HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-06 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting
CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers
September 6, 2011
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are
available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
1 September 6, 2011
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 CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Call to Order
Closed Session
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
1.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY --EXISTING LITIGATION
Subject: International Association of Fire Fighters,
Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto,
Public Employee Relations Board
Case No. SF-CE-869-M
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela
Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott,
Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 2785 Park Blvd., Assessors Parcel No. 147-08-052
Negotiating Party: Essex Park Boulevard, LLC
City Negotiators: James Keene, Steve Emslie, Lalo Perez
Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 2747 Park Blvd., Assessors Parcel No. 132-31-071
Negotiating Party: Brown Fairchild-Park Investment Company, L.P.
City Negotiators: James Keene, Steve Emslie, Lalo Perez
Subject of Potential Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
2 September 6, 2011
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 CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Special Orders of the Day
2.Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission
for One Unexpired Term Ending on January 31, 2014.
City Manager Comments
Minutes Approval
Approval of Minutes for June 20, June 27, 2011, and July 11, July 18, 2011
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
3.Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Comment Letter to the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) Regarding Caltrain Electrification Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
4.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to
Execute a Title 16 Grant Funding Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation
for Planning and Environmental Studies for the Proposed Recycled Water
Project to Serve the Stanford Research Park
5.2nd READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Dissolving the Palo Alto
Redevelopment Agency (First Reading July 25, 2011 PASSED 8-0 Schmid
absent)
6.Approval of Contract Amendment No. 18 Extending the Term of the Rail
Shuttle Bus Administration Agreement With the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board Through 6/30/2012 and Increasing the Cumulative Expenditure
Limit by $50,000 for a total of $2,825,264
3 September 6, 2011
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 CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
7.2nd READING: Adoption of an Ordinance for a Zone Change of a 1,565 Square
Foot Parcel From PF (Public Facility) to ROLM (Research Office Limited
Manufacturing) at 200 San Antonio Avenue (First Reading August 1, 2011-
PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff Absent)
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
8.Consideration of Development Center Blueprint Recommendations and
Actions
9.Approval of the Recommended City Positions for the 2011 League of California
Cities Resolutions
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You
are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
4 September 6, 2011
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 CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk
Informational Report
City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary First Quarter Sales (January -March
2011)
Notice of Vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Public Art
Commission, and the Storm Drain Oversight Commission.
Public Letters to Council
Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk
Supplemental Information
Updated: 8/30/20115:01 PM by Donna Grider Page 2
'_J"""")
",,';~;...""
-'-.. ,!!,;;¥",'
Attachment: Library Advisory Commission Applications (2030: Library Advisory Commission Interview Selection)
• ) ')
• Are you a Pale) Alto Resident?
• Do you have anyreIatives ormembers of your household who are employedbyibe C~ of
Palo Alto, who are cummtly serving on the 'City Council, or who are board members or
commissioners?
• Are you available and committed to «:ODlplete the term. applied for?
• , California state Jaw requireS appointed board I!Dd commission members to file a detailed
disclosUre of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices COmmission, Conflict of
IntereSt, Form 700, Do you have an investment hi, or dO you serye as an ofticieror director
o( a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is Hkely to; 1) engage in
business with the City, 2) provide products or services for C~ projects, or 3) be affected
by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?
q~, answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney bifore ftlmgthis
application. Please contact the City Attorney's OffIce at 650-329-2171,
• Excluding yom principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or wi1hin two
miles of Palo Alto? '
EMPLOYMENT
x --,
x
x
x
x --, ,
~ , Pre. or last employer ' , OA {).:5; D '
Occupation: , Slo9Tao Chinese Radio StatioI') Name of Company: Radio Host, Substitute Teacher
I ' , '(If retired, indicate former occupation)
signature of Applicant
Bds/Commissions -702-23 7/18/2011
-c o :g
CD Gi UJ
~ '~
.! .5
c o 'iii I/) 'E
E o o
~ o I/) 'S;
~
~ f! J:I'
::J
I/) c o ~ ,~
Q.
Il. <C c o 'iii
I/) 'E
E o o
~ o I/) ~
~
f! J:I
::J .. c CD E .c u ~
,
CAUFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT C(,_ )SECTION 6250-6270: http://www.leginfo.cc. . _ Jv
6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official
on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.
(b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or apPointed official, or of the
official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to
cause imminent great boc;illy harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause Imminent great bodily harm to that
Individual. A violation of this subdivision .
Is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily Injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or
child, Is a misdemeanor or a felony.
(c) (1) (A) No person, bUSiness, or aSSOCiation shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or
telephone number of any elected or appointed official If that official .has made a written demand of that person, bUSiness, or
association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone .
number.
(8) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature,
a city council, or a board of supervisors shall Include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of
any person residing at the official's home address.
(C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of
whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period.
(D) (i) A person, bUSiness, or association that receives the. written demand of an elected or appointed offiCial pursuant to
this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, klcluding
information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall. continue
to ensure that this Information is not reposted on the same Internet Web Site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site
maintained by the recipient of the written demand. .
(Ii) After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, business,or association shall not transfer
the appointed or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, bUSiness, or aSSOciation through
any other medium. .
(iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities
Code, or Its affiliate, from transferring the elected· or appOinted official's home address or telephone number to any person,
bUSiness, or association, If the transfer Is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary In the
event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or apPOinted official to the telephone corporation or Its
affiliate.· .
(E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly· post" or "publicly display· means to Intentionally communIcate or otherwise
make available to the general public. .
(2) An official whose home addressor telephone number Is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (l) may
bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation
has
occurred, It may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be Imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or
declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph.
(3) An elected or appOinted official may designate In writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any
voluntary professional association of Similar offiCials to act, on behalf of that offiCial, as that official's agent with regard·to
making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall
Include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home
address. .
(d) (1) No person, bUSiness, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone
number of an elected or appointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person
residing at the official's home address.
(2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is SOliCited, sold, or traded in
violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation
has occurred, It shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages. but in
no case less than four .
thousand dollars ($4,000).
(e) An Interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States
Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm
that Is likely to occur or threatens to cause Imminent great bodily harm to an
elected or appointed official.
(f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appOinted offiCial" Includes, but Is not limited to, all of the fOllowing:
(1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court commissioners, (4) District attorneys,
(5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city council, (7) Members of a board of superviSOrs, (8) Appointees. of the Governor,
(9) Appointees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs, (13) A public safety
offidal, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State administrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16)
Mernbers of the United States Congress and apPOintees of the President.
(g) Nothing in this section is Intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code~ or
any other provision of law.
Bds/Commissions -702-23 7/18/2011
Q
M Q
N -Ih c: o .. ca (J
C. Q. «
c: .2 Ih Ih 'E
E o (J
~ o Ih '5O
" «
~
E .a
:.:::i -c: CII E .c:
(J ca ~
Attachment: Library Advisory Commission Applications (2030: Library Advisory Commission Interview Selection)
./
Attachment: Library Advisory Commission Applications (2030: Library Advisory Commission Interview Selection)
PETER K. MUELLER, BACKGROUND AS OF 04/1112009
EDUCATION:
Private elementary school, Hannover, Germany 1932-36.
Leibnitz Gymansium,Hannover, Gennany, 1936-38 .
. Private tutor, Wupperthal, Germany, 1938-39.
Whykham House Preparatory School, Worthing, England, 1939-40~
Home group tutor, Little Paxton, England, 1940-42.
Gregg Secretarial School, London, England, 1942.
Matriculation to University o'f London, Regent Street Polytechnic, London,
England, 1943-44.
Chemistry and history courses, American U, Washington DC, 1945.
Medical,& Surgical Technician, US AimySchool, San Antonio, TX, 1946.
Mathematics ~rrespondence course, 1946. . .
BS, Cheinistry, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1950
MS~ Environmental Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 1953 .
PhD,Environmental Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 1955
POSITIONS HELD:
2001-present,Principal, TropoChem,
Advisor to. and participant in on-going atmospheric science study and
publication enterprises:
Reviewer and author about historic air quality studies and topics.
Participant in academic endeavors.
Volunteer at a Redwood City, CA, middle school tutoring math and conducting
laboratory science classes weekly.
Coordinator RE-SEED, Silicon Valley, see www.reseed-sv.org
1980 -2000 Started as Project Manager, Environmental Physics and Chemistry and
ended as Program Manager, Atmospheric Sciences, Electric Power Research Institute
[EPRI],Palo Alto, CA.
EPRI conducted its research via utilization of researchers and staff leading in their
fields. The EPRI philosophy for atmospheric sciences was to seek comprehensive
understanding of several topics. My role was to conceptualize, implement science .
programs and projects to lead multi-year regional observational air quality, visibility and
precipitation quality studies, to communicate findings . and to maintain fuD.ding with the
aims of ultimately quantifying how various soUrces· of emissions are related to exposure
at any location, and the relative importance of power plant emissions in context of all
other anthropogenic, biogeochemical and geophysical cycles. .
A brief of major ~chievements, for which documentation is lis~ed in the .
attachment; follows.
1
(I) c o ; cu ,~ Q.
Q. <C c o 'iii
(I) 'E
E o o
~ o (I)' .:;
'tJ <C
~ cu ..
~ .c ::i .. c
". ~
.c u ~
) )
Completed reporting of the Sulfate Regional Experiment [1974-81] and
associated studies. These established for Northeastern America multi-year, seasonally
and diurnally resolved observations about the intersecting influences of synoptic
meteorological events, chemical and physical transformations of S02 andNOx
emissions and products, and a complex model, diagnostically tested with the
observations, for simulating regional scale influence of interacting emissions and events
on air quality, visibility and deposition.
Led 9-year observational studies [1981-90] designed to characterize air quality
measures and visibility with the major focus on the greater Western USA. An extensive
network of stations took daily optical and aerosol mass and chemistry measurements for
2 years at disparate locations. The study revealed that major aerosol components in the
particle size range influencing visibility were soil dust, carbonaceous material and
ammonium sulfate and nitrate. This demonstrated importance of carbon and nitrates led
to revisions in widespread air quality ~onitoring practices. The study also discovered that
a then widely used teleradiometric measurement of visual range did pot relate predictably
to visibility reduction by aerosols which wll;s therefore replaced by measurements of
extinction. Subsequently I led a 7-year study in which several private and public
organizations participated with a focus on factors, including the measurement processes,
influencing aerosols and visibility within the Golden Circle of National Parks. It served
as a proving ground for new observational procedure and for characterizing the lowest
and highest visibility periods. During this period we established how to relate instrument
measured visibility to the perception of vistas by humans. Overall these decade-plus .
observational studies provided the air quality information needed to establish source-
receptor models that were applied regionally in the management of emissions to design
. and achieve visual air quality specifications.
Via the Utility Acid Precipitation Study Program [UAPSP] managed the creation,
operation and science involved in continuing and expanding a prior 2-year monitoring
network to establish trends in precipitation chemistry across Northeastern America during
a 9-year period [1979-87] while power plant S02 emissions were being reduced. A
decade of high-quality measurements established inter-regional and inter-annual
baselines for subsequent evaluations of S02 and NOx emission reductions,
Sponsored a 5-year study [1981-86] of how clouds process air pollutants. The
findings on gas-aqueous reactions and mass-transport have been included in the design of
air quality models, and in textbooks on atmospheric science.
Led investigations of the following urban air quality issues:
Denver CQ, Metro Denver Brown Cloud, 1987.,88. As participant in a 45-day
collaborative source apportionment study during which coal burning was cycled with
gas-burning study participants showed that highest priority emission reductions should be
focused on residential wood burning and motor vehicle emissions.
Denver CO, Northern Front Range [NFR] Air Quality Study, 1996-97. Problem
2
-c o t;
Q)
Cii UJ
~ .~
Q) -c
c .2
III III 'E
E o o
~ o III '> ~
~ f! .0 :J
Q
C")
Q
N -III C o .. ns .~
Q. c. « c .2 III III 'E
E o o
~ o III '> ~
~ ns ... .0
:J
.;.: c Q)
E .r: CJ ns ~
')
University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Established pathway' for methane formation from fats during anaerobic biological
waste treatment.
1950 -53 Research Assistant, same affiliation, developed reverse phase chromatograpltic
method for analysis of fatty acids and a spot-test for analysis of sulfides in rivers and
applied it to ,surveys.
1947 -50 Temporary positions as sales person, chauffeur, truck driver.
1945 -46 Medical and Surgical Technician and Instructor, US Aimy, Ft. Sam Houston,
San Antonio, TX. ' ,
, ,
1946 Assistant, part time, Post Library, US Army, Ft. S~ Houston, San Antonio, TX.
1945 Film Technician, Eastman Kodak, Washington, DC.
1942:-43 Chemistry Apprentice, Schoen Cosmetics, Ltd., London, England.
ORGANIZATIONS (CURRENT)
Air & Waste Management Association [charter officer of APCA Mid-Atlantic
States section] ; American ChemicaI Society; American Association for the Advancement
of Science; American Geophysical Union; American Meteorological Society.
PUBLIC AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES:
Research Grant Advisory Committees for various U.S. Government agencies'
(periodically 1965-2000).
Friends, Walnut Creek, CA public library system, board of directors, president (-1970~
72) " '
Parks commission, City of Walnut Creek, CA, golf course, etc. (-1968-70)'
National Bureau of Standards (now NIST), Environmental Measurements Program
AdVisory Committee, Chairman. (-1970-72)
National Academy of Sciences Committees on Air QUality Topics (periodically 1972-76)
California Air Resources Board Ozone Measurements AdVisory Committee(1974-75)
University: of California at Berkeley and at Irvine Lectureships (1971 & 1974);"
6
o C") c ('II -
.;.: c CD, E' ..c u ~
University of California at Los Angeles, Science Advisory Board for Research on
Intennedia Transport (1975).
Ontario Ministry for the Environment, Scientific Peer Review Panel for Regional Air
Quality Development (1976-77).
Technical Committees and Peer Review Panel, National Acid Deposition Program (1985-
87).
California Air Resources Board, Advisory Committee for Atmospheric Modeling Center
(1988-89).
SJAQS/AUSPEX Policy Committee Member (1985-2000; ad hoc advisor (2000-current)
Governor's Office, State of Colorado, Advisory on Brown Cloud Issues (1988 to 1993)
Committee for Environment and Natural Resources, Air Science (ad hoc).
National Strategy for Research on Tropospheric Ozone [now NARSTO], Organizer &
co-chainnan of Executive Steering Committee (1996-98], member 1996-2005, advising
member, 2006 -current.
Redwood City, CA, school system, middle school volunteer science & mathematics .
teacher (current)
Coordinator RE-SEED, Silicon Valley, [group that trains and provides science teaching
volunteers, www.reseed-sv.org]
Santa Clara County, CA, poll worker (2000-current)
. PUBLICATIONS:
See separate chronological and topic listings of authored and co-authored,...., 170 .
documents. The topics are grouped according to measurement methods, processes and
atmospheric characteristics, exposure studies, and overviews.
PERSONAL:
. Home & work address:
3801 Magnolia Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306-3232·
650 856-1255 (home)
6503036893 (mobile)
7
Q
(")
Q
("II -f/)
s::::: o .. co "~ Q.. c.. «
s:::::
"2 f/)
f/)
"e
E o o
~ o
f/) "S;
"0 «
~ e ..c ::::i
j
) )
pklausm@comcast.net
Family: 1 spouse, 3· daughters, 4 grandchildren, 2 adopted grandchildren, 1 great-
grandson, 2 step-sons, 4 step-grandchildren, 2 adopted step-grandchildren.
August 2006 .
8
o C") o N -
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2015)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/6/2011
September 06, 2011 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 2015)
Summary Title: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board letter
Title: Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Comment Letter to the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) Regarding Caltrain Electrification Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) Chair, Sean Elsbernd.
Executive Summary
The City Council Rail Committee (Rail Committee) reviewed this item at their July 28, 2011meeting, and
unanimously voted to forward the letter to the City Council for approval and action.
Background and Discussion
The Rail Committee has spent considerable time meeting over the past several months with Samtrans
(i.e., Caltrain) policy and technical staff. The Rail Committee also received technical data analysis from
RMT, Inc. on the Caltrain Electrification Program Final EIR. RMT, Inc. is the City’s planning and
environmental consultant on rail matters (i.e., both high speed rail and general rail matters). A copy of
RMT, Inc.’s review comments on the Final EIR and comments on traffic issues is provided for review, and
will be attached to the letter being sent to Mr. Elsbernd. RMT, Inc.’s letter calls out a number of issues
and deficiencies in the Caltrain Electrification Final EIR that has been published but not certified. It is the
Rail Committee’s recommendation, supported by internal staff and RMT, Inc., that the PCJPB update and
recirculate the Draft EIR document for review and comment prior to considering certification of the Final
EIR.
Attachments:
·09.06.11 -Attachment, Caltrain Final EIR draft letter (DOC)
·09.06.11 -Attachment, Caltrain Final EIR DRAFT review outline -traffic comments (DOC)
·09.06.11 -Attachment, RMT, Inc. Letter on Caltrain Final EIR DRAFT (DOCX)
September 06, 2011 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 2015)
Prepared By:Rob Braulik, Project Manager
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
DRAFT
September 7, 2011
Sean Elsbernd, Chair
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB)
P.O. Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
Subject: Caltrain Electrification Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certification
Dear Chair Elsbernd and Board Members:
The City Council Rail Committee has met several times this spring and summer with technical
and non-technical staff from Samtrans to better understand the technical details associated
with the future modernization of the Caltrain line. Seamus Murphy, Marian Lee, Stacy Cooke,
Liria Larano and others have been most helpful to the City Council Rail Committee by providing
information and answering questions about the project. Meetings between City and PCJPB staff
continue.
The City has gone on record several times to support Caltrain operations. Caltrain is a vital
transportation service in our community and the region as a whole. The City recognizes that the
modernization of Caltrain is critical to its long-term viability; however, City staff has a number of
concerns regarding the PCJPB’s plan to certify the existing Final EIR. The City’s recommendations
and concerns are summarized here with more detail contained in the technical planning
consultant report from RMT, Inc., attached and incorporated herein for reference.
As discussed in more detail in the RMT, Inc. report,the City’s concerns include:
·The City requests that, at a minimum,the Final EIR be re-circulated as a Draft EIR for
public review and comment. Information from the original Draft EIR has not been open
to public review for seven years, the new information added to the 2009 Final EIR has
never been subject to public review, and the additional information, studies, and
analyses that is being requested by the City should be subject to public review and
comment.
·A substantial portion of the data used in the Final EIR is out of date, particularly in the
hazards and hazardous materials, historical and cultural resources, and biological
resource analyses. The City requests that revised data be gathered to replace the
outdated information contained in the Final EIR.
·The mitigation measures provided in the Final EIR are incomplete, vague, and have not
been demonstrated to provide sufficient mitigation to significant impacts, particularly in
regard to aesthetic, noise, and traffic impacts. The City requests that Caltrain revise the
Final EIR to include mitigation measures that can be shown to mitigate project impacts
to a less than significant level, and requests that Caltrain acknowledge any significant
and unavoidable project impacts.
·The City requests that the Caltrain EIR alternatives analysis include an option for longer
station platforms and longer trains to accommodate ridership,instead of an increased
frequency of train trips.The City believes this alternative would be environmentally
superior by reducing noise and traffic impacts of increased train trips, and provide a
service benefit that focuses on the majority of Caltrain’s ridership,as opposed to
focusing benefits on all Caltrain stations including those stations with lower ridership.
·The City requests that Caltrain revise its ridership projections to reflect average
passenger load instead of maximum passenger load. The City believes Caltrain is
inflating ridership projections. A more accurate projection would result in a project with
a smaller increase in daily train trips,and possibly a reduction in the number of new
train cars required.
·The City requests that Caltrain further analyze the impacts to aesthetics, noise,
vibration, and traffic (see attached 08/25/2011 comments on traffic issues prepared by
Palo Alto staff). The City believes the project involves significant impacts to these topics
that are not adequately analyzed in the Final EIR. The City requests revisions to the
utilities analysis and the addition of a greenhouse gas analysis, which is currently
missing altogether in the Final EIR.
We appreciate your review of this letter and its attachments and look forward to your response
to the issues and concerns identified. The City believes the PCJPB will have a much better EIR
that adequately addresses potential environment impacts and mitigation measures if the board
recirculates the Final EIR for public comment and review.
Sincerely yours,
Sidney Espinosa
Mayor
c:Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Manager
Seamus Murphy, Manager of Government Affairs, Samtrans Peninsula Rail
Marian Lee, Chief Planning Official, Samtrans Peninsula Rail
Attachments
08/25/2011 Comments on Traffic Issues Prepared by Palo Alto Staff
8/25/2011 RMT, Inc. Comments on the Caltrain Electrification Program Final EIR
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\BMINOR\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\MINUTETRAQ\PALOALTOCITYCA@PALOALTOCITYCA.IQM2.COM
Palo Alto –Caltrain Electrification Final EIR Review
Comments on Traffic Issues Prepared by City of Palo Alto Staff
August 25, 2011
Traffic
The EIR discusses the following Caltrain benefits from electrification over diesel-powered trains
in addition to air quality benefits from reduced automobile use through the region:
n Travel time savings of 1 to 8 minutes for Caltrain operations as a result of trains
accelerating and decelerating faster due to electrification, and
n A possible increase in service from 5 trains to 6 trains per peak hour per direction
The EIR briefly and inadequately evaluates impacts to local transportation systems. Within the
City of Palo Alto, the following transportation related items should be further evaluated and
mitigated if appropriate:
Alma Street Corridor Traffic Operations
Traffic signals along arterials such as Alma Street operate most efficiently when “Coordination”
is used to synchronize the start of green traffic lights at each intersection to help maintain
vehicle progression along the corridor. When Coordination is interrupted by railroad
preemption, traffic signals take approximately 4 cycles to transition back into Coordination.
Under existing conditions,Coordination along Alma Street operates inefficiently due to the 5
trains per peak-hour per direction frequency. An increase to 6 trains per peak hour results in an
additional 8 cycles impacted by railroad preemption, eliminating the opportunity to sustain
Coordinated signal operations along Alma Street without grade-separation improvements.This
creates a significant impact to traffic along Alma that is not addressed in the EIR.
The development of a Traffic Signal Coordination Plan and Operations Analysis should be
added as feasible mitigation to help minimize impacts from enhanced and expanded Caltrain
operations. The traffic signal operations analysis should evaluate traffic signal phasing
operations that may potentially reduce community impacts. For example, the analysis should
evaluate whether lagging versus leading left-turn movements along Alma Street may help to
better sustain roadway operations along Alma Street. Following the development of the Traffic
Signal Coordination Plan and Operations Analysis, the development of traffic signal retiming
plans would be required to implement the recommended operations changes of the analysis.
Traffic Signal Preemption Enhancements
The EIR discusses the need for Signal System modification or replacement, “particularly in
locations where multiple grade crossings are in close proximity”. RMT understands that Signal
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\BMINOR\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\MINUTETRAQ\PALOALTOCITYCA@PALOALTOCITYCA.IQM2.COM
Systems as discussed within the EIR refer to railroad gate arm operations, not Traffic Signals
used to control intersections.
Signal Systems and Traffic Signals operate independently from one another, with the Signal
Systems preempting Traffic Signal operations through a hardwire interconnect system. Signal
System upgrades were recently completed by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in
July 2011 for Caltrain as part of the VTA Railroad Safety Program, including a new hardwire
interconnection system. When the Signal Systems notify Traffic Signals that a train is
approaching an intersection, this action is known as “preemption”,and the “preemption
sequence” implemented by the Traffic Signal clears conflicting vehicle traffic from the railroad
tracks and maintains concurrent vehicle operations until the preemption request is terminated
by the Signal System.
The time that passes from the notification of preemption to the arrival of a train at an
intersection is determined by two factors:
n Train Speed, and
n Placement of Detection Systems within the Trackway to the Grade-Crossing
Intersection
Train speed changes beyond the enhanced ability for trains to accelerate and decelerate are not
discussed within the EIR. This is a potentially significant safety impact that would result from
enhanced Caltrain operations through an electrified system, and should be further discussed to
determine the need for enhanced preemption detection and identification of appropriate
mitigation.
The VTA Railroad Safety Program provides a new 4-wire interconnection system for Caltrain to
replace the previous 2-wire interconnection system. The 4-wire system only provides additional
redundancy in circuitry, but no time-notification benefit in terms of preemption to help the
Traffic Signal remove conflicting vehicle movements from the Caltrain trackway earlier. Only a
modification of the Caltrain Detection System can provide earlier warning to the Traffic Signal
that a train is approaching through the installation of detection systems farther away from each
intersection. The installation of additional detection systems within the Caltrain trackway is
known as “Advanced Preemption”. Advanced Preemption provides earlier notification to the
Traffic Signal so that conflicting vehicle movements are cleared before the start of Flashing Red
Lights from the Signal System. The EIR does not contain a discussion regarding the need for
Advanced Preemption or its safety benefits under an enhanced electrification operation for
Caltrain. The EIR should be modified to address this need and identify appropriate mitigation,
including Traffic Signal modification mitigation to PreSignal designs along with quad-gate
system modifications to the Signal System,to help implement Advanced Preemption operations
along the Alma Street railroad crossings.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\BMINOR\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\MINUTETRAQ\PALOALTOCITYCA@PALOALTOCITYCA.IQM2.COM
Pedestrian Accessibility
The EIR indicates that some trees and other vegetation would be trimmed or removed as part of
the installation of centenary systems to sustain electrification operations. The trimming of
existing vegetation provides an opportunity to introduce joint-use trail alignments through the
City of Palo Alto similar to the trail that traverses the border between the existing Caltrain
tracks and Palo Alto High School. The EIR does not contain a discussion of this type of public
benefit or opportunity.
RMT suggests that the EIR be modified to introduce trail opportunities as feasible mitigation to
tree and vegetation impacts that result from the electrification system. The use of such trails also
introduces the opportunity for the installation of a tunnel to help connect the neighborhoods in
south Palo Alto that are currently divided by the Caltrain facilities.
The feasible mitigation to conduct an operations analysis of the Alma Street Corridor should
also include the development of a Plan Line Study to also improve pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity on and along the at-grade railroad crossing at Churchill Avenue, East Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road. The City of Palo Alto may be able to help facilitate community
outreach for the Plan Line Study to ensure that the communities living along the Alma Street
and Caltrain corridors have ample opportunities to participate in the study process.
4 West Fourth Avenue,Suite 303 ·San Mateo,CA 94402 ·(650)373-1200 ·(650) 373-1211 FAX ·www.rmtinc.com
August 25, 2011
Mr. Rob Braulik
Deputy Director
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Braulik:
RMT, Inc. (RMT) has reviewed the three volumes of the Caltrain Electrification Program
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). Specifically, RMT has focused its review on the potential visual and noise
impacts, particularly of the proposal paralleling station (PS-5) proposed within the Caltrain
right-of-way directly across Alma Street from the Greenmeadows neighborhood. The results
of this review are summarized in the following outline.
RMT and City of Palo Alto staff met with Caltrain staff on August 4th to discuss the draft
comments contained a previous version of this letter. At this time, Caltrain staff has indicated
that there is not yet a confirmed date for when the EIR will be going before Caltrain’s Board
for review and certification.
General Comments Regarding the Age of Information in the EIR
The Caltrain Electrification Program Draft EIR was first circulated in April and May of 2004.
Comments were received on the Draft EIR during this public review period, and Caltrain
issued a Final EIR in July 2009. The Final EIR contains responses to comments on the Draft
EIR, as well as new and updated information gathered since the release of the 2004 Draft EIR.
The content of the Final EIR is now between two and seven years old, which means that some
of the information contained in the document is dated. The content of the Final EIR has also
not been subject to public review for more than seven years, which represents an excessive
amount of time between the preparation of the Draft EIR and the certification of a Final EIR.
The new information included in the Final EIR has also never been subject to public review
and comment.
Mr. Rob Braulik
City of Palo Alto
August 25, 2011
Page 2
The age of the majority of the data in the Final EIR is likely adequate for CEQA purposes, but
some information in the Final EIR is now out of date and should be revised and recirculated
for public comment. The impact discussions that are the most out of date include hazards
and hazardous materials, historic and cultural resources, biological resources, and traffic and
transportation.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The hazards and hazardous materials section could be considered considerably out of date. A
substantial portion of a hazards and hazardous materials discussion is based on the findings
of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). When a Phase I ESA is performed, it is
generally considered valid for a period of 6 months. The relatively short “shelf life” of a
Phase I ESA is due to the fact that hazardous materials may be dumped on a site after the
Phase I ESA is performed, and other off-site hazards (such a groundwater plume of
hazardous materials) may be discovered subsequent to the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA’s
performed for this project were all done in 2002, and so they are substantially out of date.
Caltrain updated the EIR by performing additional research, including database research and
a walking tour of the proposed traction power facility sites, in 2007 and 2008. This additional
work is now also considered out of date. RMT recommends that new Phase I ESA’s be
performed for all of the traction power facility sites prior to any earth moving activities.
The MMRP indicates under Mitigation Measure HWM-1 that the Joint Powers Board (JPB)
will prepare a focused Phase II site investigation at specific TPS station sites. RMT
recommends that this mitigation measure be revised to require preparation of a Phase II ESA
at all of the paralleling station locations prior to any earth moving activities.
Biological Resources
Biological resources can change over time as species migrate into or out of an area. The
Caltrain right-of-way is marginal habitat for most species of concern along the majority of its
length, so such migration is perhaps less likely to occur in this area. Caltrain prepared three
biological reports in 2008 to update the EIR, and these reports appear to be current enough
for CEQA purposes. RMT believes that the biological information contained in the Final EIR
is likely current enough to not warrant fresh studies; however, should Caltrain delay
certification into 2012 or beyond, RMT recommends updating the biological studies in the
EIR. RMT also notes that Mitigation Measures BR-1 and BR-2 would require preparation of a
Vegetation Management Plan and preconstruction surveys for specific special-status species,
Mr. Rob Braulik
City of Palo Alto
August 25, 2011
Page 3
and acknowledges that these two mitigation measures should be sufficient to address
potential impacts to biological resources.
Traffic and Transportation
The traffic and transportation analysis in the Final EIR is based on 2004 traffic data. Traffic
has grown in the City of Palo Alto by an average of 2 percent a year, and thus traffic loads in
2011 are significantly greater than they were in 2004. The EIR should be revised to reflect
current traffic loads and patterns in the City of Palo Alto, and to update the impact analysis
based on current traffic data.
RMT would also note that the design features and mitigation measures in the MMRP to
address traffic impacts only address construction traffic impacts and operation parking
impacts, and do not address operational impacts to traffic.
General Comments Regarding Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures mentioned throughout the analysis sections of the document are not
numbered or otherwise clearly identified, and only vague language is used to indicate what
the mitigation measures might be. The only location in the Final EIR where there is any
organized list of the measures is in Table S-1, but even here, the mitigation language is
excessively vague and does not contain any specifics. In some cases, the language used
doesn’t appear to have anything to do with mitigation.
Caltrain has attempted to rectify the paucity of mitigation measure language in the EIR itself
by preparing a separate MMRP. The MMRP identifies project design features and mitigation
measures that are intended to address the project’s potential impacts. The measures in the
MMRP provide more specificity and clarity than the measures in the EIR. The measures
under the impact topics of Aesthetics and Noise and Vibration, however, frequently contain
the language “where possible” or “to the extent feasible”. It is therefore unclear if these
measures will be sufficient to mitigate visual and noise impacts, as sufficient analysis and
evidence has not been provided to indicate the efficacy of these measures and whether or not
they would be feasible.
Alternatives
Caltrain is focusing on project alternatives that involve an increase in the number of daily
train trips in order to accommodate projected increases in ridership. An alternative that does
Mr. Rob Braulik
City of Palo Alto
August 25, 2011
Page 4
not appear to have been considered by Caltrain is increasing the platform size at stations so
that they could accommodate longer trains. The use of longer trains could accommodate the
same ridership projections but with fewer train trips, which would reduce the noise and
traffic impacts that would result from an increase in the number of daily trains. RMT
recommends that this alternative be analyzed in the EIR.
Ridership Projections
Caltrain’s 2010 Ridership Study indicated that weekday capacity utilization averaged
39 percent, with a lower utilization on the weekends. However, Caltrain’s method of
calculating this utilization reflects a maximum utilization, not an average utilization, as it
calculates the ridership load at the station with the maximum passenger load. Caltrain
should use the average utilization figures to determine future ridership projections. Accurate
ridership projections could result in a smaller increase in daily train trips, which would
translate to a reduction in traffic and noise impacts.
Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Paralleling Station (PS-5)
The EIR describes the seven proposed paralleling stations as having a footprint of
approximately 40 feet by 80 feet. Paralleling station PS-5 would be located in the City of
Mountain View within the Caltrain right-of-way, directly across Alma Street from residences
in the Greenmeadow neighborhood of Palo Alto. The EIR correctly states that the clearing of
existing vegetation and construction of the PS-5 paralleling station would create a significant
visual impact for the nearby residential neighbors. This portion of the Caltrain right-of-way
paralleling Alma Street is characterized by a largely unbroken wall of mature vegetation that
currently effectively screens the majority of Caltrain’s facilities, including the trains
themselves, from view of the residential neighbors across Alma Street. The removal of an 80-
foot-long portion of this vegetation and the construction of a paralleling station would be a
significant and negative visual change to the neighborhood.
The EIR states that replacement landscaping would be used to reduce this negative impact to
an acceptable level, and references the photo simulation in Figure 3.1-4. The replacement
vegetation shown in this simulation appears grossly inadequate to screen this new
paralleling station from view, and also does little to replace the 80-foot-long hole that would
Mr. Rob Braulik
City of Palo Alto
August 25, 2011
Page 5
be cut into the existing wall of mature vegetation in order to construct PS-5. The EIR needs to
either demonstrate that replacement vegetation or other mitigation methods, such as
camouflage painting or artistic treatment, can be provided that more adequately screens the
new PS-5 facility from view, or acknowledge that this visual impact is significant and
unavoidable. The Final EIR currently acknowledges an “adverse” visual impact, but does not
provide a conclusion regarding the significance of this impact after implementation of
mitigation measures.
RMT also recommends that Caltrain consider locating the paralleling station a short distance
to the south of the current location. The currently proposed location is across from the
entrance to the Greenmeadow neighborhood, and a location to the south would make the
paralleling station less readily visible to the neighborhood.
Catenary System
The EIR needs to provide greater detail on aesthetic treatments for the catenary system to
address the visual impacts of this new element. The proposed catenary system could have a
significant visual impact depending on the design of the system, particularly since existing
mature screening vegetation will be trimmed and removed as part of the proposed project.
The EIR also needs to discuss additional mitigation measures to address the visual impacts of
the new catenary system and removal of existing vegetation, such as providing replacement
landscaping or constructing a sound wall to address both visual and noise impacts.
Cultural Resources
Greenmeadow Neighborhood
The Greenmeadows neighborhood, located across Alma Street from the proposed location of
PS-5, received historic status in 2005. Caltrain staff indicated at the August 4th meeting that
the portion of the Greenmeadow subdivision given historic status in the National Register is
outside the project’s area of effect regarding cultural resources. RMT recommends that
Caltrain revise the EIR to clearly indicate that the historic portion of the Greenmeadow
neighborhood is outside the project’s area of effect for cultural resources.
Mr. Rob Braulik
City of Palo Alto
August 25, 2011
Page 6
Noise and Vibration
Horn Noise versus Rail Noise
The EIR explains in considerable detail how the replacement of diesel locomotives with
electric-power rail cars would reduce the operational rail noise of the Caltrain system, but
does not address the increase in horn noise resulting from the proposed increase in daily
train trips. All trains are required to sound their horns whenever approaching an at-grade
crossing or a train station, and so an increased number of daily train trips would result in an
increased number of horns blowing per day. The decibel level of the train horns is likely
greater than the rail noise of the existing diesel fleet, and is arguably more jarring and
annoying to neighboring residents and businesses as well.
The EIR needs to acknowledge that the increase in horn noise is a significant impact that
cannot be mitigated unless and until such time as grade separation improvements are in
place and the number of daily horn soundings can be decreased. The mitigation measures
listed on page 3-134 of the Final EIR do not address the increased frequency of horn noise.
Caltrain staff indicated at our August 4th meeting that the replacement of diesel locomotives
with electric-power rail cars would result in a net improvement in noise impacts, even with
the increased number of daily train trips and increased frequency of horn noise. RMT
recommends that Caltrain include this comparative analysis of noise in the EIR.
Freight Train Noise
The EIR does not explain whether the electrification program would result in any changes to
the hours of operation for freight trains in the Caltrain corridor. Freight trains currently
operate in evening and nighttime hours, and must also sound their horns at all stations and
at-grade crossings. Any operational changes that would result in freight train operations
being pushed from evening hours into nighttime hours could exacerbate the impacts of horn
and rail noise on nearby residents. The EIR should discuss any potential changes to freight
train operations as a result of the electrification process, and address any impacts that could
result from changes to freight train operations. Caltrain staff indicated at the August 4th
meeting that the EIR assumes no change in freight train operations, and RMT recommends
that this assumption be clearly stated in the EIR.
Paralleling Station (PS-5) Noise
The EIR indicates that the effect of paralleling station noise is dependent on the station layout
and the distance of equipment from the property line. The EIR further indicates that the
Mr. Rob Braulik
City of Palo Alto
August 25, 2011
Page 7
actual configuration of each station would be determined during the final design of the
project.
The EIR acknowledges that paralleling station PS-5 would be located within 150 feet of
residences in the Greenmeadow neighborhood, but does not quantify what level of noise
these neighbors would experience, nor indicate whether the noise impact on these neighbors
would be significant. Table 3.11-5 provides typical noise levels for substation and paralleling
station equipment. Based on the noise levels provided in this table, it would appear likely
that the operational noise from the PS-5 paralleling station would have a significant impact
on the nearby residences, particularly during nighttime hours.
Mitigation Measure NV-1 from the MMRP states that paralleling station noise levels will be
required to comply with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) national
standards and guidelines for electrical power facilities. RMT recommends that either the EIR
or the MMRP provide examples of measures that can be taken to effectively reduce
paralleling station noise (such as noise baffling equipment and other sound barriers) to
provide evidence that this measure would be sufficient to reduce the noise impacts from the
PS-5 paralleling station on the nearby residential neighbors to a less than significant level.
Vibration
The EIR indicates that the electrification program would result in a reduction of vibration
impacts on people and structures, but does not explain how this reduction would be
accomplished. The Final EIR does indicate that “self powered electric commuter trains such
as EMU’s would have a vibration impact similar to rapid transit vehicles,” but does not
quantify this vibration impact and compare it to existing conditions. RMT recommends that
the EIR explain how the change from diesel to electric vehicles affects vibration impacts by
quantifying the vibration impact difference between diesel locomotives and electric-powered
rail cars.
Mitigation Measures for Train Noise and Vibration Impacts
The EIR indicates that the switch from diesel locomotives to electric-power rail cars would
reduce the noise and vibration impacts from the movement of train vehicles. The EIR does
not address the increase in horn noise resulting from an increase in daily train trips. RMT
recommends that the EIR explore whether additional measures are available to address and
reduce existing and future train noise, such as alterations to ballasts and tracks. The EIR
should evaluate methods to further reduce rail noise and vibration to help offset the increase
in horn noise. The EIR should also discuss the replacement of windows in residences
Mr. Rob Braulik
City of Palo Alto
August 25, 2011
Page 8
negatively affected by train noise with sound dampening windows as an additional
mitigation measure option.
Greenhouse Gases
The EIR is silent on the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, which is surprising
considering the information in the Final EIR was updated and revised in 2008 when
consideration of GHG impacts had already become standard practice for CEQA documents.
Based on a review of the air quality analysis in the EIR, project operations would likely have
a similarly beneficial impact on GHG emissions as it would on general air quality impacts, as
the project would reduce diesel fuel combustion that contributes to GHG impacts. The GHG
impacts of project construction, however, may be more of a concern. GHG impacts from
project construction need to be addressed in the EIR, and should reference the latest
guidelines from the California Air Resources Board and Bay Area Air Quality Management
District on how to quantify these impacts.
Utilities
The EIR lists the utilities within the Peninsula Corridor right-of-way in Table 3.16-1. The only
utilities identified within the City of Palo Alto on page 3-168 include, “water, electricity, and
cable service,” in addition to standard storm drain and sewer systems. The City of Palo Alto
also has a significant amount of fiber optic communication systems located on and along
Alma Street,including major trunk line networks located on Charleston Road.The EIR
should be modified to include missing utilities within both the EIR discussion and the
improvement plans to ensure that City utilities are not impacted.
Please let me know if RMT can be of further assistance in reviewing the Caltrain
Electrification Program Final EIR.
Sincerely,RMT, Inc.
Jeffrey Smith
Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1969)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/6/2011
September 06, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1969)
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Recycled Water Project Grant Award
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to
Execute a Title 16 Grant Funding Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation for
Planning and Environmental Studies for the Proposed Recycled Water Project to
Serve the Stanford Research Park
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager or his
designee to execute a Title 16 grant funding agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation for a
grant for planning and environmental studies for the planned recycled water project to serve
additional customers, primarily in the Stanford Research Park.
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto (City) has been evaluating an expansion of the existing recycled water
delivery system to provide recycled water to customers located primarily in the Stanford
Research Park. The City has prepared several planning documents to evaluate project
feasibility, and is currently preparing state and federal environmental documents. The City
actively pursues all potential grant funding opportunities, and recently submitted an application
for a planning grant to recover some of the expenses already incurred with the Bureau of
Reclamation, a federal agency that administers Title 16 grants. In late July, the Bureau of
Reclamation notified the City of the grant award. The Bureau of Reclamation’s grant funding
requirements require Council approval of the grant in the form of a resolution authorizing the
execution of a grant funding agreement.
Background
The City has a well developed recycled water program. Phase I of operation began in the early
1980’s with deliveries to the Palo Alto Golf Course, Greer Park, and Emily Renzel Marsh, and for
use at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). In 1992, the City completed a Water
Reclamation Master Plan for the service territory of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) and in 1995, Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) for the regional program. As of June 2010, Phase II of the regional program began
September 06, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1969)
deliveries to end users in the City of Mountain View. With full operation of the Phase I & II
projects, the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View will realize potable water savings of
approximately 2 million gallons per day (MGD), and treated wastewater flows from the RWQCP
to the Bay will drop by an equivalent amount.
Starting in 2006, the City completed a Recycled Water Market Survey (Market Survey) to
update the 1992 Master Plan estimates of potential recycled water use within the City. The
Market Survey included site investigations, market analysis, conceptual project design, and
preparation of preliminary financing and revenue plans.
Following completion of the Market Survey, the City applied for and secured grant funding from
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through the Regional Facilities Planning
Grant Program to initiate preparation of a Facility Plan. The Facility Plan is an integral part of
the process to evaluate a recycled water project and is required for subsequent grant funding
applications. The objectives of the Facility Plan are itemized below:
1.Define recycled water project alternatives and identify a recommended project;
2.Develop a realistic funding strategy; and
3.Develop an implementation strategy.
In June 2008, the SWRCB certified the Facility Plan and the recommended Phase III project to
serve primarily irrigation demands in the Stanford Research Park area. Following completion of
the Facility Plan, the City began preparing environmental documents for the project. Staff
anticipates completing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in spring 2012.
On a parallel track with the Facility Plan and EIR preparation, Utilities Department staff has
been actively pursuing grant funding opportunities for the initial planning and environmental
studies and also for the construction costs for the project. In July 2011, the City applied for a
planning grant from the Bureau of Reclamation. The City has an established relationship with
the Bureau of Reclamation through the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition (BARWC), a group of
water and wastewater agencies that collaborates to seek grant funding for Bay Area recycled
water projects. Through the BARWC, the City has a separate $8.25 million grant application
that is currently pending authorization in Congress.
Discussion
Since completion of the Market Study, the City has spent considerable funds on assessing the
feasibility of the Phase III recycled water project, and more recently is engaged in an
environmental review process with several challenges that have added costs to the original
project estimates. The City has a cumulative approved budget of $717,000 (CMR 207:10), of
which $674,700 constitutes an existing consultant contract with RMC environment for Facility
Plan and EIR preparation, and the remaining $42,300 constitutes budgeted staff time. Staff
anticipates the current consultant budget will be adequate to complete the environmental
documents and comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
September 06, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1969)
The Bureau of Reclamation's water reclamation and reuse program is authorized by the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (Title XVI of Public
Law 102-575, or “Title 16”). Under Title 16, the Bureau of Reclamation works to identify and
investigate opportunities to reclaim and reuse wastewaters and naturally impaired ground and
surface water in the 17 Western States and Hawaii. Title 16 also provides authority for the
Bureau of Reclamation to provide up to 50 percent of the costs of studies to determine the
feasibility of water reclamation and reuse projects.
In response to a grant funding announcement for feasibility and environmental studies, staff
submitted a grant fund application for the Phase III project. The grant conditions cover
retroactive costs to January 2007, as well as costs up to two years after the grant award. Based
on these conditions, staff submitted a grant application covering historical and projected costs
for a total of $340,797. On July 27th, the Bureau of Reclamation provided preliminary
notification to the City that the final grant award will likely be approximately $268,800.
Successful receipt of a grant award requires multiple actions by the City, including a City Council
resolution that meets the criteria below:
Include an official resolution adopted by the applicant’s board of directors or governing
body, or for state government entities, an official authorized to commit the applicant to
the financial and legal obligations associated with receipt of Federal financial assistance,
verifying:
1.The identity of the official with legal authority to enter into agreement
2.The board of directors, governing body, or appropriate official who has reviewed and
supports the application submitted
3.The capability of the applicant to provide the amount of funding and/or in-kind
contributions specified in the funding plan
4.That the applicant will work with (the Bureau of) Reclamation to meet established
deadlines for entering into a cooperative agreement
The grant funding announcement requires submittal of the resolution within 45 days of the
application deadline, or approximately the end of August. Due to the August City Council
adjournment, the Bureau of Reclamation has agreed to allow submittal of the resolution
following the Council’s September 6, 2011 meeting.
Resource Impact
Receipt of the grant will not result in any additional resource impact beyond providing the
necessary substantiation for grant disbursement. Grant receipts will accrue to the Water Fund
and will offset the prior expenditures on the preparation of planning and environmenal
documents. Information from the Bureau of Reclamation indicates the City will receive
$268,800 which will offset costs already incurred and which is a significant portion of the
requested grant amount of $340,797 submitted to the Bureau.
September 06, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1969)
Policy Implications
Activities that promote the continued and expanded use of recycled water are consistent with
Council-adopted Water Integrated Resource Plan Guideline 3: “Actively participate in
development of cost-effective regional recycled water plans.”
The grant is for planning and environmental studies only. Receipt of the grant is not a
commitment on the part of the City to build the planned recycled water project.
Environmental Review
The City is the lead agency under CEQA for the recycled water project to serve the Stanford
Research Park. In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation is the lead agency for the project under
NEPA. Preparation of the Environmental documents is currently underway. Execution of the
grant funding agreement does not require additional environmental review under CEQA or
NEPA.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Resolution -Bureau of Reclamation (PDF)
Prepared By:Nicolas Procos, Senior Resource Planner
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APPROVED*
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto to Approve and
Authorize the Execution of a Title 16 Grant Funding Agreement
with the Federal Bureau of Reclamation Related to the City’s
Recycled Water Project and Authorize City Staff to
Provide Information Required for Receipt of Grant Funds
WHEREAS, in the early 1980’s, the City of Palo (the “City”) developed Phase 1
of the Recycled Water Program (the “Program”), which included deliveries of recycled water
to the Palo Alto Golf Course, Greer Park, and Emily Renzel Marsh, and for use at the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant (“RWQCP”);
WHEREAS, in 2006, after a Recycled Water Market Survey was completed, the
City secured grant funding from the State Water Resources Control Board (the “SWRCB”) to
initiate preparation of a plan to evaluate a recycled water project (the “Facility Plan”);
WHEREAS, in June, 2008, the SWRCB reviewed and certified the City of Palo
Alto’s Facility Plan and the recommended Phase 3 project, (the “Project”), which is intended to
primarily serve the landscape irrigation demand in the Stanford Research Park area;
WHEREAS, after the Facility Plan was certified, the City began preparing the
required environmental documents for the Project, and City Staff anticipates that the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project will be completed in the spring of 2012;
WHEREAS, in June, 2010, Phase 2 of the regional program began recycled water
deliveries to end users in the City of Mountain View which will enable the Cities of Palo Alto
and Mountain View to realize potable water savings of up to two million gallons per day and
reduce waste water flows from the RWQCP to the San Francisco Bay by an equivalent amount;
WHEREAS, through its participation in the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition,
the City has an established relationship with the Federal Bureau of Reclamation (the “Bureau”)
which administers grants through its Water Reclamation and Reuse Program under the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (title XVI of
Public of Public Law 102-575), commonly known as “Title 16”;
WHEREAS, in response to a July 2011 Bureau grant funding announcement for
feasibility and environmental studies, City Staff submitted a grant application to fund part of
the Phase 3 Project costs of $340,797;
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2011, the Bureau provided preliminary notification to the
City that its grant application had been substantially approved and that the final grant award
will be $268,800;
110810 dm 8450001
*NOT YET APPROVED*
WHEREAS, receipt of the grant funds by the City will not result in any additional
resource impact or obligations to the City beyond providing the necessary substantiation for
grant disbursement;
WHEREAS, a prerequisite for the receipt of the grant funds from the Bureau is
that the City execute an agreement between the City and the Bureau (the “Grant Funding
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, to enable the City to accept and receive the grant award, the Bureau
requires that the City Council adopt a resolution which authorizes the City Manager, or his
designee, to execute the Grant Funding Agreement on behalf of the City, and to comply with the
conditions contained in the Grant Funding Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to
negotiate and execute the Title 16 Grant Funding Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation,
and any subsequent amendments thereto, for and on behalf of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. The City Council, through the City Manager, or his designee, has
reviewed the Title 16 Grant Funding Agreement and has determined that its terms are consistent
with the Title 16 grant application submitted by the City.
SECTION 3. In conjunction with the execution of the Title 16 Grant Funding
Agreement, the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to provide to the Bureau, on
behalf of the City, any necessary substantiation and/or related information which may be
required by the Bureau as a condition for disbursement of grant funds.
SECTION 4. The City has the capability to provide the amount of funding
and/or in-kind contributions specified in the Title 16 Grant Funding Agreement.
//
//
//
//
//
110810 dm 8450001
*NOT YET APPROVED*
110810 dm 8450001
SECTION 5. The City will work with the Bureau to meet the established
deadlines for entering into the Title 16 Grant Funding Agreement.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
Acting Deputy City Attorney City Manager
______________________________
Director of Utilities
______________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 6, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
2nd READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Dissolving the Palo Alto
Redevelopment Agency (First Reading July 25, 2011 PASSED 8-0
Schmid absent)
This is a 2nd Reading of the Ordinance, no report required.
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1988)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/6/2011
September 06, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1988)
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Extend the term of Rail Shuttle Bus Administration
Title: Approval of Contract Amendment No. 18 Extending the term of the Rail
Shuttle Bus Administration Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board through 6/3 0/2012 and Increasing the Cumulative Expenditure Limit by
$50,000 for a total of $2,825,264
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached amendment to the Rail Shuttle Bus
Administration Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB),
extending the term of the agreement through June 30, 2012; and
2.Approve an increase of $50,114 in the expenditure limit of the existing Rail Shuttle Bus
Agreement (S0114750) with the JPB to cover the City’s Embarcadero Shuttle operating
costs during the period July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. This will increase the
cumulative contract expenditure limit for the period from FY 2003 through FY 2012 to
$2,825,264.
Background
In 1999, the City and the Joint Powers Board (JPB) entered into the Rail Shuttle Bus
Administration agreement for the provision of shuttle bus services for the Palo Alto shuttle
program, through the JPB Caltrain shuttle bus program. The agreement provides that the
agencies may extend the term of the agreement upon mutual consent. There have been
seventeen contract extensions since the original agreement was executed.
The original JPB agreement contained terms and conditions for two distinct services: (1) the
basic Embarcadero/Baylands Caltrain commuter peak period shuttle route, which is part of the
Caltrain commuter shuttle program and is subsidized up to 75% by the JPB, and (2)expanded
shuttle routes, including the Crosstown shuttle and special school commute service, funded
exclusively by City of Palo Alto.
September 06, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1988)
In January 2011, the City Council approved a three year contract with MV Transportation to
provide shuttle service for the Crosstown shuttle. This was done because a revised agreement
could not be reached with JPB to develop a more comprehensive shuttle agreement. The City
continues, however, to contract with the JPB for the Embarcadero Shuttle, which is a part of the
Caltrain peak hour commuter shuttle program and is subsidized heavily by the JPB. The
Embarcadero Shuttle also provides a Special Jordan Run shuttle during the school year to help
provide service between the Downtown Core and Jordan Middle School on California Avenue.
Discussion
This eighteenth amendment to the agreement, in letter format (Attachment A) dated June 17,
2011, provides for continued shuttle services for the Palo Alto Embarcadero shuttle from July 1,
2011, through June 30, 2012. Due to the late receipt of this letter agreement, staff was not able
to place this item on Council’s agenda prior to the Council recess. The JPB agreed to continue
to service for the Embarcadero Shuttle during the term before the contract extension is
approved by the City Council.
In order to cover the additional contract expense for the 2011-12 fiscal year, staff requests that
the Council approve the attached amendment to the Rail Shuttle Bus Administration
Agreement (S0114750) which will enable the Caltrain shuttle program shuttle vendor, Parking
Company of America, to operate the Embarcadero/Baylands Shuttle.
The City’s Embarcadero/Baylands commute period shuttle service contract expense for this
fiscal year is estimated to be $200,455. The contract amendment with the JPB stipulates that
the City reimburse the JPB a sum of $50,114, equal to 25 percent of the annual cost of the peak
period Embarcadero/Baylands commute shuttle. This action will authorize an increase in the
encumbrance spending limit for the Rail Shuttle Bus Agreement with Caltrain in the amount of
$50,114 to cover the City’s projected expenses for the full year of the Embarcadero/Baylands
shuttle operation.
Resource Impact
Funding included in the FY 2012 operating budget for the Palo Alto Shuttle program is sufficient
to cover this contracted service and associated operating costs. No additional resources will be
required at this time. The extension of this agreement with the JPB will not impact the contract
with MV Transportation that provides service for Crosstown shuttle.
Policy Implications
This request is consistent with existing Council direction to continue and expand the Palo Alto
shuttle project.
Environmental Review
On August 2, 1999, the City Council approved a Negative Declaration finding the shuttle project
would not result in any significant environmental impact.
September 06, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1988)
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Caltrain Joint Powers Board Contract Extension Letter Agreement dated
June 17, 2011 (PDF)
Prepared By:Ruchika Aggarwal,
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
June 17,2011
Ms. Ruchika Aggarwal
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Planner
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
RE: EXTENSION OF BAYLANDS/EMBARCADERO SHUTTLE BUS
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
Dear Ms. Aggmwa1:
The existing Shuttle Bus Administration Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and
the Peninsula Con'idor Joint Powers Board ("JPB") dated March 30,1998 ("Agreement")
terminates on June 30, 2011. This Letter Agreement extends the term of the Agreement
for a one year period only from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 ("Extension Period")
by mutual consent, as permitted in the Agreement.
You will be required to pay the JPB $50,114 during the Extension Period, constituting
twenty-five percent (25%) of the $200,455 estimated cost of operating the
Baylands/Embarcadero Caltrain Shuttle during the Extension Period. Payments for your
midday program will continue to be billed directly to Palo Alto as before.
The Agreement, when extended, will remain in effect during the Extension Period in all
respects except as expressly revised in this letter.
It
If the terms of this Letter Agreement are acceptable to you, please sign below, keep a
copy of this letter for your files, and return the original letter to me. The JPB's obligation
to fund the shuttle during the Extension Period is conditioned upon our receiptofthis
Letter Agreement no later than August 30, 2011.
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
1250 San Carlos Ave. -P.O. Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 (650)508-6269
If you have questions about what thesc changes mean to your program, you can contact
me at leep@samtrans.com, or at (650) 508-6433.
Sincerely,
rp~4
Paul Lee
Manager, Bus Contracts
Agrced to and accepted this _ day of. _____ , 2011.
City ofpalo Alto By: _______ __
Nmne: _______ __
Its:
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 6, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
2nd READING: Adoption of an Ordinance for a Zone Change of a 1,565
Square Foot Parcel From PF (Public Facility) to ROLM (Research Office
Limited Manufacturing) at 200 San Antonio Avenue (First Reading
August 1, 2011-PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff Absent)
No report required for this 2nd Reading.
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2021)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/6/2011
September 06, 2011 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 2021)
Summary Title: Development Center Blueprint
Title: Consideration of Development Center Blueprint Recommendations and
Actions
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the actions discussed in this report, and direct staff to
return to Council with appropriate budget amendments to implement the recommended
Development Center Blueprint” project to streamline and modernize the City of Palo Alto’s
permit process, focusing on improving the customer satisfaction and regulatory efficiency.
Background
In July 2010, the City Manager launched the comprehensive “Blueprint” for a new customer
Satisfaction, minimize the wait times for services and complaints about the process. The City
Manager established the following objectives to address the service issues identified at the
Development Center (DC):
1.Improving organizational efficiency of the D C and associated processes to minimize
unnecessary costs and delays to customers. Clearly identify the point person accountable
for vastly improved customer service and communication between departments.
2.Maintaining or enhancing community sustainability and economic development goals and
objectives through DC activities. Streamline the process without compromising the key
regulatory goals and objectives.
The report outlines a number of specific measures to implement these goals through a
redesigned process that ensures greater accountability at each step.
Discussion
The City Manager’s key objectives for the project intiatives are: creating a better customer
service culture where there is predictability, clear standards, and a performance measurement
program in place to evaluate service delivery and assess actions.
The report outlines a number of specific measures to implement these goals through a
redesigned process that ensures greater accountability at each step.
The City Manager’s Office is overseeing the project, which is managed day to day by an in-
September 06, 2011 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 2021)
house manager from the Development Center. In addition, staff is using a consultant with
extensive experience nationally with the development and permitting processes, which
provides the opportunity to implement ideas and strategies already proven successful in other
communities. At the core of the project,however, have been three focus groups summarized
below:
·Development Center Customer Advisory Group (DCCAG)–customers have adopted their
desired outcomes and expectation for success as developed by staff (Desired Outcomes see
Attachment).
·Staff Steering Committee (SSC)–department heads are ensuring we have the right staff
involved and they get the resources needed to make this happen.
·Staff Action Team (SAT)–staff has been designing the new integrated processing system.
Additional staff teams will be used to address implementation tasks, such as creation of the
DC self-help center and online information tools, technology enhancements, customer
publications, and detailed procedures.
Accomplishments
1. Development Center Technology Projects:Staff has been working with the Information
Technology Department (ITD) and have identified the following key projects as priorities for
implementation. These include:
·Walk-In Queuing Prototype: Walk-in customers at the DC will be greeted and
immediately placed in a queing system that notifies the appropriate staff to the front
counter.
·Accela Reporting: This will allow staff to extract very specific information from the
permitting database and produce reports such as performance measurements, permit
activity volume by type and staff workload capacity.
·Accela Citizen Access: A web based portal for customer access to submit pre-
applications, pay fees, obtain permit status, attach files, view drawing comments among
other on-line enhancements.
·Web Self Service and Publication sites: Currently there is not a self-service model that
enables the customer to access routine information such as property data. This project
would enable better direct access by the customer and reducing staffing impacts.
·Geographic Informaton System (GIS) Interace to Accela: Provides improved access to
the City’s GIS data by both the customer and staff which should reduce staff impacts by
eliminating redundancy between the two systems.
·Mobile Applications to Inspectors: Field Inspectors currently do not have remote access
to permit data and must rely on phone contact with DC staff to resolve issues in the
field. This will eliminate the delay in response time to customers.
·Online Plan Review System: This allows for paperless submittal and review of certain
plans.
September 06, 2011 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 2021)
·Document Management System: Currently there is a backlog of electronically archiving
approved plans and project data. Staff and customers need the ability to access this
information electronically. Catching up on the backlog should reduce staff time
researching and retrieving paper records.
ITD has identified that they anticipate outsourcing project management for these projects to
an independent third party to implement the information technology requirements
associated with these projects. These projects are anticipated to be completed in 2012. ITD
staff are in the process of further defining the budget costs.
2. Improvement: New Processing System Design: The Development Center Blueprint team
has focused on designing and testing a new processing system aimed at being seamless and
integrated from the customer’s perspective. The key service improvements reflect the
following objectives:
·Instill a partnership culture where the customer and staff proactively work together to
find solutions to project issues while meeting the regulations. A formal issue resolution
process has been created.
·Focus on understanding and addressing the customer’s service request rather than
referring them to a “department”
·Ensure that a “customer sits in one chair” philosophy is adopted, thereby eliminating
the practice of routing customers from place to place. We bring the staff and needed
information to the customer.
·Adopt a “project-oriented” approach with an assigned primary point-of-contact versus a
permit-oriented mindset where a customer has to coordinate multiple approvals or
permits on their own.
·Continue to refine the integrated design and prepare needed procedures, technology
enhancements for tracking and online services, customer publications, and training to
ensure a smooth transition from the current process.
·Work with the customer advisory group to identify and bring forward any code or
regulatory changes deemed necessary to further simplify processing and remove
unnecessary roadblocks. A summary of initial customer discussions is included in the
Attachment.
3. Improvement: Accountability for Development Center Day-to-Day Operations: An interim
organizational structure (Attachment) has been created to manage the day-to-day operations
of the Development Center (DC) and ensure that services are provided in an efficient manner.
Several actions have been taken prior to implementation, including:
September 06, 2011 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 2021)
·An interim Development Services Official has been appointed to provide management
and leadership of the DC including all departments. The Development Services Official is
tasked with ensuring there is City department accountability for appropriate staff
assignments and capacity in the DC, meeting performance expectations, and issue
resolution on projects.
·An interim Permit Center Manager has been appointed and reports to the Development
Services Official to manage service quality, implement recent improvements, and
prepare for upcoming organizational and process changes.
·Pilot project managers and other key customer interface staff have been assigned to
work at the Development Center.
·All department staff members interacting with customers are being physically located at
the DC.
·The Permit Center Manager has been collecting and reporting performance statistics,
including customer volumes, wait times, and staff workload (for excerpt of statistics see
Attachment). This information is used to determine the appropriate type and number
of staff needed to serve customers in the most efficient manner.
4. Improvement: Project Management Approach: Project management has been
implemented to provide a central point of contact and in house advocate for all customer
projects. The Blueprint Piloting Program has been comprehensive and has included testing a
variety of project types including, simple over-the-counter permits, routine residential projects,
and complex commercial projects with previous discretionary actions. In addition, the Permit
Center Manager has been refining new processes, measuring staff capacity, evaluating
technology & publications, identifying training needs and conducting surveys for “real time”
customer feedback.
The following actions will be taken to ensure the project management approach will be
sustained:
·Continue to work with Human Resources staff to develop a classification structure for
multi-level project management capacity.
·Prepare training for project managers and staff team members to effectively implement
this approach.
·Phase in all customer and project types as the appropriate staffing capacity is added.
5. Improvement: Comprehensive Performance Measurement Program: From the beginning of
the Blueprint project, the customer’s “Desired Outcomes” were established to be the
foundation of the overall “litmus test” for what excellent customer service and satisfaction will
look like and how it would be measured. Staff created key performance measures which can be
found in Attachment 2 to this report and are generally intended to provide feedback in the
following areas:
September 06, 2011 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 2021)
·Satisfaction-Based Measures –Get feedback on the perceived level of satisfaction
with services. Surveys will be used to determine how customers “feel” about the
service they have received from the City.
·Internal Efficiency & Timeliness Measures –Calculate workload volumes, overall
project timelines, and all process component timelines and efficiencies of both the
staff and the customer’s representatives.
Attachment 4 includes a summary of Performance Measurement Program objectives and how
each stage of the project process will be measured for both the satisfaction-based and internal
types of measures. The following staff actions are in progress to ensure the timely collection of
performance data measure the effectiveness of program improvements:
·Immediately survey recent customers to establish a customer satisfaction baseline
to gauge effectiveness of the improvements during implementation.
·Survey the last 4-5 months of pilot customers to serve as an initial gauge of
satisfaction with the new process.
·Collect baseline data for internal efficiency and timeline measures.
·Develop format of and issue ongoing regular measurement reports.
6. Improvement: Development Center Funding: Customer volume and workloads continue to
dominate staff resources. Development fees are charged to offset the City’s cost to provide the
service. Moreover, state law prohibits fees charged at levels which exceed the cost of services
provided. Since development fees are deposited in the General Fund, regular accounting and
reporting has been established to ensure that fees are commensurate with the City’s costs. The
following actions are underway to insure appropriate fees have been established:
·A regular cost-of-service analysis will be prepared to establish fees at the actual cost
of providing services, including direct salary expense, departmental overhead and
citywide overhead expenses.
·Based upon the analysis, determine and request appropriate staff capacities to
support workloads for typical customer projects and development-related
information inquiries.
7. Improvement: Development Center Space Enhancements: Over the past several months,
the DC customer space has been updated with new paint and carpet, furniture and work
stations, and additional counter, conference room, and self-help computers. These changes
were necessary to address the influx of foot traffic at the Development Center (DC) and to
provide a better customer experience while at the DC. The following actions are underway to
complete the DC infrastructure necessary to implement the recommended staffing changes:
·Pursue additional modular furniture reworks to best utilize the DC space for staff
capacity and to create a more “team” atmosphere for department representatives
to coordinate development related reviews and processing.
September 06, 2011 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 2021)
·Transfer paper and microfiche records to electronic images to maximize space for
staff and a customer self-help center.
Recommendations
Development Services Official:Staff recommends a new management position be created
under the general direction of the City Manager. The Development Services Official would be
responsible for managing, planning, directing, supervising and coordinating the activities of the
Development Center. The position would oversee the performance of administrative approvals,
permitting and inspecting all development-related projects for compliance with building and
development codes and to maintain or enhance community sustainability and economic
development goals. The Development Services Official will, acting under the auspices of the
City Manager, have the authority to cross departmental lines to assure accountability and a
coordinated project response.
Permit Center Manager: Staff recommends a second management position to coordinate the
workflow and service delivery systems at the Development Center (DC). The Permit Center
Manager provides day-to-day management, control, and administration of the DC operations.
The Permit Center Manager is responsible for direct supervision of and workload assignment to
customer interface staff, including the project managers, and provides leadership and direction
to other departmental staff assigned to the DC to support operations. The Manager
implements policies and processes to ensure efficient and effective processing of development
activities and an excellent customer service culture. The Manager will specifically continue to
implement the development review system performance improvements embodied in the
Blueprint system operational design and other related work elements.
Project Managers:Staff recommends adding three Project Managers assigned to coordinate
all Development Center administrative approvals for a customer’s project, based upon the level
of complexity. Staff anticipates these positions will be assigned to SEIU. P&CE planners will
manage and coordinate any required discretionary actions and hand-off to the Permit Center
Manager for assignment to a Project Manager after the entitlement process is completed.
Some projects may require project management assignments during the entitlement process.
Three levels of project managers are proposed to address the variety of project complexity,
including:
·Project Manager Level 1: Perform initial customer discovery and routing; respond to
general information requests for frequently asked questions and prepackaged materials;
and issue simple permits (e.g. residents and homeowners)
·Project Manager Level 2: Respond to complex information requests; process counter-
based projects (e.g. -simple residential); and facilitate the issue resolution process for
related activities.
·Project Manager Level 3: Perform complex project management for administrative
submittal-based projects (e.g. -complex residential and commercial, including
September 06, 2011 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 2021)
associated building permits, utility connections, and public infrastructure approvals);
and facilitates the issue resolution process for related activities.
Resource Impacts
To gauge the resource impacts of the changes proposed in this report, both revenues and costs
are considered. Revenues at the Development Center have been increasing over the last few
years. Revenues appear to be continuing their increase. Still, it is very early in the fiscal year and
difficult to project the actual revenue for FY2012.
Costs are also difficult to project at this time. Because three of the six proposed positions are
not part of the city’s current organizational structure, salary range surveys still need to be
completed. For the purposes of this section, estimates are based on the averages of salary
levels for similar existing positions. Actual costs may vary. Rough estimates were also used for
other costs, such as furniture and associated needs. Technology enhancement costs are
unknown at this time and are not included in the resource impact analysis.
Because of the current level of uncertainty, a range has been provided in calculating the
resource impact.
In FY2012, the Development Center portion of the Planning and Community Environment (PCE)
revenue budget was increased by $1,633,000 to reflect rising revenues. Actual FY2011 revenues
from the Development Center, including PCE, Public Works, and Fire activities, were
$7,129,885. Although not quantified, there were some impacts from Stanford’s planned
expansion to Development Center revenues in FY2011. Stanford will continue to have an impact
in FY2012.
Actual FY2011 expenses for the Development Center were $5,795,589. During the FY2012
budget process, PCE’s expense budget for the Development Center was increased by $499,584,
mostly for one-time contractor costs. Additionally, an Administrative Associate II was
transferred to the Development Center, adding another $95,538 of staff resources.
Rough cost estimates for the changes proposed in this document, with the exception of
technology enhancement costs, range from $600,000 to $800,000. These budget increases,
added to FY2011 actual expenses yield a total projected expense of $7,000,000 to $7,500,000.
Projected Development Center revenue for FY2012 is in the range of $7,000,000 to $8,000,000.
As stated above, although this is a rough estimate, it is based on the evaluation of the last three
year’s performance and trending.
Estimated impact is detailed in Attachment.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required. The improvements relate to the development review
September 06, 2011 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 2021)
process and do not result in any physical alterations to the environment.
Attachments:
·Attachment 1: Development Center Organizational Chart (PDF)
·Attachment 2: Customer's Desired Outcomes (DOC)
·Attachment 3: Customer Additional Recommendations for Improvements (DOC)
·Attachment 4: Summary of DC Walk-In Performance Statistics (DOC)
·Attachment 5: Perfomance Measurement Program Overview (DOC)
·Attachment 6: Development Center CMR Resource Impact (XLS)
Prepared By:Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Attachment 2: Customer’s Desired Outcomes
(Listing initially drafted by the Staff Action Team and adopted by the Development
Center Customer Advisory Group (DCCAG) on 12/1/2010.
The Desired Outcomes form a collective set of “guideposts” for the Development Center
performance improvement and the Blueprint system operational design.
The development services system provides successful service
when………………………….…………
Theme 1: Interpretation and Application of City Goals and Policies
1.City policies, codes and standards are up-to-date, consistent, and user-friendly to
assist in project formulation/application, review and decision-making. Staff
continually evaluates the regulations and elevates refinements to solve
inconsistencies and conflicts.
2.There is consistency in the application and interpretation of regulations and
procedures between departments and individual staff members.
3.There is clarity on what is required by City policies and codes versus what are
additional recommendations. Customers have the discretion to choose whether to
incorporate recommendations.
Theme 2: Communication of Regulations, Requirements, and Process
1.The process, required approvals and applicable regulations (“roadmap”) are
communicated clearly, consistently and in a timely manner. Customers, with staff
guidance, can submit complete and accurate applications and responses.
2.Comprehensive and reliable information is available when doing research, including
the opportunity to ask “what if” questions about parcels or potential project
scenarios.
3.Information materials, project status, comments, clearances, and outstanding
reviews are easily accessible online to everyone participating in the process. The
technology is user-friendly to promote customer self access. Information is
updated regularly to ensure the latest information is available.
Theme 3: Partnership Culture & Responsiveness
1.There is a professional attitude and commitment to customer service. There is a
“partnership” culture between staff members and between staff and applicants to
work towards an approved project that can be constructed in a cooperative
manner.
2.Customers have a primary point-of-contact and consistent staff members on their
project that have the responsibility to facilitate the process, interpret or apply
regulations and make timely recommendations or decisions. All team members
should be able to assist on project processing and coordination.
3.There is sufficient resources and number of trained, knowledgeable staff to
accomplish the desired outcomes. If the demand (workload) requires it, then
resources should match the service need.
Theme 4: Predictability & Efficiency of Process and Results
1.There are consistent, standard operating procedures for customers to follow. The
process is understandable and works for all customers.
2.Customers are given realistic timelines they can count on and the point-of-contact
monitors the schedule to ensure that it is met.
3.A performance measurement program is established and reviewed regularly to
gauge efficiency, productivity and customer satisfaction.
4.Individual staff members ensure review comments are thorough and tailored to the
customer’s project and reference specific code and regulation provisions. Staff
identifies and resolves interdepartmental conflicts or redundancies prior to sending
review comments to the applicant.
5.The appropriate technology tools are utilized to simplify and improve efficiency of
the submittal, review, approval, and construction inspection process.
Theme 5: Accountability for Quality and Consistency of Decision-Making
1.There is a consistent, clearly defined process to resolve project issues. The point-
of-contact is responsible for initiating and closing the issue resolution process.
2.Managers should delegate the resolution authority to the appropriate staff level
and staff takes responsibility to solve issues at the earliest time possible.
3.All participants, including the applicant, follow-through with commitments and
agreements to meet expectations and timelines. Participants do what they say they
will do or communicate what has changed.
Attachment 3: Customer Additional Recommendations for Improvements
The following comments were collected from Development Customer Advisory Group
(DCAG) members during their July and August 2011 meetings. These initial
brainstormed recommendations are intended to supplement the Blueprint effort.
1.Trees are not more important than taxpayers
a.customers should only have one reasonable tree related interaction
b.ordinance needs editing eliminating redwoods as protected
2.The Green Building program has five (5) differing protocols. Simplify process of
‘green building’ standards to one (1) system.It may be most appropriate to use
CalGreen as the standard.
3.The requirements in the inspector’s manual should only match the adopted building
code. The “book” should be edited to indicate optional best practices with the code
being default.
4.When outside plan check, engineering and consultants are utilized, (from the ‘City
List’), why does it take so long for inside re-check?
5.Coordinate requirements and process between Building and Utilities on simple
matters such as tankless water heaters, backflow devices and electrical service
upgrades.
6.Specify what “best building practices (BBP)”are and what is the building code?If we
are expected to build to BBP then the outside plan checkers, architects, engineers
and consultants need to know also.(See #3)
7.Review complex submittal-based (Type C&D processes) requirements based on what
is happening to: closing landfills, closing recycling centers, one stream disposal, etc.
out in the real world.
8.Develop matrix check list for most of the common applications to incorporate the
various possibilities of requirements for load sheets, electric, gas, and wastewater.
Simplify content and eliminate duplication. Clarify terminology for
layperson/residents.
9.Have easy criteria available to illustrate when a structural engineer will be needed.
10.Coordinate the application of ‘job copy’ of the plans and field inspections, and ‘BBP’.
Ensure that plans are sufficient to construct the project without reinterpretation by
inspector. Have the project manager follow the project through final inspection to
facilitate issues and close-out projects.
11.Service for layperson/residents is unpredictable. Retain an ombudsman to address
both planning and enforcement matters.
12.Layperson/residents who approach the front desk at the Development Center are
not receiving a consistent level of service. Assign staff to DC front desk (maybe a
rotating responsibility within the department) that are trained to assess inquiries
accurately and to clearly convey the process and/or direct the public to the
appropriate person/office.
13.The City website is difficult to use. Improve the website making it easy for the public
to use so that many issues may be resolved without involving staff.Add Accela
Citizen Access to replace VelocityHall and look for improvements to match new
project management system.
Total Customer Interactions
(by Type)
Jan-ll Feb-ll Mar-ll Apr-ll
500 457 444
450 3~2 • 413
400 3 ~ •
350 .A.. 304
300 289 _ 351
250 280
200 214 ~ 256
150 , ~ , , )< 100 ~
105 126 127 114 50
0
940 1161 1316 1111
~Total New ~ Total Existing
-.-Total Early Assistance ~ Total General Information
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Daily Average Customer Interactions (by Discipline)
Ja!l-l1 Feb-l1
39.11
"."
19.12
I-18.22 • II
5.11 7.59
f~:9 ;;
:94 ~
70.05 71.53
Mar-ll Allr-l1
35.85
~
19.22
.~4
6.63 7.16 .
--4.79
2.68
2." 2.26
71.79 64.58
_BuildingT echnician
~Bulldln g Plan Check
_Plannin g
-PulJlicWorks
_Green Building
~Flre
Attachment 5: Performance Measurement Program Overview
To provide a useful tool for gauging staff and customer performance, several objectives
of the measurement program include:
1.Measurement data should be collected for all stages of standard project
processes in order to identify problem areas (early information quality,
application submittal, staff review and problem solving, approval process, and
construction inspection). While some stages work efficiently, other may not. It
will be important to isolate service issues.
2.The customer’s perception & satisfaction with processing stages should be
compared with actual internal metrics. Staff may be meeting internal metric
targets however the customer is still not satisfied with the performance. How
does the customer feel about services they are getting? An imbalance typically
means that performance targets may be too lax or cultural issues exist.
Ongoing measurement reporting trends and missed performance targets will help
identify specific resources shortages and training or outreach needs.
Compare Customer Satisfaction
with Internal Metrics
Comments
Development Services Official 204,127$ Salary and benefits
Permit Center Manager 172,159$ Salary and benefits
Plans Examiner 139,884$ Salary and benefits
Project Manager 115,493$ Salary and benefits
Project Manager 115,493$ Salary and benefits
Project Manager 115,493$ Salary and benefits
New Salaries and
Benefits Total 862,649$
Freed Up Funds
Eliminate vacant Plans Check Engineer (139,884)$
Eliminate DC Manager temp-prorated (91,200)$
Eliminate Project Manager temp (17,025)$
Eliminate Project Manager temp (24,640)$
Eliminate Project Manager temp (35,000)$
Reduction totals (307,749)$
Non-Salary Additions
Modular furniture and
associated needs 137,006$
one-time cost:
workstations, cable, 3
computers, 3 large screen
monitors, 3 printers,
recarpet
Technology
Enhancements
To be
determined
$118K was collected in
tech enhancement fee
revenue FY2011
Total Non-salary changes 137,006$
Total Impact of Proposed Changes 691,906$
Projected Development Center revenues for FY2012 7,433,047$
Development Center actual revenues FY2011 7,129,885$
Anticipated increased revenue (difference: projected to actual)303,162$
Expense associated with this CMR 691,906$
Projected balance (388,744)$
Total Revenue to Total Costs FY2012
Development Center actual expenses FY2011 5,795,589$
Development Center budget changes in FY2012 595,122$ $442,333 one-time.
Potential costs of proposed CMR 691,906$
Expected Development Center costs 7,082,617$
Development Center Enhancement CMR Resource Impacts
New Staff Salary and Benefits estimate
Attachment 6
Estimate
Net projected revenue (projected revenue less expected expense)350,430$
.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2035)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 9/6/2011
September 06, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 2035)
Summary Title: 2011 League of California Cities Resolutions
Title: Approval of the Recommended City Positions for the 2011 League of
California Cities Resolutions
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote on the six (6) resolutions to be considered at the
Annual League of California Cities (LOCC) Conference to be held in San Francisco, September
21-23, 2011 and approve the general guidance provided below.
Background
Each year, the LOCC accepts resolutions from member cities and elected officials to be adopted
at its annual conference. This year five resolutions have been introduced for consideration by
the Annual Conference and referred to League Policy Committees. One resolution has been
introduced that will go directly to the General Assembly at the League’s Annual Business
Meeting per the League bylaws. Before the conference, the five resolutions will undergo
review by the appropriate LOCC policy committee(s). On Wednesday, September 21, policy
committees will meet for a final review of the resolutions. Next, the General Resolutions
Committee will meet on Thursday, September 22, to consider the policy committee's reports
regarding the five resolutions and to take action on their recommended positions. Resolutions
that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee will then be reported on the floor of
the General Assembly at the Annual Business meeting, on Friday, September 23.
The voting delegates at the Annual Business meeting make the final determination on the
resolutions. The five resolutions to be considered by the League’s Policy Committees are
subject to change in their current form. By approving the recommendations for the resolutions,
our City LOCC representatives, Mayor Espinosa and Councilmember Holman as the alternate,
will have the Council's general guidance for votes to be taken on each resolution and are
authorized to vote on amended resolutions deemed to be in the best interest of the City.
Discussion
September 06, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 2035)
The LOCC analyses and original language of the resolutions in their current form are attached for
your consideration. In addition, a summary below has been provided for each resolution and the
recommended City positions.
2011 Proposed League of California Resolutions
Resolution Recommendation
1.Alternative Methods of Meeting Public Notice Requirements Support
This resolution seeks support for recognizing alternative methods of meeting public notice
requirements and to advocate for revisions to the government code recognizing alternative
methods as a means to meet noticing requirements. The intent is to enhance current public
noticing requirements by communicating with the public using innovative, technologically
friendly methods of communication.
The resolution supports providing cities with more discretion to meet public noticing
requirements based on their community’s distinct needs. It is not the intent of this
resolution to support eliminating noticing in newspapers or paper postings.
Coordination: City Clerk’s Office and the Attorney’s Office.
2.Tort Reform Oppose
This resolution encourages cities to: 1) adopt resolutions calling for tort reform, 2) ask their
state legislators to pass a bill that establishes loser-pays lawsuit and tort reform, and 3) ask
the League to sponsor and support a statewide proposition that makes loser-pays lawsuit
and tort reform a constitutional amendment.
While staff agrees that frivolous lawsuits are a problem for most public agencies, including
Palo Alto and that tort reform is needed, we are not certain that the proposed solution will
have a positive impact.A true loser-pays provision would likely result in an increase in
litigation and result in larger settlement demands.A provision that requires a losing
plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorneys fees, without a reciprocal provision, would face
significant legal challenges.We believe that a comprehensive and effective tort reform
proposal can be better addressed by the League’s City Attorneys’ Department.
Coordination:City Attorney’s Office.
3.Raising Public Awareness Health and Safety Concerns for Support
Bullied Children
September 06, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 2035)
This resolution encourages cities to promote anti-bullying efforts as well as provide
education and awareness to the general public about the imminent health and safety
concerns for bullied children. The proposed resolution is consistent with the direction set
forth in the City Council’s 2011 Strategic priorities for Youth Well-Being and aligns with the
objectives, and the intervention and prevention strategies for the well being of youth in
Palo Alto for two City projects, “Project Safety Net” and “It Gets Better,” and collaborative
efforts with the school district through our “School Resource Officer” program.
Coordination:Community Services Department, Police Department, and City Attorney’s
Office.
4.Supporting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 No Opinion
This resolution supports the development of standards for implementing the Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003 which would ban the placement of young people under the age of
18 in adult jails and prisons.
Staff is not recommending a position on this resolution as it does not have a direct bearing
on the local affairs of the City of Palo Alto.By law, at the local level, incarcerated juveniles
and adults are always kept separated and supervised at all times.
Coordination:Police Department and City Attorney’s Office.
5.Replacement of the Death Penalty with the Sentence of Life No Opinion
Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole
This resolution seek support from cities to; 1) call upon Governor Jerry Brown to convert all
death sentences to sentences of life imprisonment without any possibility of parole,
mandating those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to work in prison and
pay restitution to the victims’ families, and that the money saved by the state be used to
fund education, local government, and public safety; 2) call upon California’s County District
Attorneys to desist from pursuing the death penalty, and to invest the savings in solving
homicides, violence prevention, and effective public safety programs, and; 3) call upon the
California State Legislature and Governor Brown to place on a statewide ballot a
constitutional amendment to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Staff is not recommending a position on this resolution as it does not have a direct bearing
on the local affairs of the City of Palo Alto.
Coordination:Police Department and City Attorney’s Office.
6.Honoring the City of Bell Support
September 06, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 2035)
This resolution supports that the League acknowledges the efforts of the City of Bell to
address municipal corruption and restore policies and actions that create an environment of
a responsible government.
Coordination:City Attorney’s Office.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: 2011 LOCC RESOLUTIONS(PDF)
Prepared By:Rob Braulik, Project Manager
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
6
V.
2011 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE
1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF MEETING PUBLIC
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND TO ADVOCATE FOR REVISIONS TO THE
GOVERNMENT CODE RECOGNIZING ALTERNATIVE METHODS AS A MEANS TO
MEET NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Source: Desert/Mountain Division Referred To: Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities recognizes local municipalities have a civic duty to conduct business in open, noticed public meetings; and
WHEREAS, that same duty calls for cities to engage their citizenry by noticing time and locale of
public meetings, public hearings, introduction and adoption of Ordinances, and bid opportunities; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 54954.2, the requirement for
posting meeting agendas reads as follows:
54954.2. (a) (1) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local
agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words.
The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public …
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 6066, the requirement for
publishing public hearing notices reads as follows:
6066. Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for two successive
weeks. Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates,
are sufficient. The period of notice commences upon the first day of publication and terminates
at the end of the fourteenth day, including therein the first day.
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 6060, the term “notice” is
defined as follows:
6060. Whenever any law provides that publication of notice shall be made pursuant to a
designated section of this article, such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation for the period prescribed, the number of times, and in the manner provided in that section. As used in this article, “notice” includes official advertising, resolutions orders, or
other matter of any nature whatsoever that are required by law to be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
WHEREAS, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a newspaper is a "newspaper of
general circulation" if it meets the criteria listed in California Government Code Sections 6000 and 6008, which read as follows:
7
6000. A "newspaper of general circulation" is a newspaper published for the dissemination of local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character, which has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and has been established, printed and published at
regular intervals in the State, county, or city where publication, notice by publication, or official advertising is to be given or made for at least one year preceding the date of the publication, notice or advertisement.
6008. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a newspaper is a "newspaper of general circulation" if it meets the following criteria:
(a) It is a newspaper published for the dissemination of local or telegraphic news and
intelligence of a general character, which has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers and has been established and published at regular intervals of not less
than weekly in the city, district, or judicial district for which it is seeking
adjudication for at least three years preceding the date of adjudication. (b) It has a substantial distribution to paid subscribers in the city, district, or judicial
district in which it is seeking adjudication.
(c) It has maintained a minimum coverage of local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character of not less than 25 percent of its total inches during each year
of the three-year period.
(d) It has only one principal office of publication and that office is in the city, district, or judicial district for which it is seeking adjudication.
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, within 15 days after a
passage of an Ordinance, a City Clerk shall publish and post Ordinances, and if so chosen, a member of the public may request notification as follows:
…………(d) (1) Any member of the public may file with the city clerk, or any other person designated by the governing body to receive these requests, a request for notice of specific proposed ordinances or proposed amendments to ordinances.
(2) Notice pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be mailed or otherwise transmitted at least five days before the council is scheduled to take action on the proposed ordinances or
proposed amendments to an ordinance. Notice may be given by written notice properly
mailed or by e-mail if the requesting member of the public provides an e-mail address. Notice may be in the form specified in either paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (c), as determined by the city council.
(3) As an alternative to providing notice as requested of specific proposed ordinances or proposed amendments to ordinances, the city clerk, or other person designated by the governing body, may place the requesting member of the public on a general mailing list
that gives timely notice of all governing body public meetings at which proposed ordinances or proposed amendments to ordinances may be heard, as provided in Section 54954.1. If this alternative is selected, the requesting member of the public shall be so
advised. (4) The city may charge a fee that is reasonably related to the costs of providing notice pursuant to this subdivision. The city may require each request to be annually renewed.
(5) Failure of the requesting person to receive the information pursuant to this subdivision shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate an otherwise properly adopted ordinance or amendment to an ordinance.
WHEREAS, as California Government Code Section 36933 already recognizes electronic mail as
a form of communicating with the public when it comes to Ordinances, the Desert/Mountain Division of the
League of California Cities seeks other public noticing requirements in the Government Code reflect the
same; and
8
WHEREAS, the traditional means of noticing in local adjudicated newspapers is antiquated and
inefficient; and
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities recognizes that in
recent decades, technology has vastly improved; and
WHEREAS, that technology includes the advent of the internet, electronic mail, social media, smart
phones and other smart devices (i.e. iphones/ipads); and
WHEREAS, the public is becoming increasing familiar with the use of new technology and using it
as a means to gain quick and up-to-date information; and
WHEREAS, the public has a preference for receiving information in an electronic format; and
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities is in support of cities
communicating with the public using innovative, enhanced methods of communication; now therefore be it
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled at the Annual
Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of
California Cities:
1. Desires to enhance current public noticing requirements by communicating with the public using
innovative, technologically friendly methods of communication. 2. Request that the League, as a whole, support alternative methods of meeting public notice
requirements.
3. Request the League advocate for the State Legislature to adopt revisions to the California
Government Code recognizing alternative methods as a means to meeting public notice
requirements.
4. Support any legislation that would adopt revisions to the California Government Code
recognizing alternative methods as a means to meeting public notice requirements.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: Desert/Mountain Division
Municipalities have a civic duty to conduct business in open, properly noticed public meetings. That same
duty calls for cities to engage their citizenry by noticing time and locale of public meetings, public hearings,
introduction and adoption of Ordinances, bid opportunities and the like. The public has a right to know what
local elected officials are doing with public funds. The public has a right to know what decisions are being
made that will affect them.
In efforts to engage the public, encourage more participation at public meetings and enhance communication
with constituents, our division has discussed current public noticing requirements required by the State of
California. Current requirements include cities place notices in a general newspaper of circulation.
Annually, cities spend quite a bit on this task. For example, the City of Big Bear Lake, population 6,700,
spends $15,000 - $20,000 a year on noticing in their local weekly newspaper and on occasion, in a regional.
This is a substantial amount for a small city.
9
Noticing is typically done in the classified section, next to garage sale and help wanted ads. This system is
antiquated and inefficient. Can you remember the last time you read that section of the paper? In recent
decades, technology has vastly improved, given the advent of the internet, electronic mail, social media,
smart phones and other smart devices (iphones/ipads). The public is becoming increasing familiar with the
use of new technology, using it as a means to gain quick and up-to-date information. We see more and more
the public have a preference for receiving information in an electronic format. Technology allows us to be
more efficient and when it comes to business, much more economical.
Our division would like to see a change to State Law that allows cities more discretion based on their
community’s distinct needs (i.e. residents can sign up for e-mail alerts of public hearings, meetings, etc.); and
that would count towards meeting the public noticing requirements. We don’t want to eliminate noticing in
newspapers, just enhance requirements by allowing cities to use alternate methods as a means of meeting the
law.
In recent years, this issue has come before the State Legislature, but newspaper publication groups have
lobbied against this. They receive revenue from classified ads. But noticing is not supposed to be about
generating revenue for private industry. It is supposed to be about informing the public, getting them more
involved in local government and enhancing our methods of communication. Many times, we don’t always
see the turnout we would like at public meetings and hearings. We need to enhance our methods to change
this.
In addition, cities are supposed to be reimbursed by the State for a portion of the cost to notice meetings, but
these funds have been deferred for several years now due to the State Budget. If we are not receiving these
funds, why can’t the legislature work with cities to modify the requirements? We want to work smarter, not
harder!
>>>>>>>>>>
2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TORT REFORM
Source: Mayor Charlie Goeken, City of Waterford Referred To: Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, frivolous lawsuits cost cities, counties, special districts, and school districts millions dollars a year to defend; and
WHEREAS, the money that cities spend each year in legal fees fighting frivolous lawsuits is a waste of taxpayers’ money; and
WHEREAS, the money spent to defend frivolous lawsuits could be put to better public use; and
WHEREAS, cities or other government entities are easily sued without reasonable cause when there
is no requirement that the person or entity filing the lawsuit have any responsibility when the lawsuit is lost;
and
WHEREAS, the public good would be served if the law were changed to require the person or entity
who filed the lawsuit to pay for all fees and costs of the city, or other sued party, to defend the lawsuit if it
were unsuccessful; now, therefore, be it
10
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League encourages the existing 482 California cities to adopt resolutions calling for tort reform; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that California cities be encouraged to ask their state legislators to pass a bill that establishes loser-pays lawsuit and tort reform; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that California cities are encouraged to ask the League to sponsor and support a
statewide proposition that makes loser-pays lawsuit and tort reform a constitutional amendment.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 2
Source: City of Waterford
Every year cities must weigh the cost of fighting frivolous lawsuits against the amounts requested by the
plaintiffs. The frivolity of the lawsuits usually have little bearing on this balancing act, nor does the likelihood that settling will only encourage more lawsuits. This perverse use of the court system penalizes
cities and other government entities by allowing a person to file a lawsuit with no regard for the facts and no
exposure on their part. Attorneys accept these lawsuits, relying on getting paid by a city settling the lawsuit as a purely business decision, often times receiving more money than the plaintiffs.
Scarce taxpayer dollars are squandered fighting frivolous lawsuits or paying settlements to avoid lengthy
trials and bad publicity. The passage of tort reform and a loser-pays constitutional amendment would enable elected officials to govern fairly without the fear of frivolous lawsuits, while still allowing the public to file
suit when they have genuinely been wronged. The money saved through court costs, attorney’s fees, payouts,
staff time, and insurance premiums would be put to better use by cities to serve their taxpayers. >>>>>>>>>>
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
3. RESOLUTION RELATED TO RAISING PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT THE
IMMINENT HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR BULLIED CHILDREN
Source: City of Elk Grove
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, cities throughout the State of California are becoming more aware of the growing trend
of bullying in schools and on the Internet that has become a serious nationwide problem, one with often
severe consequences; and
WHEREAS, surveys indicate that as many as half of all children are bullied at some time during
their school years, and at least 10 percent are bullied on a regular basis; and
WHEREAS, more than 25 percent of adolescents and teens have been bullied repeatedly through
their cell phones or the Internet and more than 80 percent of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the
most popular form of technology and a common medium for cyber bullying; and
WHEREAS, the social media network has vastly increased the number of users online and young
people are eager to participate without understanding the consequences of their behavior; and
11
WHEREAS, general bullying and cyber bullying have both caused severe damage, heartache, and even fatal tragedy to young people and their families and friends; and
WHEREAS, victims of bullying display a range of responses, even many years later, such as: low
self-esteem, difficulty in trusting others, lack of assertiveness, aggression, difficulty controlling anger, and isolation; and
WHEREAS, bullying has been identified as a major concern by schools across the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, cities providing an open forum to discuss bullying gives an opportunity for parents, students, and communities to acknowledge this issue, open up the conversation about the topic and raise
awareness of the issue; and
WHEREAS, the League supports cities who take a stance against bullying by raising education and
awareness about anti-bullying efforts throughout the State of California to provide a better life and
foundation for young people; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Annual
Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League encourages cities to promote anti-
bullying efforts across California as well as provide education and awareness to the general public about the imminent health and safety concerns for bullied children; and, be it further
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, that the League will
forward this Resolution to the CCS (Cities, Counties, Schools) Partnership for consideration at their next meeting to help promote anti-bullying efforts throughout California.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 3
Source: City of Elk Grove
Cities throughout the State of California are becoming painfully aware of the growing trend of bullying and
its effects on children. Bullying has a potentially devastating effect on students and young adults, their families, schools, and communities. A guiding principle of the League is that the children of California must
be recognized as our state’s most valuable resource. Their development, education and well-being are key to
our state’s future.
Many studies and statistics show the frequency and unfortunate effects that bullying has on children:
Bullying is a common experience for many children and adolescents. Surveys indicate that as many as
half of all children are bullied at some time during their school years, and at least 10 percent are bullied
on a regular basis (The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry)
More than 25 percent of adolescents and teens have been bullied repeatedly through their cell phones or
the Internet. More than 80 percent of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the most popular form of
technology and a common medium for cyber bullying (bullyingstatistics.org)
Victims of bullying display a range of responses, even many years later, such as: low self-esteem,
difficulty in trusting others, lack of assertiveness, aggression, difficulty controlling anger, and isolation (bullyingstatistics.org)
12
Research shows that bullying will stop when adults in authority and peers get involved (bullying.org)
Bullying has been identified as a major concern by schools across the U.S. (NEA, 2003)
The health and safety of the residents of Elk Grove is paramount to the members of the Elk Grove City
Council. On July 13, 2011, the City Council unanimously adopted a resolution raising public awareness of
the imminent health and safety concerns for bullied children. This resolution is in conjunction with an
aggressive, yet economical, public outreach campaign the City held to educate its residents about the effects of bullying on children. In conjunction with the Elk Grove City Council, Elk Grove Youth Commission, law
enforcement and nonprofit agencies, the City hosted three public workshops focused on the subject of
bullying that strengthened partnerships between youth and law enforcement, nonprofit agencies, parents and teachers. Workshop topics included how to keep teens safe from cyber bullying and online harassment, safe
and responsible Internet use, social media and ‘sexting’ safety issues, dangers of bullying and strategies to
stop bullies and empower victims. The City informed the community about the campaign through media
coverage on every television and radio news outlet in the Sacramento region, the City’s newsletter which reaches every Elk Grove household, and the City’s social media outlets Facebook and Twitter.
Other cities in California are encouraged to raise the awareness of bullying in their community by educating residents about the dangers and effects of bullying on children. Educational outreach will benefit children,
parents, teachers, and the community. Local governments have the ability to implement wide-spread cost-
effective educational tools to communicate with residents about this important public safety issue.
All local government officials and parents in California want to protect their children, families, themselves,
and others. Please help raise public awareness of the imminent health and safety concerns for bullied
children. >>>>>>>>>>
4. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2003
Source: Council Member Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 10,000 children are held in adult jails and
prisons on any given day; and
WHEREAS, the annual number of youth exposed to the dangers of sexual assault in adult facilities is
significantly higher because of the “flow” of youth entering and exiting facilities; and
WHEREAS, studies from across the nation confirm that youth tried as adults fit the risk profile of
those persons at the highest risk of sexual assault; and
WHEREAS, studies also show that the overwhelming majority of youth tried as adults are
nonviolent offenders, with a considerable proportion being first-time offenders; and
WHEREAS, according to the prison rape literature, the persons with the highest likelihood of being sexually assaulted are young people; and
WHEREAS, according to studies from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, youth who are tried in the adult criminal justice system are 34% more likely to recidivate than youth in the juvenile justice system; and
13
WHEREAS, 70% of prisoners in adult prisons were once juvenile offenders, so the long-term effect
of preventing harm to youth will decrease recidivism and substantially reduce the adult prison population and the associated economic, social and human cost; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice has an opportunity to ban the placement of youth (under
18) in adult jails and prisons as part of the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA); and
WHEREAS, PREA was signed into law by President Bush in 2003 to address sexual violence behind
bars; and
WHEREAS, a key component of the law was the development of national standards addressing
prisoner rape and the requirements would apply to all detention facilities, including federal and state prisons,
jails, police lock-ups, private facilities, and immigration detention centers; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League includes in its 2011-12 Federal Legislative Program support for standards implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 which
would ban the placement of young people under the age of 18 in adult jails and prisons.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 4
Source: City of Los Angeles
What is the Prison Rape Elimination Act?
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 is a Federal law established to address the elimination and prevention of sexual assault and rape in correctional systems. PREA applies to all federal, state, and local
prisons, jails, police lock-ups, private facilities, and community settings such as residential facilities. The
major provisions of PREA are to:
Develop standards for detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of prison rape
Collect and disseminate information on the incidence of prison rape
Award grants and technical assistance to help state governments implement the Act
Youth in adult facilities are at the greatest risk of prison rape. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 10,000 children are held in adult jails and prisons daily, and the annual number of youth exposed
to the dangers of sexual assault in adult facilities is significantly higher because of the “flow” of youth
entering and exiting facilities. Studies from across the nation confirm that youth tried as adults fit the risk profile of those persons at the highest risk of sexual assault. Studies also show that the overwhelming
majority of youth tried as adults are nonviolent offenders, and a considerable proportion are first-time
offenders. In more than half of the states, there is no lower age limit on who can be prosecuted as an adult, so even young children can be prosecuted as adults and sent to adult jails and prisons.
How Does PREA Apply to Jails?
PREA seeks to insure that jails and other correctional settings protect inmates from sexual assault, sexual
harassment, "consensual sex" with employees and inmate-inmate sexual assault. These violations affect security and staff safety, and pose long-term risks to inmates and staff inside jails, and to the public when victimized inmates are released into the community.
Where is PREA at?
The U.S. Department of Justice is currently considering banning the placement of youth (under 18) in adult jails and prisons as part of the implementation of PREA. As such, this resolution seeks to raise awareness of
14
youth spending time in adult facilities so elected and appointed officials could develop more effective
juvenile justice policies and support the passage of the bill.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act was originally signed into law by President Bush in 2003 to address sexual
violence behind bars. A key component of the law was the creation of the National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission (NPREC), a bipartisan federal commission charged with developing national standards addressing prisoner rape and the requirements would apply to all detention facilities, including federal and
state prisons, jails, police lock-ups, private facilities, and immigration detention centers. The NPREC held
public hearings, had expert committees to draft the standards and released their final recommendations by issuing a report and set of standards (available online at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/226680.pdf.)
Who supports PREA?
American Probation and Parole Association Campaign for Youth Justice Correctional Education Association American Jail Association
International Community Corrections Association National Juvenile Detention Association
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Center for Children’s Law and Policy
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence Family Violence Prevention Fund Missouri Youth Services Institute National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
**This is only a partial list of national supporters
>>>>>>>>>>
5. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE DEATH PENALTY WITH
THE SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
PAROLE
Source: Council Member Joseph Lyons, City of Claremont
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS the administration of the death penalty costs California taxpayers hundreds of millions
of dollars more to administer than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole;
WHEREAS death penalty cases cost County taxpayers millions of dollars more to prosecute than
cases that seek life imprisonment without the possibility of parole;
WHEREAS the non-partisan California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice Senate
Commission concluded that California’s death penalty system is systemically dysfunctional and will require
hundreds of millions of dollars to reform;
WHEREAS the death penalty is not a deterrent and does not make our Cities or the State of
California a safer place to live;
WHEREAS California’s Cities face severe cuts to the services needed to keep their neighborhoods safe and have had to resort to layoffs and furloughs because of reductions in revenues from State and County
sources;
WHEREAS the millions of dollars in savings realized by replacing the death penalty with life
without the possibility of parole could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety
programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health
services, and services for crime victims and their families.
15
WHEREAS Governor Brown has the power to convert death sentences to sentences of life imprisonment without any possibility of parole, saving the state $1 billion in the next five years without
releasing a single prisoner;
WHEREAS California’s County District Attorneys are solely responsible for pursuing the death penalty for persons convicted of special circumstance first-degree murders within their Counties;
WHEREAS the California State Legislature and Governor Brown have the ability to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to permanently replace the death penalty with a sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole;
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League of California Cities call upon
Governor Jerry Brown to convert all death sentences to sentences of life imprisonment without any
possibility of parole, mandating those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to work in prison and pay restitution to the victims’ families, and that the money saved by the state be used to fund education, local
government, and public safety;
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities call upon California’s County District Attorneys to desist from pursuing the death penalty, and to invest the savings in solving homicides, violence prevention,
and effective public safety programs;
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities call upon the California State Legislature and Governor Brown to place on a statewide ballot a constitutional amendment to replace the death penalty with
a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Pursuant to this resolution copies of the adopted and officially signed resolution will be sent to Governor
Jerry Brown, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the leadership of the California State Senate and
Assembly, County District Attorneys and their County Board of Supervisors
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 5
Source: City of Claremont California’s death penalty is broken and remains at risk of executing an innocent person. A new study of the
costs of California’s death penalty was recently conducted by Judge Arthur Alarcon, a conservative federal
judge who supports the death penalty, and Prof. Paula Mitchell, a law school professor who opposes the death penalty. With access to new information and documentation, their study is the most comprehensive
appraisal of expenditures associated with the death penalty. They concluded that the death penalty costs
California taxpayers $184 million each year; California has spent a total of $4 billion on the death penalty since 1978 and is expected to spend another $1 billion over the next five years; each execution in California costs $308 million.
Judge Alarcon and Professor Mitchell concluded that the current death penalty system is broken. With over 700 inmates, California’s death row is the largest and most costly in the country, yet we have only executed
13 people since 1978. Victims’ family members are put through a decades-long legal ordeal based on the
hollow promise of execution, but 99% of those sentenced to death are never executed.
The funds wasted on California’s dysfunctional death penalty could be better spent to ensure public safety if the death penalty were replaced with Life Without the Possibility of Parole, allowing $1 billion over the next
16
five years to be re-invested in public safety measures like law enforcement and education. There are three
ways to accomplish this addressed in this resolution:
1. Governor Brown should convert all existing death sentences to Life Without Parole
The governor has the authority to convert death sentences to the alternative of Life Without Parole, saving $1
billion over five years. This will allow the more than 700 existing death row inmates to be re-housed in the general population, eliminating the additional housing costs associated with death row and the cost of
prosecuting and defending death row appeals. Three states have enacted this reform in the past to ensure that
innocent men and women sentenced to death will not be executed and to save funds spent on maintaining
death row. Life Without Parole is a real solution that ensures public safety and effectively punishes horrible crimes. It also allows inmates to work and pay restitution to the Victims’ Compensation Fund. Recent polling
from David Binder Research indicates that 64% of likely voters in California support this reform as a
budgetary measure.
2. County District Attorneys should reduce or end the practice of seeking death sentences
According to Judge Alarcon and Prof. Mitchell’s study, each prosecution seeking death costs the county
approximately $1 million more than a prosecution seeking Life Without Parole. The decision to seek the
death penalty over the alternative of Life Without Parole falls to each county’s District Attorney. According to the ACLU’s 2009 report “Death in Decline ’09,” most counties in the state currently do not seek the death
penalty, or do so very rarely, due to the excessive costs of such prosecutions. However, a small number of
counties continue to seek the death penalty, at great expense to the cities within the county and the taxpayers of the state at large. When the county district attorney decides to seek the death penalty, everyone within the
county is impacted as the entire county criminal justice system strains to accommodate the massive
expenditures associated with a death penalty trial. Justice is slowed for everyone.
The ACLU’s 2011 report, “The Death Penalty is Dead,” showed a dramatic decrease in the number of death
sentences in California in the first half of 2011, leaving the state on track to sentence the fewest men and
women to death since 1978. Los Angeles County, historically the state’s leader in death sentences, also saw a substantial decline in the first half of 2011. This trend should be encouraged and all County District Attorneys should be called upon to reduce or eliminate the practice of seeking the death penalty.
3. The California Legislature should pass SB 490 and give voters the option to replace the death
penalty on the November 2012 ballot
SB 490 is currently under consideration by the California legislature. If passed, voters will be given the option of replacing the death penalty with Life Without Parole, saving $1 billion over five years. California
voters have not had an opportunity to vote on maintaining the death penalty since 1978, and have never been
made aware of the costs associated with the system. Don Heller, the author of the 1978 initiative to reinstate California’s death penalty, now supports its replacement because of the death penalty’s costly failure over the last 30 years. Numerous attempts to streamline, speed up, and reduce waste within the death penalty have
been made, but all have failed and often result in increasing the cost of the system. Voters should be given a
chance to make an educated decision about whether the death penalty is worth $184 million each year, or if there are more productive ways to invest those funds.
>>>>>>>>>>
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
6. RESOLUTION IN HONOR OF THE CITY OF BELL
Source: Council Member Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles
Referred To: General Assembly
17
WHEREAS, the city of Bell has a Native American history dating back thousands of years with the
Gabrieliño Indians migrating to what is now known as the City of Bell in 500 B.C., and
WHEREAS, in the early 1800’s, Spanish aristocrat and former soldier, Don Antonio Maria Lugo
settled on 30,000 acres of land that encompasses the City of Bell, and
WHEREAS, between 1870 and 1890 settlers arrived to the area and among those was the city’s
founder, James George Bell who acquired approximately 360 acres of land and helped in its development as
a small farming and cattle community, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bell was incorporated on November 7, 1927 and is now home to many
businesses, small industries, schools, churches and community organizations, and
WHEREAS, in July 2010, the City of Bell was devastated with a municipal scandal that made
national and international headlines, and
WHEREAS, it was revealed during the corruption scandal that Bell city officials were receiving
unusually large salaries, perhaps the highest in the nation, and
WHEREAS, upon the removal of the previous administration, including the City Administrator and City Attorney, the City of Bell began taking steps to immediately address this unprecedented scandal, and
WHEREAS, under the new leadership of Pedro Carrillo, Interim City Administrator for the City of Bell, and James M. Casso, Interim City Attorney, the City of Bell has taken action to restore trust, ethics and fiscal sustainability in the City of Bell, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bell helped craft legislation (AB 900) authorizing the refunding of the illegally charged taxes to Bell property owners, which the state legislators quickly and unanimously adopted
so that refund checks could be issued to constituents, and
WHEREAS, in March 2011, voters turned out in record numbers to recall and replace City Council members charged in the corruption scandal, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bell continues to consider all options for recovering all taxpayer funds that were spent improperly, and has implemented best practices that will enable the City of Bell to emerge from
this unprecedented situation with an efficient, transparent and trusted government; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League acknowledges the efforts of the
City of Bell to address municipal corruption and restore policies and actions that create an environment of a
responsible government.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 6
Source: City of Los Angeles
In July 2010, the City of Bell was devastated with a municipal scandal that made national and international
headlines. At that time, the Los Angeles Times reported that the City of Bell had the second-highest property
tax rate in the county — 1.55 percent — well above the county average of 1.16 percent with Bell city
officials receiving unusually large salaries. It was reported that City Manager Robert Rizzo was being paid an annual salary of $787,637; Police Chief Randy Adams was receiving $457,000; and Assistant City
18
Manager Angela Spaccia was receiving $376,000. Additionally, the mayor and three of the four City Council
members were being paid about $97,000 a year, including health benefits for their part-time jobs.
During this unprecedented corruption scandal, the previous administration, including the City Administrator
and City Attorney, were immediately removed and the City of Bell began taking steps to immediately
address this unprecedented scandal. In March 2011, voters subsequently turned out in record numbers to recall and replace City Council members charged in the corruption scandal with the City of Bell continuing
to implement best practices that is enabling the City to emerge from this situation with an efficient,
transparent and trusted government.
BRINGING GOOD GOVERNMENT PRACTICES BACK TO BELL
Since the scandal broke last year, the new Administration, under the leadership and guidance of Pedro
Carrillo, Interim City Administrator for the City of Bell, and James M. Casso, Interim City Attorney, has taken exceptional action to restore trust, ethics and fiscal sustainability in the City of Bell. As such, the City of Bell continues to be fully committed to open government and is working diligently with all stakeholders to
bring transparency and good government practices to Bell.
In the past few months, the Bell City Council, Interim CAO and Interim City Attorney have made substantial
changes to bring good government practices to Bell. For example, the Bell City Council reduced property
taxes worked with State Legislators and the State Controller on Assembly Bill (AB) 900 to secure rebates for Bell residents who were over assessed from 2007-2010. AB900 was signed into law allowing the City of Bell to authorize nearly $3 million in refunds to Bell residents and small businesses with Los Angeles County
providing fiscal oversight.
PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION Given the actions of the City of Bell to restore good government practices, and the fact that the League of
California Cities has taken steps to learn from this unprecedented scandal, this resolution would acknowledge
the on-going efforts of the City of Bell to address municipal corruption and restore policies and actions that create an environment of a responsible and open government.
>>>>>>>>>>