Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-08 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL TRANSCRIPT   Page 1 of 91  Special Meeting May 8, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:03 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine arrived at 5:05 P.M., Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff arrived at 5:05 P.M., Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Planning and Transportation Commissioners: Present: Alcheck, Gardias, Lauing, Monk, Rosenblum, Summa, Waldfogel Absent: [Video recording begins with the Council's return from Closed Session.] Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo Perez, Molly Stump, and Rumi Portillo) Employee Organizations: Service Employees International Union Hourly, (SEIU) Local 521; Palo Alto Police Managers’ Association (PAPMA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a). MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Filseth, Scharff absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:03 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:06 P.M. Mayor Scharff: … Closed Session and we have no reportable action. TRANSCRIPT    Page 2 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Study Session 3. Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission. Mayor Scharff: Now, we'll move on to our PTC/Council Study Session. I, first of all, just wanted to welcome all the Planning Commissioners here and tell you how much we really appreciate your service and what a great opportunity this is to hear from you guys how it's going, what you're thinking, any thoughts you have. Obviously, it's feedback from you and from Council. We're looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Let me just get a little organized here. The first thing we do is we put together a little agenda with your Chair and Vice Chair. What we thought we'd do is we'd first talk about the priorities and focus in 2017, and then we'd talk a little bit about process improvement opportunities if people want to address that. We only have an hour, so we're going to have to basically try and be concise in what we say. What we're doing is we're doing a joint Study Session with the PTC and with Council. We'll be talking about that. It's now 6:00, so starting at 7:00 we'll do public comment if that's what people are interested—unless you want to address this item, at which point you obviously can address this item in public comment as well. For items not on the agenda, our general public comment will be shortly after 7:00. I will kick this off just briefly and say one of my priorities and, I think, the Council's as well is getting the Comp Plan done this year. As you know, we've made great progress on going through all of the elements. We have a few more coming to us that you guys have looked at. In June, we're going to refer the Comp Plan item out to the PTC. I think some of the questions are your role and what we expect you to do and what's helpful to us, those kind of things. I thought it would be helpful to have the City Attorney address your role in the process. From my point of view and, I think, the Council's point of view, we'd like to have it back in September or maybe even earlier so we can move forward on our process. Molly Stump, City Attorney: Thank you, Mayor Scharff. City Attorney Molly Stump. There are some special provisions in the Palo Alto Administrative Code about adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. In a somewhat unusual format, our Municipal Code refers to the State law as it existed in 1955. I'm going to refer a little bit to my notes here because my Staff has been pretty precise in thinking this issue through, and I want to make sure that I describe the process accurately. In our Code and in the State law from 1955, there are two processes for approving a Comp Plan. One involves a Comp Plan that would be initiated by a Planning Commission, which adopts it, certifies it to Council, and then Council adopts the Plan. The second process that's described in the Code involves the City Council initiating TRANSCRIPT    Page 3 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  amendment of the Comp Plan and then referring that to the Planning and Transportation Commission. It's that second process that applies to our current work, and that's almost consistent with the current state of State law that applies throughout the state to municipalities amending their Comprehensive Plan. Under that process, the Council refers changes or proposed additions to the Comp Plan to the PTC, and the PTC needs to hold a public hearing, at least one noticed public hearing, and make a report to Council on the proposed new Comprehensive Plan. The PTC has 90 days to submit its report, and after that date the proposed changes would be presumed approved unless the Council were to extend that time. The City Council then has to hold at least one noticed public hearing prior to adoption. If this is confusing to anybody who's watching from home because folks know that both the Planning Commission and the City Council have had many, many meetings on the Comprehensive Plan and the citizens group, the CAC, has also had dozens of meetings, this actually refers to the formal part of the end of the process as we are doing it, where all of the elements have been reviewed and it's pulled together into a single, proposed document. It's what's coming up here at the end of the process to finish it. Again, 90 days the PTC will have to review the full Plan when it gets referred from the Council and make a report with recommendations back to the City Council, which has the authority to adopt the Plan. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. If the Chair of the PTC has some comments, we'll start with you first. You weren't expecting that. I could do it differently, if you don't want to do it that way. I just through I'd give you the opportunity. Michael Alcheck, Planning and Transportation Commission Chair: I'll speak for the Commission here, and I'll say that we are excited to be here tonight. We have a full Commission with a lot of new members. Everybody actually feels new because apparently I am now the longest-termed member of this Commission, which seems just shocking. New and somewhat more experienced Commissioners on this Commission are looking forward to hearing from Council Members regarding what are the priorities for 2017 in addition to the Comp Plan, how can we work together. Everyone's really eager on this Commission to figure out the best way to provide input and guidance and perspective for each of you. I'm excited to hear from you. I appreciate the invitation to be here. Mayor Scharff: I wanted to give everyone an opportunity to speak. Since we don't really have lights up to start with, I think it'd probably be better if we had some Council Members speak, and then we had the Commissioners speak. I think that might work the best. The only other thing is I did TRANSCRIPT    Page 4 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  wonder does everyone know everyone. It might be worthwhile to just do a short introduction, if we start with Tom. Council Member DuBois: Tom DuBois. I've been a Council Member for 2 years. Council Member Kou: Lydia Kou, Council Member, started 2017. Przemek Gardias, Planning and Transportation Commissioner: Przemek Gardias, Planning and Transportation Commission since 2014. Council Member Wolbach: Cory Wolbach, Council since 2015. Ed Lauing, Planning and Transportation Commissioner: Ed Lauing, Planning and Transportation Commission, started this role this year. Vice Mayor Kniss: Liz Kniss. I've been serving at this juncture since the beginning of 2013. Asher Waldfogel, Planning and Transportation Commission Vice Chair: Asher Waldfogel, Planning Commission since 2014. Mayor Scharff: I'm Greg Scharff. I've been serving since 2010. Michael Alcheck, Planning and Transportation Chair: Mike Alcheck, 2012. Council Member Filseth: Eric Filseth, Council, 2015. Susan Monk, Planning and Transportation Commissioner: Good evening. Susan Monk, serving since March of this year on the Planning Commission. Council Member Tanaka: Greg Tanaka, City Council since this year and two- term Planning Commissioner. Doria Summa, Planning and Transportation Commissioner: Doria Summa. I started on the Planning Commission in 2017, and I'm also, if it's interesting to anyone, on the CAC, the Comp Plan group. Council Member Fine: Adrian Fine, on Council just this year and former Chair of the Planning Commission. Eric Rosenblum, Planning and Transportation Commissioner: Eric Rosenblum, on the Planning and Transportation Commission since 2014. Council Member Holman: Karen Holman, on Council since 2010, 8 1/2 years on Planning and Transportation Commission, twice Chair prior to that. TRANSCRIPT    Page 5 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: Tom, do you want to kick us off? We'll go a little round with each Council Member, and then we'll go a little round of … Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) Mayor Scharff: Anyone want to go next? Cory, want to go? Council Member Wolbach: Sure. I think my attitude about the role of the PTC as it relates to the Council has been pretty consistent for the last couple of—since I started really paying close attention to the local process and certainly since I joined Council. I just want to emphasize that I really value having advice that is thoughtful, independent, and conscientious. By that I mean, I hope that Commission members don't feel driven to try and preempt or guess what we're going to want on Council. You'll look at the material, look at the range of options, and not be afraid to look even beyond what Staff's recommended and not be afraid to share what you really think, what your conscience thinks is a good recommendation for the community. Even if you think it might not be something we want to hear, even if you think it's something I might not agree with, it's still valuable to us. Even if we end up not following the advice that you've recommended as an individual Commissioner or as a Commission as a whole, having those conversations at the PTC is really invaluable for the community and for the City Council. I just want to really emphasize that point. On the whole, the Commission does a good job of that, but I know there's probably a lot of pressure from a lot of sources for the PTC to be, for lack of a better phrase, political or politicized. We appoint you because we want your advice. If we just wanted people to tell us what we wanted to hear, we wouldn't really need a PTC. We really do want your advice. Advice sometimes means having somebody who spends the time to study an issue and bring a different perspective. We will value that even if we disagree. I just, again, wanted to emphasize that. Mayor Scharff: Liz, do you want … Vice Mayor Kniss: First and foremost, I think one of the things you want to know is do we read your minutes or not. We do. I wish they were a little more succinct sometimes, but definitely I read your minutes. The second thing I would notice is that over the past couple of years or so the number of projects we've had go through Planning has been much more limited, which means that what you have dealt with has been more limited. I notice you get out a lot earlier than we do, and that's of some concern. As Cory has mentioned, we greatly value what you do. There are seven of you. You're now a full complement and at the point where you can really make a big difference. Do you do a retreat—I can't remember—Michael? TRANSCRIPT    Page 6 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Chair Alcheck: When Eduardo Martinez was Chair, we did do a retreat. I don't think we've done one since his second term. Vice Mayor Kniss: I might suggest, while we're discussing this tonight, you might think about a retreat because you're an interesting group. You have a full complement now, which it's been a while, I think, since you've had that full complement. You have very different ideas. We've talked to all of you and interviewed most of you. I think that might give you more of a sense of where you all are and also the same for us. I'm delighted that you're all here tonight. That is terrific. We'll see if we can't find more work for you to do. Mayor Scharff: Eric. Council Member Filseth: Pretty much a plus-one to what Liz just said. Anybody can make a land use decision. Making a good land use decision is very complicated and challenging. There's lots and lots of work to go around. I very much appreciate you guys being part of the effort here. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Greg. Council Member Tanaka: First, I wanted to thank all the Commissioners for your work, doing what you guys do. I know it's hard, but I appreciate it. I think the Vice Chair kind of captured what I was going to say. The Council is incredibly busy. We have a ton of different agenda items; just look at our packet tonight. At least for me, I would love to empower the Commission more, to do a lot more of the heavy lifting especially on these land use issues so that by the time it hits Council it's fully vetted. It makes it easier for the Council to figure out which direction to go. I said that before, and I still say that now. I look forward to seeing good work from you guys. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Adrian. Council Member Fine: Thank you all for coming. I've been in your spot. This is a fun meeting. I just want to start with one thing. There are priorities, as the Mayor said, our Comp Plan, the TMA, paid parking studies. There is work to be done on the PTC. We actually need your brain power. That's something that's really important to us. We have a lot of work to get done. We don't expect it to drag on forever, but we do need your help. I really appreciate the input from PTC and from Staff's responses to their questions. It is helpful making decisions. As Greg said, we have large packets. You guys' input really, really helps. I also want to see some initiatives from the PTC. I'm open to seeing memos from you guys to see TRANSCRIPT    Page 7 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  what is going on or what is interesting or what problem you've identified and a solution. We're happy to hear it. Nothing may happen, but it's good to see. One other thing. I tried really hard to address Council and give my honest input to the City as a citizen and as somebody who lives here and what I wanted to see happen. I hope that happens from all of you too. It's okay to have discussion and disagreement. We appreciate that; we see it in the Minutes, and we look at that. I'm now trying to bridge the gap between PTC and Council, and I think there's an important lesson for you all that it's important to push back on us. We don't know everything; we actually need direction too. The PTC can play a role in that and help shape the City's projects. One comment for Staff, and then I'll be finished. I'm just beginning to see how different Boards and Commissions work and operate. I think our City actually could have a more regular, uniform way of treating and empowering those Boards and Commissions. There seems to be some disparity across the different departments. I'd love to see all of our Boards and Commissions operating at a high level of performance. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Karen. Council Member Holman: First of all, thank everyone for their service. It does take time. You hear the thunk on your doorsteps too pretty regularly of the packets being delivered. Thank you for the questions of the Mayor and the response from City Attorney. I'd like to get a little bit of clarification around what the expectation is and role is of the Planning Commission in the Comp Plan. The Council made a number of recommendations about the Comp Plan. Planning Commission hasn't seen it for quite some time. I always look at and always have looked at the Planning Commission as the authority that vets issues before they come to the Council, in this case before they would come back to the Council. One of the differences between Planning Commission and Council, with due respect for all the effort and time that you do put into it, is the volume of work that comes to the Council is vastly different—I think Eric can now speak to that—from what comes to the Planning Commission. You have the, if you will, luxury of some time. I just want to get some clarity that, because the Council made some recommendations on the Comp Plan, I wouldn't expect the Planning Commission to redo everything. If there is something that's spotted, it's like "wait a minute, there might be a land mine here, maybe we ought to look at the impact of this." I just want to make sure the Planning Commission, when this does come back to them, have the authority and the responsibility even to make recommendations back to the Council if they see something that's "don't know about that." Ms. Stump: The Municipal Code and State law don't have detail in terms of how the Planning Commission does its work. The Commission has the TRANSCRIPT    Page 8 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  discretion to consider the full Comprehensive Plan that's before it. The requirement is to have at least one noticed public hearing and to provide a report. There's wide discretion there to decide how to utilize their time and attention. Council then receives that report and has then its full discretion to address the policy issues including what is in parts of the plan that perhaps the Planning Commission didn't focus on as well as proposed recommendations and changes that the Planning Commission may have made. The Council is ultimately the final decision maker in terms of adopting the plan. Is that helpful? Council Member Holman: I hope that's very helpful to everyone; it is to me. Thank you a lot. Mayor Scharff: Tom. Council Member DuBois: Again, thanks to all of you for serving. I really do appreciate it. The reason I wasn't ready to go when we first called, I think generally when we do joint sessions I find it very useful for the Board or Commission to prepare a presentation and maybe share presenting that amongst all the members. I'd suggest maybe next time you guys do that. It'd be really useful to me to hear what questions you guys have. As we speak tonight, I'm very interested in hearing what questions you guys have for us. To talk about the Comp Plan a little bit, I would urge restraint when you guys review the Comp Plan. It did start with a major rewrite by the Planning Commission. While I don't think any of you were on the Planning Commission at the time, were you? We have one person who's been there the whole length of time. I'd urge you to really focus on clarity and consistency between the elements rather than introducing major policy changes at this point in the process. In terms of the stuff that comes to us from the PTC, I really find it useful to see the pros and cons. I do read the Minutes, and I often find that the debate is the most useful thing, even more useful than the conclusions. I'd urge you guys to not settle on one answer but to actually consider several options and provide feedback to us and consider a variety of options. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Lydia. I wanted to hear from the Planning Commission members then. Przemek, you're up. Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. Again, thank you very much for having us here. It really feels like a greater Planning and Transportation Commission. With the whole respect, I think that maybe we are the house, just looking at Adrian, Greg, and all our supporters. Council, thank you very much for coming to our meeting. Just a joke. Going to the serious business. With this meeting in mind, I wrote the letter that you already TRANSCRIPT    Page 9 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  received from me and also was forwarded to many others. When I think about this letter, I call it reform of PTC and its adjacencies because it also addresses the role of PTC in relationship to the Council, relationship to the Architectural Review Board, and some other different agencies. Those that didn't have a chance to read it, I recommend it. Some of the items that were raised are in a compact manner included in this letter. Just going to the couple of items. The first topic about focus on 2017, recognizing how important topic is the Comprehensive Plan, I have a rather specific ask because we're already discussing how to approach the Plan. I have a specific ask. In this letter that I mentioned, there is a mentioning of the area specific plans of California Avenue and Fry's Electronics. Knowing that some of the discussion items around California Avenue, like the recent garage structure or maybe 255 Park Avenue, a public security building, they all could have been kept in context of the area plan had we had it. Since we don't have it, I'm asking the Council to please support my ask to direct planning resources toward working on the California Avenue area plan. Also, in addition, I'd like to make the same request of a separate plan for Fry's Electronics area. The lease is up at 2020. Knowing that it's going to take us probably 2 years to develop the plan, I think the time is right just to start to plan for Fry's Electronics. Maybe in this sequence, maybe first Fry's Electronics and then for California Avenue. One comment, if I may add— sorry for taking this much time. Vice Mayor Kniss talked about having us more busy, and I find opportunity in this meeting and also you can find a comment in my letter of us meeting early at the beginning of the fiscal year, at the beginning right after the elections and this way we can submit a plan on our plan to your review and pretty much advise us what we think we should be working on, just provide it to your review and just get your acceptance. This way you would have the whole knowledge about all the topics that would be considered. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Ed. Commissioner Lauing: Thanks. I appreciate the comments so far from Council Members. The one thing that I was going to raise has already been a lot of the feedback. We can take something that you've already decided on, and we can tweak an ordinance, for example. Like the 50,000-square- foot limit that you guys passed in the January 30th Council meeting giving direction to keep it out of the Comp Plan, leave it in the ordinance, and tweak the ordinance. We can do that. That's a done deal. That's fine, but I think we would rather wrestle with some of these complicated issues earlier in the process so we can help you. I was saying to the Vice Mayor just before we started our meetings are a lot shorter than yours. That doesn't seem to make sense. We should be able to offload you from some of your work by preprocessing some of these … TRANSCRIPT    Page 10 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Vice Mayor Kniss: (crosstalk) done by 11:00 and still get there (crosstalk) we are. Commissioner Lauing: You're already reflecting this in terms of your comments here to the PTC. We would welcome the opportunity to dig into some things to give you thought, to give you various options as Cory suggested, that you can consider and be more focused. We'll take it either way to help, either "it's done; please tweak some of this stuff" or "it's a little bit amoeba-like; help us work through here in the context of the priorities that you've already set for the year." To the extent that we could get those with relatively long lead times, we can be more effective. We were, I think, as effective as could be on the ground-floor retail but didn't have a lot of lead time before that ordinance was going to expire. We could have been more thorough about looking at some of the areas that maybe should not have been incorporated in that area, but there just wasn't enough lead time. To the extent that we can all look out ahead of those things and get going earlier, we've got more time to process. I'd just say load us up. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Asher. Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. I was pleased to hear a number of Council Members comment about valuing advice. I think that's a good topic that we can discuss. As somebody who gives advice for a living professionally, mostly in business realms, let's have a couple of comments about advice. The really important thing about advice-taking is that, if you want to continue to get good advice, you have to listen to the advice that you get. If you disregard advice for what appear like nonessential reasons or for arguments that are outside the scope that the advice was solicited, then you're unlikely to continue to get good advice because the work just won't go into exploring the issues. I think we've seen a couple of examples of this from the Council already this year. There's even one on the Consent Calendar tonight. The ADU topic is something that was really well vetted on the Planning Commission. We worked hard on that. We had a lot of meetings. We studied a lot of options. We worked with Staff. Some people wanted to go farther. Some people didn't want to go as far. We reached a compromise. It's kind of disappointing to see that Council went off and did something different without—if there were different political objectives than were originally set out, then it would be great to just forward that back to the Planning Commission and restate the problem. Within the scope of the problem that we were given, I think we did a good job. It's disappointing to see the advice just being turned away. As Council Member Tanaka mentioned, he campaigned on the principle of delegating responsibility to the Planning Commission. I just think we need to be clear on what the expectations are. If we want to get good advice, we have to have a process TRANSCRIPT    Page 11 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  to receive it. I don't think it's enough to just say read the Minutes and look at the debate. That's my comment. Commissioner Alcheck: Interesting debate. Let me first say that the comment that resonated with me most was Council Member DuBois' comment about the debate and the discussion almost being more relevant than the conclusion or the recommendation. I feel that as a Commissioner— this may be a classic difference between me and Vice Chair Waldfogel. A lot of the issues that we deal with have winners and losers. One component of land use policymaking is political because, when you have to choose who wins and who loses, that is very much the tough part of the political process. I sort of endeavor to provide input that is our analytical approach to the problem. Not necessarily excluding from our review the winners and the losers, but trying to provide Council with perspectives on solutions that may provide positive results. My hope isn't so much that the Council focuses on whether the recommendation passed 5-2 or 7-0. Oftentimes, there are moments in our meetings where we begin to discuss a topic, and we really pick up on a complicated part of it. My hope is that that conversation that takes place can inform your decision-making process. I've been on this Commission now 5-plus years. I don't keep a count of how many times my recommendations are received and passed without delay or discussion. One of my hopes moving forward for this Commission is that the meetings that we hold cannot just be venues for the public to participate and potentially provide input, but that we can be a venue for Staff to get creative. In the past, what we've seen a lot of is our Staff, which is incredibly dedicated, is attempting to craft the perfect resolution for Council. Their first opportunity to craft that resolution is at our meeting. In their defense, their hope is that they will have achieved that result right away. Maybe we tweak it a little bit, and we pass it on to you, and it's ready to go. I think we lose an opportunity in that process. If Staff had less of an idea of what they wanted when they came to us and maybe created a greater opportunity for a diverse conversation, and then used our meeting and the public input that could potentially happen at such meeting to narrow the field of options into a recommendation for City Council, that would be an opportunity. That's my plug for what could happen. I'm happy to hear that all of you are reading the Minutes, because a lot of us are speaking to you in our discussion. For many of us, the resolution and the recommendation process feels very forced and contrite and often can't encompass a lot of the ideas that we have. I'm happy to hear that, and thank you for your input. Mayor Scharff: Susan. Commissioner Monk: Having been to only three Commission meetings, I don't have a whole lot of input on what I can do personally. I just say that TRANSCRIPT    Page 12 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  I've actually really valued the Staff Reports. I feel that a lot of attention has gone into what we receive and what we review. I appreciate that the objectives from Staff are clearly stated as to what we are supposed to be doing. On that, I've a little bit of a different viewpoint. Maybe having more open, robust options could be useful as well. I just want to acknowledge Staff for all the hard work they put into those packets that you give to us. I did appreciate hearing from Council Member DuBois and Wolbach requesting lively debate and that it's not so much about the answer that we arrive at. In fact, that was an issue for me personally at the last hearing that we had, where I voted in a way that wasn't consistent with my personal beliefs but was really a mechanism for me to just alert the Council to what I found to be a lack of complete data in making an informed decision. I do appreciate hearing from you that you're looking at the Minutes, that you're looking at our rationale, you're looking at our discussion and not necessarily at the end result. As far as the Minutes go, I've reviewed my Minutes, and I agree they are quite lengthy. Apologies for that. I wish there was a way that we could legally shorten them, amend them afterwards. I don't know what our limitations are on that, to make things more succinct for you. I would be happy to edit mine. I'm sure other folks would if they have time to do it. If that's an option, I think that would help everybody. I guess my question to the Council would be who sets policy. Are there any guiding principles we should be looking towards? Mayor Scharff: Doria. Commissioner Summa: Thank you very much to the City Council for having us tonight. I've been on the PTC a little longer than Sue but not so much longer. I think I'm happy that we're a full group now. I think it's good. I think we have a lot of different perspectives, and I think that's helpful for the public and the Council. I can't say that I disagree with anything that my colleagues have said or that the City Council has said, all a lot of good ideas. I wanted to acknowledge Commissioner Gardias' letter. I think he had a lot of good ideas in that for the Planning Commission. I didn't agree with every single thing there. It's good to get clarification on what our role is in the Comp Plan. I feel a little bit like déjà vu for me because I've been working on it for 2 years, but that's okay. We'll do our job. I do appreciate the comment about Planning Commission agendas. I don't know why this is, and maybe it's something Staff can tell us. It's a process, I think, over the last 4 years or so where less things go to the Planning Commission. Maybe it's partly because PCs are on hold, which took up a lot of time in meetings. It would be interesting to know that and know if there's a way we can increase our load to better serve our role in the public. I like verbatim Minutes a lot, even though they're kind of long. I would say that I really TRANSCRIPT    Page 13 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  appreciate our Chair's leadership. I think we'll get better as we go along and work together. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Eric. Commissioner Rosenblum: First, thank you everybody for this session. I always find it useful. I've been doing this for, I guess, 3 years now plus. I think this December comes to the end of my term, so this is maybe my last one, so this is great. A few things, just some remarks on what has changed for me on the PTC. I think our process has gotten streamlined. I think that both Council Members Fine and Tanaka began this process. I do want to acknowledge Chair Alcheck. He's succeeded beyond what I had expected. I think our meetings are very effective, and we are much better at coming to a process to decide each issue. Everyone has their say. I think the process is fair. We have a healthy debate, and we move forward. Thank you. I think our velocity has increased, and our effectiveness has increased. I think there's less handwringing about our role. We do always talk, do people take our advice, not take advice, does Council restart the—I think there's much less of that or at least that's my impression, that Council has been quite good at showing that advice has been taken, input has been taken, even if Council Members may not always agree with what comes forward. My personal impression of the PTC, at least the current composition, is that although there may be some elements that we can do better in general, this line of communications is getting better. Finally for people out there, I think something that has been working well is we get a lot of citizen input. In this last year, there's been some controversial things that have come forward. I guess there always are. There's been some things where there's passionate people on all sides of the issue. People organize and come, and we take that very seriously. It's something that I would say to Council. I really do think that this should be embraced. Any discussion about citizen groups organizing being a bad thing is not a good thing for any of us. Now, the places where we've been effective. I think we have a meaty issue with a study session or two and the opportunity to conduct research through a subcommittee has been useful. That's not appropriate for all things, but I'll give two examples. Vice Chair Waldfogel and I worked on the nexus study housing impact fees. I think the job was good. We did it thoroughly; we got out to talk to affordable housing advocates, affordable housing developers, market rate developers, met with Staff again. We came with a recommendation that I think was sound. What Council got, whether or not—again, we don't expect everyone to agree with all points, but you got a thoroughly considered set of issues. Second, ADUs. A lot of people probably came about ADUs. As Vice Chair Waldfogel said, at the PTC we took this very seriously. We had multiple study sessions. I actually believe that a lot of the ADU ordinance is based on what we had TRANSCRIPT    Page 14 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  recommended. Now, of course, just like in other issues not all things were taken, but I see the stamp of what we had recommended in things like compliant lot sizes that were no longer at 35 percent above minimum, for example. That's a major different from what had previously been in the ordinance. I think about things that would fit this kind of model, what things are meaty enough to put on our plate, that could justify a couple of sessions plus independent review, things like funding sources for an effective Transportation Management Association. This is a big, big issue, and this will take a lot of work. It'll be a difficult set, a lot of study sessions at Council. I think we can shoulder some of that load. I'm completely with Commissioner Gardias' suggestion for the Fry's site, for example. I think that fits that bill really nicely. My wish would be a couple of items on your list that you know are coming down the pipe, that are transportation and planning related—those are the two that I would probably pick, but there's probably a lot of others. That's when we're really effective. There's, of course, going to be a lot more transactional issues that come our way. In general, I'm optimistic that on transactional issues we're getting better. It's the real meaty issues, though, that we can spend the time to get it right and lighten your load. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you for those comments. A couple of things I wanted to say. I actually think that I'm with the Chair and with Council Member DuBois that it's very helpful to me when I read the different arguments that you have. One of the things I'm thinking maybe we can do better at Council, as I listen to you, is—normally we have somebody come to Council from the PTC and give PTC's input. I think we should think a little bit about where in the process that should be because it's a little haphazard sometimes. I think we should probably have the PTC speak fairly early, maybe before public comment. I also think that it should reflect clearly the majority view, but it should also reflect some of the minority view and encapsulate the different arguments that were had. I would even be okay if two people wanted to present on that. If there was a majority view and someone felt comfortable representing that, and then there was someone who was more passionate. Frankly, it's easier to give your presentation on something you feel passionate about than it is to say, "I'm providing you both points." I would be okay with that, if you guys sent two people to Council. I think there's confusion. I don't think you have 3 minutes; as the PTC, if you wanted to speak for 5 minutes or 7 minutes, I don't think we're going to be timing you. You have the opportunity to give the flavor of what happened and tell us what you said. I think that would be helpful. No question we read the Minutes, but also hearing it from you and why you came to that. Obviously, you'd be available for questions. I think that would be helpful for me, and I think that might help the Council as well. In terms of things that obviously you should go forward on, we as a Council TRANSCRIPT    Page 15 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  asked you to look at paid parking. We actually have put that in your lap. I think that's a really meaty issue. I'm going to respond to Susan's comment, which was what are the guidelines. We didn't agree to do paid parking; that's not what the motion said. The motion says go look at this, see what is the right thing to do, see if this makes the most sense. I think the general sense was that paid parking probably makes sense. That doesn't make you have to start with paid parking makes sense, how do we implement it. I think you should look at a broad approach to this and ask yourselves, as you dive in on a meaty subject, how would you approach it, what are your recommendations, what are the pros and cons of doing things. There's so many details. I actually think with the parking the details are what's going to make it successful or not make it successful. Frankly, that's something that I can never see Council being able to spend the time to go through and think through all the details as small as should we have 15-minute parking in front of certain places on University maybe, should we have 30-minute parking there, should we have paid parking everywhere, should we have paid parking just in certain places, should we have different pricing maybe in different areas. I think all of that can be very helpful to Council, that you work with Staff and you come out looking at that. I think that's really something that's useful. I also do think that there is a role as we figure out how to fund the TMA. This is going to go to something we're going to talk later in the evening amongst ourselves. How do we reduce single occupancy vehicle trips? How do we fund that, what does that look like? I do think there's a strong role for the PTC in that process. I think that's a meaty issue that could take lots of thought. It's one thing for us to tell everyone we're going to reduce trips 30 percent. It's another for how do we do that and how does that work with Staff. I think there's an interaction between how Staff comes up with stuff, PTC looks at it, and how we get forward on that. I do think it's part of the process of going back and forth. I've got to say I strongly disagree with Asher on the role of the PTC. The role of the PTC is not to completely bake something, where it comes to Council and you're offended in any way if we don't go in your direction. We appreciate the work, but at the end of the day we're the elected officials, and we have to make those decisions. Sometimes the decisions are made in a broader context or sometimes we frankly just disagree or whatever. I wouldn't view that as a negative. We clearly value your input and appreciate it. I would hope that you would continue to work as hard as you guys do. I know you work really hard on it. I think it's important to know that we do appreciate it. I spoke. We still have some more time. Is there any other Council—Liz. Vice Mayor Kniss: (crosstalk) you might call clarification. Susan asked about the minutes. Looking down the line at Tom, who knows how frustrated I am with these, we have talked—yes—some period of time about TRANSCRIPT    Page 16 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  going back to sense minutes rather than using verbatim minutes. I've suggested this before. Tom and I have said that we would come back with a … Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes. No, sense minutes. We have action minutes. Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) Vice Mayor Kniss: What we want, I think, is sense. That catches all the essence of what you have discussed, but it doesn't include all the ums and ahs and whatever cannot be deciphered by the clerk. I am going to suggest we go back to that. We will bring a memo forward. It'll be a lot easier. Mayor Scharff: Karen. Council Member Holman: As I listened to everybody, I heard some very good questions and comments from a lot of people. One thing that didn't come up is over time there have been joint meetings with Planning and Transportation Commission and Parks and Rec, PTC and ARB, PTC and HRB. I think people who have been a part of those have found them helpful and valuable. There's not a disconnect, and there's kind of a clarification of roles and how the two bodies can listen to each other. I'd also like to know if Commissioners find it helpful to have specific training. You do a lot of work that involves CEQA. As a City, we do very, very minimal and rare CEQA training, but it's in front of you a lot. I would say the same thing for Council. If that's something you might want to undertake or ask for that for subdivisions. There might be other things too that come to mind. I absolutely agree with Gardias and others who brought this up about the Fry's site. It needs to be done, and tomorrow is not too soon. To Susan Monk's question, the Planning Commission is not a policymaking body. The policymaking body is the Council. I'm missing at this meeting—maybe we're going to have a second meeting this year—the Planning Commission report to Council. That's always helpful, to know what you did, what your workload was, the things that you addressed, and the issues that may have come up for that, and recommendations you have. It can fluctuate over time, but in prior years the full PTC had a say in the agenda setting. The Chair and Vice Chair and Mayor and Vice Mayor have set up a format, but then the whole Commission had an opportunity to weigh in on "I'd like to get answers to these questions." You all would deliberate about what you wanted to hear. I tune in occasionally and listen to the meetings. I wouldn't want to see the Planning Commission think that a goal is to achieve a unanimous result. As we've heard a lot of people say, the real value is the vetting of the issues, the dialog, the discussion on different sides. The Mayor brought up coming TRANSCRIPT    Page 17 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  to the Planning Commission making presentations. In the past it's always been the absolute practice that the representative to come to the Council was appointed by the Mayor to come to the Council meetings. The majority and the minority opinion were always given. I find that really helpful. It reminds everybody. To help that along, in the Staff Reports—the Staff Report usually say a unanimous vote by the PTC or a 4-3 vote by the PTC. Sometimes it just says recommendation by the PTC, and you have to read way in to find out even what the vote was. I think the Staff could help out with that too, what was the vote, what were the pros and cons. That would help everybody and also give more gravity and authority to the PTC's role. I think those are my comments other than to say to Asher, I've been on the side of the Planning Commission where my voice was pretty much ignored and also on the side where it really carried the day. Hang in there. Everybody's turn seems to come if you hang in there. Mayor Scharff: Cory. Council Member Wolbach: Council Member Holman just made a whole series of points. I would just like to agree with each and every one of them rather than repeat them all. I can go back and read the verbatim Minutes of everything she said, and I think I agreed with all of them. Mayor Scharff: Michael. Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you. Thank you, guys, very much. There's a few things that could really help here. It's been 2 years since we last met as a group. It's true normally the process happens in December. In that December meeting, the outgoing Chair has an opportunity to present everything that that Chair was able to accomplish that year. When I was elected Chair this last December and we thought this meeting was going to happen in January and then maybe February, we kind of approached this as let's look at everything going forward as opposed to looking at last year. What I would like to say is I think it's really healthy that we got to talk to each other. I don't know how many of you on the Commission or on the Council speak to each other regularly the rest of the year. I would encourage it. There's a lot of opportunity here to connect. I know you guys are crazy busy, but I hope that we can do this again sooner than later. I really feel like this was very effective. I really appreciate it. Mayor Scharff: I think we're at 7:00. Was there—Greg, you had something you wanted to say? Go ahead. Council Member Tanaka: While I don't 100 percent agree with what Vice Chair Waldfogel said in terms of we have to exactly adopt what is recommended, I do think, having served on both the Commission and the TRANSCRIPT    Page 18 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Council, that we don't utilize our Planning Commission as effectively as we possibly can. For me, I'd love to see it fully baked or as baked as possible before it comes to us. I don't know whether that actually happens. I think some of it is not so much the PTC has issues, but it's also us as Council. There's a tendency for us to want to tinker. Sometimes it's better, and sometimes it's not. For us to get more leverage—Council time we have to realize is probably the most precious time. We need to actually, in my opinion, empower PTC more to do a lot more of the fine-grained exploration, really flesh out things. What PTC could do that would really help make things a lot more solid is, besides listening to community input, also doing community outreach. I think that's really important. Council Member Fine talked about being more proactive. I think that's also really important. It's also important that Staff supports the PTC properly so they can actually make good decisions. For us on Council to be very effective, I think we need to have a Commission that's effective, that's empowered, and is able to make good recommendations to us so that we can spend our time on the bigger items. We only have so much time and, if we spend it all on the small stuff, we'll never get to the big stuff. Mayor Scharff: Do we have any speaker cards? No. Council Member Kou: (inaudible) Mayor Scharff: Sure, go ahead. Council Member Kou: I haven't been on Council long enough to make too many comments. I did want to say thank you very much to all the Commissioners. You guys are all doing a fabulous job. I do agree that Chair Alcheck has been doing a smashing job in terms of streamlining the meetings. It's been really good listening during your sessions as well as reading the minutes. I did want to ask, with this Study Session—I heard some of the questions—are we going to have some ways of formulating when the report that Chair Alcheck was talking about—when does it come out? Is there expectancy of timeline or a frame on how we're expecting this to come forth or is it just when they have a report ready? Mayor Scharff: I think it would be when they have a report ready. Council Member Kou: What would we be looking for in the report? Mayor Scharff: You're talking about the Comp Plan or … Council Member Kou: No. I mean their report of where they are at or what they have accomplished or whatever it is that they want Council to know about. TRANSCRIPT    Page 19 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: I don't have an answer to that. Council Member Kou: Is there something that maybe Chair Alcheck can … Mayor Scharff: I think he said he wanted to go forward, not—I'll let him address it. Commissioner Alcheck: I hope the next time we meet—I don't know if I'll be Chair at that time. I hope it's sooner than later. Typically, at our meetings we have an opportunity to talk about what we've accomplished. If the meeting happens in December, it's really easy for a Chair to do that because they can talk about the 12 months they've been Chair. In this particular case, I've only been Chair for about 4 1/2 months, so it didn't really come to fruition because I didn't serve as Chair last year. Council Member Kou: Can we have the expectation that we can hear from you at the end of the year? Is that something that's possible (crosstalk)? Commissioner Alcheck: I think that's absolutely fair. I'd be more than delighted to sort of memorialize all the things we've accomplished this year. Council Member Kou: Thank you again. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Let's take a 5-minute break as we rearrange the chairs and all that stuff. Council took a break from 7:03 P.M. to 7:16 P.M. Special Orders of the Day 2. Appointment of two Candidates to the Human Relations Commission, Four Candidates to the Public Art Commission, and two Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission for Terms Ending May 31, 2020, and Appointment of one Candidate to the Human Relations Commission for the Unexpired Term Ending May 31, 2019. Mayor Scharff: … at your places. Does the Clerk want to explain how the balloting process is going to work for the Human Relations Commission? Beth Minor, City Clerk: Thank you, Mayor Scharff. On the Human Relations Commission, you're going to vote for the two terms that are full terms. While we were doing the recruitment, we had a resignation by a Commissioner on the HRC. We've added that onto tonight to also vote on that one to fill the unexpired term. You'll have the other ballots for the other Commissions also. TRANSCRIPT    Page 20 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: Thank you. You got it. [The Council proceeded to City Manager Comments and returned to this item after Oral Communications.] First Round of voting for two positions on the Human Relations Commission with terms ending May 31, 2020: Voting For Mehdi Alhassani: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For Deepali Brahmbhatt: Filseth, Kou, Scharff Voting For Rebecca Eisenberg: Voting For Steven Lee: Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For Kristen Podulka: DuBois, Holman Ms. Minor: We have Mehdi Alhassani with eight votes and Steven Lee with five votes, so they will both be appointed to the Human Relations Commission. First Round of voting for four positions on the Public Art Commission with terms ending May 31, 2020: Voting For Britta Erickson: DuBois Voting For Linda Fenney: Voting For Bette Kiernan: Fine, Kou Voting For Jim Migdal: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For Donna Pettit: Filseth Voting For Amanda Ross: DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For Mary Ann Scharf: Tanaka Voting For Hisnya Shen: Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Wolbach Voting For Jeny Smith: Kou, Tanaka TRANSCRIPT    Page 21 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Voting For Nia Taylor: DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Wolbach Ms. Minor: We have Jim Migdal with eight votes, Amanda Ross with seven votes, Hisnya Shen with six, and Nia Taylor with seven. All four of them will be on the Public Art Commission. Moving on to the Utilities Advisory Commission for two members for 3-year terms. First Round of voting for two positions on the Utilities Advisory Commission with terms ending May 31, 2020: Voting For Claude Ezran: Voting For Lisa Forssell: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For Lauren Segal: Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For Curtis Smolar: Voting For Jay Weber: DuBois, Holman, Kou Ms. Minor: We have Lisa Forssell with nine votes and Lauren Segal with six votes, both being appointed to the Utilities Advisory Commission. Mayor Scharff: Do we have the vote for the other Human Relations Commissioner? Council Member Holman: I thought we were going to decide whether to appoint that third seat tonight or not. Mayor Scharff: We can if you would like to make a Motion. I'd entertain that. Council Member Holman: I'd just like to hear what Council Members have to say. I'll move that we take at least a straw poll on whether we appoint the third seat or not. Mayor Scharff: Why don't we do that and take a straw poll, if that works for everyone? Who would be in favor of appointing the Commissioner tonight? Do you have the … Ms. Minor: I do. TRANSCRIPT    Page 22 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  First Round of voting for one position on the Human Relations Commission with an unexpired term ending May 31, 2019: Voting For Deepali Brahmbhatt: Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For Rebecca Eisenberg: Voting For Kristen Podulka: DuBois Ms. Minor: Deepali with eight votes is now on the Human Relations Commission. Mayor Scharff: Congratulations to everyone. To everyone who didn't get appointed, apply again. We really appreciate it. We had really good candidates, and we really do want you to apply, and we really appreciate you stepping forward. Thank you. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Manager Comments Mayor Scharff: Moving on to City Manager Comments. James Keene, City Manager: Thank you, Mayor Scharff, members of Council. A number of things to report, but I thought I would first start off with an acknowledgement and a welcome of our visitors from our Sister City Oaxaca, who are here this evening. As those of you know who were at the May Fete Parade this weekend and, of course, actually the whole Council is aware of this, representatives from the Oaxaca Fire Department along with Neighbors Abroad participated in the parade as a show of unity and support between our cities. As part of the visit, we would like to formally give the pink slips or the title, [Spanish language] in Spanish, to the Oaxaca delegation. Neighbors Abroad, with the generous support of the community and Council, completed the transfer of the City's reserve ladder truck to our Sister City Oaxaca, Mexico. Oaxaca raised money to pay for part of the apparatus, the transfer fees, shipping, and taxes. This quint fire apparatus and the ambulance will arrive in Oaxaca in early June, where they will be refurbished and placed into service to support the residents and visitors of Oaxaca for another 10-15 years. I did want to acknowledge and introduce— I think ultimately, Mr. Mayor, I was going to have you join some of these folks down at the podium, but Fire Chief Manuel Maza Sanchez actually oversees fire and emergency services not just for the City of Oaxaca but TRANSCRIPT    Page 23 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  across the entire state. I think we'll have you there, Manuel. Thanks. You don't want to go up in here really. Trust me. I also want to introduce and invite up Senora Lupita de Vargas. She is the current president of the Oaxaca Sister City committee. At the right moment, I think Lupita will want to speak to the Council also. Also, Senora Pilar Zamora Martinez [phonetic], who is the former president of the Oaxaca Sister City, is also here. We also want to acknowledge that Fire Chief Sanchez's daughter, Luciana Maza Sanchez [phonetic], who is 14 years old, is here on her first visit to Palo Alto. You should come up there. Finally, the Chief's administrative liaison, Marcela Cabrera, is also in the audience. You ought to join here. This trip, of course, wouldn't have been possible without the great support of our Sister Cities, our Neighbors Abroad group. Bob Wenzlau and his wife, Julie Jomo, are here. Marty and Judy Deggeller, who have been longtime supporters of the program, and Luz Sanchez are also here. Mr. Mayor, I happen to have here the titles for which the transaction is dependent upon getting safely across the border. I thought it might be good if you were to do a photo op presenting this to the Chief. Mayor Scharff: I've always wanted a fire truck. Vice Mayor Kniss: Mr. City Manager, might I suggest that Mr. Wenzlau join some of these pictures? He was very instrumental in this. Mr. Keene: Just before we get going, Mr. Mayor, we got a request this weekend that some of the commemorative shirts from the City of Palo Alto and from the May Fete Parade (inaudible) to Oaxaca. Greg or Fire Chief, what do we do with these? Do you take these, Chief? Lupita wanted to speak to the Council. Is that correct? Lupita Vargas, Oaxaca Sister Cities Program: [Spanish language] Translator: I'm Lupita's alter ego who speaks English. I'll translate for you. Today in a digital world where things change so quickly, it makes us appreciate even more the enduring relationship Oaxaca shares with Palo Alto. Palo Alto's continued support of our firemen, our student exchanges, and our children's programs as well as the bonds that have formed between our citizens sustain the universal values of solidarity, friendship, tolerance, and respect. Our student exchange program is a wonderful example of this. I have personally witnessed several generations of students benefit from this program. We are hopeful that the program will have more young people participating year after year. Our committee is very proud to have the Sister City relationship with Palo Alto and, from our hearts, say thank you for all you do to enrich the lives of so many Oaxacan citizens. TRANSCRIPT    Page 24 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Ms. Vargas: Excuse me. Only say I love these people. All people from Palo Alto I love. Mayor Scharff: I just wanted to say that we really appreciate you coming up. We also very much value our Sister City relationship with Oaxaca. It's great for both cities. Thank you very much. Mr. Keene: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will continue. I know we discussed this before that, in a show of solidarity and friendship, I'm actually going to conduct the entire rest of the City Council meeting in Spanish tonight. I thought that would be … Mayor Scharff: It'll be a very short meeting. Mr. Keene: One way to get out by 11:00, Liz. I wanted to just respond to some questions that we got from the Council late, some of which you did get at places. We got a question from Council on Item Number 4, dealing with the amendment to the CLEAN contract term. You do have an at-places memo that responded to that. We also got a question on Item Number 5 on the Consent Calendar, that deals with the O'Grady Paving contract. I did just want to say basically the question really had asked how many streets will be repaved. This contract had a Pavement Condition Index between 55 and 60. The answer to that is there are 23 streets in this contract. There were two streets between 55 and 60; that's Ash Street between Stanford Avenue and Oxford Avenue, and Sedro Lane between Cambridge Avenue and Mayfield Lane. Nineteen out of the 23 streets that we will have paved have PCI scores less than 55. Definitely ready and in need of paving. We'd also gotten a question from the Council dealing with a question from a citizen relating to Item Number 7, the UtiliWorks Consent Calendar Item. It really was asking why is Utilities bringing in a consultant for this. It's just about the installing of smart meters. It's hard to believe they want to engage a consultant to tell them the obvious, which is we should have done this yesterday. Utilities General Manager Ed Shikada, who's in Sacramento today, did want to share that folks may not be aware the City is simultaneously implementing a new Citywide enterprise resource planning system and a utilities-specific building system in addition to moving from our current limit, which is 300 accounts smart meter deployment, to a full rollout across water and gas as well as electric meters. As a result, we'll be making decisions on scopes of work, sequencing, and contracting strategy. To our resident's point, we want to make these decisions mindful of other agencies' experiences while recognizing that within the industry smart meters have largely been led by investor-owned utilities that simply pass along the cost to consumers. The consultant will bring this experience that our in-house Staff doesn't have and help us develop an implementation plan to manage TRANSCRIPT    Page 25 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  capital costs while ensuring uninterrupted service and billing. Lastly, on Item Number 12, which is on the action portion of the agenda, a series of questions related to the Council Colleagues' Memo on the YCS funding. While I have the answers to those here from Leif Erickson, my understanding is Leif will be here this evening. I think it'd be just best for those questions to be answered by Mr. Erickson. That's all I have to report related to the agenda. As far as other updates, just on the May Fete Parade, a big, big success. We had more than 2,000 participants including six bands, five floats, and 63 parade contingents. This year's event theme was "My Hero Is … ," which celebrated the heroes in our lives such as newly retired Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns, who served as the Grand Marshal for the parade. Students Joshua George and Riley Filter teamed up to serve as the Youth Grand Marshals, representing Palo Alto High School's Best Buddies program. The Best Buddies program creates opportunities for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities pairing them with a peer in general education. They hang out weekly at school and have monthly events after school, like movie nights, barbecues, and dance parties. The parade ended at Heritage Park. The fun continued with the May Fete Fair featuring an array of children's activities. All of that was organized by the Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto. Lastly, the Museum of American Heritage hosted their annual vintage vehicle family festival. I thought some of the cars were very much in the spirit of the times. It looked like there was a 1968 or '69 Corvette there that looked like it had a fairly new bumper sticker that said "Nixon Now More Than Ever." I thought that was too funny. Great news here. This is really, really neat news. The City of Palo Alto Utilities ranked first in the nation for the greatest amount of solar watts per customer in our portfolio. Palo Alto is one of a select group of utilities that connected the most solar to the grid in 2016, earning it the top spot in the annual top ten utility industry list compiled by the Smart Electric Power Alliance. SEPA, as their acronym goes, in their tenth annual survey included figures from 412 utilities across the country. We ranked number one with 2,753 watts per customer installed in 2016. This is the fourth time we've made their top ten list of utilities. Congratulations to our entire Staff team and our community. I did want to share that Palo Alto Neighborhoods, PAN, is hosting a community meeting at Mitchell Park in the El Palo Alto Room on Thursday, May 25th, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. to share information related to accessory dwelling units, ADUs. The meeting will start with an introduction by Mayor Scharff, and City Staff and PAN representatives will be on hand to present information and answer questions about ADUs, including terminology, types of ADUs, Palo Alto laws, rules about parking, the process for creating an ADU, frequently asked questions, and areas of concern including consideration for historic and for Eichler neighborhoods. The Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP Program. As you know, in January Council adopted a resolution to implement the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP Program TRANSCRIPT    Page 26 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  as a 1-year pilot. Parking permits went on sale March 12th. To date, 234 of the 250 employee parking permits have been sold. While employee parking Zones A and B have been sold out, there are still 16 permits available in employee parking Zone C. An additional 426 residential annual parking permit stickers and 176 annual parking permit hangtags have also been sold. As of May 3rd, over 250 signs have been installed throughout the program area. Enforcement of the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP Program officially began today. Staff will be monitoring the program for any recurring issues. More information is available at cityofpaloalto.org/parking on our website. One more parking-related item related to the Midtown parking lot. Over the last year, our Staff has been working with stakeholders adjacent to the Midtown parking lot near Middlefield Road and Colorado Avenue to identify strategies to improve parking at this City-owned lot. We've developed a draft signing and striping plan for the lot, which will accomplish the following: eliminate the unenforced, across-the-board, 2-hour time restrictions; add short-term 30-minute parking adjacent to the dry cleaner, pharmacy and other daily services; bring the ADA parking up to modern standards; add additional bicycle parking; upgrade the lot identification signage; better delineate where the public and private parking areas begin and end; add additional on-street parking on the adjacent blocks; and improve the operation of nearby Colorado Avenue at Middlefield intersection by creating a dedicated westbound turn lane. In the next 2 weeks, we'll be re-engaging with area stakeholders to solicit their comments on the draft plan with the goal of reaching consensus in implementing the plan with the resurfacing project planned for the coming months. Finally, Eichler Guidelines. Speaking of Eichler neighborhoods, on May 3rd City Staff and consultants held a second public workshop about the development of Eichler Guidelines, this one specifically targeted to the Greenmeadow and Green Gables neighborhoods, both of which are listed as National Register Historic Districts. The meeting was well attended by Greenmeadow homeowners and members who discussed the Greenmeadow architectural control committee purviews and related CC&Rs, concerns regarding accessory dwelling units, and a need for clarity regarding guidelines and rules. Many thanks to Penny Ellson, who was instrumental in making this workshop happen. Penny not only arranged for use of the Greenmeadow Community Room, she put out chairs, tablecloths, and name tags and made cookies too. A photo from the Mad Men era. That's all I have to report. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. TRANSCRIPT    Page 27 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Oral Communications Mayor Scharff: Now, we'll move to Oral Communications. You'll have 3 minutes. Our first speaker is Mary Sylvester, to be followed by Rob Levitsky. Mary Sylvester: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor, and Council. I'm Mary Sylvester, and I live at 135 Melville, 200 feet from Castilleja School. I'm joined here this evening by several of my friends and colleagues in the neighborhood. I'm sure you'll be glad when you no longer have to hear from me about Castilleja. I feel the same way, and I'm in this for the long haul. I'm here to correct a misleading statement that was published in the Palo Alto Weekly last Friday, quoting Castilleja's communications director, Ms. Neirinckx, about meeting with neighbors for 2 years within 300 feet of the school, who expressed support for an underground garage. Let's set the context here. Those of us who live within 200 feet of the proposed garage were never consulted, were never invited to this meeting. Strange how that happens when Nelson Ng, Kimberly Rob, and Rob Levitsky had the original garage exiting in front of their homes. Fast forward, June 30th, 2016 when the news was sprung on us that this garage was going to be directly across from the Ngs' front door. Their lives were turned upside down for 10 months. We in the neighborhood have submitted individual letters from neighbors within 350 feet of this proposed garage, who categorically oppose its construction, were not consulted, do not support it, 47 households and counting. If this garage is eliminated from Castilleja's plans, it will save six heritage trees, five redwoods and one oak, as well as retain two single-family homes, one possibly a historic property, that are now slated for destruction. Two homes permanently removed from the Palo Alto housing stock as well as years of headaches for those of us in the neighborhood, in this narrow-streeted, R-1 neighborhood. Castilleja has finally demonstrated in 2016-17 that it can manage a traffic control program. To make it a robust program, it can have offsite parking, shuttling students in. An underground garage is a nonstarter for the neighborhood. It invites more traffic into a neighborhood that cannot support it. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Rob, before you speak, I just wanted to give the Clerk the opportunity to announce the results of the Boards and Commissions votes. Beth Minor, City Clerk: Do you want to do it now or after we finish with Oral Communications? Then, I can go through all three of them. TRANSCRIPT    Page 28 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: If you'd rather do it that way. I thought you came up to me and asked. Rob. Rob Levitsky: Many of us have deep roots in Palo Alto. Deep roots is a metaphor for trees. What I want to talk about tonight is a couple of trees. What usually brings trees down in the wild is wind, wind loading. A gust of wind comes, and the tree is down. There are six trees that are on your screen now at Castilleja, 2-foot in diameter at the base, 100 feet tall at the top. Originally, they wanted to just kill them because their original plan was just do whatever you want. Unfortunately, some ordinances got in the way. Now, they want to transplant them. In discussing this with Walter Passmore and Dave Dockter, our arborists, Walter says typically 75-90 percent of the roots get whacked when you transplant a tree like this. If you're going to transplant a tree like this, you have to have a place to put it. With 100-foot tall trees and powerlines and underpasses, it's not going very far. They've picked a spot along Embarcadero that happens not to be suitable because the redwoods would be right under the canopy of oaks. When you transplant a tree, you have to put a lot of water on the tree. Oak trees don't want any water during the summer. Now, I've got a little example for you about these trees. When you transplant a tree, you have to deal with the roots. How much of the roots are you going to take? This is a scale model, Mr. Mayor, of a tree. The base is 2 feet in diameter. If I have 6 inches here, this corresponds to 48 feet of root. In the wind, with 48 feet of root ball it's pretty stable. If we go down to 32 feet, it's still hanging in there. 24 feet, it's getting a little shaky. What they'll be able to do with the space they have, while those trees there are 12 feet, this is 16 feet in diameter. What we'd be faced with is these six trees falling either on the 60 kV powerline that's along Embarcadero or falling on the two-story classrooms that they plan to put on the field. We don't really want any of that. The only way that you can get these to stand up is with guywires like telephone poles. If you do that, the tree never learns to deal with the wind, and you can never really take the guywires away. You'd be stuck with a bunch of sticks with guywires across Embarcadero, all over Castilleja. The answer really is just to let the trees live. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Sea Reddy to be followed by Leo Hochberg. Sea Reddy: Good evening, Mayor, the City Council, and citizens of Palo Alto. Last weekend, I happened on this editorial from our Palo Alto Weekly. I feel it's very offensive for them to have used certain words. I'd like the public to comment to the news organization, The Palo Alto Weekly, to show their displeasure of using certain words. Erratic behavior by City Councilmen, they take three names. Hardly (inaudible). This is the best City Council we've engaged in the last 4 or 5 years that I have known. To particularly TRANSCRIPT    Page 29 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  put one name, I consider it to be very offensive. I think it's uncalled for. Because Mr. Tanaka, Greg Tanaka, is a College Terrace resident, everybody that lives in College Terrace are the best people you can find. Number two, he also went to Cal Tech, which many of us couldn't get into. At least those two criteria make him very smart, very knowledgeable, and the people that supported him on the initiative. It's really bothering to see somebody unqualified talk about software development last year and making a butt of joke for the nation on Palo Alto. Software development is an iterative process. It can be something else tomorrow, a year from now. To give an example, in 1994 we started Direct TV. I got a set-top box, and I took it home, and I installed an 18-inch dish. In the City of Irvine, my association came unglued, and they asked me to throw it out. I threw it out. Two years later, we went to Congress and got it changed. We're not in a position to talk anything about software development. I think we should talk about— nobody wants big companies to be right next to single-family homes. We know that. For us to go out and talk something like that and make a butt of joke is not a good thing. I think we should just refrain from saying anything about that. We know what Palo Alto (inaudible). Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Leo Hochberg to be followed by Stephanie Munoz. Leo Hochberg: Good evening. It's been a long time since I've been in front of the Council. Some of you may or may not know me. I recognize some of you. I used to be on the Library Commission. I'm here today to talk about something called—the word community. The real question is what is community. Is it the dogs that are walked by our houses? Is it the potholes that we complain about on our streets? Is it parked cars that block us in? Is it the books in our libraries? Some of you know how passionate I am about libraries. I would say it's none of those things. It's actually the people and relationships we have. I think there is a—not just to me. There's a slow motion crises happening in Palo Alto. My street is an example of that. I just want to bring attention to this. I live on Sutter Avenue. I know Councilman Fine has been down there because he came to my door during the last election. I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Sutter Avenue. It's about a block away from Safeway in Midtown. It's only 1 1/2 blocks long. On this 1 1/2 blocks, I'm not sure how many there are, but there's at least one empty house that was purchased after another house was torn down. It's remained empty for years because the owner doesn't live in the United States. They occupy it maybe a couple of weeks per year. This owner has children. I have children. My children are in school. That's one set of kids that my children would be playing with potentially, maybe classmates, someone we would see regularly, but it's an empty house. The reason I'm really here is because of my neighbors, my TRANSCRIPT    Page 30 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  next door neighbors. Their house was owned by an old lady who, unfortunately, passed away late last year. The house was sold about a month ago. Over the past month, they've repainted the house, they've put on new gutters. Guess what? It's listed on Redfin a month later. Here's how they describe long-term tenants that are living there. These are my neighbors. These are people that have lived there longer than I have, and I've lived there for 6 years. Here's how they're described: all units rented, all on month-to-month leases, rents are currently way below market rates because of long-term tenants. These are neighbors; these are not tenants; these are people. Upside potential to bring all rents to market price. I don't know how many of you are renters on the Council. That's at least six people that in a month or two are going to be on the street or they're going to have to find somewhere to live. These are retired people. I'm sorry if you can't hear me. That's a bummer, and that's happening all over town. I'm not sure how often this comes up to the Council. I don't know what the solutions are. I'll be back. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Arthur Keller. Arthur Keller: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Last week on Thursday, I went to the VTA meeting, and I spoke about two things. One is about the cuts to the 88 bus and encouraging the VTA to work with Palo Alto about supporting our shuttle in a transition, the south Palo Alto shuttle, as they cut the 88 bus. The other thing I talked about was I received an email from Friends of Caltrain. I know that we are very strongly here relying on Caltrain in order to be able to provide our transit to Palo Alto. Our TDM measures, our TMA relies on Caltrain. The message from Friends of Caltrain from last Wednesday talked about a second increase to the fares on Caltrain in a span of a year when they expected it to be a lot longer. That was an unexpected increase because they said it would last for 2 years. Let me read you what it says. I'll quote from the Friends of Caltrain. It says, "The rationale to do a second, early fare increase before the release of the study"—that is the study about fare increases—"is that the VTA is having budget issues which result in decreased contribution, and Caltrain will need to draw on its reserves to balance its budget." If Caltrain is raising fares, I'm not sure when they'll come around to cutting service again. I'm not sure where they'll get the money to increase service. We're essentially hoping against hope that Caltrain will solve our problems, but it looks like their severe budget issues that they're having from the cuts that VTA is making. It's not clear that VTA is going to come around and increase budget because I don't think Measure B, which I voted for in hopes that we would have more service, has more money for Caltrain. I'm wondering how we expect to support the increased demands on Caltrain when there's less money to support it from our very own VTA. I think we need to, as a TRANSCRIPT    Page 31 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Council—there's a City and there's a Council—really go back to VTA and say, "What's going on here? Why are you cutting Caltrain?" Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, to the Clerk's Office. Ms. Minor: You have (inaudible) for Stephanie Munoz (inaudible) speaker. Mayor Scharff: Did I miss Stephanie? Stephanie, come on up and speak. Stephanie Munoz: Good evening, Council Members and Mayor Scharff. I notice that, after something like 3 years of debating and handwringing and promising and thinking about it, you have ultimately decided that we do not want the United States Post Office. Three years ago, when the United States Government decided that they were going to let that Post Office go, I sent and you said, "We might not be able to afford it." I asked Anna Eshoo's office to get me the promotional material that the government puts out about what it does with surplus properties. You might be surprised to know that they're very interested in having those properties revert to the community. They almost give them away. Bob Moss once got from the Federal Government a whole radar station for like $1 for the community because the Federal Government does recognize that these properties have some—originally they were put in with the idea of being helpful to those cities, and they don't want to take that away. However, I see that there's a problem because it's going to cost too much to renovate it. I've heard that before. I think it's bogus. I'd like to remind you about 20 years ago, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation moved, to everybody's relief. They were in a neighborhood which hated them. Dena Mosser did her best every year that she was on the Council to see if she couldn't get rid of that building, but it was a beautiful building. The City could have had it for nothing because—in the event it was torn down. It couldn't have been used for anything else because it was zoned medical office building. This building here is zoned post office. Now, who's going to put anything on that without rezoning? You own that building in the sense that you have the power to say what shall be done with it or nothing may be done with it. You do. You, all of you. I would recommend that you get it from the Government for very little, which I think you can do. Under the circumstances, you own it. You own the power to say what shall be done with it. Get a facade easement, keep the lobby, and everything in it looks like from the outside, and take down the middle, and put up a nice parking garage. Put some showers in the parking garage so that you can hold the homeless pending all this affordable housing that you're going to build, and then you can use it for a parking garage. The City will own that multimillion-dollar property. Do not let it get out of our hands if you please. Thank you. TRANSCRIPT    Page 32 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  [The Council returned to Item Number 2.] Consent Calendar Mayor Scharff: Now, we'll move to the Consent Item. Let me just count the number of cards. If you have a moment, if you could get your cards in for the Consent Calendar if don't already have them in. Molly Stump, City Attorney: Mayor Scharff, when it's convenient, I have an update on the Consent Calendar. Mayor Scharff: Why don't you speak to the Consent Calendar quickly. Ms. Stump: Thank you. City Attorney Molly Stump. This is on Item Number 6, the second reading on the ADU ordinance. You have an at-places memo before you that has the correct, updated version of the ordinance attached. Directing your attention to the two-page cover memo, we had drafted some further amendments on one small area where it had been made known to us that HCD had a concern about the Council's adoption of a restriction on the placement of the doorways. We had drafted some additional language that we would recommend for tonight. However, in further consultations with HCD today, we have persuaded them that the existing draft actually took care of their concerns. The issue is that in the unusual situation in which the ADU is part of an existing structure, the articulated concern from HCD was the Council saying that the doorway couldn't face the street might prevent the building of an ADU, the creation of an ADU in a situation in which State law intended to make that a right. However, we were able to point out to them that another section of the ordinance actually said that the doorway restriction doesn't apply at all with respect to existing structures. To sum up, as to the cover memo, it's a big "never mind." We don't want to make this additional change. The existing ordinance is the one that we'd like you to pass tonight. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we will move to the public. We have a large number of speakers, so you'll each have 2 minutes. Our first speaker is Jeff Hoel speaking to Item Number 7, to be followed by Sue Dinwiddie speaking to Item Number 6. Jeff Hoel, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 7: Item Number 7 is the smart grid item. You would be approving a contract for a consultant to do work for approximately a year with the presumption that the same consultant would do work for the next 5 years and chart the direction for smart grid in Palo Alto. At UAC, Commissioner Schwartz said, "May I take a look at the bids, so I can see who I think the best bidder is?" That information was not available. In fact, General Manager Shikada said, "That TRANSCRIPT    Page 33 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  is not really before you. The only thing that's before you is high-level input on what you think the direction ought to be." I also spoke on the item. I said, "If you're going to do fiber to the premises, then the network that provides is going to be much better for smart grid than the wireless grid that you'd use otherwise." If it's all right with you, could you pull Item 7 and wait until Council considers next month what the direction is for fiber to the premises? Depending on what that direction is, the consultant will know what to consult about. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Due Dinwiddie on Item Number 6 to be followed by Linnea Wickstrom also on Item Number 6. Sue Dinwiddie, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Hello. Thank you for hearing me tonight. I've been a happy resident of Palo Alto since 1963. Although, I realize that the ADU ordinance is essentially a fait accompli, I appeal to you to do some fine-tuning before final adoption. Building ADUs 10 feet from the fence on the side and the back rather than 6 feet would help with privacy as well as fire safety as would requiring a sprinkling system not only protect ADUs but adjacent neighborhood structures from the potential for rapidly spreading fires. Having no requirements to be aesthetically compatible with the main residence seems totally out of step with Palo Alto's strict criteria for residences ordinarily. I'm also concerned with the fact that the ADUs can be two stories in height, which will certainly reduce neighbors' privacy. My last concern is not requiring any parking provisions. Many of our streets are already impacted by the lack of street parking. I thank you for considering these adjustments to the ordinance. I believe that these would go a long way toward pacifying the distressed neighbors, many of whom have been talking to me recently. I also want to say I'm very happy that there's going to be a meeting on May 25th to discuss the criteria and provisions of the ADU. I only wish that we had had some kind of public information much earlier in the process. I think it would have eliminated a lot of distress that's going on right now. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you for speaking. Linnea Wickstrom followed by Bob Moss. Linnea Wickstrom and family, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening, Council Members. Linnea Wickstrom, 50-year resident of Palo Alto. This is my husband, Peter Maresca, and this is my son, Per Maresca. Per Maresca: Hi, hello. TRANSCRIPT    Page 34 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Ms. Wickstrom: We are here to ask you to pass the ADU ordinance tonight. I believe the arguments have been heard and all the opinions aired. Our family represents just about all those actually likely to create an ADU. Per. Mr. Maresca: I'm here representing 1585 … Ms. Wickstrom: You're here representing the young and the disabled. Mr. Maresca: I'm here representing the young and disabled who need affordable housing with care and are close to services but are independent. Ms. Wickstrom: He got mixed up about where. Peter Maresca: I'm representing the aging who may need an onsite caregiver. I just barely fit into that category of the aging. Ms. Wickstrom: I'm in the aging who may need a small house, a one-story. Please give your assent tonight for this flexible, distributed, privately funded form of housing for our community. Thank you. Mr. Maresca: I enjoy coming here, and I really appreciate all the work you're doing and hope that next time I'm here we'll be able to talk about something else. Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you all for coming. Our next speaker is Bob Moss, and that will be followed by Betty Joe. Bob Moss, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Thank you, Mayor Scharff and Council Members. I ask you to pull this item and not approve it tonight. The way that it was adopted reminds me of the bad old days of the 1970s when late at night, usually after midnight, a Council Member would make a recommendation and make a suggestion and later a motion to adopt an ordinance, which had never been discussed or reviewed or given an opportunity for public comment. That's what happened on this ordinance. The changes, which were made, were significant. It needs to go back to the Planning Commission and the Staff and look at the potential impacts of allowing this amount of densification in the single-family zones. The increase of traffic, parking since no parking is required for the additional units has not been evaluated or considered. This project, which is before you tonight, is a very major, significant change to the Zoning Ordinance and land use in Palo Alto. It needs to be fully evaluated. The costs and impacts have to be known, and they have to be evaluated and traded off. None of that was done. This is not the time to move forward with an ordinance that has so many changes, which have not been properly evaluated or quantified. It is not the way to do business. It does not represent what the people of TRANSCRIPT    Page 35 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  this community need and have depended upon for decades. It is not the way the City Council should function. It is a lousy approach. Stop now and fix it. Mayor Scharff: Betty Joe to be followed by Bill Ross. Betty Joe, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Mayor, Councilman, I'm sure you're all sick to death of hearing about ADUs. I have just a few more comments on it. Our purpose here is to encourage development of small-scale, neighborhood-compatible, safe, acceptable housing and to discourage the proliferation of poorly constructed, illegal ADUs. To achieve this purpose, we are increasing population and street parking density and decreasing available permeable ground in our R-1 neighborhoods. That's a choice. We must ensure, though, that these costs to our neighborhood environments return the intended benefits of more accessible and affordable housing. With minor adjustments to the ordinance noted in my email to you all combined with a robust outreach and support program with supplementary guidelines and with continued attention to monitoring and managing potential impacts, we can turn this from a divisive issue to a golden opportunity for our community. Everyone wants this ordinance to be successful and to increase the availability of safe, affordable housing units for seniors, for disabled, and for other residents. It seems to me enforcement of permit application requirements for ADUs, JADUs is critical to the success of this program. Further, I believe we need to encourage ADUs with a robust outreach and support program that incorporates ADU requirements, includes design suggestions for minimizing neighborhood impacts such as privacy concerns, includes low-cost design options for improving elder or disabled tenant access, providing advice for navigating the permit process, suggestions for increasing fire safety including sprinkler systems—though they must not be required, they can certainly be encouraged—and clear avenues for complaints regarding unpermitted construction code violations. Please request that the Staff develop a detailed ADU manual and outreach collateral. Please also request that the Staff include in their 1-month review specifications of performance metrics for measuring the success of the program. These might include permit requests and approvals, ADU information requests, unpermitted construction complaints, parking impacts. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Ms. Joe: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Bill Ross to be followed by Diane Morin. TRANSCRIPT    Page 36 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Bill Ross, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm a taxpayer, resident, and a member of the public as that phrase is defined in Section 54960 of the Brown Act. The purpose of my presentation tonight, consistent with my written confirmation of it, is to demand compliance with the Brown Act concerning former Consent Item Number 4 on your April 17th meeting to properly be noticed under the Brown Act after it's been reviewed appropriately by Staff and City Council. How it got off Consent was present at the video and an explanation by you, Mr. Mayor, that because of the number of people present it was going to be heard later that evening. Three and a half hours later, after several issues had been raised about the Brown Act compliance, carefully indicating that there was no opposition to the ADU ordinance, but the way it was being heard was not constitutionally sound, you asked the City Attorney for an explanation as to whether or not the Brown Act had been complied with. I would respectfully suggest that under the Carlson case noted in my memorandum tonight that was not a satisfactory answer. Reference was made to your Policies and Procedures. Your Policies and Procedures don't appear anywhere in the agenda for the meeting on the 17th. I would suggest that the items advanced by former Council Member and retired Superior Court Judge LaDoris Cordell also detail those failings. I think the appropriate action is to consider rescinding the first reading of the ordinance and to set this in full compliance with the Brown Act for a full and adequate public hearing after it's been reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Staff. One only need look at the January 24th, 2017 letter of the State Fire Marshal. It has never been analyzed by Staff or by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Diane Morin to be followed by Judy Kleinberg. Diane Morin, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening, Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and Honorable Council Members. I speak to you impromptu, unplanned, ad hoc based on my personal views. I'm here to support the passing of the ADU ordinance. I believe the ADU ordinance represents what this community needs and wants, more housing and one of the easiest ways possible to achieve that. I'm here partly as yesterday—context—I saw a letter online by a gentleman asking people to show up [French language], as we say in French, in the hope that it would be taken off the Consent Calendar today. First, the letter stated that the ordinance was passed by a slim majority. It is at best an exaggeration to say that 7-2 is a slim majority. Secondly, it suggested that the Council had not listened to a large part of the residents, asserting 60 percent of the speakers present were against the ordinance. More importantly, the letter suggested that citizens of Palo Alto were not heard. For me, this was sad given that the conversation has been going on for a year. The reason that TRANSCRIPT    Page 37 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  I'm here is because 3 weeks ago I had a knee replacement surgery that truly brought home to me the importance of having more housing that would help seniors such as I. There are three reasons. One of them is my mobility was obviously limited. Secondly, I had to have somebody at home; I live alone. Thirdly, my income has been reduced due to not being able to work for approximately 2-3 months. In view of all of that, an ADU would be extremely helpful to a senior such as I because it would give me an additional way to house assistance, be able to increase slightly my income, and be helpful in many other kinds of ways. In short, I would respectfully ask that you please pass the ADU ordinance. Do not pull this off the Consent Calendar. Thank you, thank you all, for your service. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Judy Kleinberg to be followed by Hugo Moortgat. Judy Kleinberg, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening, Council. I want to thank those that are speaking in favor of the ADU ordinance and make a couple of points. One is that it is State law that you adopt an ADU ordinance. Within that framework, there are a number of modifications and local restrictions and allowances that, of course, you're going to work through to make sure it's compatible with the residential culture of our City. I'm here actually to speak to the business people who work in our City and can't afford to live here. I want to make sure that something that we think about is the traffic and parking congestion issue, our work/live imbalance, and how the ADU ordinance worked its way through the State Legislature to really be not only an affordable housing program for those that live in the community already but people who can't afford to live here. I just want to say that, even though at this hour most of the people who are challenged economically and work in our community can't be here—they're probably working their second job or whatever—I'm speaking for that group, that would love to live here and work here. It is a solution. Whatever you do tonight, I hope you don't pull it, but I understand there are a lot of little details that can still be worked out. I'm here to say thank you for adding affordable housing for all the people who were spoken about already, the disabled, the seniors, young couples, but also for that workforce that can't afford to live here. We hope that some of them will be able to. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Hugo Moortgat to be followed by Bret Andersen. Hugo Moortgat, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening. I will not address the specific provisions of the proposed auxiliary dwelling unit ordinance. I come with some more philosophical observations. Perhaps they should have come earlier, but things moved rather fast and without TRANSCRIPT    Page 38 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  much notice. While rewriting a zoning law is not quite the same as rewriting the U.S. Constitution, zoning laws and regulations should not be rewritten on a whim. People make long-term investments in housing and expect predictability and stability with respect to the quality of the neighborhood of their housing. If a zoning commission or a Comprehensive Plan cannot provide reasonable stability, perhaps it should be abandoned or disbanded, and residents can make their own plans and decisions. Residents can engage with their neighbors in covenants. Of course, they can mess up on their own without needing the help of City Hall. I urge respectfully but urgently to drastically revise or abandon the planned auxiliary dwelling unit ordinance. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Bret Andersen to be followed by Maureen Bard. Bret Andersen, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Honorable Council Members, good evening. You'll know me probably from Carbon Free Palo Alto and other activities promoting sustainability. I think this decision is a very good one. I would very much like to keep the wind in your sails in terms of keeping this going forward tonight. If there are any future decisions that affect this, I think the liberalization of some of these regulations that are holding back our market to serve the affordable housing segment is really important. I had a very personal story here because a very good friend of mine, who's been a teacher in Palo Alto teaching dance and being a counselor to the students at Gunn High School for over 15 years now, is facing a spike in her rent. She's a renter. The place is being bought by a real estate agent who is selling to the commercial real estate industry. She very much wants to find a small place to live in Palo Alto. Being married, having a child, she wants a cottage where there's some room to have her husband stay with her as well as her child. For me, it's just very important to have more options in Palo Alto. I think our community will be much more vibrant if we can have extended families, have perhaps people more in the arts and normally just couldn't afford the housing that has become the norm in our neighborhoods these days. I don't see anything exceptional about having ADUs built and spread out throughout our City. Anything more than we're seeing in terms of the privacy issues and parking issues and community issues of the enormous houses that are being built when you scrape these existing, small, more modest structures and build very expensive ones. I just want to show some appreciation for your leadership in creating this opportunity for Palo Alto to develop more. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Maureen Bard to be followed by Joe Hirsch. TRANSCRIPT    Page 39 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Maureen Bard, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Hi. Although, I've often bemoaned the lack of affordable housing in Palo Alto, I would like to go on record as saying I'm disappointed that the ADU plan has rushed through so quickly and so many neighborhoods, which did not ever expect to have multiple houses on their properties, will now find themselves living that way. That said, I live Downtown. I chose Downtown for the reasons of convenience, to be able to walk places, not necessarily have a car, and I'm used to high density. I believe high density can be acceptable Downtown. I'm surrounded by apartment buildings in a single-family dwelling. However, my house is zoned R-2. As I was looking over the way the ordinance is written, I see R-2 homes must have covered parking for their second dwelling. I'm just puzzled by that. I'm wondering if you looked into that carefully because it seems to me R-2 is mostly Downtown. Why would we need to have a covered parking spot for our second dwelling? If you could just consider that before you finish all of your details. I'm also hoping that you'll seriously reconsider this and have more public input before you go on. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Joe Hirsch. Joe Hirsch, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, initially I support the comments of Bob Moss about the process that was followed, that brought this ordinance forward. Secondly, I haven't done any exhaustive study; I admit that. I don't see anything in here that suggests that the ADUs will be in fact affordable, whatever affordable means. Finally, the ADU ordinance is extremely generous to people who want to have ADUs on their property. Conversely, it is not sufficiently protective of residents who are currently and will continue to be deeply concerned about the effect of ADUs as they proliferate in their neighborhood. The ordinance goes well beyond the requirements mandated by State law, which I submit should be adhered to before loosening the State-mandated requirements until after we determine over time how the new State law affects our residential neighborhoods. I urge you to pull this ordinance back, start over, to draft an ordinance that is protective of the interests of concerned residents. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Susan Getchen [phonetic] to be followed by Arthur Keller. Suzanne Keehn, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening. I certainly agree with Bob and Joe. I feel this was done way too fast without enough discussion. Going beyond what the State suggests sounds like anything goes without regard for privacy, parking. There's many things that don't make any sense at all. If we do need ADUs, I really think it needs to TRANSCRIPT    Page 40 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  be re-looked at and some kind of Architectural Review Board and changing a lot of these things that seems like anything goes to me. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Arthur Keller to be followed by Deb Goldeen. Arthur Keller, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Good evening. I'm speaking in my own capacity and not in any official capacity. I would say that the ADU ordinance that was presented to Council in March before the amendments that were made after public comment was an ordinance that went through the public process, that satisfied State law, that was vetted by the Planning and Transportation Commission, that had analysis by Staff. I wish that you would go back to that, but I have no hope that this item will be pulled from the agenda. I think you'll go ahead and pass this ordinance as is. I just want to observe that people have talked about this for affordable housing. There's no reason to believe that the housing will have to be affordable. After all, it may cost lots of money to build them, especially a freestanding one or an attached one, at several hundred dollars a square foot. People will have to rent them to recover their costs. I remember having a conversation with somebody online on Nextdoor who said, "I have to rent it as an Airbnb in order to be able to afford to build it." That's not what we want. I understand that you have a rule as allowed by State law that you can only rent it for 30 days or more, but there's no enforcement of Airbnb at all in the City. It's not clear that there will be any enforcement, that these won't be Airbnb. Finally, there's no requirement that these be rented. As I mentioned last week when I spoke to the Council, it's perfectly reasonable. Under this law, perfectly legal to build a home office and not rent it out, simply build an office and get extra square footage that can peer into a neighbor's lot just so that you can call it an ADU. It doesn't have to be rented; it doesn't have to be occupied. It could be a home office. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Deb Goldeen. Deb Goldeen, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: I'd like to thank the Council for their work on behalf of the ADUs. I'm a strong supporter of them. The argument that this is rushed comes as a real surprise to me because this has been an issue in Palo Alto for 30 years. That it has taken anybody by surprise, I can't believe it. The thought that it doesn't provide affordable housing is absurd. I worked a 14-hour day yesterday, a 10-hour the day before, a 10-hour day the day before that; I worked a full day today; I have not been home; I have not had dinner. I am here because I feel so strongly about this. I think it's the right thing. I think it's way, way, way overdue. I strongly would like to see this passed. Thank you. TRANSCRIPT    Page 41 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Stephanie Munoz to be followed by Amy Kacher. Stephanie Munoz, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: I'd like to say what we need is a much more nuanced approach to affordable housing, a recognition that the need for affordable housing that is so great. There's always a need for affordable housing. This need has been created by a 50- year tradition of building factories, offices, places which required workers without any nearby place for the workers to live. It's not a matter of having too many jobs. It's not a matter of having too few houses. It's a matter of having too few workers' houses with relationship to the workers' jobs that are there. If you have the job here and the worker's house in some place over yonder, everybody in between—I was in Los Altos 50 years ago, and it was a mess. I think you have to start first by asking that large, large employers, people that have dozens of workers, build housing in their complexes. I think you have to start there. I would say your second one is the Federal Government former employees, the veterans, should be housed on Federal property. There's plenty of it, and they can afford it, and they owe it to the veterans. The other thing is other employers, like the City itself, would be very well advised to build lovely houses, market-rate houses, for their own employees, especially of course the teachers. The Fire Department people, there they are. They have to be near the Fire Department; they all have two homes. One of the homes being the fire house. That could be changed. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Amy Kacher. Amy Kacher, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Hi. I am in support of the ADUs, but I really would like to see a couple of things that I feel are just practical implementation issues. I apologize if I haven't seen this data, and you guys have provided it. I'd like to know how many auxiliary dwellings we currently have, and how many of them are actually rented out, and what the average price is. I see my next door neighbor's house rents for $15,000 a month. The cottage behind it, down the street, is $3,000 a month. One is completely crazy; one is also not affordable housing. If you think 3,000 is a lot less than 15,000 for a cottage, that's still not affordable housing. My teacher friends—I have a few yoga instructor friends—can't afford $3,000 a month. I'm just wondering how we're going to have this really qualified as affordable housing. I don't know how you guys can monitor that. I feel like it's well intentioned, but it may miss the mark. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. That concludes the Consent Calendar. I need a Motion to approve the Consent Calendar. TRANSCRIPT    Page 42 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Vice Mayor Kniss: So moved. Council Member Fine: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move the Consent Calendar including Item 6. Mayor Scharff: Before we vote, I need a second. Vice Mayor Kniss: Second. Mayor Scharff: Second by Vice Mayor Kniss. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-8. 4. Resolution 9678 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding a 15-year Contract Term Option to the Palo Alto CLEAN Program, Continuing the Existing Program Rate Structure of 16.5 ¢/kWh for Local Solar Resources Until Reaching 3 MW of Program Capacity and for all Local Solar Resources Installed in Excess of 3 MW and all Non-solar Eligible Renewable Energy Resources at Avoided Cost, and Amending Associated Program Rules and Agreement.” 5. Approval of a Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $2,283,754 for the Fiscal Year 2017 Asphalt Paving, Capital Improvements Program Project PE-86070. 6. Ordinance 5412 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) to Implement a new State Law Related to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Dwelling Units and to Reorganize and Update the City’s Existing Regulations. The Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Public Resource Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guideline Sections 15061(b), 15301, 15303 and 15305 (FIRST READING: April 17, 2017 PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Kou no).” 7. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement With UtiliWorks Consultants, LLC in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $174,735 Over two Years for Phase I of the Utility Smart Grid Assessment and Development of a Utility Technology Roadmap and Implementation Plan. 8. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Agreement With the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the Management of and Participation in a Grant Award to Enhance TRANSCRIPT    Page 43 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  and Evaluate a Comprehensive Technology/Policy Solution Called Fair Value Commuting (FVC), Designed to Reduce Traffic Congestion. Mayor Scharff: Let's see. Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: I wanted to register a no vote on Item 6. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I'd like to also register a no vote on Item Number 6, and I'd like to speak to it afterwards. Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board. That passes unanimously with Council Members Kou and Holman registering no votes on Item Number 6. Council Member Holman, would you like to speak to your no vote? MOTION PASSED FOR ITEM NUMBERS 4-5, 7-8: 9-0 MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6: 7-2 Holman, Kou no Council Member Holman: Yes. I actually have a question also for City Attorney to address the issue that Bill Ross brought up about Fire Department. Ms. Stump: Sure. Thank you, Council Member Holman. City Attorney, Molly Stump. The notice that was provided for the April 17th meeting fully complies with the Brown Act. The Brown Act does require a short, concise notice of the topic to be discussed, sufficient that a person with a high school education can be apprised and decide whether to attend the meeting. Whether an item is on the Council's Consent Agenda or Action Agenda, every member of the public has a full opportunity to speak to the item. That did occur that night. The number of speakers who were present demonstrated that many, many people were aware that the item was before the Council and did come and offer their comments on various sides of the issue. The Brown Act doesn't have a specific requirement on level of Staff review, which is one of the topics raised by Mr. Ross or Commission review. It doesn't speak to placement of an item on various aspects of the Council's agenda. We don't see a Brown Act issue with the way the Council proceeded on the 17th. Thank you. Council Member Holman: I know I can't drill into this too much, but don't we have a requirement in the City that Fire should review all Ordinances for safety? TRANSCRIPT    Page 44 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Ms. Stump: I apologize. I didn't hear that part of your question. I was responding to Mr. Ross' written brief that he submitted just before the meeting. Council Member Holman: I'm sorry. I understood him tonight and previously bring up—maybe I'm wrong in this—that the Fire Department had not reviewed the safety aspect of this ADU Ordinance. Don't we have a requirement to do that? Ms. Stump: I have not researched that issue. I am not familiar with it off the top of my head. I'd have to look into it. Council Member Holman: I think Director Gitelman has a comment. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director: Thank you, Mayor Scharff, Council Members. Hillary Gitelman, the Planning Director. I just wanted to assure the Council that we were in receipt of the State Fire Marshal's memo when we brought the Ordinance forward. We feel the Ordinance we prepared fully complies with that directive. We don't see any conflict on fire safety issues. Council Member Holman: That's helpful. My personal comments are that I have concerns that I've spoken to previously and don't need to repeat all of them here, that cause me to continue to oppose the proposed ordinance even while I most definitely support ADUs and accessory dwelling units, for those who don't know ADUs. I believe the ordinance that Staff brought forward to us originally was a very practical, reasonable way for the Council and the City to be in compliance with State law, which could have been reviewed after a year to address any shortcomings when it came to addressing goals and also addressing unintended consequences. The ordinance before us tonight is quite frankly, in my opinion, a leap when a step would have been a much more practical and prudent action to take. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Council Member Kou, would you like to speak to your no vote? Council Member Kou: Agree with mostly what Council Member Holman said. Also, I just want to add with regards to what Staff had recommended on March 7, that was a very, very reasonable way to roll out ADUs especially in terms of ensuring that neighborhoods are not going to be impacted by traffic and by disputes by neighbors. If you're looking at this, there's no provision whatsoever that states that these units are going to be affordable and that it will be rented out in an affordable rate. Members of the community have already mentioned it. There's no parking regulations, and this is going to be another dispute that neighbors are going to have to settle amongst each TRANSCRIPT    Page 45 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  other with no help from the City. You really think about that. There's going to be noise issues. There's going to be health issues. There's going to be less open space. I think that this roll out of what we have proposed now is poorly done, and it has no consideration whatsoever for the neighborhood's character, safety, nor harmony. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Action Items 9. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL 689-693 Arastradero [16PLN- 00228]: Consideration of Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, With Exceptions, to Merge two Existing Parcels Into one Parcel. The Exception Would Allow the Merged Parcel to Exceed the Maximum lot Area for the Purpose of Constructing a new Private School Campus for Bowman School. The Planning and Transportation Commission Reviewed and Recommended Approval of the Project. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated on January 19, 2017 for Public Review. A Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is Available. Zoning District: R-1(10,000). Mayor Scharff: Now, we turn to Staff on Item Number 9. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director: Thank you, Mayor. We'll go ahead and start the presentation. Clare Hodgkins in our Planning Office is going to give the presentation. We're happy to answer any questions at the conclusion. Mayor Scharff: Take it away. Clare Hodgkins, Contract Project Planner: Good evening, Council Members and Mayor Scharff. My name's Clare Hodgkins, and I'm the project planner for this project. The proposed project before you would merge two lots into one. An exception is requested for a larger lot size than the maximum allowable in the R-1(10,000) zone district. The project also includes removal of three existing homes. There is a separate application on file for construction and operation of a new private school for up to 60 students ages 3-5 and for satellite breakout space for students at the existing main Bowman School campus to go to. The existing main Bowman School campus is located just north of this site at 4000 Terman Drive. It's currently allowed to enroll up to 300 students under its existing conditional use permit. The total enrollment at both of these sites will not exceed that currently permitted 300 students. Here's just a brief overview of the two lots. The resulting parcel would be 54,984 square feet, which is greater TRANSCRIPT    Page 46 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  than the maximum allowable lot size of 19,999 square feet for this zone district. This slide just shows you the location of the project along Arastradero Drive and its location in proximity to the existing Bowman School at 4000 Terman Drive and Terman Middle School. This just shows you briefly the surrounding uses. There's multifamily residential, single- family residential, the Alta Mesa Memorial Park, and then it's located just south of the existing Palo Alto Christian Reform Church. Tonight there are two larger policy considerations that you're being asked to consider. The first is the exception to the size of the lot, and the second is removal of the three residences. Staff has outlined these in the Staff Report. Staff is recommending that City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and approve the Record of Land Use Action, approving the merger of 689 and 693 Arastradero Road, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. That's all. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Do we have a presentation by the applicant? You'll have up to 10 minutes. Colleen Reilly, Project Manager: Good evening. My name's Colleen Reilly; I'm the project manager for the Bowman School. I'm here with our team, our architect, our civil and traffic engineers, and the head of school, Mary Beth Ricks. We're here simply to answer any questions you might have. Mayor Scharff: That was the quickest applicant report ever. Do we have any public speakers on this by the way? Why don't we get the cards in if you're going to publicly speak? Before we go to the public, if we have any Council disclosures because it's a public hearing. First of all, I'll open the public hearing. I see no lights, so I'm assuming—Greg Tanaka. Council Member Tanaka: I got an email on this, but I can't remember the name so I have to go find it first. Give me a second. Mayor Scharff: If there were emails to all of Council, then I … Council Member Tanaka: (inaudible) Mayor Scharff: It was just you. Molly Stump, City Attorney: (inaudible) procedural comment. Mayor Scharff: Sure, absolutely. Ms. Stump: Just one procedural comment. The item is before you for the parcel map. Just to note, it is going through ARB and review of the CUP. It TRANSCRIPT    Page 47 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  wouldn't be appropriate for Council to become heavily involved in those items or really comment on them because it's possible, through those separate procedures, that the item will come before you on appeal. We want to preserve your open mind because, of course, you don't have full information on those two items tonight. Focus on the map issues. Mayor Scharff: Just to elaborate on that a little bit. What's appropriate to discuss then is the merger of the two lots into one and the Negative Dec. Is that …. Ms. Stump: That's correct. Mayor Scharff: We shouldn't get into detail. We were provided this, so we shouldn't be getting into the details of this. Is that what you're saying? Ms. Hodgkins: That's the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mayor Scharff: It is the Mitigated Negative … Ms. Hodgkins: You can comment on that. We are asking you to adopt that tonight. Mayor Scharff: Got it. Thank you. Council Member Tanaka, did you … Council Member Tanaka: I found the email. I got an email from Shyamali Singhal. This person disclosed that they're on the board of the Bowman School and that her children attend. She gave me her cell phone, but I never called it. She just basically said what they were doing there and asked that I support it. Mayor Scharff: I have one card from the public on this, and then I have two cards on Item Number 6 that the Clerk's Office unfortunately—I don't know. We just got them now, so I don't know what the story is on that. I'm going to let everyone speak because why not. On Item Number 9, we have Christina Hildebrand if you'd like to come speak. Public Hearing opened at 8:49 P.M. Christina Hildebrand: Thank you, City Council Members. I'm a resident of Palo Alto, live very close to Arastradero. My children go to Bowman School. That doesn't taint me in any way. I very much ask you for your aye vote on the merger of these two lots. It will expand the campus from an academic perspective significantly. Unlike other schools in the Palo Alto area that you have been hearing about this evening, I truly feel that the Bowman School has taken into consideration the local community and also is not asking for an increase in the CUP. I know that's not part of the discussion this TRANSCRIPT    Page 48 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  evening. They have been very conscientious in how this school is going to be expanded and to mitigate the traffic, the impact, on the local community. Living in that local community, that does make a big difference to me. I ask you to please move this forward this evening. Thank you so much. Public Hearing closed at 8:50 P.M. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure there were no other speakers on Item Number 9. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing on Item Number 9. We're going to come to Council. Before we come back to Item Number 9, we have two speakers on Item Number 6, who—I apologize—were not called earlier. Joan Willingham, if you wish to speak, and Barbara Osbey [sic]. Joan Willingham, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Thank you. I am really wanting to talk about the process. Actually what just happened to me is an example of how I feel. This isn't working. The ADUs, I'm not against. In fact, I've been a resident and have a home for 38 years and actually wanted to have one at one point when it wasn't a possibility. I care about how it's done, and I care about process, that the community is involved with the Council. I think that's why you're elected officials, that you care. It doesn't feel that way. It feels like you are just rushing something through without an involvement to make things done in the very best way possible. I love this community and town, and I love the integrity of it. I love the aesthetics of it. To be putting out something that potentially is good and helpful and doing it so quickly with no reason that you have to do that, we have time. We have not short-term thinking but long-term thinking. I implore you to really think carefully about involving your community and making this and keeping it the very best town possible. I love it here. I left just discouraged, I give up, no one cares. People that I met outside said that's not right. They encouraged me to come back in and speak. I'm glad I have. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Again, we apologize. Barbara Osbey, if you're still here. Barbara Osley, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 6: Thank you for letting us speak even though the vote has been taken. I have tremendous respect for those of you who have given your time, your energy to serving our community. I am very, respectfully I say, shocked and very disappointed in the way this has been done. I have the highest regard for Palo Alto in so many ways. We love being here, but we cannot do things this way in our political process and have the respect that we should have. We should be caring about values, not rushing things through. The values have TRANSCRIPT    Page 49 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  not been respected here by taking into account the public's opinion and the architectural reviews that would be needed for the public to have an informed consent and opinion. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we'll come back to Council on Item Number 9. I think what we should do is just take a round of questions and comments, if anyone has any. Don't feel like you have to. I have no lights. Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: Thank you to Staff for the presentation. A couple of questions. I just want to make sure I'm clear on this. Regarding the housing on the site, there are currently three houses on the site, and one of them is nonconforming. Did I understand that correctly? Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, that's correct. Council Member Wolbach: I understand that all of those housing units are currently empty and vacant. Is that correct? Ms. Hodgkins: Yes. Council Member Wolbach: They are owned by the applicant as well. Correct? Ms. Hodgkins: I'll let the applicant respond to that. Ms. Reilly: 693 is owned by the applicant, and preparing to close on 689. Council Member Wolbach: How long have they been vacant? Ms. Reilly: Two years. Council Member Wolbach: Two years. Do we have any information as to why they have been vacant? Mary Beth Ricks, Head of School: Sorry. I'm the Head of the School. I can speak to that. One house has been vacant for more than 10 years. To the best of my knowledge, one house has been vacant for 2 years, and one house has been vacant since September of this current school year, so September 2016. Council Member Wolbach: I appreciate the clarification about the timeline. My last question was if we have any information as to the reason they've been vacant for that extended period of time. TRANSCRIPT    Page 50 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Ms. Ricks: The one that's vacant for 10 years has no floor. It was built in 1910, and it's just the exterior walls. The other one, the owners moved out 2 years ago. The current one, the renter moved out in September of 2016. Council Member Wolbach: I also wanted to ask for clarification from Staff. If I understood correctly from the Staff Report, Staff's reading of our Ordinances and the laws is that private schools should receive all the benefits, privileges, and rights of public schools and should be treated according to interpretation of Ordinances in the same way as public schools. Did I understand that correctly? Mr. Lait: I would make the distinction that our regulations apply to private schools. The City doesn't regulate public schools. When it comes to the policy document, the Comprehensive Plan, we noted in our Staff Report that we believe there is no direct reference to public versus private schools in the Comp Plan. You, of course, received a letter tonight from Penny Ellson, who argued differently to that point. That's why we phrased it as a discussion for the Council to at least be aware of. Council Member Wolbach: I think that's an important question to consider. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I had a question about the traffic analysis on Page 78 of the document. It looks like you looked at two intersections, just the entrance to the cemetery and Georgia Avenue. Is that correct? Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, this is correct. Council Member DuBois: I'm really puzzled by the entrance to the cemetery. It's a driveway; it's not really an intersection. Was Gunn High School considered in the analysis? There is a stop light at that intersection. Ms. Hodgkins: I'm going to let the traffic consultant speak a little bit more to this. The analysis was in particular focused on potential turn-around points and access to the site because there were already 300 students that could be enrolled at the existing, main Bowman School campus. The analysis did look at that potential increase from existing, but it was more of a focus on the change in the location to where the students would be going in and out. Again, I'll let our traffic consultant speak a little bit more to that. Robert Eckols, Fehr and Peers: Robert Eckols from Fehr and Peers. We're a traffic and transportation consultant. What we were looking at was kind of the operations. The trips that were generated by the project were small TRANSCRIPT    Page 51 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  enough that it wouldn't necessarily be subject to the normal traffic impact analysis. What we were looking at is where vehicles might make U-turns. We had worked with the Staff to pick the two locations. These were the intersections where, in theory, cars could come make U-turns. We wanted to just make sure that wasn't an impact operationally. Council Member DuBois: Is the idea that somebody dropping off a child would pull into the cemetery, drop them off, and then make a U-turn there? Mr. Eckols: No. What I'm saying—sorry. Because the City had a median project that was coming in and was going to put a physical median that was in front of the driveway, we had to take a look at what would happen for that median in place which would force them to come down to where the cemetery is and then make their U-turn. Even though it's unsignalized, we were trying to understand whether vehicles doing that would find the gaps they need to make the U-turns and how it might interrupt the traffic. Council Member DuBois: Is that the intended routing of traffic? You'd make a U-turn at the cemetery? Mr. Eckols: There will be some of the traffic—the traffic comes equally from both directions. Because of the City's median project that closed off— basically the median extends beyond the property. It required that they would have to make a U-turn at that location if they're coming from El Camino toward the school. Council Member DuBois: Was there also analysis of potential just backup during the drop-off period that might extend into the bike lane? Mr. Eckols: Yes. We actually did a queueing analysis that demonstrated there was sufficient room on the site to actually store the vehicles that would be dropping off. To give you a better idea, during the peak hour there would be about 50 trips, but that's only 25 vehicles during the hour. Basically, the people would drive in. Because these are younger children, they have someone that actually meets the car and helps the children out of the car and into the school; the driver or the parent doesn't actually get out. They have enough room to queue the vehicles on the site. The driveway is wide enough that they can store two cars if need be. If there was an extra car, they could actually pull it in adjacent. They do plan to have people out there controlling traffic when the drop-offs are going on. Mayor Scharff: Jonathan. Council Member DuBois: One last question. The letter … TRANSCRIPT    Page 52 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mr. Lait: On that last point, the interest here with respect to the parcel map and the MND, Mitigated Negative Declaration, is to, one, demonstrate that there's not a CEQA impact with respect to the merging of the parcels. We are also using this document in consideration of the ARB application and the CUP application. Through that process, there have been design changes to address not environmental impacts but operational considerations related to the proposed development that would help mitigate the queueing and ensure it's consistent with the City's right-of-way improvements on Arastradero. There are elements of this design that are still going through the approval process, that we're going to fine tune. Council Member DuBois: They have changed from the information we have? Mr. Lait: I don't know what the plans are that you may have on file. The diagram that's on the screen is more akin to what we're looking at in terms of an ingress/egress. The ingress as Staff is recommending to the ARB would be toward the top of the screen. You would turn in right there, come toward the bottom of the screen, and exit toward that lower driveway. The interest there is to address some queueing considerations and backup onto Arastradero and to sort of lengthen that drop-off area. Council Member DuBois: Thank you. That's very helpful. The last one. I don't know if this was analyzed as part of the traffic analysis. There was mention about people parking in the Terman parking lot. Was that analyzed at all? Mr. Eckols: That was brought to our attention after this analysis was actually done, if it was on a daily basis. We did look at the parking for the site on a normal operation. There is sufficient parking for this particular building. There's a discussion about special event parking. The school has arrangements with the church next door, that they use that parking. They also can use, in the evenings when the public school is out, some of that parking as well. Council Member DuBois: I too was surprised about the comments about public versus private schools. I'm going to stop there with questions. I think that is a discussion we should have tonight. Thanks. Ms. Ricks: Can I just add regarding the public school comment? When we heard about that comment, we worked with the vice president and the principal of the school to make sure that the school events were coordinated. They were very happy about that coordination. Council Member DuBois: Thanks. TRANSCRIPT    Page 53 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: Seeing no lights, let's come back to the Council for motions, comments. Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: I move the Staff recommendation. Council Member Kou: Second. Mayor Scharff: That's seconded by Council Member Kou. I was going to give it to you. Council Member Kou: Second. MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to: A. Adopt a final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and B. Approve a Record of Land Use Action for the Preliminary Parcel Map application, with exceptions, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval set forth in the Staff Report. Mayor Scharff: Would you like to speak to your … Council Member Filseth: Just briefly. I think it looks quite reasonable I don't see a compelling reason not to do this. We're going to want to see the CUP when it comes back, but at this point it looks fine. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou, would you like to speak to your second? Council Member Kou: Thank you. I also see this as quite reasonable. I know Bowman School has reached out to the community for some time now and have conducted meetings. I also spoke with neighbors who had reach out and basically said that this was a very good project. This is prior to me being on Council. I do know that there has been thought given to every part of this. Thank you so much. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I was having difficulty with the Mitigated Negative Dec. I was wondering, since one of the houses is 1910, what analysis was done of that. TRANSCRIPT    Page 54 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Ms. Hodgkins: There was a historic analysis completed for all three of the houses on the property. All were determined to be not historically significant. Council Member Holman: Because? Ms. Ricks: I think I can help you with that, Clare. I became an expert on the historical value of these houses. Both the National and the California historical requirements—there are three. None of the buildings met any of them other than the time period. The length that they were up—there was no architectural significance that had been maintained. It was not a primary residence property of significance. There was one more, but it didn't meet any of the three criteria for either the National or the State. Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. I think we still have an issue that the HRB doesn't see these, but that's a procedural thing that we don't have in place yet. I have one other question which … Ms. Ricks: The HRB did see the report. Ms. Hodgkins: The report is included as part of the environmental analysis. It was included as an attachment to the … No, the HRB has not seen it, no. Ms. Ricks: Just the Staff? Council Member Holman: I know they haven't. When I kept looking for Attachment H, it was "go to this site." The other thing that I had a question about was a statement made in the presentation tonight that wasn't made, wasn't given. It says one of the parcels includes two housing units exceeding the permitted density for the district. They're both very large lots, so I'm not remembering any reason that two houses on one of these lots of this size would be inconsistent with zoning. Mr. Lait: It's just a function of the number of units that we allow on an R-1 parcel is one as opposed to an R-2 area where we could add a second unit. You get one unit per lot, and there's two units on one lot. It's noncomplying for the number of units. Council Member Holman: Because of the size of the houses, you're saying. It wouldn't be considered a house and an ADU? Mr. Lait: As two primary dwelling units, which is what this is, that's a violation. If it were a home and an ADU, then that would be a complying condition. I don't know that we've—this came in before we started analyzing it with the ADU. If one of those homes, I guess, met the standard, 50 TRANSCRIPT    Page 55 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  percent less than the—I guess I would say it this way. We actually don't have any ADU standards on the books right now because of State law. In 30 days, when our ordinance becomes effective, is what we'd be evaluating that to. Otherwise, we're just looking at it to State law. Council Member Holman: My concern is that we're—we keep trying—last Consent Calendar, we were looking to try to create housing units, and here we're removing housing units. It seems ironic that we're looking at doing that, and yet it could be—it would seem to me it would make a reasonable accommodation to have three housing units for teachers for Bowman, it would seem to me. It seems a real irony to me. Mr. Lait: I think that's one of the policy questions that we've raised in our report for the Council to deliberate upon. I know in our Staff Report we also talked about what the PTC conversation was and their interest. Again, that's not the application that's before us of zoning. Council Member Holman: It does affect what's going to happen. What's before us does affect what would happen. Mr. Lait: Right. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka. Council Member Tanaka: I was wondering if Staff could respond to—we got a letter from Penny Ellson today. Could Staff just briefly comment on it? Mr. Lait: I'll start. If Clare feels there's more to add, she can chime in. The first part of her letter is the comment that we made a moment ago with Council Member Wolbach about the distinction between private school versus public schools and the reference in the Comprehensive Plan as to whether or not there is or is not an equality to siting a school in a neighborhood. We've raised in the Staff Report that there hasn't been any clear guidance in the Comp Plan. Ms. Ellson is making the argument that, based on certain policies in the Land Use Element, there is in fact a reference to public facilities like schools. The reference there being public schools. The first part of the letter has to do with that Comprehensive Plan conversation about schools. The second part of the letter relates to the CUP and an interest in some operational considerations that would apply to the school, which is not before the Council this evening. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: Generally, I think this is a good use of an odd- shaped lot kind of wedged next to the cemetery. I think we can make the TRANSCRIPT    Page 56 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  required findings of special circumstances; it's not detrimental to the public. I support the motion. I do find that my reading of the Comp Plan aligns with Penny Ellson's. In general what's being talked about are public facilities, and we see things like shared playing fields and the use of public schools as community areas. I don't know if we need to clarify that as part of this motion, especially since the land use isn't coming back to us. I personally, the way the Comp Plan is written, do not think that private schools and public schools are viewed equivalently. I see Council Member Wolbach nodding. I just want to make that comment. I'd like to see if there's interest from my colleagues maybe in clarifying that tonight. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: A couple of things that I'm concerned about with this application for the lot merger. One is I understand that the housing units that are there are not in excellent condition. As we've all known from the news, the condition of a home isn't what determines high price in Palo Alto; it's the cost of the dirt. If we do make a special exemption for this case, we should be very thoughtful. This is a very unusual circumstance. While we may allow for this in this case, that doesn't mean that we do this necessarily in the future. I'm very concerned any time we talk about removing housing units, even if it's only one or two and even if they're not in great shape. The use for educational purposes is a pretty good purpose, though. I will say that. Having said that, I will echo Council Member DuBois' concerns. I personally don't think that the special treatment of our public school system and that special role it plays in Palo Alto—I do not think it extends to the same level to private educational institutions in Palo Alto. That doesn't mean we don't value them. I do think there is a distinction. Tonight might not be the time to have a full discussion about that. That is my view. I'm open to other thoughts on that. My colleagues may disagree. I think that is something we ought to clarify in some way at some time. If it's Staff's view—I'll also defer to the Mayor procedurally on this one—that tonight is not the time to have that conversation, I'm happy to defer it to a future opportunity. I think it is something we ought to clear up. I'll probably end up supporting the Motion reluctantly for those reasons. Mayor Scharff: I just wanted to say that I also think it's a good use of the property for the reasons that were stated. I appreciate all the hard work of the applicant and the Staff on doing this. To your point, I do think it hasn't been noticed. I'm not quite sure how that would work, if we had a long discussion about that tonight. I don't think tonight's that. I think people have got the sense of the Council. I think especially Staff has got that. I think you've probably accomplished what you wanted to accomplish anyway. If we could vote on the board. TRANSCRIPT    Page 57 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Council Member Kou: (inaudible) question. Mayor Scharff: I missed it. You wanted to speak again, too? Go ahead. Council Member Kou: A fast question to the appropriate Staff member. How does the CUP process work? Mr. Lait: The CUP is reviewed by the Director. Staff is processing that application, and ultimately a decision will be made by the Director of the department. That decision could be appealed, and then a hearing would be held before the Planning and Transportation Commission, and then it would show up on the City Council's Consent Calendar. Council Member Kou: The public does get an opportunity to review that CUP that the Director approves? Mr. Lait: Yes. We only do a hearing if there's a … Ms. Hodgkins: It's only if requested. I will note that I have included conditions of approval for the conditional use permit and findings as part of the next ARB hearing. Because it's all part of the same application, I've just included it all in. Council Member Kou: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: Just briefly, I wanted to concur. I don't think it's a good time for us to take up the issue of private schools. Even the discussion on that issue could be a lot more complicated than even we think. People across the country wrestle with this. There's a huge variety of classes of private school. It's a big discussion. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. If we could vote on the board. That passes on a 9-0 vote, unanimous. Congratulations. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 10. Adoption of Formal Positions Supporting Four State Bills. Mayor Scharff: Now, we will—we have two items. We have the adoption of formal positions supporting four State bills. Do we have anyone who wants to speak on that issue? Vice Mayor Kniss: (inaudible) speak on much of anything. TRANSCRIPT    Page 58 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: I think I'm just going to go for it on this. Is there anyone who wants to speak on Item Number 11? James Keene, City Manager: I'd be surprised. They're pretty … Vice Mayor Kniss: (inaudible) wants to speak. Mayor Scharff: That might take a while. I think we're just going to finish this bill. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager: Only Staff (inaudible) say something. Mayor Scharff: I was wondering if we should. I wanted to see how many speakers there were. We only have one, and I think this will go fairly quickly. We're at Item Number 10. Mr. Keene: Did you want to go with that? Mr. Shikada: Sounds good. Heather's here. Mr. Keene: Heather. Mr. Shikada: We'll have Heather Dauler who, by her day job, works as a Senior Resource Planner—I think it is—with the Utilities Department but by night does legislation tracking and advocacy for the City. It being night, Heather, you're on. Heather Dauler, Senior Resource Planner: It is appropriate I'm here. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Heather Dauler, City Staff as Mr. Shikada noted. Just have briefly a few bill items before you, five to be exact. Four Staff is seeking support, and one is just informational only. I'll go through them briefly. Please feel free to pepper me with any questions as we go forth. I'd be happy to answer any as we go along. The first one before you, SB 22, is a bill by Mr. Hill. It does two things. First, it requires law enforcement, State and local, to develop a written procedure accounting for firearms that are owned, possessed by the agencies. Secondly, if those firearms happen to go missing, lost, or stolen, it requires the agencies to report them to AFIS, the State's automated firearms system. Because this is, we feel, a good bill and it would have minimal impacts upon our Police Department, as verified by the Interim Chief, we are asking for support for this particular bill of Mr. Hill's. Going forward with ACA 4. This is a potential constitutional amendment that, if passed, would lower the voter thresholds for General Obligation bonds from the supermajority to a majority. The revenue from these bonds would fund projects such as affordable housing and infrastructure. This bill would have to pass by a two- TRANSCRIPT    Page 59 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  thirds margin of both Houses. If passed, it would need to appear on a statewide ballot for voter ratification. Because this bill doesn't have any fiscal impacts itself and would help to fund some projects that your Council is supportive of, we're asking for support on this as well. The next two I'll take as a package, SB 5 and AB 18. Again with the ballots, this would put a measure specifically on the June 2018 ballot and raise about $3 billion each for General Obligation bonds to finance general environmental initiatives. The Senate bill has more of a water and ocean protection bent, the Assembly bill more of an open parks bent, but they're both environmental in nature. They both achieve some climate goals. The reason we brought both to your attention is that only one can pass. We understand and we believe that at some point they will merge. We don't know at this time which one will be the victor. We're asking for support for each. That way the one that ultimately does prevail will already have your support. Alternatively, you could direct Staff to wait and see as to which one will prevail. The potential risk there is that, if and when we determine which one is going to be the victor, we may not have a lot of time to get a support letter and to advocate for the bill. We're asking for support on both pending any direction by Council to just wait and see and hold off on that support. Lastly, we just bring to your attention SB 649. This has been dubbed by the media the "small cell bill." You may have seen a lot in the paper about it. It's a bill brought by companies such as Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T, who are desirous of helpfully impacting their mobile networks and their 5G reach. They want to go statewide to different cities and place small infrastructure antennae and boxes on top of what is called vertical infrastructure. You'll see a picture in your Staff Report because it's a little hard to describe. Essentially, the companies want to place antennas and these supporting boxes on all poles within cities. By all poles, I mean utility poles, lamp posts, street lights, collectively called vertical infrastructure as well as City property. These companies don't want to go to into each city and have to work through their specific permitting processes, so they've gone the State route and have asked for a streamlined State system. Originally, this bill would have significantly curtailed local government's ability to permit these small cells. Originally, this bill was quite—as you can imagine, it was daunting. We were going to seek an opposed position. However, just last week it was substantially amended. It allows cities to have a little bit more leeway and say over their own infrastructure. Because this bill was just amended, Staff is still analyzing it. We're still reaching out to stakeholders and our colleagues such as the League of Cities to find out what they think about the amendments. Today, we just bring it to your attention, to make you aware of the bill, and to let you know that we are watching this very carefully. I personally do believe that this bill will be amended again. We're going to continue to watch it, and we're working closely with our State Representative on this bill. Any questions? TRANSCRIPT    Page 60 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: Are there any questions from Council? Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I was curious about a bill that I didn't see here. We don't necessarily need to talk about it much tonight, but hopefully we'll have an opportunity in the future, which is SB 21, which is another Hill bill, which there's been a lot of discussion about, which would complement something we've been working on for a year and a half in the City, which is to have some surveillance technology ordinance and rules in place. I was curious if we were expecting to see that one come before us for discussion. Ms. Dauler: We certainly can if you would like. That is a bill that we're tracking. As you mentioned, we understand that City Staff are working on perhaps a more expansive surveillance ordinance. Right now, we're just watching to see how each takes shape. If it's one you'd like a Staff presentation on, we can certainly come back on that one. Council Member Wolbach: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I support Council supporting these bills. I actually had a question on SB 649. Is there ability to charge fees or rent for use of the public right-of-way? Ms. Dauler: There is the ability to charge permitting fees, and that is capped. That's one of the things Staff is analyzing right now, the potential budget impacts. Council Member DuBois: When we looked at fiber, there was potentially a significant make-ready cost because supposedly many of our poles are in poor condition or fully loaded. Maybe you just answered it, that it's capped. If adding this plus the wiring maxed out a pole and it needed to be replaced, would the telecommunications company have to pay for the pole? Ms. Dauler: That's one of the things we're looking at. You also bring up a separate point, which is does this bill allow localities to determine which poles can bear the weight of this equipment. In its prior iteration, the bill would have just allowed a ministerial permitting process without consideration of the poles themselves. Now that it's been amended, that's one of the things that we're analyzing. Council Member DuBois: Last question, I guess. Since a lot of our poles are in people's backyards, is there any consideration that it's not really in the public street? It's actually in somebody's backyard. TRANSCRIPT    Page 61 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Ms. Dauler: There is consideration of public right-of-way versus not in the public right-of-way. However, there is still some restrictions that the City cannot place on these different infrastructures. That is definitely a consideration. Council Member DuBois: I'd be very interested in seeing how this evolves. Ms. Dauler: Evolves is the right word. It's been amended a few times; it's gotten a lot of media press. We understand through our Sacramento State representative, our lobbyist, that it's not well favored. The bill actually did not pass its first policy committee, but it was given reconsideration. That perhaps is indicative of how some of the author's peers feel about the bill. It will be heard again next week in appropriations, the first fiscal committee, so we'll get a better sense of it then. Council Member DuBois: Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Also on 649, I have a few questions. It's about small cells. What do they look like? What are their size, dimensions, determine safety requirements? Do cities have any design purview, some things the City can determine? We went through this a few years ago. The City could determine what the look is. As happens with all of these things, what if we decide to underground? On the back of this, there are some images. I don't know if those are supposed to be images that demonstrate what the small cells look like. I look at the image furthest to the right, and I'm like, "Oh, my goodness." What are these images and answers to the prior questions? Ms. Dauler: If you look at the images, the antenna portion on top of the pole is … Council Member Holman: On the far left image? Ms. Dauler: Right, to the far left. As well as you see that there's a rectangular box below, that's the small cell. That's what a small cell does look like. The next image, it's more of a streamlined design, and there's kind of a cap on top of that pole. That's what another one looks like. To your point, they vary in size and shape. That's something that the bill doesn't contemplate cities being able to control, which is one of the concerns that we have. Currently as it's been amended, we can provide a building permit or an encroachment, which is better. In a prior iteration, we couldn't even do that. There is an exemption for historic areas and neighborhoods, which before there was not. This has some serious concerns still, which is TRANSCRIPT    Page 62 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  one of the reasons why we feel it's going to be amended, and we're going to continue closely tracking it. Council Member Holman: What's the image on the furthest right? What does that demonstrate? Ms. Dauler: I have a black and white copy, so I'll have to … Council Member Holman: I do too. Ms. Dauler: I'm sorry. I thought it was in color. Council Member Holman: Generally, there's a lot of junk at the bottom of that pole (crosstalk) several feet. Ms. Dauler: At the top part? Council Member Holman: I'm talk about at the ground level (crosstalk) several feet. Mr. Keene: I think that's other stuff unrelated to this. Ms. Dauler: That's correct. Mr. Keene: That's preexisting junk that was on the pole before the small cell antenna was attached. Council Member Holman: It's just there to alarm us and make us think that the other stuff is really so good. Ms. Dauler: Or to indicate what can be added. More junk gets added to the poles. Mr. Keene: A very bungled attempt at camouflage. Council Member Holman: That's pretty scary. Answers to the other questions, safety requirements. What kind of safety threshold do these have to go through, the standards they have to meet? Ms. Dauler: Offhand, I don't think that the bill speaks to safety requirements or who determines that. I can do a quick word search. They have to adhere to local health and safety requirements, but that's currently existing. I don't know that this bill contemplates this technology as it intersects with current law. TRANSCRIPT    Page 63 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Council Member Holman: Locally, we don't have any requirements or any thresholds because it's controlled outside of the City. That's sort of circuitous thinking, not on your part but on the part of … Ms. Dauler: Correct. Part of the other problems that some folks in the American Planning Association have is that the bill contradicts itself in some places. Another reason why it's going to be amended. Council Member Holman: Those are all helpful. I support the questions that Council Member DuBois had earlier too. I thought they were quite informed. Mayor Scharff: Seeing no further questions, anyone want to make a motion? Vice Mayor Kniss: I'll move it. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I'll move the Staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Kniss: Second. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Formally support SB 22 (Hill), ACA 4 (Aguiar-Curry), SB 5 (De Leon), and AB 18 (Eduardo Garcia); and B. Direct Staff and the City’s lobbyists to advocate for these bills, including submitting letters to legislators, participating in stakeholder meetings, meeting with legislative staff, and testifying before committees. Mayor Scharff: Want to speak to your Motion? Council Member Wolbach: I just wanted to thank Staff for the good work on this and staying vigilant and working with our advocates to identify bills of importance to the City. Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: I'll say quickly because both Cory and I are involved with the committee that supports the League of California Cities. I just would say something nice about you, Cory. You have driven that particular group to support legislation, which has been a good discussion at our meetings. Some of these we have discussed, of course, at that particular meeting. TRANSCRIPT    Page 64 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Just wanted to say good job. You've been working on our behalf outside of the group as well as inside. Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board. That passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 11. Discussion and Approval to Defer to a Future Date the Consideration of the Formation of a Stakeholder Committee to Address Potential Local Business Tax for Transportation. Mayor Scharff: Now, for Item Number 11. James Keene, City Manager: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. I think that the Staff Report is pretty self-explanatory. We're here in response to an earlier decision that the Council made back in the fall of 2016 that identified transportation and funding issues and proposed a community engagement process that we think, as we have looked at this subsequently, is really untenable in this timeframe and our ability to support it given other work that we have. We recommend that you just at a minimum reconsider the need and purpose and specific tasks associated with the committee at a future date. I would say that nothing, I'm sure, has changed about the Council's interest in how we improve our traffic situation, how we reduce SOV trips, and how we look at how we would fund TDM measures through our own TMA or other means. I do think that the original direction was both in need of some clarity and also the fact that I just do not think we can adequately support it given the other work that we have right now. Perhaps there's a need to just step back, catch our breath, and engage in a subsequent discussion with Council where we get clearer on the objective so we design the approach best suited to that. We're here to answer questions. Mayor Scharff: We have a couple of speakers from the public, Judy Kleinberg to be followed by Adina Levin. You'll each have 3 minutes. Vice Mayor Kniss: Judy's back is killing her. Judy Kleinberg: Good evening, again, Council. It's killing me. First of all, I want to thank Jim Keene for this very well written letter. For me, the Chamber did apply to be on the committee because we have an interest in all kinds of examinations and analyses of how to fund all these incredible infrastructure projects and alternatives to traffic congestion and parking congestion. I want to say that this list that you see in his memo to you raises so many opportunities. I think it's very important that you give the Staff the time and the opportunity to really work through these various options because they're all worthy of really careful analysis and TRANSCRIPT    Page 65 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  implementation. When we were still talking with all of you and the transportation finance subcommittee about the possibility of a business tax, we came to every one of those meetings and said, "Please don't do a general tax." The Chamber and the business community will support funding of transportation improvements and transportation infrastructure if you let us do it in a way that is really targeted. That would mean a special tax. If you're not doing a special tax, the business community will work very hard to help make these things happen. We're already working with the TMA, trying to help the TMA happen. There are voluntary payments. The Chamber is involved; we're working with all of the stakeholders on virtually every one of these alternatives to a tax that the Staff is working on. Let the business community voluntarily step up and work and help and, in many cases, provide the funding, whether it's internal, private funding through their own TDM programs or it's a contribution to the TMA or subsidizing permits or helping with the garage assessment districts. Whatever it is, let the business community voluntarily help the way they always have. I'm here to tell you that we're delighted to participate in a collaborative way. We've said it before; I'm here to re-emphasize it. We're here to help make these things happen. We agree with your City Manager that deferring any talk of a tax or working on a tax is a distraction of their talent and their time as well as the business community's and all of the stakeholder groups from working on these very innovative infrastructure and alternative transportation projects. Thank you very much. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Adina Levin. Adina Levin: Good evening, Council Members and Staff. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain. We don't have any specific preferences in terms of how to pay for the transportation demand management programs that the City Council has guided to help get people out of cars and save traffic and conserve parking demand, but we have a very strong opinion that this is something that the City has taken a leadership position in and now has a really important opportunity to move the ball down the road. With the Downtown TMA, it's gotten started and organized. With its slim budget, it is now running successful pilot programs with 100 commuters who have transit passes helping them get out of the car. In order to scale that up, it's going to need funding to take that next step. We would really urge you to—maybe the next step is part of the budget process. Maybe the next step is connected to parking. Without an opinion about exactly what that next step should be, urge you to take that next step and make those next steps clear to community members to participate and help move this forward so we can fund these valuable programs, get people out of cars, clean the air, save the parking, and also move this type of valuable program from the Downtown, where there's a good proof of concept to make it successful, into other areas TRANSCRIPT    Page 66 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  such as Cal. Ave. and other parts of the City, where there are also opportunities. Urge you to take next steps to move this forward and explain what those are so people can participate. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Former Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto. Yoriko Kishimoto: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council Members. First of all, I wanted to thank the board and Staff for all the hard work and innovation that has gone into all the transportation programs that Palo Alto has led on in the last years. Since I've been on the Council, I've been delighted to see some of the progress. I just wanted to say that actions and dollars do speak louder than words. I know Palo Alto's been talking a lot about TDM and TMAs and all these good things. RPP, we've made good progress. The dollars have to accompany them. I know we're talking about spending $50 million on the parking garages. I don't see an equivalent $50 million for reducing traffic and parking. I hope during the budget process that you do direct Staff to really put your dollars and your action where your words are. Thank you very much. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we'll return to Council for questions and comments. Does anyone have any questions or comments they want answered? Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: I'm going to direct these toward you, Jim. We've talked about this for quite some time. When we first looked at this, as I recall, Measure B had not been fully discussed, but we were getting to the point where we were deciding what we would support. At that point, we supported Measure B, which was pretty successful. I hope we'll see some of the results from that as well. We did a retreat this year. We retreated for 10 hours. What I remember that you said last year, although, we didn't go over it in depth this year—last year did you have something like between 80 and 90 projects that you had on the grid? Am I off with the number? Mr. Keene: Just associated with the Council Priorities. Vice Mayor Kniss: When I look at the report that you put here tonight, I'm looking at 10-15 initiatives that we have underway right now. Since we're going to have a discussion about this, I'm concerned that we are going to be over-reaching at this point if we attempt to put a committee of any type together now. Maybe in the future, but at this point it looks to me as though the Staff has taken on just about what they can take on. Do you want to just comment briefly on that? Mr. Keene: I think your point is accurate. Just speaking for the Staff, I don't think we feel or would conclude that a tax would be a bad idea. The TRANSCRIPT    Page 67 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  process that you've directed so far to get to that point is potentially inefficient and takes a lot of time and effort to define what we want through an engagement process that will take away from some of these other committed projects that we have. Let's be honest. We put a little traffic circle in on Cowper, and we've got a public engagement process with surveys. Almost everything we're doing on traffic-related stuff … Mayor Scharff: I heard we were going to remove that. I heard that from Jonathan. It's still there. Mr. Keene: I do believe that's what we—don't quote me on it. I've seen that we were heading in that direction for sure. I'm just saying that these are very labor intense. Even earlier tonight, you heard perspectives about how fast versus how slow we're kind of going on something. I think there is more definition that is required by the Council of what you want to achieve before we design an engagement process with the community. That's what is really needed to make sure we do that correctly and how do we understand all these different streams of efforts that we have and how they relate to what we might want to achieve through a funding measure. We did this a little bit backwards. We said, "We need some funding," and then "Let's design a process to get clearer about what it is." You identified a very specific group of stakeholders that really could end up being not the right group of stakeholders that we should have. We need to have a little bit of a timeout and be able to come back and have a more in-depth discussion with the Council. Clearly, there are other TDM and TMA investments that we have got to do, that are not fully developed on our current list. Vice Mayor Kniss: I think when we get to a point where we're ready for a motion, I'll be glad to make one. In the meantime, I think there are two things we have to concentrate on when we're in government. One is timing, and the other is process. If we don't do sufficient process, we'll hear just what we did tonight. There's a number of people who felt one item didn't get sufficient process even though, as one of the people in the audience said, it's been 30 years that it's been in the process. It depends on how you look at it. I think the timing for this—even though it may be in the future, we look at some kind of local tax for transportation. Deferring this at this point is what would make sense. I will not make a motion as yet, but I'll head in that direction after others speak. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I'm actually just going to do questions. We're going to come back for comments. Mayor Scharff: You can do comments too. TRANSCRIPT    Page 68 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Vice Mayor Kniss: That's what I did. Mayor Scharff: Exactly. Council Member DuBois: We've had multiple transportation projects come to us recently. Council's commented that a lot of the financials with those were not really fleshed out. We had the shuttle expansion, which we deferred. We had the bike share program, parking Downtown, TMA. The concern in the Staff Report seems to be it's the same Staff that works on implementing these projects that works on the funding plan. I just had a question. Is that true? Who on City Staff develops the financial plans for projects? Mr. Keene: You guys have heard me on the Route 66 thing before. It's Route 66 plus about 10 or 15 people now maybe. Our team of Staff who work on all of the projects is well under 100. There's hardly anything, even if we've got Transportation as the lead, that doesn't have someone from the Attorney's Office, folks from OMB and Finance, City Manager's Office involved. I would be misrepresenting things if this was just a matter of the Transportation Staff and could we bifurcate this in some way and have the financial people working on it. It's a team of folks who have got to deal with this. Council Member DuBois: I read this report, and I'm really struggling because you list all the projects. That's exactly the reason I think we need the funding. It makes no sense to me to work on the projects without the funding. I'm worried we're going to constrain ourselves. You're talking that we have committed projects. How can we know how we're going to do these projects without knowing how we're going to fund them? Can you explain that discrepancy to me? Mr. Keene: Another way to ask this is, if this is so clear to the Council, why don't we just make a funding strategy recommendation rather than creating a community process that says we did a general tax on businesses as well as other potential funding sources. That's not necessarily the shortest distance to identifying the funding sources, could use to fund transportation programs and projects but also has to explore transportation needs. That potentially goes beyond even this area. I think the intention was really good at the time, but I don't think the direction was focused even as sharply as you're talking right now. One reason for the process is to build community support even maybe politically as a prelude to putting a ballot measure on. I think we should figure out how to get clear about what we want to achieve rather than putting a bunch of folks, some of whom probably know very little about this, but they're representative stakeholders—I totally agree with you that just this list of projects in and of themselves does not get us to significantly TRANSCRIPT    Page 69 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  reducing our vehicle trips, for example. How do we meet that goal, and how do we have the conversation with the Council that gets very clear, publicly and then to us, about how we also support these and then add that initiative in a thoughtful way? I think that should be done with the Council or some subset of the Council before we do an engagement process with the community. It takes a lot of work to support and staff these community processes. Council Member DuBois: Maybe we should talk tonight about two things: timing and process. If the concern is managing a community group, maybe we should consider alternatives. I did ask the City Clerk to pass out the Minutes from the meeting in October so all Council Members could see that. I think we talked about it in June, and then it came back in October, and it was substantially the same. It passed on an 8-0 vote in October. We had a lot of discussion. When you read the Minutes, I think the motion itself was pretty messy. There were a lot of amendments and things. The intent was really to model it on the Blue Ribbon Infrastructure Committee. There was a lot of discussion about that. I think we all agreed that community outreach was needed, and it was going to take time as Vice Mayor Kniss said. I'm concerned the longer we delay it, the longer we're delaying funding these projects that we've set our Priority for multiple years. Both the Mayor and the Vice Mayor at the time agreed to this. Again, I understand the staffing concern. I don't understand how we're going to fund what we want to fund. I think it's clear that we don't have enough money even with Measure B to fund grade separations, to fund the TMA, to fund the shuttle. It's interesting. I think we have a pretty good list of projects; they're listed here in the Staff Report. It's not just about SOV reduction. There are things like grade separations and connecting east-west. It's interesting to read in Consent Item 8 tonight that no suburban city has reduced SOV by even 5 percent. I'm hesitant to have a goal that's arbitrary. I do think just funding our priority projects around transportation is a sufficient goal. I agree that timing is critical. If we delay this too long, we're going to miss the election next year, so we'll be talking 2020 at the earliest, which is going to really impact our projects. I'm not going to make a motion, but I would urge us to consider a couple of options. One would be to delay this for a couple of months and consider forming a CAC in the fall. Another one would be to refer this to the PTC and have them start to work on it immediately. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Thank you. A couple have mentioned that we do have a number of projects in the pipeline. It is important to support them in terms of timing and funding. At a high level, though, I see this as a little bit TRANSCRIPT    Page 70 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  of a solution in search of a problem, which we haven't identified. I'm actually left thinking a lot about our grade separations issue and how we're going through a context sensitive solution process to really begin scoping the stakeholders, the problem, our partners, and put forth what some of those solutions may be. We're not coming at it from an arrived solution of we need a bond measure or we need a tax increment on the land value. I think we should approach this issue the same way. Council Member DuBois, I like how you bring up IBRC. I actually think that's probably a helpful corollary for this process. Given Staff's restrictions and limitations, I don't think now is the right time for this. Former Mayor Kishimoto brought up a few good comparables including $70 million in parking garages, a few million dollars in new RPPs. I really do hope we fund the TMA substantially in places for the time being, at least to kick start it. One question to Staff and then I'll be done. City Manager, you mentioned the cost of engagement and outreach. You mentioned the one little circle on Cowper. Just at a higher level, do we have measures to determine when our stakeholder outreach and our civic engagement processes are more valuable or which ones cost us the most in terms of project load? Mr. Keene: I don't think we are routinely tracking that and capturing it. I think there have been some times we've gone back and done a postmortem analysis. I can tell you that—I think, Council Member Tanaka, you were on the IBRC. You can help correct me a little bit on this. That was about an 18-month process. I think there were 30-plus meetings of the IBRC. There were subcommittees. We had about five Staff people supporting that. That was done at the height of the recession when we didn't have anything else going on comparable to this. I think it was a problem that had a clearer definition. There was already some specific, quantified deficits that were known and out there. They could start chewing through this in a way. If ultimately what we're going to get at here is what are a few transportation projects we really want to make sure we do and how we fund them, maybe that is like a mini IBRC. One of them you can look at right now is how are we going to fund the grade separation. We're working on that at a Rail Committee. Probably the biggest transportation issue we have right now is Caltrain and grade separation. We're going to be having to spend a lot of time doing precisely that. Council Member Fine: I guess that just speaks again to the cost to the City in terms of doing this process. It's a little heretical to say it, but that civic engagement process is a cost to us. It's a cost to us doing business, and it's a cost in terms of our velocity to actually execute on these transportation initiatives we've highlighted. That's all my comments and questions for now. Thank you. TRANSCRIPT    Page 71 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: When is the target—are you still targeting 2018 for the ballot or is that no longer … Mr. Keene: I think that's an open question. Whatever the Council decides to do, further discussion upon where we're going would be one of the things you would be talking about. I'm not saying that these are accurate. We tried to identify the fact that you may have other questions about going to the ballot, whether it's 2018 or not. I did identify the potential gap we have in grade sep despite Measure B funds, the fact that we do really want to do something on Cubberley. That's going to be a very significant expense. We even have the need to be able to go to the voters potentially on some of our other issues in the City as it relates to use of Enterprise Funds in relation to the General Fund and get some clarity there. I think there's a bigger, strategic conversation that Council wants to have about 2018 also before you would just settle that this is what needs to go. That's why I think there's some more due process at the Council level before we launch an engagement. I hate to say it, but it's very Yogi Berra like. If you don't know here you're going, you just might end up there. That's what we need to get clear. Council Member Kou: When you say funding sources, other funding sources, can you give me an idea what that means? Mr. Keene: I think the intent on this motion in the first place was to say we need to look at expanding our tax base and abilities to tax, say in this case, businesses to some extent in order to raise funding. Council Member Kou: It's taxes. Mr. Keene: Yes. That was the impetus on this. It's hard for me to see that we can achieve all the things on our agenda without supplementing our existing revenue streams in some way. That's not something that's going to be done through growth of our existing tax base just on its own. I think there's going to be some sort of measures we're going to have to pursue at some point. For what, what's the right time, what's the right priority? I think you want to think about those. Council Member Kou: At this point, the initiatives that you have listed, how are they being funded? Mr. Keene: They're all over the map. We've got some $20-plus million in Bike and Pedestrian Plan improvements in the next couple of Council agendas. We'll bring you contract awards for big components of that. The TRANSCRIPT    Page 72 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  parking garage design work. The Rail Committee support for Caltrain electrification and all that, we're supporting that process itself, the emergence of that process right now. The answers to what to do about that are not necessarily clear. The Downtown parking management study, I have a bias. I think that's ultimately an area that could yield a significant new revenue stream, but that means working through other policy issues about paid parking, how extensive, who pays for it. That's going to take some time for you to work through. The VTA funding, we certainly have a share of that, and we want to work on that and get clear. The shuttle, big challenges there. We're going to have some more in-depth discussions with the Council about what to do on the shuttle. I still think we're a ways away from what's the best approach to take on that and how we're going to pay for it. I think there's a lot of unknowns just in these. Council Member Kou: I'm just not hearing where the business community starts to fit into participating and contributing towards our parking and traffic issues. I know it's a voluntary thing, but at some point they need to start being a part of it unless I'm not understanding and not knowing that they are contributing already. Mr. Keene: I think we're all really—the Staff is very clear that there's no way that our TMA Downtown and to the extent that we may need to do things on Cal. Avenue ultimately, etc., we're not positioned for that to have sufficient funding to accomplish what needs to be done. There are going to have to be funding streams to make that happen. Council Member Kou: I think I'm good for now. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: Thanks. I'm going to pick up right where the City Manager just left off. If we're not ready to do something, we're not ready to do something. That said, traffic has been a huge issue in town, particularly related to growth. The issue in particular of TMA and traffic management, we have committed to residents that we're going to deploy transportation innovation and management to reduce commuter SOV traffic by 30 percent. That's sort of the answer to all the questions we have about this and parking and growth and so forth. That's sort of our answer; we're going to deploy transportation innovation and management to do that. I don't think we can leave this open ended. The other thing we committed was that the cost of doing that won't be borne by residents. I don't think we can leave this open ended. I think people want confidence that we're going to keep that commitment and what timeframe we're going to do it in. If it just goes into limbo, then the default is going to end up being it comes out of the General TRANSCRIPT    Page 73 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Fund. We promised people that wasn't going to happen. When it comes time to do this, we've got a lot of initiatives in particular. Deploying transportation innovation and management to reduce commuter SOV traffic by 30 percent, we need a timeframe for when we're going to have a plan for that. It could be Staff; it could be the PTC. It's important we set a timeframe; we don't leave it open ended at least for that piece. Grade separation and other stuff may be a longer conversation. That one I think we need to do. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Thank you. I agree with much of what the last few speakers have said. When I look at the list of projects that's in the Staff Report—thank you for the list. Anybody else hear that? I see a number of projects here, and I see most of them being funded by the General Fund. There's certainly some potential for Measure B funding. There's some potential for the VTA to kick in to help our shuttle. That's all funded, as I can tell it, pretty much by the General Fund, and we just can't continue to do that. Yet, we have a promise to reduce our SOV trips. How do we get there? One thing we could do is prioritize. This is a list that Council has commented on in one fashion or another. The paid parking recommendations and design, when that came to Council, it was pretty significant. It was multiple million dollars. I think it was $2 million or more that the consultant was saying it was going to cost, and that would come out of the General Fund. They couldn't identify what the payback period was. For instance, bike share, I appreciate the effort, but it hasn't proven to be successful to any extent at all. I don't need to list these point by point. I think we could go through some prioritization here. I think we ought to have—when this comes back, which I hope will not be in the distant future, it would be great to have a very helpful and informative, if not necessary, list of these projects, what the funding source is, what the timeline is, what the payback is, and then look at the Staff and the Council identifying what the potential projects are that would be studied by a stakeholder group. We can start with that. A stakeholder group is going to come up with possibly— I would hope—some other projects that we could look at, that the business license tax would fund, and prioritize those. Not even on this list that the General Fund is funding is currently the TMA, RPPs. It's too big a bite to take. The City General Fund cannot take on all of this. We all need to pitch in. We all need to pitch in. We're all members of this community whether we're residents or property owners or business owners. We all are going to have to pitch in. The only way for that to happen, unless Staff has another idea, is for us to look at doing something like a business license tax. Excuse me, a business transportation tax. We ought to look at this coming maybe right after the Council break with some of the information that some of us TRANSCRIPT    Page 74 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  have identified and an opportunity to prioritize some of the projects and to get clearer on at least a starting program of what the projects would be that would be funded by such a tax with the working group having the opportunity to add to, refine, prioritize that list. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I actually am drawn to something Council Member DuBois mentioned earlier, which is tying this back to our joint Study Session with the PTC earlier. The idea of sending this to the PTC kind of makes sense to me. I'm thinking about that. I think that's really worth consideration tonight. We started talking early last year—Brown Act compliant, a couple of us were talking outside of Council, and then we brought to Council this idea of having some additional funding measure, potentially a business license tax but not exclusively that. We created a Council committee last year to explore transportation funding mechanisms such as potentially a business license tax but not only that. That committee very quickly focused only on a business license tax. Even though I was one of the very early supporters, I was more reluctant when it came back to Council because I felt the Council committee had focused too exclusively on one solution, on one single source. Even though that was and may still remain my preference of a major additional funding source, it's important we have a process by which we explore various alternatives so that we can defend that choice. Council Member Filseth, I agree that we have a commitment and we have a need to reduce SOV trips massively. I'm trying to remember when we promised that the community wouldn't bear that cost. That's certainly my preference, but in our conversations about this we've talked about other things like maybe we end up going with a parcel tax, maybe we go with something else, maybe we have a local sales tax. There are these other options that I do think we need to explore, even though my personal preference has been throughout a business license tax. I don't feel like we've done the work to eliminate those other options. That's on the source side. On the destination side, you look at this list and Jim's short report to us, and you add TMA to that and probably move TMA to the top of the list of fund requirements. The needs are huge. The needs are overwhelming. We haven't fully articulated them. If we did end up going with a business license tax, just to address the City Manager's concerns about what we are actually thinking, what I'm thinking is if we ended up going with a business license tax, I would want to see it graduated with the first several employees of any business being totally exempt. I would also want to see some kind of exemption or tax credit for participating in the TMA or SRP Go or your own TDM measures. I would see this as either you participate in one of the existing systems or you do something to take care of your own SOV trips or you could pay a tax, if we did a business license TRANSCRIPT    Page 75 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  tax. Again, these are just my biases at this point. I do think we need to have an informed discussion about this. After trying a Council committee, then we said let's create a citizens' committee. Staff's now saying we haven't actually moved forward with that, and it would take a tremendous amount of Staff time to do that. We heard from the PTC earlier today; they are chomping at the bit to have more work. Maybe that's the solution; maybe that's the process. To answer this process question, maybe it goes to PTC to—I understand it would be supported by Staff. I'm sensitive to how much Staff work there is. I'm not weighing in yet on the timing question. As far as where this goes next, maybe going to the PTC as the next step does make sense to help us figure out the source side of the equation and the destination side of the equation. I actually think for PTC their focus really needs to be on the destination side maybe more than anything. On the source side, maybe that gets split off and goes somewhere else, maybe Finance Committee, maybe Policy and Services. I don't have a clear mind made up, but I'm interested in hearing the Vice Mayor's motion when she makes it. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka. Council Member Tanaka: I actually agree with Former Mayor Kishimoto in terms of there are a lot of things that we definitely need to get funded. I also agree with Former Mayor Kleinberg. If we want to actually solve this problem, business has to be part of the solution. We need to get their buy- in. If we just do a business license tax and there's not really a buy-in, I don't know how successful the programs will be. I can understand why Staff has recommended that we do this later. I did look at the Minutes and read the Staff Report. There's still a lot of open questions, and I could see that we would go around in circles without more definition. The Staff's recommendation is actually the correct one. That's what we should probably do. It's important for us to do a few things really well versus trying to do a lot of things not so well. Just in the spirit of throwing out ideas here, the TMA is one group that definitely needs to get more funding. It's difficult right now. We're on the Finance Committee, and we're trying to go through the budget. It's very clear to me what the issues are right now in terms of budget reasons. One thing we could think about—maybe there's something which I'm open to throwing this to the PTC or some other committee. For the TMA, perhaps one thing we could think about is naming rights. If the TMA wants to do a program to create car shares or do more car shares, maybe if a company wants to sponsor it, maybe they'll do that because they want a piece of branding and the recognition for being a good citizen in Palo Alto. Maybe that's one way to help fund this program. It'll get buy-in versus trying to force something on the business community. I largely agree with the Staff Report, but I am open to exploring other ideas. TRANSCRIPT    Page 76 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: I guess I want to speak a little bit to this. I think we're looking at it wrong. When we started this process, we started with the notion of let's have a tax, and then let's see what we'll fund. It was a solution in search of the problem. That's why this has been confusing, and that's what the editorial that was written by The Weekly last year when this came up. What we really need to do is figure out what the problem is that we're trying to solve. The problem in my view is how do we reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and how do we fund things associated with that. To me, that's the primary issue. It's easy to get distracted and to say there are other issues. There may be other things we want to fund, but that was the primary reason while we talked about this. It's a real mistake frankly to conflate that with grade separations. The dollar amounts in grade separations will make any sort of a tax never be able to raise any money, and we won't get anything done. As we go through a grade separation process and context sensitive solutions, which is pretty much what we've decided to do, that's going to be a long process. That's going to take us beyond 2018 frankly. At some point, we may decide that we need to raise some additional funding because we need a 10 percent or a 5 percent matching grant and, therefore, you can get 95 percent. We need to figure that out, but we're not even close to understanding that yet. What I'd like to see us do is figure out what the problem is before we decide how we're going to pay for it. We have a bunch of these other items on here. I'm not sure all of them, but most of them are in the CIP and how we're funding them. There may be stuff we still need to fund, but I know we have numerous Bike and Pedestrian Plan improvements funded. I know we're funding our RPP. I know we're funding the Comp Plan support. We're doing an engagement with the VTA on Measure B funding. The point is I don't think this is a list that's completely unfunded, but we do need to identify how much money we need and what we need those items for. That's what I think we need to task Staff to do, to come back with us. I'm a little concerned with going to the PTC, which is the right thing to do at some point. What I want Staff to do is to go out and define the problem, tell us what we need, what we need for the funding, have some sort of sense of money. I think it's Staff first, then you come to Council. We give general direction. Then, I'm find with going to the PTC. I actually do think if we want to do nothing on this, we should form the stakeholder committee. I don't say that mockingly. That becomes a 2-year process without any direction. We as Council have to define it narrowly and clearly before we do that. I also think I want to address just briefly what businesses pay. I don't think this is business not paying their fair share. I'm going to say the way we funded the Infrastructure Plan was by raising the hotel tax. We said that money is going to infrastructure. Now, you can argue that not all the hotel tax is paid by business, but a lot of it is. It's definitely paid by hotels, and they're a business. Who uses it, who actually pays it, most of it's business TRANSCRIPT    Page 77 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  travelers. Maybe there is some leisure travel; it's not paid by the citizens of Palo Alto for the most part. One of the things that struck me really interestingly is there's as much sales tax created by the Stanford Research Park as there is by all of our Downtown. That is clearly paid by business. I don't think anyone could argue anything differently on that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do a business license tax, that we shouldn't move forward on that. I don't think we should start with the point that that's what we need to do. We should start where the point was what do we need to fund, what is the obligation. Now, we have a shortfall of money; how do we fund that shortfall and how do we get there? If there are other projects we want to do, how would we fund them? That might be a business license tax, but it might not be. That's how I think of this in a large framework. The first thing is to direct Staff to come back and say, "This is what we need. This is the problem." I'd be looking for that somewhere after the break frankly, when Staff's ready, before the end of the year, assuming Staff has the bandwidth. I was going to ask the City Manager if that's something in which we'd have the bandwidth. Mr. Keene: As it relates to the initiatives we already have underway, which are part of a TDM strategy, if we can get a more effective shuttle, if we can have funding for the TMA, the Staff just let me know that there is the potential that there is some Measure B funding for both the shuttle and potentially for the TMA in the short term, that we would know by the fall. We ought to know what's available first, and then we start to fill in the gaps about what needs to be done. If we don't do that, when we start pushing and telling folks we're going to have a tax, they're going to say what about this, did you get that. it'll be better if we go get that information. We're just going to look unclear, unfocused. I think in the fall we'd be in a better position. I also agree with what the Mayor is saying. This is the Staff doing some necessary work, and the Council then giving the direction. Really, this is less ultimately a technical question than it is a communications, a political, a public relations thing to see how do we get the community onboard, saying that's the right solution to clearly a problem that everybody knows is a problem. You're the only ones who can really say—that's sort of what you did with this originally. We'd be in a position, I think, this fall to be able—we may want to get some more specific direction from one of the committees in the meantime, say, here's what we're looking at doing, whether it's at Rail or at P&S or Finance or something like that. We could use a little guidance from the Council along the way, make sure we're bringing back the data on the important components to start to flesh this thing out. Again, there's already stuff we've put on the table. Karen, I actually thought that the— Council Member Holman, the consultant study on paid parking actually identified potential revenue streams that could be quite significant. I'm not saying we should do this, but the potential to be able to advance money to TRANSCRIPT    Page 78 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  the TMA and repay it with parking funds is a legitimate, within-reach strategy. One, the Council has to ultimately say, "We want to go down that route." For you to go down that route, there is going to have to be some due process with the Council and the community in some way. In truth, you don't really need a stakeholder group in my view to push all that through. You have to have a way where you are pointedly engaging with the community at the right places and through the right approaches to get the feedback on what to do. There's a lot of arrows in our quiver. I just think we need to get organized about them and clear with the Council. Then, you really can begin to identify the gap, so it's not just let's get the funding source. Here's the deficit that we want to try to close, and here's the means that we want to do it, and then how do we get the people who may have to pay for that onboard with that. That's really what you're talking about. A lot of this is just the same old campaign kind of issue. How do get people onboard with them saying, "You're really right. The problem's clear. The solution's the right solution. I can get onboard with it." That's the sequence we should go through. I think we could be way better in the fall than if we were to start something up with a stakeholder group right now. I do agree with the Mayor. It takes a lot. People will be sending us off, get us this, would you look at that, we're going to do this. I could almost say the Council already knows what it wants to do about that; why do we have to go through this process at least now? Down the road, you may say, "We do want to generate some engagement process." Mayor Scharff: We come back to the Council for motions, etc. Council Member Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: I'm going to move the Staff recommendation, as I mentioned a half hour ago or so, which defers the formation of a transportation tax stakeholder advisory committee and reconsider the need, purpose, and specific tasks associated with such a committee at a fall date to be determined after we return from the break. Mayor Scharff: I'll second that. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to defer the formation of a transportation tax stakeholder advisory committee and reconsider the need, purpose and specific tasks associated with such a committee and return in the Fall. Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. If I could continue on that? Let me tell you several things that are concerning me. First of all, I just had a side conversation with Eric. I hope when he speaks he will say how much of what is listed here is funded from some source other than the General Fund. TRANSCRIPT    Page 79 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  I know that our parking garages are in particular, because that was why we raised our TOT. That TOT is the envy of our surrounding communities, many of whom still have 10 percent. It makes a big difference to have the TOT. The second part of this is we need to get through the budget first. We don't quite know what is going to show as a result of the budget hearings. We're not going to vote on the budget until almost the end of June. There's going to be some period of time before we really know what we've got and where we could take that from. I'm worried about tax fatigue. We've just really pushed hard on Measure B. We supported the County on that. We delivered, and there are a number of things in there. I'm looking at Adina and certainly at Yoriko. There are promises that were made in Measure B, and we're really looking to have those promises fulfilled. At every policy meeting I go to at VTA, I talk about that and say, "We supported you, and we really feel strongly it's your turn to support us." There are a number of areas not only in the rail separation but in addition to our shuttle, which could make a big difference. Said with tongue in cheek, if we were to do this tonight to go ahead with the stakeholder group, we really would do that old saw of putting the cart before the horse. We're just not quite ready to get that horse in gear and drag a cart because we're not quite sure what's going to go into the cart yet. I would say defer this to the fall, look at this list, see where the funding is actually coming from. Let's see what the budget committee does finishing this up, and we'll hear that at the end of June. Then, we'll be on track to get our timing right and our process in order. I think we'll be then ready to go ahead with this. Just as several of you have said tonight, when we first talked about this, the question that came from the public was what are you going to do with the money if you raise the money. My recollection—Jim, am I right? Was it about 6 million we were going to raise? Mr. Keene: Those were some of the figures. That was about the scope of the business tax idea … Vice Mayor Kniss: In that range. Mr. Keene: … to generate $6 million. Vice Mayor Kniss: The other thing that someone should also look at is where are we currently in coming up against the ceiling with the County tax. Sales tax. Mr. Keene: I'm trying to remember what happened on this, because there was a little bit of fall off also. Vice Mayor Kniss: Would that tax be considered as part of what we would be—of the ceiling we've come up against? TRANSCRIPT    Page 80 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mr. Keene: It depends upon the form of the tax. If it were a definitive sales tax, then it would count against that percentage, that limit. Vice Mayor Kniss: What kind of tax could we have that doesn't push up against it? Mr. Keene: It'd be a business … Vice Mayor Kniss: A parcel tax maybe. Mr. Keene: A license tax, a parcel tax. Vice Mayor Kniss: I think sales tax, though, is always the most straightforward. I think we do need to look at where that ceiling is currently. With that, I'm … Mayor Scharff: Just one housekeeping matter. Associated with such a committee and return to Council in the fall. Vice Mayor Kniss: Return in the fall with a date to be determined. We're not indicating exactly what time. Mr. Keene: I know this is the Motion, the way we wrote it. As I was listening to a little bit of the Council, I'm a little bit concerned that you would think this is just postponing doing anything on this recommendation without pointing towards something a little bit more specific that you would want us to be sure we're talking about when we come back in the fall. Mayor Scharff: I was going to make the same comment frankly. We need to tweak it a little bit. I actually think it's too much focused on the stakeholder committee. It does say defer to the committee and reconsider the need, purpose, and specific tasks associated with the committee. I personally probably wouldn't support moving forward with a committee unless Staff really came back and said that's the way to go. I do want Staff to return with some more clear information as to what we need. What would you suggest putting in there? That's what I was thinking "committee and return in the fall to Council with some information." I wanted to get a sense of what you thought you might be able to provide us after listening to the discussion of the nine of us. Mr. Keene: If we were to say you want us to forget this piece of it right now, we would come back with a problem definition related to traffic reductions as far as objectives, initiatives underway, and known funding sources at least of this time identified, with the ability for the Council to do a clearer assessment about both the need and our strategy. That would TRANSCRIPT    Page 81 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  provide a foundation for us to have a meaningful conversation to say, "I get how much return on funding we have right now." You could have an intelligent conversation that would begin to assess the viability of the TMA just based on what we know as far as funding now. You would then want to—this isn't part of the motion. I'm speaking to it. Mayor Scharff: Maybe you could get it to the Clerk. Mr. Keene: Let me go back. We would come back with a clearer problem definition related to traffic reduction strategies including what we … Mayor Scharff: Staff will come back with … I think you need to write it; otherwise, Jim will be saying it four times. Mr. Keene: With the review of existing initiatives, funding sources, and an assessment of the gap between the need and where we are at that point in time. That's really the foundation for your subsequent discussion and direction to Staff as to what you want to do next. Then, you can begin to give us direction about what the magnitude is and what you want us to do with that. Mayor Scharff: I'm fine with that. I'm going to go to Council Member Filseth, who actually wanted to weigh in on the language. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion “with a review of existing initiatives, funding sources and an assessment of the gap between the need and resources available. Council Member Filseth: I was going to suggest some of this amendment, but you've captured a lot of it. I wanted to take a swing at the answer, some thoughts about Liz's question on which things where. Is it too directive to suggest that Staff actually come back with a transportation funding plan that includes a target 30 percent reduction in commuter SOV trip rates? Is that too prescriptive? As opposed to sort of an overview. Could you actually come up with a preferred plan? Mr. Keene: I'd feel better if I could talk with our Staff about it. I'm using the term plan very loosely. Some of it may very well be that we kind of go … Council Member Filseth: Strategy. Mr. Keene: … with this idea of a transportation plan as best as possible. Obviously we're only going to plan around what we know as far as the TRANSCRIPT    Page 82 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  resources and what can be done. We could bring that back, and that could be—now, our ability to relate that to an SOV reduction and a percentage might be pretty limited. It gives you the groundwork to say, "We're not even close to achieving what we want to achieve if we don't figure out how to scale this up." You may say, "This looks pretty good for where we are right now. Let's get that stuff done over the next couple of years, and then see." Council Member Filseth: It's really how we fund TMA, both Downtown and potentially some other location. That's sort of it. Vice Mayor Kniss: You're going to know a lot after the budget, I think, Eric. Council Member Filseth: The thing is, as the Vice Mayor was saying, how do we know which things are funded by who. I was going to suggest a way of thinking about it. Some of these things are going to be a little bit hard to tell, but some of them are going to be clear. If it involves getting employees of Downtown businesses from out of town into town, like buying Go Passes for workers at tech startups, that seems like it ought to be a business kind of thing. Residents shouldn't be buying Go Passes for Amazon employees or something like that. On the other hand, if it involves getting Palo Alto residents around town to services, seniors to Avenidas or something like that, we ought to pay for that. Businesses shouldn't be paying for that. I bet a log of this stuff shakes out and you can say, "This is more like that, more like that." Some of it won't, but a lot of it will. I think that's sort of—I want to throw that out as a framework for maybe how we decide who pays for what in all this. Mayor Scharff: I'm happy with actually where we are right now with this amendment. The one thing I think we want to consider is, when Staff comes back, I'm not sure if we're funding it through this budget cycle—I assume we are—the TMA. One of the things we should consider is we loan the money to the TMA, and that we figure out how to fold that in to get that money back as we move forward. Jim, do you know where we are on the TMA stuff? Mr. Keene: We have a small amount of funding; I can't remember if it's some rollover, like 135,000. Something like that sticks in my mind. It's perfectly appropriate both at Finance and at Council to dive a little deeper and say, "Do we want to ratchet that up, and what would that take?" I actually think the TMA is critical. It does need a funding source. Even if we loan it some money, it puts us on the hook to say, "We've got to recapture that, we've got to pay it back." It's not going to hurt us in the short term; it will give us some impetus even with the community. We advance the TRANSCRIPT    Page 83 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  money from the General Fund; we're not going to just keep it there. It needs to be repaid by the generators of the problem. Council Member Filseth: That makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think the General Fund long term, residents should pay for Go Passes for Flipboard employees. We could loan it as long as it gets paid back some day, and that's clear. Mayor Scharff: I just wanted that concept of loaning to be in there when you think about it. I have to say—Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: It's been a good conversation. Overall, I agree with comments made by the Mayor. I think some of the details were different from my recollection. I don't think this discussion about transportation funding was for the TMA only, and we seem to be heading in that direction. I think that's really overly narrow. I'm glad to see that's not in the motion. We talked about transportation projects; we clearly talked about the need to supplement grade separation, and this kind of transportation funding could be used for that. We talked about the cost of funding new RPPs. It was pretty wide ranging. I'm a little bit concerned we're getting a little bit off topic by talking about loaning money to the TMA, which is just one project of many. I'm glad you guys are talking about not having the General Fund fund something. I'd really like to find a nexus for something like the TMA between the source of the funds and the use of the funds. I just want to bring that up. I think we really did talk about the IBRC and how we had a variety of transportation projects. It's pretty clear to me at least that we're not going to have the funds to cover those just from Measure B. Even at the time, we were talking about parking meter funds. That's not really new information. I just want to bring it back and say overall, I agree with what you're saying, but some of those details were a little different. I also agree to having this come back after the break. We're not specifying a date, but I'm hoping it's August, September and not December 31st. Mr. Keene: That would be winter. Council Member DuBois: Again, we also have talked about—Liz was talking about things like sales tax, but there's other kinds of tax like a rail corridor assessment or special assessment fees that could be tied directly to benefits and the impacts. Just want to clarify, but it's part of the motion as written. Mr. Keene: Greg, could I ask something? Mayor Scharff: Sure, go right ahead. TRANSCRIPT    Page 84 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mr. Keene: Thank you, Mayor. Ed just pointed out to me something that could be useful. On the June 5th Council agenda, we're bringing you the strategic implementation plans for the S/CAP. That identifies some key actions connected to goals over the next 3 years. The mobility of this is one of the big components of that. We're going to have an opportunity to have an in-depth discussion. There are a range of areas, energy, water, all that. Even in mobility, you could start to look at some of these key actions over the next 3 years, and that gives you a sample of what some of the implementation plans would be. While we haven't quantified every one, we've also identified the fact that we have funding in some cases. We have the known potential funding in other cases. We have unknown funding that we need to pursue. That may provide a very useful framework for us moving a little more expeditiously and effectively in the fall. Stay tuned on the June 5th session on the S/CAP and mobility. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: A couple or three maybe clarifying amendments to the motion. Can we say the fall—I was thinking does that mean November. Can we say August to October, to give it some kind of timeframe? Mayor Scharff: Is the City Manager okay with that? Mr. Keene: Except that I hate to break to you guys that August is in the summer, not in the fall. Why don't we say by October? Council Member Holman: September or October. Mr. Keene: Yeah, September to October. Mayor Scharff: That's fine. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER September to October. Council Member Holman: It says with review of existing initiatives. Because we're look at what we can do, we've got the S/CAP coming to us which might identify some other things. I would say for this point in time we should say "with review of existing and potential initiatives and also existing and potential funding sources." I was pointing out earlier a number of things that are funded by the General Fund. There are others, of course, that I didn't mention because I was just focused on the ones that are funded by the General Fund at least at this point in time. There are others that— the shuttle may be partially at least funded by the VTA. I think we ought to have that information too. TRANSCRIPT    Page 85 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: You have no concerns with that, I assume. I'm fine with it if the Vice Mayor is. Vice Mayor Kniss: It's fine. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER existing and potential initiatives, and existing and potential funding sources Council Member Holman: This was the assumption that existing and potential would include whether it's a business tax or a district formed or whatever. We can look at whatever might be the most prudent to do. I think this is flexible enough to give us a good amount of information when it comes back. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Seeing no further lights, could we vote on the— Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: Could I just remind us of one thing. I was on that committee. I think you were too, Karen. I think we ended up spending about $100,000 doing our research both in the form of a poll and in an outside consultant. Am I right, around $100,000? Whenever we get into something like this, there's a cost simply to do this. Without us even moving very far down the road, there's a cost here. If we decide to do special things such as polling to see whether there is support and so forth, that will up the price. Just a reminder that that's what happened the last time. You end up very quickly just kind of morphing into a different kind of committee. I recall that it was helpful to have the polling, especially in a variety of other ways. That potential does exist for amping this up. Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board. That passes unanimously. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 12. Colleagues' Memo From Council Members Fine, Holman, Kou, and Wolbach Regarding a Matching Funding Opportunity and Proposal to Increase Programming for Youth Through Youth Community Services. Mayor Scharff: Our final item is a Colleagues' Memo from Council Members Fine, Holman, Kou, and Wolbach regarding a matching fund opportunity and proposal to increase programming of youth through Community Services. Of the four of you, who would like to kick that off? Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I was really happy to be able to work with three other colleagues on this and also to work with Supervisor Simitian and his TRANSCRIPT    Page 86 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  staff on bringing this forward. I think it's a great opportunity to bring into alignment some of the funding that we have not had in the past and also an opportunity to bring Youth Community Services up to being more on parallel with some of the other nonprofits that we support, that the County also supports. The County does not currently have a commitment to YCS even though it does serve more than one community in our county and also additionally in San Mateo County. I think it's a great opportunity to leverage funds. We don't have enough opportunities to do that from my perspective, especially with the nonprofits and with the services they provide, most especially in this case with our youth, giving and teaching the youth life skills that help them along a path. We have not mentioned it here, but we have a former mayor that was a graduate of YCS. Yiaway Yeh went through YCS and became a mayor. The leadership capacity that YCS does offer to our youth community is vital to providing lifelines to many people who are in our community, who are young at age now and who hopefully will become leaders and contributing citizens in the future. I'll leave it at that. You will, I'm sure, have noticed that there is also attached to the Colleagues' Memo a business plan that's put forth and developed by YCS on how they would utilize the additional funding over the 3-year period. Mayor Scharff: We have no speakers on this, is that correct? We have one. Why don't we go to the public. Is there anybody else—what? Let's go to the public. Leif Erickson. I hope you're not going to oppose this, Leif. Leif Erickson: I'm not sure about your 11:00 goal at this point. I'm here to express my appreciation to Council Member Holman and to the cosponsors, Wolbach and Kou and Fine, of the Resolution and to have very brief remarks and then be available to answer any questions. This is another example like the previous one of a regional and a local problem and solution. As you're all aware, the Epi-Aid report was recently released, that was requested by the County Mental Health and Public Health Department in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC. They released the report on risk factors for youth suicide. There's a whole series of recommendations that they made. This proposal and the County's interest in supporting this matching grant is in response to the risk factors and the protective factors that were identified in that report. We are very much, in the proposal we put together, grounded in the research and the science and the recommendations behind that report and some of the other surveys that have been done in recent years. The California Healthy Kids survey, one of their findings was 36 percent of our 11th grade girls experience chronic sad and hopeless feelings. That's a current, recent report in addition to the Epi- Aid report. The proposal that we put together is grounded in the research, grounded in the recommendations for connectedness and protective factors. Our plan includes hiring, to scaffold on top of our existing programs in the TRANSCRIPT    Page 87 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  community and the schools, a connectedness coordinator who would not only work with students and youth but would also work with adult allies in the community and provide training in some of these research-based strategies that adults can use to support our youth. We are a bargain for a number of reasons. One is we're evidence-based. Two is we leverage our work and our budgets as a nonprofit. We are way cheaper than City Staff would be. We leverage through our collaborative partnerships with the City and the other partnerships in Project Safety Net and the other organizations in the community who are focused on youth. I'll stop there and see if there are specific questions that I can respond to. Mayor Scharff: Now, we'll come back to Council. Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I was thinking about making a motion, but I think I want to defer the option for that to Council Member Holman because she was the lead author on this. I did just want to first say that I really appreciate Council Member Kou and Council Member Fine for being co- authors and really commend Council Member Holman for really initiating this Colleagues' Memo and for her work to make sure that this opportunity didn't pass us by and really to help create the opportunity. It's important to be very fiscally responsible. I wouldn't support something like this for just any project. The matching funds and the need and the sense of urgency around this are some of the many reasons why I thought this was very worthwhile pursuing. When Council Member Holman reached out to me to ask me to be a co-author on this, she made a compelling case. I hope that my colleagues will see that as well and move this forward and, when it goes to Finance, the Finance Committee will also appreciate the merits. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Thank you. I also wanted to thank Council Member Holman for putting this forward and for including me. Pretty short reasoning why I'm supporting this. YCS was cut in the previous recession. They provide important services particularly to our youth in the City. This is a great opportunity to secure matching grant funds to provide great services for our youth. It's a good program; it's a good time. We could use the money, and this is essentially cheaper than other options that we have. I don't like spreading around money for individual pots. This is actually a great time to do it. It's nice to know that Supervisor Simitian is hopefully in support of this as well. I think we could send that signal and let them know that we would be interested in securing those grant funds. I'd encourage you to support this as well. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. TRANSCRIPT    Page 88 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Council Member Holman: To answer a question that was sort of posed, Supervisor Simitian is in support of this, and it's going through their process currently as well. Just a couple of other quick comments I didn't make earlier. Another reason this is so critical at this point in time in particular is because both the City of East Palo Alto and the School District are reducing their funding to YCS because of their own budget concerns. We're sort of backfilling that as well. A question for City Attorney. Could we refer this to Finance tomorrow night, which is where I think we're looking at other funding along these lines? That's not enough notice time, so it would have to be a week from Tuesday. Correct? It'd have to be—it could be Thursday, I guess. Rob isn't here, so I'm not quite sure what the best fitting meeting date is. The other option is I could … The other option is I could just make a motion to refer it to Finance at the most opportune and nearest date. James Keene, City Manager: Why don't you just—you're going to refer it to Finance in the motion. If we can deem that it's appropriate to take it up tomorrow night, we'll have that answer by tomorrow night. If not, we'll have to do it at wrap-up on the 18th. Council Member Holman: I would hope it would not be at wrap-up. I'll move that we refer the YCS potential matching funding opportunity and proposal to increase programming for youth through Youth Community Services to Finance Committee at the earliest and relevant opportunity. Council Member Wolbach: Second. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to refer the matching funding opportunity and proposal to increase programming for youth through YCS this proposal to the Finance Committee for discussion for potential inclusion in the FY 2018 Budget with advisory to that effect to Supervisor Simitian. Mayor Scharff: Do you wish to speak further to your Motion? Council Member Holman: Only to say YCS has become over the years one of my favorite nonprofits because I just see how much they do in the community. So many times you turn around and see who's doing what in the community. YCS is out there all the time with a number of really tremendous public events, community events that support and honor others and help others. Their efforts as a part of Make a Difference Day are phenomenal, just to name one. I could go on and on and on, and I won't at this hour. They've just become one of my favorite organizations for good reason. I hope that this funding will come through and that it will take them to the next level of being able to be an implementer of programs in our community to serve our youth. TRANSCRIPT    Page 89 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  Mayor Scharff: You seconded the Motion, Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: To add to the comments that Council Member Holman just made, again I would just encourage members of the Finance Committee and the rest of the Council to focus on the value that this investment would return, both financially and for the community. Mayor Scharff: Seeing no other lights, if we could vote on the board. Congratulations. That passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Mayor Scharff: Now, we are to Council Member Questions and Comments. I just have one comment. For the next Council meeting, we have two requests from two Council Members to appear by phone, Council Member Tanaka and Council Member DuBois. I think we should honor both of those requests. I didn't get much detail from Council Member DuBois, but I gathered it was some family issue. Council Member Tanaka is involved in the Asian Pacific Islander League of Cities Leadership, and that's the only time he could attend that. I think both of those are worthwhile things that Council Members may need to do. Our procedures are a little unclear in this. In fact, we actually did refer this provision to Policy and Services, who actually suggested changes to make it clearer and much more reasonable than the way it is, which basically limited Council Members to doing this three times, if I recall what we'd done. I would like—I'm going to look at the Chair of Policy and Services. I would like this provision clarified. I think it's been a long time since it went to Policy and Services. It was supposed to come back to Council. I think you should just take a quick look at it and then bring it to Council, or Staff should just bring this directly to Council. Molly Stump, City Attorney: Thank you, Mayor Scharff. The Committee did complete its review. It's on Staff, and specifically it's in my office. I will work and move it forward. The Clerk will also review it. It's our responsibility at this point. Mayor Scharff: I did want to say that it is discouraged, and I don't expect suddenly people to start doing this. I think it's important to just say that our procedures do discourage that, and this is not something we encourage doing. Obviously, if there is an emergency or something like that. I also TRANSCRIPT    Page 90 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  want Council Members who are the phone to have expectations that you're not going to get to talk much. It's very difficult. I don't expect you guys to be making motions. I don't expect any of that. It's a very awkward thing when someone's on the phone. Anyway, I just wanted to set those expectations. If anyone had any questions, feel free to raise it. Yes. Council Member Holman: I have a question. Will this be on the phone or Skype or could we manage two different Skyping entities? What's the expectation? Mayor Scharff: I don't think we're going to Skype. I'm leaving it up to the Clerk's Office to work out the technological details that work best for whatever the Clerk is. I'm not going to sit here and dictate it or have us dictate it from the Council. Council Member Holman: Council Members who are proposing this are well aware of the posting in the other locations and such? Mayor Scharff: Yes, they have both been made well aware of the posting requirements. They'll be following them. James Keene, City Manager: Mr. Mayor, if I just might add with the Council's indulgence. Having experienced this in other venues, in particular that other college town across the Bay, I think your point about the technical difficulties are really legitimate. It only does work well if the remote people speak very judiciously and not—I just would say that it can get to be a little bit of a challenge as your voice comes through the ether into the room and everything. Vice Mayor Kniss: It's a good time to learn to speak briefly. May I share this? Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss, you wanted to speak too. Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes. I want not to speak to the phone thing. I wanted to show you something because I'm so pleased about this. You remember I'm chairing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District this year. They published this Spare the Air Cool the Climate, which is a blueprint for clean air and so forth. Also, I just wanted to read you this because this is part of the mission. What this says is that the Air Board, CEQA, and AB 32 are all about health. The Board mission says the Air District aims to create a healthy breathing environment for every Bay Area resident while protecting and improving public health, air quality, and the global climate. I love serving on this Board. I really do. It's very satisfying to think that something you're serving on like this really makes a difference in the health TRANSCRIPT    Page 91 of 91  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  5/8/17  of your community in the Bay Area and the nine Bay Area counties. Just wanted to share it. It's online at baymaq, and you can pull it up there as well. Mayor Scharff: Meeting adjourned. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 P.M.