HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-31 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 107
Special Meeting
May 31, 2016
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community
Meeting Room at 6:05 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth arrived at 6:10 P.M., Holman,
Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach
Absent:
Study Session
1. Council Study Session on Sea Level Rise.
Mayor Burt: Our first item is a Study Session on sea level rise. Mr. Bobel,
did you want to take the lead on this?
Phil Bobel, Public Works Assistant Director: Thank you, Mayor Burt. Phil
Bobel, Public Works. We have a good group of Staff people here to support
us and be with us. Kirsten Struve will do most of the presentation. Joe
Teresi is here to answer questions as is Matt Krupp, sitting behind us here.
We have many dignitaries from our upper management. I can't even name
them all, looking out in the audience; we have so many department heads,
which is great, because this is an interdepartmental effort. One of the points
we wanted to make right off the bat is that we're trying to coordinate and, I
think, doing a reasonable job, and we'll be talking about that among the
departments to address tough problems. Your agenda is background and
the current efforts. We're going to present six guiding principles that we'd
like to suggest. Of course, this is a Study Session; you'll not be acting on
these. It gives you a context for some next steps, and then we'll be talking
about those next steps. We do hope to inform and to prepare you. Mostly
our thought was for future things that will be coming to you that'll involve
sea level rise. There's a number of them, and Kirsten and I will be going
through them. Hopefully this is truly a Study Session, a background for you
on all these things. Another key goal, of course, is to get your input and to
try to take that back to the various things that'll be coming to you, and see
if we can get some of your input early on into these individual projects. Just
a quick reminder. This shows both creek and Bay flooding. It shows the
TRANSCRIPT
Page 2 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
creek flooding in blue. The green is the Bay flooding, tidal flooding. The red
is an area where the two overlap, and it's both types of flooding. This slide
just reminds us all that we have a number of critical facilities out in the area
of tidal flooding, our Baylands. I won't go over them all, but we know
they're there. The next slide makes the point that we have a wide range of
uncertainty and a series of differing projections by different entities on the
degree to which sea level is going to occur. This slide shows global change, a little different than some of the more local projections you've seen. In the
past 10-15 years, the rate of global rise has risen about 50 percent. San
Francisco Bay has one of the oldest tide gauges in the country and has seen
about 0.6 feet of sea level rise over the last century. As you can see from
this slide, the projections range from about a foot by the end of the century
to 6.6 feet by the end of the century. There's even greater projections that
you'll see from time to time that are over 10 feet of sea level rise. This a
little bit of terminology for you, because there is a little more terminology to
this whole sea level business than meets the eye. The first thing to show
you is that the tide tables that we look at and when we talk about king tides
is on a different datum than most of the discussion we're going to have
about sea level rise. The mean lower low water in our area is about 4.4 feet below mean sea level. Yet, for historical reasons, we use this as the datum
for tide measurement. When you look at a tide table and it says that today
the tide is going to be +10 feet, that's 10 feet above mean lower low water.
You'd add 10 to -4.4, and you'd get +5.6. In terms of mean sea level, the
tide is—the elevation is substantially less than it would look like in your tide
table. I want to make that point. For the rest of this presentation, we're
going to be talking about mean sea level as the datum, not what you'd see
in a tide table. That's how everybody talks about sea level rise. They talk
about it as how much mean sea level is going to go up. That was my typical
king tide. This strange looking brown thing over there, hanging onto the
shore, is our levee. Our City Manager asked us to add the levee, and we've
done that as best we could. That levee is typically about 10 feet from mean
sea level. That would protect us, knowing the problems with our current
levee system, from about a mean sea level of +10 feet. You'll remember
that the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) map that we
are working with in terms of flood insurance is 10.5 feet. FEMA declares it
the 100-year tidal situation to be actually 10.5 feet, and we usually round
that to 11. On this slide, we're showing you the 11-foot 100-year tidal flood
elevation. Notice that it's a little bit higher than our current levee. The
levee varies, but approximately 10 feet is what we currently have. Another
terminology that you're going to hear is about the wave run up. What that
means is that the tide is affected by the winds and the wave action
associated with that. One could add, as a protective measure, another
increment to take care of the wave run up. Another term that you'll see
used is freeboard. Think of that as a safety factor. Sometimes two feet is
TRANSCRIPT
Page 3 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
used. In this sort of example in my slide, we're using one foot as a safety
factor. There's sea level rise, which we came to talk about. Here we're
using an example of a three foot sea level rise. On the previous slide, we
know that these estimates have ranged from essentially one foot to greater
than six feet. Here we use three feet to show you an example of sea level
rise, adding on to all of these other things which could contribute to an
increase in the level we could protect against. You see that our current levee is now completely overwhelmed. I'm going to ask Kirsten to take you
through the rest of these slides.
Kirsten Struve, Environmental Control Program Manager: Thanks, Phil. This
is an image you might have seen already in the Sustainability and Climate
Action Plan. It's the sea level rise vulnerability in Palo Alto. The Bay
Conservation Development Commission, or BCDC, requires planning for 55
inches of sea level rise as part of its Bay plan. BCDC's jurisdiction is 100
feet in from the Bay. That's what the darker blue shows, the 55-inch sea
level rise and the vulnerable area in Palo Alto. I know it's confusing with all
the different estimates, but the Pacific Institute estimates that a 3.28-foot
rise in sea level would put 220,000 in the Bay Area at risk of a 100-year
flood event and also threaten critical infrastructure and natural ecosystems. The cost of replacing all this property that is at risk of coastal flooding with
sea level rise is estimated at $49 billion. The Staff Report goes through a lot
of these initiatives. Last September, we brought a response to a Grand Jury
report to the Council. The Grant Jury found that Santa Clara County has a
very disjointed approach to sea level rise and that there was no true leader
coordinating these efforts and suggested that the Water District should be
the coordinating agency. We go into more detail on both the State and the
Bay Area efforts. We are very actively participating in the coastal hazards
adaptation and resiliency group, which is a collection of agencies, local,
State agencies, that are dealing with sea level rise. It has several subgroups
dealing with funding, policy and technical aspects and also a regional
subgroup that is led by the Water District. The Water District is assuming a
leadership role for the county. BCDC is looking at possibly being a regional
leader for the Bay Area. In terms of what to do about sea level rise, there
are three basic response tools. One is to protect using traditional levees,
flood walls and wetlands. The next is to adapt, and that could be various
things; elevated structures like we've already seen in some areas of the
South Bay, structures that can be submerged or sort of a managed retreat,
starting to plan for nothing being there in the future. Retreat is either
partially or completely surrendering a facility to rising sea levels. These
tools could be used in the same place, either together or in series depending
on what happens in the future. The six guiding principles we're presenting
are to plan for whatever the current planning level is, which at this point is
55 inches of sea level rise by 2100; to monitor the latest science and adapt
TRANSCRIPT
Page 4 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
that number as needed for City projects; ensure that engineering solutions
are adaptable to changing predictions—for example, when we build a new
levee, making that base large enough to accommodate increasing in height if
we need that to happen—considering all three tools, when appropriate and
cost effective; looking at protecting, adapting and retreating to see which
one would work best—also using these tools together, because we have seen
that levees can fail in other parts of the country. It might be prudent to use adaptation, like elevating our structures, in addition to levees—collaborating
with regional planning efforts. If we protect Palo Alto by itself, we will still
flood. We have examples of how we might apply these guiding principles
and tools. For example, the treatment plant, the Regional Wastewater
Quality Control Plant, is an essential facility to protect public health and the
environment. It is likely not cost effective to relocate and must, therefore,
be protected by levees in the long term, but we will still need adaptation
because we will need to start pumping our effluent against the tides. Right
now it's flowing gravity. We may need to construct new facilities differently
with rising groundwater in mind. In terms of facilities in the Baylands, right
now the SAFER project, which we will talk about later, will protect them for
the next five decades. We need to analyze the cost effectiveness of increased protections if sea levels rise more quickly or higher than
anticipated. The Municipal Service Centers is already in an inundation zone,
and emergency response capabilities were affected in the 1998 flood. Using
all of the guiding principles to protect Municipal Service Center (MSC),
including access to allow emergency response, is something we need to look
at. Now we'll go through what is being done to protect the Bay Area and
Palo Alto in particular. Protection tools include, as we talked about, sea
walls, especially where there's not enough room like in San Francisco, and
levees. The thing that is emerging as one of the more exciting ideas is this
ecotone levee or horizontal levee. It's a vision for the future to help us
adapt. Basically what it is, is a levee at its core, and then it has a very long,
gentle slope that's planted with wetland vegetation. It is being piloted
across the Bay in the Oro Loma Sanitary District, where they also use
wastewater to seep through the levee to water and nourish the plants. They
have different plant palettes to figure out which ones work the best. The
benefits of using this kind of approach instead of a traditional levee is that—
Phil described the whole wave surge and having an extra factor for the
waves. The plants catch the waves, so these levees don't have to be as tall.
There's reduced maintenance because levees do erode if wind and waves get
into them all the time, but the wetlands will help protect them more. They
provide habitat because just like our land structures, wetlands will be under
water with sea level rise, and there will be no habitat unless we try to help
with ecotone levees. They could adapt to rising seas if enough sediment is
trapped and plants keep growing. They have the potential to treat
wastewater. We've put together a list of some issues for consideration that
TRANSCRIPT
Page 5 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
you might discuss. For example, what local planning should we be doing
now as we're doing the Comprehensive Plan? Should we look at zoning
restrictions, new building floor height requirements? What kind of risks are
we willing to tolerate? What are acceptable costs? What critical assets need
to be protected? Should we always consider both protecting and adapting or
is that too expensive? Should we only protect for the lifespan of facilities or
longer? Current protection efforts going on are the South Bay shoreline study that the Army Corps is leading. While this is the whole shoreline study
area, the current focus is on Alviso in San Jose. In Palo Alto, we have the
SAFER project; that stands for Strategy to Advance Flood Protection,
Ecosystems and Recreation, so all three, flooding, ecosystems and
recreation. It is jointly funded through a grant from the Department of
Water Resources and financial contributions from the three cities. It's a
feasibility study to identify the preferred alternative for improving our
existing Bay-front levees, which are not FEMA certified to 100-year flood
protection including sea level rise for the next five decades. This map shows
the draft alignments. The area in pink along San Francisquito Creek is the
currently ongoing project, the creek project. The other lines are various
options for protecting Palo Alto from Bayside flooding. There are several opportunities identified for using ecotone or horizontal levees, especially if
we do something like the yellow and the orange line (inaudible) some room.
The challenge with the horizontal levee that is technically considered Bay fill,
so it's not easy to get permitted. The San Francisco Estuary Institute is a
science organization that assists policymakers with information needed to
make decisions. Back in the '90s, they provided a roadmap for wetland
restoration that they have now updated, the Baylands Goals report. They
see Baylands as the real future, so that we can still see the Bay and enjoy
the Bay with recreation and use tidal marshes to protect ourselves from the
rising sea, especially if we can restore them quickly so that they can help
grow—that we protect land so they can migrate land where it ends and that
we can also restore complete systems where creeks connect to the wetlands
and help create a full habitat.
Mr. Bobel: Thanks, Kirsten. I'm just going to go over the next steps that
we're suggesting. Some of them are ones that you're going to deal with
regardless of desire and others are choices. The first one is the SAFER
project, the tidal flooding part of the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) work that
you're familiar with and that Kirsten showed some options for on the map.
We think that the feasibility study on that is still a couple of months away
from being given to you, but that is one of the nearer-term things that's
going to come your way, this series of options that Kirsten showed. It'll be
called the feasibility study for the SAFER project. We know that the height
assumption is going to be three feet, so this is an example of planning ahead
but not building for the highest planning level, that 55 inches that Kirsten
TRANSCRIPT
Page 6 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
mentioned. You might say, "Why isn't the SAFER project planning for 55
inches or even some greater amount?" They're using, in effect, one of our
principles which is design for flexibility in the future. Build the base of the
levee big enough so they can rise over time, but not build it higher when
we're really not certain how much sea level rise is going to occur. We're
already sort of using these principles that she suggested. The second thing
that's going to come your way is a new FEMA map. It won't be for your approval; it'll just be given to us. We are commenting on it; we've just done
that several weeks ago. Director Sartor signed a letter to FEMA with our
comments on their initial draft. This is not really a sea level rise map,
though. This is just tinkering with their current 10.5 height and looking at
some additional properties that they're going to suggest adding. I'm told
that they are working on consideration of sea level rise for a future, future
map, but the one that's coming to us in a few months isn't to include sea
level rise; it's just to tinker with the existing map that they have. That's the
second one. The third one, here's where we need some input from you all.
We could develop a policy on sea level rise. I personally would suggest that.
As we move forward with all these documents, there's a chance that we
wouldn't be fully coordinated unless we have a policy that all our Staff and all of our members have weighed in on and considered and agreed upon. An
example of what might be addressed in a policy like that is some of the
dilemmas that Kirsten pointed out under the suggestions for discussion.
Just to name one of them, it's this balance between adaptation and
protection. Do we do both at the same time? Should we be building this big
levee and be raising buildings up or raising electrical panels up or doing
other stuff with the concern that maybe the levee will be breached or maybe
it's not high enough? Shouldn't we be essentially doing a belt-and-
suspenders action? Shouldn't we be doing two things instead of just one?
That's the type of thing we could address in a policy with input from you.
There is no policy currently under development; we just suggest that again
for your discussion tonight. The Comprehensive Plan, I don't have to tell
you all about it. You're seeing it; you're discussing it in pieces. The Citizens
Advisory Group has it on their calendar within the coming months to
consider sea level rise in the safety or land use sections or both. Then, it
would come to you. You'll see sea level rise through that vehicle. The Draft
EIR, which has been prepared and released, for the Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan) uses 55 inches as a planning level, consistent with the
suggestions by BCDC and their work that we are doing and the suggestion
we made as one of your guiding principles, to use the 55 inches. That's in
the Draft EIR for the Comp Plan. The fifth one listed is the
Sustainability/Climate Action Plan, which you've seen. You adopted a key
goal with respect to it. You have us coming back to you in two parts. That
too is including the map that Kirsten showed, the 55 inches as a guidepost
for us. We're together on that. Number 6 kind of relates to Number 3. The
TRANSCRIPT
Page 7 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
question is the extent to which we should modify our building requirements.
Should we depend completely on the levee system or should we be
modifying our building requirements? This came up, you might recall, when
we brought the sewage treatment plant's next addition to you, a $25 million
project. Some of you asked, "Shouldn't we be doing more to protect it than
just rely on the levee system?" Again, that's a question for us in the future,
the degree to which either the zoning requirement or the building requirements themselves, the Code, be changed. Lastly, we're doing a local
hazard mitigation and adaption plan as required. The plan is to have that
tied to these other plans as well. Again, if we had a City policy or new
zoning requirements or new building requirements, we'd make sure that that
was incorporated in this new local hazard mitigation and adaption plan.
Those are the next steps we see for you. We'll stop there, and let you
discuss away.
Mayor Burt: Let me ask really how much depth of our discussion tonight
you're really looking for, because we basically have what's summarized on
Slide 15 and 20 is really, I think, what we are focusing on, the issues for
consideration and how they relate to next steps. Clearly we're not going to
be able to determine things tonight on this. It's a Study Session. Phil, can you (crosstalk).
Mr. Bobel: I would say, again, mostly this is to get you thinking and
warmed up to this, so these issues aren't surprises when they come to you
on these individual projects and measures that we talked about. I think the
area where we could use some feedback immediately is Slide 20, where we
talk about do we need a policy or are you comfortable moving ahead with
what we've given you so far, and the question of whether we should
strengthen Zoning or Building Code requirements. That goes to the question
of do we just protect or do we protect and adapt at the same time, using
that word adaption to mean build structures in a different way.
Ms. Struve: Also, generally what are your priorities and your vision for Palo
Alto with respect to sea level rise?
Mayor Burt: With our format tonight, I'll try to use my peripheral vision. If
I don't see you, wave your hand and I'll catch you. Who would like to go
first? Council Member Kniss.
Council Member Kniss: Thank you very much, both of you. It's a good
presentation and a sobering kind of discussion. One of the things that
comes right to mind is cost. I know the last thing you mentioned was the
water treatment plant and should it have been higher. Also, you might say
something about the heights. For anyone who's building in this area, there's
TRANSCRIPT
Page 8 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
the FEMA requirement regarding the height. It certainly adds a fair amount
to the cost at the same time. We have to have this policy; there's no
question. That's Number 3. It'd be good to know cost, what other
jurisdictions are doing around us. Pat's been extremely involved with the
creek project and with a number of other jurisdictions and how many other
jurisdictions would be involved with some of these decisions that we make,
especially around the adapt—what was the other? Adapt and ...
Mr. Bobel: Protect.
Council Member Kniss: ... protect plan, because what was presented was
very appealing when you do something that appears much more natural. All
of these have costs with them. Obviously something we need to do. Just
talk a little about that and where we're going with our budget.
Mr. Bobel: That's a big issue for us all. Using the example of the SAFER
project, we have options and we have costs. The expectation is that cost
will be a major factor in determining what options are chosen. That's the
only wisdom I can pass on about cost, to say that it's our expectation that in
any actions, projects we would propose, to look at costs and tell you what
the benefits are of additional spending.
Council Member Kniss: The FEMA map updates, Number 2, which as you've said we have nothing to say about, but they ...
Mr. Bobel: We've commented on it, and hopefully they'll take our
comments.
Council Member Kniss: Remembering back to the big flood and how much of
a challenge there was regarding what FEMA would cover and not cover, I'm
hoping at some point we also know, for those who want to build in that flood
zone, what that actual cost will be to them and/or to us. Thanks.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid.
Council Member Schmid: Just one very basic question. In the material we
got, there's a section called local projects on Page 9 and 10 of the Staff
Report. It mentions the SAFER project and states there the study and
design for the Bay-front levees between San Francisquito Creek and
Redwood City. On the previous page, under local projects, it has the City of
Mountain View has done a comprehensive sea level rise vulnerability and
adaptation assessment, and the City has developed a Capital Improvement
Program to meet flood protection. If you can turn to your Slide 7, if you
take those two local projects literally, we are doing a job from the
borderlands on the left northward, and Mountain View and the South Bay
TRANSCRIPT
Page 9 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
shoreline is working very effectively from the black line south. What's left
open is that middle two mile stretch between San Francisquito Creek and the
Mountain View border. Now the map you show on the SAFER ...
Mayor Burt: Can we just let Staff respond to that first, so that we don't
proceed under any false understandings there?
Mr. Bobel: Are you asking whether the SAFER project includes that area
that appeared to you to be a gap?
Council Member Schmid: The SAFER project gives three or four alternatives,
but in the written material it very clearly says it's from San Francisquito
Creek to Redwood City is the current agreement. We need to discuss what
happens to the south of San Francisquito Creek. I cannot believe, given
Slide 7, that that wouldn't be a priority for Palo Alto.
Ms. Struve: You found an error in our Staff Report. It's from both San
Francisquito Creek to Redwood City and also south to Mountain View.
Mayor Burt: That's why I was trying to let Staff speak, so that we wouldn't
spend 5 minutes down a false assumption.
Council Member Schmid: What's presented here is the series of alternatives,
some of which ...
Ms. Struve: Those are just for Palo Alto.
Council Member Schmid: Yes. I mean, I can't believe you want a statement
from Palo Alto that you would not include protecting what's shown as
vulnerable on Slide 7. That's my comment.
Mr. Bobel: Sorry, error there. The SAFER project, of course, the whole
point of it is to protect the area you're talking about.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Berman.
Council Member Berman: Thank you. To quickly personally address the two
questions you brought up, yes, I think the City should develop a policy on
sea level rise actions. I lean towards the protect and adapt strategy as
opposed to just the protect. I guess strengthening building requirements as
well, but I think that partially depends on how strong the protect measures
area. I think that's a conversation that will evolve. Speaking of the City of
Mountain View and what they did in conducting a comprehensive sea level
rise vulnerability and adaptation assessment, is that something that we
should consider as well? It says that was specifically for the Shoreline
community. Is that not necessary for Palo Alto because we're not that
TRANSCRIPT
Page 10 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
compromised as the Shoreline area of Mountain View is? I noticed that
wasn't necessarily a ...
Ms. Struve: SAFER is basically doing the same thing for us.
Council Member Berman: Got it. One of the goals of SAFER is to, at the end
of it, be able to develop a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) program to
address the ... Great.
Ms. Struve: That's right.
Council Member Berman: That answers another question I was going to ask
about the status of our levees and how—I feel bad; you guys are right in the
sun. What is the status of our current levees? Are we currently going
through an assessment of that to see how strong are they, are they at risk
of breach? I don't know how often we do that kind of an assessment.
Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer: I'm Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer in Public Works
Department. Our levees are maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Water
District. They are being maintained; however, they're of a state where
they're not certified by FEMA because they weren't constructed to modern
engineering standards, and they don't have the safety factor necessary to be
certified. That's why we have such a large area of the City in the tidal flood
plain, because the level of protection does not meet that FEMA standards. That's the purpose of the SAFER project. The feasibility study has already
been funded by the City for the (inaudible) of levee in Palo Alto. In the fiscal
2017 CIP, there's a new CIP that would fund the design and environmental
assessment of those levee improvements.
Council Member Berman: Just want to ask a couple of quick questions about
the Municipal Services Center. When I served on the Infrastructure Blue
Ribbon Commission, this is one of the things that we analyzed. I was
actually on that subcommittee. We talked about a lot of the benefits of
relocating at least some of those services and City functions west of the
highway for resiliency purposes in a natural disaster, more so an earthquake
that we talked about than sea level rise at that time. We kind of set that
aside in terms of the City Council's efforts and focused on some of the other
components of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC) report, but
not really the relocation of the Municipal Services Center, which is an area
ripe for improvement on multiple fronts. Has there been any other
discussion about either relocating a lot of the functions or some of the more
highly sensitive that we would really be up a creek without a paddle if that
area flooded? We've got some seriously sensitive equipment that's on the
ground floor that can't be moved up to upper floors, if I recall correctly.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 11 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Brad Eggleston, Public Works Assistant Director: Brad Eggleston, Assistant
Director of Public Works. We haven't had the type of planning efforts that
were talked about at one point during the IBRC. You probably recall at one
point we had funding in place for a full study that was going to look at
relocation of the MSC and kind of highest and best use of land, potentially
other land uses there and relocating certain functions. That was actually
defunded about two years ago. Kind of our current strategy on the MSC, we're actually moving forward with some projects to improve what we've got
there. Roof replacements, mechanical and electrical improvements that had
been on hold, things like that. There probably is some work to be done
along the lines of what you're saying as far as assessing equipment that's in
harm's way in case of flooding.
Council Member Berman: I'm forgetting the name of it, but it was kind of
the nerve operation center for the ...
Mr. Eggleston: The utilities control center?
Council Member Berman: Thank you, yeah. If memory serves me correct,
on the ground floor and kind of right in the path of the floodplain.
Mr. Eggleston: I'm not very familiar with that facility, other than knowing
that it's there.
Council Member Berman: I don't remember—this was six years ago, so I
don't remember all the details either. I just remember that there seemed to
be—that should be an area of focus for us if we're going to be either
protecting things or retreating. It sounds like we're making some
investments in the MSC to stay there in that footprint for a while longer.
Mr. Eggleston: Yes.
Council Member Berman: Got you. Didn't realize that. I think that's all the
questions I have for now.
Mayor Burt: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: You mentioned a $49 billion number. Was that
just Palo Alto?
Ms. Struve: No, that was the Bay Area.
Council Member DuBois: Do we know what the impact would be on Palo
Alto?
Ms. Struve: No, but I'm sure we could calculate it.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 12 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member DuBois: I was just curious. Maybe later. For the levee
planning, where did the 55 inches come from? I didn't really—sometimes
you're talking about three feet, sometimes you're talking about 55 inches.
Ms. Struve: There are lots of different planning levels. The State of
California has a different one for the Bay Area. Basically, what we're using is
the BCDC planning level. Their jurisdiction is the shoreline and 100 feet in.
Any project that is in the band has to meet their requirements. They asked projects on the shore to plan for 55 inches of sea level rise by 2100.
Mr. Bobel: Of course, that raises the obvious question, why is the SAFER
project then not using this 55-inch figure? Why in the SAFER plan is three
feet of sea level, 36 inches, being proposed? That sort of brings to focus
this principle that I mentioned, that—actually two principles. One we
haven't talked about tonight. Kirsten mentioned. One principle is that you
should be ready for more change. The base of the levee would be designed
so that it could be raised above 36 inches, but it's only now being designed
for 36 inches. That's one principle, have engineering features that are
flexible over time. The other principle is the design life of the facility. You
could conclude that facilities should be designed just for the period of time of
their engineering life. In the case of the SAFER project, as I understand it, it's being designed for 2050. The sea level rise projection is consistent with
that 55 inches by the end of the century, 36 inches by 2050. That's another
way of explaining the difference.
Council Member DuBois: I saw you had another policy about using the best
science. That'll probably be a topic we'll discuss when this comes back in
future projects.
Mr. Bobel: Right. You could say that, given this huge range of uncertainty,
it actually makes sense to do things incrementally as long as you don't give
up the ability to do something even stronger in the future.
Council Member DuBois: A question on the Army Corps of Engineers'
shoreline study. Byxbee Island is shown in the drawing here. We've got
Google and Facebook, I think, which are susceptible. Are companies like
that involved? How can we escalate the priority in the north county if the
Army Corps is focused south right now?
Ms. Struve: They are involved. Google, for example, is funding a study with
the San Francisco Estuary Institute on resilience and shoreline issues. The
South Bay shoreline study that the Army Corps did was prioritized as the
whole area was split up into economic impact areas. They chose the one
that had the highest economic impact to go first, and that was San Jose.
Because there is a big treatment plant there as well and a lot of parcels that
TRANSCRIPT
Page 13 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
would be vulnerable and already are, they chose that first. The idea is still
to do all of it eventually.
Mr. Teresi: I would add that I think we kind of have a parallel with what's
happened on San Francisquito Creek. Initially, when the JPA was looking at
solving that flood threat, they were looking to the Corps as the means of
doing that. In time, it came to light that that process is so cumbersome and
takes such a long time that the JPA instead adopted a local approach. That's sort of the same thing that's happening with respect to tidal flooding. We
could wait for this South Bay shoreline study, but instead the JPA's vision is
a more locally funded project called the SAFER project. Their vision is once
we get to the point where we've identified what the best approach would be
for providing that tidal flood protection, they would go out and do a ballot
measure and do a self-funded tidal levee project. It's going to be of a
magnitude that's going to be beyond the ability of any of the cities to fund
on their own. If we wait for the Corps, that will probably result in a very
long wait. The JPA's approach is to identify what's needed, find the locally
acceptable alternative, and then self-fund by some kind of assessment or
tax.
Council Member DuBois: Kind of a related question. Is anybody responsible for protecting Highway 101? It's kind of the same story, that it'll take so
long for the State to do it, we need to do it locally.
Mr. Teresi: I don't think that approach would be successful.
Council Member DuBois: Will FEMA take into account—you said they didn't
really consider sea level rise, so all of these plans would be considered when
they look at their next generation of maps for houses west of 101.
Mr. Teresi: The thing with FEMA is FEMA's maps are not to identify ultimate
levels of protection. They're done for flood insurance purposes, so it is then
to identify the areas of current risk. Anything that we build would have to
meet their standard. FEMA itself is not a levee building organization.
Council Member DuBois: That's what I was asking about, the insurance. On
the SAFER Bay project, you mentioned that the permitting is a challenge.
I'm just wondering if we should be considering policies to ask our State
lobbyist to make that easier, particularly for ecotone-type levees.
Ms. Struve: The pilot that Ora Loma is working on took six years to permit
and four months to build. Everyone was excited about it, so they're already
thinking about what can be done to streamline that approach so that it
doesn't take six years. We don't have that much time.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 14 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member DuBois: Is that a State-level issue?
Ms. Struve: It was a coordination issue, because it is technically filling the
Bay. There are a lot of people involved when you try and fill the Bay, even if
it's for a positive purpose in the end.
Mr. Bobel: Those are principally State agencies. I think your point is a good
one. We'll look into—maybe there's some other people that are seriously
considering State legislation. That's a good angle; we'll look into that.
Mayor Burt: There are Federal agencies as well. Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Thanks. Just so that I understand. In mid-2016, we're
going to get the SAFER Bay feasibility study, which is going to talk about the
levee alignment. It's going to talk about basically what we need to do to
bring those levees up three feet roughly, four feet. I guess that's what is
going to tell us, right?
Mr. Teresi: If you recall that one slide, it's more like eight feet. Our existing
levees are only at Elevation 10. In order to meet the FEMA standard with
the freeboard and the future sea level rise, they would need to raise it to 18,
so it's about right feet.
Vice Mayor Scharff: We'd raise the levees eight feet, and then we're going
to build into that the ability to go higher, so we have that adaptability built into that. Then, we're going to use—in 2017 we're starting to fund where
we're going to fund getting these levees fixed. Is that ...
Mr. Teresi: In 2017 in the CIP budget there's a new CIP that would provide
funding for the actual design of those levees and the environmental
assessment of those levees.
Vice Mayor Scharff: They would be shovel-ready so we could go and ask for
grants and that kind of stuff. Is that basically the plan?
Mr. Teresi: As I mentioned before, I think the JPA plan is to self-fund it
locally by some kind of a tax or assessment measure. Grants could probably
help, but I doubt that we could get grants to cover the full cost. That would
certainly be a factor that we would be looking for.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Going up eight or nine feet, what's the magnitude of
cost? Do we have a sense of what that's going to be?
Mr. Teresi: I don't have the numbers yet, but I think we're talking hundreds
of millions.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 15 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: That's what I was figuring. There's millions of dollars ...
Mr. Teresi: It's a large project, very large project.
Vice Mayor Scharff: In self-funding, is that hundreds of millions of dollars?
I guess you'd do it over a fairly long period of time. Hundreds of millions of
dollars to raise just out of this City is not that easy.
Mr. Teresi: It wouldn't just be Palo Alto. It would be a regional thing for
Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park. It would probably be done through some kind of debt financing. I think the idea that the JPA has expressed in
the past as to their strategy would be when they're talking to the public,
would they rather continue to pay flood insurance, which is getting more and
more costly, or would they rather see that money go towards a project that
would over time eliminate that need for that flood insurance cost.
Vice Mayor Scharff: The FEMA flood map updates come out. What's the
significance of that? Do we expect more to be in the FEMA or less?
Mr. Teresi: FEMA being FEMA, it's looking at the latest information as to the
tidal risk. The elevation is going to go up slightly. It's not going to really
address future rise, but it is going to go up slightly. That would cause the
area to move more inland, so it would add more properties. Again, that's
just being done for their flood insurance purposes. It's not a huge change, but it will see the addition of more properties in Palo Alto being in that tidal
flood plain.
Vice Mayor Schmid: You're thinking Items 1 and 2 come back to us in the
next couple of months, right? We're in mid-2016 roughly, so when are we
thinking?
Mr. Bobel: On the FEMA map?
Vice Mayor Scharff: There's the FEMA maps and the SAFER Bay Study.
When are they coming out?
Mr. Bobel: We, frankly, have been told for many months that the feasibility
study was a couple of months away, quote/unquote. That's our story. It's a
couple of months from now that we'd have the feasibility study and be
coming back to you.
Mr. Teresi: I would just add that I spoke earlier today with Len Materman,
the Executive Director of the JPA. I know that he's anxious to come and
speak to the Council about the SAFER Study. Probably sometime shortly
after your break that will happen.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 16 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: You've asked us about developing a City policy on sea
level rise actions. I assume you want Items 1 and 2 before we do that, and
that shouldn’t be an issue if they're a couple of months away. Our next item
is all about prioritizing what gets done. I know you have lots of time, Phil,
so that's why you're just asking to do something new at the moment.
Seriously, is this—when I read through the list of the item we're studying
next, it dawned on me that we talk about a lot of stuff at Council. We spend a lot of time doing it, and then there's no Staff resources to do it. I saw all
these items in red. I guess the question is should we be spending City time
on this at this time to develop a City—do you have the bandwidth? Is it
going to take away from other items you're not going to be able to do?
When prioritizing, of course we should develop a City policy, but what does
that mean we're not going to do if we develop a City policy? I guess I need
to ask this question from everything from now on after looking at this list.
Mr. Bobel: As I understand it, you'll be doing more of that after this Study
Session tonight. In short, it'll take away from other things.
Vice Mayor Scharff: What would it take away from? If we say we want you
to do it, what would it take away from? I can't answer the question.
Mr. Bobel: We won't be able to have Joe retiring, for example, as he currently plans on doing.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Sorry, Joe.
Mr. Bobel: Just generally speaking, it would take away from the types of
things Public Works already does, assuming Public Works is the lead.
Although, Planning would be another ... It will take away from things.
We're not making a strong recommendation that that be done. We're
mostly reacting to the fact that as more and more we've brought various
projects to you, you've been questioning how does sea level rise relate to a
given project. Without some policy that kind of directs us, it's hard to
answer your questions about what we're doing on a particular project. We
could just say that the City response to sea level rise is the SAFER project
and is ultimately some core additions to it, if that gets under way. That may
be the best solution, to not divert us into looking at other avenues but just
say, "We've got to protect our facilities. We've got a project under way
that'll protect those facilities. It's going to be built in such a way that it can
respond over time and be added to. That's sort of our policy." If that were
the feedback we got from you, I'd say we don't need a policy. We've got
actions under way; we know what we're doing. We don't want to be
diverted onto looking at zoning issues and looking at building requirements.
We have a strategy.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 17 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: That may very well be where I come out on that. It all
really depends on what the diversion takes and what that means we won't
do. I think it's really hard in a vacuum to answer that question. I also think
your other question was should we protect and adapt. I think the answer to
that is fairly easy. Depending on the circumstances, we should use all of the
tools available to us in an appropriate manner, including ones where you
allow flooding, which is part of the adapt. The flooding goes out, and it's all fine. I wanted to add on the ecotone that BCDC is spending a lot of time
actually in their Bay fill working group to determine what legislation they're
actually going to propose to allow them to issue permits to fill the Bay to
create those ecotone things in a more expedited manner. I think a lot of
really smart people are working on simplifying the regulatory process. BCDC
clearly recognizes that it can't take six years to do these kind of permitting.
What they want to do is to make sure they have a streamlined process so
that we can adapt to rising tides. I think us waiting a little bit also may
actually make all that come clearer, frankly, in the next year or two, in
probably the next 24 months. I don't think it's a long wait, but I think it will
actually provide a better toolbox to how to resolve this as a regional issue.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Filseth.
Council Member Filseth: Thanks very much. We talk a lot about protect and
adapt. Do you foresee any role—we didn't talk about retreating at all. Do
you foresee any role for that at all or is it sort of an all-or-nothing thing? If
we're going to protect this stuff, then there's no point in anybody else
moving away or doing "don't build over there" kind of things. Is that part of
the mix or in practice is that not relevant?
Mr. Bobel: I think retreat is part of the mix in the long term view. We don't
actually have to retreat from anything right now, so why would you do that
right now? Twenty years from now ...
Council Member Filseth: The corollary is should you build over there or not.
I think that's part of the retreat equation you're talking about, right?
Mr. Bobel: Mm-hmm. You mean build a new structure or something? Yeah,
right. That'd be one reason for having some Zoning or Building Code
requirements, to prevent any bigger problem than we already have.
Council Member Filseth: If we're going to protect something, we're probably
not going to move the water treatment plant. If you're somewhere near the
water treatment plant, is it irrelevant because it's going to be protected?
Mr. Bobel: You could certainly make that argument. We tried to find an
example for you of retreating. We chose a couple of different City facilities,
TRANSCRIPT
Page 18 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
and the Managers of those facilities practically had a heart attack, so we
don't have an example for you of where we might suggest retreating, with
the possible exception of something like the new Boardwalk. Although we're
designing and building a new Boardwalk, would it be the end of the world?
Would we raise it up 20 feet? No, because that would be foolish. Who's
going to walk out if it's under water. That is one example I can throw out to
you where retreating as an ultimate strategy makes sense. We don't have to retreat right now, but neither would we design it such that it would work
even with sea level rise.
Ms. Struve: One more thing to add. The alignments that you see in that
map already retreat, the ranger station. There are several facilities that are
outside of that bound, so retreat is definitely in play.
Council Member Filseth: It seems like there's a relationship between that
issue and one which is going to be one of the very, very hardest challenges
here. It's not just the cost per se, because I think we all assume it's going
to be really, really expensive to deal with. Who's going to pay for it? It
seems to me that needs to be part of a City policy on sea level rise, who's
going to pay for it. If it's going to be people that are sort of in those
locations as opposed to everybody else or whether it's Federal money or something like that, this is going to take decades and decades and decades
to pay. If we're going to have assessment districts and, dare I say, levies
for levees and so forth, it seems like that's got to be in place pretty soon,
because it's going to take us a long time to pay for it.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Thank you, and thank you for bringing this
forward. A lot of the questions have been asked. I'll try to keep this fairly
brief. Thank you, and Joe, you can't retire. We can vote on that, and I can
tell you how the vote would come out, I'm pretty sure. The question has
been asked about financial, blah, blah, blah. The ecotone, I think it was
Slide 14 maybe. What's the run-up of that? I'm sure it can be done in
different ways. Is it like a minimal quarter mile or what are we looking at?
Ms. Struve: It's generally a 30:1 slope, so it kind of depends on how high
the levee needs to be. It just slopes out from there
Council Member Holman: We know how high the levee needs to be, right? I
guess the more relevant question is, is there any place where this would be
applicable in Palo Alto given we have sensitive habitat. It looks like this
would be cool. Is there any place here that we could utilize this?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 19 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Ms. Struve: The yellow line, the orange line near the airport, probably all
along the landfill.
Council Member Holman: It could be. Maybe you can think of how much
the run-up might be. How does this compare in cost to a more, let's just
say, seawall kind of approach? Is there any comparison of cost?
Mr. Teresi: That part of the feasibility study isn't done yet, so I don't have
the numbers. I would imagine it would cost less, but I don't know that at this point.
Ms. Struve: We have a report that was done on the levee that is being
piloted. Levee cost per mile—there is a comparison, and a traditional levee
is projected to cost more than a levee that has the horizontal slope. I
believe that also includes the maintenance and upkeep.
Council Member Holman: It does include the maintenance?
Ms. Struve: I'm not sure; I haven't read the whole thing. Yes, I think so.
Council Member Holman: Protect, adapt and then retreat as well. Adapting
as it relates to Building Codes, we obviously have a lot of neighborhoods
that are in flood areas. As much as oftentimes we'd consider, I think, more
strongly adapt, but in the neighborhoods we already have real significant
impacts on the neighborhood itself because of the FEMA requirements now to elevate houses. That one gets to be pretty tricky, especially when you
get into the neighborhoods. As far as the protect and retreat and adapt too,
it would depend on what the use is. Say for instance, I can't imagine—I
shouldn't say it that way. Is there any likelihood that Staff would think it
would be a good idea to put housing in the Baylands area when we've got
sea level rise in front of us? The reason I ask is because it's a question that
comes up periodically. If we're talking about retreating and kinds of uses
and protecting and that sort of thing, that's why I asked the question.
Mr. Bobel: That's one of the reasons we threw out this concept of a
potential policy, to tackle issues like that. There's certainly a lot of agencies
that have developed recommendations for us against putting more housing
or more anything in these flood-prone areas. We've got that
recommendation from others, and we could create that as a policy for
ourselves, but we don't currently have it.
Council Member Holman: If you don't have people living in structures, then
the need to adapt might not be as stringent or as strong a consideration.
It's kind of on a grading system, I would think.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 20 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mr. Bobel: Definitely. Even within a given structure, there's different ways
to approach. For example, you could have a structure, but it was okay to
flood the first floor. You could put all the electrical stuff up above. You
could have nothing that was actually used down below or just storage.
There's different ways to handle that.
Council Member Holman: I'm going to ask just a—really I'm going to
pretend this is a real naïve question, but just to get it out there. Because our levees were built prior to some standards being in place, is there any
feasibility whatsoever or any benefit to retrofitting any of our levees? Is
there any opportunity for that out there? Just to throw that out there.
Mr. Teresi: Part of the SAFER analysis has been—just recently they've done
a whole series of geotechnical borings out in those existing levees to find out
the answer to that question, to see if any of that is going to be able to
salvaged as a foundation for a bigger levee or if it's going to have to be
removed. The answer to that is forthcoming.
Council Member Holman: I think all the other questions I had have been
asked. Thank you.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: Thank you very much for the presentation. You've probably heard me say it before, that I think the four biggest
generational challenges for Palo Alto and really for the whole subregion and
region are transportation, housing, economic inequality and sea level rise.
The four of them, the more you look at each of them and in context of the
others, the more you realize how much they interplay. The importance of
collaborating regionally can't be overstated, but also the importance of
collaborating across the City as an organization I don't think can be
overstated. I think that having an overarching policy is very important. I
think it is important that the entire City organization have as a standard
matter of course a consideration of sea level rise when making any long-
range decisions or making decisions that are going to have a long-range
impact. From Public Works to Sustainability to our Public Safety
Departments to Planning, obviously the airport, Parks and Rec, everybody
should be on the same page. That raises the question of if we are going to
put together a policy, what's the best avenue to make sure that that
happens. I absolutely share Vice Mayor Scharff's concern about if we do
this, what other projects get dropped off of our work plan. This is so
important, I'm not willing to drop this one. We're talking about an
existential threat to large parts of Palo Alto and essentially irreplaceable or
mission critical utilities equipment and other infrastructure. A question to
TRANSCRIPT
Page 21 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
think about—we're obviously not giving direction or anything. Something to
think about is do we have or do we need a full-time Staff person dedicated
to study of sea level rise and working across departments and working
across the regional organizations to be our point person who wakes up every
day with cognitive priority on what am I going to do today to protect Palo
Alto for the next 50-100 years on sea level rise, and/or do we need an
equivalent of IBRC. Do we need to have a blue ribbon commission to put together, at least the beginning of, a real, thoughtful, comprehensive
approach to how we are going to handle this? I do agree that adaptation,
protection and, where appropriate, possibly strategic retreat may all be
important. Again, as a couple of other people have mentioned, it really does
depend on the circumstance. None of us are going to be prepared to make
that decision on our own. I do fear each department or people working
within various departments, each kind of doing it ad hoc. I think we need a
more coordinated effort again. On payment, I very much agree with Council
Member Filseth that we're talking about 50-100 years of impact. We're
talking about possibly raising money over the next several decades to pay
for something that's going to have several decades of impact, so we should
start thinking now about what kind of funding mechanisms we're going to use for anything that's going to require raising substantial funds. When it
does come to—if we do start looking at things like retreating, we're going to
need to think about basically preemptive triage. If things get really bad, if
things happen faster or higher than we are prepared to adapt or protect,
then what are our lowest priorities and what are our highest priorities? I'm
not going to call out a lot right now. I will say that I saw in the Staff Report
should we consider great expense to protect the golf course. If it's as part
of a levee system where it makes sense to do it there anyway and the golf
course is part of that inclusion and we can use the golf course itself as part
of the protection, great. I don't think we want to spend tens of millions of
dollars just to protect the golf course if we don't get some ancillary benefits
from it. That's, again, the kind of thing we're going to have to make some
tough decisions about. I do think that it really is, again, about using all of
those tools where appropriate. It is about doing the adaptation and the
protection, because levees fail. They can. Human structures can fail, and
we could be wrong. Obviously you've emphasized there is a very wide range
of predictions about how high and how fast sea level rise will occur. We
should be very careful not to put ourselves in greater danger as Council
Member Filseth pointed out. I just want to come back to this point about the
ecotones. I want to confirm I heard from Staff that currently it's considered
fill, so it's tough to get the permits. I heard from Vice Mayor Scharff that
BCDC is working on what kind of legislation to promote—I would guess that
would be up in Sacramento—in order to make sure that we could pursue
something like that. Here again is where having a guiding policy and Staff
members for whom this is a priority is useful, so we can make sure
TRANSCRIPT
Page 22 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
whenever we're talking with our lobbyists, when we're talking with our State
representatives and working across partner agencies in the regions we can
have a united message saying that we support that and here's why it's
important.
Mr. Bobel: While you're thinking, I'll just say that our Chief Sustainability
Officer, Gil, wanted you to know that a number of cities have created a
position along the lines of what you were describing earlier, a resiliency person.
Council Member Wolbach: Just a couple of other things to throw out for
consideration. I think it was mentioned in the Staff Report it was Alviso
where the first floor, as you mentioned, is designated as a floodable area,
essentially, in flood zones. That's something we should consider. We do
need to start thinking about, as far as adaptation, areas that are in
potentially flooded areas in the future, especially where we have single-story
overlays and we have height restrictions, how do we square that with a first
floor that needs to be floodable and you don't want people sleeping in and
you don't want the critical components on. That might mean some tough
discussions, but we're not talking about the next couple of years here; we're
talking about 50-100 years down the line. We need to be ready for that long-range thinking.
Mayor Burt: I just have a couple of questions and follow up. First, under
the SAFER program, we have a 36-inch levee increase. Is that 36 inches
plus freeboard and we don't have existing freeboard? Is that the case?
Mr. Bobel: Yes. It wouldn't just be our existing levee plus three feet, which
would only be, say, 13 feet. I believe the 16—is it 18? That example we
showed in that slide is sort of the SAFER project with 18 feet, with all those
different things stacked one on top of another.
Mayor Burt: It's about a 4 1/2-foot increase over our current levee height?
Mr. Bobel: No, our current levee height is 10. Let's find the slide. Current
levee height is more like 10. In some places we don't actually even achieve
10, 9-something. This would be 18, so it would be eight feet higher. This
slide showed all the various components of that 18 feet.
Mayor Burt: Thanks. I think just the notion of whether to do a State and
local-driven and funded project, I think, is the right way to go about it in all
likelihood. We might not even get a complete core study by 2050. As much
as that elicits mirth, it's not far from the truth. I want to return to this
question of the economic impact onto properties at risk. I think we really do
want to know that. It's not our only consideration, but it's certainly a big
TRANSCRIPT
Page 23 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
one. When we look at, even at a policy level, what we want to do, it's going
to be dependent to a good degree on what it is we're trying to protect and
the economic value of it as well as other less tangible values that we may
place on it. I would like to encourage our Staff to get a first-level cut of the
economic threat to properties that are there with a recognition that the first
cut is not going to be the precise one. Joe.
Mr. Teresi: I believe at this point that the Santa Clara Valley Water District is doing exactly that countywide. Just doing kind of a big-picture
assessment of what are the potential damages.
Mayor Burt: They'll break it down by ...
Mr. Teresi: City by city.
Mayor Burt: Finally, on this question of whether we should be pursuing a
policy, presumably once we have a policy, then we could consider zoning
changes and other actions that would come out of a policy. I think going
forward in the nearer term on the policy is the right thing to do. It doesn't
mean that we drop everything to do that, but this is a big, important issue.
The longer we wait, the longer it may be that we made some wrong
decisions or that we just went about things in the existing approach when if
we had adopted the policy sooner, we might have taken different actions. I think it's just a wise thing to do. I assume that developing policy
recommendations is not an enormous project; whereas, a lot of the
implementation does get large.
Mr. Bobel: I think we could control it by sort of taking it in layers or steps,
having a general policy first but not doing a lot of research behind it, and
then getting reaction from Council. If more research was needed, then
maybe we need to hire a consultant to help with that research. We could
take a first cut without doing research, without spending a ton of Staff time,
frankly, and just see what the appetite was for considering these things. If
there was the appetite for it, we may have to get cost estimates from a
consultant.
Mayor Burt: Whenever you might come back with that first cut at a policy,
is that when we'd go into a deeper discussion of these issues that you
identified on Slide 15, in the context of that policy?
Mr. Bobel: That seems logical.
Mayor Burt: We've all spoken around a circle, and you haven't heard one
voice. I think we need to give Staff a little bit of guidance on what we'd like
to see next. We're already a half hour overdue. Let me just put out there,
TRANSCRIPT
Page 24 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
is there an interest in having our Staff come back with something along the
lines of what Phil just described, which would be an initial cut at policy
without having to engage a consultant team to do so and then we have a
next discussion at that time.
Male: Are we going to see the results of the SAFER study? I'd like to see
that (inaudible).
Mayor Burt: We will receive that. Let's talk about what the sequencing would be. I don't know whether the SAFER study would necessarily drive
policy decision differently from (crosstalk).
Mr. Bobel: It will give you a lot more information. It'll give you some
example costs for certain things. It'll give you a firm recommendation on
these heights. We're just sort of still telling you what we expect. You'll
have more firm information about what we get protected and to what
degree, to what level of confidence.
Mayor Burt: Would it then make sense to wait until we get the SAFER study
before making a request on the policy and let the SAFER study inform that?
Mr. Bobel: I think that would make sense. Plus, from Staff workload
perspective, we might find information in that thing which we could use to,
as you say, inform.
Mayor Burt: Let me just see whether that seems like a reasonable
approach. Nodding heads, okay. That's a consensus. Thank you very
much. We have one member of the public who wishes to speak. Keith
Bennett, welcome. You have up to three minutes to speak.
Keith Bennett: I heard discussion on retreat and what are things to do. I
think some low-hanging fruit is to realize that the FEMA flood zones are
likely to be redrawn. Putting residential basements in areas that are likely
to become flood zones just seems like it's adding to risk. I would like to
recall that the Ninth Ward in New Orleans was protected by a levee, but the
levee failed. I just think that has very little return for a lot of risk. There
are a couple of other issues that haven't been brought up. When the sea
level rises, the water table under our City will also rise, left to its own
devices. If we don't maintain the fresh water table at a high enough level,
we will increase saltwater intrusion. That may be a risk that we want to
accept, but it's a risk that should be acknowledged. Saltwater did come into
the City until 1970, when we were pumping the deeper aquifer. A final point
is that basements that are in the soils block the flow of groundwater. The
new storm drain policies encouraging draining not to our storm drains but
draining to the soils is fine and good. The assumption is that the soils
TRANSCRIPT
Page 25 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
actually can carry that water to the Bay and out of the way in a reasonable
timeframe. When you build 50 percent or 60 percent and you block it with
basements, they're essentially dams in the underground aquifer. It's not
negligible. If someone does a calculation, you'll find out that it actually is
not negligible where the groundwater table is high. Those are my
comments.
Mayor Burt: Thank you. That concludes Item Number 1 for tonight.
Oral Communications
Mayor Burt: We now move on to Oral Communication for any items not on
the Agenda. We have four speakers, and each speaker will have up to three
minutes to speak. Our first speaker is William Brenegar. Welcome.
William Brenegar: First, I want to tell you I've enjoyed the meetings
tonight, even though we've got some far-fetched things and everything. We
do have a problem that we need to address. We can address it pretty
rapidly. We have a situation within our Police Department that for some
reason they pick out certain groups of people to harass and other groups
they don't bother. I'll give you an example. If you go to Alma, you go to El
Camino, over here to University, Hamilton, it's a drag strip if you're a
Maserati or you're a Ferrari. You run your engine and you go just as fast as you can. If you see a guy in a Toyota, he's going to get pulled over. I'm not
worried about them speeding as much as what they can do. When they run
over a kid, when they run over a tourist, all the good work that has been
done in the past will be thrown away. We have some good policemen; I'm
not saying they're all bad. We've got a few that need a personality change.
They are not Gestapo; we are American citizens. We need to be treated like
American citizens. I want to complement our Fire Department. They've
saved my life plenty of times. I had a bad heart. That organization, every
time I've seen them operate, they do a good job. With the police, it's kind
of luck of the draw what are you going to get, who's going to respond to
your call if they respond to a call. I'm going to give you one example. Two
years ago there was a gentleman, he was a veteran, he fell over here in this
park between Bryant and Ramona. He fell at 9:00 at night; everybody's
supposed to be out of the park, I think, at 10:00 or 10:30. He waved, trying
to get the police to stop; they wouldn't stop. Rode up on him the next
morning, what's the matter? I think I broke my hip. We called 911. There
happened to be a little policeman in between the firehouse and where we
were at. He rolled up and said, "Joe, what are you doing over there?" The
guy's name wasn't Joe; it was Gary. Gary had broke his hip. We tried to
explain to him that this was not Joe. Here comes the Fire Department.
They roll up, and they're coming across the park. This policeman is running
TRANSCRIPT
Page 26 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
toward them, saying, "This guy, I know him. He's a drunk." Blah, blah,
blah. The captain and the firemen walked right over there. Sure enough, he
had a broke hip. What if we had just backed off? Thank you.
Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ken Horowitz, to be followed
by Steve Eittreim.
Ken Horowitz: Good evening. Ken Horowitz. I just want to share with you
a couple of events that I attended last week and very proud of our City for doing so. On Wednesday, Project Safety Net met, and we had a discussion
about suicide. As part of our presentation, we heard from Vic Ojakian; what
a remarkable man he is, and the good work that he and his wife, Mary, are
doing in regard to suicide. I didn't know if you knew, but the largest group
of suicide victims—I won't call them victims—is actually seniors over the age
of 80. They're the largest group of suicide people. Of course, we have quite
a large number of seniors here. Unfortunately, they don't get much
attention. The other event that I attended was on Friday. A group of
marchers came from Santa Cruz, talking about vets. I got one of the T-
shirts from them. It's called Journey for Change. They met over there at El
Camino Park. Chief Burns was there, and Janice Fetson [phonetic] was
there as well, and a number of the police officers and firemen were there as well. Suicides among our vets are very high. In fact, there's a suicide
almost every hour, 24 suicides per day among our vets. This is Mental
Health Month. Also, we had Memorial Day yesterday. As I said, I'm very
proud of our City for hosting these two events. Thank you for time.
Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Steve Eittreim. Welcome.
Final speaker is Sea Reddy.
Steve Eittreim: My name is Steve Eittreim, and I'm a resident of Palo Alto.
I have three wonderful grandchildren who also live in Palo Alto, a few blocks
from me. I think it's because of those grandchildren that I've become a
climate warrior or a fossil fuel resistor, you might say. I have been trying to
work as much as I can to try and move us along the path from fossil fuels to
renewables. I think we're not moving fast enough. Four hundred parts per
million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today. We know what that's going
to mean. It's shooting up rapidly, and it's not going to be a good world for
my grandkids. I want to thank you, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto,
for being a leader in getting us through this transition. Again, we're not
getting through the transition fast enough. That's what I worry. There's
one more thing that I think you could do that I want to make a pitch for.
That is to require warning labels on gas pumps about the facts of pumping
gas. When we pump a gallon of gas, we put 20 pounds of carbon dioxide in
the air, 20 pounds. When I mention that to people, they're often surprised
TRANSCRIPT
Page 27 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
and shocked. I think we need to remind people of that fact. That would be
equivalent to about one pound every mile that we drive. Can you imagine if
we threw out a pound of our home garbage every mile we drove? Just
throw it out the window. That would be a problem. We could fix the
problem with road sweepers and so forth. We could fix it a lot easier than
we're going to be able to fix the CO2 going into the atmosphere. We need
to move faster than the Paris accords are pushing us, the Pope is pushing us. We're going in the right direction, but we're not moving fast enough.
Berkeley and San Francisco have come up with an ordinance to require that
of the filling stations in their towns. North Vancouver has already done it in
BC. I would think that we could take the ordinances that Berkeley and San
Francisco have already drafted. It's a 14-page document. A lot of legal
thinking went into putting it together, I guess. I don't know why we couldn't
just take that and use it without an awful lot of additional work. Although, I
admit to being very naïve in how things get done in the City of this type.
That's simply my pitch. I think if we did it, my grandchildren will thank you
for it greatly. Thanks.
Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our final speaker is Sea Reddy. Welcome.
Sea Reddy: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the students that are graduating tomorrow. As well, I want to thank the City Council as well
as the officers that are going to support the Bernie Sanders event. I'm not a
Bernie Sanders fan, but I think it's great for democracy. I think that's what
we live for in the United States, to hear different perspectives. I hope you
use restraint and friendliness. I urge the citizens to be friendlier to the
visitors. We want to look like we are the nicest people in the town, in the
area. Back to what you're talking about, the sea level rise. I think there's
one commonality in all this. The world is changing. You have earthquakes.
You have meteoroids. We have unknown things, fracking elements. All this
require us to respond. What is the policy? I think the policy needs to be
one simple thing, save people, people's lives. Warn people ahead of time,
not when it happens or just before it happens. I think it's unwise to have
housing, affordable housing and all that, on the east side of the freeway.
We need to figure out another way to do affordable housing. Just because
you don't have money, you don't want to kill them (inaudible) from now. I
hope we can consider all these things in the elements. It does require more
staffing, but I think it requires wise planning. That's all I say. Thank you.
Mayor Burt: Thank you.
Action Items
At this time Council heard Agenda Item Numbers 2 and 3 concurrently.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 28 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
2. Second Quarter Review of Council Priorities for 2016 and Discussion
and Potential Direction to Staff on the 2016 Staff Work Plan, Including
Process Recommendations to Prioritize Work and Achieve Results.
3. Council Member Discussion on Future Issues and Concerns With a
Special Focus on the Second Half of 2016, With Potential Direction to
Staff.
Mayor Burt: We're now going to move on to the balance of our Agenda. We have three items, but Items Number 2 and 3 actually interplay with each
other a great deal. Two is focused on reviewing the existing Council
Priorities in the context of the work plan that we have from Staff. This work
plan, just to clarify, is only the work plan elements that relate to the four
Council Priorities of infrastructure, Built Environment, Healthy Community
and the Comprehensive Plan. Item 3 is about any future issues and
concerns that we'd want to have a special focus on in 2016. It seems like it
would be not too productive to go through and prioritize the work plan and
then go on to Item 3 and throw out the work plan. I'd suggest that we
merge Items 2 and 3 for discussion purposes. If everybody's okay with that,
shall we proceed? Mr. Keene, did you want to kick things off?
James Keene, City Manager: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. We're still finding our way, I think, on these Committee of the
Whole meetings. Our sense on the Staff was that it's partly to get out of the
Council Chambers, have the Council be able to sit around and take up some
maybe cross-cutting issues at times. We had a Study Session on sea level
rise that we could have had during a Council meeting. This portion of it
happens to be focused on the work plan. It's a follow-up to the Council
Retreat, that you have at the start of each year and where you set your
Priorities. I think some of the Council Members noticed that some members
of our public might have misinterpreted the purpose for this meeting in sort
of sending emails to the Council about what your Priorities should be.
You've already established the four Priorities for this year. This is really
focusing on how we get the work done that you most want to see
accomplished in 2016. We look at this from the Staff point of view, being a
conversation at times, I think, between the Council. We have for the most
part most of the Directors from the Executive Leadership Team are here to
be able to speak in more depth to some of the Council projects that we
have. If you get at some point, Mr. Mayor, where we don't feel that's as
necessary, I certainly would let folks be dismissed, who aren't essential to
being here. I did want to make sure we had everybody available here to
ensure that you had the most fruitful conversation you possibly could have.
A couple of things. We sent the Council—on Friday, I think, the Clerk's
Office got out to you a copy of the Council work plan as it was generally
TRANSCRIPT
Page 29 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
established at your Retreat at the end of January or early February. You will
notice that, of course, we added a couple of columns here. At your Retreat,
you'd actually gone up and done some ranking very quickly at that time of
how you saw the projects. I think six or maybe seven is the most that you
could get on a number, but we reflected that in the work plan. We also
added just a little section where we could put a little bit of information about
impacts of the budget on the financial side or the resource side or staffing on our ability to complete projects. There is a simple green/yellow/red coding
system on here that, in a sense, tries to at least as of where we are right
now, here, almost through the second quarter of the year, where we are as
far as being on target for being able to accomplish the project as you
identified it and identifying that as green. Yellow, as you would think, just
like with the traffic light is caution; there is some questions involved. Red in
particular, in one sense, where we're not able to really make progress at this
point in time and move ahead. There can be various factors for that. It
could be very much the fact that from the very get-go, even we identified
them back in January we hadn't really done an assessment as to whether or
not those projects would be able to be completed even as we identified
them. That's partly reflected here. In some cases, key Staff who are involved or would be necessary to support the project have left the
organization. Just in Hillary's department, in Planning and Community
Environment, for example, we've had Jessica Sullivan leave, the lead in
Planning. We've lost different Transportation Staff. We lost Jeremy Dennis
who was the lead in Advance Planning on the Comp Plan. It's pretty hard to
stay on schedule, particularly as thin as we are in the support side. I'll make
that point a little more explicitly. These are organized by departments or
office. The idea being, for the most part, there are tradeoffs within a
department supporting something. It's easier to assess the impact of
moving things around, I think, by looking at it this way. We did print out
some other ones that have sorted this based on Council ranking at the
Retreat of the projects. The Clerk's Office has those. If you're interested in
having those, we can go ahead and pass those out. We did supply two
memorandums from the Planning Director to me. There are more projects
on the Council Priority project list, under your four Priorities, in Planning
than in any other department. One related to the Eichler-specific guidelines
directive that you issued recently. The other related to housing issues or
housing options that came up in the Council meeting a couple of months
ago. Partly as just an illustration of the fact that, as we make changes
during the course of a year, our ability to respond to them may be much less
than the Council is thinking at the time you're taking the action or it may
argue for the need to be able to reprioritize some things that are on the
work plan that we may need Council direction for you to say this is much
more important than something else. The thinking here today is to do a
little bit of that today. More importantly is to make sure we have the right
TRANSCRIPT
Page 30 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
sense of where your priorities are. You may issue us directives at the end of
this meeting that we'll come back to. We either come back to the Council in
regular session or we'll provide you a report about how we move things
around. Our thinking wasn't that you could necessarily move everything
around that you wanted to move. If you would indulge me, I have ten quick
slides that just sort of reconnect you with the way we structured this at the
Retreat and to report to you on our progress. Our progress is pretty typical of our progress in the organization. We've done a lot, but a whole lot less
than we'd want to have achieved by this point in time. That's because we
have so much stuff that our times demand, that our community demands
and our Staff capacity to do that. If you'll remember, I showed you a
framework for how we were going to develop a work planning process by the
Leadership Team to be able to focus on the work that we have. As you can
see, I'm responding to Council Member Wolbach's request that we
incorporate sea level rise into all of our thinking. I very quickly added the
fact that the ever-present iceberg metaphor we use for identifying the work
obviously has some correlations to the challenges of sea level rise. Again,
this just tries to show that the majority—you get most of the work that you
want to accomplish through your Staff. We have about 1,100 full-time Staff people; most of them are doing work in what we call "the below the
waterline" part of core service work, making sure that the trash is picked up,
trimming the trees, doing police patrol, emergency response, making sure
the sewage is being treated and that sort of thing. The things that occupy
the Council so much of the time are these 'above the water line" priority
projects, in this case around your four Priorities. We also have a bunch of
Executive Leadership Team priorities that would fall into those categories,
that are outside of your four Priority areas or they might be of a slightly
different magnitude. You'll remember again that we talked about identifying
the Council Priorities and the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) priorities as
above the water line. Our focus today with you is really focused on the
Council Priorities as the Mayor said, not on any of these other details. The
reality of what it takes for us to get the work done or what is really
happening in the City can't be in the same way we were talking about sea
level rise as having regional implications or different systems aspects to the
design solutions. Running a City, serving the community, working on the
strategic priorities that you're interested in is all part of an ecosystem that
involves above the water line work and then all of this core work, again, that
we also talk about below the waterline as the areas of teamwork, which
means we actually have to be managing and coordinating and building
relationships and communicating. So much of our work is in this area of
service, again the routine work that we do as a community but also
responding to the community. Actually the fact that we do need to renew.
We've got to learn. We've got to train as any business or other organization
would. We do need to have some time to actually spend a little bit of time
TRANSCRIPT
Page 31 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
in what Stephen Covey and others would say quadrant two is actually
thinking about things that are not urgent but that are important. The fact of
the matter is that there's a lot of stress in our organization on our ability to
reconcile both these hot issues of the day and our need to respond. If you
recall at the last Retreat, I told you that we were going to start to look at
identifying the Staff people who actually have to work and support the
projects that you have on your work list here. I just give you an example here of the Public Works Department. These are actually the individuals and
the people that Mike and his team identified who might do any bit of work
related to Council initiatives or projects. We have gone through this for
every office in every department. There happen to be 23, I think, on that
chart right there. Mike has I don't know how many employees, but well over
100 employees in Public Works, most of whom then are doing other things.
The really important thing to remember is we went through and counted all
of the people who are actually working one way or another on different
Council projects and initiatives, but many of them might work five percent of
their time. Other people might work 50, 60 percent of their time on Council
projects. When we added them up, when I quickly added them up today,
they came out to 32 FTEs. We have 32 Full-Time Equivalent people who are capable of working and supporting what it is that we want to do. It puts in
pretty stark relief, one, the impact if we have a couple of vacancies in key
places that can really impact folks. Even when we leverage other capacity
by bringing in consultants, who are not counted in here, there really is a lot
of project management work and consultant contract management that goes
on and takes place. That sort of brings us to this. Not only do we have a
certain supply of people, in the same way that ultimately at the very top, the
Council wants to be involved and have oversight and influence decisions.
Actually along the way up through the organization, that has to happen also.
Therefore, even if you have 32 FTEs, if they have to have the City Attorney's
review or they have to have my review in some way, suddenly we're
skinnying a lot of our capacity down to five people or so. Here's the real
truth. We don't have enough oversight by some of us key folks, because
there's so much work and we're pushing work out. Work will come to the
Council that hasn't maybe had all the review that we want or we're working
on a lot of projects and we're not managing as well as we can, which of
course provides fertile ground for the Auditor to be able to go out and then
do audits about how we could be doing a better job. This is sort of the facts
of where we are and what we have to work with. Really trying to get really
much more efficient and focused. I'm just here to report to you. Other folks
can corroborate it. We just need to get better at prioritizing and managing
those priorities. Just as examples of items that have come up this year that
are new. We worked some of them into your report. The airplane noise
issue, obviously at the Retreat, you all heard from the public and said, "We
need to build that in." That certainly has grown a lot over the past couple of
TRANSCRIPT
Page 32 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
months even from there. We've got this transportation tax initiative, again,
that has just been an emergent, pop-up issue. We've got that in this work
plan here. I thought it was interesting just listening to the sea level rise
discussion. We don't have sea level rise pulled out at all as a project here.
You could say it's embedded under the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
(S/CAP), but then this really underestimates how much is potentially
involved in the S/CAP, because there can be 30 different key initiatives. At any one point, the Council or anybody in the community can say, "Where's
our Electric Vehicle (EV) deployment piece? What are we really doing on
mobility as a service?" You can see even all of these things have minimal
detail. There are almost 100 priority projects on the ELT priority list. I just
put some in here, just grabbed some from other departments, really kind of
without any thought, just going down the list alphabetically. You can see
things in each of our departments that are also under way, in most cases by
the same people who are involved in supporting the Council work or
certainly are involved in managing the organization. For example, you can
see some comprehensive management studies, for example, or
reorganizations there that are part of the day-to-day managing, but they're
actually a special project. As we all know, managing any operation requires constant daily work; it's not just strategic work. We've got 100 projects
there. Again, most of the work is there below the waterline. Most of the
work is here. We're not focused on this, but at some point in time in the
future we do want to be able to talk with the Council about the fact that I
think we do a great job in service, in being highly responsive, but we need
to be able to put more attention and time to this area of teamwork, of
planning and coordinating and on this area of renewal and more investment
in training and that sort of thing. Some thoughts again on the to-do list
today, as the Mayor was suggesting, we review and assess the Council
Priority work plan. Are there project adjustments that we need to discuss?
Are there some process improvements that we could identify that might help
us down the road? I have a couple of ideas when the time is right for us to
think about some of those things. I mentioned to one of the Council
Members; on the way in here we happened to be talking about it. We've
gotten so much better. We used to do the Priorities, and then we didn't
really have a work plan. We started doing the work plan, and now we're
getting to the point where—the Mayor was very directive to me that we
really needed to have a Committee of the Whole meeting before the end of
this second quarter and the Council goes on break to begin to talk about
this. We are getting a lot better about being transparent, informing the
Council, letting you prioritize. The fact is, in my view, we've got to get
ultimately on a quarterly basis at least where we're really reprogramming
and reassessing, so we're really clear that we're absolutely working in the
best possible way. We need to make sure that we're not burning out our
resources, which we could have a tendency to do, since we're very, very
TRANSCRIPT
Page 33 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
ambitious and we have an amazing work plan. That's just trying to reorient
you. I would turn it back to you, Mr. Mayor. The City Attorney was around
somewhere.
Mayor Burt: Before we begin, the one other context is we have before us
this list of Priorities and status report. We have Council Retreat rankings
which they were informative and valuable, maybe not definitive. We all
went up and did stickies and that had value. I'm not sure that it should be taken as rigid directives based on stickies. It was our best effort at trying to
give a sense of what we thought were highest importance projects. Can we
talk a little bit about our input tonight, how we could do that in a way that
would be informative. We have the second half of what was agendized as
Item 3 which is any other items of special focus. That's one thing that we
can wade into. Within the existing projects, are you looking for us to give
any update on our sense of prioritization? How would you like us to respond
to what you've provided us?
Mr. Keene: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, again, this is a snapshot in
time. This is where we are right now. We could be in a situation in the next
quarter where there's either more red or there's some red things that have
moved to yellow or green if we've gotten somebody on board. It's important that the Council's aware of where we are. Secondly, you may look at some
things that are on here and say—my view for the most part would be if
something is green, you can kind of say, "We're on track. That looks pretty
good." The real need to pay attention there is if there's something that's red
or yellow that you somehow want to relook at. It may mean that we'd have
to trade off something potentially that's in the green area. The other thing
separate from this, that I think is worthwhile, the two memos that I asked
Hillary to write to me. They're a little bit like mini case studies of saying—
this is actually the fact. The Priorities you adopted in January and the scope
of what they are, those in and of themselves was enough work for us to be
as busy as bees for the whole rest of this year. The challenge becomes
that—let's just take on the Eichler-specific guidelines. Understandably so in
response to a challenge in one of our neighborhoods to kind of go beyond
what the track we were on as far as managing some of these overlays and
expanding the scope of them. I think it's important for us to realize that
there are costs to those decisions. I don't mean costs necessarily as a
negative thing, but just a realistic thing. Additionally, on March 21st, you
guys had a big conversation with some important surfacing of issues around
housing that you asked us to come back to. We're partly using this as a way
to come back. When you look at the work plan—some of the Staff who are
here who are responsible can chime in here. I might invite, with the Mayor's
okay, if we get into individual department stuff, to have the Director come
up here and sit with me. You'll see some of these items related to the
TRANSCRIPT
Page 34 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
housing side, for example, are listed as red, which basically could say for us,
in a lot of ways, we're not in a position to do anything or much of anything.
It's important that you know that. You had an important discussion. It's
also important that we're able to—this in many ways is just a question of
clarity and prioritizing and discipline. Thanks.
Mayor Burt: On that note, who would like to kick things off? Council
Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: I just really have a comment on process for our
discussion. As we talk about maybe priorities of various projects, it's
extremely difficult to compare one department to another department. It
seems like it's really departmentally driven. I strongly suggest that we take
this on maybe department by department. I think the Planning Department
has the most overload, so I'd suggest we start there as part of the process.
Mayor Burt: We could go to the other end, which is get the easiest stuff
first.
Mr. Keene: (inaudible) let those people leave.
Mayor Burt: How does that sound as a way to take a cut at it? I'd suggest
we go with ...
Vice Mayor Scharff: (inaudible) going to have a round for department? Is that the plan? We could be here all night. Maybe not; I don't know. Is that
the question?
Mr. Keene: I think if there was a way that I could orient you to it, you
could—I think most of this could go pretty quickly.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Could I suggest—I very much support the notion
of doing this by department, because you can't just compare apples and
oranges. With the Mayor's permission, if we start with Libraries, for
instance, I'd just like to throw a Motion out there to get us started. I think
we can dispatch a couple of these pretty quickly. On Libraries, that's Items
22 and 23. Monique is here as Staff. They're both indicated as green.
That's on Page 7 of the spreadsheets. The first item is Library bike
outreach. That project is expected to be done by this summer. The second
item is expected to be completed next year ...
Mayor Burt: Let me do something—suggest something else on process
that's a variation of this. If you take for that example, I'm not sure that we
TRANSCRIPT
Page 35 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
need to discuss it at all. They're not highest priorities. They're green
meaning they're going forward. We don't need to endorse each of these. I
think we should be wading in on things that we see an issue with or want to
reprioritize. Even if it was done fairly expeditiously, if we went through each
and every one of these and have motions, that's unnecessary probably.
Council Member Holman: If I could follow up on that. I just think it would
be—I appreciate the comment. At the same time, I think it just provides clarity for Staff and confirms what the Staff direction is. Hopefully we don't
all need to speak to it. It could just be a motion and quickly dispatched on
these things that are already green.
Mayor Burt: Let me ask the City Manager. Does Staff need that?
Mr. Keene: I would really respectfully suggest that this is an area of process
improvement we could start practicing. There is no need to talk about
things that are on track and that are okay. Honestly, it'd be very easy for
our Staff to get the sense that, if we look to be on track and we're there, we
don't need discussion about it. I think the idea of an exception or some
particular questions or concern is what you have. In many ways, the color
system was also a bit in our way trying to raise issues for you. When we
coded them green, we basically felt like we know what we're doing, we're going to go ahead and proceed with it. You guys don't need to get in the
details.
Mayor Burt: You're basically asking us to focus on yellow and red and
whether we need to wade in on any of those things?
Mr. Keene: Yes, but I would say this. Let's go back to this departmental
capacity issue. When we get into those, there very well may be some
projects that are in green that you would suddenly say, "We do need to
rethink that." We may be willing to say what would it take to put that
project on hold and shift some of that capacity over to that area. That may
not be as easy as it sounds, but I think that would be one area if there's
something in the green.
Council Member Holman: Clarification then for both the Mayor and City
Manager. If we don't then say to both the Library projects, "Bless you, my
child," how does Monique know that she can depart?
Mayor Burt: Her boss tells her.
Mr. Keene: Council could.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 36 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Holman: At what stage? We have to bring it up in order for
you to know that.
Mr. Keene: I think if you would accept that green is on track, as if we hadn't
even reported to you in the first place, Monique would be working on all of
these things. I think it's great for the Staff if you guys want to go, "Keep up
the good work." That would be good. With all due respect, we don't need
as much management from the Council on these projects. We need the policy direction about what's important to you. As a matter of fact, that's
another issue we should—I know you're not talking about that. We don't
need to get into those details.
Council Member Holman: If there are some green ones that we do want to
talk about, again how does particular Staff know that they can say goodbye?
Mayor Burt: That's different, I think, from what we were starting to do,
which is to take on all the items. Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: Just a process suggestion. I appreciate what
Council Member Holman is trying to do, so that Staff who is not going to be
needed throughout this discussion could depart and get to the rest of their
evening. Perhaps the Mayor could just ask, especially for the Library where
there is just a couple of items, does anyone on the Council have anything to discuss there. See a bunch of shaking heads, and then we could just move
on without need for a formal motion.
Mayor Burt: Right.
Mr. Keene. You don't need motions.
Mayor Burt: To discuss doesn't mean that we have to talk on everything
unless we really want to change something. Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: In the spirit of doing the easiest ones quickest, I'd
suggest we don't need to talk about the Library things. I also didn't see
anything in Community Services. If everybody agrees, we could let them go
home. I thought the priorities were correct.
Mayor Burt: It's a little hard to immediately find each department.
Mr. Keene: Community Services starts on Page 2 and runs through page
(inaudible).
Mayor Burt: I see it. Does anybody have any issues or things that they
specifically want to raise on either Libraries or Community Services? Council
Member Wolbach.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 37 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Wolbach: First off, not with Libraries. I do have a concern
with homelessness being coded yellow and wanted to hear Staff chime in on
homelessness and what it would take to move that from yellow to green. I
think that's extremely important for our community.
Rob de Geus, Community Services Director: Good evening, Mayor and
Council Members. Rob de Geus, Community Services. The reason we left
that one as yellow and not green is a couple of reasons. One, we have one Staff member, Minka van der Zwaag, overseeing the Office of Human
Services. She's spread pretty thin. The second is that homelessness is a
really massive problem, a big problem not only here in Palo Alto but
regionally. Solutions are difficult to find. We're doing some things this year,
and we've passed some resolutions, or the Council has, in support of some
County work. We have a recommendation in the budget to continue our
partnership with the County where the City provides case management
funding and the County provides housing vouchers. Is it truly enough to
address the issue? Have to say no, not really. What the solution is, is
difficult. It's not as easy as just more Staff or more money. We don't have
a full answer on that one.
Mr. Keene: Just as a process issue to it. It may be that we could have a parking lot like we do in the Finance Committee with the budget on
identifying some issues. You can put them over there. We wouldn't have to
discuss them tonight. I would say on homelessness, Rob's exactly right. It's
a huge issue. How much of it is—what is the role the City plays in it? How
would the Council reach agreement about what the scope of that role would
be? What is it that we could do that would have the right return on
investment? There's a lot of mushy—this isn't a straight quid pro quo kind
of thing. We're kind of doing what we can, in a way. If you want to do
more than that, then that's a bigger kind of discussion sometime. We've got
to figure out how you would have that.
Council Member Wolbach: Responding to that Staff comment, I'd be fine
with just flagging this and saying either at the end of this meeting we put
into a motion or just say for now it's in something akin to the Finance
parking lot for future discussion. I do think it's important and worth
revisiting though we don't have time for a deep dive tonight.
Mayor Burt: Why don't we start somewhat of an informal parking lot of
issues? We'll put the Number 10—one sec. Council Member Filseth.
Council Member Filseth: In the spirit of this process, if we take something
and, for want of a better term, upgrade it from red to yellow or yellow to
TRANSCRIPT
Page 38 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
green, do we then have to propose something that goes from green to
yellow and yellow to red?
Mayor Burt: I think once we have a parking lot and discuss it, it would
potentially be in that context. I think the green, yellow and red are actually
more status as opposed to priority. Yes, that's part of when we look at how
we framed the Agenda. I think it even alluded to that sort of prioritization.
If we cull certain things out for additional attention, then we're going to have to struggle with tradeoffs.
Mr. Keene: I think culling is a good way to think. Let's do a pass, get as
many things out, put them aside or whatever or be done with them, and
then you may do another pass. Move this from 86 things to consider to 10.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss.
Council Member Kniss: All things considered, however, there are 80 items.
It's going to take a while to get through these. I really think that if we're
going to bring something up, it ought to have some way to take something
else off. You've been really clear there isn't enough Staff to accomplish all
that's here. We have a budget that is strained this year, to say the least.
We're talking about priorities, and I think we need, as a Council, to be able
to prioritize. I agree, Cory, the aspect of homeless is tough, but it would mean something else would come off. I don't think we've got enough
resources to just stretch it and say, "Regardless, we want you to continue on
with this."
Mayor Burt: Let's just say that's the concept of the parking lot. When we
have those items for discussion, as Council Member Filseth pointed out, it
will in all likelihood mean that we have to look at tradeoffs. If we want to
elevate something, something else probably would go down. Council
Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: When we get there, I might suggest that there's
another dimension, which is the completeness or quality level that we target.
Moving things along, I would just like to suggest some more people to let go
home. You could do these one at a time. I'm pretty good with IT, Fire,
Police and Development Services.
Mayor Burt: Let's reference pages too, so that ...
Council Member DuBois: If you want to do them one at a time, those four
groups I'd suggest.
Mr. Keene: Can I interrupt?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 39 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Yeah.
Mr. Keene: Did we finish with Community Services?
Female: No.
Vice Mayor Scharff: No.
Mr. Keene: Could we do that first?
Male: Yeah.
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: We're doing Community Services. I guess I wanted to
know why (inaudible) Park was yellow. I didn't quite understand it when it
said budgeted, which means good, and not fully resourced. The hydrology
study is taking longer than expected to begin (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: (crosstalk) 14.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Yes, Number 14. Maybe you could just sort of give us
an update.
Mr. de Geus: That's a good question, Council Member Scharff. It is moving
forward, and you'll have something in front of you for a contract to do the
hydrology study for Buckeye Creek. It's just we would have liked to get it to
you 6 months earlier. Staff from Public Works and Community Services
Department (CSD) have just had to prioritize other CIPs ahead of this one.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I think this might be a useful moment for me to just
understand. The fact that we made something yellow doesn't mean it's not
moving forward. In this case it just means it's moving forward slower than
Staff would have liked.
Mr. de Geus: That's correct.
Vice Mayor Scharff: If I asked you what it would take to make it green, the
answer is really nothing because you're moving it forward. Is that fair?
Mr. de Geus: We are moving it forward. If we were really concerned about
it and we wanted to really speed it up, we might then look at slowing down
another CIP so Staff can work a little more on this one.
Vice Mayor Scharff: What other CIPs would you slow down to do this? If I
said to you ...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 40 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mr. de Geus: We'd have to look at it.
Vice Mayor Scharff: It's 7.7 acres. I'd like to see that eventually be opened
to the public, and I'm concerned it could take forever.
Mr. de Geus: There's a lot of CIPs we would look at. I'd say for this one,
Council Member Scharff, you're right it is moving forward. We finally do
have the RFP done, and we've selected a vendor to do the study. The next
step is the study needs to be done. There isn't a whole lot we can do to speed it up right now. As soon as the study's done, then we can evaluate
what the options are for the use of that 7.7 acres, go to Parks and Rec
Commission, and back to Council as quickly as we can.
Vice Mayor Scharff: What I'm really hearing is that there's nothing we really
need to do to speed this up. Is that fair?
Mr. de Geus: Right now that is fair, yes.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Thanks.
Mr. Keene: I might add that different folks might have colored these a little
bit differently. We may get in another situation where yellow actually means
it is held up more.
Mayor Burt: We'll accept that the color coding is approximate. Council
Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Can I get some clarity on Number 8 on page 2,
the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. I'm not sure I understand
the genesis of this and how it relates to the Baylands Master Plan. I'm a
little perplexed.
Mr. de Geus: The Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan is really about
how to manage the different species that live out in the Baylands, the
endangered species, the animals and so on. That is not in the Baylands
Master Plan. Effective, responsible management of open space is to have a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the open space property. We don't
have that for the Baylands or for Foothills Park, which we'll be
recommending at some point in the future too. It's fairly expensive to do,
somewhere in the $300,000 range. It's not a high priority necessarily
against all of the other CIPs. I know that we're trying to balance the CIP
budget, so there's been some discussion that this one may need to be held
off for a little while.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 41 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Holman: Not to get into the weeds on this, just one quick
question about this. Will this be integrated into the Master Plan or are we
going to have yet another standalone document?
Mr. de Geus: It will be integrated into the Master Plan.
Council Member Holman: Thank you.
Mayor Burt: Anyone else on CSD projects?
Mr. de Geus: I'll be next door at the Parks and Rec Commission meeting, if something does come up.
Mayor Burt: Say hi for us. Council Member DuBois, you had several others.
Fire has only one item, so that seems like that—unless anybody has any
issues on that.
Council Member Holman: Page?
Mayor Burt: That is Item 19. Am I correct that that's the only one? Yeah.
It's (crosstalk).
Vice Mayor Scharff: I have a question. The reason I'm asking this now is
because we want to let the Fire Chief go. The Fire Chief, you've come to us
several times and talked about transitioning on some of these things to non-
sworn personnel. Is that a program that you're working on? If not, why is
that not on here?
Eric Nickel, Fire Chief: Good evening. Eric Nickel, Fire Chief. These were
Council priorities that were identified by the Council back in January. While
we've been working on this internally between Fire and the Development
Center, I guess I can't tell you why it didn't end up on here. It certainly
doesn't mean we're not working on it. I just wasn't aware at the time that it
was a Council priority.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Is it green, red or yellow? Where are you on it? That's
really the question.
Mr. Nickel: Both myself and the Development Center Director have had
preliminary discussions. Understand that we have—those positions are
currently filled by sworn personnel. The plan, as we have preliminarily
talked about it, is that as those people retire—we have several members
that are close to or at retirement age—that would be the opportunity to
replace those with non-sworn positions. One of the things that we're trying
to do with some of the positions—related back to those of you on the
Finance Committee who heard me talk about the fire alarm problem that we
TRANSCRIPT
Page 42 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
have here in town. We have a very significant fire alarm problem. We've
identified an option. Instead of sending a three-person fire engine to a fire
alarm, the low-risk fire alarms, we would send one fire inspector in a pickup
truck during the daylight hours, because 99.99 percent of these alarms are
false, unwanted or unwarranted. We would like to keep some sworn
positions to do that, because that frees up our apparatus to run higher
acuity calls. There's lots of different pieces at play here. I guess if you were to pin me down, red, green or yellow, I'd probably say yellow right now.
This is probably something that we can accomplish not in the next 12
months. As people retire in 12-24 months, that would be the opportunity to
replace those with non-sworn positions.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Just briefly. In my mind, there's a difference between
actually replacing those people as they retire and having the policy in place
so everyone knows that's where it moves to. How soon do you think you'll
be able to get that in place?
Mr. Nickel: There's clearly meet-and-confer issues there and things that we
need to work through with our union. Probably 12-24 months is realistic.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Fair enough. I think that's a realistic number. Thanks.
Mr. Keene: Mr. Mayor, if I could just put in perspective the Council priorities. That doesn't always mean that what's listed in the Council
priorities is the most important thing going on in that area. For example,
already this year and continuing, you could say for the Fire Chief that labor
negotiations with the firefighters union that we concluded and the ongoing
negotiations over the Stanford Fire Services contract is one of the bigger
things that we've got going on. That's in the ELT work plan. Thanks.
Mayor Burt: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: If we're done with Fire, I think the Police Chief was
here. Do you think he's left?
Mayor Burt: I want to wrap up Fire. Thanks Chief. Are you saying you
wanted to go into Public Safety?
Council Member DuBois: He was here, but I think we're done. I think he's
left anyway. I didn't think we had any issues for him.
Mayor Burt: Let me just ... What page? Are there items?
Council Member DuBois: No.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 43 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: I didn’t even see him. (inaudible) Public Safety. I'm just
questioning whether we had any Council items that were related.
Council Member Wolbach: Actually there's one.
Mayor Burt: What is that?
Council Member Schmid: Seven is listed as Police.
Council Member Wolbach: Also, 61 is Police Department (PD) and Office of
Emergency Services (OES). That's means restrictions.
Mayor Burt: We've got the Public Safety Building.
Mr. Keene: I think we can handle Animal Shelter, 7. What was the other
one? I heard the Police, but the other number.
Council Member Wolbach: Sixty-one is Police Department and OES, means
restrictions.
Mr. Keene: I can speak to that also. We're on the team, when the time
comes.
Mayor Burt: Council Member DuBois, did you ...
Council Member DuBois: Continuing on Page 6 which is where Fire was.
The IT items, I think, are both green.
Mayor Burt: Does anybody have any IT-related issues they want to raise?
Council Member Holman: Does that mean we're done with Police?
Mayor Burt: Actually ...
Council Member Holman: I wasn't.
Mayor Burt: Let me just say that the Police-related matters, the City
Manager said that those, I think, three that we identified, we could contend
with outside of Police. We actually skipped over Police. Let me do IT first,
and then give you an opportunity on Police since we're now on the IT. I
don't want to go back and forth. Anyone have anything on IT that they want
to raise? That one's resolved. Council Member Holman, you had something
on Police.
Mr. Keene: Jonathan, (inaudible).
Council Member Holman: Is Dennis around? Do we want Dennis here?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 44 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Pardon me?
Mr. Keene: On what subjects?
Council Member Holman: I don't have the numbers exactly in front of me,
which ones are Police. I know Animal Shelter is one, but I don't know that
that's Dennis.
Mr. Keene: We can handle that.
Council Member Holman: There he is. Animal Shelter, if we can find that somewhere. Number 7. That's a yellow.
Council Mayor Burt: I think our Chief has been feeling the burn.
Mr. Keene: Better than the Fire Chief.
Council Member Holman: Cash is here as well. The Animal Shelter is
yellow. Can Staff give a little bit of an update of why that is yellow as
opposed to green? I know the Request for Proposal (RFP) was just reissued
and responded to a second time. I thought we were moving forward. I
know yellow doesn't mean we're not moving forward, but can you explain
why it's yellow as opposed to green?
Mr. Keene: I think the main reason—Dennis can chime in if he wants—is
there's still some uncertainty. We put out an RFP. We had three
respondents. Ultimately we got down to one viable respondent. We're both in the process of negotiations of whether or not we can successfully conclude
a contract at the right price with the right objectives and level of service that
the Council was interested in when we went down this road. We can't
definitely speak to where we'll be on that right now. That's why we thought
it was important to put a little caution flag up.
Mayor Burt: That's as much an uncertainty yellow as it is a timing yellow.
Mr. Keene: That's correct.
Female: Maybe we should have had an orange yellow (inaudible).
Council Member Holman: Yellow in this case is not a de-prioritization.
Mr. Keene: No.
Council Member Holman: It's just that you still have some details to work
out with the one respondent that was selected as the best respondent.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 45 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mr. Keene: We don't have a Staff capacity issue or ability on the timeline.
It's whether or not we can meet the goal as we establish it that's uncertain.
There are different meanings to some of these.
Council Member Holman: Glad it's not a Staff capacity issue. What were the
other numbers that involved Police?
Mr. Keene: The means restrictions on ...
Council Member Holman: What number was that?
Mr. Keene: ... 61.
Mayor Burt: And the Public Safety Building itself which is as much ..
Council Member Holman: There was another one.
Mayor Burt: ... a Public Works project.
Council Member Holman: There was another one too about Middlefield
traffic. Wasn't that Police also?
Mayor Burt: I don't know. Do you have issues with those?
Council Member Holman: Means restriction, just a little bit of description
please about why yellow. I think when the ones are yellow, it's just helpful
to have a little bit more flesh on the bones about what's going on.
Mr. Keene: I would say the main reason that we colored this yellow is that—
of course, when we're talking about means restriction here, we're really talking about minimizing access to the railroad tracks. Number 1, we still
have fencing work we want to achieve with Caltrain that requires our ability
to kind of negotiate with them and get them on our schedule. That's
uncertain. It's not like we're in complete control of our ability to deliver on a
time table. Secondly, we have the intrusion detection system, which is the
technology. We've got a pilot under way that, I think, Dennis can speak to
better. My understanding is it's testing out to be giving us some good
signals and data about the effectiveness of being able to use technology.
That's not complete. Third, the funding for the intrusion detection system
and the status of funding and actually the efficacy of the pluses and minuses
of the Track Watch guard program itself isn't exactly something that—partly
we're making a value judgment here too by categorizing it as yellow. Do
you know what I mean? None of these are complete or the absolutely ideal
solutions. There are some subsequent decisions we're going to have to
make. We'll be bringing funding decisions to the Council in Fiscal Year '17,
some of which we have in the budget and some of which we don't.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 46 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Can I jump in on the fencing issue? First, it says fencing not
budgeted. Is that by Caltrain or by us or both?
Mr. Keene: By both.
Mayor Burt: Is that because we don't know what our portion of that budget
would be?
Mr. Keene: That's correct.
Mayor Burt: We're willing to prioritize the budgeting of fencing once we know our proportion?
Mr. Keene: That's been our approach.
Mayor Burt: The second question is—we had had an issue where Caltrain,
when we were first negotiating to get fencing on the east side of the tracks,
had argued back that there was no need for fencing on the opposite side
because their fencing approach had always been to fence one side of the
tracks because their purpose of fencing was to prevent crossing of the
tracks. They were applying that to this different purpose, which is to keep
parties off the tracks. Despite how just superficially specious that argument
is, it has remained. I want to know are they still making that argument.
Mr. Keene: They are not making that argument. I think they've accepted
our position. We've been really hard-headed and relentless about it. I think the issue is just one of their process.
Mayor Burt: I hadn't heard they had accepted that position. That was a
concern. Thanks. Any other Police-related?
Council Member DuBois: Middlefield's at the end, if you were looking for
that.
Mayor Burt: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: I'm sorry. I was trying to help Council Member
Holman there.
Council Member Holman: It doesn't list Police Department. If that's a
study, maybe it doesn't involve Police.
Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager: I could speak to that. Actually Hillary
had suggested putting this on the list, recognizing the Council's interest in
recent constituent communications on the topic. To your point, it is a study,
and there are a few parallel action items that are coming forward, including
TRANSCRIPT
Page 47 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
the Finance Committee's budget recommendations and use of a
transportation contingency. That will be coming forward to the full Council
shortly.
Council Member Holman: Thank you.
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: (inaudible) Public Works, but the department support is
Police. Should I bring it up now?
Mayor Burt: Mm-hmm. Wait. Let's just make sure are we done with
Middlefield.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I want to raise the issue on the smoking ban. I was
very surprised to see it just says Staff time ...
Mayor Burt: (inaudible) each case, let's (crosstalk).
Vice Mayor Scharff: This would be Number 66. This says Public Works is
the lead agency, and then we have department support of Police
Department. My recollection is that we've had several meetings of the Policy
and Services Committee over a two year period. We did outreach; we did
surveys. The surveys came back that a lot of people really would prefer to
have smoking outlawed in multifamily. I thought where we left it, frankly,
was that we were going to basically get an ordinance drafted, and it was going to come to Council. I'm not sure what more needs to be done,
frankly, than an ordinance drafted. There's a lot of ordinances out there; I
don't think that's what's holding it up, and I don't think it's the City
Attorney. The question is—at that meeting, if I recall, we actually had
discussions that the Police Department had concerns about enforcement.
We said we understand that, we don't expect rigorous enforcement
necessarily, but this allows the owners of the complexes, this allows the
governing boards of the condominium complexes to have these discussions.
We expected an ordinance to come. I don't really know; it just says Staff
time.
Mike Sartor, Public Works Director: Mike Sartor, Public Works Director.
Good evening, Mayor Burt and Council. This particular item, we have
essentially stopped work primarily due to Staff. We don't have Staff on it.
You're correct it was brought up at Policy and Services. I know the Police
Department had some concerns about enforcement. At this point, without
any other explanation, we have just stopped working on this particular item.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 48 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: I don't understand what you mean you don't have Staff.
It's basically the City Attorney just needs to draft the ordinance. What do
you need Staff to do?
Mr. Sartor: At this point, if the City Attorney is ready to move forward on an
ordinance, we can support that.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I don't think the City Attorney's been ...
Mayor Burt: Let's find out what is really the hold up.
Mr. Keene: Just as a prelude, the Staff who have been working on this from
Public Works side are the same Staff who have been working on the sea
level rise issue, who have been working on the recycled water issue. It just
happens to be who they are. Whether or not they're necessary or not is a
different issue. From Mike's point of view, those folks have been on these
other things.
Mayor Burt: I guess it's a question of are next steps in the hands of Public
Works or City Attorney's Office.
Molly Stump, City Attorney: Thank you. Molly Stump, City Attorney. We
had a changeover in our Staff person on this project as well. I will need to
go back and check. As I recall, there were several different policy items
under this topic, including some cooperative work with the County, which I understand is moving slowly and is dependent on the County. There was a
multifamily piece where the Council had perhaps directed some regulation. I
will go back and check as to whether it's simply a drafting item, in which
case we can move that forward. Usually on a complex regulatory matter like
this, where we're impacting third-party behavior, we don't work in isolation
on the eighth floor. We work very closely with our partners, our subject
matter experts and certainly our folks who would need to do administration
and enforcement so that we make sure we draft something that's effective.
We will need to draw on Staff, but we can circle back and get you more
information about our ability to move forward on that.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I'd like to put that in the parking lot. What I'd like to
do is just see how we can move this forward.
Mr. Sartor: I'd just like to add, as Molly just mentioned, we are working
with the County on the licensing issue for tobacco. That is going slower than
we had expected. In fact, in talking with Phil Bobel about this this
afternoon, about whether it should be red or yellow, it could have been
yellow, recognizing that the licensing piece of this is moving forward. It's
TRANSCRIPT
Page 49 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
the multifamily ordinance that we have actually stopped in Public Works
working on.
Mayor Burt: I've got it in the parking lot discussion. Council Member Kniss.
Council Member Kniss: I don't care about this going in the parking lot.
While we're on the page and dealing with golf course configuration, I see the
current budget is (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: Wait just a sec. We're wrapping up Police. We're not on anything on a page.
Council Member Kniss: Sorry. I got excited.
Mayor Burt: It was because smoking ban had a PD under department
support. Are we done with Police Department stuff? Thank you, Chief.
Council Member DuBois, what was the next department?
Council Member DuBois: I'm just keeping track of departments here. I
think Development Services, which should be easy.
Mayor Burt: Where are we?
Council Member DuBois: Page 5.
Mayor Burt: Does anyone have any issues they want to raise on
Development Services? It's just those three items on page 5 that are the
only ones listed, unless there's something not listed. Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: On the seismically vulnerable building ordinance,
Item 16, if Staff wanted to give us just a real quick update. I saw it's yellow
and just want to give Staff a chance to weigh in very briefly on that. I'm not
sure it needs to move to the parking lot, but I just wanted to hear maybe
some reassurance from Staff.
Peter Pirnejad, Development Services Director: A recap of where we are.
We had a little bit of an issue getting started through the RFQ/RFP process;
that slowed us down a few months. Once we got the contracts on board, we
started straight away. We're not too far off. We still expect to make
significant progress this calendar year. If not by the end, first part of next
calendar year we should be wrapping this up.
Council Member Wolbach: Thanks.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 50 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Thank you. Anything else on Development Services? Thank
you, Peter. We're good. Council Member DuBois, did you have a next
department to suggest?
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. Actually I would suggest Administrative
Services Department (ASD). They kind of support a lot of things, but I'm
not sure if they need to hang around.
Mayor Burt: Let's see. They're listed under the Post Office. You're looking at support as opposed to ASD-led projects. I guess that brings up are we
wanting any department that's supporting something to stay as long as one
of their item's unresolved or are we really looking at the lead department
being able to answer our ...
Council Member Kniss: Let's look to the lead department.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Shouldn't Lalo stay? He's the only person that can
answer financial stuff. I hate to keep him, but no one else can answer those
questions.
Mayor Burt: The Warriors aren't playing tonight, so you've got nothing to
do.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Do you want to (crosstalk) ASD now or not? I have
some questions on the Post Office.
Mayor Burt: Let's go ahead and go with ASD.
Vice Mayor Scharff: My question, Lalo, really was on the Post Office in terms
of where we're going in terms of you said you were going to develop a
funding strategy. How long do you think that'll take? Are you also going to
tell us if we buy the Post Office, what we're not going to be able to do? Is
that going to impact our Infrastructure Plan or do we have the money
available? Are you going to have all that stuff together when you come to
Council?
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director: Yes, all of the above. The idea
is to give you options on funding plans. Some you won't like; some you'll
prefer. You'll have a menu to choose from. The good thing is that if we
move within a reasonable time, depending on the Fed movement, the
interest rates are still attractive. It depends on level of negotiations that we
would take. I would hope that it's not too prolonged. As you know, we've
been doing this for thre years. Some of it is not in our control, but the
funding mechanisms and plans are. We could always have that discussion,
and we're preparing for that. We had a meeting today, as a matter of fact,
TRANSCRIPT
Page 51 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
to try to figure out how to minimize the impacts. One of the biggest
concerns that we had was that if we do successfully acquire it, we would
have to use existing dollars that are being reserved for other projects, such
as the Public Safety Building for example, and then immediately within a
couple of months turn around and finance that project. We would have to
repay ourselves so we can keep our other projects going. One of the things
we found out today was that we don't anticipate the construction being lined up to be able to finance it in the first round. We can do what is called
capitalized interest, meaning that we would defer any payment of debt
service of the bonds until we actually go live and occupy it. The issue there
is that you're borrowing to not pay, if I can say it. It adds to your costs. I
think the issues that we're going to have are what we don't know for the
building. It is a historic building, so we know we have to have the
preservation. Once we get in there and start doing some additional work,
what will we find? We'll have an RFP out; we'll have bids, but it's kind of a
big unknown too. It's going to be something that we're going to have to
adjust as we go. It's going to be a two-step process most likely, right now,
from what it looks like. The initial acquisition with some soft costs, then a
second round where we have actual construction.
Vice Mayor Scharff: When do you see coming to Council? Before we sign
any contract with the Post Office?
Mr. Perez: At this point, probably not before your break. There's still issues
to be resolved. If we're successful, hopefully soon after your break.
Vice Mayor Scharff: After that at some point, we'd come with some ...
Mr. Perez: We would come to you in a public forum with the
recommendations and the actual agreements, if we get to that point of
purchase, and then funding options for you to give us guidance.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I'd like to see the funding options if at all possible
before the agreement comes, so we can understand that and that can inform
it.
Mr. Keene: They will sort of unfold together; they'll mutually inform each
other. I think clearly it's a legitimate request. The Post Office has accepted
our basic offer. We are negotiating the details. It will have to come back to
the Council for the actual approval of the purchase contract. You will want
to know the implications.
Vice Mayor Scharff: That's the point. It could be embarrassing in that if the
funding options aren't there, you might vote against the agreement. At
which point, we wouldn't have an agreement. It would be better to have a
TRANSCRIPT
Page 52 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
sense of what those funding options are and what that looks like, so you
don't just have an agreement that comes forward without—and we vote
against it as opposed to having a sense of what the funding options are.
Mr. Perez: I think there's always a way to make it work. It's a matter of
prioritizing what you want as a Council and community. I think there's going
to be enough options where you can even reduce some of the costs. It's a
matter of prioritizing or using certain types of vehicles that are available to you. We're going to try to lay all of that out for you, so that you have that
available. If we do multi-step, we might have to push things out a little bit.
That's the only concern, the only hesitation. As the City Manager said, right
now it's aligning where we could probably do both at the same time. If you
want to do it separately, then we would need to work that into the schedule.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Thanks.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Good questions by Council Member Scharff. Just
to make sure that we all have the full context, it would be good for the
Council to know, not now, to understand what the issues are that you're
trying to work through, but also to know not only what the funding options
are but what the financial implications to the positive that we've talked about would also be. It all needs to be in context.
Mr. Perez: Very well understood.
Mayor Burt: Next, what did you have, Tom?
Council Member DuBois: Another short one is Utilities, which is on 19 and
20. I actually had a question on Number 84.
Mayor Burt: Go ahead.
Council Member DuBois: We got an information report. My understanding
was—correct me if I'm wrong—that the interconnect through Mountain View
looked like a lot cheaper and faster, but it looks like we're going through
Stanford. I kind of have a broader question which will apply to others. I'd
also like to know specifics on this one. Is this a case where we're taking on
more work and more budget than necessary? Why are we pursuing this
option if there's an easier option? Maybe there's very good reasons we're
doing that.
Mr. Shikada: Wearing my hat as Interim Utilities Director. The current
conversations involving SLAC and Stanford University do have the potential
TRANSCRIPT
Page 53 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
to yield a scenario in which Stanford University would invest in the line with
SLAC. We have been working with Stanford to identify the viability of that
option for them. Part of the attraction of that approach for Stanford
University involves how they would then be able to serve their tenants both
at the University as well as the Research Park. The question of how the
rates apply in that situation is a relatively complex question and one that
they're still evaluating. We do have the possibility that the SLAC line is both a viable and desirable approach. We want to let that play out.
Council Member Dubois: This isn't a staffing challenge at all, and it's not a
City budget issue. If it was going to hit the City budget, then we'd look at
the alternative through Mountain View?
Mr. Shikada: Based on the discussions to date, we wanted to allow Stanford
the opportunity to reach its own conclusion as to the level of investment that
would make sense for them before we decided that that was not viable and
then move on to the Mountain View approach. In conversations that I had
with Val Fong before she retired, it was her opinion that it wouldn't make
sense for us to pursue both at the same time because of the time and both
Staff resources that would be involved as well as potentially duplication in
terms of the effort we would be requesting from the other agencies. On that basis, we did want to let the Stanford University scenario play out first.
Mr. Keene: Can I just add something to that? If I understand Council
Member DuBois' concern, we are continuing to pursue the Stanford option
because it could be cost effective. There may be capitalization of the costs
by them. It's really a question of the externalities that go along with that
that we're working through. The default, as Ed said, would be to default
back to the Mountain View option.
Council Member Schmid: I guess just from an economic perspective, while
you're dealing with Stanford, it is good to have concrete alternatives in
mind. Do you know enough about the economics of the Mountain View
option to make a critical decision there?
Mr. Shikada: I believe we do. In general the capital costs associated with
doing the tie directly with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would require or
would involve spreading all the costs among its rate base. There would be
sufficient spreading that it does make economic sense for us to pursue it.
Again, it's a tradeoff of a single capital expenditure versus one that is going
to be spread among many users. I think we have enough costs and who
pays information available. The question is whether and to what extent
Stanford University will be willing to invest its own funds.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 54 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Any other Utilities items? Ed, that doesn't mean you get to go
home. Put on your next hat. What department next, Tom?
Council Member DuBois: We're starting to get into the big ones now. I
think Public Works on Page 15.
Council Member Holman: Could I just suggest that we do Planning before
Public Works?
Council Member DuBois: Planning is the largest.
Council Member Holman: I know. Hillary always has to wait until the last
dog is dead. If we could give her a little priority some time, that would be
really ...
Council Member Kniss: I agree with Karen. It may go faster than you think.
Mayor Burt: Let's go Public Works. Who has Public Works items? We're on
Page 15, and it carries over to Page 19. Pardon me?
Council Member Wolbach: (inaudible)
Mayor Burt: We don't need to talk about the things we do have. Let's just
go on the ones we need to ...
Vice Mayor Scharff: I'd like to talk about the golf course reconfiguration.
That would be Item Number 72. I realize why it's in yellow, and I realize it's
still hung up on the permits. I just want to make sure we're correct on that.
Mr. Sartor: That's correct. We're close but not quite there.
Vice Mayor Scharff: One of my concerns on this is that we started the
project without the permits and messed up the golf course, so to speak. I
understand why that happened. We don't need to rehash all that. My
concern is when I read that the current budget is not adequate to award the
construction contract. I guess I'm concerned about once we get those
permits, what are we going to do? Are we planning on upping the budget?
What are we thinking about?
Mr. Keene: We have two issues. Even if we had the permits right now, the
bids that we've received, which just came in last week, are significantly
above the estimate that we have. That's one problem, in how we value
engineer and negotiate a better contract and how long that holds for. Your
question, I heard, could be what happens if we're not in a position to be able
to move in a timely enough fashion, and what happens to the future costs of
the golf course.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 55 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: My thought is this. I think we have to put the golf
course back. We sort of broke it. You walk into the store and you break it,
it's yours. We bought it, unless we're going to abandon the golf course,
which would be a huge decision to do. I think what I'm really saying is that
if we think the bids are high because we have the wrong people bidding,
that's one thing. If we think that over the passage of time the costs have
just increased, we now need to find the money and put it aside to do the golf course. I think it only gets worse if we let it sit there. I think we need to
make that a priority to fund the golf course and get this fixed. When you
say we're close to getting the permits, that makes me think within 6
months. That's what that means; maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Mr. Sartor: I'm thinking more like 1-2 months. Another piece of
information. We are negotiating with the low-bidding contractor right now.
When we bring the contract to you for award, we will also be bringing
forward a deductive change order along with that to reduce the bid amount.
That doesn't bring it back to the original estimate, but it gets us closer to a
funding strategy that we're working closely with Lalo and Community
Services on. We anticipate bringing that package forward to you, I believe,
right before break, June 20th. We'll have that before you at that Council meeting.
Vice Mayor Scharff: That's really (inaudible) my question. Do I need to put
it in the parking lot? I want to see it green. I think it has to be green.
Mr. Keene: You're going to get it on the 20th.
Mr. Sartor: It's coming forward on the 20th. The only reason we put it
yellow were some of those things that were ...
Mayor Burt: Got held up. Council Member Kniss.
Council Member Kniss: Just under the golf course, Number 73. This says
delay due to funding capital fund budget constraints and Staff workloads
with Post Office prioritization. Did we make the Post Office our priority?
Mayor Burt: That's Ventura, not the golf course.
Council Member Kniss: I'm sorry. No, I said just under the golf course. I
brought up the golf course before. I'm trying to see did we say we can't do
Ventura as long as we do the Post Office.
Mr. Sartor: What we're saying is that the Ventura project is still moving
forward. It's yellow; it's not red. It's just not ...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 56 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Kniss: It's a delay.
Mr. Sartor: ... as high a priority as some of the other projects that we are
devoting our Staff resources too.
Council Member Kniss: When you're saying delays tonight, as we have on
several things, does a delay mean weeks or months or years?
Mr. Sartor: Weeks to months. It's still on our program.
Council Member Kniss: It's still on the list?
Mr. Sartor: Yes. It has not been dropped.
Council Member Kniss: Thanks.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid.
Council Member Schmid: Number 63, dewatering, it's yellow and it has
impact on budget none. My understanding of that was there was some
dispute about the alluvial fan of studies done by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District and studies done under BAWSCA'S San Mateo plain, both
dealing with the San Francisquito Creek and having different perceptions of
the relationship between groundwater and the deep aquifer. I thought Staff
was studying looking at this, but it is not included. What you have here is
just what we have for next season. What has happened to this longer-term
issue?
Mr. Sartor: As you might recall, the dewatering issue was actually broken
into three pieces. The first piece was adding additional restrictions to
basement dewatering as a pilot for this current construction season. We are
now doing that. We're still evaluating how effective that work is. The
groundwater basin study will be part of the third group of activities that we'll
be looking at. We're currently working with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District on a project to actually do that study, and that's down the road.
You're correct we did not address that specific work item in this list of
priorities, but that is on our work list.
Council Member Schmid: Is that included as the yellow, that it is waiting
action rather than under ...
Mr. Sartor: I would say it's actually green, because it's still in our plan to
proceed. As you might recall, it was a later phase of the dewatering issue.
Council Member Schmid: I guess I would like to see that as a green. Does
it need to be in the parking lot?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 57 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mr. Sartor: (crosstalk) add that to the description.
Mr. Keene: I think we need to remember that most of the whole Group 3
was never really fully committed to. It was almost, from a policy
perspective, put in a parking lot for us to need to deal with. We're in the
process of responding. We put it yellow, because we don't have, again, sole
control over the schedule and the process itself. It also involves the Water
District.
Council Member Schmid: Yes, but it is our priority.
Mayor Burt: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: In general I wanted to say that in Public Works I
largely agreed with your relative priorities, even the yellows and reds.
Obviously there's some differences of opinions on some items. Looking at
the tradeoffs you had to make, obviously we want everything. If the
tradeoff was not working on the smoking ban, I actually think given this list
that was the right tradeoff. We can't put everything into the parking lot and
make it all go green in general. The two items that for me personally, again,
the golf course. The longer it takes, the more it costs us. I just think we
need to accelerate it however we can. The other one's the Baylands
Interpretive Center. I'd also like to see that one get done. Again, that's yellow, waiting for permits. If we can push on those two. Generally, I
wanted to say I largely agreed with the tradeoffs.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I agree with the last statements and also with the
statements that Council Member Schmid was making about the dewatering
too, and better understanding of the environmental consequences of even
capturing some water that is being pumped out. I'd like to see that. I know
this doesn't mean it's not being worked on, but some of that aspect, you
said it's already being worked on, should be green. It'd be great if we saw
that sooner than later.
Mayor Burt: I would say that there are some projects that we could have a
project number and then an "A" and a "B" that would help clarify it.
Mr. Keene: Why don't we just put this as a parking lot? We'll schedule an
update, even if it's an information update, as to where we are. There are
things within this item in the third bucket or whatever we call it, which we're
actually not in a position to move ahead on at all now, and others that we
are. We need to be able to report to you on that.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 58 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: If I recollect, those items in the third bucket, we
shouldn't be moving forward on. We're supposed to be doing a pilot. We're
moving forward on the pilot. I think the confusion is that it should have
been green, because you're doing what you're supposed to do. You're not
slowing up what you're not supposed to do. You shouldn't be out doing the
third bucket of items right now. That would be against Council policy. I think we're moving forward in exactly the right way, because that's what we
voted to do.
Mayor Burt: I think that's a fair point. We need to make sure that in this
prioritization process we don't slip between—if the Council has taken an
action that we try to use this as a way to revisit what was actually a majority
action by the Council. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to have this
dewatering in the parking lot. Council gave direction; it sounds that the
things that we asked to be done are on schedule. The things that we said
were on hold are on hold.
Mr. Sartor: I would be fine with showing this green. We actually showed it
yellow because the pilot is a pilot. We're still evaluating how successful
those actions are. You're correct in saying that we have implemented the restrictions that you directed us to do.
Ms. Stump: I'd just like to add and recall to the Council's mind that the pilot
really does require some additional Staff work if it's going to be sustained
over time. We have talked about the need to establish an actual formal
program to require some of these things through an ordinance. That will
take quite a bit of Staff outreach and work.
Mayor Burt: Other Public Works items? You're in luck.
Mr. Keene: Before we leave Public Works, could I ...
Mayor Burt: You're out of luck.
Mr. Keene: No, no, Public Works is good. I did want to just clarify that we
have the S/CAP under the City Manager's Office. I don't know if there's
anything on that before we go into Planning. That's the only item that Gil
would have here.
Mayor Burt: I would welcome that. I think that's such a far-reaching item.
I think it'd be useful to have an update on the timing and how we might
proceed on that. That's which number again?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 59 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: Number 4.
Mayor Burt: Thank you. It stood out to me that it said reduction of
requested contingency may affect consultant support, etc. Staffing will
depend on availability of Staff from other departments too. Can we get an
update on where we stand in our next step in this, when it would come back
to the Council and, at a high level, what that next step is before the Council?
Mr. Keene: Maybe on the larger issue, Gil can speak to the work plan products. The issue on this budget issue, obviously this is just a tentative
issue. If I remember, I think it was a parking lot item in the Finance
Committee where the Committee was divided on the idea of keeping the
contingency at the $250,000 level versus cutting it in half. I think this point
was just trying to say if that reduction were to be maintained, then there are
some issues that need to be revisited. That is not a done deal yet.
Mayor Burt: I wasn't aware of that. I don't follow. A lower contingency, in
my mind, wouldn't mean you wouldn't go forward. It would mean that if it
ran over, you'd have to come back for additional funds. Am I
misunderstanding that?
Mr. Keene: No. It depends upon what the intention is on the contingency.
If the idea was to say that—I think it was—a contingency is there to provide capacity, if there's a reduction in capacity, that's one thing, which could
affect the schedule and the progress. If it's just a matter of process—do you
know what I mean—for providing capacity ...
Mayor Burt: I don't know that I'd equate contingency with capacity. I'd
equate contingency with contingency, meaning that you move forward. We
have a certain amount, and if we run over in costs, we have that already
budgeted. If we need more than that, then it could have an impact, but not
prior to then. I'm not following that. I don't want to get too deep in this.
Eric, can you at all clarify on the intent of the Finance Committee? You're
usually brief, so you can ...
Council Member Filseth: I'll try to be so. Somebody said it properly already.
There was some division on the Finance Committee. Essentially the majority
thinking was most of the funds for the S/CAP and expenditures for the
S/CAP program are coming out of the individual departments, Utilities and
so forth. As for the contingency fund, it wasn't completely clear. By nature,
it's a contingency. It wasn't completely clear how it was going to get spent.
As you said, if it's smaller and it hits, then it comes back to be budgeted
again. (inaudible) come back for a meatier adjustment or something like
that. It wasn't that it's not there; it's just it would come back.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 60 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Gil Friend, Chief Sustainability Officer: The reason that we put yellow on it
is that in that scenario that would affect the timing of our ability to respond
to the Council's request to keep the momentum on the S/CAP. It could
delay the ability to deliver. To your question before, Mayor Burt, the Council
had asked us in April to come back in two months with a process for
integrating S/CAP and the Comp Plan. Director Gitelman and I have
designed that process. We're working with the City Manager to determine when we can bring that to you, given your schedule, perhaps just as an
informational item if that would be suitable. We've been working with the
sustainability board to address the second item, which was to develop
implementation plans—probably three are implementation plans—for the
critical items in the S/CAP with a target on that of 6 months. We're in the
planning process on that now, and the ability to move on that is going to
depend on Staff ability from the participating departments, some of which as
you've heard this evening is stressed, as well as the ability of the
Sustainability Office, which is frankly smaller than it was last year and
smaller than Sustainability Offices of cities of comparable size. We depend
on some consulting resource to be able to move that forward. We'll have a
better sense over the next 30-45 days what impact that would have on timing. Our intention at this point is still to bring that back to you in a 6-
month window, October, November, if that's feasible. The yellow is here
because the availability of supplemental funds will affect our ability to
maintain schedule.
Mayor Burt: These are supplemental funds that would be expended in the
first half of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 that we have a budgeted amount for all of
2017. I don't know the burn rate on that. We have a contingency, and
we're talking about just how much contingency. I'm still trying to
understand why whatever the Finance Committee is considering on how
much contingency is holding up the proceeding.
Mr. Friend: It's not that it's holding up proceedings. It's not red; it's yellow.
It's saying that there may be an impact on our ability to perform timely
based on what level of consulting resources we have available to us.
Mayor Burt: No hold-up at this time.
Mr. Friend: No hold-up at this time, and we can certainly come back to
Council, as Council Member Filseth suggested. That will just affect timing.
Mayor Burt: The budgeted dollars, are they ones that would get spent
throughout Fiscal Year 2017? The consultant dollars.
Mr. Friend: We have in the core budget $60,000 for consulting services. On
top of that, we request this contingency budget because we didn't think that
TRANSCRIPT
Page 61 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
would carry us far enough to get the work done. The notion there, it was
called contingent because we would come back to Council with specific
requests for how that money would be allocated, but we'd requested that it
be appropriated for us so that the money wouldn't have to get found in the
first place, if we had to come back.
Mayor Burt: Thanks. Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: I had a question on Number 60, which is the mobility app for mobility as a service. This was one where I actually kind of
want to see if we could save Staff effort and resources. Again, the way it's
written up is that we would explore development. I'm wondering if we can
minimize the work and look for incentives for private industry to handle this
one and kind of take it off our list.
Mr. Friend: If I could clarify that. I think the language may not be precise.
It's not necessarily explore the development of an app, but the RFP is to
develop the specs for an app that would met the needs of this community
that could come out of an existing application that's on the street or possibly
a customization of one of those apps to our specifications by an existing
vendor. The third and last option would be to develop something new.
Given the pace of that marketplace, that's not necessary. The idea here, that Chief Transportation Official Joshuah Mello has spoken to, is to put out
an RFQ to develop a tight spec for what we need that meets the needs of
this community.
Council Member DuBois: Again, I would just throw it out there. With
Planning and Community Environment (PCE), the Office of the City Manager,
yourself, is there a different way we could do this one where we don't want
to have to write—you're talking about Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) funding. Can we just incent private industry to write the
requirements and everything? Just an idea. I'm looking for places we can
save ...
Mr. Friend: I think there are a number of other ways to go. There are some
folks who have offered to perform those services pro bono. I think the
interest here from PCE was to do a disciplined, transparent process, but I
think there are a number of ways to slice that.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid.
Council Member Schmid: Number 3, Business Registry has a yellow.
Mayor Burt: We hadn't moved on. Do you think it's related to
sustainability?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 62 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Schmid: No, I'm sorry. I thought we were on CMO.
Mayor Burt: Not to my knowledge. Do we have any other sustainability
issues? Thanks Gil.
Mr. Friend: Thanks very much.
Council Member DuBois: Your choice. We have City Manager's Office and
Planning and Community Environment.
Mr. Keene: Community Planning. I'm going to be here (inaudible).
Mayor Burt: We'll do CMO at the last. What pages are we?
Vice Mayor Scharff: I think we start at 8, 7.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: A few items that are, I think, connected under
housing affordability. I think this is something that we added to our Council
Priorities, to the Built Environment, was the issue of housing. There are
several items that link together here, in particular, 30, 38 and 34. In
numeric order, 30, 34, 38. That's housing micro units, rental costs and
vacation rentals. I think all of these interplay a lot. In particular, I'd be
happy to just say now let's move all those to the parking lot. I think they're
all worthy of discussion. In the interest of time tonight, I don't want to get
into a deep dive at the moment.
Mr. Keene: I think that's partly incorporated in your memo that you wrote.
Mayor Burt: We'll go ahead and put 30, 34 and 38 into the parking lot. The
intention was to have more discussion at the end. Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I wanted to address the Retail Preservation Ordinance.
Mayor Burt: (inaudible)
Vice Mayor Scharff: Numbers. It's really Number 32, which is the retail on
Cal. Ave. Then there's the one for—it would be easier if they were
altogether. There's the one for Downtown. If someone sees it, let me know.
That's 55 and 52. I think those are the three. Fifty-five is the Downtown
Retail Preservation Ordinance. Fifty-two would be other commercial
districts, which I'm thinking is mostly Midtown and El Camino, frankly, if we
were going to look at places. To put it in some context, what we did was we
passed an emergency ordinance which, if I'm correct, lasts for two years.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 63 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
We can't renew it, if I understand it correctly, as an emergency ordinance.
Can we?
Ms. Stump: Just two years and then you need to do something.
Vice Mayor Scharff: We need to do something. When was it passed, how
long ago? It's been over a year, I think.
Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director: Maybe I
can cut to the chase. It expires in April of 2017.
Vice Mayor Scharff: My concern is that we have to address these issues
prior to April 2017. This is one of the few time sensitive things we have on
here. We spent a lot of time talking about how we want to protect retail.
We passed an emergency ordinance. Now I feel like we're dropping the ball,
frankly. I think what we need to do, because obviously I want to put these
all in the parking lot and have further discussion about where we go with
this.
Mayor Burt: I'd like to just wade in on one other dimension to this. I agree
that we can't wait 24 months and then we have another crisis. I also had
anticipated that when we adopted this, that we would have certain interim
adjustments. The rigid approach of a moratorium on all retail was
something that we just really, I thought, were doing as a placeholder so that we could do some things interim while we then had up to two years to look
at a long-term solution. I'm also concerned that we need to look at if there
are hardships that don't seem to fit within what we were trying to
accomplish as our primary objective in the retail ordinance, I'd be interested
in Staff being able to come forward and say, "We'd like you to consider this
set of allowances from it." We can accept those or not, but that would be
something I would hope we'd be able to do sooner rather than later.
Council Member Kniss: I would really support that, strongly.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Just a little bit of a process clarification here. If
we're putting these in the parking lot, are we going to discuss it now or
when we address the parking lot items? I'll make comments now or I can
hold them for later.
Mayor Burt: Principally when we look at prioritizing them, it's going to be in
the parking lot. I brought this other thing out because it's another portion of
the parking lot that's not identified specifically within the long-term
TRANSCRIPT
Page 64 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
solutions. It's kind of an overlay. My concern on interim measures would be
part of the parking lot as well.
Council Member Holman: Thanks for the clarification.
Mayor Burt: Council Member DuBois.
Ms. Gitelman: I'm sorry. Mayor Burt, can I just offer one clarification before
you move on? I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page
when it comes to these retail projects we've identified. When the urgency ordinance was passed, the Council requested that we prioritize the California
Avenue area, which we did. We adopted an ordinance related to ground-
floor retail in the California Avenue area. What you see in Project Number
32 were just some follow-up items that the Council had at that time when
they adopted that ordinance. There are a few follow-up things related to the
feasibility of retail on Cambridge and parking requirements for restaurants
on Cal. Ave. Those are the things that needed a consultant report. We've
reprioritized that money with the Finance Committee for RPP districts. One
other note. When we did our Code cleanup ordinance at the beginning of
this year, I guess it was the 2015 ordinance that got adopted in January.
There were some cleanup items related to the CN and CS zoning on El
Camino. We've done a little bit of cleanup when it comes to El Camino. What you're seeing reflected in this chart is our next priority is Downtown.
We're not working on it as fast as we hoped we would, but we intend to
work on Downtown and get that done by the time the urgency ordinance
expires. What you're seeing is we probably, with the resources we have,
can't do more than that.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I guess I misunderstood. We've actually got the retail
ordinance in place in Cal. Ave.
Ms. Gitelman: That's right.
Vice Mayor Scharff: The only question is—I actually would argue that we
probably don't need to do a retail feasibility on Cambridge, so we don't need
to hire a consultant to do that. It's extra work that I think would be almost
zero priority. I'd put that little piece in the parking lot, so we can discuss
whether or not to drop that.
Mayor Burt: I think from a Staff workload standpoint, we need to look at
whether if we don't have kind of interim measures to look at hardship cases,
are we going to end up spending a lot more Staff and Council time dealing
with those on appeals and petitions and all those things, including potential
legal ramifications versus figuring out a way to be able to contend with some
of those. That's a consideration. Council Member DuBois.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 65 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member DuBois: Some comments on retail, and then I had some
more general comments for PCE. This is a good example of the challenge of
reprioritizing without subverting a vote that we took in Council. I'm not sure
how we handle this (inaudible) Cambridge Avenue, we voted on that. I
supported that vote, and I'm interested in continuing on that.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I think you misunderstood. We have retail
requirements on Cambridge. I'm good with retail requirements on Cambridge. That's what we voted to do. The question is should Staff now
go do a feasibility study of (crosstalk).
Council Member DuBois: I thought that ...
Mayor Burt: And in what priority.
Vice Mayor Scharff: And in what priority. Since we have the retail
ordinance in place, we have retail on Cambridge, should we now go study—
have someone tell us whether or not it's effective or not.
Council Member DuBois: Is that correct, Hillary?
Ms. Gitelman: The ordinance that we adopted for California Avenue does
address Cambridge. I think the follow-up item the Council wanted us to look
at was something about the depth or the size of retail on Cambridge.
Council Member DuBois: That was actually worse. If you want to drop it, I guess we'll (inaudible). The other one is the—in other districts, the question
is if that's unstaffed and unfunded and the emergency ordinance expires,
can we just pass another one for the outside areas at that time. Again, this
feels like it's kind of the appropriate prioritization in general to me. More
broadly, you have several openings in your department. I think you have
some additional Staff. I think we're seeing a lot of impact here. Part of the
question is how quickly can you fill these positions. If you add a couple of
good people to your Staff, this picture may shift before the end of the year.
Ms. Gitelman: Thank you for that question. Absolutely. I thought we made
that point in the housing memo. We're carrying two significant vacancies in
our long-range planning group, which constitutes 30 percent of the Staff
devoted to that function. If we can fill those two positions—we're actively
recruiting for them—we should be able to pick up some of these projects
that are now yellow. We can pick up the pace, and we can reassess the
feasibility of some of these other things.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 66 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member DuBois: Just in terms of process, that underlines for me
anything we can do support recruiting, Staff retention has a huge payoff.
That's kind of a separate angle on all this.
Mr. Keene: I have recommendations.
Council Member DuBois: The other one. I appreciated your examples too.
Like the SSO one, I think there's another dimension we haven't talked about
tonight, which is what is the quality level we need to do all these projects and are there some projects we could do quicker with less effort. The SSO
one in particular, when it came to us, we talked about the Cupertino
ordinance. Could we short circuit a little bit by borrowing from Cupertino?
I'm just using that as an example. I feel like a lot of times we push projects
to the nth degree. We have this Palo Alto process, but we should be looking
for places to be efficient.
Ms. Gitelman: Council Member, I couldn't agree more. I've learned in my
time here in Palo Alto that everything takes longer than you think. Not just
on our side of the table, but on yours.
Council Member DuBois: That really wasn't criticism or anything. It's
actually a suggestion for Council. There may be times when we say getting
70 percent of this one is okay. This other one we want 95 percent. Starting to be explicit. I actually have ...
Mayor Burt: I'd say that's what we just did on Cambridge.
Council Member DuBois: Yeah. I actually have several items. I'm not sure
if I can read them all off. We might have to stop and talk. I have six or
seven items that I'd say I would like to be higher priority. At the same time,
I picked six or seven that I would lower. I'm not sure how we get through
this as a group.
Mayor Burt: I would say the parking lot is for the things that either we want
to add to the list or consider elevating. When we get to the parking lot, we
are going to look at prioritizing. I realize that since we lost department
directors, are we going to need them to have that prioritizing discussion at
the end over the parking lot? No.
Mr. Keene: I don't think so, looking at what's in the parking lot right now.
Mayor Burt: The parking lot may start—we may be selling some of those
extra, unused permits real shortly.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 67 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member DuBois: Now that I look at these, some of these may just
be clarifications on what yellow means and there is no issue. Twenty-four,
Caltrain crossings is a yellow. Obviously, I think that had seven votes; I
think it's a high priority.
Ms. Gitelman: We completely agree with you. The yellow really reflects the
fact that we're trying to hire a Program Manager to staff that project. We
don't currently have Staff with expertise or time available to be the City's designated person on that initiative.
Council Member DuBois: Thirty-one, the new RPP implementation is also
yellow. I think you've heard that's a priority.
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. Again, I think we received the Council's direction loud
and clear. The yellow reflects the fact that we suggested some changes to
the FY 2017 at the Finance Committee to include a contingency—to include
some reallocations that will allow us to staff the operational side of that
project.
Council Member DuBois:- This is one, for me, that I think I'd probably want
to put in the parking lot, the CC(2) zoning, Number 39. The suggestion is
that it comes concurrent with the Comp Plan. In terms of implementation,
that means 3 or 4 years out. Is that correct? We'll pass the Comp Plan, and then we'll start to implement in pieces.
Ms. Gitelman: I hope it would be sooner than that. Our current Comp Plan
schedule is middle of 2017.
Mayor Burt: I think the question is whether the zoning would follow
sequentially and be significantly after the Comp Plan versus the concept that
you had espoused previously that the zoning would come concurrent with
the Comp Plan.
Council Member DuBois: That is behind that question.
Ms. Gitelman: The biggest work effort, in my view, associated with an
initiative like that that's going to affect a lot of property owners is the CEQA
review. What we're hoping is the Comp Plan EIR provides us with the CEQA
review for doing something like that. In that sense, it would be concurrent.
You're right it might trail behind, because the CEQA review would be done,
but we'd still have to write the ordinance and bring it forward.
Council Member DuBois: This one, it's kind of a shorthand. This is looking
at CC(2) at Cal. Ave. Wasn't that the genesis of this one?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 68 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Ms. Gitelman: That's right. It is related to the items that Council Member
Wolbach talked about. When we're talking about housing, how to stimulate
more housing in exchange for removing the sites on San Antonio, we need
to find areas where we're going to either increase existing residential
densities or convert some nonresidential FAR to residential. It's a little bit
tied up in that whole bundle of ideas.
Council Member DuBois: Again for me, this was one that should go in the parking lot. I'd like to see it come before the Comp Plan. That's my two
cents.
Council Member Holman: I'm sorry. What number was that? Did you jump
to San Antonio?
Council Member DuBois: Number 39.
Council Member Holman: I thought you jumped to San Antonio Road.
Council Member DuBois: Can I get that added to the parking lot?
Mayor Burt: Yeah.
Council Member DuBois: Then 42 and 43 are yellow. Again, my preference
would be that they get attention. That's the IR program review and the
Eichler zoning ordinance.
Ms. Gitelman: I think we're in agreement with you. The memo we gave you on the Eichler guidelines said that we can do that as a consultant-led effort,
presuming that we get this contingency funding in the FY 2017 budget.
We'll probably start that item after the Professorville Guidelines are
complete. This September is the target for that. The IR review we're going
to bring to the Planning Commission while the Council's on break. Those
two efforts are wrapping up. It's the perfect timing to initiate this new
project.
Council Member DuBois: One that I think was here a couple of years ago; I
think it could come back. It's red. Fifty-nine, the build-to line on El Camino
discussion.
Male: (inaudible)
Council Member DuBois: I have no idea. I also had corresponding ones that
I'd lower in priority. My last one to focus on was—I think we talked about it.
Maybe I'll go back and talk about the ones that I had lower priority on. I
have a feeling, again, this would be more for discussion. In order, going
back, Number 28, the Midtown connector project. I know we're in the
TRANSCRIPT
Page 69 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
middle of that. I think Staff initially recommended not to do it, given all
your other work. For me, it would be a lower priority right now.
Ms. Gitelman: Council will have an opportunity to follow through on that
suggestion in the coming weeks. It's on your Agenda.
Council Member DuBois: Thirty-three, the paid parking study. It's under
way; it's green. Again, relative to other projects we have, it would have
been lower priority for me. Thirty-seven, secondary dwelling units. I know this is a hot topic. I'm concerned about the return for the time. I think you
can spend a lot of time on this and make some small adjustment, which
won't add any significant housing. If you make radical changes, it probably
will not get support from the community. The question is why spend a lot of
time on it. Again, maybe not a politically popular sentiment, but I think it's
a place to save time. Forty-one, shuttle expansion. I think this is also
coming to us soon. Again, my perspective is it may not be a place for us to
spend a lot of time. Forty-nine, the speed survey updates. Again, I think
(inaudible) are important, but it'd be relatively less important on my list. I
think that's it.
Mayor Burt: Anyone else? Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I have a question about some of these things that seem to me, no matter what color they are, that they're things that go hand
in hand with the Comp Plan. I'm not quite sure how we color code them if
they're related to the Comp Plan. I had a question about something else
too. Hold that and then respond to that. The build-to lines, I appreciate
Council Member DuBois putting that into the parking lot. Related to that,
I've brought up a few times the over 3-year-old Colleagues Memo that, I
believe, Council Members Scharff, Schmid, Burt and I wrote, having to do
with El Camino Design Guidelines and how those integrate with the grand
boulevard design elements. It was pretty explicit about some of the things
that we should be engaging in. To my understanding, that was going to be
done with a part of the Comp Plan Update, but the Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) members don't know about it and I don't see it on this list.
Ms. Gitelman: Council Member Holman, I'll have to go back and review that
Colleagues Memo. I do remember when we brought forward our proposed
ordinance on the build-to line, it suggested increasing setbacks along El
Camino, and the room was packed with property owners who objected to
that concept. At that time, the Council said, "We want to scale back this
ordinance, adopt something quickly that's just a little adjustment to the
build-to line. This larger idea of increasing setbacks on El Camino should be
dealt with in the context of the Comp Plan Update." That's the sort of track
TRANSCRIPT
Page 70 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
we've been pursuing. I confess that the build-to line has dropped in priority,
also because it's not going to accomplish that much. When we eliminated
the concept of increasing setbacks, it became really a technical change. We
could almost put that in next year's Code cleanup at this point. We've
haven't been actively pursuing it.
Council Member Holman: To go back to the Memo here for just a minute.
As part of the Comp Plan, it seemed like the things in that would accomplish a lot. Again, I don't see them on this list and don't hear them being
discussed as part of the CAC activities. Maybe it'd be good to go back ...
Ms. Gitelman: I'm not sure I understand ...
Council Member Holman: ... and review the Memo.
Ms. Gitelman: The Colleagues Memo?
Council Member Holman: Mm-hmm.
Ms. Gitelman: When was that Colleagues Memo brought forward? Do you
remember?
Council Member Holman: It's over three years old now.
Ms. Gitelman: I'll have to ask someone to dig it up.
Council Member Holman: To not really act as cover for you, when you'd
been here a good while, you didn't even know it existed because it hadn't come to your attention. I'm certainly not finger-pointing here. Now it
should be coming forward.
Ms. Gitelman: I totally understand. There has been a lot of work and a lot
of urban design work done around El Camino Real that we reference often in
our office. I guess the question is, given everything you see on our plate, is
there really the ability to do more. If you're talking about just making sure
we have policies in the Comp Plan Update that reference that prior work, I
think that's completely feasible.
Council Member Holman: I think, again, it would just be helpful to go back
and review that Memo.
Ms. Gitelman: Happy to do that.
Council Member Holman: Given that that's one of the areas where the
Citizens Survey ranks the City low in terms of our projects, I think it should
be prioritized.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 71 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: It's one thing for her to review it. Upon review, if the action is
to make sure certain aspects of it are going before the CAC and the Comp
Plan, is that what would meet that or are you proposing something else?
Council Member Holman: I'm not sure, until I get some feedback, whether it
should be on this list or if it should just be ...
Mayor Burt: Then we'll move on.
Mr. Keene: What I would just say real quickly, what I heard is if it's the former on those two, Hillary can do it. If it's the latter, it's potentially a red-
listed project when we bring it forward.
Council Member Holman: My first question was how some of these integrate
with the Comprehensive Plan. They're listed as separate projects here, but
they're really, I would think, integrated with the Comprehensive Plan. How
do we red/yellow/green these if they're integrated with the Comprehensive
Plan? Micro units being maybe one thing.
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Council Member Holman: Hillary, answer the question please.
Mayor Burt: That was more of a comment than a question.
Council Member Holman: No, it's a question.
Ms. Gitelman: Maybe you could give me an example of where you think something is integrated with the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Holman: Micro units was one. Parking studies related to
housing was another. Just to give you a couple of examples.
Ms. Gitelman: I think we talk about the fact in our memo on housing, that
micro units is a significant work effort unless we're talking about a single site
as a test pilot. To do a Downtown-wide look at how to incentivize micro
units, or elsewhere in the City, that is a significant effort that we would talk
about in the Comp Plan in terms of policies, include a program and include
those into the scenarios that we're analyzing in the EIR. To actually get it
done, it's not going to be feasible before the Comp Plan.
Council Member Holman: Lastly, at the Finance Committee we talked
about—I actually suggested a $200,000 contingency for you to help get
some of these things done. The suggestion came back from Staff, from your
department and the City Manager's Office, for a $500,000 contingency. Do
you want to speak to that just a little bit, so the people who aren't on
TRANSCRIPT
Page 72 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Finance might understand what that might be used for and that level of
support.
Ms. Gitelman: Sure, I'd be happy to. When we first went to the Finance
Committee, I thought we had a good conversation just about the fact that
the Planning Department is currently a Staff of about 36 people. We have
trouble recruiting new people. The job market is really tight for planners,
whether they're on Staff or as consultants. We are asking for a few new positions in the budget, but the Committee really wanted to know what else
can we do to move forward some of these policy initiatives. We came up
with the idea of—it's not a new idea because we have a contingency in this
year's budget. This year it was for transportation projects unanticipated at
the beginning of the year. By the close of the fiscal year, we will have used
all but, I think, $70,000 out of the $500,000 in that contingency. We're
proposing the same approach in FY '17. It would be a contingency not just
for transportation, but also for planning. We would use that to fund the
consultant who would run the Eichler Design Guidelines proposal, and then
other planning and transportation initiatives that came up in the course of
the year, where we didn't have Staff, we just had to throw resources at it to
get something done. I think in the memo, that's going to the Finance Committee for next week's meeting, there's some ideas of what those other
projects could be.
Mr. Keene: Just so we're clear, the Finance Committee has not endorsed
that recommendation yet. You specifically asked us to come back on the 7th
with how that would be used.
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I just wanted to briefly address the parking issues.
Parking was one of our highest priorities. The frustration with parking
Downtown and in other places has been a big issue. I guess I wanted to get
a sense of where the paid parking study was. That's the one that's green,
and everything else seems to be contingent upon finishing that paid parking
study.
Ms. Gitelman: You're absolutely right. We see that as an essential study to
move forward with some of the projects we've been talking about for a
while, like the parking guidance system is currently unfunded, kind of on
hold pending the outcome of the paid parking study. We're hoping that
study will allow us to adjust parking rates and potentially even charge for
parking where we don't currently charge. We could use that as a financing
mechanism or to fund parking guidance systems and help us design the
parking access and revenue controls, which is another line item here. We
TRANSCRIPT
Page 73 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
see that as a critical study. We're in the data collection phase right now.
We've already collected one data set. There'll be another data set in
September and October, once school's back in session. We're looking at not
just occupancy, which is something we've done routinely with the RPP
projects, but also turnover, and we're doing some focus groups with
residents and members of the business community. We're going to get a
fuller sense of how all our parking resources are used, not just the garages and the residential streets but also our on-street spaces and parking lots in
Downtown.
Vice Mayor Scharff: When is the parking study going to be completed? That
was my question.
Ms. Gitelman: We're hoping to complete it by the end of the year.
Vice Mayor Scharff: By the end of the year. The parking access and
revenue controls, I thought this came to Council originally—it was going to
be these things underneath that you drove over. Council said—I've got to
remember never to do this again. The question you posed to us is do you
want to wait six months and have better technology or do you want to use
this right now. We said, "No. Come back with a better technology." How
did this come to be unfunded? You're coming back in six months on that issue, and now it's just unfunded. How do we get that without coming to
Council?
Ms. Gitelman: When we collectively put the CIP together and we know how
much money we have, we're looking for projects that can be funded in other
ways. Parking access and revenue controls and parking guidance systems
were identified as capital improvements that could be funded through
parking revenues. That's how it got teed up behind the paid parking study.
Vice Mayor Scharff: This isn't a Staff issue. This is purely a funding issue.
Ms. Gitelman: It is a Staff capacity issue in the sense that we have now one
person, with Jessica's departure, managing all these parking projects. We
thought it made sense to prioritize the one that was going to generate the
money over the other ones that were going to spend the money.
Vice Mayor Scharff: That's fair enough. Have we done the work? This came
to us—I don't know. Help me out. A year ago?
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) time ago.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Eighteen months? Have we done the work?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 74 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Ms. Gitelman: We have done significant work on both of these efforts.
Parking guidance systems, I think, you saw quite recently and helped us
choose which option we would prefer. That is basically ready to go once we
have an idea of a funding stream. Access and revenue controls will need a
little more work, and it will be informed by what we decide in terms of policy
changes around paid parking.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I'd like to put 35 then, parking access controls, in the parking lot, and the parking guidance systems to have a little further
discussion about it.
Mayor Burt: (inaudible) the parking in the parking lot.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Right, the parking in the parking lot.
Council Member Wolbach: (inaudible)
Vice Mayor Scharff: It's 35, and I think it was 40. Yeah, 40.
Council Member Kniss: Can I talk to that?
Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss.
Council Member Kniss: I think I need to recall what happened with—this is
Number 51, which was the Geng Road circulation, Embarcadero Road
parking study. I think we voted on that I don't know how long ago. A very
long time ago.
Vice Mayor Scharff: 2013.
Council Member Kniss: This also includes a parking study. As I recall, this
went through the Council and then was put out by the—and then was
eliminated by, I think, Staff.
Mayor Burt: I think it went to Council with a Staff recommendation of not
proceeding based upon the traffic impact ...
Council Member Kniss: Yes, I think that's correct.
Mayor Burt: ... at the—I don't know why it's still here.
Council Member Kniss: That's my question.
Ms. Gitelman: if I can clarify. I think we're talking about two things, kind of
apples and televisions. We had a satellite parking idea for Embarcadero
Road that we spent some time on. We brought that idea back to Council
TRANSCRIPT
Page 75 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
with a recommendation not to proceed for a number of reasons. This is a
new idea. It would also involve looking at whether we could improve
parking out there. What's happened since we had the satellite discussion is
that employment out there has increased and the traffic and parking has
gotten so much worse. The Chief Transportation Official has come up with
an idea of potential remedies. This would be a study to pursue those
further. It's just beyond what we can really take on right at this ...
Mayor Burt: This is different.
Ms. Gitelman: ... moment. It is a different project.
Mayor Burt: It does bring up that we—was this at our Retreat, something
that was on the board? Staff put up all the things we voted on, I think, were
principally Staff-initiated with a few write-ins, if I'm recalling correctly. Was
this on the board?
Mr. Keene: I'm pretty sure it was. I don't have the original one from ...
Mayor Burt: We probably didn't know what the heck it was about or we
thought it was about the first thing, one of the two.
Council Member Kniss: It's not proposed for funding; therefore, is it alive?
Mayor Burt: It's low priority. It's a new project proposal, they said ...
Council Member Kniss: Without funding.
Mayor Burt: ...without funding at this time.
Mr. Keene: Just so we're clear. We put it on because we were getting a lot
of traveler complaints from folks down on Embarcadero Road about the
ingress and egress access there and the intersection improvements that
would need to be made. We knew it was important to folks in the
community. It's just that the alternatives that we put together, one, both
don't have funding and they're all incomplete as far as what the remedies
would be right now.
Council Member Kniss: I look forward to hearing more about it in the future.
Mr. Keene: There was a little bit of thought—I thought there was a little bit
of waiting to see what happens with the car dealership too.
Ms. Gitelman: There's a possibility that the intersection improvements that
would be funded by ...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 76 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mr. Keene: Mercedes.
Ms. Gitelman: ... Mercedes and others will help address some of the issues.
I think we're going to continue to hear some complaints from folks out there,
that someday we're going to have to take a harder look at.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid.
Council Member Schmid: I guess I just wanted to reiterate some of the
points that have been made. The Planning Department is under pressure and has a wide spectrum of things. What I heard is that there were some
things that you mentioned were yellow, but they were moving along well.
Included the IR program, the Eichler design, the Professorville Guidelines
and the Caltrain Program Manager for the grade separation. All of those,
you were assuring us, are moving ahead. I just wanted to make sure that
was ...
Ms. Gitelman: That is true. They're yellow for a variety of reasons. The
grade separation, as I mentioned, is because we're trying to retain a Project
Manager or Program Manager for that. The Eichler project is yellow because
we still need the budgeted resources to do that and bring a consultant on
board, which will be a procurement effort. The IR project is wrapping up.
The Professorville Guidelines are wrapping up. Those have taken longer than we thought, frankly, but I think they'll be done very shortly.
Council Member Schmid: I just wanted to confirm that. We haven't talked
at all about the Comp Plan Update, the transportation analysis on CEQA and
the TMA survey reviews. I just want to make the point that those are
critical. We want to make sure we do the things that are most important.
Mayor Burt: Other Community Environment items? Anything? Council
Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm sorry if I missed it during the earlier
discussion. Item 41—there was at least some allusion to it before—that is
shuttle expansion. My understanding is that is coming to Council pretty
soon anyway for discussion. There's no real benefit to putting that in the
parking lot, because we're going to be talking about it in the next few
weeks, I think, before break. Correct?
Ms. Gitelman: That is not coming to you before the break. We're going to
bring it to you sometime in the fall. What's happened to us is VTA has put
out their proposal and the options that would substantially truncate their
service. We're having to step back and reassess a little bit. My hope is that
we can still bring this to you sometime in the fall.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 77 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Wolbach: Is it too much to hope that if Staff can't work on
that in the next few months, they'll get to work on some of the other things?
Does that free up some Staff time in the interim?
Ms. Gitelman: We're showing that as yellow. The other projects take that
into consideration already.
Mayor Burt: I'll just add that the VTA tax will also play into this, not only
the VTA bus program restructuring which could take services away from existing services like some of ours. The 500 million that is in ...
Council Member Berman: The roads.
Mayor Burt: No. Actually the bus service would put dollars back into play.
Those two things will come in. I don't know whether we can have a
reasonable discussion until after November. I'll just say that from a policy
standpoint, if they were to pursue cutbacks on our routes, I'd really want to
pursue having VTA refund to cities the bulk of the dollar savings if they
would use them toward local bus service, that would be matched or
whatever by local funds. I just wanted to get that out on the table. It's kind
of a high-level concept that ties in with this. It's going to be a big issue.
Anything else on Community Environment?
Council Member Wolbach: What did we decide about 51? Is that going in there at all? I'm not recommending it necessarily does. That was the Geng
Road.
Mayor Burt: No. We just said that's on hold.
Council Member Wolbach: Thanks.
Mayor Burt: Thank you, Director Gitelman.
Council Member Filseth: What was the resolution on if we're going to
escalate some of these? How do we look at other things to de-escalate or
something (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: That's what we do when we revisit the parking lot at the end of
this meeting.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I don't think Director Gitelman should leave actually.
Mr. Keene: She won't leave.
Mayor Burt: That goes to that question of whether we need directors.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 78 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Filseth: That was sort of why I asked if we were going to
send Hillary home.
Mayor Burt: Does that move us to City Manager Office? Who has—Council
Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: Kind of the same comment. One of the biggest
things is you're way understaffed now with the loss of a couple of people.
For me, I had two things that I would elevate in priority and two things that I would decrease. For me, three, Business Registry. I think it's important
that we give it some time and improve the quality of that data. We're
collecting money. It could very easily fail if we ignore it in the second and
third years. I'm concerned about the Business Registry. Then, five, I know
Kash is spending a lot of time on airplane noise. Right now is the time to do
it while the Select Committee is getting up and going. We can't really afford
not to be there. The two that maybe I would de-prioritize right now—again I
...
Mayor Burt: Let me just ask on five, why is it a yellow? We're spending
Staff time and very engaged. It seems like it's a green.
Mr. Keene: I think it is. It's where are we going and what's our ability to be
successful.
Mayor Burt: Is this a yellow that's kind of a fog of war yellow?
Mr. Keene: Yeah, it's a little bit more like—exactly right. We're green as
long as whatever. Ten years in Afghanistan or something is on target.
Council Member DuBois: I guess two is going to come back to us. This is
local transportation funding. I think we just need to decide if it's this year or
in a future year, and that will change the work load.
Mayor Burt: That's really a green also. That's going full steam ahead.
Council Member DuBois: In terms of being understaffed, when we talk
about it, we'll talk about that one. I already brought up 60. I still think this
mobility as a service app, if there was a way we could get that off your plate
and just incent a private company to do the work for us. Thank you.
Mr. Keene: I think it's a partnership, as we said. I think we need to inform
it with some content, but the work is for the marketplace.
Mayor Burt: Others? Anyone else? Council Member Schmid.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 79 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Schmid: Just a comment on the Business Registry. I guess
I'd go in the opposite direction of let's spend less money. We spent a year,
a year and a half collecting data, and we are well beneath the numbers that
we are using as our base for employment in the City. I think we're about
one-third beneath it. Where do those numbers come from? They come
from Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and ABAG both in 2005
and 2013 came up with numbers of employees in Palo Alto. A question of where does that come from. They used census data, business census data
from the Commerce Department. It seems to me it's time that we stop
trying to count noses and find that we can't find all these people, and use
the same number ABAG has been using as their basis. Go to the business
census put out by the Department of Commerce on a census-tracked basis
and use those numbers that PlaceWorks is using. We're using it as a
background for all our reports. Why don't we use it?
Mayor Burt: Can I weigh in on that? I'm not sure—when we've quizzed our
Staff on the reliability of that data, in particular how reliable it was for our
medium and larger businesses, the answer was that we think we've captured
it really well. I'm not quite sure why there's the assumption that the
business census data is necessarily correct. I would say that if our data is closer to correct, then that might favor our position with ABAG. They drive
demand for what we must build in housing based upon, in part, our jobs. If
that's been overstated, why would we want to acquiesce there?
Council Member Schmid: Why are we using, why is PlaceWorks using, why
are we giving out background material for our Comprehensive Plan using the
data that ABAG has given us? We as a Staff have accepted that as a base
number.
Mayor Burt: You were just advocating that we abandon embracing our
specific data. Why wouldn't we want to go in the other direction, which is
look at whether our specific data might be leading us to greater accuracy
and embrace that?
Council Member Schmid: It would be good if we have confidence in it. It
seems to me we've struggled ...
Mayor Burt: I don't know which I have confidence in. I'm not sure that I
have confidence in ABAG's numbers.
Council Member Schmid: It's the Department of Commerce census that you
have confidence in. It seems to me those are the numbers that we have
been using in our Comp Plans for the last 40 years as a true basis.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 80 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Now that we actually do surveying, I'm trying to understand
why, when that doesn't align with the Commerce census, we would continue
to embrace the Commerce census over our actual City-specific data.
Council Member Schmid: Because I think all the data that is showing up in
our transportation systems and our traffic and our parking indicate that the
census data is probably fairly accurate. (crosstalk)
Mayor Burt: I guess I don't know that. If that is the case, then our assumptions about the comparative accuracy of our Registry data would be
wrong. For me, it poses a question rather than a conclusion.
Mr. Keene: I think the Council made some decision to get more granular
and specific in this area, because of the utility that the information can
provide potentially for uses and purposes we're not even using it for right
now. There may be service delivery aspects of having this info that's
different than just what we would use in the Comp Plan. I think what we've
acknowledged is nobody gets this spot-on on the first pass through. This is
a multiphase process over a couple of years where we would definitely
expect that we get to scrub the numbers and the data and see where we
are. In truth, if we feel that they're really accurate and valid and then they
are different than ABAG's methodology, I would be with where the Mayor is. Wouldn't we want to make that case potentially?
Mayor Burt: A question would be how do we get to that reconciliation. One
of the things that I brought up last year was doing a sampling where we
would look at a reconciliation. If we have census data and its business
specific, take X number of businesses and dig deeper and find out what's the
basis for the disparity. Right now we're just kind of in a stalemate, and
we're not moving toward reconciliation. I just don't think that—the answer
at the time by Staff was, "We can't possibly look at every business." I agree
fully. That's sampling; that's why we use statistical sampling. I think that
could get us much closer to figuring out why we have this disparity.
Mr. Keene: In any case, we're not poised to move ahead. We have what we
have for now. I think the appropriate time would be when we're ready to
step it up and we want to go the next phase. If the Council wants to
redirect us, you can do that then.
Mayor Burt: Anything else on City Manager's Office? Council Member
Filseth.
Council Member Filseth: If I can just weigh in briefly on the Business
Registry. I think it's really important that we be able to make a bottoms-up
approach like the Business Registry work. We know it can be done. We see
TRANSCRIPT
Page 81 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
other communities do it successfully, so we know it can be done. As the City
Manager points out, there are other kinds of very closely related bottoms-up
data that we're going to want to be able to get. We are taking a huge flyer
on TDM. We're just assuming we're going to be able to reduce car trips 30
percent, and that's going to sort of—we're using that for all kinds of
decisions. That's going to require us to do a bottoms-up counting of
employee trips. If we can't even count employees, how are we going to count employee trips? I think it's important that we make this work.
Thanks.
Mayor Burt: Let's return to the parking lot. We have it there. Can we get it
posted on these two? Can we get the parking lot on all the screens, David?
Council Member Holman: I just wanted to just get one clarifying comment
from City Manager. Airplane noise really is green; it's just taking more than
what's anticipated because the answer isn't at our fingertips, but it's full
steam ahead on trying to address that and working on it.
Mr. Keene: Yeah. I just think that there's still a lot of uncertainty in the
future as to where it's going to go. There's not a straight line from here to
whatever the outcome is. In that sense, that's why we wanted to say it's—I
think the fog of war is a good way to think about that. We're trying to let you know. We could be in a situation where we would really say we got
stuck somehow down the road here. We need X, Y, Z more.
Council Member Holman: There's no diminution of effort though. We're full
steam ahead. Correct?
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Mr. Keene: Yes. I think there may be things that come up that are not
known to us. We wanted to make it tentative. As far as what our effort is,
no, we're draining our resources to support this.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I think I'll just follow-up for Jim on the airplane noise. I
think that yellow is probably appropriate. It's not clear we'll achieve
anything at the end of the day. I think we're working as hard as we possibly
can, but the FAA report was not positive on the sort of things we wanted to
do. This is a real uphill battle, to make real progress on this. If we put it as
green, it gives the community the sense that this is a done deal and we're
moving forward. Putting it yellow, I think everyone's working as hard as
they possibly can to achieve progress on this issue, but progress is not
certain. That's why it's yellow.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 82 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: That's another yet use of yellow. Let's move on to the parking
lot. The goal is to determine whether any of these items should be elevated
in their priority over their current priority. If so, what items should be
reduced in priority to make room. I think we actually—we need to look at
these by categories by department.
Council Member Kniss: Pat, one question on this. I think either we're
elevating them without paying attention to what the budget can bear, or we are trying to balance one against the other. I think we need to know where
we're heading before we start down the parking lot.
Mayor Burt: If we were going to elevate any of these, we'd need to probably
reduce the priority of something else. It may not be from a budgetary
standpoint a tracking that they necessarily—the staffing resources that
would be needed to elevate something and reduce something may not be
the same as the budgetary impact. That's a good question. It's another
dimension which is any budgetary impacts outside of just staffing priority
tradeoffs. For the start, I think we need to identify which departments are
each. Homeless is CSD. Smoking is Public Works, which kind of baffles me.
Pardon me? Sure.
Ms. Stump: I can possibly take this one off. I did get a quick report back that there is an ordinance that's nearly done. That should be coming
forward—it looks like a little bit of a disconnect between the preparation of
this report and the line Staff who are still working away. On tobacco retailer
licensing, the Staff is working with the County. The State solved two of the
other issues or addressed them substantially, the age and the e-cigarettes.
I think this one can comfortably come off the parking lot if that answer is
satisfactory.
Mayor Burt: We basically just move it up to a green.
Vice Mayor Scharff: From a red to a green, that's progress.
Mayor Burt: We've got ...
Mr. Keene: Pat, could we just go back to homeless services? I can't nail it
down like Molly did. My take on the homeless services item really is this is
some bigger policy discussion that the Council needs to have. What's the
nature of the problem and what's the City's response and is there anything
more we really can do right now? I don't see how we get from here to there
at all in the short term. I don't think this is a question of reprioritizing
something else. Do you want us to put a little bit more money in this or do
you want us to reduce the homeless problem by X? I just think it's a big
policy (inaudible).
TRANSCRIPT
Page 83 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: I think that's a very good point. There are
definitely a lot of angles we could attack this. Budgetary, there's stuff that
we could do just as a City on our own. There is stuff that we can do in
conjunction obviously with the County. There's stuff we can do in
conjunction with nonprofits. I'm interested in an update from Staff on the
future of the Opportunity Center and the changes that they're facing with their partners and whether that means the City will have to play a larger
role. I'm not sure what the best way to approach this is, if it means that
we—do you want a Colleagues Memo so a couple of us put something
together or do we want to say let's start looking for a time for a Study
Session? Do we start looking for time for an Action Item. I'm open to
colleagues' thoughts on this. Because it is a multi-headed hydra of a
problem, but one of pressing concern to so many people on Council and in
the community, I just think it's worth addressing.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I share your concerns about this, Council Member
Wolbach. Just so you know, it's not like nothing will be happening. A couple
or three of us have actually been in communication with the VA trying to see if there was some possibility of some veterans homeless facility there. More
to be known or learned about that. Also just know that it won't be lost
because it's one of the items on the Healthy City Healthy Community
resolution that Council Member Kniss and I worked on so much last year and
the Council passed. It's not going to get lost.
Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss.
Council Member Kniss: I would underscore what Karen has just said. That
is indeed the case. Also, at the end of any day, the County really takes the
most responsibility for homeless. We should be in touch with them. We had
a very close connection for a while, that I think has probably slipped because
it's difficult to keep all these going. I think reminding our County
connections that that is their job doesn't hurt.
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Thank you. I also appreciate your concern about this.
I thought we'd narrowed it to veterans homelessness where we thought we
could actually have a larger impact. I also want to remind us that when we
closed Cubberley to the homeless, basically, we put forth—maybe you could
help me out. Was it 250,000 or was it 250,000 for two years?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 84 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Kniss: 250,000 ...
Council Member Holman: For two years.
Vice Mayor Scharff: For two years, so it was 500,000 total or was it 250
total?
Council Member Kniss: I think it was 250 total.
Mr. Keene: I think it was 250 total ...
Vice Mayor Scharff: Over the two year period.
Mr. Keene: The County matched it 125,000 each year. We ...
Vice Mayor Scharff: That's right. It's 500 for that. If everyone recalls, that
wasn't our first choice. Our first choice was to partner with local agencies.
We went through an entire process in that. We were unable to work out
how to give away our money to work with local agencies where we could
make it work.
Council Member Kniss: We spent a year on it.
Vice Mayor Scharff: We spent a year on it. This isn't something where we
could just say let's throw money at it and be productive. I don't want us to
lose sight of that. I've asked several times; I didn't ask hard enough that I
pushed it. I asked what happened to the money that we sent to the County.
What could we have to show for that effort? I don't think there's a single Council Member here who could tell me that we gave that money to the
County, do we know what happened to it? Do we know what they used it
for?
Council Member Schmid: They had a report (inaudible) ago.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Two months ago.
Council Member Schmid: (inaudible) came and said thank you very much.
Here's what we've done with it. We've housed ..
Vice Mayor Scharff: What did he do with it?
Council Member Schmid: ... 10, 12 people.
Vice Mayor Scharff: They housed 10 or 12 people.
Council Member Schmid: That's a practical outcome.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 85 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Kniss: They weren't all in Palo Alto.
Council Member Schmid: No, they were housed in the county.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I'm just saying I think that—obviously we all care about
homelessness. We want to resolve the issue, but this is a really complicated
issue. I don't think just throwing money at it works. I don't think it's as
simple as saying let's partner with the County. That's a lot of money,
$250,000 out of the General Fund, if I recall, given especially where we are with our budgetary constraints that we're having right now. I just want us
all to be cautious. I agree with Council Member Kniss this is primarily a
County issue. This is what the County does. They are supposed to resolve
this. The fact that they don't do necessarily a great job on it, but it's a
complex issue.
Mayor Burt: I just want to caution us. If we're going to even get through
the ten items on the parking lot and if we spend 10 minutes each, we'll be ...
Council Member Berman: Midnight.
Mayor Burt: Yeah. On the homeless, we've heard that we actually think
that we have some direction. Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) want to make comment on
homelessness. I have a general process suggestion to get through the list. These are on here because one or a couple of Council Members suggested
they be on the list. What if, when we get to each one, we do a straw poll to
see if there's agreement or disagreement that the priority is wrong. The
majority may think that some of these are correct as is, and we could move
on.
Mayor Burt: Let's give that a shot, and see how that works. We'd also need
real quickly to remind ourselves where we are on the priority in order to vote
on whether it's right or wrong. On Number 10, it's a yellow. Do we think
that is approximately the correct priority or it should change?
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) straw vote?
Mayor Burt: Yeah. We're having straw votes on the process Council
Member DuBois just mentioned, if we think that the current priority is
approximately correct. If it fails, then we go into a deeper discussion on
how to adjust it and what tradeoffs.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 86 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Wolbach: When you say the current priority, do you mean
the ranking we gave it at the Retreat, the fact that it's on the list at all or its
current color code?
Mayor Burt: I think color code primarily. We realize that we've kind of
treated—its color code and the way Staff explained it; I guess is the way I'd
put it. Why don't we do it the other way? Anyone who thinks that the
current priority should be changed. First on Number 10, homeless services. That has three. We'll put that as a tentative no. These are straw votes, so
we'll come back at the end.
Council Member Kniss: It's a tentative yes, leave it as it is?
Mayor Burt: Correct. Tentative no, don't change it. Next one is 30, housing
micro units. It's currently a yellow. Do we want to look at 30, 34 and 38 as
a group or separately? Then let's go 30. Who thinks that we should change
the priority from its current position? That has four in favor.
Council Member DuBois: I don't think it's just color, but the comments that
it'll be done with the Comp Plan.
Mayor Burt: Thirty-four, which is rental costs. Who thinks it should be
changed? Three. Five, sorry. Rental preservation ordinance. I'm sorry.
Thirty-eight, vacation rentals ordinance. One. Thirty-two, retail preservation ordinance on Cal. Ave.
Council Member Holman: Description on that please. Didn't we ...
Council Member Kniss: I thought we resolved that.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I think we did on that.
Mayor Burt: Yeah, let's drop that one.
Council Member Holman: Can we be clear on what exactly happened earlier
to see that we're all on the same page?
Mayor Burt: We got a clarification that we had taken action, and there were
I'd say a few minor things on the margin that will eventually be addressed
but not as a priority.
Council Member Berman: The important thing got done.
Mr. Keene: We came back and did what you guys asked us to do, and then
you asked us to do some more stuff.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 87 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: On the Cal. Ave., anyone thinks this needs to be changed in
priority? That's fails, zero. I have one thing on the next two that I don't
quite know how to fit. There's one thing, a question of whether the
complete solution needs to be reprioritized. I had this other issue of
whether we need to be looking at ...
Male: Exemptions?
Mayor Burt: Yeah.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I'd add that.
Mayor Burt: I'll call that as another item of modifications to the preservation
ordinance Citywide. it could apply to any of the areas, any modifications
that we want. It's an overlay to all of them. It's any interim ...
Mr. Keene: (inaudible)
Council Member Holman: That would apply to—I'm sorry.
Mayor Burt: I called it modifications to the retail moratorium ...
Council Member Kniss: Citywide.
Mayor Burt: ... Citywide. Anywhere in the City, I guess, is what we might
choose to ...
Council Member Kniss: That changes it from the red.
Mayor Burt: Karen. That's different from—we have in 52 and 55—that's basically addressing the permanent ordinance in those geographic areas.
This other thing is interim modifications to our moratorium. Karen.
Council Member Holman: As I read the 52 and 55, it seemed like that was
to do a lot of work to go around, which is a much larger project, it seems to
me. I think what you're proposing, which would affect Number 52 and
Number 55, would be to come back with suggestions or come back for an
opportunity for the Council to weigh in on what we would like to see changed
about the current preservation ordinance.
Mayor Burt: You mean the moratorium? By current ordinance, you mean ...
Council Member Holman: The current retail preservation ordinance.
Council Member Berman: She means the (inaudible).
TRANSCRIPT
Page 88 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: The moratorium.
Council Member Holman: I don't think it's really a moratorium. I think it's—
call it what you want, but it's a ...
Mayor Burt: We froze everything. It was a moratorium on change of any
retail to non-retail.
Council Member Holman: It's really an urgency ordinance, I think, is what—
yeah. What you're talking about would affect Number 52 and 55, which would be make changes to that ordinance.
Mayor Burt: Potentially, yeah.
Mr. Keene: What I heard Hillary say is on 55, while it is yellow, we were
saying we would be on track to have made the changes that needed to be
made by the time the two year cycle of the ordinance had passed. It was
yellow, but it was going to be completed in time.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Just to weigh in on that. You said can happen. That
wasn't a commitment. If it had said it will happen before the end of the
expiration, so I thought, "What's the difference between being green and
being yellow?" I got the sense this may happen. If it's green, that's great.
Mayor Burt: I think that's a correct framing of 52 and 55. We'd be voting
on whether we want that to be reprioritized so that it comes back sooner than it otherwise might or more certainly than it otherwise might. This other
thing that I proposed is whether we take a look at exemptions or whatever
on an interim basis. Let's vote on each of those three separately. On 52, do
we think that we want the other commercial districts to come back sooner
than Staff was planning? That's two. What's that? Three.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I just want it to come back before the ordinance
expires. That's different to me than before (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: Let me reframe it then. Do we want to make sure that 52
comes back to us adequately before the ordinance expires?
Council Member Berman: Greg Schmid doesn't agree (inaudible).
Mayor Burt: Same question on 55, which is Downtown. Same question.
Ms. Gitelman: That is yellow because it's going slower than we would hope,
but it is programmed to come back before the ordinance expires in April of
2017. It's yellow.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 89 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: Is it programmed ahead of 52?
Ms. Gitelman: Yes, 52 is currently red.
Mayor Burt: Fifty-five, you're saying is really already meeting our concern.
We just drop it from ... We don't need to reprioritize. I guess the question
we'll vote on is—Hillary has just clarified that 55 is already coming back
comfortably before the expiration of the urgency ordinance. The only vote
we would be having is if we want to have it come back even sooner. Anybody want to have it come back even sooner?
Council Member Kniss: I don't care about that, but (inaudible).
Mayor Burt: Just a second.
Council Member Kniss: Going along with that is what you suggested, the
modification.
Mayor Burt: Right. That's next. That's next. We just had 55 that didn't
have any support. Finally, the one on potential modifications to the urgency
ordinance prior to a permanent ordinance. All those who would like to see
that.
Mr. Keene: (inaudible) just out of curiosity.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Can I answer that?
Mayor Burt: Yeah.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I think that there are certain circumstances in the City
where it's simply unfair to the people, and it doesn't make any sense. Under
the ordinance, Staff would probably just deny it. I think Staff should bring
those to us. If Staff has some—let's, for instance, say if it wasn't even
zoned retail to start with, you might just want to put something that says if
it wasn't zoned retail originally, maybe you don't have to have retail.
Mayor Burt: I think without the Council giving some sort of guidance to
Staff, Staff is not going to feel comfortable with bringing forward
recommendations for exemptions, because the last thing they got was a
rigid moratorium; although, I thought at the time that we had discussions
we anticipated that it wasn't going to be a rigid moratorium for two years
solid. We voted. Unless anybody has a different vote. Are we still five?
Council Member Holman: Clarification. What we're saying was that it'll
come to the Council before the April 15, 2017, but does Staff really have
good guidance on what we want to come back?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 90 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Ms. Gitelman: If I can interject. We need to talk internally about the idea of
amending an urgency ordinance. From the Staff perspective, there are a lot
of things about that Citywide ordinance that we've found it very challenging
to apply fairly. I think this is a great idea in concept, but first of all it's not
resourced. Second of all, we need to have a conversation about how we can
legally do it. I think we'll ...
Mayor Burt: That's okay. All we're doing tonight is say that we have an interest in doing that. You could come back and say if we could do it, we
can't do it, we can do this.
Mr. Keene: I would like to say in general, both in the interest of time and us
not doing what we do late at night, you're identifying what changes you
want to see. We'll come back and tell you how that might be accomplished.
We have to have some follow-up.
Mayor Burt: We're just identifying (crosstalk).
Mr. Keene: You're just identifying, right. I think it would be a mistake to try
to trade stuff off tonight.
Mayor Burt: Not the specific changes. Let's do that one again. We're voting
on whether we want Staff to come back with potential modifications to the
urgency retail ordinance. Five. Next is 39. It says it's CC(2); the Staff Report had it wrong. It should say CC(2). This is whether to reprioritize
changes to that zoning area specifically around Cal. Ave. or was this ...
Male: (inaudible)
Council Member Wolbach: Can we get a quick reminder from a colleague or
Staff on what the CC(2) zoning was and what the amendments would entail?
Mayor Burt: Yeah. Tom, you want to go ahead and take a cut at it?
Council Member DuBois: I believe most of Cal. Ave. itself is zoned CC(2)
which would be a 50-foot height limit. There was some discussion about
potentially going down to maybe 35 CN zoning. Again, how do we keep Cal.
Ave. weird basically was the discussion, I think, at the time. If anybody else
has a different recollection.
Council Member Berman: I thought it was adjusting FAR.
Council Member Holman: If I can chime in on that just a little bit. Mayor
Burt and I talked about this for a long time because California Avenue, the
CC(2) zoning is higher zoning than it is Downtown. That's why it's been kind
TRANSCRIPT
Page 91 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
of on this list for a long time of looking at it to see about adjusting that
zoning.
Mayor Burt: I do think this is something we need to look at long term. One
of the things I was told was that we're not getting a bunch of those projects
because they would require a lot combining. I probably could be persuaded
that even though it's something we want to do, I'm not sure that it's so
urgent and, in my mind, it now ties in with what we want to do in residential zoning in the Downtown areas. For that reason, I'm not going to support
accelerating those, not because I don't think we need to do it eventually.
Let's go ahead. Those who think that Item 39 should be placed at a higher
priority than we have before us. Four. Parking access revenue controls,
that's for the Downtown garages. I'm sorry. It was told to me earlier, but
can someone remind me the hold-up? We thought we were ready to go—I
think you explained, Hillary, but I've forgotten. Why is this now on red?
Ms. Gitelman: Both the parking access and revenue controls and the
parking guidance systems are being sequenced to follow the paid parking
study. The parking study will not only determine if we can finance them
with parking revenues, but it will help us determine what kind of access and
revenue controls we want to us in our lots and garages.
Mayor Burt: When would the paid parking study be done?
Ms. Gitelman: It's scheduled to be finished by the end of the year.
Council Member Holman: Mr. Mayor, Number 33 was put—my notes say
that Number 33, which is the paid parking, is also in the parking lot list.
Council Member Berman: It seems like it'd be green.
Vice Mayor Scharff: It's green.
Mayor Burt: What's the question?
Council Member Holman: My question about it is—it seems like that's gotten
a life of its own without Council direction, unless I'm not remembering well.
For me, I think it should be downgraded.
Mayor Burt: I think there was Council direction on that as part of our last
(crosstalk).
Council Member Holman: If paid parking is parking meters ...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 92 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mr. Keene: That could be parking meters, yes. We've had discussions
about the need for a comprehensive parking strategy to make any of the
parking options work.
Mayor Burt: Which included I believe specifically consideration of paid
parking. Not that we've made a decision to do it, but I believe that was
Council direction within the—it was part of the—when we had the
comprehensive parking strategy, that was one of the components of it. We endorsed going forward with that series of components.
Council Member Holman: Every time I hear paid parking these days, it just
refers to parking meters alone. I don't remember that being guidance from
the Council.
Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) years ago.
Mayor Burt: No, the last time that we had the comprehensive Downtown
parking was in the last 9, 12 months.
Ms. Gitelman: I think we talked about it in the context of a number of
items, and then we did bring the contract forward for Council approval with a
scope of work. We're not jumping to the conclusion that parking meters are
the answer. We're looking at a whole host of possible approaches. We're
really trying not to predetermine the outcome.
Mayor Burt: We've had that clarification that we have not made—this is not
saying that we have a determination of what we will do. We are definitely
studying this (crosstalk).
Mr. Keene: I think there's two questions here, real quickly. Is this a study
that the Council thinks we'd be better off not having versus having it to
inform some choices? Secondly, with all due respect, we were sort of hoping
we'd go in the other direction on these updates. If we have to not take stuff
off that we've already been really working on and investing because ...
Mayor Burt: That doesn't erase the time you're already spent? I thought
we'd get all that back. I think that—clarifications. Unless we subsequently—
if a Council Member finds in the records that this is in error, then so be it. It
was within the comprehensive parking program that we supported, this was
a defined element. This is to study it, not a determination that's been made
on the outcome. Thirty-five, I see.
Council Member DuBois: Are we suggesting it happen before this study is
done? The report says it's red, waiting for the study.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 93 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: What Hillary clarified is that we can't proceed on 35 for
practical reasons until after the paid parking study. That's my
understanding.
Council Member Berman: Or 40, I believe.
Mayor Burt: We can't do either of those.
Ms. Gitelman: In terms of our budgeting process, we don't have funding for
either of these until—we're hoping that the paid parking study will help us identify a funding stream. We also think the paid parking study will help us
identify the type of equipment and improvements we need to make to
achieve the access and revenue components.
Mayor Burt: Let me just say on 40, are we saying that unless we have paid
parking, we'll never have a parking guidance system?
Ms. Gitelman: That's just our proposal in looking at the CIP when we all got
together.
Mayor Burt: I'm looking at sequencing.
Mr. Keene: I didn't think that that's what we were saying. I did think we
were thinking that there might be integration issues between different
parking strategies that would be good to be aware of.
Mayor Burt: I asked that to try and figure out whether these have to be sequenced or they can be done in parallel.
Ms. Gitelman: The parking guidance could absolutely be done in parallel if
there was funding. It's at the point where we have to invest resources in
final design and construction. We need that funding to move forward with
those steps.
Mayor Burt: It's now at the point where it would need to be ...
Ms. Gitelman: We'd need to come up with a bid package.
Mayor Burt: We would either have to have General Fund requirements,
transportation tax or paid parking. I get it. Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Given that, Hillary, are you saying that it's the parking
guidance systems we could move forward on now if we had the funding?
Ms. Gitelman: That's correct.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 94 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: The other one, we should wait—this confused me a little
bit. The other one we should wait for the parking study, but yet previously
at Council we were ready to go.
Mr. Keene: Lalo, can you update us?
Mr. Perez: Yes. Right now we don't have a funding identified. One of the
things you'll hear us talk to you on the 13th is that our priority has been
what you told us to do which is the Infrastructure Plan, what we call the $126 million plan you adopted. We've sprinkled in some new projects in
there, but we didn't have enough for these two. Some of the discussions
that I think we need to have is how should we pay for this. I think there's
been some discussions among some of you whether it should be business,
should it be the General Fund, a combination. We need to have a discussion
with the parking group as well, because maybe we need to look at increasing
permit fees as part of that solution. I think it needs more work. Also having
the discussions with you earlier about the golf course and the Post Office, we
felt that putting these two forward would make it even more difficult.
Mayor Burt: What I in part just heard is that 35 is as much about a policy
discussion as it is waiting for the paid parking study. The policy discussion
may be additionally informed by the paid parking study. Do we need to wait for the paid parking study to move this forward at a policy level?
Mr. Keene: You don't have to make this decision tonight. Number 1, one of
the ...
Mayor Burt: We do if it's going to keep us from going home.
Mr. Keene: No, it's not going to keep you from going home. We're going to
be talking at Finance about adjustments to the CIP related to balancing the
budget. You gave us some directives, so we'll be coming back to the Council
with some potential recommendations from Finance that are moving CIP
funding around. You have the opportunity to look at where funding is in the
CIP. You very well may decide that you would naturally just agree with
where Lalo is right now, in keeping it in Fiscal Year '18 or wherever we've
got it, pending the arrival of some other funding streams. You may say you
want to figure out how to fund it in advance of that.
Mayor Burt: Can I ask a question? We have in our Infrastructure Plan a
Downtown parking garage, at least one. As we debate how big that would
be and one or two, does this potentially go into that decision and is it really
kind of our same bucket of dollars that we were tentatively putting toward
parking garages, some fraction of that might go in this direction?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 95 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mr. Perez: Right now this would not go into the Plan. It would be separate
in the Plan that you adopted. The concern is the longer we delay the
project, the costs will escalate. On the flip side, there could be some relief
pending the sale of the Post Office, because additional parking in-lieu funds
will come in that could help the garage cost.
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I just wanted to follow-up. What I thought we were doing tonight was we're saying we want to—if we vote to elevate these two
things, we're not saying what the tradeoffs are or what we don't fund. We
then go back to Staff to say what are our options on that. That's how I
heard it. I think we should vote to elevate that, because I want to hear from
Staff. This is a funding decision. How they would fund this if we said just go
fund this?
Mayor Burt: Let's go ahead and vote first on 35, whether we want to look at
elevating the priority of it.
Council Member Kniss: Those two together, though, 39 and (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: Then we vote in succession. (inaudible)
Council Member DuBois: (crosstalk) before we get the report, is that what
(inaudible)?
Mayor Burt: We're just saying at this time—let's do hands down, so we get
a clarification. We're just saying that we want to—we're giving a sentiment
in this case that we want it elevated in priority. I think in this case, Staff
would come back and partially answer that question. We're not trying to
determine tonight that it would be ahead of the parking study or not. We're
saying we want it escalated.
Council Member DuBois: I'm just not sure what that means. (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: We won't know what it means until Staff comes back with
alternatives on how to implement the reprioritization if we voted in favor of
it. We won't have that answer tonight. We're just saying that we have an
interest in them coming back and giving us alternatives.
Mr. Shikada: If I might, Mayor and Council, perhaps just for clarity. It is
worth noting that the Staff position on this matter is that the red is the right
sequence or represents the correct sequence. Completing the paid parking
study will inform both the policy decision on the type and rates of paying for
parking, should that be the recommendation and policy decision for the
TRANSCRIPT
Page 96 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council, as well as the way it would be implemented in terms of the
infrastructure, whether it would be gates or, as you may recall, there was
the lights for single-space occupancy or space available, which then are
ultimately communicated to the signs that shows where the spaces are
available. They are tied together in that way. As such, Staff does believe
that completing the paid parking study will provide the baseline information
that will make for better decisions on the other two.
Mayor Burt: There's no way to accelerate the paid parking study if
everything's (inaudible) on that. Right?
Mr. Shikada: I think the key driver there is data collection as well as the
stakeholder engagement, which is under way. Hillary can correct me if I'm
wrong. At this point it's not a Staff capacity per se; it's working through the
Palo Alto process.
Mr. Keene: We're talking about six months.
Mayor Burt: Six months before we can then begin the next set of things as
opposed to six months before we can really move forward (inaudible).
Ms. Gitelman: Can I add just one more thought to this discussion? The
parking guidance systems, Item Number 40, is much farther along than the
parking access and revenue control item. If there was an interest in prioritizing one of these, we would say parking guidance systems is the one
that's ready.
Mayor Burt: Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: My understanding was that we'd already given
direction and we'd made at least some tentative decision. I don't have it at
my fingertips. We'd come to a conclusion about parking guidance systems.
At least accelerating that to yellow, I don't think throws everything upside
down. I would argue that at least continuing more exploration around 35
even to the yellow status could ...
Mayor Burt: Did you mean 40 instead of ...
Council Member Wolbach: No, no. I think 40 should be moved to yellow or
green and 35—just to say my position here—could probably move to yellow.
I understand the Staff comments.
Mayor Burt: Let's vote first on 35 and whether we want to ask Staff to come
back on how that could be accelerated. That is three. Let's now vote on 40.
That is five. Now, for wrap-up. We've got our straw votes. If we just look
TRANSCRIPT
Page 97 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
at the ones that had a majority support, it's rental costs. Does it drop down
then to interim modifications to the retail? There's 52 (inaudible).
Mr. Keene: Fifty-two. You didn't put votes up there, but I thought you had
a majority.
Vice Mayor Scharff: We did.
Mayor Burt: What was the ...
Ms. Gitelman: It's updating retail ordinance in other districts outside of Downtown and Cal. Ave.
Mayor Burt: Ahead of the schedule you had. Did we call the vote?
Ms. Gitelman: It passed with a vast majority.
Mayor Burt: Whatever, six or seven, something like that. Maybe we can
just highlight. Thirty-four highlighted, 52 highlighted.
Mr. Keene: Potential modification.
Mayor Burt: Potential modification highlighted. Item 40 highlighted.
Council Member Holman: When I was making notes, I also had that—I think
it was Tom put 42 Individual Review, 43 Eichler, 59 build-to line and 37
ADUs also in the parking lot. That's what my notes indicate.
Mayor Burt: I heard Tom suggest it; I didn't hear ...
Council Member Schmid: I thought (inaudible) affirmation (inaudible).
Council Member Kniss: I think we did. You're correct.
Mr. Keene: That were what?
Council Member Holman: What?
Council Member Schmid: The Planning Director made the case that although
they were yellow, they were moving ahead as fast as they could be.
Council Member Holman: I thought 37—Tom, I'm picking up on your
comments here. We didn't vote on putting (inaudible) in the parking lot.
Somebody just could ...
Council Member Filseth: (crosstalk) postpone reductions until this phase.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 98 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Holman: Do what?
Council Member Filseth: He suggested a couple of things that were actually
downgrades. We said we wouldn't (crosstalk).
Council Member Holman: We're looking at downgrades at a next phase?
They're just not up here.
Mayor Burt: It does now question whether our—now that we have four
items, do we want to give Staff guidance on what we would reduce in priority to make room for these four?
Council Member Wolbach: Also, do we want to have any more discussion
about the others or are we saying we're done with all of those for the
evening?
Mayor Burt: We're done.
Mr. Keene: How can you do that quickly? You might suggest some things
that wouldn't work anyway. They're not fungible.
Mayor Burt: That's right. How about we offer suggestions and see if—the
things that we would reduce would be suggestions as opposed to
determinative. One, Staff has to look at kind of the ramifications. Second,
there's a budgetary layer to this.
Mr. Keene: Could I make a suggestion? Assuming the City Attorney would let you do this, why don't you guys go home and put some things in some
rank order that you would put—and individually send them to us. Then, we
have the benefit of knowing what they were as we make our
recommendations. Then, they have to come back to the Council. I'm just
trying to ...
Council Member Kniss: Of these items here?
Mr. Keene: What you're saying is ...
Mayor Burt: What we'd deemphasize to make room for this.
Mr. Keene: What would you deemphasize in the remaining list. You put five
things in your rank—it's the only way to mine a whole bunch of info really
quickly.
Council Member DuBois: Just for PCE items.
Mr. Keene: PCE items. Can we do that?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 99 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: I don't particularly like it.
Council Member Holman: I just want to be clear ...
Vice Mayor Scharff: I think we should just have—if people want to throw it
out. Otherwise, I think Staff should come back to us what they think is –I
still think Staff should just come back (crosstalk).
Mr. Keene: That's what we're going—the problem is you're going to suggest
stuff, and we're going to say that's not translatable. That person is not working on (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: How about if put out on the table suggestions for things that
we would reduce in priority, but we don't try to make them determinative for
Staff? This is just—we're kind of doing what Jim suggested, but we're doing
it in public right now. Staff will go back and look at both those and any
others that they would recommend, that we may not have suggested. Does
that sound reasonable, Jim?
Mr. Keene: Yeah. The question is are you each going to give us one.
You're going to give us (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: Let's see how this goes. Karen.
Mr. Keene: I think you need to do it fast without explanation.
Mayor Burt: I'm trying to be fast.
Council Member Holman: I'll be fast with this. I just want to ...
Mayor Burt: Or we could debate the process more.
Council Member Holman: I just want to clarify that the four that I listed
were not all for deemphasizing. Forty-two is Individual Review which was
suggested put in the parking lot, but I think Hillary clarified that it actually is
almost complete even though it's, I think, yellow on the list, I think.
Eichlers, I think we might just have a couple of comments to make about it.
Mayor Burt: What's the point of 42 then, if it's almost complete? Why
would we want to vote on reprioritizing it?
Council Member Holman: We could, but the comment was downgrading.
Mayor Burt: (crosstalk) we could. I'm asking why would we, if we got a
clarification it's almost complete.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 100 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Holman: I just want to make sure it wasn't on this list
understood as something we wanted to deemphasize.
Mayor Burt: No, we haven't determined anything we're going to
deemphasize. We're now going to talk about what we want to deemphasize.
We haven't had any discussion about what we want to—any collective
discussion about what we want to deemphasize. That's what we're going to
try and do and get out of here.
Council Member Holman: I'm trying to say is 42 we did not want to
deemphasize.
Mayor Burt: I don't know what "we" is. I hear that you're saying you don't
want to. We're going to hear whether we have suggestions.
Council Member Holman: I'm just saying it was in the parking lot, and we
haven't discussed it.
Mayor Burt: Forty-two was in the parking—we didn't make any decision to
deemphasize by virtue of any voting in the parking lot. That was not part of
the parking lot.
Mr. Keene: Here's what you have said that you guys wanted to upgrade.
You told us some things. Now, we need to go and tell you what that costs.
You've ordered room service; we're going to tell you what it costs. It will help if you could very quickly just say—maybe you go around in rounds,
what's the first thing just off the top—39, you could get rid ...
Mayor Burt: I'm going to try and do this expeditiously. Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm happy to offer a couple of suggestions, and I
would also just mention that for things where it's just a money obstacle
rather than a Staff bottleneck, if it's just a money obstacle, those
suggestions for de-prioritizing could potentially come from other
departments rather than just being PCE directly. If you want, I'm happy to
start off and give my best.
Mayor Burt: I'm looking for people to put on the table any things that they
recommend we deemphasize.
Council Member Wolbach: I'm happy to start off then. Forty-three, Eichler
Design Guidelines, 58 Downtown cap, 48 ...
Mayor Burt: Wait, wait. Let's ...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 101 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Wolbach: Fifty-eight Downtown cap, 48 parking study of
housing types ...
Vice Mayor Scharff: That's already deemphasized. That's already red.
Council Member Wolbach: Was it?
Vice Mayor Scharff: Yeah.
Council Member Wolbach: Forty-eight was already red?
Vice Mayor Scharff: Forty-eight is already red.
Council Member Wolbach: My mistake. Thank you for ...
Vice Mayor Scharff: You can't get more deemphasized than that.
Council Member Wolbach: For things that are just money items, I'm not
saying we need to get rid—by the way, these are all tentative. I'm willing to
have a conversation about each of these. Two major ...
Mayor Burt: I'm not. I'm serious that tonight I don't think we can get into a
whole long (crosstalk).
Council Member Wolbach: I'm not asking for the discussion tonight. I'm
just ...
Mr. Keene: We know how to figure out, whether it's money or Staff. Just
tell us what you ...
Council Member Wolbach: I'm not saying that I want to have the conversation tonight. Two major potential places for capital savings, the
Post Office 1, and the golf course 72.
Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I'd add 49, and then I'd add ...
Mayor Burt: Wait a minute. What's 49?
Vice Mayor Scharff: The speed survey updates. I'd add 50 since it's already
completed.
Mr. Keene: Greg, when you say add, are you concurring with these other
ones or are you just telling (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: Are you adding to the list, not ...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 102 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Vice Mayor Scharff: Adding to the list to deemphasize.
Mayor Burt: ... with his, not speaking to Cory's.
Mr. Keene: Thank you. That's the best way.
Mayor Burt: Tom.
Council Member DuBois: I actually disagree with Cory's (inaudible) 49.
Mayor Burt: Wait a minute. I don't know what those are.
Council Member DuBois: (inaudible)
Mr. Keene: Twenty-eight and 49.
Mayor Burt: Greg didn't say numbers.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I did.
Mr. Keene: He said 49 and 50.
Vice Mayor Scharff: No, I did not say 28.
Council Member Wolbach: He said 49 and 50.
Vice Mayor Scharff: I just said 49 and 50.
Mayor Burt: Fifty is moot.
Vice Mayor Scharff: It was a little levity.
Mayor Burt: I know, but I'm trying to get us clear and past the levity. What
are we saying?
Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) I would say 28.
Mayor Burt: Fifty you say?
Council Member DuBois: Twenty-eight, 49 and 37.
Council Member Kniss: Clarification, may I?
Mayor Burt: Yeah.
Council Member Kniss: Are we discussing (inaudible)?
TRANSCRIPT
Page 103 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Mayor Burt: No. Basically things that are red we're not going to
deemphasize because they're already deemphasized.
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) where it's already been budgeted
through Finance, we're now saying (crosstalk).
Mayor Burt: We're not making decisions tonight. All we're doing is offering
to Staff things to consider.
Mr. Keene: If you were in a shooting gallery and you had three shots, what would you shoot at?
Mayor Burt: Tom.
Council Member DuBois: And 56.
Mayor Burt: What is that?
Council Member DuBois: That is—no, scratch 56. Just 49. It's got mine up
there.
Mayor Burt: Who else? Eric.
Council Member Filseth: How many you want?
Mayor Burt: Who had 28? There was Midtown. That's Tom's ...
Council Member Kniss: I would make 28 mine as well.
Mr. Keene: Liz has 28. That's it?
Council Member Kniss: I'm just underscoring with that.
Council Member Filseth: I'll take 28, 49 and 37 and 58.
Mayor Burt: Some of it is supporting some of these others. Forty-seven, is
that one you said?
Council Member Filseth: Thirty-seven. That was the three.
Mayor Burt: What is 37?
Council Member Filseth: ADUs. And 58.
Mayor Burt: Anybody else? Karen.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 104 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Holman: Downtown cap just because I think it's part of the
Comp Plan.
Mayor Burt: Number?
Council Member Holman: I'm sorry, 58. And 37, ADUs. I don't think
there's much return on investment in that.
Mayor Burt: Anybody else? Greg.
Council Member Schmid: Thirty-seven (inaudible) 44 Quarry Road bike, 49 speed surveys.
Council Member Berman: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Burt: There was one—30, you said was one?
Council Member Schmid: Yeah. (inaudible)
Mayor Burt: Marc.
Council Member Berman: Could I just get a quick—a couple of people
brought it up. Could I get a quick update from Staff or a reminder from
Staff on what the speed survey updates is? I don't ...
Ms. Gitelman: I'll have to look up the regulatory requirement, but there is a
requirement that we periodically take speed surveys on our major streets if
we're going to be able to enforce posted speed limits. We are overdue for
this project. We're proposing to fund it jointly with the Police Department and do it over two years in two phases.
Council Member Wolbach: It's a State law requirement.
Ms. Gitelman: It is not an uncontroversial project, because you have to set
your posted speed limits to reflect how fast people are actually going. It's
Staff intensive.
Council Member Kniss: I don't think that's an optional item, is it?
Ms. Gitelman: It is not optional. I don't have the ...
Mr. Keene: Don't worry about it. You (inaudible) we'll come back and tell
you (inaudible).
Mayor Burt: Unless anybody has anything to wade in—remember these are
just a sense to Staff. They're not directive. Some things that got support
TRANSCRIPT
Page 105 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
from multiple Council Members were 49 speed survey, 58 Downtown cap, 28
Midtown ...
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) Midtown connector 28?
Mayor Burt: Twenty-eight. That was the next one I was saying. Twenty-
eight Midtown connector, 37 ADUs, and those were the ones I had as having
multiple Council Member support.
Vice Mayor Scharff: Are we just going to do a straw vote on these?
Mayor Burt: No, not even that. I think we've just done it. Those are the
only ones that had more than one Council Member speak up. There were
several others that had single Council Members suggest. The others were
43, 30, 44 and whatever the Post Office and golf are. On that note, meeting
adjourned.
NO ACTION TAKEN
Mayor Burt: I'm sorry. We've got Item 4.
Council Member Filseth: What happened to 3?
Mayor Burt: We did 2 and 3 together.
4. Reports From Council Appointed Officers (CAOs) on the State of the
City.
Mayor Burt: I'm sorry. Item 4, anything? Any gripes, Jim, that you wanted to share?
James Keene, City Manager: We'll bring that back as the first item on the
(inaudible).
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible)
Mr. Keene: This is your Committee of the Whole.
Council Member Kniss: We will find out.
Mayor Burt: I think we're more up to speed on the status of the projects by
far. A lot of these we had gotten piecemeal. We got to do some tentative
tweaking on the margins without just piling on.
Mr. Keene: Some of you have said that you didn't (inaudible). I still have
this sinking feeling that we came away with more work than less.
TRANSCRIPT
Page 106 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
Council Member Kniss: We gave you the assignment of prioritizing them.
(inaudible).
Mr. Keene: I think we'll be good on what we do, and we'll (inaudible).
Mayor Burt: We have Harriet here. Hi. Did you want to wade in?
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor: I don't have anything specific to say. It
was on the Agenda, so I was up here in case we were going to be talking.
Council Member Filseth: Do you foresee we're going to do this exercise again?
Mayor Burt: This year?
Council Member Filseth: Yeah.
Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) before we leave.
Mayor Burt: No, no.
Mr. Keene: We'll figure out a way to give you—we'll have to figure out how
(inaudible) feedback on these adjustments. I don't think—I'll work with the
Mayor (inaudible).
Mayor Burt: Eric's question was more before the end of the year. Right?
Council Member Filseth: Yeah.
Mayor Burt: I think tentatively yes. Does that sound good?
Council Member Filseth: I don't know whether to bring this up or not. A non-Brown Act subset of us sort of got together and tried to work on this a
little bit over the weekend. One thing we did was produced a spreadsheet
version of this, which made it very easy to run through and prioritize things
in a big list from high to low. I found that very helpful. If anybody wants
the spreadsheet, I can send it out.
Council Member Wolbach: Send it to Staff.
Mayor Burt: Why don't you send it to Staff and see if that's a format that
would be useful for the next time we do this.
Mr. Keene: I clearly think, Molly—we'll talk about this. Now that you have
the foundation for the work plan and these different pieces, there's nothing
that couldn't ask the Council to do pre-work when we come to these
TRANSCRIPT
Page 107 of 107
City Council Meeting
Transcropt: 5/31/16
sessions on their own, so you hit the ground running. We have some ways
to assign what things you may want higher, you're concerned about, what
things are lower. We could mine it quickly.
Mayor Burt: On that note, the meeting's—Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: I was just going to add that the only minor
complaint that I had was that we didn't get very much of this in our packet
in advance. It would have been useful to have it in advance to help prepare and make this more efficient. Just tips for next time. Otherwise, this was
very productive.
NO ACTION TAKEN.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 P.M.
Mayor Burt: Good night all.