Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-08 Policy & Services Committee Summary MinutesPOLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Regular Meeting August 8, 2023 The Policy and Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 7:00 p.m. Present In Person: Tanaka (Chair), Lauing, Veenker Present Remotely: None Absent: None Public Comment None Agenda Items 1. Approval of Office of City Auditor FY2024 Task Orders City Auditor Adriane McCoy presented the following Task Orders for Committee approval: Citywide Risk Assessment, annual audit plan, hiring of external auditor, administrative tasks for reporting and City hotline as well as evaluation and benchmarking performance of internal audit functions. The Office of the City Auditor responds to calls made to the hotline. The initial contract included independent periodic review, which is a typical evaluation within the internal audit profession. The FY2024 contract incorporated the related budget for each task. Council Member Veenker was unaware of the hotline. She asked how people learn about the hotline and the hotline’s scope. She noted the report mentioned an employee hotline but City Auditor McCoy stated during her presentation that the public could also call the hotline. City Auditor McCoy explained it is typical for public sector entities and corporations to have a phone number or email for anyone to report something inappropriate, unacceptable service, or for vendors to report a situation related to their interactions with employees. City Manager Ed Shikada clarified that the City has a Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline, which was focused internally. The City Auditor, City Attorney and City Manager receive an initial read of complaints. The software platform allows complaints to retain anonymity. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 5 Sp. Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/08/2023 Council Member Tanaka requested a percentage comparison of the proposed expenses for task orders versus last year. City Auditor McCoy replied it was the same, so there was no percentage increase in dollar amounts. A comprehensive risk assessment is performed on alternate years. Next year, a less involved review would be proposed to update the risk assessment. MOTION: Council Member Veenker moved, seconded by Council Member Lauing to recommend the City Council approve the following task orders: 1. FY24-Task 01 – Citywide Risk Assessment 2. FY24-Task 02 – Annual Audit Plan 3. FY24-Task 03 – External Financial Auditor 4. FY24-Task 05 – Various Reporting & City Hotlines 5. FY24-Task 06 – Evaluation and Benchmarking MOTION PASSED: 3-0 2. Receive and Discuss the Seismic Risk Assessment Study and Seismic Hazards Identification Ordinance Update Management Specialist Rachael Tanner delivered a slide presentation. In 1986, City Council adopted the current Seismic Hazards Identification Program codified at PAMC Section 16.42.2. This ordinance established a mandatory evaluation program with incentives for property owners to perform voluntary upgrades to structurally deficient buildings. Of the 89 buildings identified under the ordinance, 100% of the property owners submitted reports. As of 2017, 74% of those buildings were strengthened, demolished or proposed to be demolished and at least six additional buildings were strengthened or are planned to be demolished. Based on the Seismic Risk Assessment Study, Palo Alto would face significant losses but retrofitting could prevent loss and help the city recover more quickly. Addressing potentially hazardous building types present in large numbers would maximize risk reduction. The additional buildings under consideration to include in the Seismic Hazards Identification Ordinance Update include: 294 soft-story wood frame buildings constructed before 1977, 99 tilt-up buildings constructed before 1998, 37 soft-story concrete buildings constructed before 1977, 35 steel moment frame buildings constructed before 1998, and an unknown amount of older non-ductile concrete buildings constructed before 1977. Under the current ordinance, a magnitude 7.9 would cause $2.4 billion in losses but retrofitting would result in a 45% reduction in losses; a magnitude 6.7 would cause $1.2 billion in losses but retrofitting would result in a 33% reduction in losses. Staff proposed the following action steps. Procure expertise. Perform a limited refresh of the study and retrofit cost estimations. Establish a community engagement strategy and schedule. Return to the Committee for approval of staff’s recommended policy and program, then to City SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 5 Sp. Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/08/2023 Council for direction. Draft an updated ordinance and program budget. Adopt the ordinance and appropriate funds to initiate the program. Council Member Veenker inquired how to access information on what a particular building was made of, if it was evaluated and retrofitted. Management Specialist Tanner does not know if the records were in storage or digitized. Chief Building Official George Hoyt remarked that the reports were in paper form in Development Services Operations’ filing cabinet. 525 University Avenue is undergoing seismic upgrades and will be strengthened to the new standard. The Palo Alto Square property is possibly non-ductile and has not had seismic retrofitting. Chief Building Official Hoyt offered to look at Palo Alto Square’s engineering studies from 1986 to confirm it is non-ductile and follow up with Council Member Veenker. Los Angeles and San Francisco have the strictest seismic regulations. Management Specialist Tanner and Chief Building Official Hoyt visited San Francisco to learn about the City’s process. Council Member Veenker preferred Options 4, 5 and 6 presented by staff. She believed it should be mandatory to retrofit certain building types. Council Member Lauing expressed his concern with mandatory retrofits because of the cost. He was interested in incentives that do not require the City to finance upgrades. One incentive Council Member Lauing found appealing was disclosures at entrances to potentially unsafe buildings to warn the public. Management Specialist Tanner stated that the previous study took about two years and this proposed project would have a similar timeline. Chief Building Official Hoyt believed the previous study took 1½ years, including the RFP process, bringing on the consultant and about one year in the study. Planning Director Jonathan Lait pointed out that staff will have better insight to the timeline once consultants respond to the RFP. Council Member Veenker wanted to ensure equitable application of the updated ordinance. She worried that only rich people would have safe buildings or property owners would pass on the financial burden to their tenants. Maybe an employee needs the job in a building with a warning sign or low-income tenants might not have seismically safe housing options. Staff commented that development incentives were effective, such as allowing for increased density without parking, more units on the site and increases to height. These incentives allow an enhanced revenue stream to help offset costs. Staff will analyze options to justify any recommended development incentives and look to Council for guidance. Council Member Tanaka wanted buildings in our city to be safe, so he recommended having a fixed, aggressive timeline. He thought disclosure was a good idea. He did not want to cause a burden on property owners and push them out of Palo Alto. He opined voluntary was better but if screening, evaluation, and retrofits were mandatory, it should not be unfair or difficult to comply. If a building has a high occupancy and is not very safe, maybe it should have lower occupancy or earthquake-safe furniture if you do not retrofit. He suggested having strong SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 5 Sp. Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/08/2023 incentives. He asked staff about the TDR program’s success, what could have been done better or how to accelerate this process. Director Lait commented that at the time incentives were introduced into our zoning regulations, there was the opportunity for TDRs without parking and it was a big incentive for seismic upgrades downtown and in the SOFA area. There was a submarket of TDRs trading and applying to properties. With the passage of AB 2097, the vast majority of our downtown area does not need to provide parking for new commercial floor area because of its proximity to the University Caltrain Station. Council Member Tanaka opined it is the responsibility of government to make sure people are safe. Property owners should complete retrofits by a deadline in order to qualify for incentives. He suggested that staff provide a comparison chart of programs and the number of properties thought to remain unsafe in each program to perform an elasticity analysis. The Committee took a five-minute break at 8:20 p.m. 3. Discussion of City Council Procedures and Protocols Censure Policy Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines addressed the Committee. This topic is a continuation of City Council’s referral related to the Procedures and Protocols Handbook. The draft censure language was refined in response to City Council’s feedback. The City Attorney’s Office drafted the new language in the Committee’s packet for consideration. City Attorney Molly Stump discussed Council’s stated concerns. These included calibrating the potential Council response to varying degrees of seriousness of conduct, avoiding any appearance of politically motivated action as well as questions about what might trigger an enforcement action. The proposed draft policy would add Section 8.2 “Enforcement” to the Procedures and Protocols Handbook. Council could take action in response to violations of written policies or law contained in the Handbook, state or federal law or another Council-approved document. The draft policy included a graduated menu of options as well as procedures to ensure a fair process for everyone. Staff proposed a multi-step process. Through a Colleagues Memo, two or three council members could propose an action or start a discussion about conduct of concern. The subject council member has an opportunity to respond and the item would be agendized for Council. Council could decide to take no action, clarify an existing policy or requirement, initiate a new policy, or issue an admonition (informal warning or reminder). Council could appoint one or two council members to supervise an outside independent firm’s investigation to gather facts. Council could agendize a formal disciplinary hearing. Public Comments: Arthur Liberman spoke about the importance of having clear guidelines on ethical behavior. He SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 5 Sp. Policy & Services Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/08/2023 commented on recusal of council members when there is a conflict of interest and cited Section E of the Ethics Addendum. He believed Council Member Burt should have recused himself on items related to CPI because, at the time, he was president of a plating company, past President of the Metal Finishing Association of Northern California, as well as his personal and professional relationships with former CPI President Bob Fickett and a CPI contractor. Council Member Veenker asked about neighboring cities’ censure policies. City Attorney Molly Stump replied that cities in our county were surveyed. Many cities do not have a censure policy. Staff obtained policies from Milpitas, Santa Clara, San Jose and Los Altos. Council Member Lauing asked if it was possible to discuss the matter privately, if appropriate. City Attorney Stump responded that the best way to address issues is as soon as possible at the lowest possible level, which could be a direct conversation between two council members where one had a concern about the other’s behavior, through the mayor or third party. Discussion ensued on portions of the proposed Procedures and Protocols Censure Policy. Council Member Tanaka requested staff to include the links to other cities’ censure policies so the Committee can review and compare. Future Meetings and Agendas Staff will bring back revisions to the Procedures and Protocols Censure Policy. The Committee annually reviews Procedures and Protocols. Staff will ask Council if there are sections they would like reviewed. There will be a race and equity update in September or October. The legislative recap will be at full Council on Monday. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.