Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-22 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 1 of 115 Special Meeting January 22, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:02 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 16CV300760 (One Case, as Defendant) – Miriam Green v. City of Palo Alto Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Mayor Kniss: I need a Motion. Vice Mayor Filseth: So move. Mayor Kniss: Second. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to go into Closed Session. Mayor Kniss: We have a Motion to go into Closed Session. Would you raise your hands or vote or do whatever you'd like to do. Anyone opposed. We're headed into Closed Session. Thank you, City Clerk. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Council went into Closed Session at 5:03 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:08 P.M. Mayor Kniss: Calling the Council back to order again. We will shortly get to our Special Orders of the Day. In the meantime, we're reporting nothing out from our Closed Session. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 2 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Special Orders of the Day 2. Fire Safety Month Poster Award Recognition to Palo Alto Unified School District Students for Excellence in Design, Art, and Messaging. Mayor Kniss: We now have a chance to do something very special. Fire Safety Month poster award recognition to Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) students for excellence in design, art, and messaging. Very exciting. Let me look down at our City Manager and see who is going to lead us in this particularly nice event. James Keene, City Manager: That's a good question. Who is doing that? One of our men in uniform. Mayor Kniss: Would you introduce yourselves when you get to the mic for the watching public? James Hendrickson, Fire Marshal: Good evening, Mayor Kniss and honorable Council Members. I'm Fire Marshal Hendrickson. This is Apparatus Operator Tami Jasso. I'm excited to introduce an extraordinary young group of fire prevention leaders. As you walk through the hallway towards the front lobby, I hope you had an opportunity to see the fire safety artwork created by these amazing young artists, who I'm about to introduce you to this evening. This group of artists and their parents are a demographic we typically do not see at our Council meetings. These young community members are an important part of the Fire Department's community risk reduction program. The goal with our poster contest is to partner with the Palo Alto Unified School District in creating an atmosphere where students can both learn about fire safety and then take the messages home to teach their families about fire safety. The theme this year was Every Second Counts, Plan Two Ways Out. The men and women of the Palo Alto Fire Department are committed to education to reduce the community's risk from fire, especially in the high-risk youth and elderly groups. Now without any further ado, I would like to introduce Apparatus Operator Tami Jasso to tell you some more about the successful artist-inspired, youth-led risk reduction program. Mayor Kniss: Welcome. Tami Jasso, Palo Alto Fire Department Apparatus Operator: Thank you. This is our third year that we've done the program in front of the Council, which has been a great addition to our program. The program's been going on for many years. I've been involved in the program for 12 years. We used to go to the schools and do presentations at the school. This gives us an opportunity to showcase the kids here in front of City Council, so it makes FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 3 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 a bigger impression with them, and it's an honor for us. Every year we have a sponsor; it's University Arts. They provide us with the prizes that we give the kids. First place is a $25 gift certificate; second place is a $15 gift certificate; and third place is a $10 gift certificate. We also give them a little certificate of achievement for their hard work. Again, I've been doing it for a long time. It's one of my favorite projects. It's close to home for me. I have kids. I enjoy going out and seeing their artwork and seeing the kids. It's something that I appreciate you taking your time to take part in. Without further ado, we'll start with the first graders. Mr. Hendrickson: Chloe Priss, first grade third place. Zac Von Jarrett [phonetic], second place first grade. Cadence Hatrick, first place first grade. Kyton Pawar, third place second grade. Aiden Lin , second place second grade. Sofia G. Kim , first place second grade. Anika Desponde , third place third grade. Sofia Jeong , second place third grade. Ian Jen , first place third grade. Loren Lee , third place fourth grade. Ashley Lee , second place fourth grade. Zoya Raza , first place fourth grade. Evelyn Fife , third place fifth grade. Adam Sheena , second place fifth grade. Teresa Chang , first place fifth grade. Thank you. We're going to take a picture with the group. Beth Minor asked that we let you know that we gave them all a City pen as well. Mayor Kniss: Could we give a big thank you to Firefighter Hendrickson and Firefighter Jasso? Thank you so much. Thank you to the parents who came tonight to support your kids. It's such a pleasure. This is the kind of thing your kids are going to remember for a long time. Tell them to come back and visit us every once in a while. Thanks so much. Council Member Holman: Just a couple of quick comments. One is I really want to thank the Clerk's Office. A couple of years ago I started this thing where when kids would come to the Council Chamber for a variety of different reasons that they be provided a City pen. I want to give a shout- out to the City Clerk's Office because you're always prepared. You always have plenty of pins, and you always remember to do this. I thank you greatly for it. I think it means a lot to the kids from everything I hear and just to see their faces and stuff. Thank you very much. The other thing I would like to request of the Mayor, our new Mayor is—University Art, as you heard, was the sponsor of this. University Art started in Palo Alto in 1948. They were here for decades and then moved—what, maybe 3 years ago—to Redwood City. They're not even in Palo Alto anymore and continue to sponsor these events. Could I entreat you to write a thank you letter, an acknowledgement letter to University Art to thank them very much? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 4 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: Absolutely. Very thoughtful of you to suggest that. We will do that. Council Member Holman: Thank you. Mayor Kniss: That's terrific. Yes, they have remained very active in our community. I hope you remember to go and shop at University Art in Redwood City. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Mayor Kniss: Coming back to our calendar for tonight. Are there any Agenda Changes, Additions and/or Deletions? Any lights going on? I see none. Therefore, we're going to say there are none. City Manager Comments Mayor Kniss: We go on to City Manager comments. Mr. City Manager. James Keene, City Manager: Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the Council. A couple of items to report. Clerk's Office, are you going to help me? The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Innovative Deployments to Enhance Arterials grant award, IDEA explains that title. That's the acronym for it, IDEA grant awards. In early January, our Staff received good news that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC, is recommending that the Dumbarton Express transit signal priority project, which is City-initiated and partnered with AC Transit on the grant application, be awarded $2.3 million. This will be the largest award of the IDEA grants with only ten out of 24 applications recommended for funding, and this is the largest. The project will expand AC Transit's signal priority network to traffic signals along the Dumbarton Express bus route, which connects the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Union City station in the East Bay to Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford University. With the commutes these days and traffic, everybody knows getting any cars off the road is a help. With some trips taking upwards of an hour, these small reductions in travel can enhance this important regional service. Other partners in the project included Union City, Fremont, Menlo Park, Caltrans, Facebook, and Stanford University. A cash match of $150,000 has been committed by the two private-sector partners, and the City will provide a small portion of the required local match along with other public agency partners. Transit investments for the Dumbarton corridor was recommended in several regional transportation plans and is supported by Program T-112.3 in our newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. Really kudos to Josh Mello and his Transportation Staff for their initiative and their hard work on this application award, which is just one of many acknowledgements of the FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 5 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 leading work that is coming out of our Transportation Staff. Thank you. As it relates to our Zero Waste Plan, the City will be holding two public meetings this week as we update our 2007 Zero Waste Plan. Many of the initiatives included in the Plan have been successfully eliminated and moves Palo Alto from a 63-percent diversion of materials from landfilling back in 2007 to an 82-percent diversion rate, which we see as neck-and-neck with San Francisco for the highest diversion rate in the State of California. Our City will need to do more to reach our 90-percent diversion goal by 2021 and our 95-percent diversion goal by 2030. The updated Plan is aimed to identify new and innovative policies and programs to meet the City's goals. The first community meeting will be held this Thursday, January 25th, at 10:00 A.M. here in City Hall. For those who can't make that meeting, a second is scheduled for Saturday, January 27th, at 10:00 A.M. at the Palo Alto Art Center at Embarcadero and Newell. Ideas from our community are most welcome. There is an online survey that can be filled out at the cityofpaloalto.org/zwplan website. The Mayor's annual tree planting, the 22nd annual Canopy tree planting will take place this Thursday, January 25th, at the Downtown Public Library beginning at 5:15 P.M. Please join Mayor Kniss and Canopy and other tree lovers from across our City. The awards presentation itself will take place in City Hall following that tree planting. Dave Dockter, Arborist for the City, is among the honorees. Dave Dockter, who retired after 21 years of service, is being recognized as a champion for Palo Alto's urban forest. You can see where all of the Mayors' trees are planted by checking out the story and link on our website homepage. While we're at it for significant events, our Mayor will be joining Staff and others for a groundbreaking ceremony for the new Fire Station 3 at Embarcadero and Newell Road on January 30th at 10:00 A.M. Finally, the City's Public Art Program invites the public to observe a presentation by the four artist finalists for the Public Safety Building project. That will take place Monday, January 29th, between 1:00 and 4:30 P.M. in the Community Meeting Room of City Hall. The public is welcome to submit their comments and questions to Public Art Program Staff by filling out a comment card during the meeting, and all cards will be reviewed by the voting selection panel during the deliberations at a separate meeting. For more information, please contact the Public Art Program Staff at (650)329-2227. I would also share that the City will be hosting a visit along with Neighbors Abroad with an entourage from our Sister City Linkoping, Sweden, starting next week. Our visitors including the Mayor of Linkoping and Staff and business leaders will be arriving in Palo Alto Sunday the 28th. They will be here at the Council meeting—actually for a reception before the Council meeting and at the Council meeting next Monday night and will be here several days meeting with various businesses and community groups and neighbors in our City. Lastly, from the City Clerk's Office, the City is looking for engaged community members to serve on the Historic Resources Board, the Human FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 6 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission, and the Utilities Advisory Commission. Applications are available on the City Clerk's webpage, cityofpaloalto.org/clerk. The deadline to apply for these four Commission vacancies is March 20th at 4:30 P.M. That's all I have to report. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Are there any questions for our City Manager before we move on? Anything? Karen. Council Member Holman: When you get a chance, could you update us on the status—I just don't recall ever seeing the $25,000 commitment we made—thank you for the opportunity to ask a question—to the Napa fires, the North County fires? I've not seen that come back on the Consent Calendar. Then Vice Mayor Kniss had identified a location for a recipient organization for that money. It just hasn't ever come through. If you could follow up on that, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Liz, for your work. Mayor Kniss: I don't remember the first part of it, but it was credit unions. It was a recommendation from the County Supervisor Shirlee Zane in Sonoma County. Good memory. We haven't heard follow-up from that, correct? Mr. Keene: Not to my knowledge, but I'll report back next week. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Any other comments or questions for the City Manager? Oral Communications Mayor Kniss: Moving on then to Oral Communications. As you remember, anyone may speak on any Item not on the Agenda. You will have 3 minutes. I'm going to read all the speakers, and then you frankly can come in almost any order. Stephanie Muñoz, Ken Horowitz, Julie Noblitt, Gail Shulman, David Shen, Jason Matlock, Hamilton Hitchings, somebody Brown—Monica, and the last one I have is Sea Reddy. If any of the rest of you want to speak to us, come right up, fill out a card, and the City Clerk will let us know you're here. You notice up here we have a list of who's on it. If you just come up in that order, it makes it much easier. Stephanie. Stephanie Muñoz: Good evening, Mayor Kniss and Council Members. Last week, Lenny Siegel who has just become Mayor of Mountain View was quoted in the newspaper as saying that he wished they could require big businesses to provide housing for the employees. I was thinking Lenny hasn't been in politics as long as you have. I don't think he realizes that you have it in your power to do that. It's obvious that that would solve a huge amount of the problem if the people who have the money and the people FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 7 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 who are newcomers to the City were housed by their companies. I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea for them also. I've been telling you about housing the teachers on school property for ages and ages. It seems to me it would be a very practical thing to do. One of the things that people are beginning to understand is that the homelessness, the lack of housing is not just an accident. It's that way because we have made it that way. You, not you but previous Councils, have taken actions, particularly zoning and permitting actions, that have resulted in this. We elected you, so it's our fault. I'd like you to consider very deeply having these companies, especially Stanford which is coming up tomorrow right in this room, housing their employees. Sure, I can see that somebody that's the head of a department in a medical school is not going to want to be in a little cubbyhole on the Stanford campus, but for almost everybody else it would work out very well. Years ago people in this town would write into the paper and they'd say, "We don't want Stanford putting in housing because then we'd have to educate the children, and it would cost …"You never see that now. People are smarter and not just more compassionate. They understand that there is a lot of wealth in the human resources of this country, in the children. It's not to be thought of as onerous to educate them. I would suggest that you think about going up for housing but allowing the upness [sic] and the density only to be used for affordable housing, not to be used to improve on businesses. Good luck. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Next is Ken Horowitz, then Julie Noblitt. Ken Horowitz: Hello, Council. Last month, we got a Proclamation from Sara Cody about our Healthy Cities Healthy Community here in the City. At the end of the conversation, Mayor Kniss brought up what more can you do in regards to Health City Healthy Communities. I've been thinking about this for a number of weeks now. What I'd like to do is to see the Council come up with a proposal which we're actually going to take from the City of Berkeley. We stole Jim Keene from Berkeley; we can steal this idea from Berkeley. That is to put on the ballot this November a tax on sugar beverages. I have a number of documents. I don't have time to go into all the details, but I have a document here on sugar tax, the countries that have implemented it as well as some of the cities. Berkeley has been the first. Since then, Albany, Oakland, and San Francisco have done similar tax. There's recently been a report from one of the public health agencies on the outcome, the evaluation of the Berkeley tax. We can do something very similar. We can do 1¢ per ounce. I think the revenues for our City could be close to $500,000 a year. I have all the background information about all the reasons why you shouldn't do it, but I think this is a win-win situation. One of the interesting things that we could incorporate, which no other city has done before—we know from the World Health Organization that sugar is FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 8 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 also responsible for tooth decay. Now, we don't have a single dentist in our local community that accepts Denti-Cal. I called the Dental Society today. Not a single dentist in our local society takes Denti-Cal, which means low- income people cannot get served by dentists in our local community. If we could use these tax revenues to help these individuals to get their dental fillings done—I don't have the exact proposal. The reason why dentists don't take it is because they don't get enough income from Denti-Cal. It's not worth their while. If we could offset with this money to the local dental society to accept Denti-Cal plus a stipend from the City, we could do a lot of good in the area of tooth decay. I'd like you to consider a proposal for the November ballot to consider a tax on sugary beverages. Thank you for your time. Mayor Kniss: Thank you, Ken. Julie Noblitt and then Gail Shulman. Julie Noblitt: Yes, good evening, hello. My name is Julie Noblitt. I'm Energy and Climate Program Director at Acterra, and I'm here tonight with a colleague from Silicon Valley for America on the topic of divestment from fossil fuels. Climate change, I believe, is the biggest existential threat of our time. I want to thank this Council for everything that you have been doing to address climate change and also call on you to please create a City Council Resolution on banking and investing based on environmental as well as financial principles. I believe you have that coming up in the future. I just want to say as a longtime resident of Palo Alto I really support you and thank you in that and will be following this issue closely and hope that you will move forward with that. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for coming tonight. Gail Shulman followed by David Shen. Gail Shulman: Good evening, Mayor Kniss and Council Members. My name is Gail Shulman. I've lived in Palo Alto for over 30 years. I have three children who have gone through our fantastic school system. I'm here to emphasize further what Julie has just said. I do feel like the biggest threat to our community and our civilization is climate change. I also feel that the Federal Government has obviously stepped out of the void and is not going to be leading and, therefore, it is going to fall upon the State and local governments to lead the way here. I've been so fortunate to watch the wonderful things that Palo Alto has done to date on this subject. I'm hoping that you will consider divesting from fossil fuels as part of this program. Thank you very much. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for coming. David Shen, Jason maybe Matlof, and then Hamilton Hitchings. Good evening. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 9 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 David Shen: Good evening, Mayor Kniss, esteemed Council Members. My name is Dave Shen. I live on Churchill Avenue. Last November near Thanksgiving, I heard about the project to upgrade Caltrain and the desire to upgrade intersections that cross Alma and the train tracks. I would like to express my extreme disappoint at the communications to the community on this initiative. I found out after two meetings had already taken place but managed to attend two following meetings. I would urge the Council to direct Staff working on this project to expand and improve community communications. I would also like to comment that the meetings we had with Staff were inadequate. I felt that the activities and questions they asked us to answer were leading and suggested that direction was preferred already. The options that were discussed were also not broad enough to include all options and left out without explanation some obvious options. I would urge the Council to direct Staff to improve meetings with the community to better inform, involve, and not raise unnecessary anxiety. On a note regarding raising unnecessary anxiety, I would request that the Council come to some clear direction regarding Churchill in an efficient, informed, and timely manner and not delay it. On a note regarding being informed, I would urge the Council to perform better, more complete, and accurate research on the costs and options. I personally reviewed the latest Circulation Study and found it to be lacking and inaccurate in many areas. Other have reviewed the latest Financial Study and found similar issues. In addition, our community's been having meetings and has come up with some Guiding Principles and a position on what to do with the intersection at Churchill and Alma. I would urge the Council to adapt these Guiding Principles when considering options to pursue highest return on investment on invested dollars and maximum use of existing infrastructure; making pedestrian and bicycle safety the highest priority; maintaining community, neighborhoods, integrity; ensuring no eminent domain seizure of homes. Our position on grade separation is we support any raised or lowered rail option while keeping Churchill at grade. We are opposed to any raised or lower option for Churchill Avenue, especially when considering the advantages of other options. As an alternative to either mentioned, we also support keeping the Churchill Avenue crossing at grade but closing it on the west side and implementing other measures to improve east-west traffic and improve, of course, pedestrian and cyclist safety and access. Thank you for your time. Mayor Kniss: If you have something in writing that you would be willing to leave with the Clerk, that would be helpful. Mr. Shen: I've sent you emails on this statement, and I've sent, I believe, emails on the entire—the documents, our evaluation of the Circulation Study, the Financial Study. Check your email; I'm sure it's there. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 10 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: The only issue is that other people who are here probably don't have that email. Mr. Shen: I'll learn next time. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Jason. Jason Matlof: Hello. My name's Jason Matlof. I along with Monica Brown— it is Monica Brown—and Dave Shen represent the North Old Palo Alto Community Association. Hi, Jim. First of all, I wanted to thank four of the Council Members thus far in the last week and a half who have taken time to meet with us. I know you're all very, very busy with your own professional lives as well, so I appreciate it. I hope we have the chance to meet with the rest of you. There's about 3 dozen homeowners or residences in our neighborhood that are very concerned about this somewhat of a surprise, the grade separation initiatives. Without repeating Dave, I wanted to do a couple of things. First of all, just to re-emphasize our position, which is we're very supportive of rail electrification and modernization of the rail corridor. We're very supportive of anything, any proposals that raise the rail or lower the rail. Quite honestly, we're very surprised in these meetings that the Staff had totally eliminated any discussion of the raised rail, which seems crazy in my opinion. We're very supportive of either of those. If the City cannot come up with the finances to do any of the raised rail or lowered rail, we are adamantly opposed to anything that destroys communities, takes homes through eminent domain. It just seems crazy given where we are with housing in the City of Palo Alto. One point I wanted to make in addition to Dave's, the Financing Study doesn't even take into account the fact that eminent domain of 90-plus homes in Palo Alto is going to cost $0.5 billion, totally missing from the Financial Study. Please take that into account in addition to the community impact of destroying homes and neighborhoods. The last thing I wanted to focus on is in the consideration of this, if it turns out that we don't have the financial resources to do a raised rail or a lowered rail, I would ask you to think more holistically and systematically, at a system level, of the entire rail system in Palo Alto and not just at each individual intersection, which is the way this seems to be discussed, as four intersections that seem to be discussed. We have existing investments and existing infrastructure, most specifically in North Palo Alto Embarcadero, that is a disaster. It is existing. It's only 400 yards to the north of Churchill. No one's talking about it. It has three lanes, one in the eastbound direction. If we could make—there's by the way 100 feet, 50 on either side, of public lands that are available, that could be used to build a fourth lane and double the capacity in the eastbound direction. That is our solution or it should at least be one of our solutions as we have to face increasing capacity of east-west traffic through Palo Alto. I would urge you FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 11 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 to, first of all, read through our position. Mayor Kniss, I personally handed off to people in your office our position points. I left them for every member of the Council. I'll come back and bring them again, another hard copy, if you'd like. There are, again, dozens of us in North Palo Alto that have thought long and hard and attended these meetings. Thank you very much. Mayor Kniss: Good. Thank you for coming. Hamilton Hitchings. Hamilton Hitchings: As a concerned citizen who drives on Ross Road regularly to work out at the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), I previously came before you and raised a safety concern about the Ross Road boulevard, specifically the plan to narrow the road, including midblock bulb- outs that force bicyclists and cars to share the same lane. The goal of the bike boulevards is to double usage by 2020, which in the case of Ross Road near the YMCA means raising the average daily bicycle trips from 116 to 232. Note that on that section of Ross Road there are an average of 2,700 vehicle trips per day with the 85th percentile speed at 28 miles an hour. Both the numbers of car trips and the speed put it above the very latest recommended daily speed and traffic volume for a bicycle boulevard according to the National Association of City Transportation Officials. To address the speed, the City has put in very aggressive traffic calming measures not previously used elsewhere in the City. However, these bulb- outs force bicyclists to ride in the middle of the street. This concern was raised during community outreach and more recently by numerous residents including Annette Glanckopf, Al Dorsky [phonetic], and Carl Darling [phonetic] in writing to me personally. A recent broad-based study of bicycling in Vancouver and Toronto showed that lane-sharing actually slightly increased the number of bike accidents. The problem with lane- sharing is that if either the bicyclist or the driver is not paying attention or makes a mistake, it can result in an accident. Numerous Palo Alto Weekly commenters have said they have often observed very careless behavior by both motorists and bicyclists. In fact, the day after I met with the Planning Department, four children bicyclists were hit by vehicles on the way to school, but fortunately none were seriously hurt. Wanda Walker, a Ross Road resident, recently had a short blurb published in the Palo Alto Weekly about the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard that said, "I have walked early as elementary kids bike to school and later in the afternoon when older kids are biking. Guess what? Most are riding on the sidewalks as they seem to be afraid a car might hit them on the street or is it too hard to weave in and out of the jutting concrete basins now with a slow-down bump." There is a reasonable chance these bulb-outs actually make Ross Road more dangerous for bicyclists. Please make the City stop using midblock bulb- outs for traffic calming in bike boulevards until a definitive study of Ross FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 12 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Road shows they significantly reduce the frequency of bicycle accidents while increasing on-road bicycle ridership. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for coming. Monica Brown, and our last person is Sea Reddy. Monica Brown: Good evening. I'm Monica Brown. I'm a resident of Churchill Avenue, so the other guys who are here today. You'll know that Churchill Avenue is a pretty busy street with a lot of kids going through it. Going back to Hamilton Hitchings' talk right now about the bikes, I'm always concerned about the children that go down our street. As a resident of North Palo Alto, specifically Churchill Avenue, I support the electrification of the train and the expansion of the commuter rail capacity. I support a raised or lowered rail. I do not support any project that will eminent domain any homes including lowering or any hybrid grade separation of Churchill Avenue. If the train were to stay at grade, I support closing Churchill on the westbound side allowing traffic traveling west to turn either north or south on Alma. I also support adding a pedestrian footpath similar to the one at Homer Avenue, allowing children to be separated from the vehicular traffic. In this scenario, I see an expansion of Embarcadero, which is only 400 feet from Churchill. It should be expanded to four lanes versus the three by Palo Alto High School. I feel that at the current time this is a—Staff has not allowed the residents to participate in a meaningful way. The roundtable discussions were quite inadequate to the point where, on a scorecard, the idea of doing any raised railway was fully omitted. I think that residents should have a major voice in this project, which impacts us for years to come. I would like to see the committee of civic-minded community members as part of the decision-making committee, not just sitting in roundtable discussions. We live in this community. We feel the impacts on the projects on a day-to-day basis. We don't want the decisions left to a number of consultants that look at just the numbers. In summation, the following are the Guiding Principles of the Old North Palo Alto residents: projects that return the highest Return on Investment (ROI) on invested dollars; projects that maximize use of existing or underused infrastructure; making pedestrian safety at the highest priority; maintaining community neighborhoods' integrity; and ensuring no eminent domain of City homes. Again, I'm Monica. I have two small children, so remember my face when you're looking at eminent domaining homes. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for coming. Sea Reddy. Sea Reddy: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council and citizens of Palo Alto and the administrators and the Staff. It's great to see the composition, how you're laid out. You look to the right; there is youth and FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 13 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 wisdom. You look to the left; there's youth and wisdom. I think it's very balanced. I congratulate you. I congratulate the City for electing these Council Members. I think we have a wonderful 2018. Realizing all the drama that went on in the weekend, we are a 50/50 Nation. That means there are about 50 percent Democrats, 50 percent Republicans, and a few other independents. Similarly, Palo Alto is five-four. We're one side five, other side four. We all know what that all means. What was important, what was evident on the 8th of January was that we get along. We're determined to move the City forward. I think that's a great message, a great message to the Nation that we need to get along. I appreciate all what we do here. In terms of the local activities, I do seek your help. I spoke with the owners of the old College Terrace Market that closed down. They still have a hope. They have proposals, but they haven't revealed anything more than just telling me that. I think anything the City can help, the Mayor can help, Vice Mayor and the City Council to get us to have a little market so in the middle of the night we can buy aspirin and a coke and groceries and all that. I think there's no reason for us not to have it. I hear these rumors that the builders don't want a market, this and that, but that's all hogwash. We still need a market. We deserve to have in College Terrace Market. A couple of other things. I want to commend the City Hall for arranging the Martin Luther King event on the 15th. I think it's the City that did it. I see the children and the youth and the government that came and involved. When you instill inclusion—you know I said inclusion is important as part of innovation and integrity—it sinks in children's minds earlier in life. They will never forget it. My children never forget where I took them when they were young. Lastly, I'm really proud. On October 2nd, 2017, I spoke about Korea needs to sit down and figure out how to live together. I see they're joining together. October 2nd happens to be Gandhi's birthday. That's what I had in mind. Also, on 26th January, 1950, India became a republic by writing a constitution, not borrowing the British constitution. A lot of input went into that including the United States, Russia. India is a thriving democracy with 1.4 billion people. I think we can all learn from that. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you very much. Do you have one last one? That's something else. Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the December 11, 2017 and January 8, 2018 Council Meetings. Mayor Kniss: This brings us to the Minutes Approval. Could I have a Motion? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 14 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Scharff: So moved. Council Member Wolbach: Second. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to approve the Action Minutes for the December 11, 2017 and January 8, 2018 Council Meetings. Mayor Kniss: Would you all vote on the board. That passes unanimously. I think some of the buttons are a little bit off, but we've got a unanimous vote. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar Mayor Kniss: Coming now to the Consent Calendar. As you recall, unless something gets removed, we pass this in one Motion. There are Items Number 4 through 11 that are on tonight. Any comments from any Colleagues? We have one that has come from the public. Molly, remind me. We hear from the public after we vote or we hear from them now? Before. In that case, Lorena—I'm not going to try the last name. Lorena Guadiana, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 10: It's Lorena Guadiana. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Ms. Guadiana: You're welcome. Hi, hello, City Council and Mayor. My name is Lorena Guadiana. Again, I come representing the Northern California Carpenters Union. My comments are related to Item Number 10. It has come to our attention that the Council is going to—it has on the Consent Calendar tonight to consider awarding the City Hall floors 4 and 5 of the remodel project to Federal Solutions Group (FSG), again Item Number 10. FSG or Federal Solutions Group—I'll just refer as FSG—has recently defaulted on two large construction projects. FSG is also facing significant civil action in Contra Costa County. I have handed the Clerk this information, documentation on the court actions and also meeting minutes from Moraga Orinda Fire Protection District and the County of San Mateo Mental Health and Substance Abuse Recovery Commission. Again, I'll explain a little bit what the documents entail. The Moraga Orinda Fire Protection District is meeting minutes. In those minutes, the district sent FSG a notice of default concerning its failure to comply with the terms of the construction contract. You can look at that when you get a chance. They actually voted 5-0 and resolved to terminate the agreement with FSG at the FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 15 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 November 28 meeting of the board. County of San Mateo Mental Health and Substance Abuse Recovery Commission also in their meeting minutes stipulated that FSG defaulted on the project and was replaced with another contractor. Again, this is one default and one termination. I am also including copies of court documents. One from a bond company that is seeking over $1 million from FSG. Another one from a (inaudible) ruling issued on January 2018 that upholds default judgment for $253,000 against FSG. Please review these documents. As we know, we understand that the City's duty is to get the best value for taxpayer dollars and award to a responsible contractor who can complete the project. As such and given the seriousness of this information, we encourage you, the Northern California Carpenters Union, to please remove the Item from the Consent Agenda and further investigate. Thank you very much for your time. We're happy to provide more information if needed. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for coming. Rita Vrhel. Rita Vrhel, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 10: I also wanted to speak about Item Number 10. What I was wondering was—doing my taxes I'm thinking about money. I know that the City has a budget. I know that I've spoken before about what part of the budget is this in or is this an add- on to the budget. In other words, is this more money into the budget than what was approved earlier? Also, I'm wondering where our reserves are and how much the items that are this week and weeks in the past and weeks in the future—how are they being paid for, are they coming out of the reserves, what are our reserves, what are they now. I would find it lovely if, when you put an Item on the Consent Calendar—actually anything that has anything to do with money—you would list where the money is coming from. I know you did that on Item Number—one of the Items here. What percentage of this money, if any, is coming from the reserves and then what is the balance of the reserves? I think that's one way that the public can be informed of the true cost of items and where the money is coming from without having to read through hundreds of Pages. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you both for coming. Unless—Greg Tanaka. Council Member Tanaka: I want to pull Item 10. James Keene, City Manager: Could I provide an alternative? Mayor Kniss: Please. Mr. Keene: I would ask that the Council go ahead and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with the condition that we would review and look into the concerns that have been raised by FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 16 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 the Carpenters Union and not proceed with that execution of it if we found that the points they made warranted us not proceeding in that regard. That would be that suggestion. Just real quickly on this, the funding for this project is identified up here in the actual Capital Improvement Project Budget numbers that are included. I would point out that the funding is in the budget, and that there is no draw on City reserves for this project. Mayor Kniss: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I'm okay with the suggestion of City Manager Keene about Item 10. I do apologize. I also would like to hear a report back on the Staff's findings so we know whether it's progressing or it needs to be rebid. If you can give us an update on that as appropriate. Mr. Keene: We'll let you know the outcome of our investigation and review. Council Member Holman: Thank you. Mr. Keene: With that, we recommend approval of the Consent Calendar with that change to the wording on that Motion. Mayor Kniss: I would ask for a Motion duplicating what the City Manager just said. Vice Mayor Filseth: So moved. Council Member Holman: Second. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-11. 4. Resolution 9731 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Vacating Public Utility Easement at 693 Arastradero Road.” 5. Adoption of 2018 Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines and City Legislative Priorities. 6. Ordinance 5423 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council Minutes) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Provide for Action Minutes and Video/Audio Recordings as the Official Record of Council Business, and Directing the Clerk to Prepare Sense Summaries of Council and Council Standing Committee Meetings for the use and Convenience of Council and the Public (FIRST READING: December 4, 2017 PASSED: 8-0 Fine absent).” FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 17 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 7. Ordinance 5424 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.11 of Title 2 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reauthorize Public, Education, and Government (PEG) Access Fees That Will Apply to Comcast as it Provides Service Under its State Video Franchise (FIRST READING: December 11, 2017 PASSED: 8-0 Fine absent).” 8. Ordinance 5425 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.28 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Revise the Requirements for Dewatering During Construction of Below Ground Structures (FIRST READING: December 11, 2017 PASSED: 8-0 Fine absent).” 9. Review and Acceptance of Annual Status Report on Developers’ Fees for Fiscal Year 2017; and Adoption of the Resolution 9732 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Findings Regarding Unexpended Community Center Development Fees in the Amount of $822,873, Library Development Fees in the Amount of $537,983, and Park Development Fees in the Amount of $430,859.” 10. Approval of a Construction Contract With Federal Solutions Group in the Amount of $745,000 for the City Hall Floors 4 and 5 Remodel and Elevator Control Panel Upgrade Project (CIP Numbers PF-01003, PE- 12017, PE-17008, and PE-17009). 11. Approval of a License Agreement With GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless for Placement of Telecommunications Facilities on City Owned Property Located at 1082 Colorado Avenue. Mayor Kniss: Motion and a second. Anyone else? Would you vote on the board. That passes unanimously with a provision that investigation be taken into the company that was approved on Number 10. Council Member Holman asked that it come back to us so that we know what the results were. Thanks very much. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 18 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Action Items 12. PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of a Resolution 9733 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.” Mayor Kniss: That takes us through the Consent Calendar and up to Action Items for tonight. First, we have one of our most exciting ones, which is a public hearing on objections to weed abatement and adoption of a Resolution ordering weed nuisance abated. This reads confirming the 2018 Weed Abatement Commencement Report and ordering weed abatement to be carried out at the listed properties. This is the time and place set for a public hearing on a Resolution confirming the 2018 County Weed Abatement Commencement Report for Palo Alto and ordering weed abatement to be carried out on the respective properties described therein. At this point, I am opening the public hearing, and I need to ask the City Clerk if she's received any objections. Beth Minor, City Clerk: I have not. Mayor Kniss: In that case then, we are closing the public hearing. Let the record show that no persons appeared or filed written … Ms. Minor: Mayor Kniss, I am getting a couple of people now who wish to object. Mayor Kniss: To object to … Ms. Minor: The weed abatement. Mayor Kniss: Okay. In that case then, did you fill out a card and, if not, would you do so after you speak? Yes, please come ahead. You want to file a written objection, am I correct? Public Hearing opened at 7:03 P.M. Raj Apte: Yes, I would like to. I'm afraid the documents I received weren't clear on exactly how to do so. My name is Raj Apte. I'm the owner at 210 Matadero Avenue since 1998. I object to being included in the weed abatement program for the following reasons. First, the supposed weeds are Lathyrus odoratus, which is the common garden sweet pea. It seems odd that we would consider a common garden annual to be included as weed abatement. Second, the reason I grow sweet peas is to improve the soil, to assist my fruit tree-based landscape to produce high quality organic produce for my family. Green manure is a common technique to improve garden soil FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 19 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 once pioneered here at the Syntex farm by Alan Chadwick and Ecology Action, which was still going when I moved here in 1979. To complete the life cycle of a legume, it is allowed to ripen, which does have the appearance of standing weeds but from a distance only. As soon as the weeds are ripe, I then plow the whole mess under in order to improve the soil, both carbon and nitrogen. The one week of standing, yellowing vegetation is not a fire hazard particularly compared to the abandoned homes that dot Ventura. Third, my 60-by-80-foot lot does not permit a 30-foot clearance for my woodpile to be clear from buildings and fences. It would be a shame if we fail to live up to the rich and fertile land, which overlooks us here. Thank you for your time and attention. Public Hearing closed at 7:05 P.M. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Was somebody else wanting to speak to this? One person. We need to let the record show that one person appeared or filed written objections against the weed abatement proceedings and any Resolution passed by us will reflect this finding. I presume also that means that Staff, whomever Staff is assigned to this, will also examine that and come back and report to us. Molly Stump, City Attorney: That's correct, Mayor Kniss. This is under the Fire Department, and they will consider Mr. Apte's comments and respond accordingly. Mayor Kniss: Thanks very much. James Hendrickson, Fire Marshal: Madam Mayor, James Hendrickson, Fire Marshal. Good evening. We have the coordinator for the County program, Moe Kumre, here. He could speak to the concern right now if you would like. Mayor Kniss: Go right ahead. Moe Kumre, Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Coordinator: Again, my name is Moe Kumre. I am the Weed Abatement Manager for Santa Clara County, which also contracts with the City of Palo Alto. I will be happy to work with the property owner to establish what we saw when the property was added and what actions need to be taken and then report back through the Fire Marshal as to the end result, whether that property is removed or was kept onto the program. Mayor Kniss: We can count on you to take care of it and work with the person who was here tonight to have a discussion about his yard and what appeared to be weeds. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 20 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Kumre: Absolutely. Mayor Kniss: Thank you very much. Now, I'll entertain a Motion to adopt a Resolution—yes, sir? Karen, do you have your light on too? Go right ahead. Council Member Scharff: My only concern is that the Resolution that you've asked us to pass actually states that any and all objections to the proposed destruction and removal of such weeds were overruled. I don't quite—I think we need a solution to amend the Resolution if that's what we're going to do. I was going to look to the City Attorney to suggest some language when we make the Motion that would reflect that in the Resolution. Ms. Stump: We can amend the Resolution to reflect that an objection was raised and that the Fire Marshal will evaluate and work with the property owners to resolve. Council Member Scharff: If that was the case, then I would make the Motion incorporating that language. Mayor Kniss: Incorporating the language that the City Attorney used? Council Member Scharff: That's correct. Mayor Kniss: That alters our Motion slightly. Council Member Holman. Council Member Scharff: I would need a second. Council Member DuBois: Second. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to adopt a Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto, with an amendment to reflect an objection was raised and will be addressed. Mayor Kniss: Did you want to say something? Go ahead. There's a Motion and a second. Council Member Holman: Sorry, I didn't hear that. My question is this. Can you remind us, City Attorney, how the abatement is paid for? Ms. Stump: The Fire Marshal can speak to it. I believe it's an assessment against the property. Mayor Kniss: Just for those who have asked, there is an altered Motion on the floor and a second. Motion from Scharff, second from Filseth. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 21 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Hendrickson: Again, I'm going to defer to Moe Kumre from the County. Mayor Kniss: Okay. Welcome. Mr. Hendrickson: They've recently amended the payment, which you did approve last Fiscal Year (FY), I believe. Mr. Kumre: The question, as I understand it, was how is weed abatement paid for. Weed abatement is paid for by the property owners who are in the program and primarily by those who fail to comply with the standard after they've been added to the program. Anything that happened prior to going through a public hearing would not—they could not be charged for. After this, should a property fail to comply with the standards, they would be charged a fee, and there would be an inspection fee also associated with that. It's entirely paid for at this time by the property owners who are in the program for those properties that have failed to comply at least once in the last 3 years. Council Member Holman: When you say in the program, you mean that have been listed. That means "in the program." Mr. Kumre: They have been listed and then approved by this Council. Council Member Holman: Where I'm going with this is I know it's an assessment against the property. What prompts my question is there is some property owners on here that are on here repeatedly maybe for the same and maybe for a different address. I'm just wondering what the collection rate is. Mr. Kumre: It goes onto the Property Tax Bill. From where I stand, I get paid by the tax collector regardless of whether they collect from the property owners or not. I can't speak to whether they've actually collected those bills. I would like to make note, though, should this property owner be removed, there would be no assessment at all against that property. Council Member Holman: I would understand that. That would be perfectly logical. My question—maybe you don't have a specific answer for it tonight—is if I let weeds go in my front yard and I don't take care of it and you come and take care of the weeds in my front yard, you can put whatever you want on my Property Tax Bill—property deed—but if I don't pay it, I don't pay it, so somebody else is paying for the weed abatement. That's my question. It's just is restitution achieved in these weed abatement issues, especially given we have some entities that are repeat. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 22 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Kumre: As the law states in the case of billing for this particular item, we put it on the tax roll. If a property owner does not pay, the tax collector then pursues collection in the same process as if you didn't pay any portion of your Property Tax. Mayor Kniss: That's good. Thank you. Thank you all very much. With that, would you vote on the board. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 13. Review the Revised City Comment Letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) Application to Santa Clara County (County) and Authorize the Mayor to Sign and Staff to Transmit the Letter to the County. Mayor Kniss: Moving on to Number 13. This is our opportunity to review the revised City comment letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (EIR) for the Stanford General Use (GUP) Permit, known as the GUP, application to Santa Clara County and authorize the Mayor to sign and Staff to transmit the letter to the County. Welcome everyone. Let me just say a word or two first. Those of us sitting up here for the most part have been getting letters from the community asking us to do a whole variety of things with the GUP, control the traffic, control the housing, any number of other types of controls. We don't have that authority. This GUP, this General Use Permit, comes under the jurisdiction of Stanford. Where we have, like the hospital or Stanford West or something like that, that is under ours. What we're discussing tonight with the General Use Permit is that which we have no authority over. That is completely under the County and under—this is District 5. As you probably know, Joe Simitian is your representative at the County. Tomorrow night, he will be having a hearing on the GUP, on the General Use Permit, that I think starts at 7:00 P.M. Am I correct? At 6:00 P.M.? It's starting at 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. then, as I recall? It'll be here in these Chambers. I urge anyone who's here tonight or anyone who is watching or knows something about this to come and speak to the person who's actually going to vote on the stipulations that will be in the General Use Permit. I appreciate having that opportunity to say that. It's somewhat frustrating because I know that the public thinks there must be something that we as the Council, which is in the same general area that Stanford is located, would have more to do with this than we actually do. While we are a City, Stanford is not part of our City. They are an unincorporated part of the County. Having said that, if anyone wants to add anything to it, I'd be glad to entertain that. If not, let me look at our Planning Department here in front of us. Thank you. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 23 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Department Director: Thank you, Mayor Kniss and Council Members. Happy new year. I'm Hillary Gitelman, the Planning Director. I'm joined by Meg Monroe on our Staff. Once again, we're here to discuss the City's comments to the County regarding the County's Draft Environmental Impact Report related to the Stanford GUP application. We had a discussion with the Council in December, and we got some good feedback from all of you on items that should be addressed in the letter. Since then, we've made revisions to the letter. I think you'll find it's quite an exhaustive list of comments, 35 pages of comments, that we're proposing to transmit to the County. What we'd love this evening is to hear any additional comments from you. I know we've received some comments from the public as well. If you see anything in those letters that we haven't already addressed, happy to add some additional notes to our letter. We'd like to transmit this with Mayor Kniss' signature by the deadline, which is close of business on February 2nd. Thanks so much. Mayor Kniss: Thank you very much. Staff, anyone else from Staff want to make a comment? With that introduction, we have a couple of cards from the public. I'd suggest we hear from the public first and then we come back for comments from the Council. Jean McCown and Hamilton Hitchings. Anyone else who's here to speak to this Item, if you'd put in an indication with the Clerk that you wish to do so, this would be a good time to do that. Jean McCown: Good evening, Mayor Kniss Council Members. Jean McCown, Stanford University. The 35 pages of comments reflect very thorough and careful review of the document, which is greatly appreciated. We've read it through. We may have some areas where we think you didn't get it quite right. The important thing is that's what this process is all about. The County's consultant will take those comments and those made by everybody who comments on the Draft and respond to them, answer questions, reflect on what the suggestions are that are being made in those comments. We're looking forward to that next step in the process. The one area that I wanted to comment on tonight is the area of the traffic approach, the no new net commute trips concept, which Stanford has been living with for the last 16, 17 years. We're very proud of what we've accomplished with that program. It's measured our success with hard data, counting cars to determine whether we've been staying under the performance standard that was set based on a 2001 baseline. There's a comment in the materials about the concept of credits for trips that we take off the roads in the nearby vicinity of the campus. The Hexagon Memo, which is part of your packet, states at one place that there was an 844 credit number in 2015. We've never taken credits like that. Over the total life of the 16 years of the permit, we've taken credits, which is in other words in addition to counting the cars coming FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 24 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 in and out of the campus we take credits for taking other trips off the road. We've done it only four times, and the maximum number of trips that we got credit for was 150. I'm not sure where Hexagon got that number. We may have counted credits, but we don't take them if we don't need them. That's just one example of where getting the numbers correct is important. We think flexibility in how we run these programs is key. We've gotten enormous credit nationwide for the effective and innovative nature of this program. We anticipate in the future looking out to 2035 that we're going to continue to see changed technologies, changed locations of where our commuters live, changes in infrastructure. We're going to want to be flexible and responsive to the programs that will work the best to achieve this in the future. Finally, the Draft EIR estimates, if we didn't do any of that, if we were not successful in adding more programs to our no new net commute trips program, we could see an increase of 800 trips, single occupancy vehicle trips, automobile trips, to campus with the projected population growth. What we're committed to do over the life of the permit is figure out how we keep that number from getting up to 800. In fact, it would be on average about 50 additional trips a year that we will need to manage with our programs. We're very confident that we can do that. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: I think this is an appropriate time, while Jean McCown is here from Stanford, to ask any questions. I'd like to lead off with one. Specifically, this would be included on page—this is actually the first page of the letter. I remain concerned—you and I have discussed this before—about the open space protection, the fact that it goes to 2025 with the current GUP, but there's nothing definitive added. Ms. McCown: No, that's not correct. The academic growth boundary does not change after 2025. It stays in place. The only thing that changes at 2025 is if there was a suggestion to move it or build outside of it, the supermajority vote of the Board of Supervisors, which requires a four out of five vote, would change at that point. The academic growth boundary does not change in 2025. We have heard the request—you have made it in your letter—that that four-fifths supermajority vote be pushed out. We understand that request. I wanted to be really clear to the public. The academic growth boundary is not being changed by this application. Mayor Kniss: I guess I would underline what you've just said. It can be undone by a four-fifths. It would certainly make me feel far better if it had a definitive date in it. Are there any other questions for Stanford? Ms. McCown: I'm here to respond later if something comes up. Thank you. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 25 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: Good, thank you. The next person is Hamilton Hitchings, followed by Pat Burt. Greetings again. Hamilton Hitchings: Thank you. Nice to be up here again. I wanted to thank the Staff for doing a thorough job on the letter to the Stanford GUP. I wanted to offer a few other suggestions based on a petition that was signed by 456 folks, written by Peter Drekmeier. This is the letter to Kirk Girard, the Director of Planning and Development for Santa Clara County that the City is writing. There are two points that I think could be strengthened a little bit in the letter. Let me start by reading one of the bullets from this petition signed by 450 folks. Stanford's development should not make regional traffic crisis worse. Every new automobile trip generated by the GUP should be offset by the removal of a trip, both peak and nonpeak. Furthermore, the 2018 GUP should require no new net parking spaces on campus. The challenge is that—what Jean just said is they have a goal, and they're going to try. What I hope you're going to ask for is a solid commitment to actually meet that or be subject to penalties similar to Facebook or what Stanford did the last time. Just make sure they fully commit to it. What we're really talking about is how much money is spent. The second one that I didn't see in the letter is—it could be there because it's a long letter—the first bullet in this petition, which says Stanford cannot grow indefinitely without seriously compromising our quality of life on the Peninsula. The County should establish a maximum build-out for the University. Under the 2000 GUP, Stanford was required to study the maximum build-out potential for its campus in the sustainable development study but failed to do so. It would be great if you could add that in as well. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Pat Burt. Pat Burt: Good evening. First, thanks to Supervisor Simitian for his support in extending the DEIR comment period. As a result, I think the community's starting to understand a number of issues that weren't readily apparent previously both in the DEIR and in the GUP itself. This is the largest project that the County has ever considered for a land use in the County history. Stanford has their interest in this; the cities have theirs; and the County has its responsibilities and interests. While we don't have the governing responsibility or authority, the impacts are not principally under the County or the County lands. They're under the City of Palo Alto, our School District, and our surrounding communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo County in the North County area. We have this oddity where we don't have the authority, but the impacts are on the cities. As we look at this, we now have what we all recognize are ever-worsening conditions of traffic and housing on the Peninsula. This massive project has huge consequences that we FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 26 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 really should take a step back and look at how significantly they need to be mitigated. The very excellent Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that Stanford has had in the past were great for the time, but we need to be thinking ever more aggressively going forward. For instance, we should be looking at a Comprehensive Bike Plan across and within the campus that is much more extensive than it is today. We should be looking at the job multipliers impacts of these Stanford jobs. We also need to be requesting from Stanford that the EIR and the GUP look at off-campus development that has gone from being some isolated circumstances of utilizing some of the Stanford Research Park buildings to a much more comprehensive approach that's not being studied, and the implications and the interrelationship to the GUP are not being studied. I don't know if any of you are aware—I was not—of what Stanford is calling the Porter Drive Campus, of a Stanford Research Park campus of seven buildings that is being planned and already in its transformation. Apparently, the parking garage that's on Quarry as part of the Hoover Pavilion Stanford Hospital development is now being offered for campus parking and, thereby, circumventing the no net trips requirements as are now Stanford Hospital parking lots on what appears or is claimed to be a temporary basis. There are a whole myriad of off-campus developments that need to be integrated and understood in relationship to the GUP. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Penny Ellson. Penny Ellson: Good evening. I'm Penny Ellson. I just have a few very general comments. After reading through 5,000 pages-plus of the DEIR, I came to the stunning realization that Stanford's DEIR relies very heavily on Caltrain to mitigate transportation impacts. There is no proposed mitigation that would require Stanford to contribute a fair share toward creating the additional rail capacity they need. Instead, the DEIR mitigations include partial funding for motor vehicle intersection capacity improvements on County expressways and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)_controlled roads, projects that will support County engineering jobs. These road capacity increases are coupled with proposals for thousands of new auto parking spaces. Why are the obviously needed mitigations related to supporting Caltrain capacity improvements ignored? I find the emphasis on motor vehicle parking and operational capacity worrisome. We know what the outcome of that kind of planning will be—an increase in car trips, which are likely to undermine gains made toward mode shift during the term of the last GUP. Risks associated with increasing car trips make streets feel less comfortable to people who walk and bike. It pushes foot-powered commuters back into cars. How does this set of mitigations align with Stanford's no net new trips goals? The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should consider planned growth in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 27 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Plan) EIRs of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Mountain View. Aggregates matter, as you just heard a moment ago. The County recently overestimated available transit capacity in the EIR of another stadium project with devastating consequence. Let's learn from that experience. Finally, I agree with Staff that further evaluation is needed regarding impacts at specific intersections including the Caltrain grade separation at Alma-Charleston. The analysis should assess impacts with and without grade separations. Stanford should pay a fair share toward grade separations. Finally, I also agree that a fresh analysis of the peak periods of travel to and from campus is very badly needed and that recommendations of future counts should be based on that analysis. Thank you very much. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for speaking. We have two more cards from Greg Welch and Nadia Niak. Greg Welch: Hi. My name is Greg Welch. I'm here speaking on behalf of many of my neighbors in the Crescent Park area. First, when we read the GUP and the Environmental Impact Study, the claim of no net impact on commute just doesn't ring credibly, particularly when you look at the data collection methods. When all of us can pull out our phones and look at Waze and see the huge volume of traffic backup that reaches all the way back into Stanford. It isn't about the added traffic; it's about the traffic we currently have. We're being crushed as a community. Our traffic system is grinding to a halt. This imperils, in the event of an emergency, our citizenry. We should look to Stanford in this GUP to actually demonstrate leadership. We're not the only community suffering from this. This is a world-leading institution that is giving us data based upon pneumatic tubes and technology that's been around for well over 100 years. Why aren't we drawing upon the resources of the wonderful technology companies that have been spawned by Stanford to do state-of-the-art analysis of the traffic, understand the problems, and come together as a community as a solution? Even though we are not—the City is not in the position of having authority, we must implore Stanford rather to act defensively here, instead act proactively. Tell us what you're going to do not just to not add traffic but actually address the traffic problem we already have. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for coming. Nadia Niak, welcome. Nadia Niak: Hi. Nadia Niak from Californians Advocating for Responsible Rail Design (CARRD). As former Mayor Burt talked a little bit about this idea that folks are moving between different parts of the pieces of Stanford, making it hard to figure out what's going on. We happened to meet with some Stanford consultants about some of their transportation issues, and we happened to meet at the Porter Road facilities, which are filled with cubicles FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 28 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 for folks that are actually working for the academic campus but in the Research Park. Now, if you look at the EIR, they're trying to tell you, "We're only allowed to talk about the academic campus." If they're shifting people off the academic campus and using the Marguerite buses, then obviously that's having an impact on things. The second thing is that you may not know that the way the no new net trips work is they have to have—two out of three consecutive years, there has to be more than a 1 percent increase at a particular intersection. That's hard to do consecutively. Besides that, they're also allowed to get credits. The way the credits work is that anything outside the immediate cordon but between the impact area or around the campus, they get a credit for if they reduce a trip. That means if they're running a Marguerite shuttle to, say, the parking lot that former Mayor Burt mentioned, that's actually technically part of the hospital, all the Marguerite riders are credits. That's why they're really sure they're never going to get to the part of mitigations because they know that a 1 percent volume increase on a particular road is hard. To do it two out of three years is even harder. Then, they've got this floating system of credits because they know how many people are on Marguerite; we don't. They know that they're not going to necessarily go over those numbers. Additionally, as was already mentioned, their only idea for impacts relates to cars. Guess what? Their TDM program relies on Caltrain. There's not a single Caltrain mitigation, none. We need more train cars. That is the single biggest thing that they could offer. If you want to talk about circulation, they could also help fund grade separations. We could talk about that at Rail Committee. The point is Stanford has done a really good job with TDM, but we have a problem. We don't have enough teeth. It's a good problem, but it's not fair to say that we're not going to be increasing the amount of cars if they can't actually put everyone on Caltrain. You guys have seen in my notes there, there's just enough room in Caltrain capacity. The final thing I'll say is this multiplier effect, which is the one that most concerns me. Stanford is claiming they'll only have a 0.73 multiplier effect of indirect jobs growth in the area. That is extremely low, especially for a university that prides itself on technology transfer. The Bay Area Council has numbers that say for each job created in a high tech sector, which is usually what spins out of Stanford, approximately 4.3 jobs are created. They're saying 0.73 multiplier effect, not even 1. Imagine the impacts on the housing numbers they have, on the congestion numbers that they have. Everything is off by a lot. I know you guys are not in a position to actually do anything specifically, but you can make some loud noises that are really going to get people's attention. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. That is my last card. Does anyone else wish to speak? In that case, bringing it back to Council for comments. There is a letter in front of us. We have said that the final date for turning this in is FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 29 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 February 2nd, which means that I would suggest the following. We look at this letter tonight, that we make suggestions to Staff for changing the tone or the content or whatever we may wish to do, and that comes back to us on the Consent Calendar on the 29th so that we have one more chance to look at it. With that, who wishes to kick this off? No interest whatsoever? Lydia. Council Member Kou: I'd like to start off by asking to include the letter that Nadia and Elizabeth Alexis had sent in to be sent in addition with our letter and also that Stanford's GUP proposal is not considered just isolated to the Stanford campus, that we do take in the considerations of their other Stanford-owned properties such as the Stanford Research Park, the Stanford University Medical Center. There's also the shopping center, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and also our neighboring cities, 500 El Camino Real in Menlo Park. That is going to be built; that has been approved by Menlo Park City Council. That is a mitigation that we should be looking at or at least impact that is going to be coming to us, given that Willow Road does not go through onto El Camino. It ends at Alma, and so a lot of the traffic that's going to be going to the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) is going to be coming off University, Embarcadero. They're going to be using most of our City streets and cutting through into neighborhoods. That is a great concern. I think that's something that we need to ensure is being reviewed, especially the cumulative impacts. Nadia's already mentioned no new net commuter trips. I think the Mayor has also mentioned the open space. I would also like to see that it is considered for—I can't say the word forever, perpetuity. I'd like to see that something is done to keep that, the open spaces that Stanford has, as open space. I realize that Ms. McCown had said that when this comes up they're not expanding their campus sites. Things change as years go by. I'd like to also add that the traffic mitigation and measurements are also expanded to other roads such as Kellogg and Churchill, all these small streets that are neighborhood streets that are by Embarcadero. I am almost certain that there are cut-throughs from there, so those streets should be measured as to how much traffic goes through there. It really does concern me what former Mayor Burt has said as well as what Nadia has said about offsites where there is academic going on and parking at other areas. It goes to show all the roundabouts that's being played on us. I hope that's addressed. Thanks. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Again, let me take up the issue that I have been concerned about, which is crossing the road, in this case Junipero Serra. On Page 1 of 35, which is the letter, it indicates please extend existing open space protections. I would like to ask for open space protections until 2050 specifically. Then, it says be explicit where growth and development outside the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) may be proposed. I think what we've FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 30 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 heard tonight is that—if I misunderstood Jean, my apologies—when it becomes necessary to develop one of the pieces of land that is currently protected, it will take four of the five Supervisors to do that. Frankly, that's not difficult. The other four Supervisors may be sympathetic, but it's not their district. I would like to be, as I said, more definitive. I'm getting used to the new lights. Former Mayor. Council Member Scharff: Thank you. Overall, the letter is really good. Staff did a good job synthesizing most of it. Are we just making comments or are we going to then make motions? I assume that's (crosstalk). Mayor Kniss: Tell us how it would work best for you. I think you can hear our comments, but if you need a Motion so that we vote on it, I think that's fine. I need some general guidance as to how we need to proceed with this in order to change it. Council Member Scharff: Without a Motion, I know that Council Member Kou said some things I strongly disagree with. I'm not sure if we have disagreements and we just make comments, it just comes back and then we just pull it. It only takes three people to pull it. I actually think if we're going to have changes … Mayor Kniss: Why don't we go to Motions? Council Member Scharff: … we're going to have to make Motions. I'm actually not really ready to make a Motion yet. I wanted to get a clarification of how we were going to do this a little bit. James Keene, City Manager: May I just jump in, Madam Mayor? Mayor Kniss: Please. Mr. Keene: The challenge we have here is that we have tonight's meeting and then we have next week's meeting, which is the 29th, and then we have a deadline for the submission which is February 2nd or whatever. We have this meeting and the next meeting. We had talked that it would be great to have the Council adopt the letter that we had now. If there were some add- ons, in some way to have some process for us to finish those off. It could either be us reviewing those with the Council if it was in a Motion at the end of the meeting to see where you were or, depending upon how much you have, I guess I would ultimately defer to you making these as a Motion this evening as the most expeditious way for us to be able to end this meeting and probably not have to come back to the Council, if that's at all possible. I'm just trying to think about the turnaround time to be able to do that, incorporate this, get it back on the Agenda, and bring it back to you. Even FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 31 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 though I was talking about doing that earlier today when we were talking, I'd ask the Council maybe to see how you proceed, what the changes really look like and what form they take. If we can just incorporate them as motions at the end of the day, then we can just go ahead and get the letter off without having to worry about how we get it back on the Agenda. If somehow it gets so complicated that that doesn't work, then I'll leave it to you to revisit how we should best handle it, if that's appropriate. Thanks. Council Member Scharff: First of all, I really just had a question here for Staff to start with. If you go to Packet Page 175, where it says potential future changes in land use or distribution, I was actually a little confused as to what we're trying to achieve here. What I read—maybe I read it incorrectly. I read the DEIR indicates that additional housing beyond the proposed limit of 3,150 units and/or changes in distribution of academic support and housing may be requested by Stanford as a condition of the permit subject to additional environmental review and County approval. Then, we go on to say all of our concerns with that. In other parts of it, we say Stanford's not building enough housing. This seems to be saying we want to make it more difficult for them to build housing. If they're going to go through the environmental review, why would we add the rest of that? It struck me as we would like them to propose more housing units; at least I would like them to propose more housing units, and I would like them to go through what they've already agreed to do, which is additional environmental review and County approval, which at point we do it. I'm not sure why I would want them to go through a process now where they have to think about what the effects of putting different housing in different places would be. Why not just wait and see? I want to make it easier for them. Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Council Member Scharff, for that question. I think our comment is about the flexibility that Stanford has tried to preserve and the lack of clarity about exactly when or what we would—what kind of bite at the apple we would get if they start moving things around. As we understand it, there's a lot of flexibility in the way they're proposing this. Council Member Scharff: Is it moving the existing 3,150 units or we want to know they're going to put additional housing? I read it as additional housing, not the existing 3,150 units. Ms. Gitelman: It's also just changing the location of what they're proposing. There's just a lot of flexibility built into the proposal. Council Member Scharff: Say that again. Ms. Gitelman: There's a lot of flexibility built in with no performance standards. We're saying, "Just give us a little more information about how FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 32 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 you would evaluate changes so we can better understand that it's not going to create a big problem or an unforeseen situation." We'll kind of know that we get another bite at the apple. Council Member Scharff: Just so I understand this. Is there a possibility that they move stuff around under the way it's currently proposed where it doesn't go through further environmental review or approval by the County? Ms. Gitelman: It will be up to the County what additional review it requires. Council Member Scharff: What we're saying then is we'd like—I just thought this paragraph was … Ms. Gitelman: We can clarify it. Council Member Scharff: It was frankly unclear to me. I think I understand what you're saying now, and I think it makes sense. I just had trouble getting that out of this paragraph frankly. Ms. Gitelman: Understood. Council Member Scharff: The other thing is—as I said, I think it's a really good letter. I was a little unclear under traffic as well. Since I've been on Council, we've talked about what a great job Stanford does with their TDMs. My understanding of the whole idea is that we set a benchmark, Stanford shall have no new net trips or shall have X trips, and then it's up to them to figure out how to get there. That's why we've been successful. I contrast that with the City, which I feel has not been very successful at TDM. We're getting better, but I would say that Stanford is much better than we are. When I read this paragraph, I want to make sure that we're not telling Stanford how they should do it. Also, if Stanford tries to—if we try and tell Stanford to figure it out now, that's going to make them less flexible on it and less iterative. Part of their success, from what I understand, is that they've been iterative in this. They've tried different things; if it doesn't work, you go and try something else. Technology changes, and approaches and best practices change. I wanted to make sure that we, first of all, acknowledge that they have done a good job on TDM—every time we sit in here, people tell me what a great job they've done—and that we talk a little bit more about how we recognize that they've partnered with us, and that they are doing a good job. I wanted to get a sense of Staff if I'm reading this wrong or whatever. It is a little unclear to me. Ms. Gitelman: Thank you again. I think we try in the letter to make several points about the no net trips policy, just suggesting that it could use some improvement if it's going to serve us well for another 20 years. A couple of FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 33 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 things specifically we note in the letter. One, as we understand it, the way it works is it's only measuring inbound trips. To the extent the City is successful and Stanford is successful in putting more housing on campus, we will start to see more and more outbound trips in the peak hour. It seems to us that congestion at our intersections and the traffic that's experienced in Palo Alto is affected not just by one-way traffic but by the traffic that's going in both directions. That's a key point that we make. Another … Council Member Scharff: Let me just stop you right there. I think that's a really good point. I just think we need to think about how we square that with the notion that we want more housing. If we're basically saying that if we're putting housing on campus, it's going to create outbound trips, and we want to monitor that. I just want to make sure that we think through that. Are we going to say they can't build more housing? TDM for outbound trips on housing is really tough. It's much tougher than the inbound stuff. I think we've struggled with that a lot in our City, and we haven't managed to—put it this way, I don't think we've been very successful at that so far. I just think that we need to be a little realistic and a little careful about what incentives we send. I keep reading we want more housing at Stanford, and I think we're sending mixed signals on that. Ms. Gitelman: You're absolutely right we're saying both things. We're saying more housing, but we're also saying let's be honest about the traffic that's being generated by proposed uses on campus. We're also saying that the idea of unlimited credits is something that needs to be looked at again, and we're saying what some of the speakers pointed to, which is there's a commitment to TDM and transit ridership and all the rest, but there's no real thought process in the document, as far as we could tell, about Caltrain capacity and how Stanford is going to assist transit providers and other providers from meeting the needs of their commuters. Council Member Scharff: That actually changed my mind. I will make a Motion. I move that we approve this letter. I assume people can make Amendment to that to change the words. I think we need to get it out there that this is the letter we should send. Council Member Fine: Second. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit a revised comment letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Stanford University’s 2018 General Use Permit Application to Santa Clara County before the County’s February 2, 2018 deadline. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 34 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: You're suggesting that we approve this letter again because this is … Council Member Scharff: Yeah. We need a letter that we're going to send. I want a framework to move the meeting forward. I think a good framework is this is the letter we're going to send. If people want to make changes to it, go ahead. Mayor Kniss: You would like to send this letter, and then we can now suggest Amendments to this letter with a Motion and a second and a vote. In that case, let's also remember we have another major issue or two we're going to bring up tonight. We might consider some brevity in this since I think it covers a lot of the bases to begin with. There is a Motion and a second. We need to vote on that. No we don't. We can wait and add Amendments to it if there are any. Council Member Scharff: That's correct. Mayor Kniss: Let me continue on down the line with a live Motion in front of us. I have Adrian, then Tom, then Cory. Council Member Scharff: I need to be able to speak to my Motion, and then Adrian needs to speak to his Motion. Mayor Kniss: I'm sorry, and I should have let the second speak to the Motion as well. Council Member Scharff: It takes a while. It definitely takes a while to get used to it. I just really wanted to say that I do think this is a great letter for the most part and captures my concerns. My concern would also be the one that Mayor Kniss had regarding the academic boundary. That's something that's important to us. The 4/5th vote is important to us. I'm glad you're putting that front and center. I do think housing is something that's important. I think we put it front and center, and that's why I'm a little concerned about the second message we send on this. I don't really know how to fix that frankly. I do think it's important to count the traffic. I do think it's important to look at it. The no new net trips, if I'm wrong, has always been into the campus. Are we now suggesting it come out of the campus? I didn't think it came out of the campus; I thought it was crossing the boundary into the campus, or has it always been both? Ms. Gitelman: They've only been counting the inbound commute trips during the peak hour. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 35 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Scharff: That's what I thought. It's an interesting thing. It seems like it's something we definitely want to look at and understand it. I would agree with counting it. I think it's one thing to count it; it's another thing to say we can't build housing because of it. Does our letter currently imply that or does it not imply that? Ms. Gitelman: It does not. Again, we're really saying two things, which is we need greater emphasis on housing, but we also need a no net trips goal that's a little more honest about the traffic that's being generated. Council Member Scharff: The one new net trip's going is—my understanding is that Stanford has to meet that; otherwise, there are penalties and other things that apply. That's where it ends up. Isn't that where it ends up on the GUP? If they don't meet the goal of no new trips, what happens? Ms. Gitelman: The way this is set up, they would have to start paying fair share contributions, but they've set it up in a way where they can count an unlimited number of credits against any increases they measure. Council Member Scharff: We want it to be fair, I agree with you. My question is on the outbound. We don't have any numbers for that. I'm good with the inbound; I understand what we're doing there. On the outbound, I'm trying to understand. Are we just gathering information or are we saying this becomes like the inbound where we now have fair share, we now have penalties, we have stuff like that? Ms. Gitelman: Yes, we're suggesting that Stanford should analyze traffic impacts like all the rest of us do. You look at volumes at a given location, and you don't just say, "I'm going to take only the trips that are going in this direction, not all directions." Council Member Scharff: Fair enough. I'll leave it at that. Thanks. Council Member Fine: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Scharff, for putting this forward. Overall, I think this letter does touch on many of the issues that our community, this Council, and others have raised with Stanford over the past few months. The big ones I can think about are the four-fifths vote, the academic boundary, and the housing issues. My comments are mainly around the traffic and transportation issues which, as one of our public speakers mentioned, don't really pass the smell test. I think there's a bit of confusion here that we can work with on Stanford and partner with them to make it more clear that some of their transportation efforts will succeed, some will fail. There will be impacts to the City. We're undercutting ourselves in a few ways. First of all, I would like us to include a bit more of a tone of partnership in this letter. A lot of it is a little FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 36 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 accusatory. Although Stanford certainly is not perfect, they are one of the driving forces of this City and this region. It's important that we indicate that. On the TDM efforts, as the former Mayor mentioned, they are the most successful in our region. It seems a little bit like throwing stones from a glass house when we have a nascent Transportation Management Association (TMA) just getting off the ground, and we have a lot to learn from Stanford for us to go questioning all of the flexibility and technology and metrics and measures they're looking at. Certainly, there are issues there, I think, particularly around how no net new trips works, when it works, whether it's in or whether it's out. Those are fair, but I think we should be commenting on this system as it's got potential. If Stanford is going to grow and going to mitigate these trips, TDM has worked in the past and can continue to work in the future. We don't know exactly where it's going to work and how, but there is a bit of flexibility, which is inherent there, that we need to allow Stanford and I think is important for this. A few other comments. I was a little surprised at the Hexagon Report, that we're forwarding that. Are we just including that as an attachment to our letter? Ms. Gitelman: Yes, we were going to include that as an attachment to our letter. They were our technical reviewers on the—they went deep into the traffic study for us. Council Member Fine: Also, a few commenters did mention about grade separations and Stanford potentially supporting our TMA. Those are important points. Those are two of the major transportation issues we face in the City. Both of them are directly linked to Stanford and the Research Park and the demand for folks going to and from there. It would be helpful for Stanford to engage on that. If we can tell the County the message, that's important. One last comment before I maybe try some friendly amendments. I point all my Colleagues to Packet Page 185-D. This is in relation to Item 15 we'll be dealing with a little bit later where our own City Staff goes ahead and says expansion of parking is contrary to the university's trip reduction goals that seek to reduce vehicle trips. Let's keep that in mind when we talk about the garages later on. Anyways, the friendly amendments I'd like to make. One is include a tone of partnership with Stanford. Council Member Scharff: Yeah, that's fine. Council Member Fine: Two, support the flexibility of Stanford's no net new trips and TDM efforts. Council Member Scharff, it's a broad statement, but I think you really hit it on the head when you said Stanford is doing the best efforts we've seen around this, and we don't know exactly what they are FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 37 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 going to do in the future, but it's important for us to give them that leeway and flexibility. Council Member Scharff: That's fine with me. Council Member Fine: The last one is to include comments about the need for Stanford to engage on Caltrain and TMA funding and support. Council Member Scharff: I think that's good. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “include a tone of positive partnership with Stanford; and support Stanford’s no new net trips and TDM efforts; and include comments about the need for Stanford to engage in conversations about Caltrain and TMA funding.” Mayor Kniss: Council Member Scharff, you mentioned including a precise boundary. Did you put that in at 2050? Council Member Scharff: I'm happy to do that. Mayor Kniss: I would like to have that included. As I said, this goes back to the Page I was reading from previously, which is Packet Page 171, please extend existing open space protections to 2050, etc. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Provide Open Space protections until 2050.” Mayor Kniss: Let me go back and start with the lights again, because we're now adding Amendments. Ms. Gitelman: Mayor Kniss, I'm sorry. If I could just get some clarification about Item B, the support for no net trips and TDM efforts. Did I understand Council Member Fine to say that you still wanted us to point out some of the issues we had with the no net trips policy? Council Member Fine: Absolutely. It just came across as a critique with no support there, especially on Page ... Ms. Gitelman: That's kind of in the line of Item A, the tone. Council Member Fine: Especially on Page 172, it's just a critique of all the metrics and efforts and the program itself. I think those are fair, but it should be couched in some language about this being the most successful TDM efforts we have here in the North County. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 38 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: Here are the lights that I see on now in no order, and I apologize. I see DuBois, Holman, Filseth, and Kou. Are you all going to speak to the Amendment? Let me start down here with Tom, speaking to the Amendment—speaking to the Motion. Council Member DuBois: The Motion is the item. Is there a difference? First of all, thank you. You guys captured a lot of our comments pretty well. I actually want to say I was pretty good with the process of having Staff listen to our comments, come back with a draft. Unless there's some really major new suggestion, I was going to suggest if we went back that direction, that we could commit to giving Staff early notification if we wanted to pull the Item to address that concern. My comments are really just clarification and emphasis, but I think we're going to spend an awful lot of time on this Item if we have to make motions for these kinds of things. It's a mistake to say the letter's perfect tonight. We have 2 more weeks. We've gotten a lot of good feedback already. I'm going to make a Substitute Motion that Staff takes our comments, updates the letter, gets it out to us on Thursday. Council commits to letting the City Manager know by Friday if anybody wants to pull the Item, and then we would allocate time next Monday if that was needed. Otherwise, we would just have it on Consent. That's my Substitute Motion. Council Member Holman: Second. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to take Council comments into consideration, provide a revised letter on Thursday for review, and Council will provide City Manager with comments by Friday if they wish to pull it from the Consent Calendar. Council Member DuBois: I'm just concerned about how much time we're going to take. I think it's a better process. We can trust Staff to get it right. Tonight, if we hear something we think is really a big change, maybe somebody could object to that. I'll stop. I still have a bunch of comments on the GUP itself, but let's settle the process we're going to use first, if we could. Mayor Kniss: At this point with a Substitute up there, I'm going to turn all the lights off. This time, if you wish to speak to Council Member DuBois' … Council Member Holman: Can I speak to my second? Mayor Kniss: … Substitute Motion—yes. Just to explain that. Karen, I know you want to speak to your second. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 39 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. Appreciate the clarification. Actually what Council Member DuBois has said is correct here. I support it for that very reason because we would be here and get nothing else done tonight, it seems to me, given it's 8:00 P.M. and we're already way behind schedule. It's a very intense Agenda. It does make sense to follow this process. We may not ultimately all agree with everything. If Staff can just take our comments, embed them in a new, revised letter, and we get an opportunity to comment on that, I think that will help us a great deal. I have several comments. If we debated all of them, it would be—I don't have a ton, but I have several comments. Some of them are clarifications. If we went through all of them and other people have comments too, we'd be here ad nauseum. That's why I support the Substitute Motion. I also would point out that the original Motion is lacking in clarity. The main part of the Motion is lacking clarity as well. Thanks. Mayor Kniss: Could I just make one correction? "D" is provide open space protections until 2050, and not an additional 50 years. I don't see any other lights for the Substitute Motion. Now, I do. Vice Mayor Filseth and then Council Member Kou. Vice Mayor Filseth: I actually have a concern about the Substitute Motion. I understand the intent, and I think it's a good one. My worry is that if we all make a lot of comments and Staff tries to incorporate them into a revision of the letter but, as somebody pointed out earlier, we don't all agree with those comments, then we're going to be having a wordsmithing discussion again at the next Council meeting. It's quite late in the process, and a lot of work has gone into this. We should have the wordsmithing discussion tonight for better or for worse. I fear that if there's not universal agreement on this stuff, then we're just kicking the discussion down the road. I have that concern about the Substitute Motion. Council Member Kou: I wanted to speak towards the Motion. I'm sorry. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. In that case, if no one has anything to add, could you vote on the Substitute Motion? The Substitute Motion fails on a 6-3, Tanaka no, Kou yes, Scharff yes, Filseth yes, Wolbach. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-6 Dubois, Holman, Kou yes Mayor Kniss: Going back now to our original Motion, we were in the middle of adding Amendments to that. We now have in front of us the original Motion, which was made by Scharff and seconded by Council Member Fine, to authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit the letter and so forth. The changes are tone, a positive partnership, supporting the no new net trips, TDM, include comments about the need for Stanford to engage in FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 40 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 conversations about Caltrain and TMA funding, and to provide open space protections until 2050. Going from here, I now have a number of lights again. I have Tom, Karen, Cory, and Eric. Why don't we just start down the line. Tom. Council Member DuBois: I just want to be clear. Our position is that we really want to eliminate the trip credits entirely? Ms. Gitelman: I think we say that we're not supportive of unlimited trip credits. Council Member DuBois: It just seemed like we needed to be more clear about what we were asking for. I will make that Motion, that we clarify what we want to have happen. Mayor Kniss: We're on Amendments, Tom. Council Member DuBois: This is an Amendment. Council Member Scharff: We do not want unlimited trip credits. Council Member DuBois: Just clarify what we want. I don't know how detailed you want to be. Clarify the City's intention on trip credits. Mr. Keene: That almost makes it less clear than the way we have it unless there's some specific metric or whatever you're thinking about. Mayor Kniss: Do you maybe want to clarify Stanford's intention on trip credits? Council Member DuBois: I wasn't sure what the City was saying. If all you want to say is there shouldn't be unlimited, then we could change this to say that. It just wasn't clear reading it what we were asking for. Ms. Gitelman: We can certainly—I think that was our intention, to say that we didn't want unlimited trip credits. We can try and add some additional specificity. Council Member DuBois: Do you think it's clearer that that's the intent right now? Ms. Gitelman: That was our intention. Council Member DuBois: I'll withdraw that for now. If other Council Members have the same concern, maybe somebody else could propose that one. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 41 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to clarify the City’s intention on trip credits. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER Council Member DuBois: On the cover letter, we talk about square footage for commercial, and we mention 40,000 square feet for additional building space. We should also add—we talk about dwelling units, but we should also mention the square footage for those dwelling units, which I believe is another—was it 1.2 million square feet? That would be in the first paragraph. The Amendment there would be to state the square footage for the dwelling units. Is that acceptable? Council Member Scharff: Sure, it's fine. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “include square footage for dwelling units.” Council Member DuBois: The comment about including support inclusion of the max build-out was a good comment from the public speakers. That belongs in paragraph A about open space. It supports Mayor Kniss' concerns there. I would just add in addition to supporting the academic boundary that we request that there be inclusion of a max build-out plan. Council Member Scharff: We've never been able to figure out what a max build-out plan in Palo Alto is. Technology changes. The GUP goes for a particular period of time, and this is the max build-out for that period of time. First of all, plans that go beyond that are useless and not helpful. I wouldn't support that. Council Member DuBois: They agreed to create that during this period of time but didn't do it. Council Member Scharff: I'm not sure that's what they agreed to. They agreed to study it. It's impossible frankly to come up with a max build-out. Council Member Holman: I'll second it. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “request there be inclusion of a maximum build out plan.” Council Member DuBois: Just to move it along, I won't speak to it. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 42 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Holman: I will speak to it just briefly. We do Comprehensive Plan EIRs and Stanford does GUPs. At some point in time, you do have to, especially with an entity as large as Stanford and where you have singular control such as Stanford, you can consider how much land there is, how much resource there is, and what the impacts are, and determine what a maximum build-out is. The community deserves such an indication so that we're not just always fighting uphill against this. That's why I'm seconding this. Council Member Scharff: I just wanted to speak to the Amendment. Mayor Kniss: I'm going to have to turn out all the lights again because we now have another Amendment on the board. Council Member Scharff. Council Member Scharff: I just wanted to speak to that. I agree with Council Member Holman. We have a general plan, and the general plan is the equivalent of the GUP. We don't say what a max build-out is in Palo Alto. What we say is during a particular period of time this is what we expect people to build, how much office space, how many housing units. That's really what the GUP does. It's the same as our general plan. There is no max build-out in Palo Alto. There is no max build-out on this. That makes total sense to me. As I said, it's an impossibility to come up with what a max build-out would actually be over the long term. I don't think that makes any sense. Mayor Kniss: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: Picking up Council Member Scharff's comments about this one, I understand the impetus here, but maximum—does this mean for 50 years, 100 years, for 500 years? It's hypocritical for us to demand it of Stanford when we don't do it for ourselves. It's also unreasonable to place that demand on multiple generations in the future that aren't even born yet. That's why we don't do it for the City. That's why nobody does it for their city and why I don't think it's reasonable to do it for Stanford. We should focus on the period that this GUP is about. We should be as tough as we can be on it, but there is a time limit to this GUP. That's where the focus should be. Mayor Kniss: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: This was something that was demanded at the—it was a condition to the last GUP, the 2000 GUP, which Stanford did not fulfill. I don't think it's hypocritical at all simply because Stanford, we have to remember, is one owner of all those lands. Granted it's academic. It's still a business in their collection of tuitions and everything else. I don't think it is FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 43 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 something that is unreasonable to ask for. It's also something that we can expect as to what that growth is going to be and what we're going to have to look forward to, especially with the intense traffic that is being burdened upon Palo Altans, especially the residents that are currently living here and having to put up with it. Asking for the maximum build-out of one owner, I don't believe it's unreasonable. I support the Amendment. Mayor Kniss: I don't see any other lights. Surprisingly, I actually support this. Would you vote on the board. I'll ask the Vice Mayor to read the results. Vice Mayor Filseth: The Amendment passed with Tanaka, Scharff, Wolbach, and Fine opposing. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Fine, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach no Mayor Kniss: Let's go back to the lights before that. Tom, I think you still have the floor. Council Member DuBois: Thank you. Thank you for making affordable housing the second item in the main letter. There you do talk about keeping the affordable housing money used proximate to campus. The language was not exactly clear. The current one states a specific distance from campus. On the detail on Pages 181 and 182, this isn't really mentioned again. My proposal to the makers would be to reference the language that's in there now and add it in the detail section somewhere on Pages 181 and 182 that the affordable housing funds be used within the distance of campus that the current GUP states. Do you know what that distance is? Ms. Gitelman: Six miles. Council Member DuBois: Use that language in the detail section. Council Member Scharff: That's fine. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to add to the Motion, “include a reference to the language that affordable housing funds be used within six miles of campus in the details section.” Council Member DuBois: That was the intent, and I'm just asking for clarification in the detail section. Council Member Wolbach: The problem of affordable housing is particularly acute in Palo Alto. We're trying to do more to address it. The Stanford development impact is going to be particularly acute in Palo Alto and other FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 44 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 cities that are adjacent to Stanford. Six miles is actually—you draw it out from the edge of campus. That touches quite a few cities, so that gives a lot of options where it could be utilized. I think it's reasonable. Council Member Fine: In the previous GUP, I think it was based on the 6- mile radius but mostly went to Santa Clara County. Now, Stanford is looking at a formula which would final the $50-plus million of affordable housing fees to transit-friendly locations. If our interest with this new GUP is to reduce the marginal traffic impacts or even reduce the current traffic impacts, we should be interested in housing along those transit corridors. Otherwise, this money could go to somewhere like Portola Valley or Woodside, and folks are just going to drive down the hill or it could just go to an area that's not well served by transit. It's in our interest as a City in terms of reducing inbound traffic to allow and in fact encourage Stanford to focus housing money, particularly affordable housing money, near transit corridors. That's why I oppose this Amendment. Council Member Wolbach: Just to address that, I don't think this Amendment replaces the transit-oriented request. I see it as in addition to. I would see this as saying you want to see new housing developed near transit hubs and corridors, but it should also be focused within 6 miles of the campus. It's a good point. I certainly wouldn't want to replace the focus on transit with the geographic distance. They work well together. Mayor Kniss: Council Member Scharff. Council Member Scharff: I just needed clarification. Stanford is going along transit, which makes total sense to me. If we did this, we would be limiting—what Caltrain stations are within 6 miles? Ms. Gitelman: I don't know off the top of my head. Our concern about going broader than what the current allowed is that we may end up seeing all the housing way south of us in Gilroy even because it's got a Caltrain stop. We'd have a whole lot of people commuting from very far away. We want to see the housing closer to us. Council Member Scharff: I was just wondering if Redwood City was within 6 miles? Ms. Gitelman: It is. Council Member Scharff: I figured it was but just wanted to make sure. We'd have at least Redwood City through Mountain View and probably into Sunnyvale. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 45 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Holman: I don't need to now. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: We have Tom's Motion to include a reference to the language that affordable housing funds be used within 6 miles of campus. We need to vote on the board please. That passes with Adrian Fine voting no. AMENDMENT PASSED: 8-1 Fine no Council Member DuBois: Sorry this is still tedious. The points about the job multiplier were good. I'd just make a very general thing that we highlight concern about the job multiplier in the appropriate place. Council Member Scharff: I'm not willing to do that. We're getting way to in the weeds here. They have the comment which will have already gone in. That's correct, right? The comment will be not in ours, but they have submitted that comment, so the County will have that comment. Council Member DuBois: I'm fine with that actually. Packet Page 185, we mention grade seps for Charleston only. Why only Charleston? Ms. Gitelman: The first time we mentioned it, we talked about Charleston because that was one of the study intersections, Alma and Charleston. We go on elsewhere to talk about the desire for a fair share contribution to all of the grade separations. It'll take me a minute to find it. Council Member DuBois: When I read it, it seemed to only specifically talk about Charleston. The last time we made comments … Ms. Gitelman: On Packet Page 187, Item 32a, we talk more broadly about fair share towards grade separations. That earlier comment just arose from the analysis, which focused on Alma and Charleston as one of the study intersections. Council Member DuBois: Where are you on 187? Ms. Gitelman: Item 32a. Council Member DuBois: Thank you. I gave a comment last year about they had certain types of activities that were excluded from parking. There was a list; I don't have it in front of me. It was like emergency vehicles, something else, and then faculty and staff housing, which didn't seem like the other two. Do you remember those comments? Ms. Gitelman: I do remember that. It'll take me a minute to see if we capture that somewhere here. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 46 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member DuBois: I didn't see it. Mayor Kniss: Could I just remind us, Tom, I'm interested in what you have to say, but we're giving advice. This is going to the County. Once again, I wish we had jurisdiction; we don't. We're simply sending something. The County will analyze it. Maybe tomorrow night, Joe Simitian will discuss it. Council Member DuBois: This was a very specific loophole we should call out. Council Member Scharff: What Page are we looking at, Tom? Council Member DuBois: It's not in here. It was from our discussion in December. I can just make the Motion. What I really wanted to do was to make sure that we would remove the parking exemption for faculty and staff housing. The new GUP basically suggests that they would be exempt from any parking. Council Member Scharff: I don't have enough context. Maybe Staff could weigh in. Ms. Gitelman: I'm afraid I can't find the reference to that. We do have something about parking in the Hexagon letter on Packet Page 204 regarding Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations. Stanford wants to exclude parking spaces at EV charging stations from the count of parking, but that's a little different than the concept that Council Member DuBois is raising. I can't find that. Council Member DuBois: It's back in the EIR itself. I don't think it was included in our letter. Council Member Scharff: Tom, I'm confused by this. There's an exemption for staff and—I probably wouldn't support an exemption for housing. You need to have housing and you want to encourage them to build housing. That would be a detriment, no parking for the housing. That doesn't really make sense to me. Council Member DuBois: It specifically said faculty and staff housing. Council Member Scharff: It's faculty and staff housing? Council Member DuBois: Right. Council Member Scharff: I was confused when it just said staff and housing. We want housing to have some parking frankly. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 47 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member DuBois: It was just a complete exemption. Council Member Scharff: I'm confused how this works. That's why I'm struggling here. Council Member DuBois: I'm happy with something more general since it's in the EIR, and it wasn't—if we could just—again I'm … Council Member Scharff: Could we ask Stanford since they're here? Council Member DuBois: Yeah, sure, or we could ask Staff to come back with something. Ms. Gitelman: We have a whole list of items, A through I, about the transportation and traffic analysis starting on Packet Page 184 and going onto 185. We could add something to that list about parking exemptions. Council Member DuBois: Would you be comfortable with something about less than 100 percent exemption or something for—it's kind of like parking lite, but at least some parking. Council Member Scharff: I guess I'm really uncomfortable with telling them we can't have parking for housing on campus frankly. Council Member DuBois: Sorry. Say that again. Council Member Scharff: I guess I'm really uncomfortable without having a better context of what's going on and making it up on the fly that we should suggest that they not have parking for housing. Council Member DuBois: No, no, no. They already had an exemption which said they didn't have to provide any parking. Council Member Scharff: They don't have to provide any parking for housing? Council Member DuBois: Yeah. Council Member Scharff: We're saying they—you want them to have—oh, you want them to have parking. Council Member DuBois: Some parking at least. Council Member Scharff: I thought you were saying they should have no parking. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 48 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member DuBois: The other way around. Council Member Scharff: I thought it was the other way around. Council Member DuBois: Jean, if you could help. Ms. McCown: Yes, can I clarify? There is an overall umbrella number of parking allocation for the campus under the current GUP, which is to be continued under the next one. That's fundamentally for the parking associated with academic buildings. The faculty subdivision, the housing subdivision, isn't counted in those numbers. Those homes in the faculty subdivision that do have parking are not part of that 20-some thousand number allocation. Council Member DuBois: There was an exemption for new faculty and staff housing. Ms. McCown: I don't think so. I don't think so. Council Member DuBois: I'll look it up. Maybe … Ms. McCown: We'll try to clarify this question. Council Member Scharff: From my understanding, Tom wants to allow you to have housing—allow you to have parking for housing. Ms. McCown: As I understand it, you're saying you—I'm not sure what you're saying. Council Member DuBois: There was an exemption in the EIR that said—let me just find the language. If you guys want to move on, I'll find it before we finish. AMENDMENT: Council Member Dubois moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to ensure the removal of the parking exemption for faculty and staff housing. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Scharff: Why don't we move on? Mayor Kniss: Coming down the line here, having totally lost track of who's speaking and when, Karen, I think you're next. Council Member Holman: Thank you very much. I want to get some basic administrative stuff here. We have in our Packets on Page 171 a letter that FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 49 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 is identified as, if you look at the side, Attachment A, draft comment letter and the Draft EIR for the GUP revised December 2017, 8748 Stanford GUP, 2018 DEIR. Starting on Page 174, we have an introduction to a draft—it's the Draft EIR comments, introduction to environmental analysis, and the EIR assumption that's identified exactly the same way. When we say in a Motion that we want to send a letter, there's no cross-reference between these. What are we sending? How do these two communiques interact with each other please? Ms. Gitelman: The cover letter is 3 pages, and attached to the cover letter is an extensive list of comments, first City comments and then comments that have been provided by a consultant on their review of the technical transportation work. All of those materials together would be transmitted as the City's comments. Council Member Holman: Can there be in this—if this is the cover letter, can there be just a sentence added at the end of that cover letter to say "please reference the attached Draft EIR comments" so there's some kind of cross- reference to the two please? Ms. Gitelman: I think we actually say that in the second paragraph of the cover letter, but happy to add something again at the end. Council Member Holman: It doesn't read that way to me. If you could just provide that clarity, that's an easy thing to do. The other thing is the Motion that's on the floor says "to authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit a revised comment letter." Is it clear that we're talking about the one tonight with these amendments? I just want to make really clear that that's what we're referring to. Council Member Scharff: Sorry, I was losing—what did you say? Council Member Holman: Just want to make sure that the Motion—it says "authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit a revised comment letter." Is that … Council Member Scharff: Why don't we just say "this revised comment letter," if you want? Council Member Holman: Yeah. Council Member Scharff: This comment letter with the following revisions. Council Member Holman: January 22nd because that's the date we're seeing this, so the January 22nd just again for clarity. I appreciate that. To FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 50 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 some meat. I'm glad that the maximum build-out got included. Thank you all for that. It's on my list as well. The air quality standards. It's noted in here—the Staff Report I think it was—that our Comp. Plan and the GUP use different air quality standards for analysis. That's what it says in here. Can I get a little bit of clarity on what the difference is and why our Comp. Plan— it was made a big deal of. Other entities that were doing similar analysis would also find there's a significant and unavoidable air impact, but yet a GUP doesn't when it's these millions of square feet? Can I just get a little clarity on what the difference is in analysis and standard? Ms. Gitelman: Surely, Council Member Holman. Let me reiterate what's in the footnote in the Staff Report. We did look at the comment that you made at the last meeting on this subject carefully. It's not that they're being analyzed under different air quality standards. It's just that all agencies refer to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines when looking at the methodology required for analyzing impacts under CEQA. The Air District provides guidance for plans that is different than guidance for projects. The City's Comp. Plan is a plan that would be built out over the years until 2030. Stanford's project has been analyzed as a project because they're asking for specific square footages and build out of those square footages over the time period. It's a use permit basically. That's the difference. They've used two different sections of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA guidance to do their analysis. We did hear your comment, and as a result we included additional comments under the air quality section that will ask for a nearer-term analysis of potential impacts because using a farther horizon year tends to minimize emissions because there are so many assumptions built in about improving technologies and fuel mixes and the like. We did address your comments in that way. Council Member Holman: I did see that. I appreciate the clarification too. It's interesting that this is a project; whereas, ours is a plan even though there's such vagary to this project. Thank you for that clarification. The housing impact fee or the rate, I don't recall seeing that referenced in here, but we've had some discussion about the housing impact fee that Stanford's proposing using. Ms. Gitelman: We did include a reference to that fee; it's actually in the cover letter, Packet Page 172 in the paragraph that Council Member DuBois was referring to. It's the second paragraph under housing. We talk about how the fees charged should be based on the current City impact fees adjusted over time to reflect inflation and increases in construction costs. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 51 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. I'd overlooked that. One of the things that makes this really challenging from my perspective is that we're looking at the DEIR for a GUP project that comes at a time when the hospital hasn't come online, there is development being proposed in El Camino and Menlo Park. It's not really an Amendment offer. It's just that I think if we're looking at cumulative impacts and the timing of this, it's a real challenge for any entity including the City of Palo Alto, including Menlo Park, East Palo Alto as well, to get a good handle on what the impacts really are because we haven't seen the impacts yet. I think that's a challenge that I hope will be given good weight by the County Supervisors. On Packet Page 185 under A, it talks about in a definition of peak period there are three areas of concern including the definition of peak period and the methods of monitoring traffic. The definition of peak period is like—some of the places where I read it, it's considered the peak hour. This language could be clarified somewhat because it often, like I said, refers to peak hour and not peak period. What is the peak period? I think you could ask anybody on the street, especially someone stuck in their car, when does the peak period start and begin and what the heck is a peak hour. It's just not applicable anymore. If you have any thoughts about clarifying that language here, I think it could stand that. Ms. Gitelman: I think you're right, Council Member Holman. One of the concerns raised in the letter is the use of exclusively the peak hour and no recognition that there's actually a growing peak period. Council Member Holman: I don't have exact language here, but let me just try something here as an Amendment. References to peak hour—I'll try to keep it in this A on Page 185. References to peak hour should be amended to address peak period, and then continue with a definition of peak period, if that's accepted by the maker. Council Member Scharff: I'd have to ask Staff what they're thinking of. I feel like we're making major changes off the cuff. I just don't know what the effects of that are. Staff didn't have that originally in there. Council Member Holman: Any Amendments are off the cuff sort of. Ms. Gitelman: I think Council Member Holman is pointing out a section of the letter that's not particularly clear. We talk about the area of concern being the definition of the peak period. If we were to say that more explicitly, it would be use of the peak hour and not the peak period. We didn't get that explicit in this section of the letter. Some of us are sensitive to the community's concern that, if you measure just in the peak hour, FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 52 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 you're losing the sense of the shoulders and the fact that we're experiencing a lot of congestion in those shoulder periods that constitute the peak period. Council Member Scharff: Staff's recommendation is that makes sense then or not? I'm trying to understand whether or not this affects the way the whole structure of it is or whether or not … Ms. Gitelman: I'm not sure the wording of what's up there is particularly clear. Council Member Scharff: Why don't you suggest some language? Maybe Council Member Holman would be happy with that. Ms. Gitelman: Maybe just clarify the request—request that the peak period be analyzed in lieu of the peak hour. Council Member Holman: That's good. That's very good. Council Member Scharff: That's acceptable to me. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “request that peak period be analyzed in lieu of peak hour.” Council Member Holman: Thank you, Hillary. We've got maker and seconder approving that. The Caltrain capacity. What happens? There is a vagary around TDM and what could be utilized. I heard Council Member Scharff's comments about we don't want to try to prescribe everything. When we're dealing with Caltrain, there are limitations. It's at capacity now. The anticipated expansion with Caltrain electrification is not very great quite frankly. I'm not sure why the DEIR does not better address Caltrain maximum capacity. Amendment C talks about Stanford engaging in conversation but doesn't say anything about analyzing the maximum capacity of Caltrain. I would like to add that as an Amendment I, that the DEIR address the maximum capacity of Caltrain current and post- electrification. Ms. Gitelman: Council Member Holman, this issue is already dealt with in some detail on Packet Page 194. Council Member Holman: Did I miss that? As part of Hexagon's comments. A question—maybe this is for … Mayor Kniss: Karen, just a reminder. We're 40 minutes behind. Do you have a number of other things? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 53 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Holman: I have a couple or three more. I think we do need to as a matter of management decide if we're going to get to both 14 and 15 Items. This is a really critical document. Why is it that the Marguerite numbers are not available publicly? I'm unclear about that. Ms. Gitelman: We do have some Marguerite ridership numbers, daily numbers. What we don't have is alightings and boardings by stop. I can't explain that. We've asked for them, and Stanford has declined to provide that. I don't know whether it's because they don't have it or they believe it's proprietary. Council Member Holman: It would seem to be critical in analyzing where the commute trips are coming from. Seems like it would be a critical piece. Ms. Gitelman: I think this might be a good juncture to say that there are members of the community who are commenting on this issue and other issues that the Council has raised tonight. I hope and encourage those members of the public to submit their comments directly to the County as well as to the City because the County will have to respond to them in detail. Council Member Holman: The County has to respond to all comments, whether they come from the Council or individual members of the community. Understanding that, I do wonder if the County is going to pay more attention to comments that come from a body of a City Council, for instance. Is there a response to that? Ms. Gitelman: I don't think there's any basis for them to consider one set of comments more than any other. We could also agree to transmit all of the citizen comments we've received as attachments to our letter. It'll just make it a larger packet of information we send. Council Member Holman: That is actually something I wanted to ask to be done. I have one more before that. The job multiplier which has come up not just in regards to Stanford but in regards to office development in the confines of the City of Palo Alto. I would like to add the Amendment that the job multiplier be analyzed in the DEIR and a rational approach be derived from—this is too long an Amendment—the 4.3 jobs created versus the 0.7 jobs created as asserted by Stanford, using 4.3 jobs created versus 0.7 jobs created. Ms. Gitelman: Was there a prior Amendment on that subject? Council Member Holman: It was withdrawn. Maybe it wasn't offered as an Amendment. It was just kind of put out there. Maybe a good thing to add to this is "and a rational approach be provided." FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 54 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Scharff: I'm not going to accept that because, first of all, the term "and a rational approach be provided" implies that a rational approach is not being provided. 4.3 jobs is not necessarily the right number. We don't know that. We don't know that 0.7 is, but there is that comment that goes in. Stanford can look at that—the County can look at that. No, I think it's way too prescriptive and has the wrong tone. Council Member Kou: I'll second. Council Member Holman: I'd actually be open to use of the correct job multiplier as opposed to the prescriptive 4.3 versus 0.7, that "an appropriate job multiplier be used in analyzing job creation." Would you accept it if it was more general like that, Council Member Scharff? Council Member Scharff: I'd be fine to accept it if it said something like "the appropriate job multiplier be verified" or whatever the right term is and looked at. I don't know what it is. Council Member Holman: Instead of "be used, "be verified." Is it then acceptable? Council Member Scharff: Yes. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “that an appropriate job multiplier be verified in analyzing job creation in the DEIR.” Council Member Holman: My only other comment is that community comments be attached to the City's comment letter to the GUP DEIR. Council Member Scharff: I'm not going to accept that either. The appropriate thing is to send in the comments that people have those. I want them to actually pay attention to our letter. When I get something that's 300 pages, it's going to be less—I want them to look at Palo Alto's. I don't think adding the community so our letter helps the community or helps us. It probably hides the community as opposed to getting their own things in. I don't think it adds any weight to it. I just think it's out of the ordinary and we don't normally do. No one does that. Council Member Holman: Not hearing a second. That concludes my comments thanks. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to attach community comments to the city comment letter. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 55 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: Coming down the line, Adrian, you've spoken. Cory. Council Member Wolbach: The letter is pretty good. The changes here make it better. There are a couple of things I would suggest adding. We talk about Stanford supporting capital improvements for transportation, building a transit center at 280 and Page Mill, which is a better idea than widening Page Mill Road. I know a lot of people at the County think that's a great idea; we've talked about that in the past. We talk about Caltrain grade separations. I'm glad that's in there. We should talk more about Stanford helping with transportation programs that are proximate to Stanford, where we get really good bang for our buck. I'm talking about TMAs, the TMA in Palo Alto. If other cities proximate to Stanford have, are expanding or considering TMAs, those should also be potential partnering opportunities. We should phrase this as a positive. We should recognize that Stanford is really good at TDM. They're widely recognized as good at it. I'm glad that we're asking for some clarification and expressing some skepticism about some of the specifics with some of the assumptions. We should state Stanford's good at this. A lot of communities around Stanford— we're still getting our feet wet with this stuff. If Stanford can help with their expertise, coordination, sharing their data—I do mean the transparency about things like the Marguerite boardings—and also their money. That could be really useful. That would be really useful for the region. It would be a sign of Stanford's leadership in the region, which would minimize a lot of our concern on the Council and in the community about this GUP. That's what this really comes down to. It's about having a partnership, a healthy partnership, between Stanford and the neighboring communities. I would suggest that we add language in the cover letter and in the attachment to that calling on Stanford to provide informational, collaborative, and financial support to substantially support TMAs in cities and communities proximate to Stanford campus. I hope the maker and second will accept this one as friendly. You can get rid of collaborative, and just say informational and financial support. You can get rid of "cities and," so it just says "communities." It should be "proximate," not "approximate." Would that be acceptable to the maker and seconder? INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add language in the cover letter and attachment calling on Stanford to provide informational and financial support of TMAs in communities proximate to Stanford.” Council Member Wolbach: Thank you for that. That's really important. Again, couch that in language that we're recognizing that this is something Stanford's good at. We're looking for them to help the region improve in this capacity. Only other big change—it kind of ties into Item I. Thank you FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 56 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 for, to maker and Council Member Holman, working to improve the language of Amendment I. It's something I can now support. I was a little bit worried at first. Something I want to add to that would be strong and early and consistent language that Stanford should provide housing sufficient to address the full demand created by growth. Council Member Scharff: Cory, I wish I could support that but, given our language about trips coming out of the campus, I can't support that for that reason. Council Member Wolbach: How do you mean? Council Member Scharff: If we're going to be measuring and being concerned about Stanford's growth because they create traffic coming out due to the housing, we have to look and see how much traffic that creates. That's what we're supposed to measure, and that was my concern with that. I can't support that. Council Member Wolbach: I hope you'll support this. If you want to make an Amendment to that, we'll consider that. Council Member Scharff: I think there would have to be … Council Member Wolbach: I'm not willing to make that Amendment right now. I'm just trying to focus on one piece at a time. Council Member Scharff: No, I can't do it for that reason. Council Member Wolbach: Is there a seconder? I don't think the language in the current letter, especially in the cover letter, is strong enough to fully address not just affordable housing but all the housing need affiliated with the growth of Stanford. Council Member Fine: If I understand the current GUP, I don't believe Stanford's allowed to build more academic space beyond some once they hit a chunking of their academic space. Somewhere like every 7,000 square feet or something like that. Council Member Wolbach: My understanding is that they're adding fewer beds than they're adding jobs. Staff is concurring. That's what we heard when we had our last Study Session about this. Stanford hasn't disagreed with that depiction. Our Supervisor agrees with that depiction. The current GUP would provide a lot more job growth. If you add not just add faculty and students but also staff, then it would provide housing. It would cause a further imbalance of our jobs/housing imbalance. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 57 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Kou: I'll second. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “Stanford should provide sufficient housing to address the full demand created by growth.” Council Member Wolbach: Thank you. Council Member Kou: I'll second, but I want to ask if you would consider this, that Stanford provide this housing that you're proposing not only on their Stanford campus but also in the other lands. Council Member Wolbach: Thank you for that. Council Member Kou: At the Research Park and other areas. Council Member Wolbach: Thanks for asking for that clarification. I didn't specify where they would do it. If it's on some other lands owned by Stanford, I'm okay with that as long as they do it. Council Member Kou: Will you add that to your language? Council Member Wolbach: Yeah. We could say "and that such housing should be added on the campus or proximate to the campus." That way we would give Stanford flexibility about where they would provide that. It wouldn't necessarily have to be directly on the campus. It could be in other lands owned by Stanford or in partnership with other organizations providing housing. INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “and that such housing should be added to the campus or proximate to campus.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “Stanford should provide sufficient housing to address the full demand created by growth, and that such housing should be added to the campus or proximate to campus.” Council Member Wolbach: Just to speak to it briefly, I don't think it's going to frankly be done, but the more we push for it, the closer we can get at the Board of Supervisors. We should send a strong message on this one. I'm open to amendments about how we tweak it and make it—frame it in a positive way. Mayor Kniss: You just turned your light on for this one? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 58 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Scharff: I did. Mayor Kniss: Anyone else want to speak on this? Just put up your hand. The lights are on. Go ahead. Council Member Scharff: This is a major thing that we should be cautionary about. I was struggling with Staff's notion of having no new net trips or how we measure trips for when we put housing on the campus and the housing comes out. That's a good point. Here what we're saying is build as much housing as you can. Without further study and understanding the implications on Palo Alto, on what that means, I'm not ready to go there. It's late at night, and we don't necessarily understand the implications of what we're asking for. I don't think we should do that. Council Member Wolbach: Just to clarify. It's not saying build as much housing as you can. It's saying build as much housing as you need to meet your growth demand. Ms. Gitelman: If I can just interject. We do have some language about this. It's not precisely this point, but it's close to it on Packet Page 172 in Item B. In the second paragraph there, we say that the University should be required to increase affordable housing within the campus to address its contribution to the regional housing crisis and to reduce commute trips to and from the University. It's not exactly what you're saying, but we do try and get to this point. Council Member Wolbach: I saw that, and that was a good start. That's why I'm suggesting that we strengthen the language around that and broaden it a little bit, and say it's not just about the affordable housing, it's about any housing demand that's created should be matched by housing. Council Member Kou: Actually, I kind of like what Staff has said. I appreciate that you have more specific language, but affordable housing is one of the bigger problems that we're faced with on Stanford for some of their lower-income students as well as some of their staff members. I'm going to go with what Staff have recommended and withdraw my second on this. Sorry. COUNCIL MEMBER KOU WITHDREW HER SECOND Mayor Kniss: I think this will disappear for lack of a second. AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 59 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Wolbach: One last thing, which is to ask Stanford to be more transparent with their information about Marguerite ridership and to collaborate on coordination of local shuttles. Council Member Scharff: That's fine. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “ask Stanford to be more transparent regarding Marguerite shuttle usage.” Council Member Wolbach: That's it. Mayor Kniss: Coming up on 9:00 P.M., let's move down the line. Eric, you wanted to say something, and then Greg. Vice Mayor Filseth: Just very briefly. There's been some ongoing discussion here about TMA, which is one of the most important things—TDM is one of the most important parts of this—and some discussion about exactly how much we should try to micromanage Stanford on implementing TDM. There's a big difference between telling them how we want them to do it and talking about how we want to measure it. We shouldn't do the first one, but it's entirely appropriate that we be fairly specific on how we measure it. Council Member Scharff: Why don't you put that in there? I'll support that. Vice Mayor Filseth: It's more a direction to Staff. Council Member Scharff: If it's not in there, Staff doesn't have to take the direction. Vice Mayor Filseth: The letter should emphasize how we measure TMA, not necessarily how they implement it. Council Member Scharff: It should state "the letter should emphasize how we measure TMA and provide the flexibility for Stanford on how they implement it." Ms. Gitelman: Can I suggest trip reductions rather than—or vehicle trip reductions or something? TMA is an organization. Vice Mayor Filseth: Measure no new net trips. Council Member Scharff: Why don't we just say "trip reduction"? Vice Mayor Filseth: "Trip reduction" is good. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 60 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “the letter should emphasize how we measure trip reduction and provide the flexibility for Stanford on implementation.” Vice Mayor Filseth: That's it. Mayor Kniss: Anything else? Greg, finally. Council Member Tanaka: I only have one suggestion. On Packet Page 172, the second paragraph in Section B talks about affordable housing, which in this region is badly needed. To really solve the housing crisis, we need to not just look at affordable housing but all housing. What I would like to propose is that we strike out "affordable" and just have "housing." We want Stanford to not just include affordable housing but also housing of all types, affordable as well as market rate housing. I'd like to propose that friendly Amendment. Council Member Scharff: That's fine with me. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to strike out the term “affordable” on Page 2 of the comment letter. Council Member Tanaka: That's all I had. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. We are coming up on 9:00 P.M. It's time for us to move on to the next Item. Does anyone want to say anything more about this particular Motion, which now has 12 suggestions for how the letter—maybe 13 or 14—can be improved? Let me look at Staff. Is there anything that you want to have clarified that's on this? Ms. Gitelman: I think we're all good. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: At this point, we're going to plan to have this letter come back to us. No? Mr. Keene: Now that you've put these Motions in here, we can draft the letter, and we'll just send it to you. Mayor Kniss: We'll put our trust in the Staff. Mr. Keene: I think we can incorporate the language. Mayor Kniss: In that case, there will be no plan for this to come back for further discussion. We'll review the letter, and it will go off by February 2nd. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 61 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Keene: We'll send a copy to the Council and put it on the web for the public. Mayor Kniss: I'm going to make an executive decision and suggest that we skip Number 14 for now, come back to it later. Council Member Scharff: Let's vote first. Council Member Holman: Madam Mayor? Mayor Kniss: Let me finish that, and then you can vote. Council Member Holman: One clarification. Mayor Kniss: A clarification before we vote. Council Member Holman: Thank you for that. On "K," I just want a clarification from Staff or confirmation from Staff. I don't think the ridership is the issue. It's the boardings and alightings that they're not transparent about. That needs to be clarified. We already have this. Council Member Wolbach: What if we change ridership to usage? It's more transparent in sharing Marguerite data. How about that? Council Member Holman: Does usage capture boardings and alightings? Thank you for that. Mayor Kniss: Anything else. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit the January 22, 2018 revised comment letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Stanford University’s 2018 General Use Permit Application to Santa Clara County before the County’s February 2, 2018 deadline, with the following changes: A. Include a tone of positive partnership with Stanford; and B. Support Stanford’s no new net trips and TDM efforts; and C. Include comments about the need for Stanford to engage in conversations about Caltrain and TMA funding; and D. Provide Open Space protections until 2050; and E. Include square footage for dwelling units; and FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 62 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 F. Request there be inclusion of a maximum build out plan; and G. Include a reference to the language that affordable housing funds be used within six miles of campus in the details section; and H. Request that peak period be analyzed in lieu of peak hour; and I. That an appropriate job multiplier be verified in analyzing job creation in the DEIR; and J. Add language in the cover letter and attachment calling on Stanford to provide informational and financial support of TMAs in communities proximate to Stanford; and K. Ask Stanford to be more transparent regarding Marguerite shuttle usage; and L. The letter should emphasize how we measure trip reduction and provide the flexibility for Stanford on implementation; and M. Strike out the term “affordable” on Page 2 of the comment letter. Mayor Kniss: In that case, we're going to vote on the board. The Vice Mayor's going to report the outcome. Vice Mayor Filseth: That passes unanimously. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Mayor Kniss: As I suggested previously before the vote, I am going to bypass Number 14 for now and move us on to Number 15. Mr. Keene: Thank you. At this point Council heard Agenda Item Number 15. 15. Infrastructure Plan and Projects: Status Update on Infrastructure Plan Projects, Anticipated Costs and Funding Levels; Recommendation and Possible Action to Remove the Second Basement Level From the California Avenue Parking Garage to Reduce Costs; and Discussion and Council Direction on Project Priorities, Timing and Potential Funding Options to Achieve a Fully Funded Infrastructure Plan. Mayor Kniss: Direction on Council Infrastructure Plan funding challenges, which includes in here a recommendation and possible action to remove the second basement level from the California Avenue parking garage to reduce FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 63 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 costs. I have a feeling that's probably why a number of people are here tonight. I'm going to look at Staff, you in particular Brad and Jim, and ask how you would like us to approach this because I know we have a number of people who want to speak particularly on the recommendation that you have for California Avenue. James Keene, City Manager: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We have a relatively short presentation by the Staff that would set the context for this and make the comments that you hear most relevant. Brad, how long do you think this thing takes, 10 or 15 minutes, 15 minutes? Brad Eggleston, Public Works Assistant Director: Yeah, I think that's right, 10 or 15 minutes. Mr. Keene: Thank you. We assume you'll hear from the public and then, of course, we'll be here to answer Council questions and comments and that sort of thing. Mr. Eggleston: Good evening, Mayor Kniss and Council Members. I'm Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works. I also wanted to point out that we have the project managers from Public Works and the Planning Department for all of the Infrastructure Plan projects. They're in flight with us here this evening. We're here to discuss the Infrastructure Plan projects and the funding issues that we're currently observing. I wanted to start out with a little bit of background about the genesis of the Infrastructure Plan. The City had underfunded infrastructure for at least several decades, both with respect to maintenance and needs for new projects and facilities. There were estimates up to $500 million at various points for what that backlog was. Those concerns led the Council to appoint the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission, which we commonly call the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC), in 2010. The IBRC met for about a year and published a report in 2011. A key part of what they did was developing a fairly comprehensive inventory of what the City's backlog and most important future needs were. In response to that report, the Council had several retreats to discuss infrastructure priorities and then eventually formed the Council Infrastructure Committee, which met 12 times during 2013 and 2014 to prioritize the list of projects and ultimately make a recommendation to the full City Council. I just wanted to point out the Council Infrastructure Plan is nine projects. They're ones that were deemed the highest priority projects but within a larger capital program. I'm sure you're aware there are a number of other projects in addition to these. In fact, in your packet tonight there's an Information Report that provides status updates that we do twice a year on the full range of projects. I just wanted to quickly walk through what that initial Infrastructure Plan was that the Council adopted in FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 64 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 June 2014. This is the list of the nine projects. The total down here at the bottom, the $136 million, has been adjusted slightly from things you might have seen in the past to make it more comparable to the current costs. The initial Plan didn't include some grant funding and other funding that had already been in place and wasn't additional funding needed. This slide shows the initial funding sources for the Infrastructure Plan. What's notable is that the two largest funding sources are the Stanford Development Agreement funds and then Certificates of Participation (COP) that are to come from Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), the TOT, Hotel Tax revenues, both for new hotels at the time that were slated to come online over the next few years and from a proposal that the Council endorsed and approved to raise the existing TOT rate at that time by 2 percent. Ultimately, that went to the voters in November 2014 and was approved with a 76 percent majority of voters. This is a timeline of what the current schedule is on the Council Infrastructure Plan projects. I say current; it's important to remember that planning is still in flux for these projects. It could change based on discussions that we're going to have tonight. Also, this timeline assumes that projects are all funded fully, which we know is not currently the case. Let's see. I was going to review some of the current status of the projects and steps that have happened, but that was in your Staff Report. In the interest of time and members of the public here, I will skip that. A lot of what we have to discuss tonight and that we've been raising with the Council is the increases in costs for the various Infrastructure Plan projects that we've been seeing continue to increase. The most key factor for that is construction cost escalation. That was not accounted for in the original estimates for the Infrastructure Plan projects. There was some discussion of the fact at the time that we weren't trying to build in escalation, but at the same time we didn't have a detailed schedule for when we thought the projects would happen. We had been in a timeframe where not too far before that we had actually seen costs de-escalating somewhat, and it wasn't seen as much of a concern at that time as it's ended up being. Another factor are increases to project scope. For both the California Avenue parking garage and the Downtown parking garage, there have been increases beyond the original scope. Public Safety Building is listed here. It doesn't have increases to scope in the same way that are true increases, but I'll touch on that in a second. There's just the process that as we move through the design process we go through more and more detail. Typically on these projects, we're starting with a conceptual cost estimate, which is more about saying we need this many square feet of this building or whatever it is, and trying to assign an approximate cost to that. We try to also include contingencies in those sorts of cost estimates that are supposed to account for things that are discovered throughout the design process. In a lot of instances here, those contingencies weren't adequate. Just an example of how these factors come into play for the Public Safety Building, FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 65 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 our largest project. We started back in 2012 with a $57 million estimate, but really that was $47 million for the Public Safety Building itself and $10 million for land that we assumed we would have to purchase. In 2016 once we had the site identified, we updated that conceptual cost estimate, and we were at $75.4 million. Now most recently towards the end of 2017, we actually have a design that our design team's been working on. We were able to send that out to cost estimating firms and build a very detailed estimate, and it's at $91 million. Some of the factors in that increase. When we look at 58 percent cost escalation, which considers both what's already happened since 2012 and what our current project cost estimate says we think will happen by 2021 when the project is completed, that's a 58 percent increase. It's right there going from $47 million to $74 million if you were assuming that was completely accurate. A thing that's in a sense a scope change that I wanted to mention is that the 2012 estimate assumed we'd be on a big enough site where we would build a standalone, above- grade parking garage for the Public Safety Building. Because of the constrained site we're on, on the California Avenue (Cal. Ave.) parking lot, we're actually building two underground levels that are primarily parking and end up being basement levels that are built to essential services standards and are significantly more expensive. There's the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review process. We've already been to the ARB with the Public Safety Building once, the Cal. Ave. garage twice. Inevitably, the changes that we need to make after those sessions add costs to the projects. We still don't have updated estimates yet on these projects that reflect changes that are occurring in response to those hearings. To move on to the big picture of where we stand now, which is what's currently budgeted and what are the estimates on these projects. The left column there shows what's budgeted. The budgeted amounts are a little bit higher than what I showed you in the initial Infrastructure Plan partly because certain projects like the Highway 101 bike bridge—that's really the only significant one where Council has voted to increase the budget since 2012. These figures also show the Staff salaries and benefits that are allocated into these projects. I think a key thing to note towards the bottom is where we talk about unallocated contingency. This $30 million figure is included in the Capital Budget, and it's intended to be additional Certificates of Participation that will be backed by TOT revenue but isn't yet allocated into the projects themselves. Essentially the bottom line of this chart is that our total shortfall on the $235 million Plan is $56 million currently. Now, transitioning into potential solutions for this funding issue. The first one is this recommendation on the California Avenue parking garage. As we talk about that, I wanted to give the Council a little bit of the history and chronology on how we've ended up where we are today. The original Infrastructure Plan estimate was $9.6 million in 2014. That sounds like an extremely dramatic increase to get to the roughly $40 million that we are now, but there's an important factor that FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 66 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 partially explains that. The original scope of the project was to add a net 158 spaces in the California Avenue area. What that meant is that we would find a surface lot that hadn't yet been determined and build a parking garage on it that would replace the existing parking on the lot but also add 158 new spaces. That's what the 158 referred to. Once the lots C-6 and C- 7 had been identified as the locations for the Public Safety Building and the Cal. Ave. garage, the scope of the project essentially became replace all the parking on both of those surface lots and add the 158 spaces. We came to Council last year and made the recommendation to add an additional level that would provide more than the 158 spaces. Ultimately the Council had discussion, and the decision was made to add both that additional above- ground level but also the second basement level. At that time, we discussed with the Council that we thought the cost of a project like that was between $34 million and $35 million. Now in the beginning of 2018, we're talking about that garage, which is 636 spaces, which is a net increase of 335 spaces, we're at essentially $40 million. The Staff recommendation on this is to take back out the second basement level, which would reduce us back down to $32 million to $34 million. We've included here a little bit of occupancy data that was collected in the district in October and November. There's not a lot of data like this yet. Essentially what it shows is that really the peak demand is right around the noontime hour. We're seeing something like 82 percent use of the existing parking. This project, the California Avenue garage, is almost done with the ARB process. It's ready now to move into the design development stage of design, which is where we start detailing out the different components of the project. Moving to that design stage is the critical path for both the garage and the Public Safety Building. I wanted to point out again—I know we keep talking about construction cost escalation. Because of the fact that we cannot begin the Public Safety Building until the Cal. Ave. garage is completed—that's the commitment we've made to that area—so that we won't impact the parking by taking two lots out of commission at once, our construction cost escalation on the two projects together is about $350,000 a month. In light of the cost increase on the garage project that we identified late last year, this recommendation—Staff believed we needed to surface these increased costs with the Council in light and context of the overall gap in the Infrastructure Plan before moving into that next design phase, which is very soon. That is one recommendation. This slide shows some general categories of other types of solutions, and then I'll show you another slide that shows some more specific examples of some of them. Essentially, they're re-prioritizing or dropping projects from the Council Infrastructure Plan, reducing scope of projects. One example of that is that recommendation about the Cal. Ave. garage second basement level. We could re-prioritize other capital projects that are in the Capital Plan but not part of the Capital Infrastructure Plan and use that to free up funding in the FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 67 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Capital Fund. There's even some funding, a small amount, that's available now potentially in the Capital Fund. On the revenue side, there are new revenues coming online soon. The Marriott hotels on San Antonio are expected to apply for building permits soon and potentially to come online in 2020 and to generate $3.6 million in TOT revenues. Council Member Scharff: It says $4.9 million. Mr. Eggleston: There are a few other projects that are still in the planning phase and haven't yet got planning approvals. If they came to fruition, they're estimated to be about another $1.3 million. That's where that figure comes from. There's the example of tax increases to raise wholly new revenue. One example of that, building on what we last did, is a 1 percent increase in the TOT rate estimated to generate $1.7 million per year. I won't speak much to this slide about other funding needs. Since we're talking about this overall Infrastructure Plan gap, we'd be remiss not to point out that there are other needs, some of which, like the Junior Museum and Zoo, are coming to Council very soon. Some don't have a very high magnitude. Others, like the Parks Master Plan and Cubberley Master Plan, are not very defined at this point in terms of total costs. Mayor Kniss: Brad, just go back one. Is that a picture of the garage that we're talking about? If not, what is the picture? Mr. Eggleston: That is a picture of the Downtown garage on Waverley and Hamilton. Mayor Kniss: Do we have a picture somewhere of the California Avenue garage? Mr. Eggleston: I do. I have some supplemental slides of the elevations of the Cal. Ave. garage, that we can look at after these other slides, full slide images. Just to point out again our known gap in the Infrastructure Plan is $56 million. I still want to say that's a snapshot in time because we are expecting there will be some changes to that as we go through the ARB process on these significant projects. Here are some of the potential options for dealing with that. The first row, there are some kind of mainly project- specific funding sources that are out there, that we've already identified and, I think, intend to propose in the Capital Budget for next year, which would address about $6 million. There's the Staff recommendation about the Cal. Ave. garage. One option would be to either eliminate Fire Station 4 from the Infrastructure Plan or just defer it until we actually have funding available to complete it. That's a project that design work hasn't commenced yet. We've already mentioned the Marriott hotels and their estimated TOT receipts. That $35 million figure takes our Staff recommendation to only use FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 68 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 70 percent of TOT revenues towards debt service. That would allow you to have $35 million in Certificates of Participation (COP) with that revenue. I mentioned some funding that may currently be available in the infrastructure reserve; that's what the $2-$5 million refers to. We know that value engineering is definitely in our future on these projects. We're just getting to the stage now where we'll be able to do more of that work. We haven't tried to put a dollar value here, but we'll definitely be doing that sort of work. There's the idea of, the example of, TOT rate increase at the $1.7 million. Using that same 70 percent factor, a 1 percent increase could allow $16 million in capital project funding. That is the final slide. Mr. Keene: Thank you. Madam Mayor, if I might just say one thing to amplify and hopefully help focus the Council's discussion tonight. As you know, as the Council plans for its 2018 Priority Setting Retreat on February 3, you did some prework both listening to the community and surveying Council Members about identifying the Priority issues for the City for this next year. They went to the Policy and Services Committee. That Committee made some recommendations on advancing four key priorities, grade separation, dealing with the grade separation issue; addressing housing; a focus on transportation related particularly to congestion and other related issues; and then attention to budget and finance issues particularly on these structural challenges related to infrastructure funding and pension and other post-employment benefit obligations. As we are now in the process for beginning the intensive Staff work on developing the Fiscal Year '19 Budget and Capital Budget for '19, it will be going to Finance Committee in late April or early May. This idea was to have a work session with the Council to begin to surface the challenges around the infrastructure funding issue that Finance Committee will be taking up along with the Staff as part of the budget. As part of that, as Brad was pointing out, the issue of where we were in the planning process on the Cal. Ave. garage was timely to also bring that particular Item forward for direction to the Council. There are two general things that the Council does need to focus on tonight. Brad has made the point that delays on decisions relating to the garage have a domino effect on the Public Safety Building. We really are in a situation where we would be saying it costs us $350,000 a month to postpone decisions. You really do have a decision before you tonight as to how you best want to proceed on the Cal. Avenue garage. What we've also tried to do is ensure that we're putting it in context of all of the demands that you have in this area as part of the Infrastructure Funding Plan and that the community understands that this is not an item that should be looked at in isolation. That being said, we've also identified on this slide, for example, a range of options that you could look at as strategies to address the funding gap or challenge that you have in the overall Council infrastructure management plan. I don't mean to presume how you all would interpret it, FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 69 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 but there's certainly on both the revenue and the expense sideways to be looking at this in addition to closing the gap. I don't think the Council has to make that decision tonight. I do think the decision you make on the Cal. Avenue garage—you want to consider that in the context of how you feel about how much flexibility you may have going forward as we work through this winter/spring on ultimately informing a budget that I'll bring to the Council for Fiscal Year (FY) '19. Clearly, you want to make a decision on the Cal. Ave. garage tonight. Staff provided one recommendation; obviously you have had an original decision and whether or not there are any variations on that. Two, your comments, other thinking as it relates to the overall Infrastructure Plan make sense. We look forward to any direction you might want to propose tonight also as to how we move forward in that. With that, I'll turn it back over to you. Mayor Kniss: With that, we have a number of speakers. I would also say that at this point, even though we have a number of other issues to discuss, the possible Action Item to remove the second basement level is probably going to dominate our conversation. Unless someone has critical questions, first I'd like to go to our audience. Any objections to that? We have 16 speakers at this time. If there are more cards coming in, could you do that now? We're going to limit this to 2 minutes for each speaker just so that you're prepared when you come up. We will probably by the time we're done have 20 speakers, which means that it's going to approach an hour. Vice Mayor Filseth is going to man the light. We're going to start with Bob Moss and go on to Bob Smith. Just so you notice, everyone's name is up there, and I'm also going to presume—just a second Bob. Brad, you've thrown a picture up here, but we don't know what it is. Mr. Eggleston: That is a bird's eye rendering of the Cal. Ave. garage. In the foreground, you're looking over the top of the County Courthouse building at the garage towards Cal. Avenue. If there's interest, we've included several other views that are more up close and show some comparisons to (crosstalk). Mayor Kniss: Could you just run those before—sorry, Bob. I want you all to know what we're talking about so you know what we're talking about. Mr. Eggleston: I'll point out the public … The garage is on lot C-7. To the east of that, which is to the right, is lot C-6 where the Public Safety Building will go. This is a view looking from California Avenue down Ash Street to the Ash Street side of the garage. This is also looking down Ash Street. This is the Birch Street elevation for the garage. You can see up top of the elevation a comparison to some of the surrounding buildings. That's the multifamily housing on the left, and to the right would be Antonio's Nut FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 70 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 House. This is the Ash Street elevation. This slide is slightly older; I'm not sure we have the height of the garage exactly right here. It's meant to provide a comparison of the scale and massing of some of the nearby buildings, most notably the Courthouse which tops out at about 65 feet high. Mayor Kniss: The Courthouse is 65 feet? Mr. Eggleston: Sixty-five to 70 feet based on where you take an elevation reading from. Sixty-five feet if you walk right up to the edge of it and measure it. Mayor Kniss: Thank you very much. That gives us a better sense of what it could look like. Council Member DuBois: On that chart, it says 50 feet for the Courthouse. That slide you were just on. Mayor Kniss: Bob Moss, greetings. Bob Moss: Thank you, Mayor Kniss and Council Members. Reducing the number of underground parking spaces in the garage from two levels to one will probably save more than $10 million. One of the things that isn't recognized is the aquifer in that area is contaminated, and it's 12-14 feet deep. In some areas, it's now a little bit lower, 17 feet. A two-level garage would penetrate the contamination and require significant costs sealing the garage to keep the TCE out. Otherwise, it'll poison people. A one-level garage will save a lot of money because you won't have the toxic problems. There are some other issues with existing projects that I wanted to bring to your attention. You may want to reconsider them. First of all, the Charleston-Arastradero corridor project price keeps going up, up and up. I think we should eliminate the landscape medians. We don't need those. Second, you're talking about on the list of items putting in, in Barron Park in particular, groundwater—what do they call them—existing channels to get rid of the drains, the water. There's a problem. You're talking about doing that in a number of streets. When Barron Park was annexed, the Mayor at that time put a letter out—I'll give you copies of it—saying that in Barron Park there will be no street resurfacing or no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks required. The only times that gutters have been put in is when people on the street have been asked and specifically voted to do it. Any street in Barron Park, where you're talking about putting in gutters, you must go to the people that live on that street and ask them how they want to vote. Some of the streets—our street—35 years ago was asked, and we voted for gutters. We have them. Other streets voted against them. Don't put gutters in without talking to the people. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 71 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: Thanks Bob. Bob Smith. Bob Smith: Good evening, Mayor and Council. The last time this was brought, one of the big issues that I had and other people too was what was the net gain we were going to get. I've worked there for 13 years on the street, seeing the parking problems that are just escalating all the time. We've got to handle them. We just can't say people can't go there anymore. It won't make any sense. I'm very disturbed to see the number of net gain in spaces here for this project, which involves taking two parking lots out and doing all this work to not get very many more spaces. You really need to go back and think about that very seriously before you do that. As a process point, please do not feel that you have to make a decision on this tonight. I know that there are probably some good reasons for making a decision tonight. I understand that. Maybe it's worthwhile to rethink it a little bit and see what we can do financially and in other ways that will give us as many spaces as we can get. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. David Coale. David Coale: Dear Mayor and City Council, my name's David Coale. I'm with Carbon Free Palo Alto. First I'd like to thank Staff for the many options they've come up with to save money in a tight budget. This is always appreciated. I would, however, like to make a more encompassing point of view of the garage projects. When the Infrastructure Committee started to address this almost 8 years ago, we did not have the Sustainability Plan nor other programs to reduce parking needs. Now, we have several successful programs that are reducing parking and more in the works and a Sustainability Plan that identifies auto use as the largest contributor to greenhouse gases in Palo Alto. All of these items and more, such as the bike share program that will likely not cost the City anything along with Caltrain electrification and self-driving cars on the horizon, strongly suggest that the need for these parking garages should be reexamined. With the money saved on the parking garages, you could fully fund the rest of the projects and more, such as fully funding the Transportation Management Association (TMA) efforts and expanding it into the Cal. Avenue area, all the bike-ped programs, and the Sustainability Implementation Plan to name just a few, maybe even affordable housing on these sites. You have a great opportunity to take a second look at these projects and realign them with our current environmental and fiscal conditions and make a better choice. Please reconsider the parking garages and give the much cheaper parking programs time to work before these garages are built. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Paul Machado. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 72 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Paul Machado: Good evening, Mayor and Council. As a member of the Evergreen Park leadership group, I came tonight in support of our small community-serving businesses. These businesses appeared before Council and asked for an additional underground floor in the new parking garage to meet their parking needs. They did not ask for a taller, more imposing, out- of-character-for-the-neighborhood structure. Further, Evergreen Park residents noticed the current proposal before you contains parking occupancy rates for Evergreen Park. It, therefore, appears Evergreen Park is part of the plan to resolve the area's parking problems a smaller garage will not address. The Comprehensive Plan that you recently passed opposes this. There are difficulties for this project, but this garage will be the last large parking structure in the area. We ask this project be funded and completed expeditiously in a manner previously promised to the community. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you, and thanks for your brevity. Penny Ellson. Penny Ellson: We have a longstanding Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan) goal that directs us to reduce reliance on automobiles. Yet, we have $22.6 million in this budget to house cars. Only 10 percent of our last bike plan was implemented. We've been excited to see the first phase of the bike boulevard construction getting underway. This is a lot of money to spend on housing cars, not people, cars. I would like you to take a careful look at that and take a look at other ways we might meet those peak periods, especially in the Cal. Ave. area it looks like. The size of the garage, it sounds like, is designed to meet lunch hour times when there are not Marguerites and shuttles moving people back and forth between the Stanford Research Park and that area. That might be one way this could be addressed without building a lot of parking. You talked earlier this evening about maybe doing a partnership with Stanford to move people around throughout the day and work collaboratively on Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Maybe this is a way we can address the parking problems without spending $22.6 million to house cars. Thanks. Mayor Kniss: Herb Borock. Herb Borock: Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Council Members, I'm going to be referring to Slide 8, which is the comparison of budget amounts and estimates. The first thing is that there are a number of projects there that are within budget. I don't think those projects should be penalized or delayed or cut in some way to somehow benefit the projects that are over budget. Secondly, in terms of the shortfall, I believe it's a good idea to try and match sources and uses of funds. There are five items there that can be grouped into three uses. There's the Public Safety Building, and there are FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 73 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 various modes of traveling—those are two items that can be combined—the bike-pedestrian bridge and the Charleston-Arastradero corridor for about $6 million, and the two parking garages, which is $46 million. The one source of funds would be the contingency. If that was applied to the Public Safety Building, there'll be $4 million left there with the $6 million travel ways for $10 million, which leaves $46 million for the garages. The way we've funded garages in the past is with assessment districts paid for by the property owners, which made pass-through through triple net leases. It may be in State law that it is the ultimate payer who is responsible and has the authority to vote on whether to form the assessment district. Now, if the property owners or the ultimate payers decide they want to have a parking garage for that amount and want to pay for it, then have them. You may have people come here representing the retail businesses. You might ask them what retail business they have, where is it located, and how many square feet does it have, and then ask them how much property do they own in California Avenue as an individual and how many square feet that is. Retail organizations, associations may be represented by people who are not also property owners in the area. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Terry Shuchat. Terry Shuchat: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Many changes have happened on California Avenue in the past 10 years. Only a few retail merchants are on the street today, and many, many more restaurants line the streets. Those restaurants require a great deal of parking, as you've heard, between—the figure of noon was mentioned. Typically between 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. parking in that area is totally full. In addition, there are two large office buildings under construction on Park Boulevard, and another 30,000-square-foot building is proposed for Cambridge Avenue. All of these projects will generate the need for additional parking. The new Public Safety Building will also require additional parking for people visiting that building. The proposed parking garage with 6 levels of parking will give the area adequate parking for tomorrow and into the future. Building only five levels of parking would only be a stopgap measure for the present with the need for additional parking a few years down the road. Council recognized the need for 6 levels of parking when approval was given for this project. We now recognize that the City is having financial troubles with these projects. Could money be saved by building only one level below ground and five levels above ground? The taller building would be a signature building for the area. There are currently several one and two-story buildings near the proposed parking garage that will someday be replaced by taller buildings. As California Avenue has been going through a building boom, it will only be a matter of time before a garage for over 600 cars will be totally necessary. This will probably be out last chance to gain FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 74 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 additional parking in the area for many years. Please make the correct move and build the 600-car-plus garage needed for the area. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. You can see when you're coming up by looking at your name up there. Jim Bitler followed by Jack Morton. Jim Bitler: Good evening. My name is Jim Bitler, and I'm a property manager for several buildings in and around California Avenue. I've also worked on California Avenue for around 25 years. The additional parking on California Avenue is needed more than ever. California Avenue has a tremendous momentum going for it right now after the street beautification project, multiple successful businesses moving into the area as well as a thriving restaurant and bar scene. In fact, I was down on California Avenue on Friday night, and I was amazed with all the people out enjoying their evening. The street was bustling with life; restaurants and bars were full. However, unfortunately so were all the parking lots. I had trouble finding a location to park even with all my knowledge of the area. I can imagine someone new to California Avenue and how they would become frustrated with their inability to find a place to park and perhaps so frustrated they don't want to come back to the area for dinner and enjoy the beautiful street. I am for Council sticking with their original recognition for the need of a six-level parking garage with over 600 spaces. With the increased number of spaces, the City will increase their revenue from parking citations as well as revenue from increased business in the area. Let's continue the momentum California Avenue has going for it. Let's not hold back any parking; it will only hold back California Avenue. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Jack Morton. Welcome, former Vice Mayor Morton. Jack Morton: Thank you, Mayor Kniss and Council Members. As Council Members Holman and DuBois can verify, Cal. Ave. business members have spent hours working with the City to come up with solutions. We worked on the Cal. Ave. redesign. We've now worked on the parking structure. In some ways, it's a major betrayal to us that after spending hours trying to come up with a solution that minimizes impact on neighbors we now, at the last minute, find out that we're going to lose more than 100 parking spots. I want to just simply re-emphasize the fact that the community itself likes Cal. Ave. The community itself goes there. We provide Sales Tax to the City. More importantly, we have a vibrant community. The neighbors have come—both the businesses and the neighbors have come to an agreement on how to move forward. This parking structure needs to go forward now. It is the first step in the area. I don't want to suggest that we would prefer the parking structure to the police building. You will build a police building FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 75 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 there, but we need you to build enough parking so that it makes it livable for those of us who care so much about Cal. Ave. Please look at—listen to the neighbors and the businesses that do not want you to accept Staff's last- minute recommendation. $6 million shouldn't cause a crisis in one of the most vibrant areas of the community. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Mike Meffert followed by Christian Pease. Mike Meffert: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Thanks for having us up here. I totally agree that fiscal responsibility is a good thing. I'm a commercial real estate agent on California Avenue. I have a building on California Avenue. I do a lot of my business on California Avenue, so I have a vested interest. Unlike some of the other projects that we saw displayed before this one came up, this one is a no redo. Once you build it, it's done. You can't dig deeper. You're not going to build higher. You need to get it right the first time. You can't redo. I and others attended a variety of design meetings. My philosophy is always put as many parking spaces in the building, the parking garage, as you can. It's not a glamorous building. Someone spoke that we shouldn't be spending on cars and parking cars. Conceptually, I agree with that. I'd like a park there, but I'm a business person. You need parking; that's just the reality. I would ask the Council to stick to the original plan of maximizing the parking. I would totally agree with what Terry suggested earlier. If you don't want to go two deep and four up, maybe go one down and five up. I know there are some issues with that too. The gentleman talked about toxics. I don't know if that's true. Maybe you'd save some costs if you kept to the original size but just rejigger the design. I just again reiterate what several people are saying by maximizing the parking. Thank you very much. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Christian Pease. Christian Pease: Good evening. Thanks for this opportunity to talk. It's too bad you didn't go to the Architectural Review Board meeting last week and see the revised design. It's actually quite lovely. They had revised it at the request of the business community on California Avenue to take out the arcades and add more parking. As Louis Sullivan, one of the greatest American architects, said, function must always—form must always follow function. The function of this building is to park cars. Now, this proposal suggests, because of a financial problem, to reduce the number of parking spaces. The proposal also suggested that one of the mitigating factors for their claim of peak parking at noon is that we have a residential parking permit program called the Evergreen/Mayfield Residential Parking Permit. This Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) will allow enough 2-hour parking to absorb the reduction of this floor for that peak parking period. It's FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 76 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 interesting because the Staff also has another proposal that's coming up a week from tonight that says you must increase the number of employee parking spots in our RPP in order to accommodate the fact that demand is higher than supply. These two proposals seem to be in contradiction with one another. Not only does this reduce parking spaces, it also reduces our taxpayers' return on investment because this building is being built to house cars. Whether you agree with the idea that parking lots are car magnets or you agree with the idea that parking lots are required in an area where parking is already difficult and is getting worse currently, it doesn't make any sense to build this building without maximizing the parking. If its function is parking, you might look at that design just like you looked at the iconic bridge over 101 and change some of the design to something more practical to keep the parking in place. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Nadia Naik followed by Adina Levin. Nadia Naik: Hi, good evening. I'm speaking for myself tonight. Since I was talking to you earlier about this new Porter Road thing that I discovered on the Stanford campus, they happen to have a transportation mitigation program that's been in place since 2012. One of the things that their project highlights is that there's obviously a peak period at lunchtime at Cal. Ave. They say that the Veterans Association (VA) is the only midday shuttle that goes to the campus. It stops at Cal. Ave. and El Camino, and it stops at the Caltrain station. Currently that's a 40-minute schedule; this is back in 2012. They recommend that they should run on a 10-minute schedule from 11:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. to allow people to get to and from the campus and the California Avenue restaurants. They put the price tag at $45,000 in 2012. I will just say that having looked at that infrastructure project, it seems to me like you might be able to carve out at least the conversation about the parking structure and think about it a bit more. To echo what Council Member Fine said, it seems a little disingenuous for us to talk about the Comp. Plan and reducing the amount of cars but then also talking about building big parking lots. Also in thinking about the Stanford conversation, we also have to lead by example. It doesn't seem like that's necessarily what we're doing if we're building a massive garage. On an anecdotal note, I go to Cal. Ave. all the time. I'm guilty of going with my car because I often shop in there. It might take a little bit of a search; it's not terrible. Frankly, it's better for me to actually have to get on my bike. Please help me out and don't build it. Thanks. Mayor Kniss: Adina. Adina Levin: Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, here in significant agreement with Carbon Free Palo Alto, one of whose signatories is the Silicon Valley FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 77 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Climate Action Alliance that Friends of Caltrain is a participant in. I'd like to call your attention to some things that have changed since even last April when City Council gave direction for the two parking garages. Since then, there's been some new information out on the performance of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association as well as the performance of the City's Go Pass program for its employees. Both that data as well as the overall survey suggests that those TDM programs may have reduced about 400 car parking units of demand, 400 cars, Downtown even in the last year or so. If that TDM program is really working, then the need for these garages is really something to consider and rethink. We would encourage you to continue to invest in the TDM, assess what those curves are in terms of is the growth going to outstrip that, in which case the parking will be needed, or will it be possible to reduce the car trips faster than the growth in demand, continue to improve wayfinding so that someone doesn't get annoyed that they can't find a parking space—they can always find the parking space—continue to work on parking management, and things like that shuttle to bring people down for lunch. If adding a Marguerite shuttle to bring people down for lunch would clear up that lunchtime parking, that would help alleviate this cash crunch in the meantime while City Council can really look at how effective the TDM can be in reducing the demand. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Becky Sanders. Becky Sanders: Good evening, Council Members. I'm Becky Sanders. I have lived in mid-Ventura since 2001. I don't think you can really legislate morality. I love the idea of biking. I bike; I walk; I also take my car. I also drive old people around, who need to be driven in a car. A lot of people can't really ride bikes. As much as I agree with all the well-intended suggestions about doing away with the parking garage, I don't think we're there yet. The Cal. Avenue parking cancer is metastasizing out in every direction from California Avenue. Evergreen and Southgate are getting some RPP chemotherapy. Ventura is waiting. We're hoping to see if we'll even be eligible for some insurance coverage for parking, but we can't afford it. Awesomely cool people, that would be really neat for me to know, park in Ventura and walk or bike from their Ventura-parked cars to their satisfying jobs elsewhere in the City. I don't know where they're going. In the meantime, we were promised that garage to provide us our relief and mainly to compensate for lost parking due to the taking of the existing lots for the much-needed and important Public Safety Building. The City is sending citizens the wrong message when they take away a vital, promised, life- saving medicine to help us out, for (inaudible) that was promised and, thereby, dashing out hopes that our wishes matter. Thank you very much. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 78 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: Becky, I mispronounced your name. It is Saunders. Ms. Sanders: I know. It's really that. It's spelled Sanders, but it's pronounced Saunders. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thanks. Jessica Roth. Jessica Roth: Hello, Council. Thank you for your time tonight. I am here to urge you to maximize the land use for the proposed parking structure. For over 10 years, the merchants on California Avenue have been pleading for more parking. Over that time, the limited amount of parking has only gotten worse for our customers and employees in the area. We recently have been challenged by the loss of parking in the nearby neighborhoods. Some people have found parking just on the other side of the bike path on North California Avenue, but I know for a fact the neighbors there are not happy. It's just a matter of time before they come requesting a parking permit program. Frankly, I don't blame them. We are building a large structure; it's actually a really large structure. I want us to all take a peek at that because it's going to impact our area. We need to make sure it impacts it in a good way as well. That would be by adding as many spots as possible. It's so important for a small business to have people have easy parking. If you want small businesses to continue to thrive on California Avenue, then maximizing the spaces and getting the promised spots is so important. I totally went off my list here. I understand your predicament, but this is not the place to take funds from. This is a one-time opportunity for us to alleviate the parking problems of our fast-growing area. We are only growing in our Downtown areas. They are desirable, and more and more building developers want to take the land there and maximize it. We need this structure. I would hate to see it look any larger than it does. If it's absolutely necessary, we must continue with the 600 spaces. Thank you so much. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for speaking. Joanne Koltnow. Am I close? Joanne Koltnow: Yes, perfect. It's not a silent "K." My name's Joanne Koltnow. I've lived in Evergreen Park for 45 years. It was a very sleepy neighborhood. The only traffic on my street when I moved there were driving schools. Each year, I see the parking from California Avenue encroaching farther and farther. I'm very happy we have a residential parking program. I'm here in part because I'm afraid that, if the second level of the parking garage gets taken away, our neighborhood will again be asked to become an auxiliary parking lot for California Avenue. It's a perfect time to continue the plan for having the two floors. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Last speaker is Judy Kleinberg. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 79 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Judy Kleinberg: Thank you, Mayor Kniss and Council Members. I think you say I'm batting cleanup. I just want to—you've heard so many really eloquent statements, a lot of concerns about climate and sustainability, which we all share. That's our Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) in this community. I just want to point out maybe something when you step back and see all the people that have spoken. Basically this is a very unusual situation where the neighbors and the businesses agree. How many times has that happened? Pay attention to that. This is what the community in that area really wants. They identify the need. They're the ones on the ground, in their homes, in their businesses with their employees, who see that this is what they actually do need. The other thing I want to say is that building a garage with six levels, whether it's one down and five up or however you do it—everybody has acknowledged that you do have a challenge here in terms of funding for all of the projects. Even if you build that garage with six levels, it's not going to solve the problem. There are over 3,000 employees working in California Avenue, and they are expanding by hundreds as these new buildings go in. Think out into the future, and think about the TMA program expanding, and think about other TDM programs. Think creatively, but don't pull back on the size of the garage. Actually if you look down the road into the future, that garage is only going to be one very tiny part of the solution. It is critical for this very important economic, very vital part of our community, this business area. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Is there anyone that I have missed, that wanted to speak? Why don't you come on up, and you can fill out a card? You'll be our really last speaker. Dennis Kelly: My name is Dennis Kelly. I'm one of the owners of Protégé. It's a restaurant to be launched in March. I just want to say that we spent about 11 months trying to get building permits from the City. We certainly understand the challenges in regard to parking. We just feel like, at this point, that it would be a double standard to allow finances to overcome the objection. I just feel like the City should be held to the standards that the restaurant was. That's all I really wanted to say. I appreciate your time and your consideration. Mayor Kniss: Thank you very much. I think we have now heard from everyone. I'm going to bring it back to Council hopefully for a Motion. Council Member Scharff. Council Member Scharff: Thank you, Mayor Kniss. First of all, I want to thank everyone for coming out tonight. I thought it was great to see the community coming together, to see the business community working with the neighbors. I've got to say who would I be to stand in the way of FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 80 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 important medicine. Chemotherapy I think you said. It was great to see everyone speaking on it. I agree with all of you. It is really important we build this once. It is probably the last big parking garage that gets built for a very long time. It's important to do it right. I remember the meeting vividly that we had. We came together as a Council. It was a unanimous vote. In fact, we made the decision not to go up. We came together as a Council to go down to preserve the aesthetics of the area. We should honor that decision, and we should continue to support the parking garage as is. Of course, then comes the question of how we pay for it. There are clear ways we could pay for it. I think there are lots of opportunities. Staff lays out some of them. Obviously, we could—how do we call it? Do we call it bonding against or getting the Certificates of Participation against? I'm just going to call it bonding against the new hotel revenue from the Marriott hotels. That would provide you $35 million; that would cover this issue. When we look at our entire Infrastructure Plan, we clearly have a funding shortage of $50-$70 million. It seems to be roughly the amount. I don't think tonight at 10:15 P.M. we're going to be able to solve that issue frankly. It's going to take some thought and it's going to take some careful weighing of the options and seeing what's available. Other people have suggested raising some of the parking fees in that area to help pay for things like this. There's a lot of good ideas out there, but they need to be vetted at a really granular level. I am going to suggest the way we do that is we refer how to solve funding the Infrastructure Plan to the Finance Committee to work with Staff to come up with a plan and come back to Council with some options and say, "this is how we should possibly do it" or "here are the options to do it," and run through that. First of all, we should go ahead and do the full garage. I think we can afford it. Mayor Kniss: Do you want to get a Motion out? Council Member Scharff: I'll make the Motion. I'm just laying it out so we can get it. The other concern I had—I want to talk a little bit about Staff before I make the Motion. Staff put in here that the ARB could drive costs further upwards. I'm really glad we have an ARB. The ARB does a good job, and their mission is to make sure we have the most attractive building out there, and we use quality materials. That's a really good mission. On the other hand, their mission is not to look at cost-savings. The Council needs to be able to look at that. I am going to make a Motion. As part of that Motion, I wanted to throw something in there that if Staff feels that they need to come to us and say, "The ARB said this. On the other hand, we believe that it would inflate the cost," Council can then make the decision about whether or not, first of all, we agree that the aesthetics are better with that and whether or not it's worth spending the money on that. Obviously, keeping this whole Infrastructure Plan within budget, at least the FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 81 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 expanded budget, we need to be careful on that. Those are the three prongs of things we need to do. I will make a Motion, and it will read like this. We direct Staff to move expeditiously to move forward with the approved program for the California Avenue parking garage, PE-1800, etc. That's moving forward with the approved one. I guess the best way to put it would be that we refer to the Finance Committee to review and provide direction—direction's the wrong word—review and provide options to— options and recommendations to Council regarding the Infrastructure Funding Plan. Third, if Staff feels it necessary to come back with us with any revisions that they have concerns about made by the ARB. Council Member DuBois: I'll second that. Mayor Kniss: We have a variety of seconds. Eric made it before you did, Tom (inaudible). MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to: A. Direct Staff to move expeditiously forward with the original program for the California Avenue Parking Garage project (PE-18000) resulting in 636 parking spaces; and B. Direct the Finance Committee to review and provide options and recommendations to Council regarding the Infrastructure Funding Plan; and C. Direct Staff to return to Council with any concerns they have with any direction they receive from the Architectural Review Board, if any. Council Member Scharff: Just briefly speaking to it. I do appreciate the second from Tom and the second from Eric. I do think we can afford this. I do think it would be really shortsighted not to do it. I hope that we move forward as quickly as possible. At $300,000 a month delay, I would really encourage Staff to move this forward as quickly as possible. If there are things we can do on Council to help or in Finance Committee, let us know so that we can move this forward expeditiously. Vice Mayor Filseth: I basically agree with everything the former Mayor said. This is pretty high priority. You can make a case that the parking problem may actually be more acute in the Cal. Ave. area than Downtown. The reality is that costs are escalating. It's one of the many byproducts of the Silicon Valley boom-town economy and our supernova economy. It is what it is. In this case, it's hard for me as a sharp pencil kind of person to say the answer here actually is priority and revenue. In general, we should do fewer FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 82 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 things we really like as opposed to more things that we don't. The right thing to do is to stick to the original plan, make the investment, and set priority that way. We'll be happier in the long run if we do. Mayor Kniss: Coming down the line on this, I saw Cory next, then Tom, and then Karen. Council Member Wolbach: Vice Mayor Filseth suggests that you could make an argument, and I think he's right. We should make the argument that parking is worse in the Cal. Ave. area than it is Downtown. For a couple of years, we've been embarking on a serious three-legged stool approach to solving the parking problem in Downtown by reducing demand, better managing the supply that we have, and adding supply. Cal. Ave. needs the same medicine. It needs all parts of that. We're trying to better manage the supply at least by having RPP in the area. This proposal does add more supply, but we also need to reduce demand. It's really important as we go forward. We're not going to get into it and solve it tonight. We really need to figure out how to either expand our TMA in the Cal. Ave. area or replicate our TMA in the Cal. Ave. area. We need to do that. To just take one piece of the problem and not think of it holistically and not be constantly thinking about every piece in its context is folly. Every time we're talking about parking in the Cal. Ave. area, we need to be thinking and talking about how it fits into the big picture of that area of town. Which leg of the stool is it, and how is it balanced by the others? That means next week when we're talking about the RPP we need to also be referencing the supply and the reduction of demand over time and how we're going to do that. I've got some ideas, but I'll save them for next week on some of those details. On this project, there was the Staff recommendation. I appreciate Staff bringing it forward, saying it's way more expensive than we thought it was going to be. Council, are you sure you still want to go forward? Yes, I think we do still need—636 spots was the larger proposal. I think we still need 636 more spots of parking in the Cal. Ave. area. I do think we need that supply. I'm not excited about doing it this way. I wasn't excited about doing it this way last spring. We asked questions about stacked mechanical lift parking and why that wasn't included as a consideration, as an option, might that have actually been a lot cheaper. I wasn't excited about going two floors underground partly because of the potential toxicity of underground water there and also because of the obscene cost. I lost that fight last spring, I think. My memory is a little fuzzy on it. We'd had some discussion about going taller and only one floor underground. I'm not going to rehash that fight because I don't think I'm going to get five votes for it. I'm not going to say we need to go to mechanical lifts on this parking garage because I don't think I'd get five votes for it. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, go ahead and make a Motion. I'll second it for either of those. I'd like to have FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 83 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 that 636 spots for as cheap as possible. Having the parking supply and being fiscally responsible are our number one and number two priorities here. That means that other priorities, which are important—things like aesthetics—aren't quite as important as having the supply and being fiscally responsible. That's just how it goes. You have to pick priorities. I think those are the top two priorities. It's having the supply and the fiscal responsibility. If we're going to move forward with the parking garage as it is in Cal. Ave., with no mechanical lifts and two floors of underground parking, I'm just going to preview that when we—actually picking up on some of the last Items in the Staff Report, we need to start talking about what else we're going to cut or what else we're going to delay or what else we're going to tweak. I understand that it's going to Finance, so I'm not going to include it in the Motion, but I'm going to preview some of the things that I think we need to think about and I hope that Finance takes up. That includes delaying, canceling, or radically restructuring the nature of the Downtown parking garage. If a Downtown parking garage comes back to Council and mechanical lifts haven't been seriously studied as a way to maximize efficiency in cost and size and space, I'm going to vote no on it if it hasn't been really considered. If taking surface parking lots and converting them to—just putting some of the cheap things we've talked about in the past of placing mechanical lifts—just helicoptering them in essentially, and putting them in places where we have a single-story parking lot, even a small parking lot where you can put a stacker in there, if that's not considered as part of the options for expanding the supply in Downtown, I'm not going to be able to support a parking garage in Downtown. We are further along on the Cal. Ave. garage. The votes are going; it's going to happen. I'm not going to stand in the way at this point. We really need to think about the big picture across the City about this Infrastructure Plan. We need to think about where we're spending money wisely and where we're throwing it away. We need to think about the technology that's out there, that the City is encouraging. It's the same technology that hotels are now going to be using on San Antonio, that we encouraged. We changed our Ordinances in the City to encourage that. It's the same technology that's going to be used, it looks like; although, we haven't approved it yet. It's being explored for the old Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Park and Ride Lot at Page Mill and El Camino, not far away from this. For hotels and residential developments to be using mechanical lift parking and for the City to have changed our Ordinances to encourage it and for us not to be exploring it in our own expansion of supply is silly. I raised it last year. I want to make sure that when our next parking supply expansion comes forward this is part of the discussion. Sorry to be so sharp-elbowed about it, but I just want to make sure it's really clear that this needs to be part of the conversation in a serious, serious studied way. With that, I'm not going to stand in the way of the Motion. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 84 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: That takes us in order to Tom, then Karen, Adrian, and Greg Tanaka. Council Member DuBois: I appreciate Greg's Motion. It matched what I had jotted down for myself almost identically, which is why I was so eager to second it. In this letter, I think we had pretty much every business owner in Cal. Ave. asking us not to make the change. That was pretty striking, how unanimous that was. I'm glad Judy pointed out how rare it was to have neighbors and businesses in total agreement. This is the right thing to do with the garage. Just a reminder, we did discuss lifts for this garage. It's a spiral design, which gets more cars in the vertical space. We were also told that stackers don't necessarily make sense for short-term retail parking. I think we've got to keep that in mind, that stackers are probably better suited for all-day parking, overnight apartments, that kind of stuff. Again, when we get to Downtown, if it's a short-term parking place, I'm not sure if that makes sense. Based on what I've been reading—we've been getting a lot of input about the Evergreen RPP—there seems to be more demand for parking right now in the Cal. Ave. area than in Downtown. We oversold Evergreen RPP; we didn't oversell the Downtown. There seem to be empty spots in the garages Downtown. Garages in Cal. Ave. seem to be totally parked up. To one of the last speakers, Evergreen Park is a really beautiful residential neighborhood. I just don't think it's the place to force extra commercial parking. It's been about 20 years since we built a garage; it's probably 10 years too late. Again, we're not keen to build tons of garages, but I think we're behind in this neighborhood. As I think Greg mentioned, there are revenue generation possibilities with the price for permits. This is supporting businesses that actually have Sales Tax. I think we need to support those businesses. To me, the issue tonight really wasn't about the Cal. Ave. garage. It was really the larger issue about the Infrastructure Plan overall. The biggest issue appears to be the police building. The price probably by the time we get to bid and contracts is going to be north of $100 million. For that much money, we really need to maybe consider some alternatives. It's going to take some creative solutions to really close the funding gap for the Infrastructure Plan. We really need to look at timing and can we spread some of these projects out more over time. We can't afford all the bells and whistles on each and every project. Right now, California's had a lot of disasters with fires, mudslides. The construction industry is strained to meet the demand, so we're paying top dollar by trying to do it right now. Those slides you showed of the value engineering had a bunch of question marks. We've really got to focus on that and try to fill in that number as quickly as we can. It's going to take a hard look at all the projects and really trying to understand the tradeoffs. I fully support this Motion tonight, and I look forward to what comes back from Finance. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 85 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: In order, Karen, Adrian, Greg, and then Lydia. Council Member Holman: Thank you. I'm also supportive of this Motion. A little bit of concern about "C" on this because we have not a single architect on the Council. I'm a little bit concerned about that because, as was stated by the maker of the Motion, the ARB is the entity that is responsible for delivering attractive buildings to the community. As everybody has heard a number of people say, once they're built, they're built. If we're going to do a job, we need to do a quality job. Something that's going to live in the community for so many years, it needs to be a quality job. I have some concern about "C." I have no concerns about "A" and "B." I am of at least two minds about this. I also just want to give a shout-out to Judy because it's almost unique in the California Avenue area. Jessica Roth had done some a long time ago about formula businesses too that the neighbors and the merchants on the street really are supportive of each other. It really is a community. They support each other. I think that is rather unique and needs to be recognized in this area. I appreciate it being brought up, and I appreciate everybody, both neighbors and retailers, coming here this evening to speak. The reason I'm of at least two minds is we do talk about wanting to get people out of their cars. Of course, we do. There is also the practical reality that people who go shopping and people who are going between one place and another are going to be oftentimes in their cars. We are at such a deficit in this area that we have to realize that we do have to create parking spaces. Much as that might be distasteful to some and not the highest goal, it is the practical reality. There are a couple of other things. We have made promises to the retailers and the neighbors that we were going to provide a parking garage maximizing the number of parking space. I think that's what this does to the extent that we can. There are issues around the toxics. I rely on Public Works to come back with solutions to that on how we make sure this is a safely constructed and employed building. You know what I mean by employed. There are also, of course, budget issues. As I stated—Kiely will probably remember—at Finance Committee—there was nodding of heads among several of the Staff members at that point in time—we could not be building at a more expensive point in time. It is several things to be considered at once. I still land in support of this Motion because of this particular project and the demands that it has and the needs it has, and the promises have been made to the community and the neighborhood. Other reasons that I support this is—one of the members of the neighborhood mentioned the RPP for Evergreen Park is coming forward. The answer to parking problems in the California Avenue area is not the neighborhood. It's not the neighborhood. It's the reason why they have an RPP program, because the demand for parking in that area has grown so much. Again as was mentioned, the employment there is growing. There are some other things in this area that FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 86 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 still need to be addressed, that have not been addressed. Shared parking permits, I don't think we ever implemented that even though we did decide, as I recall it, that it was possible. I don't think TDM projects or projects that satisfy their parking demand through TDM programs should be allowed to get RPP permits. If they've satisfied their parking requirements through TDM, then so be it. They shouldn't also be able to get RPP permits. City Attorney will comment at some point in time whether that's legal or not, but it seems logically why would we. We also need to re-examine research and development/office use. In this immediate area, it's much more proliferate than it used to be and whether it's really the right use in this area because that has such densities that it exacerbates greatly the parking demand. Akin to Council Member DuBois' comments, we do need to maybe look at the Public Safety Building. I know when this project was being vetted previously—I don't know if Finance Committee will get into this or not, maybe—in its prior iteration, the project came to the Planning Commission and the City Council. We looked at what the elements were and what the programming was. That hasn't happened with this particular iteration. It's not really clear to me what the bells and whistles are that have been added. There's a lot of programming space in this building, but I couldn't tell you how much, if it's really necessary. Is it good to have but not necessary? I don't think there's much information shared with Council Members and maybe even the public about what all the space is and an escalation of cost from $57 million to $91 million and, like somebody said, over $100 million by the time we get through with that. There's also one thing that hasn't been mentioned, that might provide some additional relief. We ought to keep it in the back of our minds if not bring it to the forefront of our minds. Supervisor Simitian put a proposal forward formally just last week, and they're going to be looking at it tomorrow. It's something that's been talked about for a little while. I and perhaps others spoke with him about this proposal. He thinks there's a possibility of creating more public parking on the Courthouse site. I asked about perhaps objections, but he didn't really anticipate those. He's looking at perhaps even freeing up some space in the area by making sure that the uses that are there now are better parked than they are now, including jurors and such. He's a community member, a community partner, and wants us to partner with him on his project in a variety of ways. One of the ways is that we could potentially buy a floor of a new parking garage on the Courthouse site. I know he's had conversations also with City Manager and Planning Director on this too. I don't want us to lose sight of that opportunity and possibility. If we continue to still need more parking—again, as much as that might be distasteful to some; I appreciate that—we're not going to be able to solve these problems with just a one-prong approach. If we need it, I don't want us to forget that. With that, I'll be supporting the Motion. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 87 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: Adrian. Council Member Fine: Thank you, Mayor Kniss. Thank you for the Motion, Council Member Scharff and Vice Mayor Filseth. I'll just start off quickly and then get into some of my comments. It seems like you guys have the support for this. I'm not going to be able to support this at the moment. I'll go through some of those reasons, but I'll be quick because I do want this meeting to move on. Last year, I did support the parking garage, but my thinking has definitely evolved over the past year after speaking with community members, looking at some of the programs the City has underway, and other programs that we could potentially do. I'm having second thoughts about the garage because I don't believe we've done a good job of identifying the problem, the solutions, the economics, or the alternatives. All of us up here are saying, "I can never find a parking spot on Cal. Ave. Demand for parking is going up. The RPP's moving this way and that way." I don't think any of us can point to any data around that. I don't think as a City we actually have a systems perspective on what our parking demand is, what our parking supply is, and do we give it away for free. That's the central problem why we have this tragedy of the common. If you give away a valuable resource like parking Downtown in a commercial district, it will be oversubscribed. Building 600 new spots and adding them to that supply won't fix anything. We're just going to have 600 new spots that people can park in. I don't think $40 million or more of poured concrete is really going to address that parking demand. Also as some of you may have read in a letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto, we're looking at upwards of 2,000 net new trips a day. An hour or two ago, we were asking Stanford University to do a no new net trips program and trying to figure out if we can enforce that. Right here we're looking at a building that is generating upwards of 2,000 car trips a day. All the research in planning circles points to the fact if you build parking and you give it away, people will come and use it. We're going to get more traffic in Cal. Ave. The parking garage will fill up. Folks have talked about the nice optics of business and residents coming together. I agree with that; that's great. At the same time, we as a City haven't done enough to get our business and residents to come together on things like the RPP or the TMA. What you're actually showing is some promise and some legs. Where last year we spent $400,000 on the TMA, we got, as one of our speakers mentioned, 400 or 500 car trips off the roads per day. The economics just don't make sense between those two. I'm not really willing to support the garage at the moment. There are other issues we're looking at. We're looking at $100,000 per parking spot. We're looking at building four or five stories of concrete and spending $40-$50 million on this. It's just weird to me that we'd spend so much money on housing for cars that's used a few hours a day, and then we have such big fights here on Council about housing issues. It really does boggle my mind FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 88 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 after going through some of this stuff. There are a few other issues I have. Given the advent of new technology, self-driving cars, mobility options, I really do believe in 10 years parking garages will be a white elephant. We could be sitting with one here on Cal. Ave. The most important thing we can come away—at least I come away with this is that we really need to look at a way for charging for parking if we're going to invest this level of money in a system like this. We need to have better control over the resource we're giving away every day. This isn't going to solve the 2-hour parking problem where employees are skipping around the block. It's not going to solve the peak parking problems when folks come Downtown or to Cal. Ave. for lunch. It's simply providing more places for people to park for free. It's going to be filled up soon enough. I understand the business and residential desires for this. I understand, Council Member Scharff that these infrastructure projects have a long life and that's kind of baked in over time. Those are all valid arguments, but at the current level I don't think I'm willing to support the garage. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Greg Tanaka. Council Member Tanaka: I don't know if it needs to be an Amendment. Maybe it's something that could happen. If this does go to Finance Committee, one key piece of information that is necessary on Part B is that we understand how much of this increase or how much of the budget is hard costs, actual building, and how much of it actually is Staff costs. That'd be really interesting to know in terms of how much of this increase is due to just—I noticed East Palo Alto built a bridge for about $8 million, $9 million, and ours is like $16 million. That's something I'd like to know (crosstalk). Mr. Keene: (Crosstalk) right in the project. You can see in the Staff Report we have them. Council Member Tanaka: The second thing is I was listening to Council Member Wolbach's comments about mechanical lifts. I'm definitely inspired by it. At $75,000 per spot, that's incredibly expensive. With mechanical lifts, the cost per spot goes to about $5,000-$20,000. It's about one-third, one-fourth the amount, dramatically less. The reason why is pretty simple. If you look at the volume of a parking garage, only maybe 10 percent of that volume is actually the car itself. Most of it is the ramps, the concrete, the air between the cars. It's incredible inefficient even though—even with a ramp, you don't get really high utilization of the space. I agree with Council Member Fine in terms of what he said in terms of as automated cars, autonomous cars start coming online, as other types of TMAs or other ways of reducing cars happen, I don't think it's necessarily in the near future but in the more distant future. The nice thing about mechanical lifts is that you FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 89 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 can repurpose the space. It could be more than just a parking garage. It could be housing. It could be something else because you can disassemble it. This is also more forward-looking because it could be used for other things, not just housing cars. It could be housing people. If we do mechanical lifts, we could get in the same volume about two to three times more cars even with this versus a spiral ramp-type design. I know some of the issues that were mentioned in the past were that this is mainly for retail. A lot of the parking we need is actually for employees. What if we have the upper levels, the basement levels, the less desirable levels employee parking, where they can be there all day? The more accessible, maybe ground-floor level or second-floor level, for retail so that we take all the other employee parking—we have all the employee parking in the mechanical lifts area where their car's going to be there all day. They could be packed really tightly. It could free up the other parking lots for retail so that the businesses could thrive. We talk about Palo Alto being the center of innovation; yet, we seem to be very reluctant to use modern technology, technology that's used by a ton of cities around the world, even in the State. For us not to tap that or even explore it on this design seems like it doesn't make sense. I'm going to make hopefully a friendly Amendment that Staff explore having mechanical lifts for employee parking. Mayor Kniss: Thanks, Greg. Lydia. Council Member Wolbach: It was a friendly Amendment. Mayor Kniss: I'm sorry. Was that an Amendment? Council Member Tanaka: Yes. Council Member Scharff: Is that for this garage? Council Member Tanaka: For this garage. Council Member Scharff: I can't accept that because we're losing $330,000 a month. They need to move forward with the design. I think Staff heard loud and clear that … I think Staff also heard loud and clear on the Downtown parking garage you are going to have to address that. The sooner you address that, the better. On this, we don't have time to do this. Council Member Wolbach: Can I ask a question of Staff? Mayor Kniss: Go ahead. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 90 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Wolbach: I'm considering seconding it, so I'll just ask a quick question. How long would it take to do that, to look at incorporating mechanical lifts even as a portion into the design you're already working with? To just explore it. Could you do it in a month or two? Mr. Eggleston: Are we talking puzzle-lift-type systems here rather than fully automated parking garage systems? Council Member Wolbach: Either or both. Mr. Eggleston: If we're talking about the simpler systems, then I would say it's probably 1-2 months to consider it. Council Member Wolbach: That would be $300,000-$600,000, maybe $700,000. Mr. Eggleston: It'd be $700,000; 2 months would be $700,000. Council Member Wolbach: It'd be $700,000, but it might save us millions of dollars or get us lots more spaces in the same space. It might save us the need to go two floors down in the same total structure size. Mr. Keene: I think that's even a different issue. Maybe we weren't thinking about complete redesign based upon these systems versus somehow finding a way to add them in existing. I would say we've had some discussion about these approaches. We've identified some of the situations in which they work best and the conditions where they don't work. Again, for the most part, they work well in small footprint buildings that have long-term parking, residents or office workers or whatever, or much more urbanized systems where people are more accommodated to delay and hassle and all of those sorts of things. The truth is we're still a suburban City that is urbanizing in some ways. The basic way we want things is still pretty suburban. That runs into some challenges on how those garages work. We have looked at it for the Downtown garage; we'll be prepared to talk to you guys about this. I do think Council Member Tanaka's point is relevant to the extent that these will only effectively work where you really have some long- term parking going on. It is not for people who are coming for lunch. Nobody's going to come to lunch and get in a stackable thing. It's just not going to work at all. It has to be long term. I hate to say that runs into some conflict clarity right now. The expectations of merchants and/or others almost seems to point to we don't know necessarily what the use in this garage is going to be. It could be 100 percent people who are coming not for long-term things, or to what extent do we convert a lot of it to long-term that it then runs into issues with what the retail community wants. I think FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 91 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 those are some of the challenges we had even on a policy level, even if we could come back with some design options. Council Member Wolbach: I'll second it, and then I'll speak to my second after Greg speaks to his Motion. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to explore the addition of mechanical lifts for employee parking. Council Member Tanaka: What I'm proposing here is if this was within budget and wasn't like a big shocker to the Council and the community in terms of the price tag, I'd be like, "Don't need to really look at this," but we're talking about a lot of money here. It's taking away from projects that we also really need. It's time for us to do some creative thinking versus we can't do that. It hasn't been done before. That fact is with mechanical lifts you could pack cars into about two to three times more space. If we could remove a level of basement, put the mechanical lifts on the upper levels, which most retail customers are reluctant to use anyways, this might be able to solve a lot of different problems. That's why I'm making this Motion. Thank you. Council Member Wolbach: First, I'd ask if the maker would be okay with a slight Amendment, which would be to add to the very end of this "as an alternative to the second-floor basement". Council Member Tanaka: Sounds good. INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the end of the amendment, “as an alternative to a second floor basement.” Council Member Wolbach: The questions and concerns raised by the City Manager are relevant. It's worth taking a month or two to explore it. It'll cost money to do that, but the exploration will help inform the discussion when it comes back for Downtown, even if we decide not to do it here. Having at least some of this garage be targeted for employees makes sense. What are we trying to do in Downtown? Get the employees off the street, out of the neighborhoods, into the parking garages. Maybe now is a good time to start being clear about the usage and say this parking garage should be for employees working in the Cal. Ave. area so that customers, when they come to a restaurant or a hair salon or a dentist, can find parking more easily. Having the garage be focused on employees or potentially for residentials in the area, if they want to buy into it to, makes sense. That should be something that we're open to exploring in the future, just like we FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 92 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 should be open to exploring charging for parking in this parking garage in the future to address some of Council Member Fine's concerns. You're not going to easily get customers to jump into stacker parking. That's a huge change and not something people are going to be comfortable with right away. For the employees to get into the stacker parking is something we should at least look into. Again, even if it turns out it doesn't work here, that consideration will help us when it comes to the Downtown garage. I hope we'll move forward with this Amendment. It makes me a lot more comfortable with the main Motion if we incorporate it. Mayor Kniss: I don't see any other lights, and I'm going to speak briefly to this. I have been a big fan of mechanical lifts; however, after we voted last April, when I thought Staff would take a look at it, apparently you did, Brad. You indicated that you had looked and you felt this wasn't appropriate for this particular building for a whole variety of reasons. I'm not going to support this, but I will suggest later that we look at mechanical lifts for any other buildings we put in. I would love to think that we could actually look at this and wind it up in 2 or 3 months. I really doubt it. I simply can't imagine that we could move that quickly. I don't think that takes us where we want to go with this. I'd love to support that, Greg, but it doesn't seem to compute for me. Council Member Scharff: Now we're voting just on the Amendment? Mayor Kniss: Lydia. Council Member Scharff: Lydia wants to speak to the main Motion. Mayor Kniss: Not to this one, okay. If there are no more lights. Vice Mayor Filseth: The Amendment fails with Council Members Tanaka, Wolbach, and Fine voting yes. AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-6 Fine, Tanaka, Wolbach yes Mayor Kniss: That takes us back to the main Motion. Lydia, you want to speak to it. Council Member Kou: I just want to say that I'm in support of this Motion. Thank you to Council Member Scharff and Filseth for bringing this forth. Most of the comments have already been spoken, said by Council Members DuBois and Holman. However, I just want to also point out that the neighbors are in much agreement with the businesses. I want to make sure that we identify it is community-serving businesses that the neighbors are in agreement with. After all, another Council Member has already said that FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 93 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 this is an area that can't really support too much of the office space and Retail & Development (R&D) offices. Also, a lot of our City departments are going to have to be more supportive of each other and recognize that their actions impact the other departments. For example, issuing use and occupancy permits to ground-floor retail spaces and leasing them out to offices. Those are some of the things that other departments, Planning Department and Code Enforcement, need to be more vigilant about so that we don't cause transportation, Josh Mello, more problems on having to figure out how to resolve our RPPs and parking in neighborhoods. I've been to so many meetings with residents in different parts of town that have problems with their neighborhoods becoming parking lots. This is a lot of our own doing. Each department needs to start working and recognize what they're doing to the others. Also, TMAs, while I agree that it should be extended from Downtown to the California Avenue area, the City needs to stop subsidizing the TMAs. If the businesses do not have ownership in ensuring parking is something that they take up, the City just does not have funding. We're just talking about that now. We need to stop subsidizing. I do support this because it's much needed. Once it's built, it's probably going to be filled. Potential continues to grow. It needs to be planned out properly and sensibly. I'm in support of this garage and the Motion. Mayor Kniss: Let me just say briefly, because we still have Item 14 to go through, one of my concerns with this, especially as it came to mechanical lifts because I've been fascinated by them. I know what is going to happen; it'll go back through ARB again. There will be another Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on it, and we won't be talking 2 months. We'll be talking 6 or 8 months. That simply is the way cities move. We do not move with great speed. My second concern is the $300,000 we're talking about going on over a long period of time. Before long, we've added up to another million or two. We're talking 6—I hope we're talking 6 and not 8 months. In something like this, I think promises were made last spring. People made plans depending on those promises. This is one of those times when the promises made should be the promises kept. Cal. Ave. has gone through a lot of trauma. They went through the trees being cut down, through the street being redone, through the questionable glass on the sidewalk that people said was dangerous, and so forth. Somehow it's all settled down. I was there eating last Saturday night. Somebody mentioned Friday night. It was delightful. It was a beautiful night. It was a pleasure to be there. For this street that has worked hard, that has been in some ways the stepchild to University Avenue, they're coming into their own. They deserve a garage. I'm sorry that I cannot support mechanical lifts for that garage tonight. As we go forward, I want us to look at a mechanical lift for every garage we do from now on. As I said, we need predictability and consistency in the type of decisions we make. We predicted and people believed last spring that this FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 94 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 is what happened, and we're staying consistently with that message. Thanks to all my Colleagues for really spending time and lots of energy on this. I would encourage you to vote. Vice Mayor Filseth: Motion passes 8-1 with Council Member Fine dissenting. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Fine no Mayor Kniss: While we have a rule to not take up anything especially after 10:30 P.M., Ed has encouraged us to come forward with Number 14. The time you get home will depend on how much time you spend on this particular Item. Mr. Keene: Madam Mayor, while we're switching, I'll switch places with Mr. Shikada. I actually live within the property boundaries of this particular project, so I am recused. I must admit that I appreciate you reordering the Items on the Agenda tonight. You didn't have that in mind at all. Mayor Kniss: Sure, I did. Council Member DuBois: Can we discuss why we don't do this? Mayor Kniss: I have two cards on this. If anyone else wants to speak on Item 15, why don't you put a card in. Council Member DuBois: Liz, can we—sorry. Can we discuss continuing this Item? It's almost 11:00 P.M. Mayor Kniss: I did, and Ed has prevailed. If you are quick with it, we can be out. Council Member DuBois: I think it's going to be a fairly long discussion. Mayor Kniss: I don't think so. I apologize, Tom, but he really said he wanted to get it done tonight. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 95 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 14. Approval of a Construction Contract With Ranger Pipelines, Incorporated, in the Amount of $16,371,586 for the Upgrade Downtown Project, Funded Through Capital Improvement Program Projects GS-12001, WS-12001, PL-16001, PL-15004, FO-10001, PO- 89003, and PE-86070; Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Change Orders Not-to-Exceed $1,637,159 in Total Value; and Approval of Budget Amendments in the Capital Improvement Fund, Fiber Optics Fund, Gas Fund, and Water Fund. Mayor Kniss: Let's dive right in. This Item, although it may seem as though it'll be long and cumbersome; our discussion earlier today would indicate that it can be fairly easily explained, and we can move on it. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager: Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. I will be quick. We've got a full presentation that we can use as a resource should you want to in terms of your questions. There are just a few—actually just a couple of slides I would like to make note of along the way. First, a bit of context. As you have seen in the package, the project includes a variety of elements. At its core, what is driving the project and the project timeline is the basic infrastructure for water and gas utilities. Noted here with a nod to Palo Alto Online is a headline of this past fall, where we did experience a water main break which took out of service a number of businesses along University Avenue. Clearly this is an example of the priority that we have to proceed with this project at this time. We have a variety of elements as noted including not only the water and gas utilities but transportation improvement and some larger-scope concepts that have been discussed in the development of this project. Contrary to the typical knock on City government where we would tear up a street and then tear it up again and tear it up again, this is really, if you excuse the pun, groundbreaking work across departments, Utilities, Public Works, Transportation, in order to try and get all of the concepts on the table at once so that we could minimize any potential for a redo on disruption of the street. As a result, there are a number of scope elements, such as bike lanes on University Avenue, that were discussed but are not—let me be clear—are not part of the contract that is before you. We've got a number of resource graphics here, the map of the project, of vicinity, a description of the utility improvements as well as some of the pedestrian and other motor vehicle elements that are part of the project as well. I'll flip through these real quick. The specifics on the street locations, notable also for University Avenue, hours of restrictions, hours of work, and timing restrictions including calendar on when the work can be done. The only other slide I'd like to really draw your attention to, which I suspect will be the point of some discussion, is the cost. This is as noted a project of some complexity. With the restrictions, the complexity of the project, and the location really FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 96 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 being a dense infrastructure area, this is a project that we received no bids on. As a result, our Municipal Code did allow us to entertain and invite bids more informally, to which we did go back to the contractors that had expressed an interest in the project to invite them to submit bids and receive quotes. I would note that while there is, as noted, significant increase in the project budget necessary to deliver it, it is a result of the back-and-forth discussions we had with the contractor that put in a quote that reduced their quote by close to $3 million. It is on that basis along with our observations of what has been happening with the bidding climate that over the course of the last 3 or 4 years we've had a number of infrastructure projects that have received only a single bid. This is not a one-off situation; it's really taking advantage of the moment that we have with a reputable contractor that we have done work with before and that we know has done good work for other organizations as well, that we're recommending proceeding. I know there was some interest in the distribution of the costs among the different utilities as well as the other elements of the project, in particular on the fiber optic conduits. I would note that in our response to the questions we weren't perhaps as explicit as we should have been. There are incremental costs associated with including fiber as part of this project. For practical reasons, the fiber is actually laid below the water lines and the gas lines so that, in the unfortunate but foreseeable event of a break in the water or gas, we don't need to cut through the fiber in order to get to the water or the gas. As a result, the trench necessary for the installation of these lines is deeper as a result of the fiber installation than it would otherwise have to be if that were not included. That was the scope as we requested the quotes and that the quotes have been received. I would note also that, as the Council knows, the water and gas utilities are both utilities for which we are rate sensitive. Our water rates are relatively high among other communities, as we have discussed in your budget, largely due to the cost of infrastructure rehabilitation that's necessary given the age of our infrastructure, water infrastructure in particular. With that, we do have other slides on outreach and additional information. With that, let me stop and turn it back to you, Mayor. Mayor Kniss: With that, I'm going to move this along quickly. We have two people who wish to speak to this, Jeff Hoel and David—maybe I'm not seeing it right tonight—Levitsky [sic]. Jeff Hoel: Jeff Hoel, and I'd like to speak about the fiber part of the project. As you know, we have no fiber to the premises design at the moment, so anything we do on this project that puts conduit for fiber in the ground is just going to be a guess. It's going to be speculative. The concept of dig once is that digging trenches is so expensive and putting conduit into trenches that are already dug is so cheap that why wouldn't we put the FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 97 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 conduit in. The way it's priced in this project, putting conduit for fiber is not at all cheap. It's $4 million a mile. We only have a limited amount of money in the Fiber Fund, and this is a very extravagant way to spend it. My recommendation is don't do it. I saw on the Question and Answer (Q&A) for this project that Staff is saying if you take the fiber part out of this project, Staff will have to start from scratch and start the negotiations all over again. Ask them very carefully why the heck that is. This seems like just something you do. I've been told that it will reduce the cost of the project by $1/2 million. If you want to put in fiber later, it'll be like $1.35 million. To me, that's less than $2 million. I'd like to see lots of details on why the sharing of the digging cost is the way it is. I'd also like to find out if there are any timing constraints on the whole bid. If you send it to Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), that should have seen it already but hasn't— that takes a few months. Does that make the cost of the project go up or does that make a leak more likely? The material for the conduit, most people think High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is better than Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). That's a detail; UAC should look at it. Mayor Kniss: Thanks, Jeff. The next speaker is—I don't want to try your name again. David Levisay, Daleo Inc.: It's David Levisay. Mayor Kniss: Thank you. Mr. Levisay: Good evening, Council. Again, my name's David Levisay. I'm representing Daleo Inc. We're an underground construction contracting firm that has done many projects for you guys, water and gas. The reason I'm here to speak is I want to give a little detail in this project. On August 14th of this past year, 2017, this project was put out to bid. The 22nd, there was a mandatory pre-bid meeting. There were three contractors present, ourselves, Ranger Pipeline, Con-Quest. It was noted at the time that the engineer's estimated budget was $11.5 million. September 15th, the bids were due. No bids were received. I think everybody got the same impression of the package, saying it was a pretty tough package. October 5, 2017, we received a questionnaire from the City of Palo Alto. We responded and gave our answers to the questions and our opinions of the project. In summary—here we are, and that was it, the end of the project from my knowledge of it as far as the questionnaire. The summary of this is you're considering ordering a project that started off with an engineer's estimate of $11.5 million. Now it's at $16.5 million with no competitive bid, with changes to the scope and schedule of the job because it has already changed because of the placement of the job. It was supposed to start January 2nd; now it's going to start sometime hereafter. In mid-May 2017, FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 98 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 a large portion of this job was put out to bid by the City, and it was mostly the gas main replacement portion of the project. It was called gas main replacement 22. There were four eligible bidders. Daleo was the only bidder to turn in a bid. We were denied the contract because there was no competitive bid. My points to you are you're direct awarding a $16 million bid based on a questionnaire; you're awarding a large contract without a competitive bid, $5.5 million over engineer's estimate; and knowing the scope and schedule has changed. Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Taking this back to Council at this point, before we go on any further, Ed, why don't you comment on that? That sheds a different light on it from somebody who actually bid. Mr. Shikada: Perhaps to correct that, he did not bid on this project. There was a prior project that was a subset that was repackaged into a larger contract. That was put out for bid. Again, we received no bids. It was subsequent to that—our Municipal Code does allow for us to do direct negotiation for pricing and selection, which was the process that was proceed [sic]. Lalo, do you need to correct any of that or amplify? Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services: Good evening. Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer. I also oversee the procurement process. If there was a concern, a dispute, or a protest, there's a formal protest procedure that must be followed. It was clearly posted in all our documentation. Any vendor, person, firm has the right to protest. It starts by writing a formal protest, sending that in to the procurement manager, and then the review starts with any of the points that the specific individual or firm has with that particular procurement. We have 5 days after the conclusion of the investigation to review that. If the individual does not accept the purchasing manager's initial ruling, then the next step is they have a meeting with myself, where I then review the case again. If they so wish, if it's a Council Item because not everything comes to Council, then they come and state their position with you at the Council. I do not have any record from my procurement manager that any of the steps were followed in the protest procedure. I have not reviewed any of the points because I'm hearing them for the first time tonight verbally. What I do know and what Staff told me was that there were no bids submitted. By our Muni Code, we're then allowed to go out, and the formal procedure of bidding is no longer required. What I was assured by Staff was that we wanted to maintain the same scope because we did not want to jeopardize and be in a position of a protest. That's the review of what my team did, and that is what I believe we followed. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 99 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: I wanted to say one more thing, though. Apparently, this did jump from $11 million to $16 million, correct? Our guess was it was going to cost $11 million. Mr. Perez: Our engineering estimate was lower than what … Mr. Shikada: We're just double checking the exact number, but on the order of $12 million. Again, the engineer's estimate does not constrain the bids. In fact, it's not unusual for bids to come in significantly above estimate. Mr. Perez: Especially in this current time, we've seen a lot of proposals come in. People are frankly saying, "I have enough work. If you're willing to pay a premium, here it is." Mayor Kniss: Do we feel that it must be done at this point? Mr. Perez: I believe we followed the process. There's a formal process … Mayor Kniss: No, no. I'm saying is this project something we absolutely have to do? Is it imperative? Mr. Shikada: It is an urgent project, if that's the question. If you're asking if it's absolutely critical to do it tonight, I quite frankly have not seen a reason not to proceed. Mayor Kniss: Greg. Council Member Scharff: The concern was—I think Ed addressed it a little bit—that the implication was—I don't know. It was $12 million or $11.5 million. No one bid because the engineer's estimate was so low. It's been my experience in these as well that that doesn't dampen the bids. The bids come in often way above that. That's not—I just think that was the elephant in the room. I think Council could be misled to think that we didn't get the bids because the engineer's estimate was so low. I really wanted you to comment on what I consider to be the elephant in the room and the concerns that Council Members may have. Mr. Perez: That's correct. It's just telling the prospective bidders what we believe the project cost is. It's up to them to submit what they believe the fair compensation is. As they come in, we make sure that they comply and it's within scope. Then, we make the decisions from there. Mayor Kniss: Tom, you've got your light on. Council Member DuBois: A quick question because I didn't see it in the Staff Report. Where is the sidewalk widening happening? What is that? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 100 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Shikada: Josh may want to answer. There are a couple of specific locations. Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official. The sidewalk widening will be done at Tasso and Kipling. They're a T-intersection, so it'll be creating curb extensions. It'll shorten the crossing distance across University. It'll be very similar to the one that's at Florence in front of the Apple store minus the bollards. Council Member DuBois: Kipling is a very narrow street. Why are we doing it there? Mr. Mello: It's on University, opposite Kipling. Council Member DuBois: Are we removing parking to do this? Mr. Mello: It's a loading zone at one of the intersections that will be relocated across the street. There's no parking allowed within intersections. Council Member DuBois: Thank you. I had a similar question to what Liz asked, but I wasn't sure of the answer there. What is the timing and need overall? If this is delayed 3 months, is it the end of the world, 6 months? Mr. Shikada: The world has a way of going on under any action of Council. Nonetheless, it is an urgent matter. The reference to a recent water main break—there have also been gas leaks in the area—is notable. This is the next highest priority we have for infrastructure main rehabilitation. The coordination necessary and vetting has been done in order to go across the disciplines and the outreach with the businesses. If this were delayed for some, let's say, extended period of time, it'd really need to be restarted. It's a really significant project to gear up for. Council Member DuBois: I asked a bunch of questions; you gave partial answers. I just want to dig in a little deeper. My question about how costs were allocated to the different funds, was there an equation used for that? How was that spread among the different funds? Mr. Shikada: It's basically split evenly among the three utilities that will be participating in the trench. The trench costs were split (crosstalk). Council Member DuBois: Not based on usage or benefit in any way? Mr. Shikada: Again, it was split evenly recognizing that there are a variety of ways you could look at it. In fact, I would note that if the Council wanted to take another look at the method of allocation among the utilities that could be done separate from the award. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 101 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member DuBois: There's no electrical work? There's nothing assigned to electrical? Mr. Shikada: Not in the trench. The only work is related to traffic signals, which are no longer an electric utility expense. Council Member DuBois: I don't know if you know the answer. Is there room for more fiber in the existing fiber conduit on University? Mr. Shikada: There is not fiber conduit in University. This would be a new run. Council Member DuBois: I thought there was fiber on the other side of the street. There's nothing down … Dean Batchelor, Utilities Chief Operating Officer: The only fiber that's on the run right now is just to the street lights, the traffic signals, that's in the area right now. Council Member DuBois: Could you blow more fiber down those? Mr. Batchelor: No, those are totally compact. They're full of all fiber. There's no more room in those. Council Member DuBois: Similar to earlier, one thing I'm concerned about is just building at the peak and are we paying a lot because of the state of construction right now. Liz and Eric, I am concerned that we're using about 10 percent of our entire Fiber Fund to go about 800 feet. I'm concerned that we're doing this before we get the fiber plan that we asked for coming back to us. If you look at some of the questions I asked, is there a need for this? The answer was there's not an identified need to put fiber here. This idea that we have to go deeper for fiber, if you're doing an electrical repair, how do you make sure you don't cut into the gas line? Why couldn't fiber be right at the same depth? Mr. Shikada: As a practical matter, the fiber wouldn't be repaired in that location. I think you'd actually pull it and replace it if it was necessary. Council Member DuBois: It seemed like there was a concern that you would accidentally cut into it. If you were going to do a gas repair or a water repair, you don't cut into the other line. If you're doing a water repair, you don't cut the gas line. Mr. Shikada: We try not to. On the way down, especially under emergency conditions, it is a risk. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 102 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Batchelor: This is going to be the first time that we actually put a fiber conduit actually in with gas and water. It's a joint trench. Typically, the electric side of the street, wherever the electric conduits are, that's where the fiber is located at. The water main and the gas main right now are going to be offset a little bit. There's not a lot of width in that trench line. Don't want to put the fiber up on top; it's life support. Don't really want to get into a situation—if there is a gas leak or if there was a water main break, we did not want to hit that fiber line, so we wanted to put it below those two services. Council Member DuBois: Again, the idea of talking about dig once was really as a way to lower costs. I'm just concerned about how much this pretty short stretch of fiber is going to cost us. We don't really have a dig once Ordinance yet. I don't think we should necessarily blindly follow this idea when the cost doesn't make sense. I do think it points to the need to consider micro-trenching. San Francisco is a very urban environment; they passed a micro-trenching Ordinance to get their fiber cost down. That's probably as complicated as our environment if not more complicated. I know East Palo Alto is just moving forward, and they're doing about 10,000 feet versus 800 feet of fiber for something like $300,000. I would like to make a Motion. Basically it would be to remove the fiber optics from this project. Mayor Kniss: Give us a price on that, Tom. If you remove the fiber optics, what are we talking about? Council Member DuBois: I don't know. I'd have to ask Staff. Mayor Kniss: I'm beginning to think we may need to postpone this. I'm not sure we can get the answers that we're really after tonight. Mr. Shikada: I'll respond as we know it. A change in scope at this point would modify the project. As I put in writing, Staff would recommend that, if you did that, not awarding the contract. That said, perhaps stopping short of that, we would expect to be able to talk to the contractor about ways to reduce the costs for construction. We cannot at this point give you an estimate on what savings is at all possible because that's something that can only really be dealt with once we get into the project itself. Mayor Kniss: I'm troubled that this is a pretty substantial cost at $18 million. I hear what you're saying, Ed, that there's great value. I'm looking at $18 million. Mr. Shikada: With contingency, that must be it. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 103 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: Our contingencies frequently come to pass. It makes me uneasy. You have a Motion floating out there, Tom. You did make a Motion, right? Council Member DuBois: Yeah. I'd like to see if there's a second. I just don't think it's a cost-effective use of our Fiber Fund. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to direct Staff to remove the fiber optics from this project. Mayor Kniss: I don't see a second for that. Unless you want to add something at this point, Tom, I'm going to go down to Greg Tanaka. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member DuBois: I guess I'll try another Motion, which Ed sounded more open to, which was that we reallocate costs so that the … Council Member Scharff: Why don't we approve this Motion, and they come back for a reallocation? That's the concern. They said they could come back and re-look at the allocation. That's the issue that we need to go with. I do think they should put fiber in this. I just think they're overcharging the Fiber Fund. Council Member DuBois: If really the answer is micro-trenching, maybe we shouldn't. It's not clear. I would support coming back with reallocation with the understanding that I would expect it to be much, much less for fiber. I will make that Motion, that we approve the project and that Staff comes back with a proposal to reallocate costs to the various funds. Council Member Scharff: I'll second that. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: A. Approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the attached contract with Ranger Pipelines, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $16,371,586 for the Upgrade Downtown Project funded through Capital Improvement Program Projects Gas Main Replacement Project 22 (GS-12001), Water Main Replacement Project 26 (WS- 12001), Fiber Optics Network System Improvements Project (FO- 10001), Street Maintenance Project (PE-86070), Downtown Mobility and Safety Improvements Project (PL-16001), and Sidewalk Repairs Project (PO-89003); and FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 104 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 B. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more changes to the contract with Contractor for related additional but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $1,637,159 or 10 percent of the contract amount; and C. Direct Staff to return with options for cost allocations. Council Member DuBois: I tried to say it before. I just can't emphasize enough that this is 10 percent of our entire Fiber Fund for about 800 feet. It's just not cost effective. Staff has said we don't need the capacity in this location. It just seems crazy to spend that much money for it. Mayor Kniss: I just have to ask before we go on—we're talking about a reallocation, but I have to no idea what we're going to end up with. This is an uneasy Motion for me. You want to speak to your second? Council Member Scharff: I definitely do. Mayor Kniss: Were you done, Tom? Okay. Council Member Scharff: It's really important that we pass this. I've been following Utilities on Council since 2010 now. I know Eric's following them now at the UAC. We need to get this work done in terms of these mains. This is a project that's really important. The real question that comes up here is on the fiber and how it's allocated. The Mayor said that she's uneasy because we don't know what that allocation is going to be. I assume Staff will come back to us and explain what the options are with the allocation. At that point, it becomes up to Council of what we need to do and how we need to look at it. Mayor Kniss: Tell us what I'm voting for. Am I voting for $18 million? Council Member Scharff: Yes, you are voting for $18 million. You're actually voting for $16 million with a contingency, which all projects have. Let's talk about the $18 million or the $16 million. First of all, Items like this normally go on Consent. The reason it's here is because it's a large project. That's why we're talking about it here. We need to do this work. We need to do the utility work. These don't come out of the General Fund. They come out of the Utilities. One of the things that everyone talks about utility is that we invest in the infrastructure. The Council's never turned down an—I don't believe Council's ever turned down an infrastructure project for Utilities. When Utilities comes to us and says, "You need to replace the water main" or "You need to replace the gas main" or "You need to some infrastructure project on utilities," that's a basic trust issue. We need to do that. The fact FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 105 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 that it's $18 million, when we look at these projects, I believe if we go out to rebid this, it will cost us more money. When was the last time in this environment we have gone out and delayed something, and it cost us less? I don't see any of that occurring. Mayor Kniss: That's not the issue. I want to know do we still end up with $18 million no matter what. In that case, where is the savings? Mr. Perez: The contract award is $18 million. The vendor doesn't have an idea how they're paid. They just know the City's committed $18 million. Council Member Scharff: Your real question is if we got rid of the fiber, could we save a lot of money. Mayor Kniss: That's my exact question. Council Member Scharff: I don't think the answer is yes. Mayor Kniss: (Crosstalk) I like fiber, as you well—I like fiber. Council Member Scharff: I don't believe we would. If Staff … Mayor Kniss: That's not the issue. The issue is are we way overpaying, as Tom said, and pulling it out of the Fiber Fund, and is that justified. Council Member DuBois: The cost to … Council Member Scharff: I believe we're overpaying on an allocation issue, not on a cost of doing the project. Mayor Kniss: Yes, okay. Council Member Scharff: Therefore, if we reallocate, we solve that issue. Council Member DuBois: It's the cost of digging the hole. Council Member Scharff: We've still got to do the work. Mayor Kniss: We may take less out of the Fiber Fund. Council Member Scharff: That's correct. Mayor Kniss: Then I'm fine with it. I just think fair is fair at this point. I want to let Greg Tanaka speak because he's been waiting. Council Member Tanaka: Mayor, can I ask the public speaker to come back to the mic for a question? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 106 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: You want to ask me a question? Council Member Tanaka: No, I want to ask—I don't know your person. Mayor Kniss: Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Council Member Tanaka: You heard the Staff discussion about why the biding process was fair, but you took—you stayed here 'til 11:30 P.M. to basically complain about it. What's your response to … Mr. Levisay: I'm not complaining. I'm just bringing up a point. Council Member Tanaka: I want to understand your point better. Staff says they followed the process exactly. It's fair. We're getting a great price on this thing. Tell us … Mr. Levisay: My point was to state that we had a mandatory pre-bid as always. There was three contractors present, and all three contractors did not bid the project. Ranger didn't bid it. Daleo didn't bid it. Con-Quest didn't bid it. Because the package was a pretty difficult package and there were some things in there that everybody had questions to, nobody bid the project. Then a month later, a questionnaire came out, and they asked us viable questions to the project. We answered them in our opinion. I was told that Ranger was direct awarded this project based on the way they answered the questions because it was more favorable to the City versus where we would say, "We would like to change the amount of working days on such-and-such project," the City might not like the idea of that versus where somebody else could say, "No, we can do it all, whatever is needed." That's all it was, a questionnaire basically asking certain questions about the project. Council Member Tanaka: Staff said that you decided not to bid on the project. What actually happened from what you just said is that—it's not that you decided not to bid on it. It was that the questionnaire came to you. You filled it out as best you could. Rather than a second Request for Proposal, it was directly awarded to Ranger. Mr. Levisay: Yes, exactly right. Council Member Tanaka: The City lost out on a competitive bid process. Mr. Levisay: Yes, the City lost out on a competitive bid process. When we look at it—we do this for our living. We look at numbers pretty quickly—not quickly but we have a feel for numbers. You're paying a lot. That's all I can say there. That's a big number, big number. I think you're wrong to state— FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 107 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 I just heard this comment. You're wrong to state that when you put something else out back to bid, you always get higher numbers. That is not true. We're doing a job for you guys today that we were under the engineer's estimate, under. We just started it 6 months ago. We were under the engineer's estimate. All I'm saying is that when the questionnaire went out, I'm sure we were all kind of in the same ballgame. I know the scope and schedule has changed. There should have been, in my opinion, another opportunity for us to be able to bid the project. Council Member Tanaka: The thing that Staff just said here, that the scope is identical … Mr. Levisay: No, the scope can't be identical because it's already changed. The schedule has already changed. It was a January 2nd start date. The project hasn't started. It may start in March or April. That's a big difference come beginning of the year. That's huge, huge difference. Council Member Tanaka: Why is that a huge difference? It sounds like … Mr. Levisay: Because of how workflow lays out. We might have looked at saying at that time we didn't have the force to be able to start that project at that time. You put 4 months to it or 3 months to it or 5 months to it, it's a big difference. Council Member Tanaka: I see. You might have people available now for that time period. Mr. Levisay: You have to look at those kinds of things. When you go to talking to your subs, your subs are saying, "We can do this. We can't do that." Council Member Tanaka: I see. Mr. Levisay: Scope and schedule has changed. Mayor Kniss: Thank you for coming back. Mr. Shikada: I do need to correct the record on that. The scope has not changed. The schedule in terms of working days has not changed. There is always some float on when actual work starts based upon timing of award, time it takes to execute contracts, and the notice to proceed. Council Member Tanaka: What's the downside of asking all three people to bid again? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 108 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Shikada: We don't ask a specific set of contractors to bid again. Again, we followed our competitive bid process, which is it's open to all qualified bidders. When that resulted in no bids, the Municipal Code does allow for a direct quotation. That's what you have before you. Council Member Tanaka: Why was Ranger selected? Mr. Shikada: Because they're willing to complete this original contract scope as issued. Council Member Tanaka: The other two were not? Mr. Shikada: Correct. Council Member Tanaka: You know based on the questionnaires? Mr. Shikada: I can't say specifically whether that was the only consideration. I do know from Staff that the questionnaire was a factor, a part of the decision-making into proceeding with Ranger. Council Member Tanaka: You showed us the article about the water main that broke. That water main just spontaneously broke? Mr. Shikada: It happens over time. Council Member Tanaka: In this case, the water main just burst. Mr. Shikada: Burst. Council Member Tanaka: Is that covered by insurance? Mr. Shikada: Our insurance? Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. Mr. Perez: We're self-insured. The deductible is $1 million. Council Member Tanaka: When was the last time that water main was replaced? 1937. I guess the company that did it is no longer in business. Mr. Shikada: Clearly out of warranty. Council Member Tanaka: I think Council Member DuBois makes a really good point about the extreme cost of the fiber. In regards to the fiber, one of the speakers mentioned that there's no vault for the termination of the fiber. Is that correct? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 109 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Shikada: We don't need vaults. Go ahead. Mr. Batchelor: There are actually vaults that will be in the sidewalk where these conduits will terminate. As these conduits are installed in the street, they'll actually bend into a box and then they'll bend back out and continue down the street about every 500 feet. Council Member Tanaka: This is a very technical topic, so I was wondering why didn't this go to the UAC first. Mr. Shikada: UAC does not review designs or construction contracts. They're policy advisory, so they advise the Council on policy matters. Council Member Tanaka: One of the speakers also mentioned that using PVC versus HDPE. Does Staff have an opinion on that? Mr. Shikada: It was actually Medium Density Polyethylene (MDPE) versus HDPE. Go ahead. Mr. Batchelor: We don't put in PVC any longer. PVC is like your sprinkler pipe that's in your yard. We put in thicker pipe so that it's going to last. The warranty is usually much longer than what you would do. If there was any kind of movement in the ground or anything, it's not going to break. It's all fusion … Council Member Tanaka: There's no more PVC in the pipe? Mr. Batchelor: No. It's a plastic polymer casting of a pipe. It's much thicker and much denser. Council Member Tanaka: Mayor Kniss, can I ask one of the members of public to come forward to explain that question? Can I ask Jeff to approach? Mayor Kniss: For one quickie (inaudible). Mr. Hoel: The contract is proposing PVC for the conduit for fiber. I think that's a mistake. I think it should HDPE. Our consultant, CTC, didn't consult on this, but they read an independent paper about it that says it should be HDPE for exactly the reason you said. PVC is kind of brittle and breaks a lot. You want this to last 50 years. Council Member Tanaka: I think Staff just said there's no PVC. Is it in the contract or not? FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 110 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mr. Batchelor: I'm clear now. I didn't know what he was talking about when he was talking about the fiber. The conduit itself—he's right—is PVC. The water … Council Member Tanaka: You just said it was brittle and it breaks, and it's like a sprinkler. Why would we do that? Mr. Batchelor: It's the conduit that we even put our electric system into. It's exactly what we use for our electric conduit as well as for traffic signals. Council Member Tanaka: The speaker just said that our consultant recommended HDPE. Why did we do PVC? Mr. Batchelor: Our consultant didn't tell us that. Before I was talking about the water main and the gas main. I didn't know he was talking about the PVC that's going to be going in for the fiber. Yes, I stand corrected on that. Everything that we do put into the ground from electric to fiber is all PVC. Mayor Kniss: I hope we're at a point where we could actually think about voting. Lydia, you wanted to speak and Karen. Council Member Kou: I just want to clarify. In some of the language here, say for example "3b" on Page 221, it says decreasing the Gas Fund capital improvement projects and rate stabilization … The rate stabilization reserve, is this our Reserve Fund? Mr. Shikada: For the gas utility, that is correct. It's moving from a reserve to an actual appropriation to be able to spend on this contract. Council Member Kou: Does that decrease the 18.5 percent that we need to keep in reserves? Mr. Perez: That is the—the enterprise funds have different measures. What you're recalling is the General Fund measure. There are different measures. Council Member Kou: It's a different one? Mr. Perez: Yeah, yeah. Council Member Kou: Thank you. Mayor Kniss: Karen. Council Member Holman: Thank you. Mayor Kniss: You're everything between here and a vote. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 111 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Holman: Just a general comment. The discomfort in this on my part and perhaps other Council Members' part too as I've heard comments is it's pretty high. While I understand that we have a procedure in place that allows for direct negotiation with an entity after going out for bids, that doesn't mean necessarily that's the best thing to do, especially when the dollar amount is so significant as this. I also understand we've got the project—there's work that's commenced, and we need to do this for a variety of different reasons. My discomfort is pretty high both procedurally and because of the cost and with the lack of clarity around it and even responses were inconsistent. A comment about PVC is I was hoping by now we had pretty much eliminated PVC. It outgases. It's not a very healthy environmental product. It outgases. There's that. I have another question on a different bent. I appreciate the Motion that Council Member DuBois made. I have another question, which has to do with one of my bug-a-boos especially Downtown. I've mentioned this to City Manager on at least one occasion, if not more. On Packet Page 22, Number 6 talks about decreasing the street maintenance project budget by $605,000 and decreasing the sidewalk repair project by $490,000. When I go Downtown, whether it's University or Hamilton—I'll just be blunt. I think it's an embarrassment; our sidewalks are an absolute embarrassment. We have patches here, patches there, breaks here that have been—somebody's slopped something on them. I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone, but it's really an embarrassment. I go to other communities, and the sidewalks are clean and smooth and consistent. They don't have all this patchwork, patched up appearance to this. My question about Number 6 is what are we getting and what is the end product. When we're doing sidewalk repair, are we repairing sidewalk or replacing sidewalk so we can have beautiful sidewalks like other communities have? Mr. Shikada: If I could perhaps respond in a little larger context. I understand the discomfort. I can tell you that, given the complexity of this project, this has gone through a number of iterations with Staff. The specific recommendation here on Number 6 is to fund the traffic signal work, I believe, that we are including as a part of the project. The tradeoff is really one of being able to keep the equipment in a state of good repair versus again potentially other uses. These are eligible uses of the dollars that have been allocated in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP). Certainly we wish we could do both the aesthetic as well as the basic operational/functional improvements necessary in order to keep the infrastructure in a state of good repair. The recommendation you see here really tries to strike that balance. Back to the PVC issue, certainly we could look at changing our standard in terms of the materials we use for traffic signals, for fiber conduit. I would note, as Staff has reminded me, that the high-density polyethylene is used for the water and the gas because they're pressurized FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 112 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 systems. We've got fluids in there that require the additional strength. PVC is not pressurized, and that's the reason. I think the workability of the material is the reason that's used. Again, we can always take another look at the standards and how those might be applied. Council Member Holman: I think there are a variety of products out there. To try to get a direct answer to my question about sidewalks, are you saying that we're going to continue to patch up and gobble up and cobble up our sidewalks as opposed to having sidewalk replacement with this project? Mr. Shikada: This specific action actually reduces the budget available for doing sidewalk work by moving the appropriation from this repair project to the Mobility Line Item here. Again, it's to complete this work. Council Member Holman: We aren't going to be doing any sidewalk repair and replacement Downtown? Mr. Shikada: I didn't say that. We are reducing by the dollar amount shown. Council Member Holman: Give me an idea. What I'm trying to get at is give me an idea of what we're going to see on our sidewalks. Mr. Shikada: This is not sexy work. We are replacing communications equipment within traffic signals. Council Member Holman: I understand, but it impacts our sidewalks as it impacts our streets. What are we going to see above ground as a result of this work? Mr. Shikada: You will see a new traffic signal pole. As part of this, there are the curb extensions. The sidewalk extensions, as Josh described, will reduce the crossing time, so making a slightly more pedestrian-friendly environment. Beyond that, a lot of it will be invisible to the people who are Downtown. We do have coming at your Agenda next week an Item to fund the benches that will be, again, adding to the pedestrian environment. Mr. Perez: Let me see if I can help with your point. I recall in a meeting Brad talking about they completed the last Master Plan for the sidewalks. They're going to start the new one. I think this is probably going to be the window of opportunity for the Council to voice their concerns of areas that should be on that priority. They had it segmented into districts, and it was—I want to say—a 25-year plan. I forget exactly how many years. That was recently completed, so it's time to start it all over again. That's probably where you would have a window. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 113 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: If I could say this, I think we're off Agenda at this time. We're discussing the gas and water and fiber optics. I think we need to get back to that. Council Member Holman: Actually I do respect—I didn't think we were off Agenda because we're talking about reducing funds here. I wanted to know what the impact is of that, as a result of this project. Mayor Kniss: I still think we're off-track now. More comments? That's it. We have a Motion from Tom and second from Greg. I think Eric's close by. Did you want to talk again, Greg? Council Member Tanaka: Yeah, since Eric's not here I'll fill the time. I'll stop when he gets back. Basically, I can't support this project. It raids our Fiber Fund for little utility. The bidding process really doesn't seem right to me. I think we can do better. I think we can get a much better price. This is $18 million; this is a huge chunk of our Infrastructure Budget. Frankly, the (inaudible) has been running very hot, and time is on our side. This pipe's been in there since the 1930s, so what's another year? We should go out and re-bid this thing and make sure we get more than one bidder so we have competitive bidding. I think we'll get a much better price that way. Mayor Kniss: I would simply say that I had all those same concerns, Greg, but I was persuaded by Ed that this needs to happen now. I think it's really important that we talk about the allocation. That's imperative. With that, could we vote? Vice Mayor Filseth: Motion passes 7-2 with Council Members Tanaka and Holman dissenting. MOTION PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Tanaka no Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Mayor Kniss: That takes us to the part of the evening where, if any of you still have the energy to say anything—even though we have Intergovernmental Legislative Affairs, that is not going to happen tonight. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Mayor Kniss: If there are any Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements, anything anyone wants to say, any place you've been. Council Member Scharff: I just want to hear let's adjourn. Mayor Kniss: Go ahead. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 114 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Council Member Holman: It has to do with—this is for Mr. Shikada since Mr. Keene isn't here. On the Consent Calendar Item Number 5 tonight having to do with Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines and City Legislative Policies, the third Page of that Report at the very bottom says Staff is currently developing a proposal for State legislation related to business transportation demand management programs. The deadline to introduce new legislation is February 16. As this date is approaching quickly, Staff is now reaching out to Legislators to discuss the proposal with the idea of the City sponsoring a bill. Staff may report to Council at the January 22nd meeting with more information. It seems to me that—I understand that there's a deadline approaching. It seems to me that this is a pretty critical thing. I'm troubled that the Council isn't having direct input in this potentially or even a report back. It says Staff may report to Council at the January 22nd meeting. Molly Stump, City Attorney: A couple of comments on that. I think we'll pass onto the City Manager your comment. Perhaps at the next meeting some more detail can be provided. Under the existing Legislative Guidelines, City Staff thought that there was enough clarity there to support recommending a change to State law that would clarify and confirm the City's ability to use and require transportation demand management programs, trip reductions. There is some language in State law that we are concerned about in that regard. Because the deadline for bill introduction is approaching, the State lobbyist has communicated with our delegation around that. I haven't gotten an update today. As of yesterday, it was uncertain whether either member is going to pursue our suggestion with respect to clarifying that under State law. Council Member Holman: Perhaps there could be something brought to Council. The deadline is February 16, so perhaps something could be brought to our next Council meeting or even the one thereafter to at least inform us about what's going on and what the update is. It'd be great to have an opportunity to comment. This is a concern to me. Thank you for … Ms. Stump: I'm happy to pass that on. I think Jim will find a way either on the next Agenda in City Manager Comments. We do have an area in the Agenda where we have a slot there for rapidly breaking items. Maybe we could revise the Agenda to put something on there. I'll chat with him about it in the morning. Council Member Holman: An Information Item or something for us to be able to comprehend. Thank you. I appreciate that, Molly. FINAL TRANSCRIPT MINUTES Page 115 of 115 City Council Meeting Final Transcript Minutes: 01/22/18 Mayor Kniss: I don't see any other lights, so we are adjourned. I have to say it's before midnight. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M.