Re: Atherton residents need to be polled or a vote taken

[Posted by Moderator]

From: Robert Loarie
Date: March 31, 2012 9:38:09 PM PDT
To: Athertonians@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Athertonians] Re:  Atherton residents need to be polled or a vote taken

I agree with Mr. Carlson's prior comments and I hope that anyone interested in this matter has read at least the Almanac article on page 15 of the March 28 issue about "big traffic impacts from proposed library in park", namely at the Watkins/Middlefield and at the Watkins/El Camino intersections, the latter of which cannot feasibly be fixed. The draft EIR addresses these matters and others more fully, though it is too lengthy, dense and convoluted to be easily read by normal citizens.

For the Almanac article, see: http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=12466

I sincerely hope that the Planning Commission and the Council take Mr. Carlson's suggestion of a "will of the people" poll seriously into consideration before proceeding further.

Robert Loarie

Library & Rail [from awristachatz emails]

[Posted by Moderator: the Athertonians email list does not approve conversational emails.  When we are copied on important conversations or messages from other groups, we will post them to the Athertonians blog.]

From: Suzanne Mohan
Date: March 31, 2012 1:29:38 PM PDT
To: Colleen Anderson
Cc: Bill Widmer , Atherton lunch lunch group , Athertonians Athertonians
Subject: Re: [awristachatz] Re: Library & Rail


Dear Bill,

I feel very strongly that you should give Atherton residents the opportunity to vote on this matter.
I understand that there are many different views surrounding this issue. From my perspective we are fortunate to have a beautiful open space in our neighbourhood which can be enjoyed by Atherton residents and others alike. This cannot be replicated. Why jeopardise this for the sake of building a library that could be located elsewhere?

I would be perfectly happy with the library being redeveloped in its current location. If, however, you consider this site to be unsuitable, I believe you should explore other options rather than spoiling the tranquility of our park.

It has always been my understanding that Atherton as a town has been committed to preserving the beauty of our landscape and integrity of outdoor spaces, even to the extent of monitoring and vetoing residential projects. I was therefore extremely surprised to hear how far these plans had progressed without canvassing the views of residents.
Yours sincerely,
Suzanne Mohan


Sent from my iPad

On 31 Mar 2012, at 12:54, "Colleen Anderson" wrote:

Everyone please email Bill directly, and if you could also keep me in the loop on your emails I would love it. I know I am very interested in hearing everyones input on this. Send this out to all your friends in Atherton, but please have them keep me in the loop as well. I am finding myself mixed on this issue, but would love for it to go to vote.

Also Bill I must tell you again everyone feels you have already made up your minds so why do you want the towns input?

lovemypaws@yahoo.com
Bill Widmer

Colleen
369-4949

On Mar 31, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Bill Widmer wrote:

HI Colleen,

My question on HSR was its impact on final selection of library location.  Not whether or now we want HSR, but rather its impact on the potential devaluation of the investment, should the library be built right next the HSR right-of-way.

Best Regards,

Bill Widmer
Mayor
Town of Atherton
 

From: Colleen Anderson [lovemypaws@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Atherton lunch lunch group; Bill Widmer
Subject: Library & Rail

Bill,
Everyone seems to want the library to go to vote in the town.  That is a very strong consensus.
HSR is mixed. People that live or own near the train are without a doubt not in favor of it. Others feel we should work with the HSR like Redwood City.  Some do not care either way. At some point we may or may not have say on what the state decides to do it may be a bargaining chip to get the train to stop back in Atherton again.
Both issues seem to be important enough to take them vote, and let the people decide.
On both issues there are pros & cons.
A number of us feel including myself our voice doesn't matter anymore. You have a agenda, and our vote doesn't count.
Colleen

On Mar 31, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Bill Widmer wrote:

Hi Colleen,

Denise, copied herein, is the chair of our Library Committee.  I am sure she would like to be involved in getting more information out and filling in the blanks.

Thank you for your assistance in helping get the community at large involved.

As you know there is abit of a division in the town on where the library should be located.  We are now looking at the Environmental study.  We also need to consider the impact of the High Speed Rail/Caltrain electrification project when confirming our final decision.

I realize you have quite a network of citizens.  What is their thoughts on the project?  Are they weighing the impact of the pending HSR project in their thinking?

I would be very interested in hearing back on this.

Best Regards,

Bill Widmer
Mayor
Town of Atherton

Atherton resident's need to be polled or a vote taken

[Posted by Athertonians Moderator]
 
From: Colleen Anderson
Date: March 28, 2012 10:39:07 PM PDT
To: Atherton lunch lunch group , Athertonians Athertonians
Subject: Fwd: Atherton resident's need to be polled or a vote taken.


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jerry Carlson"
Subject: Atherton resident's need to be polled or a vote taken.
Date: March 26, 2012 2:54:22 PM PDT
Reply-To: raljer@ix.netcom.com


Dear Friend,

I am calling your attention that the Draft EIR for the new library is now on the Town of Atherton home page web site - bottom right hand corner.  Written and oral comments will be taken during a 45 day window before the final EIR comes out.

I will share my comment as follows: After going through most of the DEIR, one message comes out loud and clear - the park would be a great site for the library but not so great for other users of the park.  The park setting would certainly provide a very nice adjunct to the library.

However, it raises the real issue in my mind - having the library in the park will restrict and put limits on other uses.  Although the council reversed itself to allow events to be scheduled in the park for the remainder of 2012 - except for weddings.  Why exclude weddings - easy answer because there would be no easy mitigation for bridal party use of the current Main House.  What events will be allowed in 2013?

Placing the library in the park raises potential space contention issues.  The mitigation measures recommended fall squarely on the Even Coordinators' shoulders (the EIR says the town doesn't plan to have one) to arrange for shuttles or valet parking etc. and sets limits on the size of group use of the Pavilion (92 persons on weekdays and 58 on weekends).

During the public outreach meetings there has been no transparency as to the potential impacts on other uses for the park, whereas the virtue of a park setting for the  library were made abundantly clear.

Besides the far reaching and permanent impacts associated with the library in our sole town park, there is also a more fundamental issue - the loss of local control over HPP.  That control would have to be 'shared' with the JPB in terms of resolving operational contention issues, holding types of events in the park including potential scheduling issues with library events, what maintenance costs of the park including roadways, parking lots, pathways, landscaping etc. could be funded out of library tax dollars etc.

However, I realized that there may be many - even a majority of town residents would be willing to support a library in the park.  I have repeatedly stated that if a majority of Atherton residents support moving the library to the park - so be it.  I just think that this is such a big issue that it is very important that the council knows the 'will of the people'.  After reading the Draft EIR, in my view, we either need a town conducted poll or a formal vote of our residents to see if a majority agree or disagree having the library in the park.  But, please take time to look at the DEIR and make up your own mind and please communicate any comments to Lisa Costa Sanders.

Jerry Carlson
raljer@ix.netcom.com
 

Re: What are we doing?

[Posted by Moderator]

On Mar 12, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Theresa DellaSanta wrote:

Hi Valerie

I will have a staff report for City Council at the March 21 meeting and I will be recommending reinstatement of the Committee. I am happy to allow you to review the staff report before it goes out.

As I have discusses with other EPC members, the City Manager does not have authority to overrule Council in their decision to suspend the EPC. City Council must vote to reinstate the EPC and once that is done I am happy to move forward on anything I can assist the Committee with to meet these compressed timelines.

I did include Acterra’s HEH program in our March edition of the Athertonian which goes out during the same week as the Council meeting. I believe sign-ups for that program go until April 21 so I hope that generates positive press and helps produce more awareness.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do in the meantime.

Thank you,

Theresa

From: Valerie Gardner [mailto:valerie@tiemann.net]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:01 PM
To: Bill Widmer; Jerry.Carlson.External; Theresa DellaSanta
Subject: What are we doing?
Importance: High

Dear Mayor Widmer, Councilmember Carlson, and Interim Town Manager DellaSanta,

I am forwarding the below two messages to just give you an idea of how well some of our neighboring towns are doing on efforts to support California's mandatory AB32 goals.  The first attached message is from Menlo Park and the second is from Portola Valley.  As a predominantly residential community, Atherton has only to deal with residential energy usage to achieve its GHG reduction targets.  As Chair of the EPC, Councilmember Lewis knows but you, Mayor Widmer and Councilmember Carlson, may not know that I have spent the better portion of two years of my volunteer time along with that of a team of 12 to 15 volunteers, who I have recruited and organized, many of whom are not even Atherton residents, along with a sizable portion of the EPC's budgets in those two years developing Atherton 2020, whose whole purpose is to help Atherton residents reduce residential energy use by as much as 60% by 2020.  This program, which also benefits from a $165,000 federal stimulus grant made to Atherton and four other towns, via Acterra, could make Atherton a model of energy efficiency for the entire state. 

Instead, Atherton 2020 is at a big risk of being completely lost!  As you well know, the EPC was irresponsibly suspended by the Council in December (no explanation as to how that item got on the agenda!) after inaccurate, illegal and retaliatory accusations were directed at the EPC by Councilmember McKeithen in November, acting in defense of f her Library ALBSC committee.  In my personal view and that of many other residents, Councilmember McKeithen actions violated Atherton's Code of Conduct (individually threatening town staff to personally investigate, persecute and attack the EPC (which responses took far more than the 30 minutes permitted—without the knowledge or approval of the full council), the Brown Act (the EPC was not on the agenda when she attacked it with a long vitriolic, unsubstantiated statement at a council meeting) and Conflict of Interest rules (as a member of the EPC herself, she was clearly in conflict with the EPC's best interests and well as those of residents of the town, who benefit from having the EPC provide an "environmental viewpoint" on local issues—whom she is charged with representing) in her partisan attack against the EPC for the purpose of shielding the Library Committee from having legitimate criticism for its actual improper, fraudulent and partisan processes.  Mayor Widmer told me he felt embarrassed to be on the dias during that attack and I appreciated that comment—but fear of McKeithen has gone on too long.  Had Atherton any functional staff or professionals working in the town (which we know it does not), Councilmember McKeithen would more likely have been censored for her rude, improper and highly unethical behavior; instead, the Council suspended the EPC without any factual basis or so much as having offered us a chance to defend ourselves against specific accusations (so much for due process in this town).

As of February, the investigation of the EPC by the Assistant City Attorney (at a cost of $100/per hour and as much as $2,000) has been done. City Attorney Conners met with Councilmember Lewis and myself in February and told us what we already knew: that nothing improper by the EPC or myself was found. Mr. Conners was working on his report to council at the time he explained this to us, and I have to assume that you have gotten his report.  Yet, just a week ago but well after our meeting with Mr. Conners, Ms. DellaSanta denied us permission to allow a local public radio reporter to talk with us about Atherton 2020, which was seen as a group that was organizing residents to make a difference. That was painful. I am now writing because the time has come for a decision by you to correct the status of the EPC.

It is time that the EPC was reinstated and allowed to conduct its work on behalf of Atherton and especially the Atherton 2020 program. We have tried to be patient with the council in light of its severe ethical challenges, but if the EPC is not reinstated this month, Atherton 2020 organizers feel obligated to take steps to account for lack of activity by the program.  This must start with sending messages to each of Atherton 2020's twenty-two "2020 Visionaries" who include Steve Westly, Wendy Schmidt, Guy Kawasaki, Bruce Pasternack, and other supporters to inform them that the program has been cut short by council action. At that point, I will resign from the EPC and be done with it, and that will mean that not only will the EPC's acclaimed five-year old virtually free website have been decimated by Councilmember McKeithen's improper attacks and our $9,600 in sponsorship funds compromised, the entire Atherton 2020 program and its expensive website will go away, the EPC estimated $35,000 expended 2010 and 2011 budget investments will be lost, the $40,000 worth of CEC-funded energy audits Atherton residents are entitled to will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of potential energy savings to residents over the next ten years will be lost.

Steve Schmidt recently reported that just 20 Atherton residents' participation resulted in 60,000 kwh savings, the most of any community.  That's 3,000 kwh per household energy saved!  The value of that is several thousands of dollars to the homeowner.  Atherton 2020 needs to get going to get more residents participating.  That's our remaining challenge.  The environment needs this program, our community needs this program and our residents—who average over 20,000 kwh of energy use per year—need this program.  If the council allows the EPC to continue to be unfairly victimized by the unethical partisan attacks of McKeithen and keeps the committee suspended, all this value due to residents will soon be lost.

I'd appreciate a response very soon as to whether or not reinstating the EPC will be on the agenda in March.

Thanks very much!

            —Valerie


Begin forwarded message:


From: Mitch Slomiak
Date: March 11, 2012 9:58:28 PM PDT
To: Menlo GRCC
Subject: [MenloGRCC] Heads-up: Tuesday City Council study session on GHG Reduction Target
Reply-To: MenloGRCC@yahoogroups.com


GRCC Friends,


Nearly 4-1/2 years after the GRCC presented our "Climate Action Report and Recommendations" to City Council, the current Council is ready to consider whether to establish a community-wide greenhouse gas reduction target, and what it should be.

Numerous individuals within the GRCC, as well as Environmental Quality Commissioners (EQC), have contributed to this effort.

The City Council Study Session takes place from 6pm until approx. 7pm this Tuesday March 13 at City Council Chambers. Please attend this Study Session if you are able and consider speaking in support of the EQC recommendation of adopting the following target for Menlo Park: 27% reduction by 2020 / 80% by 2050. (If unable to attend in person, please send an email to Council at your earliest opportunity.)

Here is the URL to the Staff Report. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the 4-page EQC Report on pages 17-20 (Attachment A).

http://service.govdelivery.com/docs/CAMENLO/CAMENLO_101/CAMENLO_101_20120313_060000_en.pdf

Staff is asking City Council to determine whether to adopt a GHG reduction target and the specific target to be recommended.

At this point 24 Bay Area municipalities and 4 counties have adopted GHG reduction targets. Menlo Park is not one of them.

Staff suggest that City Council consider 3 targets:

            10% reduction in GHG by 2020 / 30% by 2050

            17% reduction in GHG by 2020 / 50% by 2050

            27% red uction in GHG by 2020 / 80% by 2050

Of these targets, the Staff Report points out that only the 27% by 2020 target meets the AB32 goal of 80% b 2050 (which is also the minimum reduction recommended by the world scientific community in order to avert the most severe consequences of global warming).

5 Bay Area municipalities (Berkeley, Los Altos Hills, San Jose, Santa Cruz, Union City) have adopted more aggressive GHG reduction targets. 4 other municipalities (Alameda, Foster City, Fremont, San Leandro) have adopted comparable targets (25% by 2050). For Menlo Park to join the leaders in addressing GHG reduction, 27% seems like a reasonable target.

The EQC has strongly recommended the 27% reduction by 2020 / 80% by 2050 target.

Thank you to everyone who is willing and able to participate.

Mitch
          

Mitchel J. Slomiak

Co-Chair
Menlo Park Green Ribbon Citizens' Committee

mslomiak@comcast.net
650-322-6349

  "Nothing short of Everything will really do."
   --Aldous Huxley, Island


__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY:
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.

Begin forwarded message:


From:
Date: March 12, 2012 11:18:58 AM PDT
To:
Subject: Portola Valley, CA: Tuesday Night - Elton Sherwin Author of Addicted to Energy

Tuesday Night - Elton Sherwin Author of Addicted to Energy
How to Be Energy Efficient in Your Sleep
Posted Date: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:00 AM
Click here for more details.

Library EIR Scope Comments Due Wednesday, 1/11/12, by 5:00 pm

To Atherton Residents,

The Town's website contains an uncorrected Press Release that erroneously indicates that comments to the scope of the Library EIR need to be submitted by December 28th, 2011.  This date was extended weeks ago to enable residents who missed the Dec. 8th Scoping Meeting to submit written comments regarding the scope of the project EIR through to 5:00 pm on January 11, 2012. This correction should be highlighted on the Town website, but we have found not even a correction made to the original press release to alert residents that additional time exists to provide their comments.  Given this omission, the following information is being provided to help those who would still like to provide their comments on the EIR scope. If you are so interested, please read on.  

What this is about.  The scope of the EIR essentially provides the agreed on boundaries of those areas to be addressed in the EIR document regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed library project.  If, for example, the scope does not include noise impacts (which in fact it doesn't), then such impacts won't need to be addressed and no mitigation of possible noise impacts will be required prior to approval of the project by the town. However, if comments are submitted in this scoping process requesting that noise impacts be evaluated, then these must be included in the EIR review and the town must take whatever steps are feasible to mitigate noise as required by CEQA. Should the town fail to mitigate possible noise impacts, there could be legal remedies—so long as "noise" is a part of the initial scope.

What items can be included in the scope?  Here is a copy the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form that provides a guideline to what types of items can be included in the scope of EIR processes.  If you scan this document, you will see both line item descriptions (page 2), followed by expanded examples of how each of those areas might be applied in a particular project situation (page 5 and forward).  These examples can illuminate how each area may need to be reviewed by the agency.  Your comments can include as many of these as you think important.

How the EIR Scope has been defined by the Town.  The Town (as lead agency) initially defines the scope of the EIR.  Michael Kashwagi (a new contract staff member of the ALBSC) and Neal Martin, our contract Town Planner, with help from LSA Associates (the town's contracted environmental consultants) submitted their scoping statement in a staff report to the Council at the November 16th, 2011 meeting.  This document was attached to the Council packet as Item No. 19.  It is worth reading this document carefully, not merely because of the importance of how LSA defines the scope but also because of how the documents explains why the town's obligations under CEQA changed as a result of the controversies raised by the whole process. (See next item.)

The Amendment to the LSA Associates Agreement.  As Kashiwagi and Martin write in their staff report to the council, LSA was hired to prepare an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Library, which can only be used when there is little or no dispute about the environmental issues associated with the project. Due to the controversy associated with the project, LSA needed to augment their scope of work to conduct a full EIR, at an increased cost to the town of $86,230. As described in the Staff Report's "Discussion" section (page 2): 

As the process has evolved some community members have expressed concerns about
environmental impacts that might result if the new library were sited in Holbrook-Palmer Park.  Specifically concerns were expressed at the Park and Recreation Commission meetings on July 6, 2011 and October 5, 2011, at the ALBSC Community Meeting held on September 8, 2011 and at the City Council meeting on October 19, 2011.  Those concerns generally relate to loss of existing park and recreation space, traffic volumes and traffic safety in the park, and adequacy of parking.  In terms of the California Environmental Quality Act and case law these concerns are classified as “public controversy.”    

What an EIR can accomplish.  It is important to note that, as a public agency, the Town of Atherton needs to take action to mitigate significant environmental impacts of any project it wants to approve.Preserving open space, reducing greenhouse gases, and accounting for the transportation impacts of land-use decisions are aspects that must be mitigated or the project approval can be appealed. For more background on CEQA and the EIR process, see Wikipedia's CEQA description, the Planning and Conservation League Foundation's site and Senate Bill 375 "Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions."

  

How to address assumptions.  Look closely at mentions of "staff guidance" as these may be used as givens, facts, truth or general guidance to underlie the proposed scope, when there may be no actual data available to support them (such as who the majority users of the project library would be). Some of these assumptions may have been provided by the ALBSC or the Library JPA but have not been verified.

Deliver your comments by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, Jan. 11th.  You may email your comments on the EIR scope to Lisa Costa Sanders, Deputy Town Planner, at Lcostasanders@ci.atherton.ca.us or drop it off at the Administrative Building, 91 Ashfield Road, Atherton. These comments need to be delivered by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012.

[Please note: the above information is not legal advice but rather an overview of the EIR Scope elements obtained by a lay review of the available and cited documents and suggestions received from a number of others to help residents understand this process. Please direct any questions you may have to Lisa Costa Sanders, Michael Kashiwagi or Neal Martin.]

EPC Member Responds to Politically Motivated Attack

[Posted by Moderator]

From: Valerie Gardner
Date: December 21, 2011 1:04:37 PM PST
To: Bill Widmer , JerryCarlson Carlson
Cc: Elizabeth Lewis , John Danielson , bslawstuff@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Congratulations on your achievement of $9600 in sponsoring grants

On Oct 18, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Bill Widmer wrote:

Well done!

Bill

Bill and Jerry,

Thank you both for your earlier congratulations on our raising sponsorships.  The Atherton 2020 development team worked very hard to garner those sponsorships.  Unfortunately as I think you now know, Kathy McKeithen has leveled accusations of "illegality" against the EPC and pressured John Danielson and Bill Conners to force the EPC to take down its website immediately following the Special Council meeting that was called in response to the petition for a Master Plan.  Because our website is down and no longer providing the visibility we committed to our sponsors, we are returning all $9600 in sponsorships!  This is a big loss of funding as well as credibility which, as you can imagine, distresses me.  However, there are plenty of bigger problems, which I want to share with you, as council members who have shown support for the EPC.

First, let's address the important question: Why did Kathy McKeithen accuse the EPC of operating illegally (a copy of her emailed accusation is attached below)?  Here are the best explanations I can provide, based upon my opinions and impressions having heard McKeithen's verbal accusations during council meetings which we all heard and the information I have subsequently gotten.

Number 1:  I personally spoke at the Nov. 8th Special Council meeting and addressed my serious concerns and objections about the deliberately faulty process used by Kathy's Library Committee to feign community engagement.  This includes the facts (clearly shown on the town website that I am sure you have reviewed thoroughly) that the Library Committee:
  1.  failed to survey or communicate with even one active park user group,
  2.  failed and refused to survey the town at large,
  3.  held 3 focus groups with non-park user groups and did not even ask
       the location question,
  4.  held 3 preliminary community workshops, and did not permit public 
       comments oreven discussion of the location question and failed to 
       adequately report these meetings as such,
   5.  yet claim to have conducted a "community engagement process" 
        that supports their recommendation to put the library in the park. 

I attempted to state in my brief comments that their process was a sham, which is the truth, and the resulting community turmoil, petitions, special hearings, referendum activity, and more is the obvious result, however, clearly Kathy doesn't like this information being discussed!  It is possible that she is concerned that Bill, as the swing vote on Library issues, may question his support which may be based upon his sense of Kathy's own integrity combined with her very strident support of her own committee.  I suspect that this may have something to do with why she is attacking the EPC, the committee that I am a volunteer on.  Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't it strike you as something of a conflict of Interest (given Kathy's multiple roles) that a council member, who should be concerned with insuring the integrity of a subcommittee process, not to mention the appearance of integrity given her position of leadership on that committee, is instead working so hard to defend and possibly cover up what appear to be (and I am not the only one alleging) possible committee process fraud? 

Number 2:  The EPC's independent, continually updated website (a protocol established upon its launch, and which was granted editorial freedom from town oversight by the City Attorney back in 2007 with the "External Website Disclaimer" on the town site), posted an "Environmental Viewpoint" on the "Issues" page expressing the clear environmental concerns and questions raised by the choice to move a public county building away from our town center and Caltrain transit hub (where some people can access it without using a car) and into the the park.  Furthermore, the viewpoint questioned the benefits to the community of using up more space, designated as a  "high class recreational park," rather than using that space (should it be available) for more fields, of which there is a big shortage.  Included in that viewpoint were concerns about the encroachment on more green space, as will likely result from the plans to increase the size of the library from 4,800 square feet up to as much as 15,000 square feet.  As you know, this is much bigger than the current Main House footprint.  Concerns were raised about the damage to our town center of not seismically updating the current library building, which otherwise might need to be abandoned, which would be a blight on our down town, and questioning who should pay for that, since the Library has occupied that space the whole time.  Reference was also made in that article to the resident-run survey that cited the vast majority of residents not agreeing that a library qualifies as "high class recreation" purpose. Apparently, McKeithen believes that the EPC's charter allows it to discuss any environmental concern (five years with no prior complaint from her), as long as it is not associated with a pet project of hers).  Does this censorship of the EPC's voice raise any 1st Amendment red flags with any of you?

Number 3:   Marion Oster sent Kathy McKeithen a message (see below) objecting to the wording in the synopsis provided by the moderator of the Athertonian resident email list that described the agenda of the November 16th council meeting.  Kathy McKeithen erroneously attributed responsibility for the Athertonian message to the EPC, calling it "Illegal" and "very political."   Even though this is a completely wrong statement, accurate facts were clearly of no concern to Kathy McKeithen who (apparently on her own authority, since I don't recall an agenda or noticed meeting on the issue of the EPC—Do YOU?) threatened Bill Conners and John Danielson with her intent to go to the Grand Jury to investigate "these matters" unless they conform to her insistence to do something to stop the EPC.  Which they did, since they forced the EPC's website to come down two days later. Does this make you wonder if McKeithen's concerns about "Illegal" and "very political" actions are not somewhat missplaced?

Number 4:  At several council meetings that I attended, Kathy accused the resident-run and completely non-partisan "Athertonians" email list of being a "rogue" group. Because the EPC supported the use of a form of communication by residents in town that doesn't require that paper be printed and sent out for every communication and informed residents about the group on its web site, McKeithen claimed that the EPC had "part ownership" of the "Athertonian" email group.  The EPC was formed in 2006.  The "Athertonians" list was started in 2004.  There is NO support for McKeithen's claim.  Apparently, however, residents communicating with each other is something that Kathy doesn't approve of—hence the "rogue" word.  It is possible that she thinks by attacking the EPC, it might stop the use of this resident message group.  (Interestingly, despite knowing about the "Athertonians" list, McKeithen and her Library Committee chose never to make use of the list as a way to better "engage the community.")  Furthermore, she accused the EPC of responsibility for a Resident-authored informal survey that was sent out to the Atherton Community via the Athertonian list, which is also completely erroneous, but somehow used her disapproval of wording on the survey to try to discredit the EPC? (I am somewhat confused as to this point, I have to admit.)

As a result of Kathy McKeithen's false and one might say "politically-motivated" accusations against the EPC, I have subsequently heard that she is now forcing town staff and the city attorney to spend their time investigating the EPC's finances, at no small expense to the town, I am sure—and this despite the fact that the council cut our budget this year from $28,000 to $5,000, fired our one staff person and failed to appoint any temp replacement to assist us with anything.  Was this an approved town expense?  Nevertheless, neither the town manager nor the city attorney has bothered to address any specific question, concern, allegation or accusation with me directly, so I have no idea the basis of the additional accusation, as every dollar we have spent has been clearly reflected on our accounting statements to Finance every year. Plus, we have consistently raised almost as much as our budget in grants and sponsorships (this year it was nearly $50,000 worth, most of which will now be wasted as a result of McKeithen's actions), such that we have an accrued account of sponsor funds of over $5,000 for our program purposes. 

Lastly, as you also know because you do your homework, the agenda for tonight's council meeting contains an item called "Consideration and Action on Disbandment of the Environmental Programs Committee."  This agenda item is really the last straw.  Seriously, is there no "due process" in this town, where Kathy McKeithen is involved?  It is my personal but fairly well substantiated opinion that the EPC has been maliciously targeted for illegal, political purposes by Kathy McKeithen to defend the questionable processes utilized by herself and her Library Committee, in direct conflict of interest to her role as a council person representing residents of this town. Yet, it is the EPC that is being attacked.  Yes, I realize that the EPC has been accused, but pardon me if I protest that it seems a little hasty to place an item on the agenda to disband the EPC, when it has not been found to have done any misdeed.  Am I wrong? 

For your information as council members, the cost of Kathy's attack so far is under $10,000 to the town.  However, based upon the way this town is run, it seems likely that the EPC will be disbanded, which will cause the abandonment of our $165,000 federally-funded energy efficiency program, to the detriment of all residents of Atherton, who supported and could benefit with participation over the ten years that we hoped to run the program, among many other benefits provided by the EPC.  I will have to share these and more concerns about council actions relative to the EPC when we announce that we have been disbanded!

As council members who have expressed support many times for the work being done by the EPC, I am really surprised that neither of you contacted me when you heard about Kathy's accusations against the EPC or even to get my input or perspective on tonight's agenda item.  Please accept my apology for feeling entitled to give you my perspective, even if you didn't ask for it.  For that matter, if any of what I have described above surprises you, upsets you, disagrees with facts that you otherwise are aware of, or makes you feel concerned about the treatment the EPC is getting from the council, please let me know. 

Thanks!

            —Valerie

P.S. Sorry for the length and tone of this message but, as you can tell, I am rather fed up. 

From: Kathy McKeithen
To: bill conners
Cc: "jdanielson@ci.atherton.ca.us"
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:15 PM
Subject: Fw: [Athertonians] There is an Atherton Council Meeting tonight (at HPP)!

Bill,

It has now been over a week since I put you and John Danielson on notice that the EPC was illegally operating its Town website and its part "ownership" of the Athertonians e-mail list. As you can see from the e-mail below, they continue t do so and are very political about it.


Seeing that nothing has been done despite by requests (and insistence) I am lettign you know that I intend to go to the Grand Jury next week to investigate these matters.

Kathy McKeithen

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Marion Oster
To: "Jim Dobbie (James.Dobbie@yahoo.com)" ; "denise@studio74.us" ; "Risley, Carine" ; Kathy McKeithen
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:30 PM
Subject: FW: [Athertonians] There is an Atherton Council Meeting tonight (at HPP)!

I did not know how many of you got this but I really object to the wording of #3.  Marion

Marion E. Oster
meo@rjoster.com

From: Athertonians@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Athertonians@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Atherton Resident
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:22 PM
To: Athertonians@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Athertonians] There is an Atherton Council Meeting tonight (at HPP)!


To all,

The Atherton City Council is scheduled to meet again this evening for its regular monthly council meeting. On the agenda this evening are several matters of importance to residents: 

          1) Approval of new garbage rates,

          2) Consideration of the Park & Recreation Committee's recommendation to conduct a formal Town-Wide survey of Resident Opinions concerning the location of the new library in Holbrook-Palmer Park ,

          3) Approval of more town tax funds to be used by the Library Steering Committee to do an Environmental Impact Report for putting the library in the park, and

         4) Reinstating the ability of the Town Manager to book events at Holbrook-Palmer Park (which were previously discontinued for 2012 events in light of what was seen as pending library construction in the park). 
The November 8th Special Council Meeting requested by a petition with over 300 supporters to authorize a Master Plan prior to the expenditure of more tax funds by the library group, did not result in any action because the agenda did not provide for the council to take any action at that meeting. Tonight, Council members Carlson and Lewis are scheduled to present reports on a Master Facilities Plan and on Polling Town Voters in order to help the council determine future council agenda items (which require majority approval).

If you are interested in or concerned about how the council decides any of these issues, it would be good to attend this meeting, which is being held tonight starting at 7:00 pm in the Pavilion at Holbrook-Palmer Park . Discussion of Item 1 listed above (but Item 17 on the council agenda) is estimated to start at 8:00 pm. 

If you can't make the meeting, you can send your thoughts in an email message to the council at these email addresses:  

Mayor Jim Dobbie: jdobbie@ci.atherton.ca.us
Vice Mayor Bill Widmer: bwidmer@ci.atherton.ca.us
Jerry Carlson: jcarlson@ci.atherton.ca.us
Elizabeth Lewis: elewis@ci.atherton.ca.us
Kathy McKeithen: kmckeithen@ci.atherton.ca.us

A copy of the complete agenda for this evening is embedded below. To go to the town's .pdf version, please click this link:  http://0187eb0.netsolhost.com/city-council/index.html
  
Copy of Council Agenda:

 AGENDA
Town of Atherton 
CITY COUNCIL
ATHERTON CHANNEL DRAINAGE DISTRICT
November 16, 2011
7:00 p.m.
JENNINGS PAVILION
150 Watkins Ave
Atherton, California
 
REGULAR MEETING


PLEASE NOTE:  
Times listed on the Agenda are an approximation and not a time certain. 
The Council may take up items out of order.  Please arrive well in advance
of the time listed for any item in which you are interested.


7:00 P.M. 1.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
   
7:02 P.M.  2. ROLL CALL         Lewis, Dobbie, Widmer, McKeithen, Carlson


7:03 P.M.  3   PRESENTATIONS      
   
        D.A.R.E/ RED RIBBON AWARDS – Bruce Potts


7:30  P.M.  4.  PUBLIC COMMENTS (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons
wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the Agenda that is within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. State law prohibits the Council
from acting on items not listed on the Agenda except by special action of the City
Council under specified circumstances. Speakers’ time is limited to three
minutes.)


7:40  P.M.      5. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
     
7:40 P.M.        6. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT


7:50 P.M. 7. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION ROUNDTABLE REPORT   


7:50 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR   (Items 8-16)  
(Consent Calendar items are routine in nature and are generally considered in one motion and adopted by a single vote of the City Council.  If discussion regarding a Consent Calendar item is desired, the member(s) of the City Council, public, and/or staff wishing to pull the item should so indicate at the time the Mayor calls for consideration of the Consent Calendar.)


8. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 19, 2011 REGULAR MEETING
Recommendation: Approve October 19, 2011 regular meeting minutes


9. APPROVAL OF BILLS AND CLAIMS FOR OCTOBER, 2011 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,258,593
Recommendation: Approve Bills and Claims in the amount of $1,258,593


10. ACCEPTANCE OF TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE SECOND
QUARTER ENDED SEMPTEMBER 30, 2011
Report: Finance Director Louise Ho
Recommendation: Accept the Treasurer’s Report for the Second Quarter
Ended September 30, 2011


11. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EXPEDITURES FOR
BALANCE OF FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW
ENFORCMENT SERVICES FUND (SLESF), CITIZEN’S OPTION
FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) GRANT
Report: Interim Police Chief Ed Flint
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution accepting the recommended
expenditures of the remaining balance of FY 2011-12 Supplemental Law
Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF), Citizen’s Option for Public Safety
(COPS) Grant in the amount of $100,000.00 in accordance with state
requirements


12. NARROW BANDING PURCHASE
Report: Interim Police Chief Ed Flint
Recommendation: (1) Authorize the purchase or lease of 23 P-25 compatible
radios with antennas and two lithium-ion batteries for each radio, to bring
Atherton Police Department into compliance with Federal Communications
System (FCC) requirements; and enable interoperable public safety
communications between Atherton Police and the other police and fire
agencies providing public safety services in San Mateo County and beyond;
and (2) Authorize Atherton Police Department to reconfigure its current
public safety base station radio to compliance with the new requirements.


13. POLICE MOTORCYCLE PURCHASE
Report: Interim Police Chief Ed Flint
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Police
Department to purchase two (2) new 2012 BMW R1200RT-P motorcycles as
replacement motorcycles for a total cost of $47,461.24, which includes sales
tax, documentation fees, and installation of communications and radar
equipment
 
14. POLICE PATROL VEHICLE PURCHASE
Report: Interim Police Chief Ed Flint
Recommendation: Authorize the Police Department to purchase two 2011
Ford Crown Victoria Interceptors as replacement patrol vehicles for a cost of
$70,000.00, which includes tax, license, emergency equipment, and
installation costs


15. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK, AUTHORIZATION TO RECORD
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVAL OF CONTRACT
CHANGE ORDERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 1934.00 FOR A TOTAL
PROJECT COST OF $66,156.00 FOR THE SOUTH MEADOW
IRRIGATION AND TURF REHABILITATION PROJECT NUMBER
56019
 Report: Interim Public Works Director Mike Kashiwagi
Recommendation: authorizing recording of a notice of completion and
approving contract change orders in the amount of $1934.00 for a total
project cost of $66,156.00 for the South Meadow/Irrigation and Turf
Rehabilitation Project Number 56019


16. 70 CAMINO POR LOS ARBOLES (APN 070-302-300) 
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO PRE-ZONE THE SITE TO R1-A AND
AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP TO INCLUDE THE
PROPERTY FOR ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF ATHERTON 
Report: Town Planner Lisa Costa Sanders
Recommendation: adopt the Ordinance pre-zoning the site R1-A and amend
the General Plan Map to include a portion of the property located at 70
Camino por los Arboles for annexation into the Town of Atherton based on
the finding in the staff report.


8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS   - (Item 17)
 
17. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT REFUSE AND
RECYCLING COLLECTION RATES
Report: Interim City Manager John Danielson
Recommendation: Hold a public hearing, determine whether a majority
protest has been received, and if there is no majority protest, introduce the
attached Ordinance increasing refuse and recycling rates.  A two-thirds vote is
required (i.e.; four affirmative votes).


8:15 P.M. REGULAR AGENDA – (Items 18-20)


18. PARK & RECREATION RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT A
TOWN-WIDE SURVEY OF RESIDENT OPINIONS CONCERNING
LOCATION OF A NEW LIBRARY IN HOLBROOK PALMER PARK
Report: Interim City Manager John Danielson
Recommendation: Consider the Park and Recreation Commission
recommendation to conduct a Town-wide survey of resident’s opinion
concerning location of a new library in Holbrook Palmer Park


19.  ATHERTON LIBRARY BUILDING PROJECT 
    (a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
    (b) AMENDMENT TO LSA ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT
Report: Interim Public Works Director Mike Kashiwagi
Recommendation: Direct Staff to proceed with the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for the Atherton Library Building Project, and
Approve the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with
LSA Associates for preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report;


20. CONTINUATION OF EVENT BOOKINGS AT HOLBROOK-
PALMER PARK THROUGH THE 2012 CALENDAR YEAR/
PARK EVENTS – REVENUE VS. DIRECT COSTS
Report: Interim City Manager John Danielson
Recommendation: Provide direction to staff regarding the continuation of
full event bookings at Holbrook-Palmer Park through December 31, 2012


10:15 P.M. 21. COUNCIL REPORTS


10:20 P.M. 22. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS


     A. MASTER FACILITIES PLAN
     Report: Council Members Carlson and Lewis


     B. POLLING TOWN VOTERS
     Report: Council Members Carlson and Lewis


10:25 P.M. 23.    PUBLIC COMMENTS


10:30 P.M. 24. ADJOURN 


PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:


If you challenge a Town zoning, planning, or any other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.  Judicial review of any Town administrative decision may be had only if a petition is filed with the court not later than the 90th day following the date upon which the decision becomes final.  Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a shorter time period.


Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection by 5:00 p.m. the Friday before each regularly scheduled City Council meeting at the Atherton Library, 2 Dinklespiel, Station Lane , and the Town Administrative Offices, 91 Ashfield Road , Atherton , CA 94027 . Additionally, agendas and staff reports may be accessed on the town website at: www.ci.atherton.ca.us


In compliance with SB 343, materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Town AdministrativeOffices,  91 Ashfield Road , Atherton , CA 94027 .


Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 752-0500.  Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to this meeting.  (29 CRF 35.104 ADA Title II)


__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY:

December 21 City Council Meeting Follow Up

[From Theresa Della Santa, Deputy City Clerk/Executive Assistant, Town of Atherton]

Attached is the December 21 City Council Agenda and below are the action minutes from the meeting. You should have received the notice of Council reorganization from me this morning.

Please be reminded that Town Hall will be closed on Monday, December 26, 2011. Happy Holidays!

December 21 ACTION:

Consent calendar approved unanimously (excluding Items 10, 12, and 17).

Item 10, 12 and 17 were removed from consent and taken up individually. All 3 items passed.

Regular Agenda:

Item 19: MOTION by Carlson, second by Lewis to continue event bookings at Holbrook-Palmer Park through the 2012 calendar year. The motion failed 2-3 (Widmer, McKeithen, Dobbie opposed).

Item 20: MOTION by McKeithen, second by Widmer to approve all 3 items below, and confirm that the footprint will be no more than 10,000 square feet including any atriums, gardens, walled patios etc., and that all impacts will be minimized.

1. That the new library site is limited to the existing Main House footprint and its associated hardscape areas as shown on Attachment 1 and that the building footprint will not exceed 10,000 square feet.  Although the available site is greater than 10,000 square feet as shown on Attachment 1, the library footprint will be less that the available site area and will not exceed 10,000 square feet.
2. That the Holbrook-Palmer Park Master Plan Update is to include; a revision to the existing Park Master Plan drawing to show the proposed footprint of a new library in the Park, on the site described in #1. above, and a revision of the Holbrook-Palmer Park Master Plan document addressing the replacement  of the existing Main House building with a library and the change in public use of the space.
3. For purposes of environmental evaluation, it is the intention of the Town of Atherton to reuse the existing library building for town offices, public purposes, records storage and/or art center, subsequent to the Atherton Library moving to its proposed new building in Holbrook-Palmer Park.

MOTION by Lewis, second by Carlson to amend the motion: (under Item 2) that to the maximum extent possible the building will be placed as far away from the water tower as possible; and (under Item 3) to expand the potential uses to schools and senior centers.

The amendment passed unanimously.

The original motion passed unanimously.

Item 21: MOTION by Widmer, second by Carlson to suspend the Environmental Programs Committee from their Council approved powers and duties pending an investigation [into compliance with City rules] by City staff and a report of the investigation to Council at the next meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Theresa N. DellaSanta

Deputy City Clerk/Executive Assistant

Town of Atherton

91 Ashfield Road

Atherton, CA 94027

650-752-0529