1. Rejection of Claim - Menlo Park
Linked here is a Letter from the City of Menlo Park rejecting the Town’s claim for damages as a result of the water that entered the Atherton Channel
(Marsh Road). The Town has 6 months to file a court action on the claim.
2. Animal Services Report - January 2017
Linked here is the January 2017 Animal Services Report.
3. 370 Walsh Road - Expiring Permit
Linked here is a letter to the property owner at 370 Walsh Road regarding the construction project that has been ongoing at this address for the last
several years. If there is no resolution, this may matriculate up to the Council for possible public nuisance.
4. Articles of Interest
- Mercury News - Civic Center Ballot Measure
- Almanac News - Civic Center Project and Ballot Measure
5. Cost Recovery - Debris Clearance
One of the issues the Council wanted an update on was the recovery of costs for clearing of the public right-of-way. The City Attorney has prepared a memorandum for Council review that
will be a part of the Study Session on March 1.
6. Energy Power Purchase Agreements and Other Opportunities
Linked here are a couple of articles/papers of interest to the Council regarding sustainability projects in Redwood City and Palo Alto.
- Redwood City Electric Project - PV Charging / Green Charge
- City of Palo Alto - Solar Parking Structures
7. 2017/18 Budget Calendar
Robert has prepared the following budget calendar for the FY 2017/18 Budget process. It includes the internal departmental meetings, and meetings with the CM for review/follow-up on each department timeline within meeting sections.
Departments Meetings for general overview of needs by March 6 with City Manager
- March 13 Templates get sent to internal Departments for input of budget
- Meeting with City Manager week of March 20 with departments for operational dept. budgets for April 5 General Fund Operation Budget Study Session.
- Also meeting with DPW department’s week of March 27 to begin Capital Project budgets. CIP due back April 17 to Finance Department for CIP budget meeting on May 3.
Meeting 1 - Budget Kick-off and Overview- April 5, 2017 Study Session- Joint meeting with Finance Committee
- An overview of the Budget Process and Policy Discussions
- An overview of the FY 2016/17 Year-End Projected Fiscal Condition
- An overview of the Town’s Major Revenue Sources and 5-Year Forecasts
- An overview of the Town’s Major Expenditure Categories and 5-Year Forecasts
- General Fund Budget Discussion all Departments
Meeting 2- Special Funds – April 19, 2017 Council Meeting
- Review of Special Revenue and Other Funds
- Meetings with departments week of April 10th for operations department questions and updates follow up from April 5th study session.
- Updates needed by May 15th for June 7, 2017 study session update.
Meeting 3- Capital Improvement Budget - May 3, 2017 Study Session
- Meetings week of May 15 with DPW dept to go over CIP budget questions and concerns for inclusion of CIP
Meeting 4- Budget Study Session - June 7, 2017 Study Session (Also includes Special Revenue & Other Funds)
- Week of June 12th meeting with CM and Departments for Final walk through of budget items needs before going for adoption
Meeting 5- Adoption of the Budget - June 21, 2017 Regular Meeting
8. Charging Station at the Park
As an FYI, as the Council will recall the Council pulled back 1 of the 2 EV charging stations at the Park reducing the project scope. Staff connected with BAAQMD to reduce the amount of grant accordingly based on the change of project scope. They refused.
They said it was all or nothing based on the original proposal and the minimum grant amount required under their program. We are now attempting to redesign and add the additional carport at the current Civic Center near the corp yard (primarily staff use but
with public access on a limited basis) with the knowledge that we’ll use the infrastructure in the new building - forward compatible. This may come to Council for revision in scope depending on the needs of BAAQMD.
9. City/County Staff Coordinating Group Meeting - HSR
Mike Kashiwagi attended the CSCG meeting for HSR earlier this week and provides the following notes. This month’s meeting provided a status update of the San Francisco to San
Jose Project segment of HSR. The PowerPoint presentation s linked here for information (hard to read), but below are some bullet points
summarizing some relevant information of specific interest to the Town of Atherton.
- The project is currently evaluating 2 primary Alternatives. The primary components of the Alternatives are the location and configuration
of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility along with the need and location of passing tracks. Both alternatives locate the Vehicle Maintenance Facility in Brisbane. Regarding passing tracks, Alternative A utilizes existing passing tracks and Alternative B will
evaluate 5 different passing track options. These passing track options require the construction of new tracks which do not exist today.
- One passing track option (Long Middle 3 Track Option) will affect the Town since the new 3rd track
will extend from San Mateo to Palo Alto, a length of 8 miles. None of the 4 Track options impact the Town of Atherton. At this point, the operational impacts and benefits are being evaluated. It is anticipated that all 5 Alternative B passing track options
will be studied and included in the Draft Environmental document.
- At this point, it is anticipated that the Preferred Alternative will be identified late Summer 2017 and the release of the Draft EIR will
be in the Fall 2017.
- With respect to WHO and HOW the preferred passing track option will be identified, it sounds like the primary consideration will be to select
an alternative which provides the best operational characteristics for Caltrain and HSR with input and consideration of impacts (R/W impacts, land use implications, traffic impacts, safety, etc) to local agencies within the segment. It sounds like Caltrain
and HSR operating preferences are not aligned with one another, so some “negotiations” lie ahead to reach consensus on the preferred alternative.
- HSR staff (Ben Tripousis) and consultants also reiterated that Quad Gates will be provided at all at-grade road crossings as part of construction
of the HSR project.
- HSR staff and consultants also stated that the existing Hold Out Rule at the Broadway and Atherton Caltrain Stations will be addressed with
construction of HSR. This means that the necessary improvements of constructing an additional station platform
for Northbound trains will be designed and constructed with the HSR Project.
10. Police Chief Recruitment
There are 31 applicants for the Police Chief opportunity. Peckham and McKenney are reviewing the candidate applications and will connect with me toward the end of the month to
11. Ballot Measure - June 6, 2017
Now that the City Council has called the special election in June, the Town itself is limited in the use of public resources with respect to the proposed measure. Public agencies may use public resources to analyze, evaluate,
and inform the public about its findings with respect to a ballot measure. Public agencies may not use public funds to mount any sort of campaign on the measure. These restrictions are based on the possibility that by engaging in any advocacy, the public agency
distorts the democratic electoral process and undermines its fairness.
Public agencies may use public resources to provide fact-based information in the consistent style, tenor and timing of existing communications. Obvious impermissible activities include things such as bumper stickers, posters,
and television, radio or billboard ads. Other improper activity is using public funds to disseminate advocacy materials produced by others. Promotional campaign brochures and other similar materials are not allowed - even when those documents contain some
useful factual information for the public.
Permitted activities include taking a position on a ballot measure in an open and public meeting where all perspectives may be shared. Preparing and providing staff reports and other analyses that help decision-makers determine
the measure’s impact and what position to take. Responding to inquiries about ballot measures in ways that provide a fair presentation of the facts about the measure and the Town’s view of a ballot measure’s merits. Accepting invitations to present the Town’s
views to organizations interested in the ballot measure’s effect. And, sharing the Town’s views on and analyses of a measure’s impacts and merits.
The safest approach is to share information (such as links to historic data and previously available staff reports) in a simple, measured and informative way. The information should be delivered through the Town’s regular communication
channels - such as the Town’s website, newsletter, or email publications. The communication must not advocate or encourage the public to adopt the Town’s perspective, must not advocate voting one way or another, and must not advocate or encourage taking any
action supporting or opposing the measure.