HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190701plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 7/1/2019
Document dates: 06/12/2019 – 06/19/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Saturday, June 15, 2019 1:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely; Flaherty, Michelle
Subject:information requirements for evaluating a business tax yield and impacts
Attachments:Information Requirments for Evaluating Business Tax Alternatives.doc
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
1
CENTER FOR CONTINUING STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY 385 HOMER AVENUE • PALO ALTO • CALIFORNIA • 94301 TELEPHONE: (650) 321-8550 FAX: (650) 321-5451
www.ccsce.com
DATE: June 15, 2019
TO: Finance Committee and City Council
FROM: Stephen Levy
SUBJECT: Information Requirements for Evaluating Business Tax Alternatives
I have read the staff report and offer the following comments to staff, the Finance
Committee and City Council.
Exemptions and Tax Yield
The tax yield will depend on the magnitude of exemptions and the structure of
the tax. I urge the Finance Committee to give direction on the scope of
exemptions so the consultant(s) can accurately estimate the yield. Exemptions
can be categorical (taxed or not) and the rate can vary by size of organization as
in the Mountain View business tax.
The Mountain View ordinance says it applies to commercial and industrial
“businesses” and outlined exemptions:
2
Does the Finance Committee wish a business tax to apply to a) public agencies,
b) non-profit organizations including churches and medical facilities, c) small
(how small) businesses?
To understand the implications of exemptions on tax yield, Palo Alto needs
accurate information on the structure of organizations by type of activity and size.
It appears that Mountain View taxes a subset of all employment and employers.
This information is needed in any event to estimate tax yield.
I strongly suggest as a professional who works with employment and
industry structure data that the city obtain this data from the California
Employment Development Department (EDD) and not rely primarily on any
survey data as the EDD data is almost complete count data. I can help with
that if requested.
Impacts of the Tax
Tax Incidence—Who Actually Pays the Tax
This is complicated but current events remind us this is a really big deal to get
right.
Think about trade and tariffs. The President claims Mexico and China will pay the
tariff (tax) but economists of all political persuasion argue correctly that
businesses and consumers will pay.
In theory we know that businesses can react to taxes by 1) passing them along
to consumers and/or 2) reducing activity.
Who actually pays a “business” tax in Palo Alto will depend partly on how the tax
is structured and partly on how businesses react. The incidence of a proposed
business tax will likely will be a very strong subject of controversy in
stakeholder and public discussion and will not go unnoticed.
So I strongly suggest that staff retain credible and non-partisan assistance on the
impact/incidence issues. Mt thoughts go to asking Stanford experts in tax
incidence to do a study session before the committee and council.
The same issues may arise with regard to whether a business tax could result if
a reduction or elimination of a particular business activity in the city.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 16, 2019 3:46 PM
To:Gaines, Chantal; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Cc:Elizabeth Alexis
Subject:Request for removal of item from consent calendar
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members and Staff,
The June 24th tentative agenda shows the amendment of the AECOM contract under consent instead of as an action
item.
I respectfully request that this item be removed from consent and instead be placed on a City Council agenda
immediately after Council break.
At the April 22nd council meeting the Committee of the Whole motion included a specific request to have this
item return to the council.
Here are the relevant parts of the final motion:
B. Add more check-ins with Council. Redefine the Community Working Group (WG) meetings to cover
more ground;
D. Direct Staff to return to Council with an amendment to contract C18171057 with AECOM to reflect
scope changes and extension to October 2019 for Council selection of a preferred solution; and
At the time of the discussion, there was a lot of focus on the formation of the new XCAP and a desire for more
details on the overall process.
By placing this item on consent, the City Council is essentially approving whatever additional scope of work
has been added by City Staff to do the XCAP process (meaning number of meetings of the XCAP, additional
community meetings and their format, types of deliverables AECOM will produce, like graphics, videos,
surveys, polls, etc.) without any review. This seems counter to the motion that was made.
I appreciate that the Council goes on break soon, and thus there is an unusually long list of items on the
consent list. However, the value of the contract is over $2 million, which seems to warrant further scrutiny,
even without the councils explicit direction.
Agending this item would not appear to delay the process. In fact, the first Extended Citizen Advisory Panel
(XCAP) meeting is being held this Wednesday, June 19th (before the contract is even due to be approved).
Note: The members of the XCAP have not been announced. (Agenda for the XCAP’s first meeting is attached).
Given the XCAP is launching prior to the AECOM amendment, it seems:
2
1) A more thorough review of the contract and XCAP process would not hinder the schedule or cause a delay
in this process. (In fact, recall the last CAP process was added to the scope of work later and was retroactively
approved.)
2) the Council may want to edit/change/amend the process based on what XCAP members were seated on the
committee (for example, what if Stanford representatives were not able to be secured? Or what if key
neighborhoods aren’t represented? Would/should this change the type of outreach process AECOM might
need to do?)
3) The CC can review the contract after summer break and once the first XCAP meeting has been completed
and use that additional insight to address any remaining issues.
As background:
Details of April 22nd, 2019 meeting where XCAP was formed and City Council gave staff direction on this
issue:
Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67695.84&BlobID=70530
Here's a link to the video of the meeting where this item is discussed: https://youtu.be/sHd5MvwUjUA?t=13401
Final Action Minutes of that
meeting: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=50627.13&BlobID=71239
Thank you for your consideration.
Nadia Naik
CARRD
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.PDF file
20190619 XCAP Meeting Agenda Final.pdf
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Enid Pearson <enidpearson1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 16, 2019 11:17 AM
To:Holman, Karen (external); Minor, Beth; Council, City
Subject:Re: ALERT FOR THIS MONDAY
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
This is shocking. Where is the city manager in all this? Isn't part of his job
to make sure protocol and rules are adhered to?
This is certainly a great way to exclude the public from participating in
the process. This project should go back to the Planning
Commission. The Commissioners must be allowed to complete their
review and submit their conclusions. Don't let this project
move forward without further Planning Commission Review. Enid
Pearson, former CC and Vice Mayor
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:12 AM Karen Holman <kcholman@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Please come this Monday (tomorrow) night to the City Council oral communications, scheduled for 5:10 pm to
5:30 pm and either speak or lend your name to other speakers You can also email the Council at
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
The massive Mercedes/Audi Baylands project is scheduled for City Council review on Monday, June 24 even
though the city’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) has yet to issue its formal recommendation for or against
the project.
It’s vital that the City Council follow its Municipal Code rules for such projects and have the ARB’s final
recommendation in hand before it grapples with the project’s many zoning and compatibility issues.
Here are some points you might say and/or email - but in your own words:
The City Council should hear the Mercedes/Audi project only after a formal recommendation from the
Architectural Review Board, as required by the Municipal Code [18.30(G).055(d)]
The Architectural Review Board has yet to vote up or down on the project, contrary to what is stated in
the Staff Report and Record of Land Use Action. In fact, the Board indicated on more than one
2
occasion if they had voted on June 6 they would have denied the project because the outstanding
issues are so significant.
The applicant agreed to a fourth meeting with the ARB to try to resolve the outstanding issues.
Having the Council hear the item before the ARB concludes its deliberations undercuts the work of the
professional volunteers who comprise the Architectural Review Board.
ARB members identified a number of (required) Findings they could not make at their June 6 meeting
and also identified a number of omissions from the plans provided to them including required
contextual drawings and lighting specs.
The staff report for the City Council doesn’t even include minutes or video of the Architectural Review
Board’s most recent four hours of deliberations, again undercutting their efforts, nor are these
available on the City’s website.
The staff report states that the PTC recommended approval of the project but not that the vote was 4-3
with several members stating concerns about massing and that the project is too big. Minutes of the
PTC and Video are not provided.
The Council is required to review plans and elevations approved by the ARB, but no such approval has
occurred [Municipal Code 18.30(G).055(c)]
The plans provided by the applicant still do not include information required by the Municipal Code
specifying the bulk of the buildings [Municipal Code 18.30(G).050(b)]
The Record of Land Use Action Section 4. ARB Findings is supposed to compare the project to all
relevant design guidelines. Missing are evaluations of how this project satisfies the Baylands Master
Plan.
3
Thank you in advance,
Jeff and Karen
‐‐
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 16, 2019 4:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Mercedes/Audi Baylands project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members:
I am writing about the Mercedes/Audi Baylands proposal scheduled for discussion at the 6/24 Council meeting. I would
hope ultimately that Council is able to approve this project because I see it as an appropriate use of the site. However,
this item should not be on the Council agenda until it has gone through the procedural steps required of any project
awaiting Council approval. Many of those steps have been missed in this case. They are as follows:
The Architectural Review Board has not made a formal recommendation on this project as is required by the Municipal
Code although the Staff Report mistakenly states that it has. In fact, the ARB has stated that if the project were to have
been voted on at the June 6 meeting, it would have been denied.
The project as it now stands is out of scale in terms of its mass in relation to surrounding buildings in the area.
The Staff Report states that the PTC recommended approval of the project but omits the fact that the vote was 4‐3 with
several members raising concerns about the projects' mass and size.
The Council has not had the opportunity to review plans and elevations approved by the ARB because no such approval
has occurred.
There are no evaluations of how this project satisfies the Baylands Master Plan.
For all the above reasons, this project should not be on the Council agenda until the applicant fulfills the requirements
specified in the Municipal Code and required of all projects seeking permitting approval.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 16, 2019 6:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mercedes/Audi Project Needs Final ARB approval
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I urge you to hold off on any decision regarding the Mercedes/Audi project until the ARB has given it's final
thoughts. From personal experience, I know how important the ARB comments are regarding the overall design
process. Any decision prior to their final verdict is premature.
Thanks for upholding the standard design process.
Sincerely,
Michael Harbour, MD, MPH
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 12, 2019 1:15 PM
To:Frank Agamemnon
Subject:Don't miss it - June 15th - Documentary on Smart Meters & 5G
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello all,
Here is a reminder on the film event this Saturday on smart meters and
5G. This will be an excellent opportunity to learn why these technologies
represent an unwarranted risk to health, safety, privacy, and property.
We absolutely need to organize to inform others and inform our
legislators. I met with a NY State Senator on Monday who chairs the
energy subcomittee and it went well. Now we need to follow up and
expand our political outreach. Hope to see you there!
Best,
Les Jamieson
Award Winning Documentary “Take Back Your Power”
What the public must know about Smart Meters and 5G
7 pm Saturday, June 15th
Revelation Gallery, 224 Waverly Place, NY 10014
Utility companies around the world have been replacing electric, gas and water analog
meters with pulsed radiation smart meter networks. According to thousands of scientists,
these devices have never been adequately tested by the industry or government agencies
for safety to humans as well as the ecosystem. The industry has misled the public by citing
out‐dated FCC guidelines and claims that smart meters emit only low‐level radiation, while
omitting any mention of thousands of independent tests revealing a serious threat to
health as well as thousands of complaints by people who have been harmed. The rollout of
2
5G WiFi technology is yet another example of mass marketing of devices operating on what
amounts to microwave frequencies without testing for health effects.
Currently, our local NY City utilities are deploying smart meters throughout the boroughs
and 5G cells are being installed on Governors Island. Come learn what you need to know at
a screening of the award‐winning documentary “Take Back Your Power”. The screening will
take place Saturday, June 15th, 7 pm at Revelation Gallery, 224 Waverly Place, NY 10014.
Discussion will follow. Admission is free.
For more background, visit these sites:
http://stopsmartmeters.org/
http://stopsmartmetersny.org/
https://ehtrust.org/
https://zero5g.com
https://www.5gcrisis.com/
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Blake Campbell <gb.campbell@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 12, 2019 2:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please get rid of the El Camino Real RV's
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
They are a complete eyesore.
Not right to subsidize them with free parking on the streets or by means of a city sponsored lot.
Time for them to move to private property somewhere, even if out of state.
‐‐
Blake Campbell
650-678-1440
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Leslie Dorosin <Leslie@grovefoundation.org>
Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RV Parking Lot/Zones
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of the proposal to establish a parking lot on city property as well as to join with other local cities
and Stanford to solve this problem. Thank you for your vote this week. Given the housing crisis, many people can no
longer afford to live near their jobs and RV living is an unfortunate outcome. I understand this is temporary solution to a
health and safety issue but it’s a start. I hope you will also begin to address the longer term issues around housing and
transportation (Some housing at Cubberly )
Leslie Dorosin
Barron Park
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:25 AM
To:Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; HRC;
cromero@cityofepa.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; epatoday@epatoday.org; Council, City;
city.council@menlopark.org; Kniss, Liz (external); griffinam@sbcglobal.net; gstone22@gmail.com
Subject:SF to allow free calls for inmates, no markups on products sold in jail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF‐to‐allow‐free‐calls‐for‐inmates‐no‐markups‐on‐13974972.php
Sent from my iPhone
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Janaina Almen <macacinha@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 16, 2019 11:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Weekend street closure idea
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hello City Council members,
Today I spent Father's Day with my family at the music festival and it was such a pleasure to have a the space bc of the
street closure that I was thinking, how wonderful it would be to have this monthly or weekly for families to enjoy a more
open space with their children and still have access to the stores and restaurants. I would definitely come downtown
much more often if this was happening. Please let me know what steps are needed for this to be considered.
Thank you,
Jana
Sent from my iPhone
DATE: June 10, 2019
TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S REQUEST TO CHANGE RATES FOR
THE RECOVERY OF ENERGY PURCHASES AND CREDITS FROM GREENHOUSE GAS
ALLOWANCES (A.19-06-001)
Summary
On June 3, 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its 2020 Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA)
Forecast application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting approval to change rates for the
following:
•Recovery of $2.9 billion in costs related to fuel needed to produce electricity as well as market-based costs of buying
energy from third parties to serve bundled load
• Setting certain charges for bundled and departing load customers for the recovery of above-market costs of PG&E's
portfolio procured for these customers before their departure, including the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment
(PCIA), Ongoing Competition Transition Charge (CTC) and Cost Allocation Mechanism (CAM)
• Public policy mandates recovered through the Tree Mortality Non-bypassable Charge (TMNBC)
• Return of $391 .5 million to eligible customers for the sale of greenhouse gas emission allowances, including the
California Climate Credit for residential customers and returns for eligible nonresidential customers
Exact amounts are subject to change and to CPUC regulatory approval. PG&E will provide the CPUC with updated
amounts later in the year to ensure the most current information is used to set customer rates.
Background
The ERRA is used to record fuel and purchased power costs which can be recovered in rates. While this may result in a
change in rates, PG&E recovers these costs with no mark up for return or profit. The purpose of this application is to
forecast costs of obtaining energy for customers and also to approve the amount to be returned to customers from the
sale of greenhouse gas emission allowances for the calendar year of 2020.
If the CPUC approves this application, PG&E will begin to recover its costs in electric rates effective January 1, 2020. At
the end of 2020, PG&E will compare actual costs to the amounts forecasted in this application and will incorporate any
differences in next year's application.
How will PG&E's application affect me?
Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation, transmission and
distribution services. This information includes the California Climate Credit for residential customers and greenhouse gas
allowance returns for eligible nonresidential customers.
Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential NonCARE customer using 500 kWh per month would
increase from $117.53 to $117.65 or 0.1%. Actual impacts will vary depending on energy usage.
Twice a year, in April and October, eligible residential customers will also receive a California Climate Credit in the
amount of approximately $36.67, for a yearly total of approximately $73.34.
How will PG&E's application affect non bundled customers?
Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) customers only receive electric transmission and
distribution services from PG&E. PG&E does not purchase energy for these customers. However, as mentioned above,
this application addresses recovery of certain costs incurred before their departure.
Residential DA/CCA customers also receive the benefit of the California Climate Credit. In addition, eligible nonresidential
DA and CCA customers receive the benefit of the greenhouse gas allowance returns. The impact of PG&E's application
on these customers is an average increase of 4.4%.
Another category of nonbundled customers is Departing Load. These customers do not receive electric generation,
transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay certain charges by law or
CPUC decision. The impact of PG&E's application on these customers is an average increase of 0.2%.
Detailed rate information was provided in a bill insert sent directly to customers.
1
How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals?
If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. Para mas detalles llame al 1-800-
660-6789 • *~~~'!It 1-800-893-9555. For TTY, call 1-800-652-4712. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and
exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2020 ERRA Forecast Application (A.19-06-001)
P.O. Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files office by appointment only.
For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's application (without exhibits) is
available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
CPUC process
This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and
other related information necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary
hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties.
These evidentiary hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate.
After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed
decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an
alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled
CPUC Voting Meeting that is open to the public.
The California Public Advocates Office (CalPA) may review this application. CalPA is the independent consumer advocate
within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible
rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. CalPA has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in
economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about CalPA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email
PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov or visit CalPA's website at www.publicadvocates.cpuc.ca.gov.
Stay informed
If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription
service. Sign up at: http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the
proceeding, have informal comments about the application or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may
access the CPU C's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/.
You may also contact the PAO as follows:
Email: pu blic.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mail: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074
TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282
Please reference PG&E's 2020 ERRA Forecast Application (A.19-06-001) in any communications you have with the
CPUC regarding this matter. All public comments will become part of the public correspondence file for this proceeding
and made available for review by the assigned Judge, Commissioners and appropriate CPUC staff.
9S :6 MV LI Nnr 61
331.:J.:lO S.).!~J13 J..lf:J
'if;) '011\I OlVd j0 AllO
2