perfectly innocent explanation for thesechanges? I thought about contacting the library supervisor. Then I noticed her nameand ethnicity: Indian. So that explains the Indian fellow working at thedowntown branch, and another Indian fellow at Rinconada. I actually like Indians (not to be confused with native-americans by the way, but Americans with ancestors from the country of India) in general, but is there something tobe concerned about here ? And if they are from India (which seems to be the case) the next question is what caste are they descended from ? You may say, pleeeaase, this is America !Irrelevant. Not possible. BUT IS IT? If they come from a higher caste inIndia, do they lose all their sense of privilege and superiority when they arrive in USA? OR do they look DOWN on some others, even possibly down on some white Americans (which I am) ? And if they look down on white Americans Ican only imagine what they think of black Americans. Or do they only lookdown on POOR white Americans? And POOR black Americans ? Has the Indian employee at the downtown library decided I am a poor whiteAmerican because I use the library? Is that their hidden bias about their ownpatrons ? And decided I am therefore "undesirable"? Do you know they have a caste in India called the "untouchables" (ie Dalit)? Could this be consciously or unconsciously impacting the viewpoint bias of Indian-American employeesof Palo Alto library? Do they think they are superior ? I will leave it at that for now. I hope you will take the time to ask a few questions and keep an eye on the Indian-Americans subtle biases againstAmericans of all colors who have lived here much longer. Maybe even inquireabout what caste they are from ? All I ask is that I can sit outside on the patio periodically and plug in mylaptop. OR sit inside on a soft chair while working on my laptop? Is that toomuch to ask? Why did they take these two things away from me, and others? I wasn't the only one who enjoyed this. Is there a seperate board of directors for the library to whom I should alsoaddress this ? I noticed a board of directors for the "Friends of Palo Alto LIbrary". Can they help with this ? Sincerely Adam Wright