The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNon AgendaFrom:Jeffrey Bernstein To:City Clerk Subject:FW: South Camino Monte Road Extension Project - DISAPPROVE Date:Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:20:08 PM Jeffrey Bernstein Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember City of Palm Springs cell: 442-305-9942 Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov City Hall is open Monday –Thursday, 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. and closed on Fridays. From: pjwtx@att.net <pjwtx@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:31 PM To: Planning <Planning@palmspringsca.gov> Cc: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>; Lisa Middleton <Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>; Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>; Grace Garner <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>; Ron deHarte <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: South Camino Monte Road Extension Project - DISAPPROVE NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear City Councilmen and members of the Planning Commission, We are Palm Springs residents and live full-time in the adjacent area of South Camino Monte. We vehemently are against the development of the road as proposed in the 3A agenda item of the February 22nd meeting agenda. Not only is the road ultimately for more development on the hillside - but it encroaches into important wildlife habitat. We can’t keep reducing the available open land for our wildlife - many of which are endangered. Our wildlife is an important part of Palm Spring’s legacy. Our community is known as a mecca for nature lovers and we need to continue that perception to the world. We need to retain as much open land for the wildlife whose habitat is shrinking. There is simply other areas in Palm Springs that 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda that could be developed that doesn’t disrupt a wildlife corridor or impinge on their habitat. This area is not one of them. Please consider the wildlife that can’t speak for themselves and disapprove of the proposed road project. Your support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for Paul & Beverly Wilkinson 832-465-4748 pjwtx@att.net 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Jeffrey Bernstein To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Mobile Home Park Rent Date:Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:18:03 PM Attachments:CC - ORD-2022-017.pdf Jeffrey Bernstein Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember City of Palm Springs cell: 442-305-9942 Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov City Hall is open Monday –Thursday, 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. and closed on Fridays. From: Brian Williams <brianwilliamsomaha@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 1:36 PM To: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: Mobile Home Park Rent NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Good Aftenoon My name is Brian Williams and I am a part time resident of the beautiful city of Palm Springs! I am writing you with a concern. I live in a Ramon Mobile Home Park. While the park owner is following California Law regarding lot rent I wanted to bring to your attention how excessive it can be. As you know many low income residents choose mobile home living to save money. With inflation my lot rent was increased by 8% last year. If I choose to sell the new owner will face an increase in lot rent by 15%. additionally the rent will increase by the Consumer Price Index next year. If it remains the same as last year it would mean a 23% increase in a single year! Many cities in the great state of California have passed local ordinances to keep lot rent increases reasonable. I hope you will consider something similar. I can be reached at 402.657.0587 with any questions or by email. Respectfully, Brian Williams 156 Indian Paw 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Palm Springs CA 92264 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Ord. No. ORD-2022-017 Page 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2022-017 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE CHAPTER 6-66 – RENT CONTROL - MOBILEHOMES WHEREAS, the State of California has recognized, by the adoption of special legislation regulating tenancies of mobilehome owners in mobilehome parks, that there is a significant distinction between tenants of mobilehome parks and other dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the physical removal and relocation of a mobilehome from a rented space within a mobilehome park can only be accomplished at substantial cost and inconvenience with limited ability to find another location; and WHEREAS, in Santa Rosa and surrounding locations there is a shortage of sites for the placement of mobilehomes; and WHEREAS, mobilehomes are an important source of housing for persons of low and moderate income; and WHEREAS, many owners of mobilehomes are elderly and live on fixed incomes; and WHEREAS, there is an extremely low vacancy rate in mobilehome parks in Santa Rosa; and WHEREAS, owners of mobilehome parks are entitled by law to a fair rate of return; and WHEREAS, Santa Rosa first adopted its mobilehome rent control ordinance in 1993; and WHEREAS, no mobilehome park owner has requested a fair return hearing in Santa Rosa since 1999; and WHEREAS, in the past ten years, the allowed rent increases in mobilehome parks have exceeded the increases in Social Security. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 6-66.020 (G) of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to read as follows: G) “Consumer Price Index” or “CPI” means the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers in the San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward, as may be amended from time to time, area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Section 2. Sections 6-66.040 (A) and (B) of the Santa Rosa City Code are amended to read as follows: 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Ord. No. ORD-2022-017 Page 2 of 3 A) Consumer Price Index. An owner, once in any 12-month period, may impose a rent increase for a mobilehome space by 70 percent of the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the most recent 12-month period ending in August; provided, however, the rental increase shall not exceed four percent of the previous rent charged for the space. If an owner has obtained a rent increase under subsection 6-66.050(B), the owner may calculate the rent increase allowed by this subsection based upon the approved comparable rent as allowed in subsection 6-66.050(B) instead of upon the actual rent in effect at the time of the increase. B) If the change in the CPI exceeds four percent for two consecutive years, the Clerk shall review the maximum rent increase and recommend an ordinance amendment if appropriate.” Section 3. Section 6-66.050 (A)(1) of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to read as follows: 1) The termination of the tenancy of the affected mobilehome owner in accordance with the MRL (California Civil Code sections 798.55 through 798.62, as amended, excepting section 798.59); or” Section 4. Section 6-66.050 (B) of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to read as follows: B) Upon an in-place transfer of a Mobilehome, the park owner may increase the rent by an amount that does not exceed ten percent of the then current base rent.” Section 5. Section 6-66.050 (C) of the Santa Rosa City Code is deleted. Section 6. Section 6-66.140 of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to read as follows: An owner shall disclose to each prospective mobilehome owner the current and proposed base rent for the mobilehome space and the rental agreement options required by this section and Section 6- 66.150, provide each prospective mobilehome owner with a copy of this chapter, and disclose to the prospective mobilehome owner under what circumstances that a lease will be exempt from rent control. The owner shall give the required disclosure and provide a copy of this chapter to the prospective mobilehome owner at the time that the owner, or owner’s representative, receives the prospective mobilehome owner’s application for tenancy. The required disclosures shall be made in a form approved by the Clerk, and the owner shall obtain a signature of the prospective mobilehome owner on the disclosure form acknowledging receipt of the disclosures. An owner must retain the signed disclosure form throughout the entire tenancy of the mobilehome owner. This signed form shall be made available to the Clerk upon reasonable written notice.” Section 7. Section 6-66.150 of the Santa Rosa City Code is deleted. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Ord. No. ORD-2022-017 Page 3 of 3 Section 8. Environmental Determination. The Council finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15061(b)3 in that the Council finds there is no possibility that the implementation of this ordinance may have significant effects on the environment. Section 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid and/or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day following its adoption. This ordinance was introduced by the Council of the City of Santa Rosa on November 29, 2022. IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 2022. AYES: (6) Mayor C. Rogers, Council Members Fleming, MacDonald, N. Rogers, Sawyer, Schwedhelm NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) Vice Mayor Alvarez ABSTAIN: (0) ATTEST: _________________________ APPROVED: ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ City Attorney Sue Gallagher (Dec 12, 2022 08:48 PST) Sue Gallagher Chris Rogers (Dec 12, 2022 22:03 PST) https:// srcity.na2.adobesign.com/ veriﬁer? tx=CBJCHBCAABAA1UhtZ daV5QFZLkJJPntnqTo7Osa oXKRq https:// srcity.na2.adobesign.com/ veriﬁer? tx=CBJCHBCAABAA1Uht ZdaV5QFZLkJJPntnqTo7 OsaoXKRq https:// secure.na2.adobesign.com/ veriﬁer? tx=CBJCHBCAABAA1UhtZdaV5 QFZLkJJPntnqTo7OsaoXKRq 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda CC - ORD-2022-017 (12-06-2022) Final Audit Report 2022-12-13 Created:2022- 12-07 By:Gretchen Emmert (gemmert@srcity.org) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA1UhtZdaV5QFZLkJJPntnqTo7OsaoXKRq CC - ORD-2022-017 (12-06-2022)" History Document created by Gretchen Emmert (gemmert@srcity.org) 2022-12-07 - 6:56:19 PM GMT Document emailed to Sue Gallagher (sgallagher@srcity.org) for signature 2022-12-07 - 6:56:49 PM GMT Document e-signed by Sue Gallagher (sgallagher@srcity.org) Signature Date: 2022-12-12 - 4:48:36 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to crogers@srcity.org for signature 2022-12-12 - 4:48:37 PM GMT Email viewed by crogers@srcity.org 2022-12-12 - 9:35:11 PM GMT Signer crogers@srcity.org entered name at signing as Chris Rogers 2022-12-13 - 6:03:44 AM GMT Document e-signed by Chris Rogers (crogers@srcity.org) Signature Date: 2022-12-13 - 6:03:46 AM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Stephanie Williams (swilliams@srcity.org) for signature 2022-12-13 - 6:03:47 AM GMT Email viewed by Stephanie Williams (swilliams@srcity.org) 2022-12-13 - 6:09:07 PM GMT Document e-signed by Stephanie Williams (swilliams@srcity.org) Signature Date: 2022-12-13 - 6:09:17 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2022-12-13 - 6:09:17 PM GMT 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Jeffrey Bernstein To:City Clerk; Liza Chavez Subject:Fwd: Traffic cones Date:Friday, March 3, 2023 9:11:07 AM Jeffrey Bernstein Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember City of Palm Springs cell: 442-305-9942 Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov City Hall is open Monday –Thursday, 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. and closed on Fridays. Begin forwarded message: From: William Ohde <wohde2018@gmail.com> Subject: Traffic cones Date: March 2, 2023 at 5:18:20 PM PST To: Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>, Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov, Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov, Lisa Middleton <Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>, Alyssa.Chavez@palmspringsca.gov, grace.garner@palmspringsca.gov NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. At the corner of Tahquitz and Sunrise near the new Riverside health center there are numerous orange traffic cones that have been in place for many months. Traffic cones should be temporary. Perhaps you could find out what the problem is and help them find a solution. I suspect that they are waiting for some sort of light fixture. They have waited long enough! Bill Ohde 03/09/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Jeffrey Bernstein To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Attachments to Jenny Ross Public Comments Date:Wednesday, March 1, 2023 7:29:24 PM Attachments:JennyRossATTACHMENTS re UCSC PANEL"S EVAL OF SALTON SEA WATER IMPORTATION - Jenny E Ross.pdf Thank you! Jeffrey Jeffrey Bernstein Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember City of Palm Springs 442-305-9942 Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov Begin forwarded message: From: chuck Parker <pchuck48@gmail.com> Subject: Attachments to Jenny Ross Public Comments Date: February 26, 2023 at 6:30:34 AM PST To: Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov, Grace Garner <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>, Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>, Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov, Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Palm Springs City Council, Here are the attachments to Jenny Ross' publiccomments on the UCSC Panel Report, beginningwithBrent Haddad's 2002 L.A.Times editorial opposingthe restoration of the Salton Sea.Thank you. From:Jeffrey Bernstein To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: NO RECORD OF HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FORWARDING DRMC NURSES" RECENT PATIENT SAFETY COMPLAINTS Date:Wednesday, March 1, 2023 7:28:12 PM Thank you! Jeffrey Jeffrey Bernstein Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember City of Palm Springs 442-305-9942 Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov Begin forwarded message: From: Ezra Kaufman <ekaufman3263@gmail.com> Subject: NO RECORD OF HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FORWARDING DRMC NURSES' RECENT PATIENT SAFETY COMPLAINTS Date: February 26, 2023 at 11:51:42 AM PST To: Kim Jakab <kjakab@calnurses.org>, jgpanama17@gmail.com, sashareyes@yahoo.com, r_epp_rn@yahoo.com, leahmiller10@yahoo.com, Hank Goudreault <hankgoodrow@hotmail.com>, lorruggs34@yahoo.com, ftsoperator@yahoo.com, lakers6800@aol.com, magradena@gmail.com, cmgrn85@gmail.com, msgrae0413@gmail.com Cc: Carole Rogers <crogers@dhcd.org>, cbarzaga@dhcd.org, Les Zendle <lzendle@dhcd.org>, editor@thepalmspringspost.com, "Sasic, Ema" <ESasic@palmspri.gannett.com>, Jimmy Boegle <jboegle@cvindependent.com>, jeffrey.bernstein@palmspringsca.gov, joy@crystalfantasy.com, AviShorr@gmail.com, Lisa Middleton <lisa.middleton@palmspringsca.gov>, Andrea Hayles <ahayles@dhcd.org>, wdean@dhcd.org, pmeehan@borregosun.com NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. A public records request made to the Desert Healthcare District did not produce a record of the District having followed its own procedure and did not forward complaints recently received (November 2022) from Desert Regional Medical Center nurses. These complaints included their serious concerns about patient safety. Why were these complaints not transmitted to the hospital administration? From:Jeffrey Bernstein To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Attachments to Jenny Ross Public Comments Date:Wednesday, March 1, 2023 7:29:24 PM Attachments:JennyRossATTACHMENTS re UCSC PANEL"S EVAL OF SALTON SEA WATER IMPORTATION - Jenny E Ross.pdf Thank you! Jeffrey Jeffrey Bernstein Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember City of Palm Springs 442-305-9942 Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov Begin forwarded message: From: chuck Parker <pchuck48@gmail.com> Subject: Attachments to Jenny Ross Public Comments Date: February 26, 2023 at 6:30:34 AM PST To: Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov, Grace Garner <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>, Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>, Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov, Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Palm Springs City Council, Here are the attachments to Jenny Ross' publiccomments on the UCSC Panel Report, beginningwithBrent Haddad's 2002 L.A.Times editorial opposingthe restoration of the Salton Sea.Thank you. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda ATTACHMENTS for Comments on the UC Santa Cruz Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea Submitted to the California Natural Resources Agency and the Salton Sea Management Program Jenny E. Ross 20 February 2023 Attachment 1 – Opinion Article in the Los Angeles Times by Brent Haddad, 14 July 2002 Attachment 2 – June 2020 Request for Proposals re Independent Feasibility Analysis Services Attachment 3 – The 2021 Agreement Summary Attachment 4 – The 2021 Standard Agreement and Exhibits Attachment 5 – The 2022 Amended Agreement and Exhibits Attachment 6 – The 2021 Request for Information re Salton Sea Water Importation Projects Attachment 7 – The 2021 Subcontracting Justification Memorandum Attachment 8 – The 2022 Subcontracting Justification Memorandum Attachment 9 – Table JER‐1, Water Required Annually for Operation of the SCH and 10‐Year Plan 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 1 Opinion Article in the Los Angeles Times by Brent Haddad 14 July 2002 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 1/2 www.latimes.com /archives/la-xpm-2002-jul-14-oe-haddad14-story.html Drop Bid to Revive the Dying Salton Sea BRENT M. HADDAD and CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN ⋮ ⋮ 7/14/2002 By BRENT M. HADDAD and CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN Brent M. Haddad is an associate professor of environmental studies at UC Santa Cruz. Christopher J. Brown is a recent graduate of UC Santa Cruz. The years are numbered for Southern California’s great environmental accident of the last century--the Salton Sea. There is virtually nothing that can stop that, but plans must be made now to keep the lake bed that’s left behind from becoming a bane to human health, migratory birds and the local economy. Every few hundred years, the Salton Sea fills with flooding Colorado River water, only to dry up again as the river returns to its usual channel. Its accidental filling in 1905-07 has been maintained for nearly a century. But the historical combination of farming practices, property rights and the water demands of California’s cities and the Mexican border region is changing, which means that eventually evaporation will outstrip inflows and leave the sea dry. At that point, three serious problems could arise: human health damage as the region’s population breathes the salty, pesticide-laden dust and aerosols that are exposed on the seabed; the loss of a critical stopover for migratory birds; and the decline of the region’s recreation/vacation industry. Trapped in the sediments of the Salton Sea are arsenic, selenium, chromium, cadmium, zinc, lead and pesticides, including DDT. Asthma and cancer are potential consequences of breathing air laden with these particles. Other examples of air quality impairment from drying inland water bodies include California’s Owens Lake, which in recent years recorded the worst airborne particulate pollution in the United States, and the region surrounding Central Asia’s Aral Sea, where one of the world’s worst public health crises continues to unfold. The city of Los Angeles is now taking action to stabilize air quality in the lower Owens Valley by returning some water to the lake bed, planting salt grass and spreading gravel on the surface. Meanwhile, the human health toll in the regions surrounding the much larger Aral Sea is staggering, with no solution in sight. As for migratory birds, the Salton Sea is a critical stopover and feeding ground for millions of them. Substantial portions of certain species (eared grebes, American white pelicans) use the sea each year. This resource will be lost to them as the water dries up. Already the virulent mix of salts and pesticides in the sea 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 2/2 has caused rare diseases in some of the fish populations, with resulting die-offs among birds as they eat the diseased fish. Meanwhile, recreational opportunities will disappear when the sea is gone. Today, policymakers and environmental and recreation advocates share a vision of restoring the Salton Sea, which would be to stabilize its elevation and reduce the salinity in some parts in order to support healthy fish and bird populations. These plans would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, which would be wasted because, without sufficient water flowing in, there will be nothing to restore. The correct approach should be remediation: protecting human health, bird populations and the local economy as the Salton Sea inevitably dries up. This would shift the focus of policymakers from the sea itself to the exposed lake bed--something they can do something about. We should undertake studies of how to immobilize the salts. With respect to birds, we must search for alternative wetlands both north and south of the U.S.-Mexican border, including restoring the now-dry Colorado River delta. We must also help recreation and vacation businesses plan for a future without the Salton Sea. Attempting to restore the Salton Sea would mean spending too much money on a wish. Remediation of the damage caused by California’s unique agricultural history also would be expensive, but it would be paid back in human lives and avian abundance. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 2 The June 2020 Request for Proposals re Independent Feasibility Analysis Services (Pages 1-16 only) 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda STATE OF CALIFORNIA – CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 NINTH STREET, P.O. BOX 942836 SACRAMENTO, CA 94236-0001 (916) 653-5791 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SECONDARY Notice to Prospective Firms June 24, 2020 You are invited to review and respond to this Request for Proposal Secondary (RFP) number 10161011 for Independent Feasibility Analysis services. The anticipated term of this agreement is one and a half years (18 months). In submitting your proposal, you must comply with these instructions. Note that all agreements entered into with the Department of Water Resources, hereinafter referred to as the “State”, incorporates, by reference, the State’s General Terms and Conditions (GTC) and Contractor Certification Clauses (CCC) that may be viewed and downloaded at the Department of General Services (DGS) website: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Legal-Services-Resources-List- Folder/Standard-Contract-Language If you do not have Internet access, a hard copy can be provided by contacting the person listed below. The CCC package contains clauses and conditions that may apply to your Agreement and to anyone doing business with the State of California. The Certification will be kept on file in a central location. Inquiries regarding the processing of this proposal should be referred to Nicole Anderson at (916) 651- 7013. Please note that no verbal information given will be binding upon the State unless such information is issued in writing as an official addendum to this solicitation. Sincerely, Vivien Maisonneuve, Program Manager II Salton Sea Program Attachment(s) 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 2 of 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notice of State Program Participation Requirements Pg 4 Purpose and Description of Services 5 Proposing Firm Minimum Qualifications 5 Proposal Requirements and Information 5 Proposal Key Action Dates 5 Questions and Answers 6 Work Plan and Work Schedule/Technical Proposal 6 Cost Proposal Format and Requirements 6 Submission of Proposal 7 Proposal Evaluation and Selection Process 9 Tax Delinquent Status Verification 15 Notice of Intent to Award and Protest 15 Disposition of Proposals 16 Standard Conditions of Service 16 Payee Data Record (Std. 204) 16 Key Employee Policies and Guidelines Notice Acknowledgment (Consultants and Contractors) (DWR 9524a) 17 Economic Incentive Program 17 Small Business Program 17 Non-Small Business Preference Calculation Request Form/Instructions 21 Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Program 23 Proposal Checklist 25 Attachment I – Cost Proposal Worksheet 26 Attachment II - Proposal/Proposing firm Certification Sheet 27 Proposal/Proposing firm Certification Sheet Instructions 28 Attachment III – Proposing firm References 29 Attachment IV - Darfur Contracting Act Certification 30 Attachment V – California DVBE Program Requirements (DWR 9526) 31 Attachment VI- DVBE Declaration (State Std. 843) 37 Attachment VII – Bidder Declaration (GSPD-05-105) Attachment VIII – California Civil Rights Laws Attachment Attachment IX – Iran Contracting Act 38 40 41 Sample Contract – Standard Agreement (Std. 213) 42 Exhibit A – Scope of Work 43 Exhibit B – Budget Detail and Payment Provisions 48 Exhibit C – General Terms and Conditions 49 Exhibit D – Special Terms and Conditions for Department of Water Resources – Over $10,000 Standard Payable (DWR 9544) 50 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 3 of 66 Attachment 1 – Recycled Content Certification Form (DWR 9557) 53 Exhibit E – Additional Provisions 55 Attachment 1 – Standard Contract Provisions Regarding Political Reform Act Compliance 60 Attachment 2 – Protection of Confidential and Sensitive Information 61 Attachment 3 – Non-disclosure Certificate 63 Attachment 4 – DVBE Activity Report Form (DWR 9553) 64 Attachment 5 – Small Business and DVBE Subcontractor Payment Certification 66 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 4 of 66 NOTICE OF STATE MANDATED SB/DVBE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise (DVBE) Information The Department of Water Resources has determined that DVBE opportunity exists and firms responding to this RFP must comply with DVBE Program requirements. Instructions for completing DVBE program requirements are found in Attachment V, DWR 9526 - California DVBE Program Requirements. Please review these instructions carefully. When responding to the DVBE program requirements, firms must use the forms contained within this solicitation. Failure to fulfill the DVBE requirement will render your proposal non-responsive and shall be cause for proposal rejection. This solicitation also includes DVBE Incentive language. The DVBE Incentive offers firms an incentive calculation for including DVBE subcontractors in their RFP response. Application of the Incentive may place the firm in position to receive award of the RFP. Use of the DVBE Incentive cannot be used to displace a certified small business firm that has been deemed the highest responsive, responsible firm with that of a non-small business. The incentive applied is based on the firm’s proposed DVBE commitment. Minimum incentive applied will be three (3) percent and will not to exceed five (5) percent. Small Business Program Information If a proposing firm is not a California Certified Small Business and wishes to be considered for the small business calculation preference for this solicitation, proposing firm application for small business must be received by the Department of General Services Office of Small and DVBE Business Services (OSDS) by the proposal due date by close of business. Proposing firms seeking small business certification status must also notify the Department in writing at the time of proposal submission that they have an application for Small Business certification for review and approval at the DGS-OSDS. Contact the DGS Office of Small Business and DVBE Services (OSDS) at internet website https://www.dgs.ca.gov/PD/About/Page-Content/PD-Branch-Intro-Accordion-List/Office-of-Small- Business-and-Disabled-Veteran-Business-Enterprise/Certification-Program or call (916) 375-4940 for certification assistance. For additional assistance meeting DVBE program requirements or inquiries about Small Business certification, please contact the Department of Water Resources SB/DVBE Program Manager at (916) 653-9813, or email SB.DVBE@water.ca.gov 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 5 of 66 A. Purpose and Description of Services DWR is seeking interested and qualified applicants to advance our understanding on the feasibility of water importation by providing independent third-party evaluation services and a feasibility analysis in support of the State’s planning objectives for the Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP). The objective of this RFP is to conduct a feasibility study of the 2017 Request For Information (RFI) proposals and to elucidate whether or not water imports to the Salton Sea are achievable. B. Proposing Firm Minimum Qualifications The Contractor agrees to assign individuals to deliver the services required in Exhibit A, Scope of Work (SOW) who meet or exceed the qualifications described in the following subsections of this RFP. Proposing firms must include in their proposals any supporting documentation, as needed, for the individual(s) who would perform the required services. NOTE: Experience cited by the proposing firm as evidence of satisfying the minimum qualification requirements must include work performed within 5 years preceding submission of the Contractor's response to the RFP, and must provide evidence that the Contractor has experience creating and managing independent panels, experience with planning and managing large water resource related construction projects, and have extensive engineering experience in multiple fields. 1. Accessibility and Location – The proposing firm must be able to provide the services identified in the SOW. Proposing firms must have webinar and conference call capability for meetings and events and be capable of travel throughout California. 2. Project Manager – The proposing firm must assign a Project Manager that will be responsible for ensuring the delivery of the SOW. The Project Manager must have a minimum of 10 years of project management experience related to engineering, scientific, and construction programs and projects. The Project Manager is responsible for contract administration and for ensuring deliverables are provided to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on time and within budget. 3. References – The proposing firm must submit a minimum of 5 references that can verify the firm’s ability to fulfill the tasks indicated in the SOW. Each reference provided must have full contact information, a brief description of the type of work provided to the reference by the firm, and the work’s relevance to the tasks in the SOW. By providing the reference list for any portion of this RFP, the Proposer gives DWR and the reference full permission for inquiry by DWR and disclosure by the reference of any information about Proposer, whether such inquiry or information is based on fact, judgment or hearsay. References must confirm completion of the required tasks and services for the described projects and must report above-average performance satisfaction in all task categories. If subcontractors are utilized, identification of those persons or firms, how and why they were selected, resumes or curriculum vitae (CV) of each major subcontract participant, and a description of how subcontracted work will be controlled, monitored, and evaluated must be included within the proposal package. C. Proposal Requirements and Information 1. PROPOSAL KEY ACTION DATES All proposing firms must adhere to the following time schedule. RFP available to prospective proposing firms on June 25, 2020 Technical questions must be submitted by July 9, 2020 at 10:00am Answers to technical questions will be disseminated by July 13, 2020 at 10:00am Proposals must be received by July 27, 2020 at 10:00am Anticipated start date of agreement is September, 2020 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 6 of 66 2. LOCATION WHERE WORK WILL BE PERFORMED: Contractor’s Location within California 3. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Technical questions must be submitted in writing to nicole.anderson@water.ca.gov and received by DWR on or before July 9, 2020 at 10:00am. DWR will provide answers in writing to all potential proposing firms by 10:00am on July 13, 2020. 4. WORK PLAN AND WORK SCHEDULE/TECHNICAL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS The proposing firm will develop a work plan and schedule for task completion. If applicable, identify each major task, necessary subtask, and/or specifics by which progress can be measured and payments made. Proposing firms may need to include the following information: a. Project Personnel: List all personnel who will be working on the project. Include resumes or CV which explain their job titles, roles in the company, past and current responsibilities in the projects, and their qualifications. b. Facilities and Resources: Explain where the services will be provided and what type of equipment and/or other resources are needed to perform the services. c. Specific Project Tasks: Outline tasks that will lead to achieving the goal. d. Roles and Responsibilities: List who is responsible for completing each task in this project, who will synthesize the information, who is responsible for timely delivery of the complete final report. e. Communication Plan: Identify ways to communicate among the Panel members, the Contractor, and the State. f. Constraints: Identify any obstacles that may cause not fully completing the review or delaying the development of the final report. g. Risks: Identify risks inherent to this project and how to mitigate them. h. Schedule: Develop the work schedule, indicate milestones, dependencies, and critical path. i. Costs: Estimate direct and indirect costs for each task and the whole project. j. Progress Measurements: Define ways to rate success or failure of the project milestones, what are the indicators that panel member has provided sufficient information. The Contractor will direct the Panel to participate in up to five technical coordination meetings with DWR. The Contractor will prepare progress reports prior to each meeting. The progress reports must include any potential deviation from the critical path, including any expertise gaps among panel members, data gaps, scheduling conflicts, and ways to mitigate them. The Contractor will begin work immediately upon execution of the contract. It is anticipated that the duration of this contract will be approximately eighteen (18) months. 5. COST PROPOSAL FORMAT AND REQUIREMENTS The proposing firm will use the attached Cost Proposal Worksheet (Attachment I) to provide their 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 7 of 66 cost proposal. The Cost Proposal Worksheet will be submitted in the same envelope as the proposal. 6. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL a. Proposals must be submitted by mail, hand delivery, UPS, express mail, or Federal Express to: Department of Water Resources Attention: Nicole Anderson 1416 Ninth Street, Room 353 Sacramento, California 95814 b. Proposals should provide straightforward and concise descriptions of the proposing firm’s ability to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. c. If the proposal is made under a fictitious name or business title, the actual legal name of the proposing firm must be provided. d. Due to limited storage space, the proposal package should be prepared using the least expensive method (i.e. cover page with staple in upper left-hand corner, no fancy bindings). e. All proposals must include original signatures on the following documents: Proposal/Proposing firm Certification Sheet, Contractor Certification Clauses, and any other documents specified in this RFP. f. Proposals not including the documents identified in the Proposal Checklist shall be deemed non-responsive and will be rejected. g. All proposals are to be sent to DWR within the time frame indicated in the Time Schedule. Proposals received after the due date and time will be returned unopened to the prospective proposing firm. h. All proposals must be submitted under sealed cover. The sealed cover must contain all documents listed in the Proposal Checklist. The outside of the sealed cover must be plainly marked with the RFP title and number, must show your firm’s name and address, and must be marked with “DO NOT OPEN.” i. Proposals not submitted under sealed cover will be rejected. A minimum of two signed proposals must be submitted. One proposal must be submitted in hardcopy. One proposal must be submitted in an electronic format (Word and/or PDF File) on a USB Drive. Both proposals must be signed and submitted in the same envelope. USB Drives can be returned at the request of the proposing firm once the solicitation is concluded. j. Proposals not submitted under sealed cover will be rejected. A minimum of two original signed proposals must be submitted. Both proposals must be submitted in the same envelope. k. Proposals must be submitted for the entire service described within the Scope of Work. Deviations from the specifications will not be considered and will be cause for rejection of the proposal. l. The State does not accept alternate language from a proposing firm. A proposal with such language will be considered a counter proposal and will be rejected. The State’s General 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 8 of 66 Terms and Conditions (GTC) are not negotiable. m. A proposal may be rejected if conditional or incomplete, or if it contains any alterations of form or other irregularities of any kind. The State may waive any immaterial deviation in a proposal. The State's waiver of immaterial defect shall in no way modify the RFP document or excuse the proposing firm from full compliance with the objectives if awarded the Agreement. n. Costs for developing proposals and preparation of award of the Agreement are entirely the responsibility of the proposing firm and shall not be chargeable to the State of California. o. This RFP must be signed by an individual who is authorized to bind the proposing firm contractually. The signature must indicate the title or position that the individual holds in the firm. An unsigned proposal will be rejected. p. A proposing firm may modify a proposal after its submission by withdrawal and resubmission before the proposal due date. Modification of a proposal offered in any other manner, oral or written, will not be considered. q. A proposing firm may withdraw their proposal by submitting a written request to the State for its withdrawal, signed by the proposing firm or an agent authorized in accordance with paragraph n above. A proposing firm may thereafter submit a new proposal before the proposal submission deadline. Proposals may not be withdrawn after the proposal due date. Proposals received after the due date and time will be returned unopened to the prospective proposing firm. r. DWR may modify the RFP prior to the date fixed for submission of proposals by the issuance of an Addendum to all parties who received a proposal package. This Addendum will also be posted on the State’s eProcurement website found at www.Cal eProcure.com. s. If all proposals are too high, DWR is not required to award an Agreement. t. The State may reject all proposals if deemed necessary. u. The proposals submitted, including costs, will become public when DWR has completed its evaluation and announces the responsible proposer who has been given the highest score. v. Proposing firms are cautioned not to rely on the State during the evaluation to discover and report all defects and errors in the proposal documents. Proposing firms should carefully proof read documents for errors and adherence to the RFP requirements prior to proposal submittal. w. Where applicable, the proposing firm should carefully examine the worksite and specifications. Proposing firm shall investigate the conditions, character, quality of surface, subsurface materials, or obstacles to be encountered. No additions to the Agreement amount will be made because of failure to thoroughly examine the worksite and specifications. x. More than one proposal from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names, will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that any proposing firm has submitted more than one proposal for the work contemplated herein will cause the rejection of all proposals submitted by that proposing firm. If there is reason for believing that collusion exists among the proposing firm, none of the participants in such collusion will be considered in this or future procurements. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 9 of 66 7. EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS a. The State will put each proposal through a process of evaluation to determine the responsiveness of proposing firms to the State's needs. The final selection will be made on the basis of the highest scoring proposal meeting the specifications. b. Proposals containing false or misleading statements or providing references that do not support an attribute or condition claimed by the proposing firm may be rejected. If, in the opinion of the State, information was intended to mislead the State in its evaluation of the proposal, and the attribute, condition, or capability is a requirement of this RFP, it will be the basis for rejection of the proposal. c. If there are tied proposals, DWR will draw straws to pick the winning proposing firm. The drawing will be witnessed and documented by two or more DWR employees. d. The evaluation process will consist of three phases. i. In Phase One, proposals are reviewed to ensure that all documentation has been submitted in compliance with the requirements of this RFP. DWR will review all of the following documents to determine that each is enclosed and properly completed. Failure to meet these administrative requirements shall cause a proposal to be deemed non- responsive and therefore ineligible for the next step of the RFP evaluation process. 1. Cost Proposal Worksheet (Attachment I) 2. Proposal/Proposer Certification Sheet (Attachment II) 3. References (Attachment III) 4. Darfur Contracting Certification (Attachment IV) 5. California Civil Rights Laws (Attachment VIII) 6. Iran Contracting Act (Attachment IX) 7. Small Business Certification (when applicable) 8. Completion of DVBE compliance documentation, DWR 9526 (Attachment V) a) Bidder Certification of DVBE Participation-Page 6 of DWR 9526 (Attachment V) b) DVBE Declaration – Std. 843 (Attachment VI) c) Bidder Declaration – GSPD-05-105 (Attachment VII) d) OSDS DVBE Certification from DGS e) DWR DVBE Advocate’s Notification of Compliance (if obtained in advance) 9. Work Plan and Work Schedule/Technical Proposal 10. Resumes for all personnel 11. Proof of certifications or licenses 12. References as identified in Minimum Qualifications 13. Proof of years experience as identified in Minimum Qualifications for Project Manager 14. Must have office located within California ii. Phase Two will consist of an evaluation of the Work Plan and Work Schedule/Technical Proposal and Cost Proposal based on the criteria below. Rating/Scoring Criteria Maximum Possible Points Work Plan and Work Schedule/ Technical Proposal 55 Cost Proposal 24 Total Possible Points 79 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 10 of 66 RFP Scoring Criteria Maximum Points Possible 1. Knowledge and familiarity with the water conveyance systems. The firm must have knowledge, familiarity, and experience working with large water supply, water treatment, water conveyance systems, renewable or conventional energy or hydropower systems, or similar facilities and appurtenant civil structures at a large regional, statewide or international scale. Understand risks related to implementing a water importation projects at the Salton Sea. 10 2. Experience facilitating collaborative processes involved in technical water resources programs and projects. The firm must have knowledge of and specify experience facilitating and supporting collaborative processes involved in technical water resources programs and projects, such as water conveyance and storage, integrated regional water management, water supply, water conservation, dam and flood safety at the local, regional, statewide, and international levels. 10 3. Experience analyzing, synthesizing, and distilling complex scientific and financial information. The firm must have relevant training, education, certifications, and experience in the fields of water quality, air quality, hydrology, hydraulics, ecology, biology, and economics. Demonstrate a broad understanding of scientific principles and the challenges in the Salton Sea region 10 4. Experience conducting stakeholder identification, assessment, outreach, and engagement. The firm must have knowledge of and specify experience in conducting stakeholder identification and assessments, developing communication and engagement plans, and conducting stakeholder and public outreach. Discuss any creative or unique approaches employed to actively outreach and engage with stakeholders and the public. Experience with international stakeholders is recommended. 5 5. Understanding of environmental compliance and permitting. The firm must have knowledge, familiarity, and experience working with International, Federal, State, and Local environmental compliance laws and permitting. 10 6. Project management experience. The firm must have knowledge of and specify experience organizing, leading, and managing a multidisciplinary independent team or panel to perform work related to technical water resources programs and projects such as water conveyance, integrated regional water management, water supply, water conservation, desalination, and dam and flood safety. 5 7. Experience managing State of California contracts. The firm must have experience with managing contracts, including developing, implementing, and amending contract documents; tracking expenditures and contract budget; and preparation and timely submittal of deliverables, progress reporting, and invoicing. Demonstrate effective communication protocol and long-distance coordination capabilities. For example, how to coordinate meetings with California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), DWR , California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the panel, coordinate reviews and other required efforts among panel members, making panel members 5 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 11 of 66 available on request, and frequency of coordinating meeting between panel members and CNRA, CDFW, and DWR managers. Total Maximum Score 55 RFP Scoring Rubric for Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 5 Points Proposal fails to address the criterion, or the proposing firm does not describe any experience related to the criterion. 0 Proposal minimally addresses the criterion, but one or more major considerations of the criterion are not addressed, or so limited that it results in a low degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. 2 Proposal addresses the criterion, but minor considerations may not be addressed. Some degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. 4 Proposal response fully addresses the criterion and demonstrates good quality solutions. Good degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. 6 All considerations of the criterion are addressed with a high degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. 8 All considerations of the criterion are addressed with the highest degree of confidence in the firm’s response. The response exceeds the requirements and demonstrates superior experience and creative approaches. 10 RFP Scoring Rubric for Criteria 4, 6, and 7 Points Proposal fails to address the criterion, or the proposing firm does not describe any experience related to the criterion. 0 Proposal minimally addresses the criterion, but one or more major considerations of the criterion are not addressed, or so limited that it results in a low degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. 1 Proposal addresses the criterion, but minor considerations may not be addressed. Some degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. 2 Proposal response fully addresses the criterion and demonstrates good quality solutions. Good degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. 3 All considerations of the criterion are addressed with a high degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. 4 All considerations of the criterion are addressed with the highest degree of confidence in the firm’s response. The response exceeds the requirements and demonstrates superior experience and creative approaches. 5 The DWR Evaluation Team will score the submittals based on percentages for levels of quality for each scoring criterion. The percentages will then be translated to points based upon the weight for each particular factor. For example, under “Effective Timeframes,” if a proposing firm’s response is considered “Excellent,” it will receive 9 points (0.9 x 10). The same approach will be used for all categories, except the scoring of the Cost Proposal. Percentage of maximum points Description Non-Compliant 0% Fails to address the component or the proposing firm does not describe any experience related to the component. Poor Minimally addresses the section, but one or more major 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 12 of 66 30% considerations of the component are not addressed, or so limited that it results in a low degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. Fair 70% The response addresses the section, but minor considerations may not be addressed. Acceptable degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. Good 80% The response fully addresses the section and provides a good quality solution. Good degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. Excellent 90% All considerations of the section are addressed with a high degree of confidence in the proposing firm’s response. Outstanding 100% All considerations of the section are addressed with the highest degree of confidence in the firm’s response or proposed solution. The response exceeds the requirements in providing a superior experience and creative approach. Proposing firms must submit their Cost Proposals on the attached Cost Proposal Worksheet (Attachment I). If no proposal contains a Cost Proposal, which in the opinion of DWR is a reasonable price, DWR is not required to award a contract (Public Contract Code section 10344(d)). Each firm’s Cost Proposal score will be based on the ratio of its total cost to the total cost associated with the lowest responsive proposal multiplied by the maximum number of cost points. The Cost Proposal score will be rounded to the nearest whole integer. An example of this calculation is shown below: Lowest Firm’s Total Cost x 24 = Bidder’s Cost Score Firm’s Total Cost Cost Score Sample iii. In Phase Three, Small Business Preferences and DVBE Incentive calculations will be completed as necessary prior to contract award. The application of the Small Business Preference and DVBE Incentives may result in the displacement of a previously high scoring firm. 1. Proposing firms that are Small Business certified by DGS, Office of Small Business and DVBE Services (OSDS) may receive a five (5) percent preference calculation. The Small Business (SB) preference will be calculated by factoring five (5) percent of the highest scored points and adding those points to that of the certified Small Business. Example: High Score: 95 points Small Business Score: 91 points Firm Total Cost Proposal Calculation Cost Proposal Score A $175,000 $100,000 (Bidder B) X 24 $175,000 (Bidder A) 14 B $100,000 $100,000 (Bidder B) X 24 $100,000 (Bidder B) 24 C $150,000 $100,000 (Bidder B) X 24 $150,000 (Bidder C) 16 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 13 of 66 95 x 0.05 SB preference = 4.75 points Small Business Score: 91 points SB Points: 4.75 points 95.75 points In the example above, the SB would achieve a high point score and be in line for contract award. 2. The DVBE Program Incentive is applied during Phase Three and may result in the increase of a firm’s total points, placing them in line for award. Application of the DVBE Incentive is based on the number of total possible points specified. The following example is based on 100 total possible points: Confirmed DVBE Participation Possible Points Calculation 5% and Over 5% X 100 = 5 Points 4% - 4.99% inclusive 4% x 100 = 4 Points 3% - 3.99% inclusive 3% x 100 = 3 Points 2% - 2.99% inclusive 2% x 100 = 2 Points 1% - 1.99% inclusive 1% x 100 = 1 Point a) Once all proposals are evaluated for the factors indicated under the Rating/Scoring Criteria above, the DVBE Incentive will be calculated and those points will be factored into the total points of those firms with lower scores that have identified DVBE participation levels as outlined in the above table. The points applied may result in a firm achieving high points placing them in line for the solicitation award. b) A Small Business firm may be displaced by another firm achieving higher points as a result of the DVBE Incentive application. c) An Evaluation Committee shall conduct the scoring and review the results submitted. d) Only firms that are certified as small business by the Department of General Services, Office of Small Business Certification and Resources, receive a 5 percent preference. The preference is applied by the Department before the contract is awarded. 3. DVBE Incentive Application – Allowable Incentive Amounts a) When the DVBE program is a required component of the solicitation, the minimum acceptable commitment level is three (3) percent. Incentive amounts applied begin at three percent and will not exceed five (5) percent. b) When the Department waives DVBE program compliance from a solicitation, a responding firm’s DVBE participation is optional. Firms proposing DVBE participation are eligible to receive a DVBE incentive calculation from one (1) to five (5) percent. The incentive applied will be at the level of proposed DVBE commitment. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 14 of 66 Example scale using high score method: Available points example using sliding scale: Administrative: 200 points Technical proposal: 400 points Cost proposal: 600 points Total: 1200 points I n the example above, there are 60 maximum DVBE Incentive points possible. Example results using high score method: Proposing Firm A B C Responsive/Responsible Yes Yes Yes Total Points 1050 1155 1125 Eligible Preference SB None SB SB Preference points achieved 57.75 0 57.75 Points Subtotal 1107.75 1155 1182.75 Rank 3 2 1 DVBE Participation No (0%) Yes (5%) Yes (2%) Incentive Points Applied None 60 24 Adjusted Points 1107.75 1215 1206.75 New Rank 3 1 2 4. Order of Evaluation a) Small Business Preference is calculated by multiplying the highest total points achieved by 5% and adding the resulting calculation to the total points of the Small Business firm. In this sample the calculation was based on 1155 points x .05 resulting in 57.75 additional points added to the certified Small Businesses (A and C). b) DVBE Incentive Points are factored by multiplying the DVBE participation (%) identified by the total possible points that could be awarded (1200). This amount is then added to the firm’s total points. In the sample above, Firm B had 60 additional points added (.05% x 1200 total points available) to their total points placing them first for award. Firm C received 24 Incentive points, Confirmed DVBE Participation Possible Points Calculation: 1% - 1.99% inclusive 1% X 1200 = 12 2% - 2.99% inclusive 2% X 1200 = 24 3% - 3.99% inclusive 3% X 1200 = 36 4% - 4.99% inclusive 4% X 1200 = 48 5% and Higher 5% X 1200 = 60 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 15 of 66 but this was not enough to place them first for award. c) Under the High Score Method, it is possible to displace a high point Certified Small Business with the Application of the DVBE Incentive. 8. TAX DELINQUENT STATUS VERIFICATION a. Effective July 1, 2012 Public Contract Code 10295.4, requires state agencies to verify the tax delinquent status of bidders responding to state solicitations. b. At the time of bid evaluation, prior to contract award and execution, the State will verify all proposing firms and identified subcontractors as not listed as tax delinquent by the Franchise Tax Board and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Any proposing firms or subcontractor listed as tax delinquent shall result in a proposal rejection and will not be considered for contract award. Proposing firms wanting further clarification can refer to the statute above or to the web sites listed below for additional information. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration – Top 500 Sales Tax and Use Delinquencies in California https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/top500.htm Franchise Tax Board – Top 500 Delinquent Tax Payers https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/newsroom/top-500-past-due-balances/index.html 9. NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD AND PROTEST a. A Notice of Intent to Award will be posted at the Department of Water Resources address for five (5) business days. b. Public inspection of all proposals and score sheets will be allowed after the Notice of Intent to Award has been posted. c. Contracts shall be awarded only after a Notice of Intent to Award has been posted in a place accessible by the general public, including any internet site identified in this RFP, for five (5) business days. d. Prior to the award, a proposing firm who claims he/she would have been eligible for the award of the contract, may protest the proposed award if DWR had scored his or her proposal correctly or if DWR had correctly followed the procedures specified in the Public Contract Code. e. A protestant must meet the burden of proof that DWR has committed a material error in the conduct of the proposal award process. f. Within five business days of filing the protest, the protestant must submit a detailed written statement of protest if the original protest did not contain the complete grounds for the protest. g. Both the original protest and/or the detailed statement of protest, if any, must include the RFP number, the name of the State Agency involved, agency contact person, and protestant’s fax number, if any. h. The protest documents may be sent by regular mail, fax, courier, or personal delivery to: 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda RFP Secondary #10161011 Page 16 of 66 Department of General Services Office of Legal Services Attention: Protest Coordinator 707 Third Street, 7th Floor West Sacramento, California 95605 OR Fax: (916) 376-5088 AND Department of Water Resources Contract Services Office Attention: Nicole Anderson 1416 Ninth Street, Room 353 Sacramento, California 95814 OR Fax: (916) 654-6511 Upon receipt of the protest, Department of General Services (DGS) shall send the protestant an acknowledgement letter and thereafter communicate with the parties regarding further disposition of the protest. 10. DISPOSITION OF PROPOSALS Upon proposal opening, all documents submitted in response to this RFP will become the property of the State of California and will be regarded as public records under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and are subject to review by the public. The State cannot prevent the disclosure of public documents. However, the contents of all proposals, draft proposals, correspondence, agenda, memoranda, working papers, or any other medium that discloses any aspect of a proposing firm’s proposal, shall be held in the strictest confidence until the Notice of Intent to Award is posted. Proposals may be returned at the request and expense of the proposing firm. D. Standard Conditions of Service 1. Service(s) shall not commence until the Agreement is fully executed and all approvals have been obtained. 2. All performance under the Agreement shall be completed on or before the termination date of the Agreement unless this Agreement is amended to extend the term. 3. No oral understanding or agreement shall be binding on either party. E. Payee Data Record 1. The Contractor awarded this Agreement must have completed and submitted form STD 204, Payee Data Record, to determine if the Contractor is subject to a seven percent State Income Tax withholding pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 18662, 18805, and 26131. 2. No payment shall be made unless the Payee Data Record form has been completed and returned to DWR. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 3 The 2021 Agreement Summary 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda State of California DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES California Natural Resources Agency DWR 627 (Rev. 10/18) FUNDING STRIP Payable Receivable Initial Revision Amendment Manual Reservation #: Page of Cost Object Cost Element (see instructions pg 2 & 3) Commitment Amount Multi-Year Contract: Yes No FY Type No. Service Requisition No. (RV)/PO No. Contract No.: Contract Total Amount: Comments: Vendor Name/No.: Name of Program Representative/Division Phone Number Room Number Budget Office Use Only (choose all that apply) SAP Fund No. Fund Name Chapter Item Code Budget Analyst Date I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that the unencumbered balance of the department’s budget provisions for the period stated above is correct and verifiable through SAP. Name Signature Date DocuSign Envelope ID: AD77BB4B-867B-4933-9DBA-0AE232FA053D X Fund: 6083S82017 P1 SO WQSInf Spc P10 a new commitment Regents of University of California, Santa Cruz / 200152 2016 IO HQ-353 Water Res Revolving Fund (916) 651-7013 X 6083 Line 1 3860-902-0691 Prop 1 X 9032538200 38600010260836083S82017 1 10171714/L1 10171714/L2 $1,999,233.00 Unknown Fund Center: 3860101030000100 IO Nicole Anderson/DBS-Contract Services UBN308257P01 21/22 WC Sec. 135 Unknown CO does not create 4600014042 Contract Manager: Michal Koller (916) 653-2986 0691S11944 20/21 1 23 $50,000.00 $1,949,233.00 9032538200 186/86 4/2/2021David Fong 4/2/2021Doris Chapman 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 4 The 2021 Standard Agreement and Exhibits 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD AGREEMENT STD 213 (Rev 02/20) AGREEMENT NUMBER 4600014042 STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE IDENTIFIER 3860-4600014042 REGISTRATION NUMBER 1. This Agreement is entered into between the State Agency and the Contractor named below: STATE AGENCY'S NAME Department of Water Resources, hereinafter referred to as “State” CONTRACTOR'S NAME The Regents of the University of California, Santa Cruz, hereinafter referred to as “University” 2.The term of this June 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 Agreement is: 3. The maximum amount $ 1,999,233.00 One Million Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Three Dollars and Zero Cents. of this Agreement is: 4. The Parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following Exhibits, which by this reference are made a part of the Agreement. Exhibit A –A7: A–Scope of Work; A1–Deliverables; A2–Key Personnel; A3–Authorized Representatives; A4–Use of Intellectual Property & Data; A5–Resumes/Biosketch; A6– Current & Pending Support; A7-Third Party Confidential Information (if applicable) 27 pages Exhibit B – B–Budget; B1–Budget Justification; B2– Subawardee Budgets (if applicable); B3– Invoice Elements 9 pages Exhibit C* – University Terms and Conditions UTC-220 Check mark additional Exhibits below, and attach applicable Exhibits or provide internet link: Exhibit D – Additional Requirements Associated with Funding Sources 1 page Exhibit E – Special Conditions for Security of Confidential Information N/A Exhibit F – Access to State Facilities or Computing Resources N/A Exhibit G – Negotiated Alternate UTC Terms 1 page Items shown with an Asterisk (*) are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this agreement as if attached hereto. You can find these documents on the University of California, Office of the President and the California Department of General Services websites. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the Parties hereto. CONTRACTOR California Department of General Services Use Only CONTRACTOR’S NAME (if other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.) The Regents of the University of California, Santa Cruz BY (Authorized Signature) DATE SIGNED (Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING Nutan Mellegers, Senior Contracts & Grants Officer ADDRESS 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, California 95064-1077 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY NAME Department of Water Resources BY (Authorized Signature) DATE SIGNED (Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING Arthur Hinojosa, Chief, Division of Regional Assistance ADDRESS 901 P Street, Room 213A, Sacramento, California 95814 JUN 11, 2021 MSF:ts 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Contract # 4600014042 Exhibit B Page 8 of 9 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 5 The 2022 Amended Agreement and Exhibits 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 6 The 2021 Request for Information re Salton Sea Water Importation Projects 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Updated Request for Information Date: August 13, 2021 To: All Interested Parties, and Participants in the 12/08/17 Request for Information for Salton Sea Water Importation Projects From: Chair, Independent Review Panel Evaluating Water Import Options for Long-Term Restoration of the Salton Sea Re: Independent Review Panel’s Follow-up to the 2017 Request for Information ____________________________________________________________________________________ On December 8, 2017, the California Natural Resources Agency issued a Request for Information (RFI) to assist the Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP) in identifying approaches to water importation to meet the long-range goals of the SSMP. An Independent Review Panel (Panel) has been tasked to review the eleven submissions to the RFI and solicit additional ideas for water importation. The chair of the Independent Review Panel, Dr. Rominder Suri, is issuing an updated RFI with the following purposes: 1. To invite parties that did not participate in the 2017 RFI to make a submission now, 2. To invite the eleven original participants to update their submissions if they so wish, and 3. To invite both new and original submitters to make a presentation to the Panel on their submission. 1. New Submissions The original RFI is attached to this follow-up for Information. The Panel asks that all new submissions follow the original Request format with the following exceptions: Section 4 of the original RFI, Cost projection: In order to facilitate the Panel’s comparison of proposals, the Panel requests that new submissions complete the attached spreadsheet to present an Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs at a concept-level. Providing maps in GIS-compatible formats (e.g., .kml), would also be welcome. Deadline: Responses to this RFI should be sent to Azucena Beltran at azrbeltr@ucsc.edu by October 12, 2021. If you intend to submit materials, please email Ms. Beltran by September 10. 2. Updates to Original Submissions It is not mandatory for original submissions to be updated. However, in order to facilitate the Panel’s comparison of proposals, the Panel requests the original eleven participants to complete the attached spreadsheet to present an updated Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs at a concept-level. If the original submission had more than one alternative, please provide a separate spreadsheet for each alternative. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda The Panel will also accept an addendum with any new or updated material for the eleven original submissions. Providing additional information, including maps in GIS-compatible formats (e.g., .kml), would be welcome. The addendum does not have to follow the original RFI format. Deadline: Responses to this RFI should be sent to Azucena Beltran at azrbeltr@ucsc.edu by October 12, 2021. If you intend to submit updated materials, please email Ms. Beltran by September 10. 3. Invitation to Present to Independent Review Panel Each new submission and original submission participant is invited to present to the Independent Review Panel. A 30-minute virtual time slot will be identified with presentations occurring during October 20-22, 2021. The participants can use this time as they wish to present and clarify their submissions. Up to 15 minutes for Q&A will follow each presentation. Questions: Questions or requests for clarification on the content of this follow-up should be directed to Azucena Beltran at azrbeltr@ucsc.edu.The question period closes on September 10; questions received will be posted with answers on the Independent Review Panel’s web page located at: https://saltonsea.ca.gov/planning/water-importation-independent-review-panel/. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor JOHN LAIRD, Secretary for Natural Resources Date: 12/8/17 To: All interested Parties Re: Request for Information for Salton Sea W ater Importation Projects Under the leadership of Governor Edmund G Brown Jr., the 2014 California Water Action Plan set forth a vision for California water management that balances statewide water supply security with the protection of public, economic and ecological health. The California’s Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP), led by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) is designed to address public and ecological health issues at the Salton Sea while securing Colorado River water supplies for the state. The SSMP is a long-range program that concentrates on the immediate need for habitat and air quality protections and includes the development of a long-range plan as part of the first Phase I Ten Year Plan. The SSMP takes a phased, incremental approach of habitat and other dust suppression projects to protect air quality and ecosystem values at a smaller and sustainable Salton Sea. The Phase I Ten-Year Plan concentrates on the development of constructed projects at the north and south end of the lake where the playa exposure is the greatest and water inflows are most available. This Request for information (RFI) outlines the information requested by CNRA to evaluate proposals for a water import project to meet long-range goals of the SSMP. The intent of the RFI process is to gather information on the proposed water import projects. The information received will be reviewed and may be included in the long-range plan for the Salton Sea. Submission Requirements Submission Deadline: Responses to this RFI should be sent to Bruce Wilcox at Bruce.Wilcox@resources.ca.gov by March 9, 2018. Questions: Questions or requests for clarification on the content of the RFI should be directed to Bruce Wilcox at Bruce.Wilcox@resources.ca.gov. The question period closes on January 31st; questions received will be answered and posted on the CNRA web page after that date. All questions will be answered through the process noted above, no answers will be provided to individual emails. Required Information: The following information is required as part of the submittal. The information should be presented in the format noted (i.e. Section 1 Project Team, Section 2 Narrative Description…). If requested information is not available, the proposal should include as much detail as available and steps needed to gather the required information. The respondent should note if any portion of their response should be considered proprietary and not be shared publicly. 14 16 Ninth Street, Suite 131 1, Sacramento, CA 958 14 Ph. 916.653.5656 Fax 916.653.8 102 h ttp://re sour ces.ca.gov Baldwin Hills Conservancy • California Coastal Commission • California Coastal Conservancy • California Conservation Corps • California Tahoe Conservancy Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy • Colorado River Board of California • Delta Protection Commission • Delta Stewardship Council • Department of Boating& Waterways • Department of Conservation Department of Fish & Game • Department of Forestry & Fire Protection • Department of Parks & Recreation • Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery • Department of Water Resources Energy Resources, Conservation & Development Commission • Native American Heritage Commission • Sacramento•San Joaquin Delta Conservancy • San Diego River Conservancy San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission • San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers & Mountains Conservancy • San Joaquin River Conservancy Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy • Sierra Nevada Conservancy • State Lands Commission • Wildlife Conservation Board 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 1. Identification of Project Team Members of the project team, and their roles on the project should be identified. 2. Narrative description of project concept and how/when it will benefit the lake. A brief description of the proposed project is required that includes a general discussion of the project concept, the business plan and the implementation of the project. The project concept discussion should include a description of the project and how it will improve conditions at the lake. The business plan should include a discussion of the ownership of the proposed project and the plan for generating revenue from the project. 3. Planning and design process of project Describe the planning process completed to date and detail how the planning process will be completed. The description should include the following: • Project Feasibility -- Documentation of the engineering feasibility of the project. Documentation should include at a minimum: system capacity; pumping requirements; channel and pipe size; water quality; other associated infrastructure such as desalinization, fish or trash screens, etc.; and expected energy use. • Water Source Identification – Either provide documentation from the water rights holder that establish the willingness of the water rights holder to allow use of their water right or provide detailed description of process to establish those rights. • Land Use – provide project route alignment and status of land use permission for the conveyance route both in the United States and in Mexico. • Environmental Impact – provide information on any anticipated environmental impacts from the project in both Mexico and the US and how those will be generally mitigated. This should include a discussion of any anticipated impacts to existing surface water use, groundwater basins, and wildlife resulting from the introduction of ocean water to existing, or new, river channels or canals. If the project is proposed within the Alto Golfo de California Biosphere Reserve, please identify any anticipated impacts to that area and expected mitigation measures. • Salton Sea Salinity – how does the project plan to deal with increased salinity at the Salton Sea from the imported ocean water? If the proposed project includes a desalinization system where will the resulting brine be deposited? • Water Use – Describe the projected water balance including consumptive use, system loss, evaporation etc. and ability of the proposed project to operate successfully with decreased flows. • Cross Border Governmental Coordination and Permitting -- provide details of conducted or needed coordination and permitting from governmental agencies from both Mexico and the United States that deal specifically with cross border project development. Agencies include but are not limited to the International Boundary Water, Commission, Mexico federal agencies, tribal governments, and necessary United States agencies. • Project Development Schedule -- Schedule for project development from current stages through implementation. • Operation Schedule -- Provide an estimate of the length of time necessary for the proposed project to raise the water levels at the lake to recover potentially emissive playa. 4. Cost projection 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda • Provide a cost projection for the proposed project. The projection should be documented to the extent that the reviewers can review the cost projection process and determine the validity of the projections 5. Plan for funding of proposed project • Describe how the planning, design and construction implementation of the project will be funded. • Identify the responsible parties for the operation and maintenance for the project and estimate annual cost. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 7 The 2021 Subcontracting Justification Memorandum 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda DWR 9045 (Rev. 1/09) State of California California Natural Resources Agency M e m o r a n d u m Date: To:Honorable Wade Crowfoot Secretary for Natural Resources California Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, California 95814 From: Department of Water Resources Subject: Justification for Consultant Subcontracting Work under Contract Number 4600014042 with The Regents of the University of California, Santa Cruz Justification for Subcontracting: The Department of Water Resources (DWR) requests approval to subcontract work for services under contract number 4600014042 with the Regents of the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). To achieve the Salton Sea Management Program objectives, DWR has been tasked to independently evaluate eleven (11) proposals for the Salton Sea restoration using imported water, and to conclude whether any of the eleven (11) proposals have merit for further feasibility analysis and construction. UCSC is the lead on this effort and will be assembling an independent panel to perform this independent evaluation. The contract total is $1,999,233.00; the subcontractor Kennedy Jenks Consulting (KJ) will be paid $802,898.00. DWR certifies that the selection of KJ by UCSC without competitive bidding was necessary to promote DWR’s program needs and was not done for the purpose of circumventing competitive bidding or other state contract requirements. The independent panel selected by UCSC will lead the evaluation but will need access to, and the ability to, direct a subcontractor to conduct analysis on a variety of issues. UCSC selected KJ as a subcontractor and has named Jean Debroux, Ph.D. as their principal investigator. Dr. Jean Debroux is a fellow in the Center for Integrated Water Research (Center) at UC Santa Cruz and he currently works for Kennedy Jenks. Dr. Debroux is the Chief Technical Officer and Water Business Unit Director of Technology and Innovation. KJ will provide the independent panel with technical support necessary to evaluate feasibility of the water importation proposals. The purpose of the Center is to align industry’s best practices with the innovation and analytical power of academia and to help academia in synthesizing their findings into applied scientific and engineering solutions. The Fellows Program includes national and internationally recognized scholars with demonstrated subject matter expertise in water policy, economics, and communications. Dr. Debroux is a nationally and internationally recognized expert and has published over 50 peer-reviewed journal articles on water quality, potable reuse, desalinization, risks associated with water recycling, and the costs associated with reclaiming water. Dr. Debroux’s specific expertise will provide this project with a leading edge in understanding the technology of water treatment and reuse to ensure that solutions are feasible. DocuSign Envelope ID: 38973A3D-F43E-421E-8918-0DB6E0174C33 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda DWR 9045 (Rev. 1/09) Honorable Wade Crowfoot Page 2 KJ provides UCSC the necessary unique expertise. Working with UCSC’s Professor Brent Haddad, KJ has the experience, capacity, and network to identify and subcontract with the wide range of expertise needed to fully evaluate the proposals. This project has a short, one-year timeline. Most independent assessments can take years to complete. By utilizing KJ and Dr. Debroux, the evaluation process will be streamlined because Dr. Debroux has served on multiple National Water Research Institute Independent Advisory Panels (Blue Ribbon Expert Panels) for major water infrastructure projects in California. He has the unique experience to intimately know the information needs required by large independent panels. KJ will solicit to obtain their own subcontractors. KJ, as a part of the UCSC research team, will gather and support an expert panel to review the proposals that DWR received to restore the Salton Sea. Background: UCSC will lead the evaluation of proposals to restore the Salton Sea using water importation. UCSC’s Professor Brent Haddad, as principal investigator on this project, selected KJ as the subcontractor for their expertise in cross-border water transfers, United States and Mexico’s environmental regulations and law, and water and power engineering. UCSC selected KJ in accordance with the University of California, Office of the President (UCOP) Business and Finance Bulletin BUS-43 and the Presidential delegation DA2100. KJ has been selected as being capable of performing the work needed and able to work with UCSC and the policies and laws they have in place. KJ is uniquely qualified to perform this work as they are a full-service science and engineering consulting firm with their headquarters located in San Francisco. KJ began in 1919 and has a long history of designing water and wastewater infrastructure in California and internationally. Especially pertinent is KJ’s large diameter pipeline design history that continues today with multiple greater than or equal to 60-inch diameter water conveyance projects on the west coast. These projects contain numerous pump stations, storage facilities, and several contain trenchless designs. KJ sets themselves apart from other design firms by successfully completing large, risk-managed, innovative pipeline design projects that often pass through environmentally sensitive areas. KJ employs approximately 250 scientists and engineers in California and is ready to commit the necessary resources to this project to meet the technical and schedule needs of this work. Summary: UCSC chose to collaborate with KJ because they are an expert firm in water engineering, power engineering, environmental impacts in California and Mexico, and transboundary water transfers. The results of the proposals’ review and feasibility analysis will provide critical information that will inform DWR of the viability of water importation as a long-term strategy for the restoration of the Salton Sea. DocuSign Envelope ID: 38973A3D-F43E-421E-8918-0DB6E0174C33 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda DWR 9045 (Rev. 1/09) Honorable Wade Crowfoot Page 3 Please approve this subcontracted work under contract number 4600014042. If you need additional information regarding this matter, please contact Arthur Hinojosa, Manager of the Division of Regional Assistance, at (916) 653-4736 or by email at Arthur.Hinojosa@water.ca.gov. Karla A. Nemeth Director (916) 653-7007 APPROVED: __________________________ Wade Crowfoot Secretary for Natural Resources Date______________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 38973A3D-F43E-421E-8918-0DB6E0174C33 6/9/2021 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 8 The 2022 Subcontracting Justification Memorandum 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda DWR 9045 (Rev. 1/09) State of California California Natural Resources Agency M e m o r a n d u m Date: To: Honorable Wade Crowfoot Secretary for Natural Resources California Natural Resources Agency 715 P Street, 20th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 From:Department of Water Resources Subject: Justification for Consultant Subcontracting Work under Contract Number 4600014042, AM-01 with The Regents of the University of California, Santa Cruz Justification for Subcontracting: The Department of Water Resources (DWR) requests approval to subcontract work for services under contract number 4600014042, AM-01 with the Regents of the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). To achieve the Salton Sea Management Program objectives, DWR has been tasked to independently evaluate eleven (11) proposals for the Salton Sea restoration using imported water, and to conclude whether any of the eleven (11) proposals have merit for further feasibility analysis and construction. The UCSC team has received an additional seven (7) proposals and updates to the original eleven (11) proposals. UCSC has assembled an independent panel to evaluate all proposals by September 30, 2022. The additional proposals require amending the value of the agreement. The original contract value was $1,999,233.00. The new contract total is $2,563,488.00; the amendment total is $564,522.00; the original amount paid to the subcontractor was $802,898.00. An additional $161,216.00 was added to the subcontractor Kennedy Jenks Consulting (KJ). KJ will now receive a total of $964,114.00. In addition to amending the contract value, the Statement of Work will be amended to reflect the additional tasks to be performed by KJ such as: a. Expand and adapt the analysis criteria to cover new import source-waters and new conveyance systems, such as deep subsurface pipelines. b. and analysis. With the 2021 solicitation, an additional seven responses were submitted, plus five updated responses from submittals in 2018. These additional proposals introduce new ideas that require expanded research. The UCSC team will manage the increased workload. DWR certifies that the selection of KJ by UCSC w program needs and was not done for the purpose of circumventing competitive bidding or other state contract requirements. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda DWR 9045 (Rev. 1/09) Honorable Wade Crowfoot Page 2 The independent panel selected by UCSC will lead the evaluation but will need access to, and the ability to, direct a subcontractor to conduct analysis on a variety of issues. UCSC selected KJ as a subcontractor and has named Jean Debroux, Ph.D. as their principal investigator. Dr. Jean Debroux is a fellow in the Center for Integrated Water Research (Center) at UC Santa Cruz and he currently works for Kennedy Jenks. Dr. Debroux is the Chief Technical Officer and Water Business Unit Director of Technology and Innovation. KJ will provide the independent panel with technical support necessary to evaluate feasibility of the water importation proposals. The analytical power of academia and to help academia in synthesizing their findings into national and internationally recognized scholars with demonstrated subject matter expertise in water policy, economics, and communications. Dr. Debroux is a nationally and internationally recognized expert and has published over 50 peer- reviewed journal articles on water quality, potable reuse, desalinization, risks associated with water recycling, and the costs associated with reclaiming water. understanding the technology of water treatment and reuse to ensure that solutions are feasible. s Professor Brent Haddad, KJ has the experience, capacity, and network to identify and subcontract with the wide range of expertise needed to fully evaluate the proposals. This project has a short, one-year-three-month timeline. Most independent assessments can take years to complete. By utilizing KJ and Dr. Debroux, the evaluation process will be streamlined because Dr. Debroux has served on multiple National Water Research Institute Independent Advisory Panels (Blue Ribbon Expert Panels) for major water infrastructure projects in California. Background: UCSC will lead the evaluation of proposals to restore the Salton Sea using water selected KJ as the subcontractor for their expertise in cross-border water transfers, engineering. UCSC selected KJ in accordance with the University of California, Office of the President (UCOP) Business and Finance Bulletin BUS-43 and the Presidential delegation DA2100. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda DWR 9045 (Rev. 1/09) Honorable Wade Crowfoot Page 3 Summary: UCSC chose to collaborate with KJ because they are an expert firm in water engineering, power engineering, environmental impacts in California and Mexico, and analysis will provide critical information that will inform DWR of the viability of water importation as a long-term strategy for restoration of the Salton Sea. Please approve this subcontracted work under contract number 4600014042, AM-01. If you need additional information regarding this matter, please contact Arthur Hinojosa, Manager, Division of Regional Assistance at (916) 902-6713 or by email at Arthur.Hinojosa@water.ca.gov. Karla A. Nemeth Director (916) 653-7007 APPROVED: __________________________ Wade Crowfoot Secretary for Natural Resources Date______________________ 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments on the UCSC Panel’s Evaluation of Water Importation Proposals to Restore the Salton Sea – Jenny E. Ross ATTACHMENT 9 Table JER-1 Water Required Annually for Operation of the 10-Year Plan and SCH 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Comments re 2022 Draft Environmental Assessment, SSMP 10-Year Plan – August 2022 – Jenny E. Ross TABLE JER‐1 Water Required Annually for Operation of the 10‐Year Plan and the SCH Source: Tables in Appendix F to the Draft EA1 PROJECT River Water (af) Salton Sea Water (af) Total Water Annually River + SS2 10‐Yr Plan Only Total Water Annually River Only 10‐Yr Plan Plus SCH3 Total Water Annually River + SS2 10‐Yr Plan Plus SCH3 SCH only4 54,128 8,490 NA NA NA 10‐Year Plan Proposed Project 252,279 25,401 277,680 306,407 340,298 ALT1 ‐ 10‐Year Plan 351,083 43,697 394,780 405,211 457,398 ALT2 ‐ 10‐Year Plan 285,413 22,572 307,985 339,541 370,603 ALT3 ‐ 10‐Year Plan 348,228 36,662 384,560 402,356 447,178 ALT4 ‐ 10‐Year Plan 83,623 0 83,623 137,751 137,751 ALT5 ‐ 10‐Year Plan 327,772 32,065 359,837 381,900 422,455 1 Because of flaws in the hydrological modeling used for Appendix F of the Draft EA, I suggest these numbers expressing water requirements should be considered underestimates of the amounts that will actually be necessary for operation of the Proposed Project and Alternatives as designed, as well as for operation of those projects plus the SCH. 2 Because Salton Sea salinity will continue to increase rapidly over time and less Salton Sea water will therefore be required in order to maintain salinity of the water in impoundments at a particular level, more river water will be needed over time for operation of the project. Therefore, I suggest that the amount of water that matters most for an understanding of the total water usage by each project annually during its operational life is the total amount of river water required plus the total amount of Salton Sea (SS) water required each year. 3 Because the 10-Year Plan Proposed Project (or one of the Alternatives) will be operated simultaneously with the completed SCH, it is crucial to consider the total water usage for both the 10-Year Plan and the SCH, not just for the 10-Year Plan. Also see footnote 4 below concerning underestimation of the amount of water required for operation of the SCH. 4 The amount of water required for operation of the SCH as presented in Appendix F to the Draft EA (and therefore set forth in this table) is based on the assumption that the area of the SCH will be 3,770 acres. Although that is the acreage for the SCH used by the Hydrological Modeling to determine the project’s water requirement, it appears that the actual area of the SCH will be 4,110 acres when it is completed in 2023. (See, e.g., Figure 3-1 of the Draft EA.) Consequently, the water requirement for the SCH is very likely significantly greater than is assumed in Appendix F, and therefore greater than the amount set forth on this table, which is based on the data in Appendix F. This also means that all of the total amounts of water that are presented in the final column of the table above are underestimates. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Jeffrey Bernstein To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Another parked car hit on Racquet Club Road yesterday Date:Tuesday, February 28, 2023 8:08:45 PM Thank you! Jeffrey Jeffrey Bernstein Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember City of Palm Springs 442-305-9942 Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Scarbro <laurenscarbro@hotmail.com> Subject: Another parked car hit on Racquet Club Road yesterday Date: February 27, 2023 at 5:49:55 PM PST To: "Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov" <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov> Cc: "Gerald \"Denny\" Adams" <geraldden325@gmail.com>, Joseph May <josephmay39@yahoo.com> NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Hello Councilman Bernstein, You and I had spoke by phone during your campaign about the continuing issue with PARKED vehicles being hit on Racquet Club Road. I live at 896 E Racquet Club Road. Yesterday morning (2/26/23) yet another vehicle hit a parked Mini Cooper directly across the street from my house, it was at 6:30am. I had mentioned to you on our call that I had previously corresponded with Dennis Woods on this topic/concerns. This makes the fourth parked car hit directly in front of my house since I purchased my house and does not even include the rolls Royce that actually “landed” in my front yard one night. Please find below my last correspondence with councilman Woods after the 2022 crash. I am also including pics from 2017 crash (orange VW bug) and yesterdays 2/26/23 crash. I have included our RCENO President Denny Adams and Vice President Joseph May on this email to keep them in the loop. Anything the city could do that moves beyond “studying” and actually does something to address the high speed dangerous road conditions on Racquet Club would be greatly appreciated. ( The additional fact that in this same block we have a park, fire station and school befuddles me that no action has been taken by the city to address this dangerous road.) Also, the car carriers /truckers are still ignoring the no commercial vehicle signage the city installed for us, and 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda using Racquet Club Road as a regular transport thoroughfare, especially during the night. Regards, Lauren Scarbro 310-308-4044 896 E Racquet Club Road Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Scarbro <laurenscarbro@hotmail.com> Date: February 27, 2023 at 5:04:47 PM PST To: laurenscarbro@hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: Another parked car hit on Racquet Club Road last night Get Outlook for iOS From: Lauren Scarbro <laurenscarbro@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 12:31:15 PM To: Joel Montalvo <Joel.Montalvo@palmspringsca.gov> Cc: Dennis Woods <Dennis.Woods@palmspringsca.gov>; Gerald Denny Adams <geraldden325@gmail.com>; Steve Schultz <schultz_steve@hotmail.com>; Max Scheideman <Max.Scheideman@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: Re: Another parked car hit on Racquet Club Road last night Thank you. Any help on this issue is appreciated. I’m not sure of impact, but I had heard adding some sort of light at Racquet Club and Mireleste (fire station on corner, as well as Victoria Park) is being considered. Im a strong proponent of that intersection have some additional method to help slow traffic due to school kids/park/fire truck safety in addition to road diet. The no commercial trucks signage the city added for us definitely helped, we could use a little extra enforcement until the truckers get the message they will be ticketed! Regards, Lauren From my rhinestone studded iPhone On Sep 20, 2022, at 5:55 AM, Joel Montalvo <Joel.Montalvo@palmspringsca.gov> wrote: Councilmember Woods, The City has received multiple requests from residents for a road diet on Racquet Club Road. As a result, during the pedestrian master plan and local road safety plan we asked out consultants to review Racquet Club Road for a potential road diet. In addition, Staff is reviewing and updating the city’s General Plan circulation element to ensure our roads are designed/designated appropriately. The consultant reviewing the circulation element indicated that a road diet on Racquet Club Road maybe feasible. Engineering Staff will await the official results of the circulation element update and in the near future create a project that would narrow Racquet Club Drive. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Joel Montalvo, MPA, PE City Engineer Engineering Services Department City of Palm Springs 760-322-8339 From: Dennis Woods <Dennis.Woods@palmspringsca.gov> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 9:55 AM To: Joel Montalvo <Joel.Montalvo@palmspringsca.gov> Cc: Lauren Scarbro <laurenscarbro@hotmail.com>; Gerald Denny Adams <geraldden325@gmail.com>; Steve Schultz <schultz_steve@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Another parked car hit on Racquet Club Road last night Joel, Please see email below. Can you provide all of us an update on actions being proposed. Thank You, Dennis On Sep 18, 2022, at 8:12 AM, Lauren Scarbro <laurenscarbro@hotmail.com> wrote: NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Hello Councilman Woods, Last night we had a RCENO resident’s parked car hit on Racquet Club Road, directly across the street from our house @ 896 (I had previously sent you a picture of our smashed orange VW bug that was also hit while parked and totaled, and since then our mini cooper has also been hit but it was minor (side view mirror taken out). There is all sorts if crazy road antics continuing on this street; high speed, running lights,commercial truckers. I know you are already familiar with our issues and concerns. I want to make sure you stay in the loop and are requesting the city continue to look into the issue(s) with this roadway. Im not sure who is the correct person in street engineering to address this to, but if you could forward/share this email I would appreciate it. Regards, Lauren Scarbro 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From my rhinestone studded iPhone 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Grace Garner To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Mobile Home ordinance Date:Tuesday, February 28, 2023 1:46:25 PM Attachments:CC - ORD-2022-017.pdf From: Brian Williams <brianwilliamsomaha@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 1:33 PM To: Grace Garner <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: Mobile Home ordinance NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Good Afternoon, My name is Brian Williams and I am a part time resident of the beautiful city of Palm Springs! I am writing you with a concern. I live in a Ramon Mobile Home Park. While the park owner is following California Law regarding lot rent I wanted to bring to your attention how excessive it can be. As you know many low income residents choose mobile home living to save money. With inflation my lot rent was increased by 8% last year. If I choose to sell the new owner will face an increase in lot rent by 15%. additionally the rent will increase by the Consumer Price Index next year. If it remains the same as last year it would mean a 23% increase in a single year! Many cities in the great state of California have passed local ordinances to keep lot rent increases reasonable. I hope you will consider something similar. I can be reached at 402.657.0587 with any questions or by email. Respectfully, Brian Williams 156 Indian Paw Palm Springs CA 92264 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Ord. No. ORD-2022-017 Page 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2022-017 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE CHAPTER 6-66 – RENT CONTROL - MOBILEHOMES WHEREAS, the State of California has recognized, by the adoption of special legislation regulating tenancies of mobilehome owners in mobilehome parks, that there is a significant distinction between tenants of mobilehome parks and other dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the physical removal and relocation of a mobilehome from a rented space within a mobilehome park can only be accomplished at substantial cost and inconvenience with limited ability to find another location; and WHEREAS, in Santa Rosa and surrounding locations there is a shortage of sites for the placement of mobilehomes; and WHEREAS, mobilehomes are an important source of housing for persons of low and moderate income; and WHEREAS, many owners of mobilehomes are elderly and live on fixed incomes; and WHEREAS, there is an extremely low vacancy rate in mobilehome parks in Santa Rosa; and WHEREAS, owners of mobilehome parks are entitled by law to a fair rate of return; and WHEREAS, Santa Rosa first adopted its mobilehome rent control ordinance in 1993; and WHEREAS, no mobilehome park owner has requested a fair return hearing in Santa Rosa since 1999; and WHEREAS, in the past ten years, the allowed rent increases in mobilehome parks have exceeded the increases in Social Security. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 6-66.020 (G) of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to read as follows: G) “Consumer Price Index” or “CPI” means the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers in the San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward, as may be amended from time to time, area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Section 2. Sections 6-66.040 (A) and (B) of the Santa Rosa City Code are amended to read as follows: 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Ord. No. ORD-2022-017 Page 2 of 3 A) Consumer Price Index. An owner, once in any 12-month period, may impose a rent increase for a mobilehome space by 70 percent of the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the most recent 12-month period ending in August; provided, however, the rental increase shall not exceed four percent of the previous rent charged for the space. If an owner has obtained a rent increase under subsection 6-66.050(B), the owner may calculate the rent increase allowed by this subsection based upon the approved comparable rent as allowed in subsection 6-66.050(B) instead of upon the actual rent in effect at the time of the increase. B) If the change in the CPI exceeds four percent for two consecutive years, the Clerk shall review the maximum rent increase and recommend an ordinance amendment if appropriate.” Section 3. Section 6-66.050 (A)(1) of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to read as follows: 1) The termination of the tenancy of the affected mobilehome owner in accordance with the MRL (California Civil Code sections 798.55 through 798.62, as amended, excepting section 798.59); or” Section 4. Section 6-66.050 (B) of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to read as follows: B) Upon an in-place transfer of a Mobilehome, the park owner may increase the rent by an amount that does not exceed ten percent of the then current base rent.” Section 5. Section 6-66.050 (C) of the Santa Rosa City Code is deleted. Section 6. Section 6-66.140 of the Santa Rosa City Code is amended to read as follows: An owner shall disclose to each prospective mobilehome owner the current and proposed base rent for the mobilehome space and the rental agreement options required by this section and Section 6- 66.150, provide each prospective mobilehome owner with a copy of this chapter, and disclose to the prospective mobilehome owner under what circumstances that a lease will be exempt from rent control. The owner shall give the required disclosure and provide a copy of this chapter to the prospective mobilehome owner at the time that the owner, or owner’s representative, receives the prospective mobilehome owner’s application for tenancy. The required disclosures shall be made in a form approved by the Clerk, and the owner shall obtain a signature of the prospective mobilehome owner on the disclosure form acknowledging receipt of the disclosures. An owner must retain the signed disclosure form throughout the entire tenancy of the mobilehome owner. This signed form shall be made available to the Clerk upon reasonable written notice.” Section 7. Section 6-66.150 of the Santa Rosa City Code is deleted. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Ord. No. ORD-2022-017 Page 3 of 3 Section 8. Environmental Determination. The Council finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15061(b)3 in that the Council finds there is no possibility that the implementation of this ordinance may have significant effects on the environment. Section 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid and/or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day following its adoption. This ordinance was introduced by the Council of the City of Santa Rosa on November 29, 2022. IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December, 2022. AYES: (6) Mayor C. Rogers, Council Members Fleming, MacDonald, N. Rogers, Sawyer, Schwedhelm NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) Vice Mayor Alvarez ABSTAIN: (0) ATTEST: _________________________ APPROVED: ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ City Attorney Sue Gallagher (Dec 12, 2022 08:48 PST) Sue Gallagher Chris Rogers (Dec 12, 2022 22:03 PST) https:// srcity.na2.adobesign.com/ veriﬁer? tx=CBJCHBCAABAA1UhtZ daV5QFZLkJJPntnqTo7Osa oXKRq https:// srcity.na2.adobesign.com/ veriﬁer? tx=CBJCHBCAABAA1Uht ZdaV5QFZLkJJPntnqTo7 OsaoXKRq https:// secure.na2.adobesign.com/ veriﬁer? tx=CBJCHBCAABAA1UhtZdaV5 QFZLkJJPntnqTo7OsaoXKRq 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda CC - ORD-2022-017 (12-06-2022) Final Audit Report 2022-12-13 Created:2022- 12-07 By:Gretchen Emmert (gemmert@srcity.org) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA1UhtZdaV5QFZLkJJPntnqTo7OsaoXKRq CC - ORD-2022-017 (12-06-2022)" History Document created by Gretchen Emmert (gemmert@srcity.org) 2022-12-07 - 6:56:19 PM GMT Document emailed to Sue Gallagher (sgallagher@srcity.org) for signature 2022-12-07 - 6:56:49 PM GMT Document e-signed by Sue Gallagher (sgallagher@srcity.org) Signature Date: 2022-12-12 - 4:48:36 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to crogers@srcity.org for signature 2022-12-12 - 4:48:37 PM GMT Email viewed by crogers@srcity.org 2022-12-12 - 9:35:11 PM GMT Signer crogers@srcity.org entered name at signing as Chris Rogers 2022-12-13 - 6:03:44 AM GMT Document e-signed by Chris Rogers (crogers@srcity.org) Signature Date: 2022-12-13 - 6:03:46 AM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Stephanie Williams (swilliams@srcity.org) for signature 2022-12-13 - 6:03:47 AM GMT Email viewed by Stephanie Williams (swilliams@srcity.org) 2022-12-13 - 6:09:07 PM GMT Document e-signed by Stephanie Williams (swilliams@srcity.org) Signature Date: 2022-12-13 - 6:09:17 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2022-12-13 - 6:09:17 PM GMT 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:TJ Sank To:Grace Garner; Dennis Woods; Geoff Kors; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Llubi Rios; Brent Rasi; Cindy Cairns; CityManager; City Clerk Subject:Re: Palm Springs Short Term Rental Moratorium Date:Monday, February 27, 2023 7:42:53 PM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. SoHo House owner cancels Palm Springs project over 'bureaucratic challenges' The majority owner of the group of exclusive member’s clubs announced Friday that the planned redevelopment of a property into a SoHo House club had been canceled. Check out this story on desertsun.com: https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/local/palm- springs/2023/02/24/soho-house-owner-cancels-palm-springs-project- over-bureaucratic-challenges/69943081007/ It's unreal how much potential the city of Palm Springs has & can plan for the future of the city & younger generation yet if there's one constant, it's the city still very much living in the past and now driving business / investors away that would generate incredible tax revenue, employment opportunities and further attract visitors to the area who in turn would be spending money on local businesses. Here you have a premiere place like Soho House with locations from Miami to Berlin, Hong Kong to Barcelona, NY to London & they were going to add Palm Springs to this incredible list establishing it as an ultimate destination for people around the globe and now it's gone. ; / On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 6:21 PM TJ Sank <tjsankjr@gmail.com> wrote: With all due respect, a moratorium on short term rentals in a market like Palm Springs might be one of the most idiotic ideas that I've ever heard. Palm Springs is no longer your grandparents town, this isn't the 1950s & 60s anymore. In case you haven't noticed, Palm Springs in the last few years has become an International destination for younger generations of all walks of life & setting the tone for future generations. These people are investing in the community via homes, local businesses and/or visiting by renting out short term rental properties then spending money locally. The tax revenue from the rentals to the money spent at local businesses has been tenfold... what was once a seasonal destination, Palm Springs is now a destination throughout the year. In an economy that is currently battling inflation and a looming recession, 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda you don't cut off access & punish the community / local economy especially for those that are investing here by purchasing houses & converting them to short term rentals. You already have restrictions in place on the number of times a property can be rented out, now you want to restrict it even further so the boarded up house overrun by meth addicts in a neighborhood can stay (and bring down everyone's property values), BUT the person who was going to invest in that property, fix it up, bring up the value of homes in the neighborhood & rent it out from time to time all the while generating substantial tax revenue for the city is no longer needed!?! Got it. The city is making a drastic mistake even thinking about this. Someone that is old & rich who sadly won't be around that much longer is having way to much say in the local community because they don't like seeing younger generations of all walks of life now in their neighborhoods. Well, the time is now for the city to keep embracing the future of Palm Springs & how the community will continue to diversify & expand vs continuing to look into the rearview mirror at the past. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:mike pitkin To:City Clerk Subject:Public Comment February 23, 2023 Date:Friday, February 24, 2023 4:27:44 PM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Please share with ALL City Council Members ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michael Joseph Pitkin Excerpts of Vendetta Against me! Public Comment 2-23-2023 BOISE, IDAHO Pitkin Vs. Sky Blue, HIV court case for me to live in Pocatello, 666 West Day Street, (city of FBI Regional Headquarters). RENO, Ist time I was hit with Star Wars, Tesla Coil Death Ray, Microwave, cell radio waves, causing Havanna Syndrome. (without my consent). 10 Federal, State, and County legal cases (I am denied all legal representation). Reno Police Department, Washoe County, & Washoe County Sherriff’s Department internal investigation: Their response: Deflection, I have to prove to them that they are involved with violating my civil rights. San Francisco Ca. San Francisco General Hospital Electroporation Phase 1 Study, under false pretenses (without my consent). PALM SPRINGS: Letter to Palm Springs Police Chief Andrew G. Mills (no response). “A gift for those who thought they had it all”! Response in Desert Sun 1-20-23 (only after COMPLAINT with the District Attorney). 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda DAP Health opened Obama Phone assigned two phone numbers, one from Santa Rosa, I did not live in Santa Rosa. I am only allowed to manage the account via “Edge Department”. DAP Health refused prior authorization requests. Unable to get into my online California EBT (CalFresh) website. New bicycle destroyed multiple times, # 2201P-0848. 3rd phone pick pocketed, report # 2111p-0104. IEHP refused to treat fungal left leg infection. Loss of my toenails, and bone showing through my left leg. Refused to give me bandages and Bacitracin ointment for the open bone. Refused to vote after 1.5 years residency in Palm Springs (with supporting documents). Refused a bank account at Union Bank (with supporting documents). (Union Bank refused to document the refusal) # 2201p-5244. Tri-focal Prescription eye glasses stolen (Union Bank). Well in The Desert, 9 months (first come first serve) always served clients after me. Had I been told long term residents and Veterans are served first, (I would not have had a problem ). Well in the Desert would only help me, if I volunteer and work for them. Then finally blackmailed by Arlene Rosenthal. Palm Springs Library Allied Universal Security guard, making Department of Corrections comments & his taking training in the “Edge Department” (Obama Phone.) Elon Musk’s Neuralink works very well (without my consent). Salt Peter (without my consent). Fr. John Butkis, 1749 Los Carolinas Rd., Beaumont, Ca. 92223, 951-769-4479. Riverside County attack & copyright my religious reading website (online books). I accuse libraries Occult books that have been plagiarized. Religious, sex, political, age, & health persecution, & threats to my life (all without my consent). Nano-micro biological agents (without my permission). Right eye/ drones incident (without my consent). My internet, phones & United States Postal Service post office box mail blocked/missing. (I protest) Sunline Transit Agency video footage for bus #FC14, 12-24-22, intersection of Sunrise Way & Vista Chino, death threats on video on bus (I do not consent to being murdered). 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:mike pitkin To:City Clerk Subject:Public Testimony 2-23-2023 (to ALL Council Members) Date:Friday, February 24, 2023 12:45:56 PM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Michael Joseph Pitkin Public Testimony 2-23-2023 All Allocations I am not a paid actor nor snitching.. Nor an elected official blowing smoke. I am an average citizen who since October walked another 1, 200 miles, (over 3,200 miles) to go to the library, just to document your Palm Springs brand. I have three phone sims missing. I do not want another Obama phone (they are manipulated, in Edge Department by vigilante security guards, Department of Corrections, law enforcement and military 3rd party vendors. In a year, I need to make 30 calls . Not one social service agency would allow me to make a call. Today, I have two police reports to hand to Chief Andy Mills. #1. 11-16-2022 Indio police did not open a case, as who is syncing into my Indio Workforce Development Center Comprehensive Center (& State of California Employment EDD Services). Chief Mills needs State of California and United States to answer him, who is responsible for their network program system, as all point the finger at the other. The answers I received are unacceptable. I want frankienuno67@gmail.com identified. A police report is required in order to place an extended fraud alert of 7 year freeze on my credit. #2. This body allocates funding for children music using explicit hardcore hip hop, Mafioso rap, gangsta rap & narco speech. Your library system is likewise a double standard. It is acceptable for black and brown to use explicit hardcore language to whites, in public spaces, but the moment a white speaks this way in return, to them, we are threatened. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Christmas Eve, I was using Sunline Transit Agency, 6 pm, intersection of Sunrise Way & Vista Chino. A brown female was using narco speech. When I politely asked her to stop, she and several black women TOLD ME TO fuck off. I have lived Downtown L.A. I know how to talk SKID ROW in return. Instead of the situation ending once the bus arrived, the females took action steps to meet a black man on the bus and talk of murdering me, on video. I do not consent to being murdered. Chief Mills needs to identify who the individuals are in the video footage and what organization they belong to. I include Excerpts of Vendetta Against Me. A history of individuals in powerful positions, abusing their positions of authority. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:City of Palm Springs To:City Clerk; City Clerk Subject:*NEW SUBMISSION* Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 8:06:26 AM Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs Submission #:2260203 IP Address:66.27.163.187 Submission Date:02/22/2023 8:06 Survey Time:12 minutes, 13 seconds You have a new online form submission. Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login. Full Name/Nombre Jonathan Minton City of Residence/Ciudad de residencia Palm Springs, Phone (optional) /Teléfono (opcional) 7075298152 Email (optional/opcional) minty@mintysdesign.com Your Comments/Sus comentarios As a small business owner who follows the many rules and regulations to operate in PS it very frustrating to see sidewalk vendors ignore standard practices and set up shop wherever they please. Aside from safety and sanitation concerns (for the food tents cooking with propane tanks out on the sidewalk) these businesses use public spaces, likely don’t pay taxes and potentially take business from the operations who’ve gone to mountains of trouble and expense to secure lawful operating permission. Id like to see some control and guidelines applied to these vendors. Thank you, City of Palm Springs This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Ron deHarte To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Item 3A Planning Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:12:52 PM Ron deHarte (he, him) Councilmember City of Palm Springs From: Bruce Giarraffa <eaglesnest2002@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:46:18 PM To: Ron deHarte <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: Item 3A Planning NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. John Wessman's Road to Destruction youtu.be Sent by Digital Pigeon Bruce Giarraffa 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Ron deHarte To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: South Camino Monte Road Extension Project - DISAPPROVE Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:12:06 PM Ron deHarte (he, him) Councilmember City of Palm Springs From: pjwtx@att.net <pjwtx@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:30:43 PM To: Planning <Planning@palmspringsca.gov> Cc: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>; Lisa Middleton <Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>; Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>; Grace Garner <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>; Ron deHarte <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: South Camino Monte Road Extension Project - DISAPPROVE NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear City Councilmen and members of the Planning Commission, We are Palm Springs residents and live full-time in the adjacent area of South Camino Monte. We vehemently are against the development of the road as proposed in the 3A agenda item of the February 22nd meeting agenda. Not only is the road ultimately for more development on the hillside - but it encroaches into important wildlife habitat. We can’t keep reducing the available open land for our wildlife - many of which are endangered. Our wildlife is an important part of Palm Spring’s legacy. Our community is known as a mecca for nature lovers and we need to continue that perception to the world. We need to retain as much open land for the wildlife whose habitat is shrinking. There is simply other areas in Palm Springs that that could be developed that doesn’t disrupt a wildlife corridor or impinge on their habitat. This area is not one of them. Please consider the wildlife that can’t speak for themselves and disapprove of the proposed road project. Your support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for Paul & Beverly Wilkinson 832-465-4748 pjwtx@att.net 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:City of Palm Springs To:City Clerk; City Clerk Subject:*NEW SUBMISSION* Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:32:52 PM Submit Public Comment to the City of Palm Springs Submission #:2259607 IP Address:47.158.187.60 Submission Date:02/21/2023 7:32 Survey Time:2 minutes, 25 seconds You have a new online form submission. Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login. Full Name/Nombre Julie Klein City of Residence/Ciudad de residencia Palm Desert, Phone (optional) /Teléfono (opcional) Email (optional/opcional) Your Comments/Sus comentarios It's time we remember that we are being fed lies via the media daily. What’s important are local everyday citizen's experiences. We are the news. If you want truth or to share your story without a fake narrative log in to desert truth.com Thank you, City of Palm Springs This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Jeffrey Bernstein To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: WE CAN DO BETTER Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:49:35 PM Jeffrey Bernstein Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmember City of Palm Springs cell: 442-305-9942 Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov City Hall is open Monday –Thursday, 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. and closed on Fridays. Begin forwarded message: From: Douglas Greene <zdcg@verizon.net> Subject: WE CAN DO BETTER Date: February 21, 2023 at 12:10:46 PM PST To: "Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov" <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>, "Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov" <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>, "Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov" <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>, "Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov" <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>, "Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov" <Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>, "Alyssa.chavez@palmspringsca.gov" <Alyssa.chavez@palmspringsca.gov> Reply-To: Douglas Greene <zdcg@verizon.net> NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. I recently sent you all an email with the link that had an expiration date for which I apologize. Below is a new link w/o an expiration date. Some very positive feedback has been received from some of the recipients and I 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda hope this thinking "outside the box" creates some positive discussion and action. Douglas https://bit.ly/CONTAINERHOMES-3 Douglas C. Greene SKILLED TRADES CENTERS 2425 NW 69th Street Vancouver, WA 98665 Cell: 360/909-6110Email: zdcg@verizon.net RISK IS THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR OPPORTUNITY! -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Greene <zdcg@verizon.net> To: Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov>; Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov <Jeffrey.Bernstein@palmspringsca.gov>; Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov <Ron.deHarte@palmspringsca.gov>; Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>; Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov <Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>; Alyssa.chavez@palmspringsca.gov <Alyssa.chavez@palmspringsca.gov> Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2023 3:15 pm Subject: WE CAN DO BETTER I saw the article in the Desert Sun today as to the investment in a new Navigation Center for the homeless in Palm Springs. The plan is all encompassing and I have a few comments as to the price tag and the small number of units that will be built with the $30.2 million. I have been researching the homeless issue and, more importantly, how to build and finance a navigation- center-type facility that I soon plan on proposing to the Governors of Washington and Oregon. I have included a draft of my proposal in the above attachment. Today, I emailed my thoughts to Paul Albani-Burgio, author of the Desert Sun article which I am sharing with you below for your consideration. My only mission is to get the most shelter for the money and, at the same time, provide opportunities for the homeless to learn a skill/trade that will allow them to become productive members of society rather than continue an alternate life style that most of them do not want to continue. Feel free to contact me with any thoughts or comments on this approach. Regards, Douglas 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda Douglas C. Greene SKILLED TRADES CENTERS 2425 NW 69th Street Vancouver, WA 98665 Cell: 360/909-6110 Email: zdcg@verizon.net RISK IS THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR OPPORTUNITY! Dear Paul, I read your article in the Desert Sun today and wanted to reach out to you, sharing my idea to address the homeless problem as presented in the PDF attachment, WE CAN DO BETTER. I have been working on this presentation for several months and, while there needs to be more fine tuning in the presentation, I think the 31 pages clearly supports another solution to spending the amount of money listed in your article. Calculating out the $31.2 million for 80 prefab shelters this brings the price tag for each shelter to $387,500. Now cut that number in half, thats close to $200,000 per dwelling. I realize that the infrastructure costs to build the Navigation Center are a big part of the $31.2 million but with my knowledge of site development of traditional housing developments, the ratio is way out of norms. The low cost of the shipping container addresses the material and increasing raw material costs mentioned in your article, costing less than $5000 per container, which are shakable so more units can be positioned in the same square footage area. My name is Douglas Greene, a "snowbird" from WA State and my mission is to address the issue you have written about. I am hoping to get an audience with the governors of Washington and Oregon to make my proposal and offer to fund several prototype house(s), built from shipping containers, so as to get more "bang for the taxpayers buck", using shipping containers vs. traditional prefab/stick-brick housing units. The program I envision would be using re purposed shipping containers to house those unfortunates that have fallen on hard times but could be rehabilitated, given shelter and provided guidance as to returning to being productive individuals in society: Starting with a roof over their head, improving personal hygiene and being given new clothing so many of these can turn their life around. According to HUD, there are 580,000 "homeless" in 2021 (a term still used by HUD) and many of these people have issues far more debilitating than just not having a roof over their head: - drugs, mental, physical & WE CAN DO BETTER [Autosaved].p... (3.7 MB) 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda other health issues. At first, you may think it is cruel of me to eliminate the immediate above group, concentrating my mission to rehabilitate of the "other homeless" that have hit their "speed bump" in life but, striving to give a 'hand-up" to the 50% of this "homeless" population, is a good start. Those affilicted with drugs/mental illness/disabilities etc. are issues for other compassionate providers in the medical community to deal with -not the purpose of my document. My passion is to do something near-term to help 1/2 of these unfortunates. I have attached my draft WE CAN DO BETTER to address the housing issue in the State of Washington but that's not to say this document, using shipping containers to relieve the "homeless" population, wouldn't apply in other states. The cost to convert a shipping container to a livable shelter/home is less than $50,000 yet all the housing costs that many states/cities are spending is in the hundreds of thousands-per individual housing unit, to house a "homeless" person. I have gathered lots of stats as to the states/cities as to the purchasing of motels/hotels/building stick-built structures whose cost is in the $300,000- $500,000 range. Perhaps, private industry could do a better job, and certainly contracting with a container refurbishing company would save millions of dollars by providing more housing units for the "homeless", immediately. I am not "connected " to the Palm Springs political community and would appreciate any distribution of my presentation to those involved in this project, just to consider this as another approach to sheltering the homeless. I would hope that using shipping containers could double or triple the number of shelters that could be provided using the same $31 million or less. Respectively requesting your assistance, Feel free to call my cell. (360/909-6110) Douglas ( Google Douglas C Greene as to my involvement in higher education, Entrepreneurship, and funding of a Skilled Trades Center at the Evergreen High Cchool in Vancouver, WA) 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Grace Garner To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Solution for the homeless Date:Wednesday, February 15, 2023 12:00:15 PM From: Barbara Christine Martin <bcmartin62@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:30 PM To: Grace Garner <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: Solution for the homeless NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Mayor Garner, Kudos to all of you and the work you are doing to solve the homeless issue. It is my belief that I have a potential solution even if its temporary. The old drive-in across the street from Walmart on Crossley Road has concrete, its fenced all the way around and could be a perfect place to allow them to set up their tents and be off of the sidewalks and streets. The city could purchase privacy slats to put in the chain link fence and they would be more out of sight. The city could bring in porta-pottys, and a dumpster which would solve the trash problem as well as keep them from going into the businesses to use the restrooms. If they were all gathered in one place, not so obvious like they are on the sidewalks, the citizens would be happier that they are not on every street corner. The homeless could still have their tents and not have to keep moving around. I realize its not a perfect solution, but it fits more with what these people want to do. They want to be free, not in a room full of beds. Also Martha’s kitchen only has 15 beds or so and fill up fast. This seems like a more practical solution to get them off the sidewalks at a quicker timeframe. The city would look cleaner. If that property is owned privately, the city could maybe make a deal to lease it or buy it. The situation gets worse everyday. The city is looking terrible and we all have a heart for these people but it seems it would be better to gather them in one place instead of scattered all over town making bus stops their bedrooms, and walking around pushing their carts with all their belongings. This would be a quick fix in the interim while the navigation center is being built. They can keep their pets with them and the city can provide pet baggies for cleaning up after them. I think we need to work around their needs instead of what we think they should do. I believe It 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda would help keep the city in better shape this way because they seem to fight going into these buildings where they can’ t leave their stuff, its not like having their own space. Besides Martha’s kitchen is only open for sleeping for a short term. The rents are so high they will never be able to get into a home without help. Martha’s kitchen or whomever can send their people there to help them. But again, that gets them off the street corners and sidewalks. Martha’s kitchen is no solution. They are only open for sleeping what, for another couple of weeks? A tent city that the city is authorizing would be so much better. They are not going away. They cannot jump off the earth. They have to be somewhere. With all due respect Mayor Garner, lets try to think of what would make them gather in one place that could be made more private and out of sight. The count last night was 19 inside the airport. Warm regards, Barbara 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Christy Holstege To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: STOP THIS NOW! Date:Saturday, February 18, 2023 1:50:35 PM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eileen Stern <estern839@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:05 PM Subject: Fwd: STOP THIS NOW! To: Jeffrey Bernstein <Jeffrey@destinationpsp.com>, <lisa.middleton@palmspringsgov.ca>, christyholstege@gmail.com <christyholstege@gmail.com> I tried sending to your City Council email but it was bounced back. BTW, why aren't the emails for city council listed on the city site? Used to be. Thank you for listening. Best Eileen Stern ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eileen Stern <estern839@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:00 PM Subject: STOP THIS NOW! To: <planning@palmspringsca.gov>, <grace.garner@palmspringsca.gov>, <christy.holstege@palmspringsgov.ca>, <RON.DEHARTE@palmspringsca.gov>, <lisa.middleton@palmspringsgov.ca>, <Jeffrey.bernstein@palmspringsgov.ca> Cc: Jane Garrison <jane@janegarrison.com> Developer John Wessman (now headed up by Michael Braun/ Grit Development) is trying to get approval to build a new road up the mountain and into sheep habitat (above the Mesa neighborhood near the Lykken hiking trail and old water tank). This area is filled with wildlife! Last year in an attempt to get this through the city, he referred to the new road as a “driveway extension” (even though there are no houses or driveways in the area). This year he is calling it a "roadway extension". JUST SAY NO! This is step one to more development.The only future building that should be approved in the city is affordable housing, We are too crowded as it is and it is time to stop building where wildlife is thriving. Eileen and Marvin Stern Palm Springs 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda -- Eileen Stern 64460 Via Amante Palm Springs, CA 92264 760-322-7063 H 760-408-2838 C -- Eileen Stern 64460 Via Amante Palm Springs, CA 92264 760-322-7063 H 760-408-2838 C -- Christy Holstege Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information, including attorney work product. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Grace Garner To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Solution for the homeless Date:Wednesday, February 15, 2023 12:00:15 PM From: Barbara Christine Martin <bcmartin62@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:30 PM To: Grace Garner <Grace.Garner@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: Solution for the homeless NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Mayor Garner, Kudos to all of you and the work you are doing to solve the homeless issue. It is my belief that I have a potential solution even if its temporary. The old drive-in across the street from Walmart on Crossley Road has concrete, its fenced all the way around and could be a perfect place to allow them to set up their tents and be off of the sidewalks and streets. The city could purchase privacy slats to put in the chain link fence and they would be more out of sight. The city could bring in porta-pottys, and a dumpster which would solve the trash problem as well as keep them from going into the businesses to use the restrooms. If they were all gathered in one place, not so obvious like they are on the sidewalks, the citizens would be happier that they are not on every street corner. The homeless could still have their tents and not have to keep moving around. I realize its not a perfect solution, but it fits more with what these people want to do. They want to be free, not in a room full of beds. Also Martha’s kitchen only has 15 beds or so and fill up fast. This seems like a more practical solution to get them off the sidewalks at a quicker timeframe. The city would look cleaner. If that property is owned privately, the city could maybe make a deal to lease it or buy it. The situation gets worse everyday. The city is looking terrible and we all have a heart for these people but it seems it would be better to gather them in one place instead of scattered all over town making bus stops their bedrooms, and walking around pushing their carts with all their belongings. This would be a quick fix in the interim while the navigation center is being built. They can keep their pets with them and the city can provide pet baggies for cleaning up after them. I think we need to work around their needs instead of what we think they should do. I believe It 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda would help keep the city in better shape this way because they seem to fight going into these buildings where they can’ t leave their stuff, its not like having their own space. Besides Martha’s kitchen is only open for sleeping for a short term. The rents are so high they will never be able to get into a home without help. Martha’s kitchen or whomever can send their people there to help them. But again, that gets them off the street corners and sidewalks. Martha’s kitchen is no solution. They are only open for sleeping what, for another couple of weeks? A tent city that the city is authorizing would be so much better. They are not going away. They cannot jump off the earth. They have to be somewhere. With all due respect Mayor Garner, lets try to think of what would make them gather in one place that could be made more private and out of sight. The count last night was 19 inside the airport. Warm regards, Barbara 02/21/2023 Public Comment Non Agenda From:Carl Fye To:City Clerk Subject:E-Public Comment Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 2:41:18 PM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Re: Westman Road Extension Proposal We highly disapprove of John Westman’s proposal to extend a road endangering highly sensitive habitat of the area’s wildlife including bighorn sheep, mountain lions, bobcats, kit fox,birds,native flora, and much more. We all know Mr Westman and know that within a short time he will likely be requesting approval to build a proliferation of multi-million dollar homes to line his pockets with yet more money. In the process he will destroy precious, irreplaceable, natural resources. Therefore we ask that Mr Wessman’s proposal be denied by City Council and the Planning Commission. Respectfully, Carl Fye & Douglas Roper Palm Springs, CA 02/21/2023 Public Comment Item 3E