HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-27 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 78
Special Meeting
November 27, 2017
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:04 P.M.
Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka,
Wolbach
Absent:
Utilities Advisory Commission
Present: Ballantine, Danaher, Forssell arrived at 6:30 P.M., Schwartz,
Segal
Absent: Johnston, Trumbull
Closed Session
1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Section 54956.9(d)(2)
(One Potential Case, as Defendant) – Palo Alto-Stanford Fire Protection
Agreement.
Mayor Scharff: Need a Motion to go into Closed Session.
Vice Mayor Kniss: So moved.
Council Member Wolbach: Second
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach
to go into Closed Session.
Mayor Scharff: All in favor. That passes unanimously.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Council went into Closed Session at 5:04 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 6:17 P.M.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mayor Scharff announced no reportable action.
Study Session
2. Joint Study Session of the City Council and the Utilities Advisory
Commission.
Mayor Scharff: We're here for a Study Session with the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) Welcome to the UAC. I'm going to turn it over to Chair
Danaher.
Michael Danaher, Utilities Advisory Commission, Chair: First, I speak for all
of us. We're delighted to be serving on the UAC, to be working with such a
really terrific, talented Staff. Our primary objective for this meeting is to
find out how the UAC can be more effective in working for the Council and
on our own. We're going to mention areas that we're looking into or areas
of concern. We want to hear what the Council would like us to be doing.
One overall comment is before Ed took over, the UAC was largely confined to reviewing proposals that the Staff put forward. Woe betide the
Commissioner who wanted to raise anything else. Now, we have a more
open, two-way relationship. Really appreciate it. We are able to bring up
issues and pursue them. Council Member Filseth has been the liaison and a
really valuable contributor to the discussions. Still the UAC has questions
about how are we communicating with the Council. You get the Minutes. Is
that effective? Should we have some other way of raising issues or bringing
items to your attention? Also, from to time to time we're acting on
proposals that relate to policies set by the Council years back. We
sometimes wonder if the policy should be revisited. How do we open that?
For example, there are policies about how much we support local solar and
whether we support community solar. How much do we subsidize those?
Some of us feel that since we get solar power more cheaply from the Central
Valley, we shouldn't be subsidizing other methods of getting solar when we
could use the money more effectively somewhere else. That's not a
unanimous opinion, but we think it's a policy that's worth revisiting. How do
we raise that with the Council? I'll mention a few topics that we think
deserve attention. Probably the biggest problem facing the Utilities is going
to be workforce turnover in the years ahead. That's not really for us to address. I know Council's very much aware of workforce issues, but it is our
biggest concern. Resiliency against storms, against fires, against
cyberattacks and the like is a concern that a number of members on the
Commission think is very important, and we're going to try to delve into this
over the next year with the Staff on that. Cap X and maintaining the infrastructure, budgets stayed relative to the same, but construction costs
have gone way up. The City's actually replacing fewer miles each year.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
That problem is getting worse. That's something we're not really prepared
to address, but Council should be aware of. We should think about it at
some point. We're working on the Strategic Plan, and we want to think
about futureproofing what we do now. For example, in Electric Vehicles (EV)
charging infrastructure, the growth in EVs could be a headache, but it also
could be a big opportunity for the City, what we do in Building Codes. Along
these lines, what we should be doing, if anything, to align the Strategic Plan
with the City's Strategic Plan. Finally, we've not spent much time at all on
fiber to the premise issues this last year. We'd like to know what the
Council would like us to do on spending time on that. Several people have
noted that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision to
abandon net neutrality is another reason maybe in favor of a municipal
network. Those are just some prefatory comments. We'd like to hear from
the Council.
Mayor Scharff: It's a little hard for me to see. I can see the lights now. The
lights work if you put on your lights. For Council Members, do you have any
questions? Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: First, I just want to say thank you to the UAC.
You do tremendous work. This is really one of our most important Boards
and Commissions. The work that you do really does take a lot of load off us
frankly. Obviously, as you know, Utilities is nearly half of our budget. It's a
huge amount of Staff work that's involved with it. It covers so many areas
of different services that benefit the residents of the community and others
who come to the community to work or to visit. The time that you spend on
this Commission really does make our life easier because we have to be
generalists and look at everything in the City. You make that easier for us.
Keep it up; thank you. A couple of things I just wanted to suggest, really
emphasize, and also ask if you guys have started to give any thought to—
probably goes without saying, but I'm just going to say it because we can
never forget it. When it comes to resiliency the impacts—not just singular
but the multiple impacts of climate change in the coming decades and what
that means for our City. I'll be honest. We probably could have gone
further in our recent Comprehensive Plan than we did. I hope in looking at future planning for the Utilities Department, both the Staff and the UAC, I
hope you really think very, very carefully about all of the different negative
impacts and risks posed by climate change from fire risk to changes in
where we source our electricity to changes in costs for certain sources to, of
course, the flooding risk and what that means for our Utilities infrastructure within our City or to grids and other networks outside of our City but that we
depend on, whether they be for water, gas, or electricity. There's probably a
bunch more that I'm forgetting off the top of my head.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 4 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Chair Danaher: That has been on our mind, and those come up in
discussion. Thank you for mentioning it.
Council Member Wolbach: I know that you guys have been talking about it.
I know that a lot of you have thought about this stuff for years before you
got onto the UAC. I just wanted to make sure you knew you had my full
support and, I think, my colleagues' as well, but I'll let them speak for
themselves if they disagree to continue to make that a high priority in your
conversations and your thoughts going forward. Also, you mentioned EV
chargers. I just wanted to encourage, again both for Staff and for the UAC,
to really think about the breadth of vehicles that can use charging stations,
from personal mobility devices like skateboards or things that look like
traditional scooters to Vespa-style scooters and motorcycles, regular cars
and Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV) and larger trucks that are making deliveries.
If somebody's making a delivery to a grocery store, can they charge their truck? Should they be charging their truck? I don't have an answer about
that, I hope you'll certainly think about it. If somebody's parking their
motorcycle or their car or their electric bike or their electric skateboard or
their truck somewhere in Palo Alto, do we want to make it easier for them to
top off and what does that look like? Keep thinking about the broad range,
not just the stuff that we usually talk about. Keep it up. Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you all. Now, I think I can see most of you. Hello
down there. Again, thanks for what you do. The UAC is really charged with
our most difficult issues. You are a huge part of our budget planning every
year. Thank you for all of that. Let me dive into the fiber to the home or
whatever else we may call it. I know that Tom DuBois is interested in this
as well. We put our dark fiber in, as I recall, in '97 or '98. We've had it
there all this time. It's been used well by companies certainly in Palo Alto.
We have talked any number of times through the years about how we could
do fiber to the home. There was an experiment you probably all know about
maybe in '08, '09, and '10, right in there somewhere. It involved the
community center and other areas where they tried it and all liked it, but it
failed because the company couldn't continue to support it, that was involved in it. Two of us went to Kansas City in 2013, as I recall, where they
had first begun the Googlehood. You're all familiar with the Googlehoods. I
don't know how that's actually worked out. I heard just a snippet of it the
other day and thought we actually did consider that at one point, could you
do a Googlehood. Now, we're sort of in a different sphere once again. I'd be interested—we're really almost coming up on 20 years of this discussion.
I'd like to know what some of you think about it. Are you ready to tackle it
again in the UAC or does it seem like it's just doomed to never be carried
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 5 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
through? Any comments you have about that, I'd really be interested in
hearing them.
Mayor Scharff: Any Commissioners want to respond? Just raise your hand.
Arne Ballantine, Utilities Advisory Commission, Vice Chair: I've only
watched us talk about this for a year, a little more than a year. One thing
that we seem to grapple with is the scale to implement it is quite large.
That then turns into a budget problem for the Utilities and Staff. Yet, we're
back at a debate of is it a good idea or not a good idea. One of the recent
conversations was around could we create a trial. In other words, just as
we've done for undergrounding of utilities—that's not Citywide; it's been
section by section with a very careful plan of how and when. Maybe that's a
way to take a look at fiber. Take a section of the City, we're going to try it
out here. Then, we learn what's good and what's bad. When it comes
around again for the next conversation, rather than our best debate being what we get in terms of quotes and what happens in other cities, now we
have real, live, Palo Alto examples and data to look at. Yet, we didn't have
to spend the whole budget to try it out. Without something like that, it's
hard to see how we don't end up in a continuous debate, a pilot.
Judith Schwartz, Utilities Advisory Commissioner: I have a couple of
concerns about this. One has to do with the workforce issues. We're
already in a difficult position of are we going to be able to backfill all the
people who are going to be retiring. It makes me a little nervous to say
we're going to take on another utility, one that has a very high customer
service element, that's much higher than a lot of the others. It just strikes
me as if we do that, we have to understand the commitment. Another thing
in terms of looking at how we compare to other cities who have done it, one
of the things that is different about Palo Alto than a lot of the other cities is
that a lot of the cities that have made the major investments were doing it
for economic revitalization of their communities. That is not our problem.
Because we have an affluent community, we are a more desirable location
for the incumbents to at least try to give us leading edge service. If we
want to do a limited-scale program, we can. One of the things we should
pay attention to is what are the applications that people need this for? If you have a business and having fiber to your premise is really important,
you can get it today. Maybe if there are some other people that we want to
make it available to, we can build it out using a subset of the money that we
have available for those applications. Let people say, "I really want this for
x, y, z reason." Whether it's for healthcare or immersive whatever, then we're doing it on a case-by-case basis for somebody who really needs it. For
people who just think it's going to make their movies run faster, it really
isn't the solution. Getting a faster computer is a faster way to do it. I just
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 6 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
think if we're going to keep that on the table, those are the kinds of things
we should think about. I'm very supportive of it as part of our backhaul for
smart grid and the things that we're doing. The investment we've made in
the fiber ring is not wasted at all. If we use it for these other purposes, we'll
continue to keep it vital and up-to-date but not necessarily use it for some
generic application that we don't know exactly what it is.
Council Member DuBois: Thank you, guys, all for serving. Sorry I walked in
a little bit late. I assume you spoke about EV vehicles. One thing I do
notice is that we have an extreme shortage of charging ports. We're falling
behind there versus other cities on the Peninsula. I'd really be interested in
you guys coming up with incentives and programs that could expand the
number of EV ports on both public and private enterprise for public use. I
don't think it was mentioned, but I'm really interested in the long-term
future of the gas utility as we move to clean energy. At some point, what do we do with our gas utility? Has it become an albatross that we need for
certain uses, but it's going to have large capital expenditures to maintain? I
do find the net neutrality moves of the Trump Administration troubling. The
FCC is talking about preventing states and cities from overriding the end of
net neutrality. It's something the City and our lobbyists should start to get
involved in. When I think about the fiber utility, I think the City should look
at owning the physical infrastructure, and we should try to partner with a
private entity to manage the customer service, the high-touch aspects. It's
very worthwhile to look at the economics of a single network and who should
own that infrastructure. The Council has voted and we asked to extend the
dark fiber into the neighborhoods. That is our policy. I hope you guys will
support that and help us come up with a good plan. We basically asked the
Staff to come back with a business plan. The current dark fiber network
does not go everywhere. Not everybody can get it. If you do, you have to
spend a tremendous amount of money; it's extremely expensive if you try to
extend it from the commercial district into a neighborhood that's nowhere
near a node. The idea is that we would build out the dark fiber network. We
haven't seen the business plan yet. It probably will be a private partnership
to connect from that node to a home. There are a lot of community models that I'm seeing start to appear. I'd ask you guys to watch San Francisco
and San Jose. They're both working on their own muni-owned fiber plans.
San Francisco's is probably going to be the largest in the Country. It'll be
informative to us. I also would love to see us leverage that backbone for
our Smart City programs. How we could apply some of the Utility Enterprise Funds for those portions of the network. I don't think the network needs to
be funded entirely by residential use. There's a lot of uses we can get out of
a backbone, and we should start to break it up from one massive project
into just extending the network and using it for Smart City initiatives and
other programs. The last thing I wanted to say was I am concerned that our
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 7 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
current dark fiber network is an aging asset. I'm hearing the City of Santa
Clara's network is cheaper and better. I'm worried that we're falling behind
there. It'd be great if you guys could benchmark our current service versus
Burbank and Santa Clara and other cities that have thriving dark fiber
businesses to really make sure that we are maintaining that asset to the
level it should be maintained. Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: I saw Judith had a comment. You had a comment? If
Commissioners have comments they want to give, just raise your hand. It's
supposed to be a dialog.
Ms. Schwartz: I want to go back to eliminating the gas utility comment that
you made. If you look at …
Council Member DuBois: That's not what I said. I just said we need a long-
term plan.
Ms. Schwartz: If you look at the long-term plans both in the State of California and nationally, natural gas is not going away in the foreseeable
future because right now if we want to have these lights on, we have to
have generation that can be available and dispatchable at night and in
mornings when we're not going to be able—I'll call it the aspirational goal of
being able to do everything with solar and batteries and doing that is just
not really practical. It sounds really great, and it's aspirational. One of the
reasons I wanted this handout given to all of you is that—which is about
EVs, which is the wave of the future and something we should be focusing
on. If you look at things like the residential and commercial impact of the
businesses and homes that are using gas, it's really minimal when it comes
to the carbon footprint and the impact. If we really want to be a model for
other communities, then dealing with the transportation sector is where the
big bang for the buck is. We are in the unique position in Palo Alto because
we have one of the highest penetrations of EV purchases that you have
anywhere. It's interesting that you said you think we're falling behind in
charging infrastructure. There's a new initiative that's come up, that I've
encouraged Staff to look at to have us be part of it, that I want them to
bring to you. They're trying to get utilities—there's a movement afoot to get
the Commissions to allow utilities, “I Owe You’s” (IOU), to participate in charging so that there can be more activity. One of the advantages that we
have in Palo Alto is that we don't have a barrier to the Utility being part of
the charging infrastructure. I think we can be part of this effort on a
national scale and demonstrate some things that are very viable. It's the
way that we can really tie in to doing projects tied to local solar and things that are a little more innovative. We need to look at this holistically when
we're looking at our energy resources. Our immediate problem is not
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 8 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
getting rid of, even in the near-term or mid-term, the gas utility. It's more
how do we take advantage of this unusual opportunity we have in terms of
EV concentration to do some things that really matter.
Council Member DuBois: Thank you for that. Just to clarify, it's really how
do we manage a potentially shrinking gas utility in a cash-flow-positive
manner.
Mayor Scharff: Karen, you had your …
Council Member Holman: Two things. I don't think Cory mentioned this in
the things that you were mentioning earlier on. In 2010, there was a plane
crash that was pretty prominent in the news for some period of time. That
was 2010. Sometimes the discussion about redundant power sources comes
to the surface as a priority, and then it tends to disappear and meld into
other things. Can you give us an update of where that is in the UAC
discussions? Somebody.
Mayor Scharff: Ed may want to take that one.
Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager/Utilities General Manager: Be happy to
give just a quick update. As they say, the ball is currently in Stanford's
court. It's actually been there for several months. They are evaluating the
financial viability of their investing in some system upgrades that will be
necessary to support Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). Other
issues that we've had pending with Stanford have, to your point, kept this
from being front burner for us. In the hopes that we'll deal with some of our
other, ongoing issues immediately, that we'll be able to really drive this to a
decision. I hope in 2018 we'll be able to drive this to a decision, either
go/no go, on the Stanford alignment. If it's no-go, we have a viable
alternative to bring forward to the Council.
Ms. Schwartz: I think a lot of us feel that this is—if there's a number one
issue that we should be paying attention to, it's this redundancy issue. In
addition to whether the SLAC solution is the way to go. Just to even having
the lead time on this—the lead time on the equipment that is in the Colorado
substation are very long lead time items. Whether we were building it at a
second location or whether we had it available if something happened to
Colorado, we should have that equipment available to us so that we could put it in if necessary. In terms of something that's a necessary expenditure,
that would be a really good one to have because it takes such a long time.
You can't say, "I need those parts. Let me get that equipment replaced
immediately." Do you want to maybe talk to that, Arnie?
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 9 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mr. Ballantine: The part that I see dovetailing here is that we've talked
several times over the last year about—if we had solar on the roof of the
building and it was daytime and we lost our one feed, we should all expect
that the lights would go off. The inverters in conventional solar, once the
grid's gone, go off. We can invest in micro grids with batteries and other
things to stabilize those inverters, but that's not what local solar/community
solar would use. That's not what this building would have. That's not what
most of the solar throughout the City of Palo Alto has. Unfortunately, we're
probably not in a much better place than we were in 2010, other than there
hasn't been another awful recurrence. One of the things I think is going to
be really tricky when we think about climate change is that also going on is a
lot more enabling of smart devices. Ed, you mentioned you got the first
complaint of a person who couldn't get out of their garage due to lack of
power. When you have smart devices headed forward and they're using electricity, they're not using natural gas. If they did, it'd be pretty simple.
When's the last time the natural gas just didn't work at your house? Your
water heater might conk out. That's little parts in the water heater; it's not
the pipe. Yet, as you point out, as usage drops because there's more solar,
rates on natural gas will have to go up. When you look at resiliency, if you
take a look—Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) doesn't even keep statistics on
outage rates with natural gas because it's cross-connected. Even when
there's a horrible thing like in San Bruno, they isolate that, and it routes
right around and keeps working. Whereas, they do keep outage rates on the
main electricity grid. The odds that my house is going to have heat when I
get home even if the power's out are high. If I don't have a little way to tell
my thermostat to turn on because I put in a smart device that's connected
so that I can turn my heat on with my phone, I'm not going to have heat in
my house unless I go rip that out of the wall and connect the two wires. All
of a sudden, my furnace will turn on. That's where it has a very tricky
combination. If we don't carefully manage keeping our old resilient
resources, building out new and better electrical capability, we could have a
rough moment. Of course, you can't predict when that's going to come.
You just have to do your best to prepare for it.
Council Member Holman: As you say, we don't know when it's coming or
when we might have an event that would require us to have it, where we
wish we all did have it. That's why I keep bringing this up. We just need to
continue to work on it and really prioritize it.
Ms. Schwartz: How should it work, Karen, in terms of us—let's say we agree with you on that and we think something should be done. How do we get it
on the agenda in such a way that we get to vote on it so that we can enable
this to happen? I think that's one of the frustrations that we've had. We
don't always know how to …
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 10 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mayor Scharff: Judith, the question is what, get what on the agenda? You
can work with Staff to come forward with different resilience issues. The
broad issue of the Stanford SLAC, Staff's working on that. I'm not sure
there's more to be done with that right now. I think that's where it is.
These other issues about smart—your (inaudible) with the thermostat not
going on actually made me think about my smart thermostat. That also
segues into—your original question was clearly the UAC has concerns about
the local solar program. You think we should revisit our process. I think
when the UAC has something like that, we probably do need some sort of
mechanism to bring it forward to Council. I would encourage Staff to create
a mechanism when the UAC comes up with something to allow it to
percolate up to Council. That would be useful.
Council Member Holman: Some of the Boards and Commissions and Finance
Committee and Policy and Services as well has at the end of every meeting a discussion about upcoming agendas. That's also an opportunity for, I would
say, UAC members to comment on where is this, trying to keep things on
track and to try to set priorities with Staff. If that's agreeable to …
Mr. Shikada: Perhaps just to confirm we do have that as a part of the UAC's
standing agenda, and issues do get raised. I would note that in the
upcoming months there is the opportunity of the Strategic Plan from the
Utilities Department going through UAC. It's actually been a topic of
discussion several times over the last few months. We'll be coming forward
for a discussion at your December meeting at the UAC and in January for
action. That'll be a good vehicle for raising some of these issues.
Particularly this issue of resilience has definitely come up through the
discussions of community stakeholders and the UAC as one that certainly the
City needs to focus on. Defining what that will include and how to tackle it
will be a part of what comes up over the next few months.
Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. Just a reminder that the
primary roles of government are health and safety. I would say there's
probably nothing that exceeds the importance of having this resiliency as
part of our priorities. One other question. Can you remind me—I guess I
look to the Chair on this. If you could remind me, does the UAC have an opportunity to comment on the Sustainability & Climate Action Plan (S/CAP)
Implementation Plan?
Mr. Shikada: Yes. We'll be bringing for—we have brought pieces of the
S/CAP, the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, for UAC review prior to
Council. I actually think your reminding us that I don't believe we had scheduled in what is anticipated to come to Council in December. Need to
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 11 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
discuss that with Staff and whether there's a step which we may have
missed in this regard.
Council Member Holman: Not everything has to do with the UAC and your
purview, but a lot of things do. I think we'd benefit from your input on that
Implementation Plan. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Adrian.
Council Member Fine: Thank you all for your service and for helping us get
our work done. I really do think UAC is one of the toughest and most
complex Commissions. We truly appreciate your work. A couple of
comments. I do agree with the Mayor. If you have a policy issue you'd like
floated up to us, Staff should work out some mechanism even if it's as
simple as a memo or letter from the Commission to Council. That would be
helpful. On the fiber issue, I'm largely in agreement with Council Member
DuBois. We did ask for a business plan. At some level, we're asking for you all to dumb it down enough so that we can understand and make a decision
based on the outcomes and costs that we're willing to entertain. It is
important to consider fiber to the premise or to the home in terms of the
different customers we're currently serving and could be serving in the
future. Whether its businesses, whether it's government for our Smart City
initiatives, or whether it's the residents of Palo Alto, all three of those are
interesting to me. In terms of fiber, one other issue does come up.
Somebody mentioned the word undergrounding. I do hear pretty regularly
from residents in Palo Alto about when are we going to underground our
utilities, when are the poles going underground, things like that. I don't
know actually. Although it's maybe a small item on the City's docket, it
would be nice to get some kind of update about where we stand on that.
Mayor Scharff: Let me answer that. We talked about that at the UAC
several years ago. The answer to that question is never. That is the answer
to that question.
Council Member Fine: Never?
Mayor Scharff: Never. The answer to the question when are we going to
underground is never. The answer is that it's just far too expensive. If we
really wanted to do it and we really wanted to put it to bed—we actually had that discussion at the UAC—what you need to do is a ballot initiative and
fund it and see if people want to pay basically on their property taxes to get
it done Citywide. My recollection is that we get paid—in certain areas where
we underground, it's what? Who pays for it, AT&T usually?
James Keene, City Manager: (Inaudible) cost share.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 12 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mayor Scharff: It's a cost share basis. Outside of those areas, it's not
happening. It's happening at a really low rate.
Mr. Ballantine: To make it even worse, maybe 6 months ago we were
talking about it at UAC. We had a discussion around is it more reliable once
it's underground. Unfortunately, it's less reliable when it's underground. For
me, I was thinking about the submarine. In old submarines, they paneled
over things until things caught on fire, and they couldn't find where the
problem was. It turns out undergrounding creates the same dilemma for the
Utility. You have a fault; it's all underground; you can't find the fault. At
the very least, if we do underground then not only do we do that but we also
need all the Smart Grid features so you can find exactly where the faults
are. The cost goes up even more.
Council Member Fine: Thank you both for that explanation. We should be
getting that message out to residents. The last thing I was thinking about is in terms of our carbon goals and trip reduction goals in Palo Alto. I think the
UAC actually has a pretty important role to play in terms of our
transportation initiatives. This could be electric vehicles. As I think more
broadly, it's also related to things such as the money we're spending on the
garages, our shuttle program, our Residential Parking Permit program, and
maybe most importantly the Transportation Management Agency we've set
up over the past year or two. I don't know specifically what I'm asking here.
In terms of the UAC being a guardian and kind of a champion for us to
reduce some of our greenhouse gas emissions, I would really encourage you
all to think about some of the other touch points we have in the City. They
may traditionally fall in the role of the Planning and Transportation
Commission, but your expertise will be a value-add to the City there. Please
do consider those things. If you have input to us, send us a letter or let us
know. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Greg.
Council Member Tanaka: I also wanted to just echo my fellow colleagues in
terms of thanking the UAC for your work, very important work. Thank you
for helping to give us great recommendations. I have three thoughts that
I'd like the UAC to think about. I do think having higher speed internet—higher speed/lower cost internet to all the premises in Palo Alto is an
incredibly important priority that we should try to strive to do. If we look at
Palo Alto or, for that matter, even the Country and look at the speed we
have and the costs of that speed, it's been dropping. It's been dropping
almost since the beginning of the internet. You look at other countries, look at Seoul, Korea, they have one of the fastest internet speeds for the cost.
Tokyo, a bunch of other countries (inaudible) has dramatically changed in
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 13 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
terms of where our speed and costs have been compared to others. Some
of this, of course, is because the United States is a big Country, hard to wire
up the whole Country versus a very concentrated area. Part of it's also
because of policy. One of the policies that other countries have done quite
successfully is this idea of open access. Rather than us owning the
infrastructure or having some vendor provide the infrastructure that locks
others out, the idea behind open access is that it creates competition. The
idea behind it is the person to put the last mile gives access to others. In
exchange, they get use of our backbone or some sort of other incentive. I'd
love for the UAC to actually look at this in more detail. You guys probably
have the expertise and time to think about this. The second thought for the
UAC is as a big consumer of power, water, and natural gas, we're always at
the mercy of the fluctuation in prices. One thing that either large producers
or large consumers of commodities do is they use derivatives to hedge their bets. Given that we're a large consumer, very much as farmers use
derivatives to hedge fluctuation in crop prices, we could do the same in
terms of our commodity usage. I'd love for the UAC to look at this in more
detail to see if this is a possibility. The last thought I have is around
benchmarking against other cities. In order for us to get better, it's always
good to know where we stand and how we do things versus other cities. I'd
encourage the UAC to spearhead comparing how our utilities perform against
other utilities and what can we learn and what can we do better. Once
again, I just want to thank the UAC for your work and love for you guys to
work on open access, ways to hedge our commodity fluctuations, and
benchmarking. Thank you.
Chair Danaher: Thank you, Greg. Judith among others has been reminding
us that we're not the best in everything. Palo Alto could do with a little more
humility on that. We do keep that in mind. Thank you for your other
comments.
Mayor Scharff: Lydia, any comments? Eric? I just briefly wanted to say I
really appreciate all of your service. I served as the liaison for a long time
before Eric, who has now picked up and doing a much better job than I ever
did. I really do. I would encourage all of you to reach out if you do have concerns and to work with Staff to get stuff on the agenda that you need to
get on the agenda. With that said, don't abuse it. Do you know what I
mean? That happens too. When I say that, I expect to hear maybe twice a
year with something agendized by Staff, not every Council meeting another
UAC issue. We haven't traditionally done that. To be honest, our former Utilities Director was actually fairly against the process of allowing the UAC
to agendize things and bring it up to Council. I've always thought it was a
good idea, but there are risks involved. It's a question of trust and a
question of bringing things that are important and well thought out.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 14 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Chair Danaher: We'll take that in mind. Liz said we deal with the difficult
issues. I don't really think so. We don't use voting buttons because we're
normally unanimous. We don't need a 3-minute clock timer because we
don't have a lot of angry citizens talking to us. You guys have the tough
job, and we're very pleased to be grappling with some really interesting
trends in the industry and the like. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Let me say one thing in closing, somewhat lighthearted
but also serious. There was a time when there were no women on the
Utilities Commission. It's really refreshing to see three of you, Lisa, Lauren,
and Judy, whom I've known for a long time. I'm going to believe you
probably bring a different perspective to this. I'm really grateful that you're
willing to serve and were willing to apply. Thank you all for being here. And
the guys too.
Chair Danaher: Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you very much. Why don't we take a 5 minute
break? Did you …
Lauren Segal, Utilities Advisory Commissioner: I just wanted to thank you
all, as the newest Commissioner, for giving me this opportunity to serve. It
continues to be a great pleasure.
NO ACTION TAKEN.
Mayor Scharff: Why don't we just take a 5 minute while we reorganize the
chairs?
Council took a break at 6:59 P.M. and returned at 7:08 P.M.
3. 285 Hamilton [17PLN-00309]. Applicant Requests a Prescreening
Discussion for a Possible Text Amendment That Would Allow
Development Exceptions for Rooftop Decks Within the Downtown Area,
Including the Subject Property. Environmental Assessment: The
Subject Request is not a Project in Accordance With the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Continued From October 30,
2017).
Mayor Scharff: If Staff wants to take it away.
Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director Planning and Community Environment:
Thank you, Mayor. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director with the Planning and Community Environment Department, here to give a presentation on a pre-
screening request for 285 Hamilton, though the request could be broader
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 15 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
than that and apply to the Downtown district. The application before you is
a nonbinding request as required by the Code for any proposed change in a
policy direction. There is one presented to you this evening with respect to
putting a roof deck atop an existing, nonconforming building, non-
conforming as to height and floor area. Adding a roof deck could implicate
some of those existing development standards and result in the building
envelope being more than it is today. Roof decks are permitted in the
Zoning Code. If they meet the development standards for height, floor area,
parking, and related development standards, they can be approved as part
of a development project. There are some considerations about roof decks
in terms of some of the amenity features, access, safety railings, and some
operational considerations with respect to noise, glare, people meeting on
the roof, and how that roof deck is used. Of course, entertainment is a
consideration as well that we'd want to consider performance standards or things of that nature. This particular building, because it's nonconforming,
does raise some particular—comes into conflict with certain aspects of the
Code. The building is 82 feet tall. It exceeds the 1.0 floor area for a
commercial building. Some of the elements that are proposed, such as the
decking surface, the awning, the trellis structure, perhaps some
improvements to the access would be more than—would exceed those
height or those floor area requirements in the Code today and would change
the building volume envelope. The Council may recall a conversation that
took place maybe 18 months ago or maybe longer about restrictions on
changing the envelope of a building that is nonconforming with respect to
height and floor area. The location of proposed roof decks. The applicant
has talked about a possible change for nonconforming buildings in the
Downtown district, also threw out the possibility of a specific pilot project
with respect to this specific address. Staff has included some thoughts on
that in the Staff Report. I think I'll just conclude it with that. The City
Council—again, your action or your comments are nonbinding. We're just
looking for some direction. The applicant would be interested in some initial
read from the City Council as to whether there's interest in allowing rooftop
decks atop nonconforming buildings. I'm available to answer any questions.
Mayor Scharff: I understand the applicant has up to 10 minutes for a
presentation.
Mr. Lait: Yes.
Mayor Scharff: If the applicant wants to come forward. You want to do the
10 minute timing.
John Shenk, Thoits Family: I will go quickly. Representing the Thoits
family, the property owner. As a representative of the Thoits family, who
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 16 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
has been involved in the Downtown for over 100 years, I was looking
today—I was dusting off a commemorative plaque issued by the Council
back in—I think it was the late 1930s to E.C. Thoits for his 40 years of work
for the City. Remember he was a Mayor back in 1912 and 1913 or
something like that and had written the City's Charter so it could become a
city. I share that history as I try to each day make sure that I'm channeling
the family's goals and objectives as I manage their properties in the
Downtown and I manage our tenants and their uses. I'm very supportive of
this application because open spaces fundamentally in every shape and form
are a good thing for all of us, whether it's the employee or a resident or a
passerby. We don't have lots of open land any more to have big parks. This
is a way to create an open space. Allowing ugly and useless commercial
roofs to be converted to attractive and productive things, again, is
something that we as a community, you as a Council should support, even encourage. So that you know, adding a roof deck to an existing building is a
serious endeavor, both structurally from a feasibility perspective as well as
economically. It's not something that you guys make a decision and every
roof in the Downtown is going to have a roof deck. Although I think that
would be a great thing, it just won't. There are issues of size. Lots of the
buildings in the Downtown, again, are pretty small when it comes to the
footprint. A roof deck requires access stairs, elevators, all kinds of things
along with—usually the mechanical equipment is already up there. Finding
some way to make it work is important. What you're seeing tonight is where
my impression is. We have a few rules where there are unintended
consequences. Things like a 50-foot height cap can catch—this building is
obviously non—the 285 Hamilton is nonconforming because it was built
before that cap was in place. Even buildings that are currently conforming
and under that cap would be precluded currently because, to add the stairs
and add an elevator to get access to the roof, you'd exceed 50 feet and,
therefore, you would get a no. Finding ways to get some flexibility to
encourage this kind of thing is good. I hope that you will agree and extend
to Staff your indication of great support, so that we can go through the
process and come up with the fine-tuning points for the right rules and ways to manage this as we go ahead. I'll turn this over to Bob Giannini, the
architect, right now.
Robert Giannini, Form4 Architecture: Thank you. Good evening. My
name's Bob Giannini with Form4 Architecture. I'm the architect for Houzz,
but I've also been designing in Palo Alto for the past 15 years. I just wanted to bring one other perspective to it. I have proposed roof decks for projects
many times, and many have been built. In the past several years, the rules
have been interpreted more strictly. Elevators and stairs and handrails,
which are necessary for roof decks just from a Code point of view, is this
unintended consequence where the—when I present the project to the
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 17 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Architectural Review Board, they're
very anxious actually to allow the roof deck for all the reasons John Shenk
mentioned. They are healthy; it is creating parks and open space in the air.
It's a thing that really isn't very controversial. They can't approve it because
there are these technicalities that don't allow it to be approved. They've
mentioned actually several times that they would like to approve if there
was some mechanism that would allow it. That also entered into our
thinking as we made this request to actually make it a text Amendment
rather than try for a variance or something like that. I just wanted to
mention that. Often when we do bring it to ARB, there really is never
opposition to these kind of things from their point of view. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Is the applicant done? Do we have any public
speakers? I'll let the public speakers speak. Bob Moss.
Robert Moss: Thank you, Mayor Scharff and Council Members. This is an interesting building. I imagine very few of you are aware of the fact that it
was one of the reasons that there was a complaint about overdevelopment
in Palo Alto, both the height and scale of the building. This building and the
one at Cowper and University were the two that triggered a lot of concern
and a lot of complaints and eventually resulted in the 50-foot height limit
and the 2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This was considered to be an
excessively scaled building some 40 years ago. The normal process is that if
a building exceeds the current restrictions on height and FAR, you don't
allow anything that increases those variances. That's what they're asking
for. I think it's completely inappropriate to allow any expansion on this site
and this building. It would be a violation of normal process and practice,
and it would be ignoring the fact that this is one of the triggers of the
current zoning requirements and zoning restrictions. I see no justification
for proceeding with this, and I hope you will tell the proposer that this is not
something that the City wants to see go further and will not consider
approving if it does. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Jeff Levinsky.
Jeff Levinsky: Good evening, Mayor Scharff and Council Members. I'm here
tonight representing Palo Alto Neighborhood (PAN), Palo Alto Neighborhood, chairs and our zoning committee. I'd like to say that there has indeed been
extraordinary opposition to roof decks. It's been at the ARB several times.
ARB members have pointed out that roof decks on various buildings would
be very, very intrusive to residents who live nearby. An example of that was
the proposed roof deck at the old Apple store which would, as the ARB pointed out, be right across the street from residences that they were in the
process of also evaluating and would abut a residential property. There was
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 18 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
an appeal filed about a property on Lytton Avenue that abutted residences.
The Council actually effectively upheld that appeal. There was an ARB
objection to a roof deck in the Research Park, which overlooked residents in
Barron Park. There's actually been quite a bit of opposition. I'd like to read
a sentence from the Staff Report, which I think is telling of a deep problem
we have. It says roof decks on nonconforming buildings near residential
land uses, especially single-family-zoned properties, are inappropriate.
That's the Staff writing there. I'd ask, first of all, why do we care that it's a
nonconforming versus a conforming building. Conforming buildings are
typically lower, and so a roof deck on those buildings would be more
intrusive. There would be more noise, more light, more privacy issues from
a conforming. I don't know why we only talk about roof decks on
nonconforming. It says especially single-family-zoned properties. Why are
we more interested in protecting single-family owners than people who live in multiunit properties? Finally, it says residential land uses. Downtown is a
residential area. We have 1.0 FAR allowed in Downtown, which means you
have residences all over the place. There are residences on the blocks
across the street from here. We should be protecting those residents just as
much as we protect any others. The problem, I think, with this proposal is
that it somehow says if it's Downtown it's okay as long as it's not near a
residential property, but there could be a residential property right across
the street from the Houzz building. That proposal could come in tomorrow
frankly. Wynne Furth said on the ARB that there's no protection that
residents truly have against the noise or the privacy or the light issues that
come from this because it's so hard to get these kinds of complaints
resolved in a timely manner. The intrusive event happens; the police can't
get there in time; and then there's no recourse. I ask you to instead of
allowing an exception for this, instead go back and look at protecting all of
our residential neighborhoods, which is pretty much Downtown and other
commercial areas along with our traditional residential areas, in giving them
all protection from these kinds of problems. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Is that our final public speaker? Cory.
Council Member Wolbach: A couple of thoughts about this. One, I feel—my colleagues may feel differently—a little bit uncomfortable about using one
particular case to determine our general policies. Individual cases are
informative, but I feel like—again, I'm curious what my colleagues think—we
should separate what we do with this particular project from a broader
discussion about roof decks. Maybe we'll support this one and be against a general Ordinance. Maybe we'll oppose this one and support a general
Ordinance. I'd feel a little bit more comfortable if we bifurcated those.
Maybe that means if and when these things come back, they come back in
separate items rather than together. The concerns that are most on my
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 19 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
mind. A couple of them have been highlighted by speakers, by letters, even
by the Staff Report and presentation. I just want to emphasize the things
that are of greatest concern on my mind right now when it comes to roof
decks: noise, privacy, safety, and the likelihood to draw additional people,
which means potential parking and traffic impacts. I don't think these are
unavoidable impacts of a roof deck in every case, but they're potential. That
means individual roof deck applications, whether it's part of an existing or
part of a future building, should take these in mind and design around them.
That means that if we do decide to go down the road of having an Ordinance
that is more open to roof decks on existing or future buildings, we should
craft that Ordinance, if we go that way, to require designing and regulations
to address noise, privacy, safety, and the traffic and parking impacts. When
it comes to noise, the uses and the time of day that a roof deck would be
open are really critical. When it comes to privacy, backyards are the most important—they're not the only ones, but backyards are the most critical
things to think about, backyards of especially R-1s, duplexes, townhomes.
The distance and really the sightline from a roof deck into existing backyards
is the first question to ask about. You can design around that with screening
or having a roof deck that only is open for an outward view on one side or
maybe has screening on all sides and you get the benefit of daylight coming
down but you can't look out very much over the edge of the deck. The same
thing for safety. The railings, etc., are really important for safety. I want to
emphasize that with safety there are two components of that. One is safety
for people on a roof deck, and the other is safety for people below, walking
by. Again, the uses and the time of day are critical here. If you have people
partying, drinking, etc., maybe that's fine, but it raises the safety concerns
up a notch rather than somebody just going up in the middle of the day
during their lunch break to get some fresh air. Another thing I wanted to
mention is—it was mentioned earlier—this idea of having open space, park
space, etc. In general, if we decide to explore being more open to roof
decks, one of the questions is who gets to access it. Is it something that the
general public can enjoy? Is it something that the City can utilize for City
functions that community groups, that neighborhood associations can take advantage of? Is it just for residents or employees working in that building?
These are some of the questions I have. I'm a little undecided about this
particular application. I'm open to considering it a little bit more, but I'm
not 100 percent sold on it. I'm open to a discussion about a broader
Ordinance change. These issues of noise, privacy, safety, traffic and parking impacts, and also who gets to enjoy the benefit are the things on my mind
and will really help me make a decision either in the specific or in general
cases.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 20 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Member Holman: Thank you. A few points and maybe a few
questions too. I can certainly understand why somebody would want to
come forward with a proposal such as this. It's an appealing enticement,
especially as our open space gets to be more and more precious, I guess
you say, as we get more densely populated and occupied. A few questions
for Staff. What notifications were sent out about this proposal?
Mr. Lait: This was sent out to a 600-foot radius around the subject property
site of 285 Hamilton. That was the radius that we chose. That's based on
the Code requirement for text amendments. The pre-screening
requirements follow the base application of what it would be, so we noticed
it in that same manner.
Council Member Holman: Thank you. Do we know how many buildings
Downtown that this could potentially effect? How many nonconforming
buildings are there Downtown?
Mr. Lait: We don't know that right now. We would do that as part of our
analysis if there was an application filed.
Council Member Holman: The applicant actually mentioned unintended
consequences. I was in Nashville a couple of years ago. It has a number of
rooftops in its downtown area. It has a number of rooftop areas that are
occupied for a variety of different reasons. My experience in that
environment, as one example, is it's very loud. It's very, very loud. We've
had conversations here before where some of us, including I, have made
comments about how noise is ambient. It travels. We talk about promoting
housing Downtown. I actually agree with the speaker who talked about why
just single-family. It's housing, and all residents have certain rights to
enjoyment of life. I don't think it's just single-family residents. Especially as
we talk about densifying residential development Downtown, we're just
looking at building in potential conflicts. We've also had in the past, not
even the distant future, over a period of years a number of Code
enforcement complaints about even ground-level noise impacting not just
residences and residents but also impacting our hotels. The Cardinal Hotel is
but a block from this. The Epiphany Hotel is but 2 blocks away. People pay
a lot of money to stay in our Downtown area. The disruptiveness to the potential for their enjoyment I worry could impede the success and
continued viability of our hotels Downtown. Our Code talks about—it's
referenced in the Staff Report—nonconformancies cannot be increased. In
other words, we can't increase a nonconformancy. I think there's good
reason for that in the Code. There's a great logic to it. If a building is nonconformant, it already has exceeded—some might say violated—this
building built in 1971, I don't think it violated anything. It's already
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 21 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
exceeded what our current Code and what our policies are. If something
already exceeds what our policy and our Code says, it's a good policy to
continue that we not increase a nonconformancy. This proposal is for a
2,650-square-foot rooftop deck on a 9,750-square-foot roof. I mentioned
Code enforcement. I don't know how in the world there could be any
enforcement to say it's crept out to—I trust what your intention is, but
tenants change. I don't know how there could be any enforcement or
monitoring of how does 2,650 square feet not become 5,000 square feet.
2,650 square feet is the size of some of our smaller retail stores Downtown.
It's a pretty good sized area. It's the size of a good-sized residential home.
It's a considerable size. Another concern I had was if this was used as an
exemplar or as a test case but then—understanding there would be costs
associated with putting a rooftop deck in. If we decided we didn't want to go
forward with other projects because this one didn't prove to be a good test case, the proposal—this isn't in the Staff Report. The proposal is that this
roof deck would continue, though. If it's problematic enough that it's the
cause to not go forward with allowing any others, then I don't know why this
one would continue, again, recognizing that an investment is made in the
development of the roof deck. To wrap up and sum up here, my concerns
are around—the other thing is a question for Jonathan. Because there are
implications about noise, light, especially those two, would a focused
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be necessary if we're considering this for
a whole Downtown area?
Mr. Lait: No. This would be exempt from California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), this action. I'm pretty certain about that.
Council Member Holman: Tonight's action, but an Ordinance.
Mr. Lait: I think an Ordinance with roof decks—I don't believe this would
rise to the level of an Environmental Impact Report.
Council Member Holman: You're saying that even though we don't know
how many buildings it might apply to?
Mr. Lait: Yeah. Certainly there are some important policy considerations
that need to be made with respect to noise and light and traffic and noise
that we've talked about. As I have sort of imagined what an Ordinance might look like, I think it's more discrete than allowing parties or events to
take place unregulated on roof decks. What the applicant has envisioned
and what Staff has had some preliminary discussions about are that the roof
deck would be used for the tenants of the building. It would not be
something that would—there may be holiday parties and things of that nature that we might have to address and mitigate through performance
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 22 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
measures. The idea is that this is used by the tenants of the building and
not folks outside the building. We're not expecting in a typical situation
increases in traffic or parking. We believe that lighting could certainly be
mitigated by how that's placed. Issues of noise do require some study and
consideration, but there are mechanisms in place that would allow for
soundproofing some of that noise, so that it doesn't extend. There may be
some need for taller railings and things of that nature, but there are some
solutions. There are things that we can address. I do not believe that this
would rise to the level of an Environmental Impact Report.
Council Member Holman: I did say focused, but you raise something else
that I should have brought up also, aesthetics. Even in discussing noise
attenuation, then it also brings up aesthetics issues, which also is a CEQA
concern.
Mr. Lait: Yes. Again, we'd have to take a look at the details and get into it more. If an application is filed, we'll take a close look at that. Just my gut
reaction tells me it doesn't rise to that level.
Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. My summation is that much
as I think it's a nice idea—I can understand why somebody would come
forward was such a proposal—I cannot support going forward with it because
we are increasing nonconformancy. I think it's a good policy not to continue
that. I think we're building in potential noise conflicts with existing and
future residences. I have a concern about impacts on hotels and the
clientele that those hotels serve, especially given one is only a block away
and another two blocks away. Code enforcement on such projects would be
quite difficult. I do note lastly that even though the applicant's letter says
that exclusively for roof deck patio's use for those specific tenants or
owners, could not be used for additive commercial uses … . Even the
tenants in the building could have something that was noise producing like a
restaurant if they were doing parties and stuff for their employees on that
site. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: I think I'll just speak a little bit to this. To me this is a no
brainer, to be honest. We only have to fear is fear itself on this. Someone
once said that. I'm really surprised at how we're worried about the fear. I
think that the touchstone on this should be what makes things better in Palo
Alto for residents first—I even say that—and then for employees. What
makes it better? The roof decks make it much better for everyone. We talk
about having over-burdened parks, and this creates an open space. The
fear I hear people talking about are like New Orleans-style restaurants with
bands and music. I don't think we should be allowing the Old Pro to move
up to a roof deck. I don't see that as something we'd allow. On the other
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 23 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
hand, I don't think—I've asked Staff. We actually have roof decks in a
couple of places. We have one on the President's Hotel. I asked Staff if
we've ever had a complaint. The answer was no. We have one on the
SurveyMonkey building. I know SurveyMonkey is not there anymore. Have
we ever had a complaint about that? Has anyone ever heard noise from
that? No. The answer is during the workday you have employees up there
eating lunch, maybe working on their laptop. This is the equivalent of
saying that we shouldn't have parks near residences because people will be
concerned that they will play soccer loudly or something. Instead, it's less
likely to create noise because we're having basically employees who are
working on their laptop or chatting with people. We're not talking about
rooftop bars. We're not talking about restaurants. We may eventually talk
about stuff like that, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking
about in a broad policy should we allow open space on top of roofs. Then, we talked about aesthetics. I have the good fortune of being in the Mayor's
Office right now and looking out across the City from different windows.
What do I see? I see the most unaesthetically pleasing things possible, ugly
rooftops. They're horrible. We could do such a better job aesthetically,
that's much more pleasing. Do I find it aesthetically displeasing to look up
and see maybe some people walking around on a rooftop with some plants
and some greenery? No. I think that's aesthetically pleasing. Yes, there
are challenges that could occur. They're the same challenges that frankly
occur in our parks, and I'm Downtown. If we are really concerned about
noise, we should close Lytton Plaza. It creates more noise frankly than
anything else Downtown. People are always setting up music to play there.
The music is often disturbing and unpleasant. There are lots of complaints
about that. Hotels have complained, lots of people have complained. Do we
sit here as the Council and say we should close Lytton Plaza? I haven't
heard a single person say that. The answer is we should regulate it clearly.
Maybe we don't do a good enough job regulating some of the parks
Downtown. Should we say open space—now we talked about people moving
and building residences. I read the letter from Jeff Levinsky and PAN. I
appreciate their input. Think about it like this. There is a shortage of open space. If they build an apartment Downtown, and you have a nice rooftop
on which you can go and relax, put out a deck chair and read a book, isn't
that a positive for the people that live there? How can it not be? When we
build residential Downtown, we're not building single-family homes, we're
not building townhouses. We are building apartments and condos. We want them to have some open space that they can use. In fact, several Council
Members up here talk about how important open space is and how we need
more of it and how we don't allow enough of it. This is actually real open
space that could be usable for a lot of those. I would totally encourage us to
look at this. All of the concerns are really fear-driven concerns, which could
easily be regulated. I think that's where you start. You start with you're not
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 24 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
having raucous parties up there, there are no bands, that kind of stuff. The
other place they have the equivalent of a rooftop is the new Visa building.
They have a large balcony. I'm not sure what the difference between a large
balcony that juts out frankly and a rooftop is. Have we had any complaints
about that? No. I think we should definitely go forward with exploring this,
to allow this Downtown. There's one other argument that could be made.
It's a strange argument to me. The argument is the whole thing about the
conforming and nonconforming buildings. The argument is something like
because we have this rule, we shouldn't write new rules to create more
flexibility. That to me makes absolutely no sense. What we're not talking
about here is giving a variance on a one-off. We're talking about coming up
with a policy, let's look at the Downtown, and let's encourage this in a
responsible manner that doesn't bother anyone else. Let's make the City a
better place for everyone. I just don't buy these arguments that if the building is 82 feet tall, the fact that we put a 12 inch railing or a 3 inch
railing or a 4 foot railing or whatever on it and that we have a stairway that
pops up, this is somehow going to damage the way the City looks. It won't.
It won't make any difference. I feel the same way about—if it's a 50 foot
building and will allow the same thing, does it really make any difference?
Is anyone hurt by this? No, people are just helped by it. I actually think
this is a no-brainer, and I would encourage the applicant to come forward.
More than that, I'm with Council Member Wolbach on this. To me, this is not
about this building. I actually would much prefer that Staff comes back with
a proposal about what this would look like putting it forward. You've heard
Council Members' concerns about noise, privacy. I think they're all good
concerns. I just think they are easily regulated. Take privacy for instance,
when I look out in different buildings and City Hall, I can see into other
buildings around me. I don't have a rooftop. You can see from these big
glass windows. The notion that just because you're now in a roof—Council
Member Wolbach hit it right on the head. The issue is backyards. We
should be very sensitive to backyards. There are places in the Downtown
where we should be real sensitive. I would encourage you to move forward.
I would encourage the applicant to move forward. I would encourage it in a structure where we give this a thoughtful exercise with protections in place
on what Council Member Wolbach mentioned, which is noise, privacy, and
safety. I think that's where I am on that. Vice Mayor Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: One of the things that's happening is we all have a vision
in our head right now of what a rooftop looks like. Some of us think it looks
like a big band is playing and you have a bar in the background and so forth.
We went up to the President Hotel. How many of you have gone to the top
of the President where they have a rooftop?
Mayor Scharff: Just two of you.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 25 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: So you know how high their walls are. Their walls go up
almost 5 feet before you can even—I couldn't see over many of them. It is
totally enclosed. It takes maybe a quarter to a third of the roof. It is not
used for anything other than sitting up there in the daytime. I doubt there
are even lights at night. It's very old-fashioned. It was built in 1929. We
talked to somebody who said he likes to go up there in the summer and
read. It looked like a pretty quiet venue. Mr. Mayor, if I could-- if you could
give me permission to talk to the applicant?
Mayor Scharff: Absolutely.
Vice Mayor Kniss: if one of you would be willing to come forward, I have a
couple of questions for you. You can all come.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I want to hear—you've applied for this, a roof deck on a
nonconforming, commercial building. We certainly know the building; it's
steps away from us. How do you envision this? What do you see? You've given us the square footage on it. How do you see this being used, how do
you see it being fenced, as Cory has said? We're talking about safety, also
privacy. When I look from the top of the President, I can't see much of
anything other than the tops of other buildings. There's almost nobody's
backyard that I could see in that particular area. Give us a visual of what
this would look like.
Barbara Simmons, Houzz: Hi, I'm Barbara Simmons. I'm an employee at
Houzz. What we are looking...
Vice Mayor Kniss: You're the one with the young baby?
Ms. Simmons: Yes. Who is sleeping through her first Council meeting? I'm
sure she's not the first. What we're looking at is really a gathering place for
employees during the day to have lunch, a quick meeting over coffee.
Honestly, I'm looking forward to watching the sun go down over the hills and
get a breath of fresh air. That's really it. If you look at the number of
employees we have, there is no way that everyone could fit on the roof.
This is not going to be a place for all-hands meetings. We have over 400
employees; they will not all fit on the roof, and we're not even going to try.
We've been working with Form4 on the plans for it. The balcony would be
set back from the edge. One, I think your safety concern right there is mitigated by the fact that it's not going to be where you can walk right up to
the edge and look over or throw anything down. We also want to be good
neighbors ...
Vice Mayor Kniss: How high would that be?
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 26 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mr. Giannini: 3 1/2 feet.
Ms. Simmons: 3 1/2 feet setback.
Vice Mayor Kniss: How high is whatever the fencing is, so I'm not going to
fall off the building?
Mayor Scharff: 3 1/2 feet.
Mr. Giannini: The fencing would be set at Code height, which is 42 inches so
you don't fall over. It would be a solid rail, so you can't slip through. It is
set back from the edge quite a ways.
Ms. Simmons: It also would be clearly demarcated in the part of the roof
we're allotting for this, so there is no risk of creep to address the other
concerns. Based on our building and everyone who is looking at our
building, you can't have creep anyway. Everyone knows what we're up to. I
don't see that happening. That's really what we're looking at there. In
terms of noise, we want to be good neighbors and will continue to do so. We are very well aware of the hotels that are nearby. When we've tried to
do construction, we've put hours in place that work for the hotels. As
someone who's on Nextdoor, dumpster emptying first thing in the morning is
more of an issue for people who are trying to sleep late than noise. We
really want to be good neighbors and don't expect to have the noise that you
get from the Old Pro or Nola, which are actually between us and the hotels.
Vice Mayor Kniss: You anticipate that you will be closed in the evening?
Once people have gone home from working, they're not going to sit up there
at night with flood lights on.
Ms. Simmons: Absolutely not.
Vice Mayor Kniss: There's not a restaurant planned?
Ms. Simmons: No.
Vice Mayor Kniss: This is a place to go during the day, outdoors. As the
Mayor described it, it's open space, a place to eat lunch. I imagine you'd
have picnic benches and chairs and umbrellas hopefully because it could get
hot. You anticipate almost using it like an outdoor, open space, almost a
small park area?
Ms. Simmons: Exactly, exactly. It's where someone can go and take a
phone call. As I said, it's not going to be a gathering place for the entire company. For small ad hoc meetings at lunch and coffee.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 27 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: That helps a lot, thank you. Thank you both. When I
went to the President this afternoon, which was by the way deserted
between 4:00 and 5:00 P.M., I could see what an advantage this would be
to a hotel to have that. In this case, this is a business that is not a hotel,
that is not concerned with attracting people because of their wonderful
rooftop garden. I'll see what others have to say about this. Under Number
2, where it says this could serve as a case study for the Ordinance that could
be later repealed, that's appealing to me right now. I'm interested in what
others might say about this. I certainly would lean toward this particular
building having that opportunity to try a roof deck. I think the argument for
open space is a good one. I think also the argument that employees would
have a place to go, where they could just breathe for a few minutes or eat
their lunch or whatever that might be and kind of escape from the office-
type of feeling. I'm looking at this positively at the moment
Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois.
Council Member DuBois: First, I want to say something that hasn't been
said in a while and thank Mayor Thoits for his service. My main question is
why do we have an obligation to bring an item like this to Council. Is that
why we're discussing this tonight?
Mr. Lait: It's a departure from our current regulations and policy about how
do we approach nonconforming buildings. We don't allow for an expansion
or change to the nonconforming envelope of a building. That's a pretty strict
...
Council Member DuBois: Can Staff reject that or does it have to come to
Council?
Mr. Lait: I'm sorry. Could staff reject what?
Council Member DuBois: A change to a nonconforming building.
Mr. Lait: Yes, that would be rejected, but we're talking about an Ordinance.
Council Member DuBois: What I thought I heard Council Member Wolbach
say is we should focus on this project versus a broad discussion. I certainly
don't think we have enough information to have a broad discussion. If we
wanted to have a broad discussion, we need a much more detailed Staff
Report to really understand the impacts of a broad change. From a Staff perspective, I just don't see this as a priority. I am concerned about
prioritization. I'd like to see us work on the other planning activities. We've
talked about a lot of things related to housing in the Comprehensive Plan
(Comp. Plan), things like the short-term rental Ordinance, Comp. Plan
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 28 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
follow-up. We're spending more than an hour on this, and it just seems
incredibly low on the priority list, to me. I'd urge Staff to spend the
minimum amount of time on this possible. It's a non-starter. Roof decks
are already permitted in our zoning. If you want to use your building
envelope for a roof deck, you can do that today. I don't want to exceed the
zoning regulations to add beyond what's in the current Ordinance. This
building is nonconforming in height, FAR. It's a five-story building with 400
people in it. Its 82 feet tall. I do think it's a no-brainer. It's not something
we should consider. I do think it's a valid argument. We've stated we want
to encourage more residential space Downtown. We need to think about
what would make a good quality of life Downtown for residential uses. If our
tallest buildings are nonconforming buildings, result in a lack of privacy,
noise, lighting during the daytime or at night, that's something we should
think about. Nonconforming buildings make it more difficult. City Hall is certainly a nonconforming building; it looks down on a lot of buildings. The
other thing that hasn't come up, but I think we should consider, is we want
to encourage businesses Downtown to use our restaurants and support our
businesses as gathering places. Creating more private event space doesn't
really further that. I don't really see a policy benefit. I see potential policy
negatives as we look at our housing plan. That's where I am. I really
don't—I'm surprised it came to us. I guess it had to. I don't think we
should spend time on it.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth.
Council Member Filseth: Make sure I understand this. Roof decks are
allowed right now on conforming buildings, right?
Mr. Lait: The Code …
Council Member Filseth: Subject to Architectural Review Board. Is ARB the
principle place that we regulate noise and privacy issues?
Mr. Lait: I guess we would look at that through the findings of the ARB. We
would look at those issues.
Council Member Filseth: Is that basically the only check for that?
Mr. Lait: Presently.
Council Member Filseth: I don't think this is what most Palo Altans think
about when you talk about parks and open space. I didn't see it in the
Master Plan. I think we're talking about parks and open space that people
can actually use. I don't want to do anything here that's going to prevent
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 29 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
people from building roof decks on conforming buildings. I'm not sure that's
been a huge issue yet. This one is 80 feet tall; it's got a FAR of 4. It's hard
to argue for expanding it further. If you make it a 5-foot fence around it,
that's half a story. I'm surprised this one came to us too.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine, did you want to talk?
Council Member Fine: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Last week, the City Manager
sent us an email asking what our priorities are for 2018. I couldn't quite yet
pin down the phrase or wording I'm looking for, but one of the things I've
been thinking about is making Palo Alto cool again or bringing our mojo
back. Then, I saw this proposal. I think it speaks to that in some ways. In
Palo Alto, space is limited, and it's expensive. With a proposal like this, we
have a pretty fundamental question of which is better, a roof with machines
and air conditioning (AC) units on top of it or a roof with people on top of it.
I believe a roof with people on top of it is better, whether it's conforming or
not. That said, I'll just cut to the chase and then a few more comments.
We should support an Ordinance and find the tuning points to manage this
issue proactively for nonconforming and conforming buildings. If we have a
nonconforming building that's been here for 40 years, perhaps that's par for
the course. In many ways, it gets back to that question, do we think it's
better with the a/c units on top or do we think it's better with some
employees having lunch on top. I think that's the question. I don't think it matters whether it's conforming or not; that's aside from the point of what a
roof deck does. Roof decks are used the world over. We've talked a lot
about the impacts of them. There's also some benefits. It's people hanging
out in a pretty nice climate, having lunch. As the Mayor mentioned, it is a
potential for more open space. Although Palo Alto doesn't have an Ordinance, a lot of cities do have what's called Privately Owned Public
Spaces (POPO), privately owned public open spaces. That is an option we
could explore here, where these roof decks would be accessible to Palo Alto
residents within some fixed schedule. With regards to safety, aesthetics,
and noise, if we do the proper kind of greening and cleaning of these things,
there's also a potential to reduce the urban heat island effect. If we have
grass on top or things like that, that's a net benefit to our City and our
region as well. Finally, this would be an amenity to the employees there,
and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You come to work in Palo
Alto; Palo Alto becomes a more desirable place to work because you have a
nice building with a roof deck. Perhaps we're able to attract higher quality
companies. I don't think there's anything wrong with that or that we should be frightened of. Those are my main comments. Just a message to Staff
and the applicant, it would be helpful if perhaps we look at this one as a
pilot, but I would also encourage us to look at an Ordinance or a text
Amendment that explores roof decks on conforming and nonconforming
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 30 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
buildings in a way that still respects the safety, noise, and anesthetic
concerns my colleagues have raised. Those are absolutely problems that we
can overcome here. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou.
Council Member Kou: I really agree with what Council Member DuBois said.
It shouldn't even come to Council. To base it on one applicant, it seems like
now we're playing preferential. An applicant comes in with some idea, and
we completely focus on that. Then, we're going to change text amendments
in our Code that is going to be affecting district-wide. I do have concerns
about this. We're really wasting time. About being fearful—I love roof decks
by the way. The verandas that I have or the roof deck I grew up on, it was
used. Those are also residential. Yes, there's no noise, and there's other
factors. However, on this particular case, we're looking at a nonconforming
building that has already exceeded what the Code allows. They have
already benefited through years of exceeding that Code. Now, to add this
on, it means that once this tenant moves, are you saying that you're going
to knock that rooftop down so that it goes back to what it was before? No,
it's going to continue to another tenant to another tenant. What Staff has
proposed in terms of there are ways to mitigate noise, it's so easy to say
that. I've seen that in past approvals. It's so easy to say we can mitigate it,
but then when it happens, there's not even enforcement that is suitable, that comes in time to make sure that the complaint is taken care of. We don't
even have a baseline of understanding how we're going to measure noise. I
don't think its fear. I think it's actually how—it's actually from poor planning
and from poor regulations and enforcement. In a way, I feel that there is
skepticism. I don't blame some of the residents who live here and some other users of buildings. I didn't have the opportunity to go up to the
President building, but I have been up at Channing House at the eleventh
floor. I don't have to look down on the buildings that are right next door,
and half the rooftops are not beautiful. I look beyond to where the trees
are, to where the mountains are, to the sky. To bring this forth now, when
we have so much in the next year to consider and to decide on, just seems
like a waste of time, especially when we have Codes in place for how high
we can go, unless this is a method for circumventing the 50-foot height limit
and trying to bring in a nonconforming building so that they can continue to
go higher and higher. I would be careful of where we tread on this. This
might be open space in your minds or in selling it, but this is not true open
space. True open space is parkland. If we start adding this as a park or open space, what's next? Are we going to build over our parks and then put
a rooftop garden up there and say that's a park? I would be very careful
about where we're heading. Mostly I really don't think that this is even
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 31 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
worth the time to look at, at this point. Again, we have a lot of big things on
our agenda in the next year. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka.
Council Member Tanaka: A lot has already been said on this item. I largely
align my comments for what the Mayor just said earlier. That's my
thoughts.
Mayor Scharff: I just wanted to thank the applicant for coming, thank Staff
for putting this together, thank the speakers for coming out tonight on this
item.
NO ACTION TAKEN.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Mayor Scharff: No Agenda Changes, Additions.
City Manager Comments
Mayor Scharff: City Manager Comments.
James Keene, City Manager: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the
Council. The first item I have to report is you may have noticed this evening
that the street behind City Hall near the Police Department, between the City
Hall and the Downtown Library, Forest Avenue between Ramona and Bryant
is closed. It will be closed for the next 3 weeks. In that space, the Mobile
Emergency Operations Center (MEOC), the Mobile Command Center, is
parked there. We have some important repair work and improvements
needing to be made to our dispatch center inside the building. This is
serving as our dispatch center during that 3-week period. We're working to
get a lot of information out to the public, but did want to announce to the
Council. In case you hear from any community members asking what's
going on, that's the reason for that. The reason for the mobile command center vehicle being parked there, it's not an indication of any problem at
all. It's actually leading to better improvements in our permanent center.
From the Planning Department, as the Council will hear next week, we have
scheduled a discussion of the new State laws about housing for your
December 4th Council meeting. The State Department of Housing and
Community Development, (HCD), will be giving local housing elements more
scrutiny during their implementation and not just at the time of preparation
and certification. As part of this effort, HCD is going to start making more
information available on their website about the status of local jurisdictions'
efforts to implement their Housing Element. They will start posting
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 32 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
materials on December 1st, and our Planning Staff has been in touch with
them to provide some minor corrections and updates to draft information
they provided to us for review. The primary data set you will see, if you go
online after Friday, will show new dwelling units approved in various income
categories since the Housing Element was adopted. For your and the
community's information, the Department's website is ww.hcd.ca.gov. Just
a reminder that tomorrow night, Tuesday, November 28th, we're holding the
third of our community roundtables to help evaluate potential grade
separation alternatives along the rail corridor. Tomorrow night's discussion
will be focused on the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, and we'll also have one
table set up for those who want to talk about Churchill Avenue but were
unable to make it to the November 16th meeting that was focused on that
grade crossing. The community roundtable will be held here at City Hall in
the Community Meeting Room on the first floor from 6:00-8:00 P.M. Due to a scheduling conflict with a public hearing on the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP), we decided to
cancel the November 30th roundtable that was to focus on a trench option.
We'll look to reschedule it shortly after the new year. The mention of the
Stanford GUP just gives me the opportunity to share with the Council that
we did send a letter to the County requesting an extension of the Draft EIR
review period on the Stanford GUP to be extended a potential 60 days from
the closing date of December 4th. That would potentially take it to
February 4th of 2018. Some of that due to the fact that we're going to be
moving into the holiday season here in December, so a lot of folks' attention
are elsewhere. Stanford has expressed to the County their disagreement
with that request as they see the application of the Draft EIR process and
that sort of thing. The City of Menlo Park also submitted a request to see
about a 60-day extension. We'll keep Council posted on the outcome of
that. A nice way to get into the holiday spirit, the seventh annual Holiday
Tree Lighting Ceremony will take place this Friday, December 1st, from
5:30-7:00 P.M. on Lytton Plaza. You can enjoy the music of the Merry Old
Christmas Carolers, and school performances from Terman Middle School
and Keyes School students will include a Hanukah medley, the Chipmunks Song, and Jingle Bell Rock. A new addition this year is Tap Explosion, who
will perform in their tree costumes—this is very interesting, Mr. Mayor; you
get to do all the fun things—that light up as Mayor Scharff leads the
countdown to turn the lights on the tree. Crafts, cookies, and beverages will
be available during the event, and a special thank you to Marlowe's Bake Shop, Palo Alto Baking Company, Coupa Café, Café Venetia, and La
Baguette Bakery for their support of this year's event. Also, in that regard,
this coming weekend don't forget that Saturday, December 2nd, from 5:30-
9:00 P.M. is the annual Buena Vista Posada, which is of special importance
this year just given the joint actions of the City and the County and the Palo
Alto Housing Corporation to preserve the mobile home park here in our
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 33 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
town. I also want to share that on Saturday, December 2nd, the Mayor will
take off on a family-friendly 5-mile ride with the Mayors of neighboring cities
of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in celebration of unity and diversity in our
communities. The ride will start from the Four Seasons Hotel and ride
through Palo Alto and Menlo Park before looping back to the Four Seasons
Hotel. The public is invited to ride along on this completely flat, fun ride
which should be suitable for all ages. It goes from 8:30-10:00 A.M. Folks
should start gathering outside the Four Seasons at about 8:00 A.M. That is
Saturday, December 2nd. A couple of other events happening this
Saturday, December 2nd, as well. You can get your holiday shopping
started at the Palo Alto Art Center's Studio Holiday Sale featuring jewelry
and ceramics created by local artists from 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. While
you're there, you can check out the intergenerational play date from 1:00-
3:00 P.M. Enjoy a walk through the Play! exhibition and then play one of the onsite games cosponsored by Avenidas and our Department of
Community Services. Last but not least, on Sunday, December 3rd, you
could look forward to joining Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Supervisor
Joe Simitian in conversation with Council Member and Former Mayor Karen
Holman as part of the Palo Alto Historical Association's session in discussing
with them how their lives as extraordinary public servants have been guided
by the early influence of Palo Alto, their hometown. That will take place
Sunday, December 3rd, from 2:00-4:00 P.M. at the Lucie Stern Community
Center on Middlefield Road in Palo Alto. That's all I have to report.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you very much.
Minutes Approval
4. Approval of Action Minutes for the November 6 and 7, 2017 Council
Meetings
Mayor Scharff: I need a Motion to approve the Minutes. Second?
MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member
Wolbach to approve the Action Minutes.
Mayor Scharff: All in favor, vote on the board. That passes unanimously.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Consent Calendar
Mayor Scharff: Now, I have a Motion on the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Kniss: So moved.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 34 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mayor Scharff: I need a second.
Council Member DuBois: Second.
Mayor Scharff: Tanaka and Filseth. Tanaka and Filseth are voting no on
Item Number 7.
Council Member Filseth: We can comment on it afterwards?
Mayor Scharff: You get 3 minutes. You're going to vote no on Item 7 as
well? We have three noes, and no one is pulling it.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-9.
5. Approval of Change Order Number 1 to Contract Number S17165567
With Monterey Mechanical Co. Adding $300,000 in Compensation for a
Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $550,000 for the On-call Emergency
Construction Services Project Funded in Wastewater Treatment
Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement Program, Project WQ-04011 at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
6. Approval of a Purchase Order With Peterson Caterpillar in the Amount
of $534,857 for the Purchase of Four 2017 Caterpillar Model 420F2
HRC Backhoe Loaders.
7. Approval of a Contract With Strawn Construction, Inc. in the Amount
of $5,944,000 for the Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Project;
Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related
Change Orders Not-to-Exceed $594,400 in Total Value; Approval of
Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C16163034 With Nova
Partners, Inc. to Increase Compensation by $359,264 for Construction
Management Services for Fire Station No. 3; and Approval of a Budget
Amendment in the Capital Improvement Fund.
8. Resolution 9723 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Designate an Aleppo Pine at 1231 Parkinson Avenue as
Heritage Tree Number 8.”
9. Ordinance 5421 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Pursuant to the
California Vehicle Code and Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 10.56 (Special Speed Zones) to Establish Such Speed Limits, Including Increased Speed Limits of 40 MPH on two Roadway
Segments and Reduced Speed Limits of 20 MPH Within School Zones
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 35 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
During School Hours When Children are Present (FIRST READING:
November 7, 2017 PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent).”
Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board. That passes unanimously
with Council Members Holman, Tanaka, and Filseth voting no on Item 7.
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 5-6, 8-9: 9-0
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7: 6-3 Filseth, Holman,
Tanaka no
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka, would you like to go first on voting
no?
Council Member Tanaka: Sure. I was on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Committee (IBRC) when we talked about Fire Station 3, so I understand the
need, why we need it. The part that was for me kind of confusing was on
Packet Page 89. The budget goal (inaudible) $6.5 million to about $9.4 or
$9.5 million a year. That's a pretty substantial increase, about 44 percent. At the same time, I read about what's described in the station. We want to
make sure it's safe, and it's all able to provide the services. It says the
station will include a pedestrian plaza, bicycle queuing area, public art,
landscaping now incorporate protected trees, new (inaudible) plant material,
a storm water collection system integrated with a cobblestone dry stream
bed. If we are 44 percent over budget, does it make sense for us to be
incorporating niceties versus essentials? That's something we should keep
in mind given that this is taxpayer dollars that we're spending. The other
thing is that on Packet Page 87 it talked about how those five qualified
contractors were received. In the response back to me, it said there was
four. There's conflicting information in this report.
Council Member Filseth: Council Member Tanaka's raised a very important
point here. This is a fairly significant cost increase; it looks like a 50-percent
cost increase. I guess it's 44 percent in 1 year, from $6 .5 million to $9.5
million. I'm surprised this came to us on Consent. Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I don't need to repeat what's already been said. I
concur completely.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 36 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Oral Communications
Mayor Scharff: For some reason, I just skipped over Oral Communications,
and I apologize for that. You'll each have 3 minutes. Alison Cormack to be
followed by Sea Reddy.
Alison Cormack: Hi, I'm Alison Cormack. I live on Ross Road, and I'm here
to talk about a communications problem tonight. Earlier this month,
construction on part of a multimillion dollar project started in front of our
homes. Almost everyone on our street was surprised, and now many of
them are concerned. You can check out the Nextdoor thread, and it's called
"Anyone Notice What's Happening on Ross Road?" It's up to over 150 posts.
The direct communication we received was a postcard for a workshop. It
was a few years ago. Notification of a pre-construction meeting in January,
and then when construction started, we got a doorhanger with great pictures
of what is actually happening. What you received—I looked it up—a 607-
page PDF in May of 2016 with a title that was 129 words long. Starting on
Page 199, there were aerial maps of where construction would be and which
parking spots would be removed. In June of this year, you had a 65-page
PDF on the Consent Calendar with light orange dots on Ross Road but still no
visuals of what was being implemented. There are two reasons this is a
communications problem. The first is words; the second is visuals. I'm not
a traffic engineer or a bicycle commuter. When I heard Bike Boulevard, I
thought bike lanes like they have on Lewis Road. When I heard traffic
calming, I thought speed bumps like we have further down Ross Road. I
didn't know that a bike boulevard meant we're going to narrow the road, put
bicycles in with the vehicular traffic and face oncoming traffic. It turns out
I've since learned this is apparently a great idea. When a bulb-out shows up
unannounced in front of your house, it doesn't really seem that way. This
project could turn out really well, but it's off to a bad start. If you look at
the PDF, it's really hard to interpret what those black markings mean. It
was only when I got the doorhanger did I understand the magnitude of what
is being built today, literally today. They've already changed an intersection.
This is a really big project, and here's what the Planning Department should
have done. You should have mailed us two pieces of paper, just two, before you decided to approve this project. The first would have had questions and
answers in plain English, not traffic jargon. The second would have been a
map on one side with pictures on the other. The City requires all these other
projects to provide physical visual notice, and this project didn't do that. It'd
also be great if you tell us how we're supposed to use these new structures in the intersections because those of us who live there are really confused.
Are they one lane or two way? How are kids on bikes safer when you put
them in a roundabout? If you've never seen the stuff—we honestly didn't
know it was coming—it's pretty hard to know how to use it safely. It's too
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 37 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
late for those of us who live on Ross Road. Lots of people are confused, and
it's going to be a little hard for you to recover that goodwill. It's not too late
for the other neighborhoods. Please ask your Staff to send just those two
pieces of paper, so other people aren't surprised when construction starts.
This may be a wonderful project, but you have done a woeful job telling us
about it.
Mayor Scharff: Sea Reddy to be followed by Stephen Rosenblum.
Sea Reddy: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council and the
citizens of Palo Alto. It's time to think about the next Mayor, Vice Mayor.
It's coming up in January. Here's a couple of my thoughts. I think
Mr. Mayor has done a great job and, with his influence at Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG), I would like you to think about maybe reelecting
him. I like Liz too, so that combination could work. If Liz becomes the
Mayor, I would like you to think about Eric or Tom to be the Vice Mayor. Eric is very thoughtful, outstanding, very short, very brief. Tom is very
hardworking, very nice. We could have a female Mayor. Food for thought.
The second thing is the rooftop things. I went to the Cupertino Apple Park,
the $150 million project. When I go on the rooftop, they have about a glass
(inaudible) knee high to a little higher. That's a pretty unsafe place for
children. I know the responsibility is for parents, but it's just a—I don't
know why they haven't thought a little further, why they don't protect that.
Any one of you thinking about rooftops and all that regardless of what time,
who is there, how, it needs to be child protected. The teenagers jump
around; within a minute, they could be lost. The third thing is that I think
we all need to somehow convince our leaders to go through this tax reform.
We need a reform. It's been this for years, and people are manipulating
this, this and that. We need one reform, and then we go to the next one to
improve it. Please call whoever, the Senator or Congressman and all that to
work for the tax reform. Thanks for the opportunity.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Stephen Rosenblum to be followed by Winter
Dellenbach.
Stephen Rosenblum: Hi. My name is Steve Rosenblum. I've been a Palo
Alto resident since 1985. I've been proud of Palo Alto's local efforts to reduce our community's carbon footprint over the last 10 years in response
to the climate crisis caused by consumption of fossil fuels. On
December 3rd, 2007, the Council approved the Climate Protection Plan
setting out short, medium and long-term goals for greenhouse gas
reduction, which were quite modest but groundbreaking at the time. On April 18th, 2016, a Sustainability and Climate Action Plan was approved that
set an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2030.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 38 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
In 2013, Council achieved carbon neutral electricity and in 2017 carbon
neutral natural gas. In spite of these achievements, the abdication of
climate leadership by our Federal government demands that local and State
government step up their greenhouse gas reduction game. This year, Vice
Mayor Kniss has been the Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, a body that is responsible to the California Air Resources Board to
protect the climate in the Bay Area air basin consisting of city and county
representatives from Marin, San Francisco, Napa, Sonoma, Alameda, Contra
Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. At the upcoming Board
meeting on December 6th, the 24 members of the Board will have the
opportunity to approve Permit Regulation 2-2 that will set emission limits for
new sources, particularly the five Bay Area refineries. I urge Vice Mayor
Kniss to act with her fellow Board Members to enact the strongest regulation
on new sources possible to protect the climate from greenhouse gases and our local air from toxics and particulates. As a start, we must cap emissions
at current levels, but the goal must be reduce emissions of toxics and
particulates to a minimum and eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions in the
near future. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Winter Dellenbach to be followed by Stephanie
Muñoz.
Winter Dellenbach: Hi. I get to be lucky enough to get to be here for
another year on behalf of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. City Manager Jim
Keene mentioned the Posada coming up this Saturday night. I haven't
heard from some of you Council Members yet, your RSVP. I hope to hear
from you. It's going to be great this year because indeed room has been
found at the inn after 5 long years. That's what a Posada is about, looking
for room at the inn. For 5 long years, there was no room at the inn, but this
year we found it in May with the City's help. Thank you very much. It was
interesting today. Buena Vista asked me to do a favor and go to AAA
Rentals in Redwood City to check on some lights to be rented for the
Posada. By the way, everybody in Palo Alto's invited. Buena Vista Mobile
Home Park, 5:30 P.M. this Saturday. It's a really fun and interesting
evening. I'm at AAA Rentals, Redwood City, and I'm working with the guy about these lights. He says, "What is this about?" I said, "It's a Posada at
Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo Alto. You heard of it?" He said, "I
know about Buena Vista Mobile Home Park." He starts talking to me about
Buena Vista. It's like he's educating me. Palo Alto saved Buena Vista Mobile
Home Park. They got into it. A lot of people live here, and I heard they were going to have to move away, but Palo Alto made sure that those
people didn't have to move. I'm standing there going, "Yeah, yeah, yeah."
Redwood City, this guy that works at the rental place knew all about it. I
hope everybody comes. Everybody listening, TV land, streaming this
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 39 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
meeting. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, this Friday. Lots of fun, the
candlelight procession, a big feast afterward with all the traditional foods.
It's pretty wonderful and a lot of celebration. There's big changes going on
there. There's a temporary clubhouse meeting room now that is there
where the Buena Vista Homework Club takes place two afternoons a week.
It is quite amazing because the future is unfolding at Buena Vista, and
already changes are underway, plans are being made. Mayor Scharff will be
speaking, Councilwoman Holman will be speaking, Supervisor Simitian of
course, the President of the Buena Vista Association will be there. There will
be dancing to the DJ afterwards. Of course, the Folklorica Dancers will be
there. It's a great evening. I hope everybody in Palo Alto shows up,
everybody at Stanford shows up. We're going to have a really good time
Saturday night, so be there. See you at Posada.
Mayor Scharff: Saturday, 5:30 P.M.
Ms. Dellenbach: Saturday at 5:30 P.M., Mayor Scharff.
Mayor Scharff: Stephanie Muñoz to be followed by Shani Kleinhaus. Did we
lose Stephanie?
Council Member Holman: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Scharff: Yes?
Council Member Holman: While Stephanie's coming forward, can I just add
to the Posada comments by Winter Dellenbach that the food is provided free
of charge to everyone, so donations are greatly appreciated. The residents
provide the feast for everyone free of charge.
Mayor Scharff: Stephanie Muñoz.
Stephanie Muñoz: Good evening, Mayor Scharff and Council Members. I
have what really amounts to two different requests with the twin problems
of affordable housing and the homeless. The one for the affordable housing
is this. It seems to me that you have not adequately looked into a resource
that is available to you for affordable housing, and that is your power to
grant variances, to grant increases in height, to grant roof gardens. It
seems to me that you should use all of these only that these variances
should only produce more affordable housing. For instance, you have this
nice roof garden that someone wants. I think you in reality have to consider a roof garden with chairs and tables to be a workspace. Build it as a
workspace and trade it for workspaces elsewhere in the building. It's already
a larger building than is needed. Why shouldn't it have a roof garden? Put a
few little hotel rooms down there somewhere in a corner in the back that
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 40 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
would take care of some of your affordable housing need. The second one is
about the homeless. I was fortunate because different members of my
family who usually insist that I go for Thanksgiving had to go someplace
else. I did something I wanted to do for a long time; I brought some
sandwiches over to the Palo Alto Transit hub next to the train station, where
the people as I have reminded you have to get off the 22 bus, which runs all
night, and walk across—it's not very far—the parking lot to get on the same
bus again. I asked the guy who makes them get off—"Welcome to Palo
Alto," he says. If the Council Members could see them, if they could hear
them. Some night when you have these 11:00 P.M. and 12:00 A.M.
meetings, go by the train station. Your heart would melt. These people
staggering off with all their belongings. It's kind of funny in a way and kind
of tragic. The "get them off the bus" guy—we hire somebody to do this,
make them get off the bus—was there. I said, "Why and how many will there be for these sandwiches?" He said, "In the light of the—there are
more in the winter because it's cold." They have more incentive to go to the
shelters, but they don't want to go because it's so cold. There are a few of
them on the bus.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you, Stephanie.
Ms. Muñoz: Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Shani Kleinhaus.
Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you, Mayor, City Council. I wasn't planning to talk
off the agenda, but I think I want to talk about light pollution in general.
Partially because it will come up in later discussion and partially because of
the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP). There is analysis of the visual
impacts to some extent of light pollution. They say that's new sources of
light, that Stanford will submit a plan to the County for any new projects and
not direct lights up unless certain conditions occur and so on. Light pollution
is a big issue throughout the planet. It has health impacts, and it has
impacts on biological ecosystems everywhere. If you look at recent pictures,
there was an article in The Guardian a couple of days ago. It shows Europe
and our area pretty glaring. If there are still areas that are relatively dark,
we should really minimize light pollution in every way we can. The City's letter about Stanford GUP I don't think mentions that, so maybe you can add
that. I will write it in my comments. I really think the City needs to pay
more attention of what's happening at night. Just go look at Mitchell Park.
It's glaring at night, and there's no reason for it. Why all that light? Let's
start thinking about reducing the impacts of new development and also correcting potentially some of the existing development. Thank you.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 41 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mayor Scharff: Thank you very much.
Action Items
10. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle
Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project [17PLN-00212].
Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Including the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; Adoption
of a Park Improvement Ordinance; and Approval of a Record of Land
Use Action to Allow Construction of a Multi-use Pedestrian and Bicycle
Overpass Structure Over Highway 101 Near San Antonio Road,
Construction of the Adobe Creek Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail,
and Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore
Road. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) was Circulated for Public Comment On
September 1, 2017 and Ended on October 2, 2017. A Final IS/MND is Available for Review. (This Item was Previously Noticed for the
November 13, 2017 Council Meeting).
Mayor Scharff: Now, we're actually to our Action Item. Our final Action
Item of the evening, and it's 8:30 P.M. Maybe we can be out of here by
9:00 P.M., 9:15 P.M. Do we have a Staff Report?
Brad Eggleston, Public Works Assistant Director: Yes, we do. Good evening,
Mayor Scharff and City Council Members. I'm Brad Eggleston, Assistant
Director of Public Works. With me tonight, we've got a whole cast of
characters involved in this project. We have Claire Hodgkins from Planning
sitting next to me, who will be presenting the planning approval process.
We have Roy Schnabel from Biggs Cardosa, our bridge designer and
engineer; John Hesler from David Powers, our environmental consulting
firm; and also Elizabeth Ames and Megha Bansal from Public Works
Engineering Staff. To start with, I'd just like to say that we're very
enthusiastic and happy about being able to bring this item for project
approval to Council after the process we've had on this project. In a couple
of minutes, Claire will walk through the planning review steps. First, I
wanted to just walk back through a little of the history and remind you of
where we are in terms of the project's progress. There we are, a little background. Following the design competition that we held, you'll recall that
it was December 2015 when we came back to the Council and the decision
was made to essentially reset the design process with a Request for
Proposals. That was December 2015. In May of the next year, we came
and brought you the design contract with Biggs Cardosa. We began the work on design. It was last in November that we came to you with the
baseline design work that had been done and presented a range of optional
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 42 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
enhancements and what the prices would be for those things. Council made
choices about the design. Roy in a few minutes is going to review the
design, mainly with a focus on those things that have changed at all since
you last saw it last November, but also to give an overview. Now, we before
do that, I'll turn it over to Claire to walk through the planning process.
Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Thanks. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner.
Good evening, Council Members. Just a brief overview on the general
aspects of what's being proposed here. The location. It crosses Highway
101 between East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road crossings. It
completes the Adobe Creek Reach Trail, which connects to East Meadow
Drive. The purpose of the project is mainly to provide a year-round
pedestrian and bicycle connection between all of the commercial and
residential uses on both sides of the project, residential uses in Menlo Park
as well as residential uses on the west side of Highway 101 and all the walking/biking trails and the Baylands. It also completes the Adobe Creek
Reach Trail to provide a safer connection between West Bayshore and East
Meadow Drive. Just a quick overview of the process. Thus far, other than
the background that Brad provided, the Planning & Transportation
Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended
approval of the proposed project on 9/13 and 10/19 respectively for site and
design review. The Parks and Recreation Commission also recommended
approval of the Park Improvement Ordinance on 9/26. Council's decision is
tonight. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated for public
review; that began on September 1 and ended on October 2. Some brief
key considerations for tonight. The project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan goals to
increase bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. It also contributes to
reductions in single-occupancy vehicle use and associated emissions. It
improves safety, as I mentioned, for bicyclists especially between West
Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive that currently use Fabian Road.
There were environmental impacts identified in the environmental analysis,
but were reduced to less than significant with mitigations. If you have any
questions on that, I'm happy to answer. Some policy considerations. I'm not going to really talk to cost implications because I know Public Works is
going to talk a little bit more about that in this presentation. The project is
located on portions of properties that do not belong to the City, including
one private entity and the Santa Clara County Water District as well as
Caltrans' right-of-way. Right-of-way and air rights access will be required for these sites prior to construction on those properties. The recommended
Motion from Staff. Staff recommends that Council take the following
actions: adopt the Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration
including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; approve the Record
of Land Use Action approving the proposed site and design application based
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 43 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
on the findings and subject to conditions of approval; and adopt the
proposed Park Improvement Ordinance for the design of the Highway 101
Pedestrian Bicycle Overpass Capital Improvement Project. With that, I'm
going to turn it over to Roy to provide a brief overview.
Roy Schnabel, Biggs Cardosa Associates: Thank you, Claire. Some of the
key elements. The red elements located in the diagram are the main
structural elements, including ramps and bridge structure. The blue
elements pertain to ingress and egress access points for the bridge,
including trailheads, points of connection, and additional access. Some of
the major design changes and decisions that were made from the last time
we were here, about a year ago. There was a question with regards to the
finish, whether it would be self-weathering steel or painted. The decision
was made to go with self-weathering steel for its maintenance qualities and
because of the desired rustic color that it provided. We have added the extension of the Adobe Creek Trail improvements, which weren't included in
the first go-around when we were here last year. There was also some
additional improvements on East Meadow Drive, which were derived from
the existing projects in and around the area for bike improvements. It
includes a combination of chicanes and raised sidewalk. The "y" at the
Baylands and East Bay Trail was revised from a "y" to a roundabout in
coordination with Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee PABAC,
Transportation, and staff. Certain points of the overlook were extended to
accommodate some art and storage. For the Baylands, we have some
additional landscaping that has been provided. With the lighting, we have
some revisions to improve lighting in the area. I'll go over those in a little
bit more detail. The self-weathering steel trusses, as shown in this diagram,
takes its cues from the existing trusses that are located on Adobe Creek on
the east side as shown in the picture. With regards to the trail pavement,
we are now providing a 10-foot asphalt section that goes from West
Bayshore to Meadow Drive in coordination with the Water District. Some of
the amenities that were being planned in this location have been removed
and eliminated at the request of the Water District, which includes the water
fountain and some trash bins. At East Meadow Drive, as I indicated, Transportation is working on a project in and around the area of some bike
improvement projects. These are cues that have been derived from the bike
improvement projects and their recommendations. It includes some bulb-
outs or chicanes and raised sidewalk at East Meadow Drive. The other
trailhead at the Bay Trail on the eastern side was revised from a standard T-connection to a roundabout to provide additional safety, traffic calming, and
improved safety. Areas of the overlook were extended in localized areas.
One was to provide adequate bike storage. Instead of just laying the bikes
along the railings, it was desired to provide some designated bike storage.
The other area to accommodate art integration was extended for the
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 44 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
placement of some cast aluminum sculptural seating, shown in the picture.
There is a desire to add some attractive, artistic railings but only in that
limited area shown on the right. With regards to the restoration, there was
not enough area to provide for the impacted trees on the west side. Staff
has done a great job getting feedback from the environmental stakeholders.
There was a desire to add some additional landscaping, natural native
landscaping in this area. We've taken the mitigation from the West
Bayshore impacted trees and put some shrubs and trees into the Baylands
area that we're also restoring. The original plan was to hydroseed. Based
on conversations with the environmental stakeholders, Park and Rec. Staff
and Staff, it was determined that hydroseeding would not be effective.
We've changed, based on those recommendations, to mulching the area
instead of hydroseeding the area. With regards to lighting, the light fixtures
have been modified from what was presented back a year ago to provide a little bit more thematic and closer vocabulary to the structure and also to
overhang farther into the pedestrian and bicycle paths to be more efficient
and create less spillage from those light fixtures. I'll turn it back over to
Brad to talk about schedule.
Mr. Eggleston: Thank you, Roy. Returning to schedule, our schedule is built
into the three phases shown on this slide. We've been in the preliminary
design phase, working on the 15-35 percent designs which are complete, the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, recommendations
from Boards and Commissions. The fourth bullet there, Council review and
decision, is where we are tonight. Following that, once we have the
determination on the CEQA document, we can turn to Caltrans to complete
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review that's needed as well as
the 65-percent design on the project. Phase 2, final design, is when we'll
work on securing the right-of-way for the project and complete the 100-
percent design and bid documents. Those steps are necessary for us to get
the Caltrans E-76 that allows us to put the project out to bid. Once that's
complete, we plan to do that next fall. Our goal is to be here about 1 year
from now, more likely December than November, with the construction
contract to finally get this project under construction. That's anticipated to begin in early 2019 and continue into the spring of 2020 for the project to be
completed. On the funding side, we definitely want to talk about it. This
slide shows the various funding sources. Last November, when we last
talked with Council about the project, we were discussing a project budget of
$14 million, and that was $14 million that did not include salaries and benefits. I'm going to try to explain this because it's more than a little bit
complicated, the different types of numbers we use, some that include
salaries and benefits and some that don't. The budget we discussed with
Council, $14 million, includes all costs except the Staff salaries and benefits.
When you look at this funding table, that's the total funding budgeted into
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 45 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
the project. This does include the Staff salaries and benefits and the amount
of $2.4 million. If you were to subtract the $2.4 million from the $16.2
million, you get a number that pretty much rounds to the $14 million budget
we've been talking about. With the 35-percent plans completed recently, we
wanted to reevaluate that estimate. We brought in a third-party expert on
bridge and transportation projects called Value Management Strategies, who
worked with us and with Roy's firm in October to develop an updated
construction cost estimate that we could use to evaluate where we stood
with respect to the $14 million figure. That resulted in taking the updated
construction cost and building it in with all our other costs, except for the
salaries and benefits. We had a placeholder number of $16.3 for the
project, and that means the numbers to compare are the 14 million versus
$16.3. When I say placeholder, that's because the 65-percent design is
underway. There's lots of decisions still to be made about the exact design and how it will be constructed. There are opportunities to try to reduce
costs in the project still, without negatively impacting the scope and
amenities that the public cares about. Roy could speak much more in-depth
to this. For instance, one example that his team is actively looking at right
now is trying to use deeper piles so that we can have fewer piles and longer
spans between the piles, which overall would save costs if we're able to do
that. That's an example. I also wanted to point out that $16.3 million figure
includes significant contingencies for design and potential additional
construction cost escalation beyond what we have already seen. It's
including about $1 million for further escalation that may or may not happen
before the time we get it out to bid and award a contract on this project.
There are some things in there that may not come to be, but we can't say at
this point. We're also planning to re-engage Value Management Strategies
that helped us with the cost estimate as we move further in the design to try
to look at options and ideas for controlling costs. They have expertise in
that as well. Lastly on that, we're continuing to reach out to Santa Clara
County about the potential to secure additional recreation funds. You'll see
that our table shows $4 million from the Santa Clara County Recreation
Fund. There's another $4.5 million that's available. We've been checking with the County periodically because they're telling us that very soon they're
going to set up a process to allow people to essentially apply for that
funding. With all that said, we believe it's very important to move the
project forward with these approval steps so that we can continue the
progress we've made and avoid the additional increases that we're quite certain will occur if we slow down. Staff recommends that Council take the
recommended actions to approve the project. That concludes our
presentation.
James Keene, City Manager: Mr. Mayor?
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 46 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mayor Scharff: Yes?
Mr. Keene: If I could just repeat what Brad said at least twice and I think
other folks said it also. The actions tonight and the focus of this agenda
item is to adopt a Mitigated Neg. Dec., to approve the Record of Land Use
Action, and adopt the proposed Park Improvement Ordinance. Subsequent
to that, we'll be revisiting with the Council other decisions on the project.
Most notably, when we get to the construction contract award late next year,
that will be obviously another decision point. Hopefully, we'll have some of
the gaps filled in between now and then. I would just point out that we
asked the Staff this question this morning. There's nothing that we can see
within the essential scope of this project and future changes that you might
make that would impact or negate the actions we're asking you to take
tonight on the adoption of the Mitigated Neg. Dec., the Record of Land Use
Action, and the Park Improvement Ordinance. We would say whatever course your conversation takes tonight, we really do need to leave with your
action on those three steps. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. We have several public speakers. Our first
public speaker is Jim Fox, to be followed by Sonya Bradski. You'll each have
3 minutes.
Public Hearing opened at 8:53 P.M.
Jim Fox: Hello. My name is Jim Fox. I've lived in Palo Alto about 30 years. I ride my bike to work most of the time, ridden my bike over to the Baylands
many times. I'm speaking for a friend of mine who has also lived here for
25 or 30 years and rides his bike a lot. He is concerned about the location
and the cost of this. Putting a bridge along the San Antonio overpass seems
like a simpler and possibly cheaper alternative. I just want to put that out there possibly. This was put out several years ago. He believes there must
be safer and cheaper alternatives. The San Antonio overpass is only 300
yards away. This section of the freeway is the only 1-mile section where
there isn't anything going over the freeway, and you can actually see the
Baylands from the freeway. He feels that the current plan encroaches on
the Baylands and wants to preserve that as much as possible. It also has
about an acre of a footprint. You guys can speak about that. I do support
and he does support bicycle access but would prefer that it somehow use
existing structures if possible as opposed to building yet another one. Thank
you.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks very much. Our next speaker is Sonya—is Sonya
Bradski here? Following Sonya will be Penny Ellson and then Betsy Bechtel.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 47 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Sonya Bradski: I'm Sonya Bradski. Thank you Councilmen. I'm a big
bicyclist, and I would love to have a bridge to get to the Baylands. I do go
on the overpass on San Antonio, and it's just incredibly dangerous. For 4th
of July actually we have just gobs of people coming from Palo Alto. That's
probably when it's used the most. You'll see gobs of people going on San
Antonio with bikes and pedestrians. It will definitely be used, to have a new
pedestrian bridge. Please vote for this today if you're voting tonight. Thank
you.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Penny Ellson.
Penny Ellson: Hello, I'm Penny Ellson speaking as a Palo Alto resident. I
remember writing in support of Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
funding for this important connection more than a decade ago, funding that
was awarded and subsequently rescinded because of project delays. The
project before you is a good cost-effective plan and funding is once again in place. Please approve Staff's recommendation this evening. The current
bike/pedestrian crossing of 101 at Embarcadero Road is 1 1/2 miles away.
Using it when the tunnel's closed can add as much as 3 miles to a bike trip.
That's a barrier for young children. For an adult biking at 15 miles an hour,
this extra distance means added time of 12 minutes plus up to 3 minutes
waiting time for a green light at Oregon Expressway. For people like my
husband who bike commute from south Palo Alto to points south using the
Bay Trails, that would be a significant addition to their daily bike commutes
two times a day. Currently, when the Lefkowitz Tunnel is closed, which it
often is in the winter, bicycle commuters are pushed to busy arterial surface
streets during the wettest, darkest months. Safety's a big issue with this.
This is a problem. For people who enjoy biking and birding in the Baylands,
like my daughter and my husband and me, the bridge will provide a new,
car-free connection to this amazing natural open space. I think it will serve
very nicely as new park space for the hundreds and hundreds—I think it's
maybe close to 600 units of housing that have been built in that area in the
last 7-8 years. The bridge and trail improvements are well supported by our
Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. In fact, this project was in our last
Bike Plan, the one we only built 10 percent of. Remember that one? The Highway 101/Adobe Pedestrian Bike Bridge is an important regional
connector that's long overdue. I urge you to please approve Staff's
recommendations and help move this project forward quickly. I do want to
address the suggestion that perhaps we should revisit San Antonio. I'm
going to sum up quickly on this one. Right now, if you ride your bicycle down Charleston Road, at Fabian the bike lane disappears. It's going to be
disappeared. It's not going to be part of the Charleston-Arastradero plan.
The Charleston-Arastradero plan ends at that point. Fabian is the
connection to this thing, and it connects very nicely to our wonderful new
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 48 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
bicycle boulevard network at the current location. If we make everybody go
to San Antonio Road, we are putting bicyclists on an expressway to get to
our bike route to the Baylands. I don't think this is something we want our
children doing. It is not—the connector streets just don't work at that
location. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Betsy Bechtel to be followed by Shani
Kleinhaus. Former Mayor Betsy Bechtel.
Betsy Bechtel: Former Mayor and a bicyclist. As others have said, I
strongly urge you to support the Staff recommendation to approve the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I did want to make a few comments.
As I was listening to the fuller descriptions of the bicycle bridge, I encourage
all of you who ride bicycles even occasionally to do as I have. I have ridden
over the bicycle bridges across 237, across 101 in Mountain View. In
Sunnyvale, I have crossed the 85 one, which is a disaster because it's very high and very steep, and across the beautiful bridge at 280. First of all, be
sure you're not overdoing this, Staff. The idea of chicanes, what's the point?
Making it more expensive and more dangerous. Make it simple, don't make
it so—figure out a way to do your value engineering. Get the basic bridge
with a decent slope and a wide-enough path, and there you are. Thank you
very much.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus.
Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening again, and thank you for your time. I'm
glad this bridge took into consideration a lot of the concerns that we've
brought with previous designs for Audubon, Sierra Club, and other
organizations. Also, Staff has been extremely communicative in talking to
us and taking in a lot of comments. A few remain. One of them is that even
though there is now a nature restoration component, the investment in
asphalt and in concrete is so much bigger than the investment in the health
of the creek and the ecosystem that surrounds it. In some ways, that could
come out in the plantings and habitat that will be created there. I
understand Staff will come back to stakeholders to discuss that, but I think
it's up to you that the investment in that is substantial. The other thing I
talked about before, the lights. This came up in Planning Commission and also when I asked just now. Why do we still need to have lights on poles?
Even though they're erected onto the actual bridge, there's still a lot more
light pollution than creating something smaller. The answer was cost. I
think it's really important in that area to invest in our environment and the
creek and the Baylands. If the actual reason to why to have 12-foot pole for lights is cost, then find that cost-saving and maybe with less concrete
somewhere. Thank you and thanks again. One other comment I didn't say.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 49 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
I've asked Staff again and again to notify Audubon anytime there is a CEQA
document published, anytime for any notice of availability. I did not get
notified on this one. The fact that you don't have any comments in front of
you in writing is because I didn't know about it. Thank you.
Public Hearing closed at 9:02 P.M.
Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Thank you to all of our public speakers. I didn't
miss anyone? Now, we return to Council. Vice Mayor Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I'm going to do it a little in reverse. I'm going to move
the Staff recommendation, and then I'd like to make some comments. I
have some questions of Staff.
Council Member DuBois: I'll second that.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois
to:
A. Adopt the Resolution Adopting the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan;
B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action approving the proposed Site
and Design application based on the findings and subject to conditions
of approval;
C. Adopt the proposed Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for the design
of the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Capital Improvement
Project (CIP; PE- 11011).
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thank you. For good or for bad, I go way back on this
one. Penny, did you indicate that this went back even further than I
remember, which is 2010?
Ms. Ellson: I just remember the very first PABAC meeting that I ever went
to, which was more than 10 years ago. I don't remember the exact year.
This was the subject, and I was convinced from that meeting to write a
letter. In my files, I have letters dating back at least 10 years. I know it was
active before then because I know Rich Swent and Paul Goldstein we're
working with VTA on funding for this well before I ever got started.
Vice Mayor Kniss: As I said, let me begin with some questions. Obviously,
I'm supporting this. I have some real concerns. As I recollect this, I didn't
realize until I looked at this tonight that Joe Bellomo had submitted a plan in 2010. Did you all see that? That's included tonight. It doesn't look like too
bad a plan. I don't know whatever happened to it. In 2011, you received the
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 50 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
County funding of $4 million, which was half the amount that they received
from Stanford essentially to not build the trail that would have gone in the
Dish area. Following that, I've lost the trail a bit until 2013 and 2014, when
we did have a contest where we picked a very attractive bridge, but it
turned out we couldn't afford it. Now, we're back once again to, I hope, a
final plan. Now, let's go through some of the numbers. You've got $4 million
from the County Rec. Fund. Am I hearing that that could go away? Did you
mention that, Brad?
Mr. Eggleston: No. I was trying to mention that we might be able to add to
it.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Add to it, okay, not subtract from it. The One Bay Area
Grant is an absolute? You've got down that that is yet to come
Mr. Eggleston: As far as we know, that's practically a certainty. It's just in
the bureaucratic steps where it has been approved by the VTA. I believe it has been approved by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). I
think it's in the final step with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation
(CTC).
Vice Mayor Kniss: Whoever is sitting here needs to keep careful track of
that, if they happen to be involved with VTA, for example. As I recall way
back when, we had anticipated this bridge would cost about $6 million.
We're now up to $16, and $16 probably won't hold, if my predictions are
correct. I'd like some reassurance tonight about how we're going to hold the
line on the spending on this bridge. This is a bridge the public really wants,
and we've talked about it now—it turns out—maybe for 10 years. We're
talking about it probably not even going into a functional use until 2021?
Mr. Eggleston: 2020.
Vice Mayor Kniss: We're still 9 years into the process. Give me some
explanation as to what's happened and why we can't make a prediction that
is going to come out without us having to escalate it once again.
Mr. Eggleston: First off, if I could speak to the $6 million figure. My
understanding is that the initiation of this ...
Vice Mayor Kniss: You mean the way back when $6 million?
Mr. Eggleston: The way back when. I think the "way back when" 2010, 2011 is when the feasibility study was done and it was approved by Council
in, I believe, December 2011. That's when the project was essentially
approved to begin design work at its current location. What was in that
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 51 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
feasibility study was a cost range of about $6-10 million with $6 million
being a very simple, basic bridge, and $10 million being a bigger bridge with
a wider space for bikes and pedestrians and other types of amenities.
Really, the $10 million bridge that came out of the feasibility...
Vice Mayor Kniss: I wasn't here then. What happened to it?
Mr. Eggleston: What happened?
Mr. Keene: I think that's the better starting point for what the cost was and
where we are now. I'll turn you back over to where those numbers are.
Mr. Eggleston: What I'd say is the primary result of that is construction cost
escalation. That was a $10 million cost back in about 2012. I went back
today and assembled some construction cost escalation figures from our
construction manager that go from 2013 all the way through 2017. If I take
the escalation we're still planning for, which we hope doesn't happen but is
included in this cost estimate, that $10 million figure becomes just under $15. Cost escalation that we've seen in this region alone accounts for most
all of that increase.
Mr. Keene: Can I just restate something here, Vice Mayor? $10 million in
2012 and cost increases as Brad was talking about continue to project the
cost increases we're seeing to 2020, which is the completion date. It's not
that figure for right now and more after that.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I guess the question would be--the bottom line question--
I'm sorry it didn't get built in 2011, 2012. I don't recall what that was. As I
said, I wasn't here. How do we get a figure that we can get from a
contractor who's going to do this, that is a reliable figure, where we're not
saying in the meantime the cost of everything went up once more? We've
kind of got a floating number that we can never pin down, which makes it
pretty hard to do our financial plan for the year.
Mr. Eggleston: At the point where we have a bid from a contractor, our
lowest responsible bid contractor, that's the point where we know pretty
much for certain what that budget really is. What I'd say about this
estimate we're looking at now is that all the previous estimates have been
based on general factors like how many square feet of bridge is there,
what's a typical per square foot cost, adding on contingencies and other costs. The estimate we have now is one where we actually have a design for
the bridge, and engineers and cost estimators have looked at that, have
figured out the quantities of things like pounds of steel, cubic yards of
concrete, depth of piles. With that, they're actually able to come up with an
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 52 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
estimate that's based on a real design. I'll just say I feel much more
confident in the latest numbers that we have because they're actually based
on a design.
Vice Mayor Kniss: As we vote for this tonight, are we looking at $16 million
as a realistic figure or not?
Mr. Eggleston: I'm hoping that we can still reduce it beyond that.
Mr. Keene: If I can just clarify.
Vice Mayor Kniss: That's not reassuring.
Mr. Keene: The number that the Staff is using is, as of this point, at the 35-
percent design completion mark, the project cost being $16.3 million. The
next milestone we will hit is the 65-percent completion rate, and then finally
we'll get to the 100 percent, which is the point we would go out and issue
the bid. There will be the potential to have—we typically haven't always
gone at 65 percent with the Council. I would say there are a couple of things. One, in the first quarter of the new year, we're going to have a
session with the Council on the overall Infrastructure Plan and funding
issues. There will be again an opportunity to take some deeper dives on
that discussion. We could have a check-in at 65 percent, and we will
certainly have it at 100 percent. I think what Brad is saying is we're not
going to have ultimate certainty until we actually get the construction bids,
the responsible construction bid in hand. That's really a year from now.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Sixteen is just a number?
Mr. Eggleston: It's the best number we have now based on an actual
design.
Vice Mayor Kniss: It's just a number, and it may not be the number that we
end up dealing with. I think the public needs to know this. The frustration
around not having a bridge for this many years is evident and really
puzzling. I hope we can move ahead with this quickly. I'd also like you to
do one more thing. As you look on Page 7 of our Packet, you will see that
Google is making a contribution of a million. I would think there would be
other companies that are going to benefit equally from this crossing over.
That's where any number of companies are located. I'd like us to pursue
that. There are comments in the planning and transportation minutes about that as well. I'd like to see some steam behind this and finally have it
happen while I'm in office. It's only 3 years. Thanks very much.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois, you have comments?
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 53 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Member DuBois: I was looking at the map. When was the Adobe
Creek Trail added to this project? I don't remember seeing that in earlier
discussions.
Ms. Hodgkins: It has always been included in the project that's before you
tonight. There were some very preliminary maps that were put out, that
didn't show it on the trail. It's always been part of the project description to
include that. It was also something that was highly encouraged by many
members of the public during all of our Study Sessions. It was something
we made a large effort to make sure it stayed included in the project.
Council Member DuBois: Is that part currently open to the public or is it
closed off?
Ms. Hodgkins: It's closed to the public currently.
Council Member DuBois: Are the East Meadow street improvements part of
this budget, part of this project?
Mr. Eggleston: They are, yes.
Council Member DuBois: Again, I don't remember that being part of it in the
past either. Do you know offhand how much that's adding to the project
cost?
Mr. Schnabel: We don't have the exact numbers for that, but it's not
substantial. With regards to the chicanes, there are some issues with the
drainage because it cuts off drainage. That's where a lot of the cost for that
area is being done. The raised sidewalks and the chicanes in and of
themselves are not that dramatic, tens of thousands of dollars not hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
Council Member DuBois: Thanks for the ballpark. I do have a concern
about the bulb-outs and the raised crosswalk. We heard some really
excellent comments from the public today about communication, about
these kind of changes, what's happening on Ross Road. I'm a little
concerned. This is kind of a sleepy street. I know there's a little more
housing now than there was before. I'm just concerned maybe we're being
overzealous in making these changes. I wonder if there's support from the
rest of the Council to have you guys come back with more detail maybe in
the later part of the process with a communication plan and just more detail on that street, do we really need the bulb-outs, do we really need a raised
crosswalk. If we do, how we're going to communicate that to the people
who live around there, so they are not surprised. I'd love to hear from other
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 54 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Members if they share that concern. I couldn't find it. Is there any
indication in the Packet of what signage is planned?
Ms. Hodgkins: Yes. Let me find the page in the Packet. The Packet does
include proposed signage. Right now, we're just proposing the types of
signage and the general look of what it would include. That would be a little
bit refined as we go through the process. We don't want to include more
signage than is really necessary. Obviously, we need to have enough that
we're directing people in the right direction and providing enough safety for
people.
Council Member DuBois: If you could find it, I'd love to see it.
Mr. Schnabel: It's near the end.
Council Member Holman: It's Page 9.14 of the plans.
Council Member DuBois: I did see some comments in the PTC Minutes about
signs pointing to various companies. Keeping minimal signage is going to be really important here in the Baylands. I don't see a lot of signs in other
bridges like the bridge in Mountain View that points to companies. If
somebody's biking to a company, they probably know where they're going.
Mr. Schnabel: I think the general direction is to keep the signage down to
minimal amounts, basically at decision-making points and to focus on City
points of interest not companies.
Council Member DuBois: When it says Destination 1, 2, and 3, what kinds of
things would we put in there?
Ms. Hodgkins: It would be something like the Shoreline Amphitheatre or
something along those lines.
Council Member DuBois: I would just really urge you to keep it minimal,
particularly on the Baylands side.
Mr. Eggleston: That's the intention, clearly not to include directional signage
to businesses.
Council Member DuBois: I appreciate Vice Mayor Kniss' comments about
cost escalation. We probably all share that concern; I certainly do. Given
escalating cost, has anybody re-approached some of the companies that
would benefit from this? In particular, the Intuit campus is very close. Have
we had any conversation with them?
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 55 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mr. Eggleston: We have not done that to date. It's only been Google we've
been talking with. I have to say Google approached us. We've taken that
comment ...
Council Member DuBois: I know it's been a fixed amount, but as it escalates
we might want to ask if they would consider escalating along with us. You
might have answered this already. Is Measure B money available for this?
Mr. Eggleston: I believe Measure B money would be available, but there are
a lot of plans for spending the Measure B money.
Mr. Keene: There are categories in Measure B that would be applicable to
this.
Council Member DuBois: If we are extending it to street improvements like
East Meadow, I don't know if it makes sense to split it off into another
project and try to get money for that from a different budget.
Mr. Eggleston: I would mention we talked about the Adobe Creek Reach Trail being included here. A lot of the cost for that is the paving that was
requested by the Planning and Transportation Commission for the trail there.
That's not going to be funded out of the Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
project. We've identified other Capital Fund trails money to support that.
Council Member DuBois: I do want to say I'm glad we're going to see in
January a look at all of our capital projects. We had the item on Consent
tonight, which wasn't pulled. I was pretty uneasy about it. I did not vote
against it. As we keep seeing these projects, we really need to value
engineer and start to take features out rather than just continue to let cost
go up. Those are my comments. Thanks.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: As somebody who thought we should move
towards a more financially efficient and time-efficient process for selecting,
bidding, and getting out a bridge for the last few years, I'm happy to see
this moving forward. It is really important to see this move forward. I do
share the concerns about cost. As Council Member DuBois just indicated, it's
a bigger question about how we as a City really do contain cost, predict cost,
and value engineer if necessary. Of course, we all have our pet issues that
we want to see addressed in any project. We all have our key features that we want to see addressed. It's incumbent upon us on Council to know when
to compromise. It's up to us to give that direction. I do look to Staff to
keep working with us to improve how we predict what things are going to
cost and try to keep things in line with our predictions as much as possible.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 56 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
It's a tough thing to do, but let's keep putting our heads together to figure
out how to do that with all projects going forward. I do have a couple of
quick questions. On Page 19 of the Initial Study, Photograph 4 on Page 19
shows—if I'm looking at this right—West Bayshore near Adobe Creek with
sharrows on the road. I wanted to ask if that—I didn't really see that
identified other places. I'm sorry if I missed it in prior discussions about
bicycle improvements. I'm concerned about sharrows on West Bayshore, if
that was really deliberate or if that was just speculative. Is that a part of
this plan to put bicycles in with ...
Mr. Schnabel: No. In fact, what we're doing is we're actually improving the
current condition. The current condition right now doesn't have sidewalks
on the other side of the creek. Currently pedestrians are being forced into
the bicycle lane; the bicyclists and the pedestrians share the bike lane from
that point of the Adobe Creek crossing all the way to the trailhead. It's probably about 300 feet, 400 feet that the bikes and pedestrians have to
share the road. What we're doing now is, because of the additional access
that we've provided to the bridge, we now have a functional sidewalk. We're
going to return the bike lane exclusively back to the bikes. There are no
sharrows.
Council Member Wolbach: We're talking about on the western approach side
on West Bayshore?
Mr. Schnabel: Yes.
Council Member Wolbach: That's different from this photo. I just want to
confirm that this photo is not representative of what we will expect when
this is completed.
Mr. Schnabel: That is correct. There are no sharrows. We're actually doing
an enhancement.
Council Member Wolbach: Some might call a sharrow there an
enhancement because what is there now is not very good. I appreciate you
clarifying that and saying that on the record. That's very important. If we
were moving forward with that proposal, that would be very worrying given
the rate at which drivers take that section of West Bayshore, unfortunately.
Since the goal here is safety, I'm trying to look at this at this point and look for any weak links in the chain where we might not have achieved the safety
we're looking for. Another question about the western approach. Now, it
looks like we're going to be going behind the buildings on Fabian and West
Bayshore. Is it the South Wall Technologies building there? Behind them
but east of Adobe Creek, I'm looking for where that is in one of our pages. If you look at Page 7.1 of the plans, it's going to be right back here. It's
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 57 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
going to be behind South Wall Technologies and connect right next to the
creek. That's going to be the western approach from Fabian or from near
Fabian?
Mr. Schnabel: That's correct.
Council Member Wolbach: Rather than going up Fabian and around West
Bayshore, a bicyclist or pedestrian who is coming up Fabian would cut down
on West Bayshore and then go up this trail?
Mr. Schnabel: That is correct.
Council Member Wolbach: Just out of curiosity, was there any consideration
given to cutting directly across this way? It would mean another small
bridge across Adobe or Barron Creek and then cutting across directly to
Meadow Circle.
Mr. Schnabel: That was one of our original ideas; Video Management
Systems (VMS) also suggested that. Unfortunately, the Water District utilizes that area quite exclusively for their maintenance and wouldn't allow
any permanent construction on that site. That's where they launch almost
all of their maintenance.
Council Member Wolbach: Thank you for clarifying that. The issue was
raised by one of the speakers earlier about just improving the bicycle and
pedestrian facilities on San Antonio. That was something I had raised a
couple of years ago related to this project. Wouldn't it be cheaper, easier,
and faster just to improve the San Antonio overpass? I know we had some
difficulties with that. One is the approach routes wouldn't be as safe. Penny
Ellson spoke to that. There's also the question of working with the County
and the difficulties we had where they don't know what they're going to be
doing with improvements and changes to the San Antonio overpass. I
appreciate that people are asking that question. We have asked that
question in the past. I certainly pushed for it at one time, but we did
determine that that wasn't the best approach for this. Another question.
The existing Lefkowitz underpass, will it be closed following completion of
this project?
Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, it would be.
Council Member Wolbach: The City deemed it appropriate to name that bridge in memory of Lefkowitz. Is it our intention to preserve that memory
with a name relating to this project?
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 58 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, we would like to do something with that. I don't know
that we have figured out exactly what we want to do with the plaque. That
was an issue raised by the Architectural Review Board and an interest in
preserving that plaque somewhere.
Mr. Eggleston: We very much welcome the Council's input on that.
Council Member Wolbach: I can't speak for any of my Colleagues, but I
certainly think maintaining that recognition in memoriam is important. If
that's as simple as transferring it from the underpass to the overpass, that
might be reasonable and would be appropriate in memory of that person.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I have a few questions. I'm glad we're getting to
a point where we can hopefully move forward with this. At the same time, I
do have some concerns. I would be remiss if I didn't say some
disappointments. That said, questions have been asked previously about funding sources. I agree with comments made by both Council Member
DuBois and Vice Mayor Kniss about who all we are talking to about funding
potentialities. Google's first offer—Staff said Google came to the city—was
$1 million. Thank you for providing this letter. It's really important to
understand that there aren't any strings attached to this funding. If the
initial offer was—thank you; Jessica is passing out the letter I just referred
to. If Google came to the City 2 or 3 years ago with the $1 million, it seems
like we ought to be negotiating for more than $1 million. Also, Intuit is near
there; other entities are going to absolutely benefit from this bridge being
there. You put your light on, so it sounds like you want to comment.
Mr. Eggleston: We've heard and we agree with the idea of contacting other
local companies who might be willing to participate. With respect to Google,
I wanted to also point out that, in addition to the $1 million cash contribution
to the project, they're giving us the air right-of-way over their project and
working with us on that for no charge.
Council Member Holman: I understand that. We're also rebuilding their
parking lot.
Mr. Schnabel: Just to be clear, the rebuild of the parking lot is to maintain
their existing number of parking spaces. We are impacting parking spaces by the placement of the bridge and their right-of-way. To maintain their
existing number of parking spaces, we had to redesign their parking area.
Council Member Holman: I understand that. I can't say I know how old
their parking lot is. Nevertheless, it will be a new, upgraded parking lot for
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 59 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
them, also considering that they are giving the air rights and the easement
across that. I appreciate that, but that seems like a win-win for everybody.
I don't know why but it doesn't seem like there has been outreach to other
entities for participation in the funding for this. I don't know why that hasn't
happened prior to this; it's been going on for quite some time. I don't know
if Staff has a response to that.
Mr. Eggleston: Frankly, I'll just say it hasn't really been on our to-do list.
Mr. Keene: We'll do our best, but I wouldn't be sure that just the Staff alone
would be the most effective way to be successful in that regard. I think the
points are well-made. To the extent that we're going to have any funding
gap or concern about the impacts on the project design, how is it that we
tap into everybody who is a potential beneficiary from the project being
there. We're certainly open to that.
Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. Alison Cormack made comments earlier about communication. I would say with this that the
Council Members have been pretty clear in asking Staff to do some outreach
and seek this in the past. If Staff is wanting Council Members to participate
in that process, there's been a lack of communication back and forth. A nod
to Allison on the communications point. To stay on Google for just a
moment here, it says in the footnote on Packet Page 158 or Staff Report
Page 7—there's a footnote that says a contribution of $1 million from Google
is planned to fund additional project contingency to offset any increases in
project cost. Why is it not identified as being part of the core project cost?
If there are contingencies, then the City or some other entity would be
responsible for those. It seems like Google is "if we need it, we'll tap into
this" as opposed to it being a part of the real funding program.
Mr. Eggleston: Actually that's not the case at all. This language has to do
with our original thought about how we would use their contribution. Last
year. we actually discussed with them that we may decide to use their
contribution to reduce the City's contribution, and they were fine with that.
They are making a cash contribution to the project that the City can use
however it wishes.
Council Member Holman: Can we make that clearer in the Motion? That's not what the Staff Report says in the financial aspect. The $2.4 million Staff
and benefits cost, is that included in the $6.86 million? Is that where that is?
Mr. Eggleston: Yes, that's correct.
Council Member Holman: Something else that's been mentioned earlier is
the signage. I tried to figure out—it's a very busy drawing, the site plan 3.2.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 60 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
How many signs are going to be a part of this project? I agree with other
Council Members who have said—I think Staff said this too—we want to keep
the signage at a minimum. Do you have any idea how many signs there
are going to be, vertical signs in particular?
Mr. Schnabel: At the points of connection and decision-making, there will be
signs in every direction. There are three major, four major areas for that.
Council Member Holman: That's 16, it sounds like.
Mr. Schnabel: That's 10, 10 wayfinding signs. We're still discussing with
Transportation with regard to the number of etiquette signs. Based on
previous conversations, they want to keep that to a minimum and not
populate too many locations with etiquette signs. There are informational
signs that they want to place at potentially two or three locations, which
describe trails and routes. There are educational signs at the overlook, so
there are another two signs planned at that location.
Council Member Holman: That comes to how many?
Mr. Schnabel: That comes to about, depending upon the number of
etiquette signage, probably somewhere between 18 and 20 total signs.
Council Member Holman: I think you've heard Council Members say they
want to keep it at a minimum. On the same topic with signage—I had it
marked earlier and now I can't find it. It's where the visuals are for signage.
I can't find it in the...
Mr. Schnabel: Nine point something, 9.2, 9.1.
Ms. Hodgkins: 9.14.
Council Member Holman: Somehow or other I'm not coming across that.
Hang on just for a second. I know why I'm not finding it; I had it covered
up. Sorry for that. This was discussed also, I think, at the ARB. Once in a
while I've mentioned that I do come from the graphics world. I'll just be
perfectly honest. I go to other communities—I know our City Manager is
sensitive to this too—and I see signage that's not so mundane and dumbed
down to the lowest common denominator both language-wise and especially
design-wise. I don't mean to be harsh about it, but I look at these designs.
Except for the ones at Adobe Creek overcrossing that have the split images
with the pedestrian and the person on a bicycle, pretty much everything there I find to be "please don't." It's so basic. It's unattractive; let's say
that. There are other ways to get messages across that are really appealing
visually. This isn't it. I'll try to find this faster since hopefully I haven't
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 61 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
covered it up. Going to the chain link fence because that was mentioned on
plan sheet 4.3 C and 9.5. The plan for the design right now, as I read it, is
to use basic construction fencing. Is that correct?
Mr. Schnabel: No. It is a chain link fence, but it's vinyl clad. It has a vinyl
coating on it, and it's going to have a paint color to it. It's not the standard
galvanized fencing which you see at construction sites. That also is a 2 x 2
mesh. We are using a 1 x 1 mesh to prevent climbing, so that the mesh is a
little bit tighter.
Council Member Holman: What would happen if we wanted to use—looking
at the Plan Set 9.5—a couple of these other options or one of these other
options? There are two on that Page that are mentioned here or offered.
One is a galvanized, weaved-wire mesh, and one is a galvanized decorative
wire mesh. If we were to change to one of those to have a less pedestrian
element, what would that do?
Mr. Schnabel: It would increase the cost. The woven wire mesh, the
standard one, is not that much of an increase, but the decorative woven wire
mesh is substantially more expensive. There are several alternatives you
can direct us to.
Mr. Eggleston: I just wanted to add that I believe this is one of the items,
when we came back to the Council last November with the 15-percent
design, that we were calling optional enhancements. The optional enhanced
railing and fences were one of those. Based on the Council's, that's why we
proceeded with the vinyl-clad chain link.
Council Member Holman: I remember very, very clearly when I asked about
some of those design enhancements, I said what if we chose one of these.
The response was very clear back from Staff that there is no money for any
design enhancement. The direction that Staff got was driven by the fact
that Staff's response to the questions and inquiries was there is no money to
do any enhancements. We're talking in a circle here, to be perfectly honest.
We are offered some options just like we were before, and saying that we
are where we are because of Council direction. The Staff indication back
then was we can't go another direction.
Mr. Keene: We are where we are right now. To do an enhancement would take a direction from the Council to enhance the design. We're not in a
position to enhance the design without the cost of enhancement. This would
have to be a direction that would come from the Council.
Council Member Holman: Unless, of course, there was some additional
funding found to pay for that enhancement. That's another possibility. Let
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 62 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
me state really clearly that even if the proposed chain link, vinyl-clad—it's
still going to look like construction fence in my perspective. These others
are so much nicer, especially the one at the bottom on Page Sheet 9.5. Vice
Mayor has taken off, but I would like to ask that that be an Amendment.
One other thing is where's the art on this, the required art, and where's the
cost included for that?
Ms. Hodgkins: Firstly, I don't believe public art actually is required for the
project, because it's a public project. It is required. I apologize. We are
including that as part of the overcrossing and the outlook. The art design is
included in that overlook design, including the benches and the railing
around the benches.
Council Member Holman: This has been to the Art Commission for their
comment, input, and recommendation?
Ms. Hodgkins: Yes, it has.
Council Member Holman: The cost for that is how much, and where is it
included?
Mr. Eggleston: I'm not sure we have the cost, Council Member Holman. It's
not built into the cost of this project because of the way the 1 percent for
public art program works. That money is separately budgeted and a project
that's just for art in public spaces. Essentially, the visible construction cost
of a project is what the 1 percent is based on. I would estimate it's probably
somewhere between $60,000 and $100,000.
Council Member Holman: I had forgotten it's a separate pot that the money
comes from for that. The last couple of questions have to do with the
concrete color. Because we are in a sensitive area of the Baylands, what's
the concrete color? Is it a tinted concrete? Is it the same concrete color
that's the basic that we use in our sidewalks? What is the concrete color?
Mr. Schnabel: It's an unfinished concrete color with a broom finish.
Council Member Holman: It's that gray that we see in all our sidewalks?
Mr. Schnabel: Yes.
Council Member Holman: This is getting to be worse and worse. From my
perspective, that's not really an appropriate color for the Baylands. Shani
Kleinhaus made comments about the investment in concrete being so large and not as much investment in planting. Is there a way to better rebalance
that or is there...
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 63 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mr. Eggleston: I would have to say this is essentially a large civil sort of
project. The landscaping aspect that's taking place with the project is within
the project's footprint. We are committed to making sure we're doing a
good job planting native species and doing a good job of restoring that area
that is the construction footprint of the project. The project itself is largely
not a big opportunity for landscaping.
Council Member Holman: The 12-foot light poles, as I understood the
response to Ms. Kleinhaus' comments were, that was a cost constraint. Can
you clarify or elaborate on that just a bit please?
Mr. Schnabel: Definitely the 12-foot light poles are more efficient than the
railing lighting, which is much lower. Because of it, they tend to spread a
more efficient light over a larger area. You need much fewer of them than
the standard rail lights. We are not placing any of those light poles on the
Baylands side; the light poles are exclusively on the West Bayshore side along Adobe Creek and Barron Creek. They are highly efficient; they are
programmable; as such, they are very efficient and are spilling very little
light into the channel. That was also a requirement with the Water District.
We try to utilize them as functionally and efficiently as possible. We place
them along that edge and along the street. Where the bridge starts to rise
and get higher, we converted from the light poles to the railing lights.
Council Member Holman: I want to support the bridge project because I
think the community has been waiting for this bridge for a long time. I think
you can tell by my questioning I have some real major disappointments with
this. I look to the Vice Mayor and see if you would accept an Amendment—
let's maybe look at how best to do this. I share your concern about cost, is
this the number that it's really going to be. Several of us have brought up
the idea about going to other sources to ask for funding. I'm not sure if you
were in the room when this was stated. Maybe it's better for Council
Members perhaps to go seek some of that funding. We haven't had a good
communication back and forth about that. Would you like to add an
Amendment about giving direction to Staff to come back in a month with
some recommendations about other potential funding sources and what
those might accomplish?
Mr. Keene: I don't know if a month is the right timeframe. If you would
give us the general direction.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I'd say in general pursuing other funding sources. They
could either be from companies or they can also be from the County's fund
that Brad has indicated may be open. I think it can be fairly simple, just
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 64 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
pursue ways to add to the fund either through companies or going back to
the County or whatever else. Just say pursuing funding in any other form.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to pursue other
potential funding sources.”
Council Member Holman: You'd like that to come back—could it come back
maybe in January when we're looking at the other infrastructure projects?
Vice Mayor Kniss: I think that's probably too soon. How soon do you think
you guys could give us some feedback?
Mr. Keene: First of all, we understand we have an existing funding gap. We
can't just bring the Council a value engineering alternative without fully
exploring the ways to close the funding gap. We've also identified potential
funding increases that may or may not be desired by the entire Council.
That then also begs the question of if we want to do that, then how do we
identify some additional funding sources. We understand the need to
identify some strategies and some focus opportunities for how we do that.
We get that. I don't want us to commit to say that we can achieve this
almost tactical decision point concurrent with when we come back with this
larger discussion that potentially could have this kind of conversation with
five or six other projects also. I think we need to realize we're going to be
talking about infrastructure a lot. We understand the need to put together
some options for how we can increase potential funding contributions to this
project. One other thing I would suggest, as we get a little bit further down
the road, some of these alternatives, if the Council as a whole or a majority
wants us to pursue, could be looked at as add alternates that are put into a
bid. We automatically get responses back when we bid the construction project to actually see what the cost differential is for doing stuff. You would
be in a position to make some decisions at that point in time, if you are so
inclined as a Council. Some of these things are really questions to the Staff
to answer, but then ultimately it's a conversation amongst the Council about
what direction you want to collectively give us.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I'm fine with something in there about you can explore
them, pursue them, whatever it's going to take to pull some more money
into this. We're hearing clearly that 16 is an appealing figure now, but it's
going to probably sound pretty cheap in a year or two. I have a feeling
we're going to end up with more than that. Where's the seconder on this? I
think this is pretty straightforward and also pretty planned, to be honest.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 65 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Member Holman: if I might offer just one other Amendment for the
Vice Mayor's consideration. When this goes out for bid, the alternative mesh
wire patterns be bid and also the lower-key lighting along the bridge they
also considered. Then, if we get more money, we can find out if we can
afford them or not.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Why don't we consider that as a comment from you, but
let's not put that in at this point. Where are you on that, Tom? I think we'll
leave it as is. That comment will go into the record.
Council Member Holman: As a comment, nothing will happen with it, I don't
anticipate.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou.
Council Member Kou: A lot of my questions have been answered, but I did
have a few. Just today we received a notification from East Palo Alto that
they're doing groundbreaking on their Clark Avenue Bridge. Their groundbreaking means they're going to be moving into building it pretty
soon. Are we going to have to coordinate with them? How is that coming
along? How are we going to do that? That's going to impact a lot of the 101
exits.
Mr. Eggleston: Are you referring to coordination overall, not with this
project?
Council Member Kou: Coordination with this project. I guess there's still a
long ways to go before we'd even be impacting.
Ms. Hodgkins: Groundbreaking means that they are starting construction
right now. This project is not scheduled to start construction until early
2019. If it were to overlap, there would absolutely be some coordination. I
will also note that the project has specifically been designed in a lot of ways
to avoid traffic on Highway 101 and the other streets, specifically because
Caltrans had some concerns about overlapping construction projects.
Council Member Kou: I was just concerned about the impacts. It's just
going to get even worse. This is good to hear. You mentioned the right-of-
way and air rights over that building that we're impacting. Have those been
secured already or is it just in the report?
Ms. Hodgkins: We can't secure them until the CEQA has been completed for this project. We would then move into the phase of obtaining all of those.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 66 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Member Kou: A couple of questions on safety. Given it's quite
isolated over there at night, and there are quite a lot of bicyclists but
probably not pedestrians at night, will there be maybe a camera installed so
we can be assured there isn't any sort of safety issues or crime that happens
over there? Has that been considered?
Mr. Eggleston: I don't believe it's something that has come up in any of the
discussions to this point.
Council Member Kou: When can I bring that up again to have it considered?
When the bridge comes up?
Mr. Eggleston: You can bring it up now. If we were going to do it, it's
something we would need to consider during the design process.
Council Member Kou: This is now?
Mr. Eggleston: Yes.
Council Member Kou: I would need a Motion for that?
Mayor Scharff: You would need to make the Motion.
Council Member Kou: One more question before I make that Motion. Speed
limits, I know you have already a lot of signs. You say it's a shared
bicycle/pedestrian path. Do we have speed limits for bicyclists just so that
we know we're working just for safety's sake? Is there going to be speed
limits on this?
Mr. Schnabel: That actually has come up in a conversation with
Transportation, with regards to speed limit signs. They felt that ...
Council Member Kou: They?
Mr. Schnabel: The Transportation Staff felt that none was necessary, but we
still haven't fulfilled all of the sign requirements yet and the number of signs.
We can bring that up again in our next conversation with them, whether
they think that's adequate or not.
Council Member Kou: Has there been other cities that has bridges or
pathways for bicycle/pedestrians that have had speed limits posted?
Mr. Schnabel: Yes, there are some paths that have speed limit signage, but
it's not common.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 67 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Member Kou: I'd like to move that we add four safety cameras to
the bridge. Second?
Mr. Keene: Could I make a suggestion? Two-fold. One is this is a relatively
simple thing to technically add later in the project. I would say that we
have some direction from the Council that's at Policy & Services Committee
(P&S) and ultimately would be coming back to this Council as a whole that
regulates our data collection and public surveillance as it relates to policies
that would require Council oversight and a decision when we make to install,
for example, cameras that could collect this information. That would be
coming back, I would guess, to the Council this year later to schedule on the
contract for this project. This would certainly be the sort of thing, if we
were interested in doing it, we would have to bring this to the Council for
your formal approval at that point in time, which I would think would be
taking place sometime in the first half of 2018. We don't have the direction yet, but the Colleagues' Memo that was put together and the initial work was
really laying the groundwork for how we publicly report and have Council
oversight on surveillance and data collection issues. I'm just saying that's a
natural way for us to be dealing with this as a concept.
Council Member Kou: When you're going to look at that, what we discussed
in Policy & Services for surveillance and so forth, then bring it up for
locations of where we want to put cameras, is that what you're saying?
Mr. Keene: The concept is the policy that we're looking at would actually
require formal Council approval of any direction to install cameras or other
technologies that could collect personally identifiable information.
Mayor Scharff: The Chair of P&S and lead author of the Colleagues' Memo
wanted to jump in. I'm just going to allow it quickly.
Council Member Wolbach: P&S has already recommended direction to Staff
to bring back to Council regarding surveillance and privacy technology. We
sent that along to Staff and made the recommendation earlier this year. I
respectfully don't think it's totally relevant at this point because it hasn't
gone into effect. We don't have an Ordinance. Whether we do cameras or
not, we could discuss that now or at some time in the future. I don't think
that discussion at P&S, that Colleagues' Memo, or that future Ordinance would preclude one way or another what we decide to do. I just don't think
it's directly relevant.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member
XX to add safety cameras to the design of the bridge.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 68 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mayor Scharff: Are you finished or are you …
Council Member Kou: I'm finished.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka. He stepped out. I don't think
there was a second. I guess I'll speak briefly and then let—Adrian, you want
to talk? Go for it.
Council Member Fine: I'll be very brief. There are clearly some issues
around cost and procurement here, which will be helpful to look over as we
look at the infrastructure budget. Tonight alone we've had the fire station
and now this project where there are a lot of questions at the Council level.
I am going to support the project and just the basic Motion. I think that's
our policy discussion tonight and what we should be looking to move
forward. Just one comment. A few folks have mentioned trying to reduce
the number of signs. I think we should also keep in mind that signs do
serve a purpose, which is to get people to places safely and without losing their trail. I think we should have as many signs as needed to accomplish
that measure. Otherwise, happy to support the Motion as it stands. Thank
you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka.
Council Member Tanaka: First of all, let me thank Staff for moving this
forward. I know it's been a long process. I remember reviewing this on the
Planning Commission. I can't believe it's still taking this long. I wanted to
ask a few quick questions. This is in context because I was also looking at
the Long Range Financial Forecast. We have a multiyear $2 or $3 million
deficits. One of the biggest issues with this project is the cost. Do you guys
know what the cost was for the bike and pedestrian bridge over East Palo
Alto? Do you know how much that cost?
Mr. Schnabel: It was $9.7 million for construction only.
Council Member Tanaka: In the article, it said $8.6 million. I'm not sure
what is the right number. The article I'm looking at right now says $8.6
million. How does this compare to the East Palo Alto Bridge?
Mr. Schnabel: It's a little bit different. The East Palo Alto Bridge is a
concrete structure. It's got a column in the center of the freeway, and then
it has a path that follows the street between the freeway and the frontage road. There's a lot of construction access and construction staging issues
with regards to that. Other than that, it's a similar link. It's a little shorter
because it doesn't go at 5 percent; it utilizes the 7.5 percent to flat and has
ramps which is recommended for pedestrians, not for bicycles. Generally,
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 69 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
that's about the cheapest structure you can build, the East Palo Alto one.
It's the most basic structure out.
Council Member Tanaka: My question to you is why can't we use that
structure?
Mr. Schnabel: That was one of the original structure types that was
identified 10 years ago. There are a lot of problems with that type of
structure in this case. One was that it puts a column in the median of the
freeway. There is no median to speak of in the freeway at this location
because of the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) widening project. Basically
you have a 2-foot shoulder, a barrier, a 2-foot shoulder, so you have 6 feet.
Construction of that column would require taking away both HOV lanes in
either direction for the period of time for construction of that. The bigger
problem is because of the depth of structure for that type of structure, we
would not have been able to reach the point of clearance underneath the high-voltage lines at Barron and Adobe Creeks. Because of profile
optimization, we needed to come up with a section or a structure type that
reduced the structure section to maintain the vertical clearance over the
freeway.
Council Member Tanaka: I noticed that they got a Caltrans grant of $8.6
million. Do you know how they qualified for that and could we qualify for a
similar grant?
Mr. Schnabel: I'm not sure where they got their funding.
Ms. Hodgkins: I don't know. Sorry.
Council Member Tanaka: They're both bike bridges over 101, and they're
only a few miles apart from each other. Do we think we could qualify too?
Mr. Eggleston: I've forgotten exactly what the funding source is. It's one of
the Federal ...
Council Member Tanaka: The news article I'm looking at right now says it's
from Caltrans, $8.6 million.
Mr. Eggleston: Caltrans helps manage the grant funding from the Active
Transportation Program and other Federal programs. I'm not sure which
that is. For instance, the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) money that we're
getting will be coming from Federal grant sources.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 70 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Member Tanaka: Can you go to Packet Page 233, Attachment H? In
particular, you can look at Pages 238 and 239. I need a magic decoder ring
for this section.
Ms. Hodgkins: Sorry. To be clear, this section is part of the project
description. This is part of the project description for the project, but it's not
the site and design objectives for the project.
Council Member Tanaka: My point is it's all gibberish, literally.
Ms. Hodgkins: I'm sorry. The printing we're looking at didn't get messed
up. I'm so sorry. We're looking at the version that you guys are looking at
and understanding ...
Mr. Keene: We were hoping you could figure that code out. There's a real
printer problem there on that, yes.
Council Member Tanaka: To the last point, other potential funding sources,
has Staff looked at branding opportunities as a way to also raise some
money for this bridge?
Mr. Eggleston: No, we have not.
Ms. Hodgkins: I think this goes back to the question you guys were asking
earlier about whether we would consider—I think there are two things,
branding on the bridge but also branding in terms of looking at signage
leading to specific locations. I think that's what PTC was looking at when
they were bringing up that comment about having signage lead to a specific
location. It was raised, but I think it could be something we look into. I
don't know if it's...
Mr. Keene: I think that's more of a policy direction we need from Council.
Council Member Tanaka: First of all, the community really wants this bridge.
As a biker, I truly would like this bridge as well. The question is how do you pay for it and how do we make the ends meet. We have these escalating
costs that keep going up. I feel like this would be important to be creative,
to think about how we fund this project and actually make it happen. Seems
like we are getting closer and closer to the funding, but the amount of
money it takes keeps going up and up and up. It's been about 10 years,
and we're never able to actually close the gap. Looking at our budget, it's
not like we're rolling in dough right now, where we have money to pay for
this. How do we bridge the gap? Do you guys need an explicit thing from
us on this?
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 71 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mr. Eggleston: I think we would, yes.
Council Member Tanaka: I'd like to propose a friendly Amendment that we
also look at branding opportunities.
Mayor Scharff: I would suggest that we use a better phrase than branding
opportunity. You mentioned a couple of things. Are you talking about
basically sponsorship, where you get signs? Are you talking about naming?
Are you talking about …
Council Member Tanaka: I can't be specific because I'm not sure what the
market could bear. How much are we short, total?
Mr. Eggleston: $2.3 million if that number was to hold.
Council Member Tanaka: How do we come up with $2.3 million? Maybe
somebody would just—with 8 point font on some railing—say we'll pay you
$2.3 million. I don't know what it takes. I think Staff will have to explore it
because I don't know what it will take to get $2.3 million.
Vice Mayor Kniss: It's $2 million now; it'll be $4 million by the time we're
done.
Council Member Tanaka: Whatever it is. This is something Staff needs to
go out there and see what—San Diego does a lot of this kind of stuff to help
build playing fields, to help build …
Mayor Scharff: Why don't you use the term "sponsorship"?
Council Member DuBois: We should vote on it separately, but naming rights
are quite a bit different than a big sign over Freeway 101.
Mayor Scharff: Exactly.
Council Member DuBois: We've talked about this being a gateway to the
Baylands, a gateway to our City.
Council Member Tanaka: This gateway may not be built unless we get the
money for it.
Council Member DuBois: I'm just saying I would not support a major sign
on 101.
Council Member Tanaka: I don't think it would take that either.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 72 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Member DuBois: If it was known as the somebody memorial bridge,
that would be different.
Council Member Tanaka: There might be people out there who do it just in
a more incognito way. I don't know.
Mayor Scharff: I might be willing to consider signs that say how to get to
certain companies, frankly, if the companies made major contributions.
Maybe not. I don't know. I haven't really thought about it. Just wayfinding.
Council Member DuBois: I think if you work at a company, you know where
it is.
Mayor Scharff: That's probably true too.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Is Tom saying he wants to separate that out?
Mayor Scharff: Yeah, he wants to have a separate Motion, a separate vote
on it.
Mayor Scharff: Do we need further discussion on this or do we want to vote? I don't see any lights. Who seconded it? You made the Motion.
Council Member Fine: I'll second it.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council
Member Fine to direct Staff to explore sponsorship opportunities.
Mayor Scharff: Adrian seconded. Your Motion is to pursue—why don't you
say explore.
Council Member Tanaka: I'm fine with that. My main point is we have a
funding gap. Our budget's not looking very good. This bridge, which the
community really wants, has been pushed out year after year after year.
How do we bridge the gap?
Council Member Fine: I'll just speak to it quickly. As Council Member
Tanaka mentioned, there are some companies, perhaps individuals or
businesses in the City who would be happy to sponsor part of this bridge.
This folds in directly with Item D. Potential funding sources could be
sponsorships.
Mayor Scharff: Let's vote. Anyone else? Let's vote on the board. That
passes on a 7-2 vote with Council Members Kou and Holman voting no.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Kou no
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 73 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: I realize it's a different situation, but Google is paying for
Mountain View's bridge totally. They are sponsoring it.
Mayor Scharff: Anything else, Greg? Did anyone else besides me want to
speak? One quick question I had. On the $2.5 million for Staff salaries, do
we always put that into our projects?
Mr. Eggleston: We didn't put it into the budgeting for the projects until
about 3 years ago. I'd have to say the process for doing that isn't perfect,
so it's not always there yet on all projects. We're trying to do that.
Mayor Scharff: Just explain briefly to me how that works. $2.5 million, let's
say 50/50 benefits and salaries, $1.2 million. $1.2 million, it's a 2-year
project. We have—do we have …
Mr. Eggleston: This is for the total project, over all the work that's gone on
since the inception of the project probably in Fiscal Year 2013. The early
design, the design competition, the work that's happened since then as well as the construction.
Mayor Scharff: Why should we do this on our Infrastructure Plan? All it
does is take money away from what we've said for infrastructure and repay
the General Fund out of the General Fund. What's the thought of doing this?
Mr. Keene: Even historically, the Staff—we've always had the Staff who are
working on capital projects charging their time to capital projects. Up until 2
or 3 years ago, what we had was a pool of funding essentially within the
larger capital budget that would be drawn down based upon billings that
were coming in on individual projects. In one sense, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) appropriately recommended that doesn't exert any
discipline at all if people are just going to charge against this. The imperfect
part of what Brad is talking about is there is this attempt to estimate what
we think on a particular project the actual Staff time will be. The truth is it
can actually vary. It could be more; it could be less, but at least we're
trying to divide these rather than just pool the money to divide them up in
advance and identifying them on projects. In a sense, the Staff time for
those people have always been budgeted each year, a portion of what would
have been—what you might think as General Fund funding would actually be
funded out of the capital budget. This isn't like we're taking some funding that is already funded and then transferring it to the capital budget. What
we're really saying is there are portions of, let's just say Public Works Staff
in particular and utilities, where the—more so in Public Works because it's
more General Fund and then the capital budget.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 74 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Mayor Scharff: I don't recall us charging time to all projects throughout the
entire City. When you spend your time, Jim, on Council Members, I don't
recall seeing in the Council Member budget that we have to pay for your
time. We probably should, maybe make your time free up. My concern is
this. This is probably not the right forum. I am actually concerned that we
will do less capital projects because we have the notion—do we have a dead
capital project budget where—if we don't move forward with this bridge, for
instance, let's say you've spent $1 million out of the $2.5 million because it's
been going on for 5 years. You'd actually then take money out of our capital
project and give it to the General Fund? Is this an accounting rule or are we
actually moving money that, otherwise, would be going towards our capital
projects back into the General Fund?
Mr. Eggleston: No, it's really an accounting exercise of how people's time is
accounted for. Similar to what Jim was saying—for instance, my time is budgeted 90 percent in the capital fund. If I don't charge time to a specific
project like this, the funding for that will still come out of the capital fund. It
won't somehow go and support the General Fund.
Mr. Keene: Can I make a suggestion? Not to be putting this off, but this is
an important part of the discussion on the larger infrastructure program
when we come back. This has bearing on the whole almost $200 million
Council Infrastructure Plan. We really should get set how you want us to
account and charge for these things. I don't think we even need a Motion.
We'll be prepared to just build this into and we'll be sure we've got Finance
Staff here to be able to speak more (crosstalk).
Mayor Scharff: You may be doing it absolutely correctly. I just was trying
to understand it. Anyway, thank you for bringing this. I also think this has
taken forever. Look forward to actually having a bike bridge there. That's
really where we all are. Glad we're moving forward.
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by
Council Member DuBois to:
A. Adopt the Resolution Adopting the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and
B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action approving the proposed Site and Design application based on the findings and subject to conditions
of approval; and
C. Adopt the proposed Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for the design
of the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Capital Improvement
Project (CIP; PE- 11011); and
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 75 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
D. Direct Staff to pursue other potential funding sources; and
E. Direct Staff to explore sponsorship opportunities.
Mayor Scharff: I think we actually need to vote on Council Member
Tanaka's—we did. Sorry. Let's vote on the final Motion.
Council Member DuBois: It needs to be moved in.
Mayor Scharff: It does need to be moved in; that's why I was confused. I
looked over and saw my … We're voting on the main Motion. That passes
unanimously. Thank you very much everyone. Appreciate it.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Mayor Scharff: 10:30 P.M., that's a good thing. If there are Council
Member Questions or Comments. Vice Mayor Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: A report from Charlotte, North Carolina, for the National
League of Cities. Tom and I both went. I'll tell you what I thought the
message was. I was absolutely fascinated, by the way, because one of the
aspects of going to the National League of Cities is you realize that you
really have people you're interacting with, and they think very differently
from the way you do. As the guy next to me at lunch said, "I know some of
you guys think Moore is guilty; he's not." I thought, "Okay." That was good
feedback. Let me pause for a minute.
Mayor Scharff: I would just continue.
Vice Mayor Kniss: The rest of this is that there was a great deal of
discussion about preemption, especially either from the State or from the
Feds. Think about it because next week we'll be discussing preemption done
by the State of California as it deals with buildings, as it deals with houses
and so forth. That was fascinating and, I thought, some of the best sessions
were on the preemption. In many ways, it was kind of like the conference
was about that. Tom, I don't know what you took away from it. Anything
similar? I'm done.
Mayor Scharff: Absolutely.
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 76 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
Council Member DuBois: I thought the preemption discussions were
interesting. It was great to meet Council Members from across the Country.
There were some really good sessions on building affordable housing in
expensive cities. It was interesting to me, at least, how similar these places
are. They're typically surrounded by open space and natural barriers, where
land's expensive. I definitely think we can learn from some of these other
cities. I also spent some time networking with Council Members from cities
next to universities, which was interesting and an interesting group to
maintain contact with. Airport noise and Nexgen was also a topic nationally,
so it was useful to see. Next year, it's going to be in Los Angeles, so
hopefully several of us can attend that. Secondly, I just wanted to mention
that I appreciate the City Manager's letter for extending the Stanford
General Use Permit (GUP) discussion. I do have some concerns that
apparently a Council Member (inaudible) County right before Thanksgiving to try to pull that letter back. I think we need to make sure it's a Council
position and a Council decision. This is a huge project. I think 60 days we
should all support, just giving 60 more days for community feedback.
Stanford already has 600,000 square feet of unused development, so they're
not hurting for development room right now. I don't think we should rush.
I'm a little concerned that, if they don't extend, we're going to be reviewing
that letter on the night that it's due back. I hope everybody will support
extending that 60 days.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Three things. I saw City Manager go back and
talk with Alison Cormack, but I thought the comments that were made about
communications to neighbors who are near these projects were important
comments. I don't know if the City Manager wants to say anything about
that communication because I saw you go back there and speak with her or
if there can be enhanced communication or if you want to say anything or
not.
James Keene, City Manager: Message received. I think Ms. Cormack, when
we spoke, made it clear how important it was to be speaking. Clearly, we
have a lot to learn from this. There's all kinds of good excuses as to why it happened. What it basically says is we really confused the project in many
ways in the eyes of the public. All I would say is, on the Staff side, we're
refocusing on how we—we appreciate the recognition that this is more of
moving forward on the other elements of the plan that we have, so that
there is this sort of understanding. In a general way, though, there is a focus—we've been talking about this at the Rail Committee. I won't keep
going on because it's not agendized or whatever. We've got to get much
more visual in our communication in the sense of a picture is worth a
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 77 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
thousand words. It really is a way to cut through a lot of data and jargon at
times for the general public to be able to quickly understand the implications
of a project and that sort of thing. We didn't do that effectively on this
project.
Council Member Holman: Appreciate those comments. Nobody likes
surprises even if the outcome is going to be positive. It's like nobody likes
surprises. I think this communication aspect and element is really
important. Two other things. I voted for the bridge project because I want
there to be the bridge. My disappointment in some of the aspects of that
were stated. I wish they were not so, but they are. I saw something
Friday—I think it was—that was also a big disappointment to me. A 100-
year-old house at Churchill and Cowper, which I had hoped would at least be
salvaged, was demolished. It was a 100-year-old house, and I'd been all
over that house with somebody who was considering buying it. I knew the people who owned the house. It was 100 years old, and there wasn't a
crack in the walls anywhere. It was that well-built. I'd been in the
basement. There were huge structural timbers in it. I don't know what it
takes for our City to support its own Construction & Demolition (C&D)
Ordinance and actually require salvage as opposed to making it optional. I
don't know what it's going to take. Recycling and salvage are not the same
thing. They do not have the same environmental impact. I was very
disappointed to see that. Lastly, I wanted to reiterate the comments by
Council Member DuBois. It's really important for all Council Members to
support City Manager when he's acting on behalf of our City and asking for
public comment periods to be expanded to allow greater participation from
the public in a project as big as the Stanford GUP and a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR). We've seen a lot of interest in that. We've had so
much going on in this community, whether it's our own Comprehensive Plan,
the rail discussions. There has been so much activity for the community to
be involved in. It's really important. I really appreciate that City Manager
sent that letter. I hope that all City Council Members will support the City
Manager's efforts and not give the County mixed messages from our own
community. Thank you.
Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach.
Council Member Wolbach: A quick comment about the Town Hall program.
I'm, of course, disappointed, that it looks like we probably won't be doing
any of our Town Halls during this calendar year. I know the City Manager
and Staff are working to put some together for the coming year. At this point, I don't think there's time on our December agenda to try and squeeze
that into the Policy and Services Committee meeting. As we continue to
look to improve that program, having done a couple years now of it, I do
FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES
Page 78 of 78
City Council Meeting
Final Transcript Minutes: 11/27/17
think we should look to the Mountain View model as one to copy more
directly, both with the participation of Staff in helping get Staff out of City
Hall and out into the community as well as the scheduling far in advance
over a 2-year cycle so that people know well in advance, both on the Staff
side and also on the community side, when the Town Hall for their
neighborhood will happen. On a positive note, for the On the Table
discussions that were held recently, I went to the one at Philz Coffee. We
didn't have a lot of community members come to that particular one to
participate. It gave me a chance to talk to a few members of the community
and also talk to some of our Staff who were there. That was actually a great
example for the Staff to express their interest in getting into the community
more, getting a chance to see more of the City, talk to more residents. I
know that the members of Staff who did participate found it very
worthwhile. I appreciate all the members of Staff who participated in that and do work so hard for our City.
Mayor Scharff: With that, meeting adjourned.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 P.M.