20120703 Late CorrespondenceTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 3,2012
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
City Manager Report
2
4
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Emails from:Tom Long;Sunshine
Email from Dr.Phillip Taylor
Email from Sunshine
W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendaSZ0120703 additions revisions to agenda.doc
---_._--------------------------------
From:Long,Thomas O.[tlong@nossaman.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 03,2012 8:31 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:San Ramon and Borrowing
Dear Councilmembers:
As you know the city faces about a $20 million challenge with San Ramon canyon.Half
of this is addressed with a state grant if you act in time to fund the rest.Surely you will
do so because you will surely be called to account if you don't.The real question is how
to fund the remaining approximate $10 million.The popular method,of course,will be
another grant.That mayor may not happen.You must have a Plan B.It should be a
realistic Plan B,not something like depending on the good will of private donors,even
wealthy ones like Donald Trump.As a practical matter Plan B can be one of several
things:(1)use the city's reserves,(2)borrow,or (3)extend or increase taxes.You have
large enough reserves to fund the whole thing,but you will be left very short for any
subsequent emergency.You could borrow the whole thing with the city's AA rating.But
you will then need to come up with about $500,000 per year or so to amortize the
bonds.It may well be that anyone solution alone is not enough.
You may also find that when you go to borrow,the recent round of public agency
bankruptcies will make it harder for you to borrow without pledging security.Personally
I don't think you should pledge city land.You can pledge city general fund revenues,
but that may risk essential services.The best approach may be to pledge specialized
revenues such as the storm drain user fee.Unfortunately,that fee has a sunset making
it useless as security for a bond which extends beyond the sunset date in 2016.And
any bond for financing San Ramon canyon repairs will have to extend beyond 2016 to
be practical.
In sum,protecting residents'property values without risking city land and essential
services requires you to consider seeking to extend the storm drain user fee now or to
identify some other means of financing the San Ramon repair.
Rest assured that your public is watching closely to see how you handle this
issue.Good luck.
Tom Long
7/3/2012
From:SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,July 03,2012 11:50 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;Carolyn Lehr
Subject:Tonight's City Council meeting
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO:RPV City Council and RPV City Manager
RE:July 3,2012 City Council meeting potential actions
I am really having a hard time deciding who is running this circus.For decades,only
the City Manager got to decide what got onto the City Council's Agenda.Trails
"criteria"has been a "hot issue"since 2003 and has not gotten onto the Agenda.
Tonight's Agenda has something new.The City Manager has to ask for "direction"but
chooses not to ask that "trails criteria"be put onto the Agenda.
CITY MANAGER REPORT:City Manager Lehr is seeking Council direction to place the
following item on the July 17,2012 City Council Agenda - San Ramon Debt Financing
Options.
(30 mins)4.Mayor's Appointment of City Council Members to an Ad Hoc
Subcommittee on Organizational Performance Audit (Brooks)
Stalling must be good for somebody's interests.Another Trails Committee certainly is
not going to be able to restore the trails in the RPV Trails Network Plan which Staff
has let be obliterated.San Ramon,10 Chaparral and the Salvation Army frontage are
next on the "doomed list".
If neither the Council nor Staff may discuss the situation ...Stale mate.Both
butterflies and people lose.
7/3/2012
From:Phillip Taylor [philliprtaylor@me.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 03,20129:19 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Phillip Taylor
Subject:Skateboarder restrictions
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Phillip Taylor of 6424 Via Colinita,RPV.
I have previously commented on the proposal to restrict skateboarding and other forms of
recreation/transportation on my street,and throughout RPV.I am strongly against the restriction
on many grounds,mostly because I feel the restrictions on the freedom of residents and the
greater community are not appropriate.My earlier communication with the City Council is on
file,I trust.
At this point in the process I want to suggest that the review of the entire topic has not fully
looked at viable alternatives in a balance manner.The solutions proposed by those wanting to
restrict skateboarding and other activities,are geared toward taking away other people's
freedoms.I don't feel that the community has fairly considered propositions that are viable,but
involve proponents of restrictions giving up some of their own freedoms as solutions.
A great example would be Via Colinita itself.Much of the concern about skateboarders
traveling rapidly down the winding road relates to the concerns that residents have of
encountering the riders as they drive their cars up the hill.
Restricting Via Colinita to "one-way"downhill would allow skateboarders to descend at the
speed of cars and bicycles on a one-way street,effectively eliminating conflicts.Via Colinita is
suitable for this solution because of the near proximity of Miraleste and Palos Verdes East
looping back to the top of Via Colinita.This solution would be one where residents with safety
concerns would accept a one-way status for the street,a minor inconvenience,to achieve their
objective.
This solution would have an added benefit of reducing the through traffic that is routine on Via
Colinita.This uphill traffic is often at a high speed,and a much greater safety concern to me
than skateboarders.
I urge the City Council to look at alternative solutions in RPV to the wholesale restriction of the
skateboarders'freedoms on the best recreational streets of the city.Many thanks for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr.Phillip Taylor
6424 Via Colinita
philliprtaylor@me.com
310-935-7974
7/3/2012
From:Sl,lnshineRPV@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,July 03,2012 11 :50 AM
To:cc@rpv.com;Carolyn Lehr
Subject:Tonight's City Council meeting
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO:RPV City Council and RPV City Manager
RE:July 3,2012 City Council meeting potential actions
I am really having a hard time deciding who is running this circus.For decades,only
the City Manager got to decide what got onto the City Council's Agenda.Trails
"criteria"has been a "hot issue"since 2003 and has not gotten onto the Agenda.
Tonight's Agenda has something new.The City Manager has to ask for "direction"but
chooses not to ask that "trails criteria"be put onto the Agenda.
CITY MANAGER REPORT:City Manager Lehr is seeking Council direction to place the
following item on the July 17,2012 City Council Agenda - San Ramon Debt Financing
Options.
(30 mins)4.Mayor's Appointment of City Council Members to an Ad Hoc
Subcommittee on Organizational Performance Audit (Brooks)
Stalling must be good for somebody's interests.Another Trails Committee certainly is
not going to be able to restore the trails in the RPV Trails Network Plan which Staff
has let be obliterated.San Ramon,10 Chaparral and the Salvation Army frontage are
next on the "doomed list".
If neither the Council nor Staff may discuss the situation ...Stale mate.Both
butterflies and people lose.
7/3/2012