[Posted by Moderator from message to Moderator]
Athertonites: I think that we should clean up the street signs.... the vertical black letters on the white post should be cleaned up more often. Some signs need to be also repainted. For a quality city like Atherton, we should have signs that are clean and that stand out so that people can read them and get a better impression of the inhabitants of this upscale city. Clean and distinct signs are critical to helping people spot streets.....Something that doesn't cost a lot but really changes the perception of the city..... Sincerely,
Larry Chew
Lwchew@aol.com
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
EIR library in park
[Added by Moderator]
As a 46-year Athertonian I visit both park & library more than once a week. Here are two points:
Access to the park is via one street (Watkins) and one entrance. Access to our existing library is via 5 or 6 alternative routes.
As a 46-year Athertonian I visit both park & library more than once a week. Here are two points:
Parking in the park was impossible until our council outlawed its use recently. Every spot was filled and many parked illegally. Is our council misleading us?
The EIR says in one place (page 20) that when the library moves to the park, the existing library building will be used by the town for storage & staff offices. Then later this EIR (pp 129-130) rejects use of the existing library because it needs seizmic upgrades of 5 types.
Both cannot be correct. This EIR is flawed.
Added points:
Our council, the council's library committee, and the Almanac editor seem to favor putting the library in the park. If we are allowed to vote, I fear we who oppose putting our only library in our only park will not be heard by uninvolved Athertonians who are probably the majority.
Access to the park is via one street (Watkins) and one entrance. Access to our existing library is via 5 or 6 alternative routes.
Our council, mostly lawyers or real estate developers, opposes a vote because it can only make them neutral or foolish. A vote against lib-in-park would show our council wasted the high cost of the EIR.
- Thomas A. Croft, Ph.D. 76 Moulton Drive Atherton
P.S. Thanks to many of you for helpful comments and to my wife Rachel, the best editor I ever encountered, a version of my earlier email has been sent to Lisa Costa Sanders which makes it official, they say:
P.S. Thanks to many of you for helpful comments and to my wife Rachel, the best editor I ever encountered, a version of my earlier email has been sent to Lisa Costa Sanders which makes it official, they say:
Saturday, March 31, 2012
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
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
From: Suzanne Mohan
Date: March 31, 2012 1:29:38 PM PDT
To: Colleen Anderson
Cc: Bill Widmer
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"
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
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
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
From: Colleen Anderson
Date: March 28, 2012 10:39:07 PM PDT
To: Atherton lunch lunch group
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
Thursday, March 15, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)